Terry Pratchett on Religion - 'I'd Rather Be a Rising Ape Than a Fallen Angel'

Nevyn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qqnTmBTwOo

Dades

*Ahem

Enjoyed it though.
That's a great line.

Daftendirekt

That was good.

He comes across a really likeable bloke.

PDN

OK, I actually tried to watch the video, but the sound quality was so bad I couldn't make anything out.

But I'm intrigued by the thread title. Who on earth would want to be a falling angel?

Daftendirekt

PDN wrote: »

OK, I actually tried to watch the video, but the sound quality was so bad I couldn't make anything out.

But I'm intrigued by the thread title. Who on earth would want to be a falling angel?

No one, apparently :pac:

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

But I'm intrigued by the thread title. Who on earth would want to be a falling angel?

The way you view your life:
1. You are a fallen angel, an imperfect human being created by god but having failed him somewhat.
2. You are a rising ape, an amazing natural construction, the achiever of brilliance (rather then throwing sh*t from trees)

Neonjack

Interesting stuff. One of the recurring themes in his books is how amazing humans actually are, and how we invented gods who are dumber than us. :-)

philologos

Absolutely cringeworthy on the account that it assumes evolution vs Christianity.

I find this interesting though considering that Thaedydal herself has claimed belief in numerous gods. How is this notion any more reasonable than what Pratchett is criticising?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely cringeworthy on the account that it assumes evolution vs Christianity.

Or maybe you assumed that was its assumption?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

The way you view your life:
1. You are a fallen angel, an imperfect human being created by god but having failed him somewhat.
2. You are a rising ape, an amazing natural construction, the achiever of brilliance (rather then throwing sh*t from trees)

Leaving aside the term "falling angel" (which, of course, has a completely different connotation for Christians) I actually think both are true.

Tim_Murphy

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely cringeworthy on the account that it assumes evolution vs Christianity.

:rolleyes: I think you may have missed the point somewhat.

Pratchett makes the point that reality is actually far more interesting than the clearly made up stories and myths of religions. For anybody who is genuinely interested in the world around them, and not just interested in what they think it should be, it is hard to argue with.

Turtwig

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

:rolleyes: I think you may have missed the point somewhat.

Yays, I just realised I got another New Year's resolution.

I'm going to keep a tab in my Sig of the number of times Jakkass is accused of missing the point that I happen to spot and agree with (Cos I'm sure I miss plenty).

philologos

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Pratchett makes the point that reality is actually far more interesting than the clearly made up stories and myths of religions. For anybody who is genuinely interested in the world around them, and not just interested in what they think it should be, it is hard to argue with.

Tim, I'm sure you know as well as I do by now that I contest your view of both reality, and the nature of how Judeo-Christianity came to be.

Tim_Murphy

Jakkass wrote: »

Tim, I'm sure you know as well as I do by now that I contest your view of both reality, and the nature of how Judeo-Christianity came to be.

Indeed, that is why I said "...for anybody who is genuinely interested in the world around them, and not just interested in what they think it should be"

Blackhorse Slim

PDN wrote: »

Leaving aside the term "falling angel" (which, of course, has a completely different connotation for Christians) I actually think both are true.

Fair enough, but there is only evidence for one

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely cringeworthy on the account that it assumes evolution vs Christianity.

Why? do not christian believe that their god created all of this there for has dominion ?

Jakkass wrote: »

I find this interesting though considering that Thaedydal herself has claimed belief in numerous gods. How is this notion any more reasonable than what Pratchett is criticising?

I don't believe in gods, they do not require me to believe in them.

philologos

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Indeed, that is why I said "...for anybody who is genuinely interested in the world around them, and not just interested in what they think it should be"

I'd argue that this (especially the italics) is more pertinent to you, rather than to me concerning the existence of God. Let's not get into an irrelevant tit for tat however.

Thaedydal wrote:

I don't believe in gods, they do not require me to believe in them.

Has something changed over the last few months if I recall past discussion in the Paganism and Spirituality fora.

