Topic: A Quote From Douglas Adams
TexasScoundrel's photo
Mon 09/20/10 07:11 AM
I've enjoyed many hours reading his books. But, he also had another side.

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science 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 that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and 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. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really 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, 'Fine, 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'.

It's rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that's grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise—that's a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is. In the case of an idea, if we think 'Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity', what does it mean? Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour 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 furore Richard (Dawkins) 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.


It's my opinion that faith shouldn't be protected in this way. It should be as open to ridicule as any other idea. Talking snakes? A man lived in a whale? Born from a virgin and rose from the dead? Nonsense!

Any thoughts?

no photo
Tue 09/21/10 10:52 AM
I love Douglass Adams but I really don't understand this quote. I've never once thought any religious idea was forbidden to ridicule and lampoon in that way. I've made priests cry and nuns curse with my straightforward questioning and reasoning. And been cursed out and threatened by a few preachers and they're followers.

However, I have come to realize that arguing with most religionists is pointless. It's like trying to take a child's blankee away. The only thing accomplished is the ire and anguish of the child. Reason and logic have little effect when all a child wants is their blankee.
And so, I have stopped, for the most part.

TexasScoundrel's photo
Tue 09/21/10 12:40 PM
I've been approached on the street by people wanting to convert me many times. It still happens once in a while. When I start asking them about what they want me to believe and they begin to see the foolishness of it, they usually back down. But, sometimes, they tell me it's rude to ask those kinds of questions.

You don't see people on TV, for example, asking preachers if they really belives that angels turn people into salt or that Noah was able to gather two of every kind of aniumal, deal with their poop and keep them all fed for months. The faithful know if they say yes to these kinds of questions they'll look like fools. But, they cannot say they don't believe. Therefore, asking them about it is considered rude.

I don't think it's rude to ask people to think. To look at their ideas and wonder if they may be wrong. I'm usually thankful when someone points out my misguidednass.

no photo
Wed 09/22/10 12:47 PM
When people offer to "save me", I like to reply "Sorry. I've already been spent."

TexasScoundrel's photo
Thu 09/23/10 03:08 AM
Maybe to OKC God Squad is less agressive that the DFW virity. I've even had them insist on using my mic while I'm street performing.

no photo
Fri 09/24/10 10:34 PM

Maybe to OKC God Squad is less agressive that the DFW virity. I've even had them insist on using my mic while I'm street performing.


Street performing?

And yeah. less agressive. I've had to threaten to sue to keep a religious "news"paper from appearing on my doorstep once a month.
Asking them not to deliver it didn't work.

TexasScoundrel's photo
Sun 09/26/10 02:17 AM
Yes, I'm a street performer, also called a busker. I play guitar for tips on a corner in downtown Ft. Worth. It pays better than playing in bars and nightclubs.

no photo
Tue 09/28/10 10:24 PM
Edited by Arcamedees on Tue 09/28/10 10:26 PM

Yes, I'm a street performer, also called a busker. I play guitar for tips on a corner in downtown Ft. Worth. It pays better than playing in bars and nightclubs.


lol...
In OKC, you have to buy a $70 license to "beg" for change.
THERE'S some good religious right wing compassion for ya.

TexasScoundrel's photo
Thu 09/30/10 07:35 AM
The difference between begging and busking is I offer a service for the money I collect, moreover I never ask for tips.

no photo
Thu 09/30/10 11:00 AM

The difference between begging and busking is I offer a service for the money I collect, moreover I never ask for tips.


Ah. Well, I suspect it's merely a matter of semantics in OKC. Probably location, too. Most of the beggars and buskers do their thing on the corners of on/off ramps of the highway. Or other busy street corners. There've been a few guitar players but they never stay long at any one place. I would guess it's because the police keep moving them out.

Best signs I've seen: "I'm not gonna lie. I need a beer." and "I bet you a dollar you read this sign."

I wonder. Do the police require the Firemen to get a license when they go begging for whatever the hell thing they want money for?

TexasScoundrel's photo
Thu 09/30/10 03:27 PM
Street performing is legal in the US under constitutional law, free speach. Here's more information and yes, that's me oin the photo.

http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2647:panhandling-law-hampers-buskers&catid=38:music&Itemid=399

no photo
Fri 10/01/10 10:24 AM

Street performing is legal in the US under constitutional law, free speach. Here's more information and yes, that's me oin the photo.

http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2647:panhandling-law-hampers-buskers&catid=38:music&Itemid=399


Works for me. Personally, on any public property, I don't think there should be laws or regulations governing the behavior of anyone, except that which would infringe on others' rights.