h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was meaning that, while I have no objection to moral ideals being taught, I feel that a lot of texts I have read* and heard have strong overtones of social CONTROL. Basically disguising law and moral teaching behind a greater 'good'.

By all means, teach moral lessons and have laws, but to claim they come from a higher authority is, as far as I am concerned, a lie. I understand that there have been times when claiming such authority may have seemed or even been necessary, but those times are, surely, past?

I cannot personally believe that any text written by (or even dictated through) a human being will go entirely unchanged and unabridged. I will not argue whether or not people believed they were writing the word of god (I think it would be pointless, and entirely unproveable either way), but I cant believe that ALL the people who felt the power of writing such texts would be able to resist the temptation to try and make the world a better place, in their opinion, by adding or changing a line or three or slightly changing a scenario to give a different meaning.

Which is why I find it difficult to understand religions based on and referring back to such writings. Especially when certain points are obviously no longer relevant (I can throw up the whole no contraception thing with the RCC at this point)... Slavishly following a book, written by a person, possibly many people, a long-long time ago which is probably not a pure example of the intention of the writings within, seems wrong to me.


*Not in-depth, I'm no studier of religious texts by any means and I'd like to state NOW that everything I am arguing is based on sporadic contact with quite a wide range of religious 'ways' including paganism, wicca, catholicism, druidism, spritualism and many of the various religions you can come into contact with here and there...

Sorry, to complete the above reply, I think it should be taught that to hurt others, cause harm to others or otherwise allow harm to come to others without good cause will have consequences in *this* lifetime. Our own conscience and responsibility should be good enough cause to look after our fellow man.

I do entertain ideas of spirituality involving our lives here being a tiny part of a much larger existence, but it's purely theory. End of the day, I'm not betting on anything other than my lifetime, because if there is more to know, I dont think we're going to ever find out for sure until we get there. But isn't personal responsibility and caring for and respecting others (not just humans, I mean other EVERYTHING. Our planet, the life we share it with etc..) good enough cause for living a 'good' life?

"When you talk about the existence of something, what do you mean? Physical? or Logical?

If the former, then you are bringing it within the event horizon of scientific thinking and would presumably need to justify it within that framework.

If the latter, then you should be able to derive God from first principles, so long as we can agree on the axioms you choose to start with.

Or does existence mean something else to you?"

Hmm, I can tell this is a really good question but I'm not sure I understand it or it's implications entirely. I have never seen a divide between the state of being that can be established physically or logically. It seems to me that this divide isn't in the WHAT of whether something exists but merely in the HOW we go about discovering, proving or disproving it ... in contrast, the phrasing you use there seems to suggest that the difference is in the fundamental nature of what it means to exist itself, not merely in how we discover and understand things that exist.

I think a good physical case can be made for intelligent design, but this does not prove the existence of a God, merely of an intelligence (could be aliens ) that designed the universe we observe.

I list my first principles on my user page. The four points listed there seem to be reasonable to me. U11097484

"3. The Universe, in the midst of it's apparent chaos, is orderly and predictable."
Quantum theory suggests this is not the case.

"4. The scientific discipline, as follows logically from the above statements, is limited to making observations based on the observable Universe."
In which case, how do you propose to apply it to evangelism?

"By all means, teach moral lessons and have laws, but to claim they come from a higher authority is, as far as I am concerned, a lie. I understand that there have been times when claiming such authority may have seemed or even been necessary, but those times are, surely, past?"

There is, as far as I can see, no basis for objective morality when there is nothing (like a higher authority) that defines it. You may think it is wrong for me to kill you and steal your girlfriend but in my opinion, it may be right. When divorced from any higher authority, who is to say what is right and what is wrong?

"I cannot personally believe that any text written by (or even dictated through) a human being will go entirely unchanged and unabridged."

I believe that, in this instance, you are absolutely right! The whole doctrine of biblical infallibility is absurd. It is quite obvious that there are errors in the Bible and that in several (admittedly non-essential) places, the Bible directly contradicts itself. However, this is what one would expect if the basic story were true. In a criminal case, if the stories of the various witnesses coincided exactly, that would often indicate that they had fabricated their stories together beforehand. The fact that minor contradictions exist would make sense if the Bible, particularly the New Testament were actually based on eyewitness material.