Saying that they don't require belief implies that they exist surely?

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

Has something changed over the last few months if I recall past discussion in the Paganism and Spirituality fora.

Not much has changed at all.

Jakkass wrote: »

Saying that they don't require belief implies that they exist surely?

Exactly, I don't believe in the postman either.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

Exactly, I don't believe in the postman either.

I'd like to think that you believe in the existence of the postman. Likewise I'm assuming that you believe in the existence of these gods, but that you don't subscribe to all of their teachings.

Nevyn

You may think what you like but thinking doesn't make it so.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

You may think what you like but thinking doesn't make it so.

So hang on, if you see the postman, and speak to him, that postman may still not exist? Very Cartesian of you.

So, explain the position on the gods which you have claimed to look to for inspiration in the past. They don't exist?

I'm just trying to reconcile the Thaedydal I read a few months ago with this now.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely cringeworthy on the account that it assumes evolution vs Christianity.

I always wondered how you make the two compatible. Do you ignore Genesis or treat it all at symbolism or something?

philologos

The opening of Genesis for many Christians is to be regarded as an allegorical account of Creation. There is an underlying truth in the passage, people merely dispute how the truth can be acquired from it. I don't consider Genesis to be a science book (how) but rather a text of religious and philosophical questions (why).

I also believe that I cannot have a full understanding of what God intended, or how He carried it out based on 27 verses of Genesis 1.

Blackhorse Slim

Jakkass wrote: »

The opening of Genesis for many Christians is to be regarded as an allegorical account of Creation. There is an underlying truth in the passage, people merely dispute how the truth can be acquired from it. I don't consider Genesis to be a science book (how) but rather a text of religious and philosophical questions (why).

I also believe that I cannot have a full understanding of what God intended, or how He carried it out based on 27 verses of Genesis 1.

So you take it with a pinch of salt? How clever of you. Now if you could apply the same logic to the rest of the bible you could be on to something

philologos

I take it the way that Christians have taken it for nearly two thousand years. I believe that God created the world, and has given us all a purpose in it. I just differ with YEC's over how the world was Created, not over the why.

Blackhorse Slim

It's too far-fetched to be true, but it surely can't be a lie, so it must be something else? But the immaculate conception and men with wings and an invisible red man with horns is real?

philologos

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

It's too far-fetched to be true, but it surely can't be a lie, so it must be something else?

Assumption: Creation is too far fetched to be true.

Be honest with my post please. I never said this. I agree that Creation did take place, I merely dispute how it took place. At the centre there is a God in whose providence brought what we have come to know into existence.

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

But the immaculate conception

The Immaculate Conception refers to a 19th century addition to Roman Catholic dogma. It isn't defined in the Bible. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's birth not Jesus'.

If you do mean the Virgin Birth, then yes if God can create the world it is highly possible that God can use the laws of physics, biology or anything else to perform supernatural acts.

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

and men with wings and an invisible red man with horns is real?

Men with wings? Invisible Red Man with horns? More assumptions.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

The opening of Genesis for many Christians is to be regarded as an allegorical account of Creation. There is an underlying truth in the passage, people merely dispute how the truth can be acquired from it. I don't consider Genesis to be a science book (how) but rather a text of religious and philosophical questions (why).

I also believe that I cannot have a full understanding of what God intended, or how He carried it out based on 27 verses of Genesis 1.

Begs the question, why would an all-powerful and all-knowing God not just describe evolution, at least at a high level, in the Bible instead of writing that it was all created in 7 days? It's completely non-sensical.

And please don't say 'god works in mysterious ways'.

philologos

Why would God need to do this? If the point of Genesis were to be a science book I might agree with you, but I can't see that it would be. Rather the point of Genesis is to deal with the formation of Abrahamic faith throughout time.

If I wanted to be pedantic, I could argue that certain passages within Genesis 1 could be viewed as describing abiogenesis, but I cannot say this with any degree of certainty, so I won't.

