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

Just to lower the temperature for a moment...(the intellectual equivalent of a cold shower?)

I'm not sure that I understand Nihilism either. It gets bad press, and the definitions I've seen don't quite fit my own (lack of) belief.

I guess where I'm coming from is that there is no god (obviously). So we have to think about how we conduct ourselves. But neither is there any 'natural' basis for morality. Since we're just specks in the universe, why shouldn't we just kill each other? Which, I guess, leads me towards a mixture of existentialism (= we have to decide for ourselves) and Epicurianism (= do whatever makes you feel good) and socialism (= it makes most sense if we do what makes *everyone* feel good).

On TV last night (BBC4, Jonathan Miller), a philosopher described himself as 'not atheist, but antitheist) - which also describes me. I get in a lot of trouble in another h2g2 thread when In disparage loopy beliefs such as Christianity, paganism and druidism.

Buddhism - it seems to me that that's rather different. As a good friend once told me 'I'm an Atheist. Well, a Buddhist, but that's the same thing'. And Gautama told everyone to ignore him and decide for themselves.

Plus, I', an occasional Rastafarian, of course

Hello Ben -- that's a fairly nihilish PS you are sporting at the moment.

I gather that one of the first tenets of Buddhism is that there are no gods and no supernatural beings. The history of Buddhism shows how hard (impossible?) this doctrine is to maintain.

My feeling is that all religions tend to approach as close as they dare to atheism. Visions have always been an embarrassment if not a downright threat to any established religion.

Atheism is a difficult ideal.

Well Buddhism is a philosphy wrapped up in sinewey spiritual & mental practices, which in turn are wrapped up in some of the world's most sensuously rich ritual. It looks like a religion, and it scratches the god-shaped itch in the human mind, but it is the worlds first self-help movement.

My jury is out on the subject of god, but if there is one, I cannot believe that it is external. The only way that a god makes sense is if we are all part of that god - if the existance of the god is the expression of the universe. A large, cold, empty god, expanding infintely, with tiny tiny pockets of light and life.

What makes sense to me - sometimes - is my own interpretation of the philosopy of spiritual reincarnation. The universe wastes nothing, not a scrap, and we reincarnate materially - or we do if we are eaten by lions or decently buried or our ashes are scattered. I see spiritual evolution as going hand in hand with biological evolution, and I see spiritual reincarnation as very analogous to material reincarnation. Equally, I see spirit in all living things. But then I had a cat once who was a zen master.

In practical terms, I get off on ritual, occasionally meditate, go to churches and temples when I am in need of comfort, and veer between a mechanistic and spiritual view of the cosmos, depending on how the mood takes me.

Have you read my entries on belief, or the Belief project of a year or so ago?

B

Hi Recumbentman

I am working on the theory that thems as knows me knows me, and thems as don't can work it out from my posts.

>> Atheism is a difficult ideal.

Very.

B

But how can spiritual reincarnation be?

What we regard as 'spirit' or 'soul' is, surely, a mere (mere?!!) product of the human mind, which dies with the brain. Some eminent neuroscientists (such as Villayanur Ramachandran) are coming pretty close, I think, to understanding just how Consciousness (and therefore the perception of 'soul') has resulted from the evolution of the brain.

There has also been an interesting take on the evolution of religion from anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists. If we look at the pseudo-religious beliefs of 'primitive' cultures, we tend to find that they have concepts of spirits (ghosts, dead anscestors, etc), usually malevolnt, but not 'gods'. So maybe there's an evolutionary advantage to seeing something out there. It would be pretty useful to be constantly on the alert for sabre-toothed tigers. Hence our 'god-shaped hole' is pre-programmed. It is possibly more acute in those who, despite seemingly normal intelligence, refuse to abandon their faith - making atheism a difficult Ideal.

I'd never have thought that a fan of Bishop Berkeley would make such comments on atheism, Mr R...but perhaps I've misunderstood Berkeley.

I can see that this thread is shaping up to be a lot more intelligent than some recent debate in the Freedom From Faith Foundation. But, jaysus, I hope outsiders haven't been reading my recent postings in another conversation

>> So maybe there's an evolutionary advantage to seeing something out there

I argued just that in another lifetime.

Check out the entries listed on U148580. You will discover that I am obsessed with sex, belief, language and semiotics in roughly equal amounts!

Regarding reincarnation - I am no evangelist. When I squint at the world one way, it works for me as an argument. When I squint at it another it doesn't. I think one pays one's money and takes one's choice.

What scared the living s**t out of me was when some recent events made me think that sin and redemption started to make sense as a world-view. Luckily it has not lasted long.

B

NB - most of the ones with (UG) in brackets are not mine, but have been subbed by me. Most of the rest, especialy the Edited Entries, are mine.

B

Wow! Just the ticket! I'll get around to them.

You should check out Villayanur Ramachandran's 2003 Reith lecture. For some reason, this is the only bit of the BBC I can access from work, but if you search on 'Reith 2003' you'll get there.

We can also talk Chomsky and Saussure and stuff on the Lang and Ling thread.

My problem is that for someone who is seriously into linguistics and semiotics, I am woefully ill-read on the subject.

Is it me, or are most linguistic theoreticians incapable of stringing together a readable sentence?

B

Pinker can write. And Wittgenstein was a brilliant stylist. I know that doesn't make him easy but you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Berkeley's approach to God should satisfy Ben. He applied the current (c1700) fashion of "freethinking" to everything, and decided that there was less contradiction involved in supposing the existence of God than the existence of matter. The evidence for matter is nil, the scientists relied entirely on authority in framing the concept. This puts us right up face to face with the deity: the continuity of our perceptions *is* the goodness of God. There is no meaningful doubt possible.

I only have a problem with theism that involves suppressing doubt. F103872?thread=502064

Your piece on affirmation and prayer hits the nail beautifully, B.

Thank you.

B