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

Hello Lear, I like philosophy stuff and I see you've got some interesting links and guide entries. Cool. What a business with the banning of Arpeggio huh? She was mad as a hatter of course but still... Some of the moderation at h2g2 seems to be pretty restrictive and annoying but I think we can 'live with it' - no need to get up in arms about it. These 'revolutionary' types are just people that like to holler and make trouble for the sake of it my opinion. Any way, philosophy, philosophy. So much dogma in the world, and so little reason Well, I couldn't pass by without commenting on the agnostics and the atheists etc. Organized religion is inherently dogmatic and destructive in my opinion but that doesn't mean we should automatically leap to conclusions such as 'there is no meaning to the universe', 'God doesn't exist' etc. Logic is logic, and whether God exists or not is purely a matter of reason. I find that a lot of what the atheists say is just as dogmatic in its way as religion! Recently a philosopher by the name of Chris Langan has come up with a new attempt at a philosophical proof of God's existance, which I was sufficiently impressed by to look into. I have posted a summary of his proof on the 'What Is God?' page - since no one has responded yet I thought i'd point it out to you. You may like to check it out - see what you think http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F58051?thread=132635 To quote Chris Langan; 'the world is still full of people willing to kill (and die) for their beliefs...willing to destroy the planet and everyone on it for the sake of their faith. As long as they continue to deny the existence of any "absolute truth" but their own - as long as they can hold their religious and political dogmas above the very laws of logic themselves - this perilous situation will continue to threaten our world'

Hullo Mr Reporter,

I thought the Lifetime Suspension was a pretty sordid affair myself, but (as I've said elsewhere) I wasn't around while the events were taking place, so I don't think it's really appropriate for me to get involved in any detailed discussions about it. I think h2g2 / The Beeb has probably used up some of its general reserve of goodwill, but I imagine the damage will be far from fatal in the long run. I haven't noticed any revolutionaries around the place, but then again I'm not too observant when it comes to things like that... I know some people are trying to set up an arbitration system, which sounds quite promising, but I have the impression that this is less a case of being 'up in arms' and more about trying to work calmly and rationally towards some sort of workable compromise. I think it's fair to say that the House Rules need clarifying, and that the community would benefit from some sort of mediation between editors and researchers - but I suspect it won't happen overnight, if at all...

As for atheism / agnosticism... I think it's a big jump from a distaste for organised religion to a conclusion such as 'the universe is meaningless'. I certainly don't see any reason to make that leap. I have no knowledge of the existence or otherwise of God, but I can say that from a philosophical point of view the question is without meaning. For a hypothesis to be worth investigating, it has to be 'falsifiable' - that is, one has to demonstrate that it would be possible in principle to prove the hypothesis incorrect. A hypothesis that isn't falsifiable isn't worth investigating - in fact, *can't* be investigated. The question of God's existence falls into this category, as does the question of how the universe got started - there's really no way it can be ascertained one way or another. People have been trying to come up with proof positive of the existence / non-existence of God, according to taste, since time immemorial, and usually end up managing little other than a perfect reflection of their own prejudices and blindspots. Since 'God' is supposed, by definition, to be beyond logic, reason, human understanding generally, the only honest position in my view is an agnostic, essentially sceptical one. In truth, we would be better off not spending our time trying to answer the unanswerable, and concentrating instead on problems that are within our grasp.

Well, I agree that the conventional religious defintion of God is not subject to reason - namely the postulated existance of a supernatural, omni potent being.

However, I do think that concepts of God which are different to this CAN be reasoned about. For instance look at the attempted proof I posted on the 'What Is god' page.

After all, how can we say for sure what is and is not subject to reason? Saying that questions of 'what created the universe' etc are meaningless seems to me to be too pessimistic.

Until next time...

Dear Lear and Mr Reporter.... Apologies for barging in.... I'm trying to start a new philosophy research project to be entitled "Philosophy: The Interesting Bits". I need all the help I can get, and if either of you (or any other philosophers that happen to be around) are interested in contributing, that would be excellent. I've tried to get the ball rolling at.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F74406?thread=137586 Best wishes Otto