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

Also, further to the above:

<>

Aha, TS, you've changed the sentence and now it makes sense.

I still disagree about Metaphysics only being stuff that you can reason and see with the physical senses. I think it's about stuff you can't.

A definition of metaphysics from a dictionary website found by BBC search (type in 'dictionary' in BBCi Search, 2nd on the list)...

metaphysics
(n.
(used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
(used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
(used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.

Any help to anyone?

I see it includes both interpretations!

Probably just to be awkward

I have some problems with the following passage from the entry:


It proposes that the only truly serious questions are ones that even a child can formulate. Only the most naïve of questions are truly serious. These ‘naïve, serious questions’ are important because an understanding of what life is about is altered by the answers reached:

• Is there a God who is not one of the things in the world but who is responsible for the existence of the world?


My points are as follows:

1)
This begins with two propositions which need some backup or substantiation. They cannot simply be accepted as self-evident. These are:
a) the only truly serious questions are ones that even a child can formulate.
b) Only the most naïve of questions are truly serious.

2)
But it is not easy to understand what these propositions actually mean. What is a 'truly serious' question? Is it as opposed to a truly humourous question, or as opposed to an apparently serious question?

3)
There seems to be an inference that it is only 'truly serious' questions (whatever that may mean) that are important or worth considering. Again, this is a suggestion that requires backup and cannot simply be accepted as is.

4)
Why is it that it is only possible to be 'truly serious' by being naive? Again, this requires explanation. Why do you suggest that it isn't possible to formulate a question that is both 'truly serious' and sophisticated?

5)
The first of the questions listed does not strike me as at all naive or childish, and I find it hard to imagine its being put forward by the average child.

6)
Furthermore, it isn't clear why it should be suggested that God is not one of the things in the world.

Bels

To Bels - an incurable optimist. A1050986

>>Theology has always fascinated people because it tries to deal with the fundamental questions about human life, in the following sense. It proposes that the only truly serious questions are ones that even a child can formulate. Only the most naïve of questions are truly serious. These ‘naïve, serious questions’ are important because an understanding of what life is about is altered by the answers reached:

• Is there a God who is not one of the things in the world but who is responsible for the existence of the world?

• If so, what can we know about God and what can we say about God?

• If we have knowledge of God, where does it come from; from ourselves, from others or from God?<<

Science, any science, starts with the proposition, ‘Is it possible, in principle, to construct a model that can be understood.’ As a question this needs no ‘backup’ or ‘substantiation’, it is simply a question, and a naïve one at that. The answer may however be very sophisticated indeed, in order to arrive at some kind of model or formulation.

For example, ‘are matter and energy related?’ Answer, ‘yes, it can be shown mathematically - using sophisticated techniques - that E=mc^2.

If the question is sophisticated, in Philosophy, Science or for that matter Theology – it can be reduced back to perhaps several more naïve and fundamental questions that first require answers.

The proposition of naïve serious questions (and the hypothetical child) is fundamental then, to academic thought in general – QED on ‘faith’ if you do not understand it.

The three questions, re-quoted above, are asked by Theology because these are the fundamental questions asked be this discipline as an academic subject. Theology will then demonstrate why the answer is ‘yes’ to all three – in ancient Judaism Christianity and Islam – as common ground.

These ‘naïve, serious questions’ are important because understanding of what life is about is altered by ‘yes’ as the answer. Other philosophies/religions may answer ‘no’ to any or all the questions, but they are not Theology as an academic subject - or Christianity as a religion.

In editing away the ‘given’ that Theology assumes that as a matter of faith (the Christian) God exists, the article now implies it, rather than stating it. Theology is still ‘Faith seeking understanding’.

The Natural Sciences, which are Applied Philosophy, are not anti-religion, as they are asking and answering different questions.

Does all this mean that you are going to alter the entry to deal with the points I raised?

Have I answered to your satisfaction?
If so, perhaps you could suggest an alteration so I can consider it?

I'm sorry, but your reply went right over my head.

To me, any theological statement beginning 'The only true...' smacks of petitio principii, begging the question, assuming the truth of what is yet to be argued for. I haven't yet got over that hurdle.

i'd suggest a re-write of the entir entry, as there are too many innaccuracies then you can count.

below are a few examples:

1. "Theology means 'talk about God'."

This is wrong. Theology is not 'talking about God', it is 'the study of religion and God'. my definition is backed up by www.m-w.com .

2. "God in the context of Theology is the God of Christianity."

No it is not. The God in Christianity is just a God from one religion. Theology can be the study of any religion and any God mentioned in those religions.

