Why I miss Douglas Adams Terribly

[Rod Hagen]

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not?--because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday,' you say, "I respect that."

 

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that, I am thinking "Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?" But I wouldn't have thought "Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics" when I was making the other points. I just think "Fine, we have different opinions." But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say "No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it."

 

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labor party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows--but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . . . no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

[Guest Les]

"Virtually everything we were told in Indonesia turned out not to be true, sometimes almost immediately. The only exception to this was when we were told that something would happen immediately, in which case it turned out not to be true over an extended period of time."

[duke37]

This deserves a thorough response and I hope to write more later.

 

You sort of answered your own question on why religion isn't subject to public discussion and debate. How would you test the the ideas involved. Sure you can test for logical inconsistencies in someones religious beliefs. But at some point you will come to some sort of core belief and how would you propose to test this? Since we are in the realm of the unproveable and untestable it debating someones religious beliefs is a game hardly worth the candle.

 

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

 

Check this site out for an example of testing for logical incosistencies. For the record I took no hits and bit one bullet. I think a Creator should have the power to change the rules of the game but chooses not to do so.

 

It might be useful however to insist on a little more realism on discussing religious beliefs in the sense of acknowledging what they actully are. For example a minority but still substantial amount of Muslims believe the Koran requires them to slay the non-Muslim. Sure most Muslims don't think that way and are repelled by the idea. But you can't express my thought in public in America without being challenged on the grounds of religious prejudice. Fair?

 

Oh yeah, you want a real war start Wintel vs. Mac. yikes. While operating systems and politics should be subject to rational debate ( they have propositions that could be tested) most people haven't thought the implications of their views through and get angry about it when you challenge them.

 

Jeff

 

BTW I miss Douglas Adams too, are you reading the newest book?

[Guest Merlin]

Religious beliefs are simply not subject to the same emperical testing methods which are central to the scientific method. We cannot prove either way whether a God exists or not, or what he is like, or what he wants us to do. We cannot prove how the Universe originated, and there are no very satisfactory guesses at this time, although we may sometime know. As a result, religious beliefs must remain that, just beliefs. One of Americas great contributions to the world was that of religious tolerance. Not many years ago there was great hatred and distrust between members of the various Christian denominations, and of course between members of entirely different religions. We have learned to ignore those differences by accepting them. I am sure most of us have friends, even close friends, who have religious beliefs quite different from our own beliefs or non-beliefs, but we ignore those differences because they do not affect the friendship. It is for these reasons that serious discussion of religious beliefs is often a taboo subject: (1) none can be proven or disproven, and (2)the discussion causes strife, hard feelings and loss friendships. Anyone who is eager to argue religion is necessarily someone who strongly believes that he is clearly right and those are disagree are wrong, and somewhat arrogantly believes that he is so clearly right and so persuasive that he can "convert" others, and does not value the friendship enough to deter him from trying.

[Guest DCeBOY]

the ideas ARE open to debate, rod. the pity is, you don't want to debate them. you're so convinced you're right (we've tried to discuss religion with you--i won't repeat the insults you hurled my way) that you close yourself off to listening.

 

i'm not attacking you. i'm just saying that if you're going to bemoan not being able to discuss something, you should maybe not be so quick to call those of us who disagree with you (on some things) irrational idiots. or, go ahead & call us that, but still listen to what we have to say. G_d knows i've hurled the epithet of idiot a time or two.

[Guest TopUNowD1]

Mick - Dallas

 

THE INTERVIEW

 

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

 

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

 

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

 

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.

 

src=http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/adams.jpg

Douglas Adams (left) with

David Silverman

 

[A HREF=http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html"target="_new]American Atheist Full Interview[/A]

 

 

---------------------------

He was a rather unique and intelligent individual. I say "was" and I meant to ask... did he die? I hadn't heard anything about that. I've enjoyed his books though.

[duke37]

Yes, sadly Douglas Adams died last month. read all about it:

 

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,490971,00.html

 

Jeff

[Rod Hagen]

Duke, I took two bullets and no hits. I tripped over the notion of a God who's unable to make 1+1=45k , and also I think the creators of the poll don't understand clearly how "Theory" is used in the scientific community. Thanks for the link.