"I will not argue whether or not people believed they were writing the word of god (I think it would be pointless, and entirely unproveable either way), but I cant believe that ALL the people who felt the power of writing such texts would be able to resist the temptation to try and make the world a better place, in their opinion, by adding or changing a line or three or slightly changing a scenario to give a different meaning."
Unfortunately, a great deal of this kind of thing goes on regularly, as evidenced by the proliferation of many different Biblical translations.

"Which is why I find it difficult to understand religions based on and referring back to such writings. Especially when certain points are obviously no longer relevant (I can throw up the whole no contraception thing with the RCC at this point)... Slavishly following a book, written by a person, possibly many people, a long-long time ago which is probably not a pure example of the intention of the writings within, seems wrong to me."
I've heard that the Muslims call Christians "people of the book" with a similar outlook. I think it's a mistake to believe, as many Christians do, simply in a book rather than in the person or people the book is about.

""3. The Universe, in the midst of it's apparent chaos, is orderly and predictable."
Quantum theory suggests this is not the case."
I would suggest that that particular part of quantum theory is not the case, or is being misinterpreted to mean more than the evidence shows. It seems to me that the entire premise of science - which must involve applying logic to observations no matter whose definition you prefer - would be defeated if that were the case. The reason I wrote "apparent" is because of this part of quantum theory that I admittedly know very little about.


"4. The scientific discipline, as follows logically from the above statements, is limited to making observations based on the observable Universe.
In which case, how do you propose to apply it to evangelism?"

By making observations, hypothesis and experiments. Evangelism (the process of sharing one's faith with others) is something that can be observed objectively, even if some of the ideas being shared cannot be.

I would also argue that one can apply logic to religion and come up with coherent answers.

So we basically a gree that 'book religion' is not what either of us would recognise as having a true, personal religion?

Now on the moral angle...

I believe in the biology and science side here, with some psychology thrown in. There is a reason why killing is hard. There is a reason why (mental aberrations not withstanding) killing a human being is even harder. I believe it's to do with firstly a biological need to live in groups. It's what sort of animal we are. Because we are very different to other animals (changing our environment in ways other species cannot concieve for the most part) I believe the rules and things we call 'morals' that govern living together in social groups are traceable back through our evolution, even just in terms of 'modern man', which will have doubtless thrown up issues of living as groups as we created ways to live easier. Inventing and discovering things which essentially led to having spare time, and also growing populations which brings up problems with relationships and so on.

I dont believe in 'sanctity' of marriage in terms of it being 'for' a higher being or in their eyes. I do believe that there is a moral obligation on others to recognise and respect that a relationship commitment has been made between two people.

We organise ourselves, it's what we do. When people do things that are felt to be abhorrent, groups of people will tend to create a 'law' against that act or react to it in some way. I dont see how attributing one's responsibility to care for those who you share the planet with to a higher being makes any sense. It shouldnt even be necessary!

I've always thought Wittgenstein got it right:

" ... what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence."

And:

"Certainly Wittgenstein worried about being morally good or even perfect, and he had great respect for sincere religious conviction, but he also said, in his 1929 lecture on ethics, that 'the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language,' i.e. to talk or write nonsense."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm

So I object to people who claim to "know" about "god", and especially their proselytizing. In the USA, this is especially galling when they want tax free status for their mega-churches, which resemble country clubs more than anything. Even worse, some want to push their dogma into the public school science classroom (e.g. creationism).

Private, personal beliefs are fine, religionism is not. IMHO, as always.

I'm going to try and list some of the objections brought up so far and categorize them, since some are scientific while others are philosophical.

* Scientific *
1. Lack of positive evidence for the existence of God.
2. Lack of positive evidence for the legitimacy of spiritual experiences.
3. Errors and contradictions in sacred text(s)

* Philosophical *
1. "No need" for spirituality.
2. Judgmental nature of written objective moral code being "wrong".
3. Any claim of "higher authority" being "wrong".

