42

So to start let’s clarify what the quote means (I’m sure most of us atheists got it first time, but it appears many of the religious believers misunderstood it, whether deliberately or not I leave to your judgement).
So the quote is pointing out by use of an analogy (or possibly more correctly an allegory) that the existence of a
seemingly ideal situation in the real world (the perfect fit of the puddle to its hole), when viewed from the (necessarily) limited perspective of the puddle, is not necessarily evidence of planned intent (and by inference Divine intent). Douglas then extends this to warn against complacency – just because things seem to be designed for the puddle now, the world can change.
To clear up some superficial attacks on this – the use of an imaginary sentient puddle does not debase the argument. Therein lies the power of our brains – we have imagination, and the whole power of rhetorical language to use and enjoy. If you want to argue against the ideas and concepts so cleverly and concisely wrapped up in the quote, then do so, but don’t point at the talking puddle and giggle ‘oh look he used a talking puddle to illustrate his ideas, Douglas believed in talking puddles’.
To answer one of the anonymous comments – the quote is not comparing a human life to a puddle. It is using the puddle/hole fit to encapsulate the vast range of anthropocentric arguments used by religious believers to explain their faith (surely the point of faith is that it defies explanation). It covers everything from intelligent design, evolution, to deeper cosmological principles (ie how come the universe seems to be ‘designed’ support life – for discussion on this I point you to long running discussions on the weak and strong anthropic principles)

And now some of the other comments -
Regarding John’s interpretation of Douglas’s ‘beliefs’ (see below for discussion on this word) “he never really “was” … anything other than a chemical reaction”, yes he was, palpably, a creative individual with the ability to reason, argue, imagine hugely entertaining comic stories, and contemplate at a very deep level our existence and the ‘meaning of our lives’. The fact that he did all this without the need for a crutch of belief in the supernatural surely says more about the power of our minds than any religious text. The rather pathetic attempt at reductio ad absurdum of the comment “If Douglas was right, he never truly made any decisions because they were automatically made for him by the chemistry in his brain.” almost doesn’t need refuting, firstly no explanation of how the brain works implies our thoughts are predetermined, controlled by some uberchemical reaction. The brain is a complex organ, the mind a complex self aware structure. Obviously we are all (religious or not) influenced by our physical electrochemical makeup (without this there would be no effect of chemicals on our minds, and obviously neuroscience tells of of the links between physical structures and thoughts – read oliver sacks for some fascinating insights into the mind/brain links.
Oh and another thing – ‘for there is physically no difference between him as a walking living body or as a dead body’ well yes there is, in a dead body the various biological processes have shut down, there are no electrochemical signals passing through the brain, no heart pumping, no activity in the mind, no self awareness. Dead.

It is interesting to consider whether the evaporating puddle was chosen deliberately to hint at global warming as a potentially species threatening change that we need to be aware of.

Oh and a comment on the final argument (see replies by cm and anon)thrown in by religious believers when logic starts to bite. Note the word believer – faith is the basis of religious belief not rational interpretation. I do not believe in supernatural interference in the world or my life. That lack of belief *does not* imply comparable belief (as faith) in another world view. I have been charged by religious friends of having as strong belief in the lack of god as they do in the existence of god. Not true. I have conviction in a rational interpretation of the world, but my view is *not* faith based.

the religious comfort themselves with false hope, and the atheistic comfort themselves because they know the truth.

what difference is there? everyone is looking for the same thing, a way to deal with it. what difference does it make to someone else how others deal with it?

..yet 9 10ths of it is missing!

Permit me to doubt.

We look around us and see how well we fit into the world, and being an arrogant species conclude that it must have been created for us, by some benevolent force. [rather then we evolved to meet the circumstances we live in]. Awhile later some ‘clever leaders’ realise that if the poor all believe that their blind acceptance of their ‘fate’ in return for eternal reward in the ‘afterlife’ then that pretty much puts paid to any challenge to the status quo.
——————————————

p.s. re wishing rip to Douglas, while not believing in an afterlife, we all live within a society in which convention allows you to express your respect for the deceased by wishing them rip, irrespective of personal beliefs, or the origins of the phrase.

With that in mind Douglas Adams RIP

————————————————–

p.p.s. It is not particular beliefs which are the problem, but the building up of hierarchical structures on these beliefs, leading to the dogmatic refusal to accept that anyone else might be justified in believing what they believe, irrespective of whether it is a ‘true’ belief or not.

It is the dogmatic fundamentalist belief that you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, which is the problem and atheists as well as theists are guilty of.

That being said, this is a brilliantly-worded idea, and is certainly worth thought. It’s not offensive to any belief, but simply a statement of one’s own belief, and for that, it has a great amount of validity.