What Genesis 1 tells me is that there is a God, who has formed what we have come to know. This God has given us responsibility, and He has created us to reflect Him and His standard while we are still alive.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

If you do mean the Virgin Birth, then yes if God can create the world it is highly possible that God can use the laws of physics, biology or anything else to perform supernatural acts.

If he's using natural laws, how can he create anything supernatural?

Dades

Folks, what exactly has this got to do with Terry Pratchett?

liamw - I'm looking at you for dragging this down a dead end... :pac:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would God need to do this?

One possible reason is that it would go quite a long way towards convincing me of its truth. God wants us to believe in him after all but putting a creation story that is scientific nonsense doesn't exactly help with that goal. What with that and many other implausible aspects of christianity it would seem god is deliberately making it difficult to believe in him

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One possible reason is that it would go quite a long way towards convincing me of its truth. God wants us to believe in him after all but putting a creation story that is scientific nonsense doesn't exactly help with that goal. What with that and many other implausible aspects of christianity it would seem god is deliberately making it difficult to believe in him

What if it's all an elaborate test and religion is what dooms you? Whereas those that have freed their minds achieve enlightenment?
That's what I believe : God intentionally made things confusing so that we would reject him thereby allowing ourselves to be open to the truth which is stranger than any fiction could possibly muster.:)

Nevyn

Jakkass wrote: »

So hang on, if you see the postman, and speak to him, that postman may still not exist? Very Cartesian of you.

So, explain the position on the gods which you have claimed to look to for inspiration in the past. They don't exist?

I'm just trying to reconcile the Thaedydal I read a few months ago with this now.

If I interact with the postman then he exists, I don't need to belief in him, or to belief in that he exists as he clearly exists with out needing me to believe in him.

Really you need to read more Terry Pratchett, I suggest Choen the Barbairan, hat full of sky, wintersmith, small gods and lords and ladies.

Sam Vimes

Thaedydal wrote: »

Really you need to read more Terry Pratchett, I suggest Choen the Barbairan, hat full of sky, wintersmith, small gods and lords and ladies.

And anything with His Grace,
The Duke of Ankh, Blackboard Monitor, Commander
Sir Samuel Vimes

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would God need to do this? If the point of Genesis were to be a science book I might agree with you, but I can't see that it would be. Rather the point of Genesis is to deal with the formation of Abrahamic faith throughout time.

Huh? So Genesis is God telling us about Abrahamic history and their views on the world rather than his own? Why wouldn't he just talk about evolution instead. It makes no sense... And why make it so cryptic? Before Darwin everyone thought it was God's literal word and Creationists still do to this day. God loves making a fool out of us.

If I wanted to be pedantic, I could argue that certain passages within Genesis 1 could be viewed as describing abiogenesis, but I cannot say this with any degree of certainty, so I won't.

OK...

This God has given us responsibility, and He has created us to reflect Him and His standard while we are still alive.

I could replace FSM with God, and it would be just as credible there.

GLaDOS

Anyone who disagrees with Terry Pratchett should be banned from life

Small Gods > Any other text discussing religion at all

philologos

Genesis is a chronicling from the first people of the earth, to the twelve tribes of Israel the legacy of the Israelite people. If you read it from chapter 1 to chapter 50, this is the precise purpose. To tell of the very first relationships God had with mankind. It also leaves the setting with the people of Israel living in the land of Egypt in the favour of the Pharoah which Joseph had come to know. It isn't just a book about God's creation. Infact I think it is a slandering of the book of Genesis to say such.

PDN

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

For anybody who is genuinely interested in the world around them, and not just interested in what they think it should be, it is hard to argue with.

And yet the irony is that the thread title (I'd rather be .... ) is based precisely on how someone wants things to be, rather than on what they really are.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....It isn't just a book about God's creation. Infact I think it is a slandering of the book of Genesis to say such.

So why does it appear to be exactly about the creation and the rules laid down for those who've been cursed to live in it?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

And yet the irony is that the thread title (I'd rather be .... ) is based precisely on how someone wants things to be, rather than on what they really are.

