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

That is a tough one and I have conflicting opinions on it. I think that all killing is wrong - but I'm hypocritical as I eat meat. However, if there was absolutely no way not to kill then I'd guess the lesser 'evil' would be the better choice. I would still feel awful for allowing a killing to happen but in this way much less people are harmed. Therefore I would choose the lesser if two evils if I was forced to else I wouldn't make the decision at all. Unfortunately, when in such a situation it would be a mathematical choice - seeing people as numbers and saying that by choosing the lesser evil more can be saved. But in such a situation there is no easy way to deal with it.

I just wondered. Can we go for a drink now?

Well, as long as we are spouting philosophy, here I come! Check out these stories.

Blaise Pascal once pointed out that the advantages of believing in God outweighed those of not believing in him. Using probability theory, he seemed to have proved that a God fearing person was much more likely to avoid anti social behaviour as compared to an atheist.

Leonard Euler was once called to the court of Catherine the Great in order to help resolve a debate raging on between the queen's men and a renowned atheist. The atheist spoke at length about his point of view and waited for Euler to answer him. Euler simply stood up and said "Sir, e='(insert advanced mathematics here)', therefore God exists!" Rumour has it that the atheist was booted out of the court amidst jeers and boos!

Anyway, Mr.Cynic, this brings us to my point of view. I was raised as a Muslim(some would argue that I still am being raised, since I've completed only one and a half decades of existence so far). Anyway, my horribly precocious and inquiring nature led me to question the validity of what I was being told. It was about five years ago that I happened to come across a certain book, the name of which was something on the lines of "The Miracle of the Quran".(Yes, I'm a bookworm too.) This book provided the proof I needed as a scientifically minded person to accept that the Quran was not human in origin. Here comes the proof...

The Quran is based on a complex mathematical interlocking system based on the number 19.(incidentally, my birthday is on 19th December.)The first sentence of the Quran is the keystone of this system. It contains exactly 19 letters. Each word is repeated in the Quran many times. This in itself is nothing, except for the fact that the numbers are all divisible by 19. The sentence itself occurs 114 times. What is that but 19 times 5 ? There are a 114 chapters in the Quran as well. Whenever two things are compared in the Quran, they occur an equal number of times. This is just the basis of the order. If I go into the actual nitty gritties of the subject, it would be mostly meaningless.

Next, the Quran has mentioned the Big Bang, and the fact that all life originated in water.

There are many who attribute the authorship of the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad, but all this from an illiterate trader 1400 years ago? Today's computers give odds of 626 septillion to one against the creation of such a book by pure chance. Now where are your arguments, Mr Cynic?

Pretty thick for a 15 year old Indian kid, what?

Sorry, meant to say meaningless to anyone without some knowledge of the Quran...they desperately need to make it possible for us to edit forum entries!

Firstly, let me tell you that I totally disrespect Pascal's logic. It basically goes that if you believe in God and there is no God than so what? But if you don't believe in God and there is a God he'll be pretty pissed. Well, I think that is paranoid bull (excuse me for that). I will not believe in some fictional being just because he might send me to a firey place otherwise - fear should NOT be the basis of belief.
Next, Plato, Euler, whoelse? I don't care that they know maths! The basic logic for these theologists/mathematicians is there are things we can't explain. There are things that only a mystical all-knowing thing can do. Therefore God exists. Well, I don't think we should belief in this deity just because we haven't found some logical explanations yet.
Yes, the Quaran has many wise things in it as does the old testament. But do you really think they are meant to be taken literally? And anyway, just because they are complicated and coded does not mean they are from an invisable being that burns bushes for fun. What if they were dictated to us by another race? (i.e. not from this green planet). Or what if, in the past, humans were a bit more clever than we think? After all, didn't you use some Ancient Egyptian theologist to prove your point back then? It's only because we think so high of ourselves that we don't question if people were more advanced in ancient times (before recorded history for instance). Why jump to the conclusion that some non-physical being that knows, sees and controls all wrote it? A more simple explanation can surely be found .
And I never claimed that these books came up randomly - that some idiot wrote down a few words and by chance this code was in them. I just mean the writer doesn't have to be this non-physical being that gives commands for Holy Wars and all.

Ho hum, another Holy War critic...
First off, let me tell you that all these fools who go around declaring holy war on every Tom, Dick and Harry they find are a bunch of misguided creatures who haven't understood the whole point of the holy war-to stop persecution of people simply because they follow Islam...Very few thinking people have any sympathy for the cause of those fanatics.
As for the mathematicians, I just threw them in to add a little spice to the discussion, but then, only fools argue over religion, so let's forget the whole damn thing.
By the way, the other races thing is a nice idea, I happen to like it a lot as well...

Yes, but how should one go about stopping persecution? By persecuting the persecutors? I think not . And I too like the other species idea. It's rather far-out but still more sensicle than God .

What happens if the Aliens believe in God?

Whoah!

I never said I needed a fictional character for me to have a moral system.

I also think that faith can often lead people to do very questional (sometimes downright inhuman)and never, ever guarantees a good moral code.

I apologise for a long post, but I would like to explore my own thoughts (and of others) on morals.

I was brought up on christian values. The entire christian set of values and ethics are derived from three words: "diem amore". This means "love god". Jesus called this the great commandment, and said that this logic follows:

love god ('cos he'll beat the hell out of you if you don't) > love his creations > love humans > love all your neighbours.

You should love everyone like a father his son, whether they are rude or if they smell. Jesus went on to say that the ten commandments come directly from this. Since the Roman law we inherited was based on this, the UK and US system of law is all based on these two words "diem amore". These are the laws you have to abide from day to day, and the laws and values everyone grew up with.

But, suddebly, when I looked at this, I had removed god from the equation. The central point of my whole system of ethics was missing. Quite simply, I was buggered if I didn't think up with something in its place.

In any difficult situation, where various laws are in conflict, the solution has lain in turning back to this central idea of loving your neighbour. Many of the teachings in the Bible show, for instance when the christians were charged under Roman law, how going back to basics is long and tortuous, but sometimes is the only solution.

But I couldn't. I was lacking this basic, central idea, because I have no god. I have no central 'great ethic (or command)' to check back on. Without this to check my logic, I am unsure whether I am doing this instinctively or not.


Now, I have no need of a god for my system of ethics to remain intact.
However, for it to be all linked together without conflict, I DO have a need to REPLACE GOD with logic.

My logic which I have replaced it with, is my 'purpose'. This is a coldly logical approach which provides a central pillar to my ethics.

The 'purpose' gives the point that every person should help the purpose. Consequently, people should help and support each other. This has come full circle, because this is bloody near to 'love your neighbour', and is good enough for me.

Since this ethical system is now based purely on logic, and is not seemingly contradictory because of that central ethic, it is as good as, or ... maybe ... even better than the christian ethical system.

Now I've thought about it, this has quite a bit in common with Nietzche, who I think also replaced god with logic, so exclaiming "god is dead!".


With this central ethic, I hope I could avoid having a system of ethics that sometimes seems contradictory (the 'mish mash' I was talking about - perhaps bad wording).

In fact, as far as I can see, Mr Cynic, we are pretty close on beliefs (we both don't believe in god), rely on logic, and probably have a pretty sound moral code.

But again, just out of interest, do you have a central belief (I cringe at using that word) that holds together your ethical system?
e.g. I live to further my own interest, or I live to carry on my genes, or I live simply to attain happiness.

Possibly, you don't need something central like this?