Damn, only now did I realize I've only read one book in a series

This hoopy frood really knows where the towel is.

Ahem.

https://archive.org/details/the-hitch-hikers-guide-to-the-galaxy-read-by-stephen-moore_202302

Not the PDF, but, also not not the book, technically.

Uhh, I couldn't see anywhere that it's in the public domain. Could you point me to a source for that?

Series? More then one? So long and thanks for all the books!

I loved it. Thanks for sharing!

That was a good read! I liked the pacing, the dawning not quite horror.

I liked it. It seems to fall apart at the end a bit but this is a really cool concept for sure.

thank u, good read

Whoops! That's my mistake.

Because religion contradicts scientific approach to thinking

Any scientific base for that claim? Because there seems to be way to much religious scientist for it to be true.

If you're a fan of Sagan, you might be interested to hear that he considered that "science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality".

Religion might be noise for you, but for countless people across history, it has been what has helped them to cut through noise. Religion unequivocally does not contradict scientific thinking — what we understand as scientific thinking wouldn't even exist today if not for religion.

Things don't have to be a binary of religion vs science. Religion has so often been the driving inspiration for brilliant scientists across the world, for much of recorded history. And in parallel, there have been religious scholars who find spiritual awe and fulfillment in seeing scientific advances.

That definitely doesn't mean that everything is always great between religion and science — I'm very much not a fan of things like evangelical Christians who claim that dinosaurs weren't real, or the Taliban who prevent women from being educated. Those are examples of religion being used as a cudgel against science, but if we want to genuinely resist that kind of thing, it's not productive to instead try to use science to bash religion. Our best resistance is to embrace the fact that science and religion can and do coexist, in many different shapes and forms.

Part of my stance here is pragmatic — I'm a scientist myself, and I am filled with dread when I see how anti-science rhetoric is flourishing nowadays, and I am resentful as hell towards the many religious assholes who are feeding that. However, if I direct my beef towards religion as a whole, then that's a heckton of people that I've given up on trying to convince. I believe that the scientific method should be a tool that everyone has available in their toolbox, even if it's not something their daily life often requires — it's a useful perspective to have on hand no matter your background.

However, I'm realistically never going to convince someone to give up their faith in exchange for this tool, especially as I am not religious myself and thus don't properly understand what purpose religion serves them. I can make a far more compelling case for science if it isn't framed as something that seeks to displace their faith. And you never know, once someone does have scientific thinking as a tool in their toolbox, and they know how to use it, they might end up relying on it more and more. I personally know many scientists who have experienced this kind of journey. Though giving up on faith entirely isn't required, as evidenced by the many excellent scientists I have known whose religious faith drives their passion for research — the best biochemistry tutor I ever had was even a reverend.

Science and religion are not incompatible, and there is evidence of that strewn across history and society. To ignore that fact would be to betray the principles of empiricism that the scientific method is built upon.

Yes, correct, they skipped a lot of the harder science for the movie to keep it a reasonable length. Movie was still very good though!