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

Hello

Whilst browsing h2g2 I found an article you co-authored about Wittgenstein at A1024156.

I'm currently creating an article called 'We Created God' (A8364684)

In the second section I think it would be apt to mention Wittgenstein, his views on language affecting reality. However, as this is complex, it isn't entirley about the Ontological argument, and he didn't believe in a god anyway, I was wondering if I could put a breif sentence/footnote mentioning him with a link to your article.

Please let me know if this is ok.

Thanks

blub-blub

Thank you for asking. In general you should feel free to link; I can't think of a case where someone wouldn't want their entry publicised! And after all this is an open site, you are free to bring up, or comment on, anything that has been posted here. It is a kindness to let people know if you intend to link to their stuff for an Edited Entry, but if you aren't submitting for review then there is no need to mention it.

That's an interesting piece you've begun there. It puts some old arguments in a new light. I notice it's your first entry: congratulations! What do you plan to do with it?

Hi,

I'm glad you liked the article!

At the moment I'm getting help from Az and Noggin polishing it up a bit. I'm probably going to add a little (a sentance or two) about Wittgenstein, and I've been considering adding a paragraph or two about Freud, but I'm not sure because through the article I'm trying to consider the arguments that a god (at least in our own personal universes) does acttually exist, whereas Freud attempts to explain why a belief in god is really just a sub-conscience personification of feelings towards our role-models.

Eventually I'd love it if I could get it into the Edited Guide, but I understand due to the nature of the article this might be tricky.

What do you think?

blub-blub?

Well I think there's an Entry there to be written, but I also think it's an incredibly tricky undertaking. As it stands it expresses an opinion, which isn't broad enough for an edited entry.

If I were writing this it would be for the sake of finding out my own thoughts, with the help of feedback from interested readers. That is the great thing about Peer Review; I was enormously encouraged by the comments I got about Wittgenstein when I was writing that.

Unfortunately to get into Peer Review you have to write something that is (a) factual and (b) "balanced" which is a tall order given your subject matter.

So what do I need to do to improve it?

How should I go about making it more balanced?

Can you think of any extra facts for me to include?

Thanks for any help

blub-blub

Trouble is, if you follow Wittgenstein (as I do) then what we are talking about is not factual to start with. For W religion was a way of looking at the world: it doesn't change any facts, only how you react to them. And though he didn't regard himself as religious, he also admitted that he couldn't help looking at things from a religious perspective.

In fact during his First World War time, he was intensely religious; the other soldiers called him "the soldier with the gospel" because he carried Tolstoy's commentaries with him all the time.

So the facts we have to deal with are the facts of what people historically have said. For instance Voltaire: "If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

That might work well in the introduction actually....

I've tried to stick to the facts where possible. Whilst a god's existence isn't provable, these arguments are those of historical philosophers.

I personally follow Descartes (except for belief in god, he has it, I don't, quite a big argument) and I think this has caused some bias in my view.

To make the entry more balanced I could include some counter-argument, but as these arn't common in first-hand sources (people tend to put forward their own ideas rather than attack others) this seems to be straying from a completley factual basis.

What do you think?

blub-blub

That sounds good to me. The trouble with a requirement of balance is that it is almost by definition unattainable in an article on religion or politics. One person's balanced view is another's blasphemy.

Descartes proved the existence of mind, if you like, but he immediately kicked for touch in dividing the mind he had discovered into two: God's and his own. This was a quiet move, unexceptional in his own time, but it is problematic. Wittgenstein was more daring, putting all mind in the same position, "outside the world". For me the best solution was Berkeley's, see A3472986

I can see no final answer to the question, who creatd whom, as I see it as a chicken-and-egg matter. Nor can I see an end to the debate until we all accept Wittgenstein's dictum: whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. Some hope!

I have been considering for a few years the thought, "all gods are agricultural gods". My idea is that historical religion (as we understand it) is radically different from the religion of our nomadic ancestors, in that it was required to make an agricultural society cohere. Prompted by Clive Ponting's excellent "Green History of the World".

I'll add a note at the end saying there is no answer, just to make an attempt at making it more balanced. If its ok I might pinch your chicken/egg analogy...

As az pointed out, the worst that can happen if I submit it to peer review is that it gets torn to shreds, so I might risk it.

Thanks for your help!

blub-blub

You're welcome Blub-blub, I look forward to seeing how it fares!