Am I leaving any out or mis categorizing them?

I'll answer the thread title first:

>>What is it about God/religion that you object to?<<

It limits people, and I think that's a shame. When God is posited, a person's powers end in this boring unknowable. Also, rather than try to understand the wonders of the universe, people are content to sit back and say "God did it, so I don't need to think about it."

Then there's the negative side: too often people claim justification in their barbaric acts by invoking God. Whether those acts are picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, oppressing women, flying planes into buildings, genocide, or just plain old general bigotry, God gets brought into it as an excuse.

I have no time for such a creation and I think the world would be a better place without it.

As for proof: apart from the fact it's impossible to prove a negative - I can't *prove* there is a magical grain of sand that grants elephants wishes unless I check every grain of sand in the universe with an elephant in tow - my dislike for God doesn't need me to prove he/she/it doesn't exist. While I'm as certain as I can be that it doesn't, I'd still object to it. To put it succinctly, God, if it does exist, is a horrid creature, devoid of morality.

>>Also, what is the relationship between atheism and materialism?<<

There isn't one, apart from the facts that some atheists are materialistic, and some materialistic folk are atheists.

>>Is it possible to be a non-materialistic atheist?<<

Yes, I consider myself amongst them.

Hi, NeoPathFinder.

I commend you for trying to start a thread of clarification on this subject, but, for me, many of your initial premises are hopelessly flawed. To put it simply, here's how things are defined in my life:

theist=with belief in god'existence
atheist=without belief in god's existence (N.B. not 'with belief in the non-existence of god.)
agnostic=belief that we are incapable of knowing whether or not god exists

one can be an agnostic theist (believing in god but also acknowledging that god's existence is unknowable) and one can be an agnostic atheist (not having a belief in god and acknowledging that god's existence is unknowable). In fact, I suspect that most atheists will also admit to being agnostic.

now to your questions

'I know there's alot of atheists and agnostics here at h2g2 and I'm wondering what is it that justifies that position?'

for me (an atheist agnostic) I will say what position? It's not a position -- it's a lack of a position. What's to justify?

'Also, if you are an atheist and not an agnostic, what positive evidence do you have of the non-existence of God?'

well, that one I've answered already in two ways: I am an atheist *and* an agnostic and an atheist (ie. without belief in god) does not necessarily claim the non-existence of God and so has no requirement to present evidence for that non-existence.

'I mean it seems to me that since science cannot prove the non-existence of something hitherto undetected, agnosticism would be the way to go for many intellectuals.'

Yes, it would be the way to go and certainly is the way many atheist and theist intellectuals have gone.

'(I, of course, am a theist)'

but, are you agnostic or gnostic in your theism?

'Also, what is the relationship between atheism and materialism?

beats me. What do you mean by materialism? Are we talking Madonna or the Churchlands or what?

Is it possible to be a non-materialistic atheist?'

depending on what you mean by materialism, certainly. Many atheists I'm sure are quite uninterested in Madonna. Many Buddhists are atheists. I'm sure that we could find atheists to match any meaning one could find for 'non-materialistic'

> if you are an atheist and not an agnostic, what positive evidence do you have of the non-existence of God?<

It's a common misconception that there is no evidence either way. If we are to consider the question scientifically, that's simply not true.

All theories must be testable, so while acknowledging that you cannot entirely disprove the existence of *anything*, you can disprove many of the predictions that the theory makes. In the case of organised religion, not normally known for its concise and testable predictions, we are stuck with
A. the expected influence a god should have on the material world; and
B: the claims made by religious texts and or/believers.

There is considerable evidence to indicate that, if there is a god, he/she has no effect at all on the material world. If he did, according to the predictions of faith, the virtuous should be saved and the evil damned. This is not the case. Numerous studies have tried to correlate religious beliefs and behaviour with rates of death, disease and injury and found just randomness. For example, there was a study that investigated whether praying for particular cancer sufferers had any effect on death rates. It didn't. In fact, highly religious communities appear to be *more* at risk from natural disasters and suchlike, although probably for economic reasons.