[phage]

Rod,

 

You’re one of the few people I’ve encountered who really enjoys discussing this topic. They don’t call it “sacred” for nothing and I find it’s rather like telling someone their baby is ugly. You may consider it a fact, but there is nothing to be gained from doing it.

 

I actually agree with your basic belief – or lack thereof. I think it’s all a bunch of superstitious hooey, but coming from a very religious family, I have definitely learned that no good comes from any attempt at serious discussion – let alone debate. It’s too emotional of an issue and I have no particular desire to convince anyone to not believe. I say more power to them. I wish I could honestly believe the same thing because it must be quite a comfort.

 

I have found that it is really only possible to debate the fine points with someone who has the same basic beliefs. We could probably have a great discussion about why we don’t believe; my Mormon relatives are able to debate the nuances of their religion with each other; and I’m sure Fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews can do the same. It just doesn’t work with people outside of your own basic belief system. I think you need to agree on the basics or the discussion dissolves into pure emotion.

 

However, where I refuse to remain silent is on the political front. I’m all for religious tolerance, but I’m going to keep demanding my right to be free FROM religion. When someone has the audacity to inject their religious beliefs into a political or legal issue – abortion, death with dignity, marriage rights, etc – then the topic is fair game and they deserve to be told that other people view their beliefs as a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

[Rod Hagen]

BTW the "Richard" he refered to, and I apologize for not properly attributing the entire quote to Adams, is Richard Dawkins.

[Guest JustStarting]

>Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure

>we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the

>most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and

>understanding and challenging the world around us that there

>is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be

>attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight

>another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down

>it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that.

 

My oh my Hagen--so many things to point out:

1. Religion and science ask very different questions.

2. Religion does change and evolve with time--just as science did. In Gould's recent 1,000+ page tome on evolution, he writes of the changes in his own career and ideas regarding evolution. Obviously we all know science grows and changes but so does religion, even the most orthodox. For example, it wasn't so long ago that fervent believers found support for slavery from Biblical sources--then other believers found support for abolition from the same Bible. Although I'm not as knowledgeable about the history of the Catholic Church as others on this site, Church dogma too has evolved over time. Some examples: (1) while the Bible strongly endorses capital punishment as did Catholic Church, nowadays Catholics often lead the effort to ban the death penalty. (2) Catholic dogma taught adherents Jews killed Jesus, now they deny it.

Within Judaism, which I know better, the Talmud is essentially volume after volume of scholars debating all sorts of legal and ritualistic items and those debates continue today.

 

 

It has

>certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or

>holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a

>notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about;

>you're just not. Why not?--because you're not!" If somebody

>votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to

>argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an

>argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody

>thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an

>argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I

>mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday,' you say, "I

>respect that."

>

 

Hagen, I think here you may confuse ritual with dogma. The basic premise of sabbath is that in our hectic world, it's nice to set aside one day a week where we recognize that much of what we seek (power, money, glory, the next great escort) is perhaps not quite so important and that our lives would be better off by withdrawing for a few hours from the rat race and doing something else. The exact ritual to accomplish that worthy goal (whether it's sing some hymns, recite some prayer, or hike in the mountains--or even read an Adams novel) can vary from person to person,but the point is worth considering.

 

>The odd thing is, even as I am saying that, I am thinking

>"Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended

>by the fact that I just said that?" But I wouldn't have

>thought "Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or

>somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to

>this view or the other in economics" when I was making the

>other points. I just think "Fine, we have different

>opinions." But, the moment I say something that has

>something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck

>out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become

>terribly protective and terribly defensive and say "No, we

>don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we

>respect it."

>

>Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support

>the Labor party or the Conservative party, Republicans or

>Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh

>instead of Windows--but to have an opinion about how the

>Universe began, about who created the Universe . . . no,

>that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that

>for any other reason other than that we've just got used to

>doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of

>those things that crept into being and once that loop gets

>going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not

>challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how

>much of a furor Richard creates when he does it! Everybody

>gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed

>to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally

>there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to

>debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow

>between us that they shouldn't be.