3. "It proposes that the only truly serious questions are ones that even a child can formulate."

This is absolutely false. Theology can look at questions very complex that a child would not ask, and are not naive.

4. "Is there a God who is not one of the things in the world but who is responsible for the existence of the world? "

what child would ask that? a child may ask "is there a God?", but not that question. no-one would even ask that question. the word God applies to something supreme, something above everything else. A God that was just part of the world would not be a God by definition.

in fact, i have never heard any of the questions you have used, and i think you would find that when studying theology in a religion, the basic principles of the religion would be looked out to study it in more depth, while questions of the universe would not be asked, but the answers would by studied.

5. "If there is a God, there can be no kind of knowledge more important than Theology."

This is wrong, theology is the study of a religion. if there is a God, adn you believe then the God depicted in Christianity is the correct one, then the study of Christianity would be important, but theology is not the knowledge itself.


i would go on, but i don't have the time and i think i've made my point. there are just so many inaccuracies in this entry, and it does not depict Theology correctly. Also, if you are gonna focus on the study of Christianity, then you need to look at how Christians study the Bible, the basic principles of Christianity etc.

spook

Do you mean ‘It [Theology] proposes that the only truly serious questions….are naïve…’?

I have answered the point above, at 'Highschool' level 'ology.

No, i mean, 'It (your entry) proposes that the only truly serious questions are naïve.'

The article is describing Theology at a ‘simple’, abridged, level – not directly proposing that the only truly serious questions are naïve, itself, as such.'

Follow this link yourself. This College, in the University of London, has obviously used the same sources that I have. (Spooky coincidence, as I have not, that is not, plagiarised their site. I found this site looking for the footnote material already in ‘my’ article).

http://www.heythrop.ac.uk/

Click on Undergraduate Degrees, then Theology.

in this entry theology is described at such a simple level that the information conatined in the entry is flawed.

spook

Which authorities are you quoting?
I am sorry you find it so simple…and yet you have difficulty in reading the link provided.

i read the links. they added nothing. in fact, they prove earlier points about how theology is not just about the Christian God, since the course looks at other religions as well. and since both your entry and that use information from the same source, then please post the source here, and also show how you have backed up these points using multiple sources, and how you have compared the sources and written an entry that is easy to read yet contains accurate information and is informative and correct to readers across a wide range.

have you checked out the true meaning of theology at http://www.m-w.com , a web address i gave you earlier, as that provides a much more accurate definition of theology. it may also eb a good idea for you to link to your sources in the entry so that people can see where you found your information and read more into the subject.

spook

Why does the single link http://www.m-w.com have ‘divine’ authority for you? Why do you not use multiple sources yourself?

>>they added nothing<< What? I would advise any other reader here to follow the link – as there is a demonstrated cognitive deficiency in the posting you made.

>>they prove earlier points about how theology is not just about the Christian God, since the course looks at other religions as well<< Already dealt with in the article and in past postings. Thus the comment is nullified.

H2G2, the Edited Guide, is not, and makes no claim to be, an academic repository of the quality you dream of. It is at best a Magazine of general interest. The rigours you would have the article put through are laughable in this context. May I remind you that I am not being paid for this, and it is not a PhD paper – or even a college term paper. However an average Highschool Student (‘Child’) can understand it and relate to it – so I am told.

Since reasonable readers have found it a good understandable read, you find it simple and another has found it ‘over their head’; the writing and content is then, I submit, just about right!

Please do not distort what I wrote.

I wrote "I'm sorry, but your reply went right over my head." (Post 50)

Perhaps I should have been less charitable and more, er, robust in my comment on your reply; but in any case, it was not a comment on the entry, nor could any reasonable person have taken it to be so unless they deliberately wished to misrepresent it.

Bels

>"H2G2, the Edited Guide, is not, and makes no claim to be, an academic repository of the quality you dream of."

this is where you are wrong. H2G2 is a guide to life, the universe, and everything, with entries of quality.

>"It is at best a Magazine of general interest."

No it is not.

>"The rigours you would have the article put through are laughable in this context."

no they are not. i have had countless entries that have gone through more rigours then this one.

>"May I remind you that I am not being paid for this, and it is not a PhD paper – or even a college term paper."

You are not being paid, you, and everyone else, is doing this voluntarily. If you do not wish to put in the effort to improve the entry so that it is of a standard acceptable for the Edited Guide, then remove it and submit it to <./>ThePost</.>.

you obviously as a new user do not understand that the h2g2 edited guide is only for entries of the utmost quality and accuracy, and is not for magazine articles.

spook