Only in the same way I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

I'm not ever going to be either but there's a point to be gleaned from the statement.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So why does it appear to be exactly about the creation and the rules laid down for those who've been cursed to live in it?

You are aware that the Creation covers 3 out of 50 chapters in Genesis? It's an important part, no doubt, but the book does not deal exclusively with the Creation.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Only in the same way I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

I'm not ever going to be either but there's a point to be gleaned from the statement.

You could be a hammer. Think of it as a fitting nickname for your modness, "Dades - Hammer of the Theist Trolls"

Dades

Only if I get to shout "Hammer Time!" a lot as well.

Tim_Murphy

PDN wrote: »

And yet the irony is that the thread title (I'd rather be .... ) is based precisely on how someone wants things to be, rather than on what they really are.

True that.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

You are aware that the Creation covers 3 out of 50 chapters in Genesis? It's an important part, no doubt, but the book does not deal exclusively with the Creation.

We've had this argument before. I'm well aware of what is contained within those pages and for me it boils down to this "Here's my house, here's the rules, here's what happens if you don't obey them", it doesn't seem to be that much more complicated than that. Unless you got a cool collector's edition?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

You are aware that the Creation covers 3 out of 50 chapters in Genesis? It's an important part, no doubt, but the book does not deal exclusively with the Creation.

Doesn't Genesis get particularly nasty in the later chapters though?

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

We've had this argument before. I'm well aware of what is contained within those pages and for me it boils down to this "Here's my house, here's the rules, here's what happens if you don't obey them", it doesn't seem to be that much more complicated than that. Unless you got a cool collector's edition?

Genesis is a narrative, more so than a legalistic book in the mindset of the likes of Exodus, Leviticus, the start of Numbers and Deuteronomy. So yes, Genesis is quite a bit more complicated than just Creation. The Bible is also more complicated than being a rule book.

If we're not even clear what Genesis let alone what the Bible is, how on earth are we going to be able to discuss it.

Malty T wrote:

Doesn't Genesis get particularly nasty in the later chapters though?

Joseph forgiving his brothers for their wrongdoing to him, and Joseph inviting them to live with him in the land of Goshen (fertile region of Egypt). Nasty really?

Nevyn

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So why does it appear to be exactly about the creation and the rules laid down for those who've been cursed to live in it?

Only those who are curse and only those who are descendants of Adam and Eve and those who are the people of that tribal god or who choose to be.

As for the rest of us, "none of that applies to us. We have no need for salvation because we don't have original sin. We are the Other People."

There are too many scape goats if there is a perfect all knowing all seeing all doing singing and dancing OmniGod

Tori Amos wrote:

Devils and Gods now that's an idea
But if we believe that its They who decide
That's the ultimate detractor of crimes
'cause Devils and Gods
They are You and I
Devils and Gods
They are You and I
Devils and Gods
Safe and Inside

I do think that street lamps are wonderful and so are the many wonderful works of humanity, we are capable of both wonders and horrors and the more we do for each other to make this world a better place rather then focusing on the afterlife the better.

philologos

This is rather telling Thaedydal. Looking at the folder that the link you gave is in, it is titled "Dealing with Fundamentalists". So I take it you are saying that everyone who believes in a single God who created the universe are fundamentalists?

Edit:

Thaedydal wrote:

I do think that street lamps are wonderful and so are the many wonderful works of humanity, we are capable of both wonders and horrors and the more we do for each other to make this world a better place rather then focusing on the afterlife the better.

I like this. As a Christian we are meant to be stewards of our world, and we are meant to be working to make this world a better place. Absolutely. The reason we've been forgiven isn't to just sit in a waiting room waiting for the End Times, but rather to be engaging with the world positively as God had planned for us to.

It's also a main reason why Christians are involved in mission to share the positivity of the Christian message with others.

Nevyn

Well what about do on to other as you would have them do on to you?
I am sure most christians do not want to be converted and you prefer not to have someone dogging them about getting them to change thier minds and that respect should be shown to others.