 

 

As I read Adams books, I found them humorous and clever, but really of no lasting importance. It's easy to ridicule, but after the same trick over and over one begins to ask, "So what's the point?"

 

Any orthodoxy (that is a belief which demands unquestioning adherence) is dangerous--but there's religious orthodoxy, political orthodoxy, and even atheist orthodoxy ("don't say one nation under God")--no movement is immune to intolerance and atheist are right up there too.

Here's something else we can talk about.

[Guest elwood]

phage,

you elegantly express my views on this issue, and..Rod.. as you frequently do...you have raised a thought provoking topic. There is a great tradition of humanity and nobility in the great religions of the world...but there is also a very dark side. I feel that the rise of religious fundamentalism in recent decades...be it Christian,Moslem or Jewish has spawned much murder in the name of God and casts a dark shadow over the near future as well...not that religious fundamentalists have any monopoly over murder since millions have died under the banner of all manner of "political" religions as well.I am not a believer. I do not know if there is a God.And,like you,phage, I strongly advocate for freedom FROM religion.As humans for our own survival..we need ethical principles based upon rational thought. Certain aspects of religious moral codes can be helpful in this regard and I do not debate or begrudge believers.I never seek to disuade any believer..I feel that is a useless path..and indeed I am a long way from having ultimate answers in life...but I do have many questions...and I feel that one should always be free to question anything.

[Guest chubsksesc]

A lot of intelligent things has been said here. A wide range of views have been expressed. One of the beautiful things about being an American is our ability to do just that. Our country and it's laws are based on our right to discuss religious differences and the right to practice them, or not.

 

As a Christian, I am glad we have these laws, it strengthen us as a people. I respect those who do not believe in a God and their right to have such an opinion.

 

You can point to religion as the core of most if not all the Wars, great and small. All other conflicts stem from national or Ethnic hatreds. As Americans, we need to learn to be more comfortable talking about religion. We need to learn to lay down any discomfort, prejudice or arrogance where religion is concerned. First, it goes against everything every one of the religions are based on. Second we as a people, as a Nation, as a global society will never reach true enlightenment until we can bring down all barriers and embrace and celebrate our diversity.

 

As Americans, we claim to be the leaders of the "Free World." That MUST mean that we actively fight to become a people who live, breath and believe in 100% tolerance. No race, nor religion, nor nationality or even sexual orientation should make any of us uncomfortable. In fact, we should work towards becoming a people who has an inquiring curiosity about anyone who is different from us so that we can make their life experiences, culture and way of life part of our own.

 

To Rod, those who agree with his position on religion and the late Mr. Adams, thank you for your courage to discuss this with us. Rod you are absolutely right, we should talk about it. From debate comes a clearer understanding of the ways of the world and the meaning of life. More importantly, history has taught us that the more we know, the less we fear, the less we hate and the better we become.

[Michael]

>Yes, sadly Douglas Adams died last month.

 

Actually he died last *year*.

[Rod Hagen]

>Hagen, I think here you may confuse ritual with dogma. The

>basic premise of sabbath is that in our hectic world, it's

>nice to set aside one day a week where we recognize that

>much of what we seek (power, money, glory, the next great

>escort) is perhaps not quite so important and that our lives

 

not so important to those who listen to some fictional higher power, perhaps. I find it a bit inefficient for anybody, not just me, to stop pursuing money, power, blowjobs any day of the week.

 

>would be better off by withdrawing for a few hours from the

>rat race and doing something else. The exact ritual to

>accomplish that worthy goal (whether it's sing some hymns,

>recite some prayer, or hike in the mountains--or even read

>an Adams novel)

 

....or insist on a rigid interpretation of the literature whereby followers must not even press elevator buttons on Saturday, and then become indignant when others suggest that stopping at every floor is perhaps, I don't know, a complete waste of time.