A study that finds 'no effect' is NOT the same as 'no evidence'.

As for claims made by (for example) the bible: the universe was created in six days / 6000 years ago / humans not descended from apes / big flood that covered the globe / big ship containing two of *every* species, from which everything is descended - this has all been utterly disproved.

Unlike a proper scientific theory, religion just squirms every time another piece of evidence against turns up. Theists now argue that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, god exists outside the material universe and deigns to exert no influence over our lives (until death, at least, where they can return to their fantasy worlds). Any scientific theory that offered no evidence itself, but merely shifted its predictions to fit as the evidence against mounted, should be laughed out of intellectual discussion.

"So we basically a gree that 'book religion' is not what either of us would recognise as having a true, personal religion?"
I'm not sure whether I'd agree with that statement entirely. I think the Christian religion is basically true, I just think that biblical infallibility isn't true. I think the Bible is basically true in it's fundamental points but contains some errors on more superficial ones. If you define the whole of Christianity as "book religion" then I wouldn't agree. But people who's whole faith is in the book rather than in the God the book describes are like people who have faith in a sign that says "Welcome to Los Angeles" but are overlooking the city itself.

Oh. I forgot the question that is the subject line.

'What is it about God/religion that you object to?'


about God? nothing. I don't object to King Arthur, either.

about religion? in general? How can anyone have a global objection to religion? It's such a huge, amorphous object. 'I object to religion globally because Mexica priests ripped human hearts out five centuries ago!' Religion does good and it does bad. Some like to have their religion. Some need to have their religion. Some want to have their religion. I don't feel a need or a desire for a religion. I don't object to religion. I object to people hurting others, whether they do it in the name of religion or for any other reason. I don't object to religion -- I object to hurtful actions.

Hi Neo,

This thread has been here for 2 hours before I saw it, and already I'm reduced to repeating what others have said including a few familiar names

I have no particular objection to religion, except that I think it is based on a false premise.

I cannot present absolute proof that God does not exist (*), and a few years back I would have called myself an agnostic because of that. However, it was pointed out to me that I cannot provide absolute proof that fairies do not exist either, yet I don't regard myself as 'agnostic' about whether they exist. There is no reason to think God does exist, which is itself reason to think She does not exist - that's Occam's Razor. I'm an atheist; anything else is semantics.

You may be right that there is no objective basis to morality without a transcendent law-giver; but then again, there doesn't seem to be an objective morality in the world, so that would fit rather better with an absence of God than the presence of one. Instead, our sense of morality probably arises from the fact that 'moral' societies out-compete 'immoral' societies - I can expand on this if requested. Besides, if God did give morality, would it not be as arbitrary as morality I invented for myself?

Gif

(*) But see, for example, Dawkins' 'Ultimate 747' argument.

I didnt think you'd agree, I certainly expected some provisos

Now, for me, I was brought up with religious stories being simply about teaching good lessons and being used to explain the unexplained (i.e. creation). So whether it be christian stories, old testament, greek, hindu, roman, norse or any other, you should take the meaning (i.e. what is this story illustrating in context to scenarios I may or may not encounter myself/ This is an idea on how the world might have been created, isn't it exciting) as opposed to the literal word for word interpretation.

So when people quote religious text to support their own bigotry or misguided judgement because they have removed themselves from their own innate humanitarian instincts, I do take umbrage.

I like the previous posting from anhaga, it illustrates my feelings very well

One problem I have with religion is how it states certain things should not be done, with the reason of 'just because'. Some of those things made sense at the time, but people still following it 2000 years later in a different place leads to problems.

I think SWL probably said it best in post 2

> Nobody round here ever talks about religion really.<

I know there's afew theists and Christians here at h2g2 and I'm wondering what is it that justifies that position? Also, if you are a theist what positive evidence do you have of the existence of God? I mean it seems to me that since science cannot prove the existence of something hitherto undetected, agnosticism would be the way to go for many intellectual theists. (I, of course, am an atheist)

Also, what is the relationship between theism and materialism? Is it possible to be a materialistic theist?





But seriously, what is it about atheists and atheism that you object to?