The Science of Discworld IV

got wrong …’
    Just then the Librarian of Unseen University knuckled his way across the turf at speed. He stopped when he reached Marjorie, blew her a kiss and handed her a banana.
    She blew back the kisss with an extra
s
as Ponder said, ‘I have looked for a suitable sentence to speed you on your way, Marjorie, and came across a much-liked one:
What goes around comes around.
Welcome to Roundworld! It’s only a page away.’ Then he pressed the button. ‘So, you will be back home before I have finished this senten—’

TWENTY-FOUR
----
NOT COLLECTING STAMPS

    Although it is widely held that faith can move mountains, it has not reliably been seen doing so. Yes, of course it’s a metaphor – a powerful one, and a valid one. People have done, and will continue to do, amazing things because of their beliefs. But the main things that move mountains significantly are subducting tectonic plates, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. Oh, and rain and cold, given long enough.
    There is no denying the power that faith has over human beings, and the sometimes remarkable acts that it can motivate, but it really is a curious way for
Homo sapiens
to behave. It requires acceptance of a rather strange mixture of moral precepts and the supernatural. There is no direct objective evidence for many beliefs that are central to the world’s great religions – but there are innumerable reports of miraculous events, holy people, longstanding authority and rituals that may go back thousands of years. Religions are grounded in deep culture, inculcating the present generation’s values in the next. And they are often desirable values, don’t get us wrong.
    However, there is an evident danger if you ground your morality in authority and ineffable deities. What is moral simply becomes what is prescribed. God is good – but this can lead to the concept that
anything
can be deemed good if you can convince people that God so wills. Such as cutting off the head of an infidel, or blowing womenand children to smithereens in order to get yourself into Heaven – typical tactics of Roundworld’s own over-zealous zealots. With a few exceptions of that kind, largely to do with who counts as a genuine person, most of the world’s religions have their prized moral values in common. However, they are little more than the standard default values of most human societies. Don’t kill people. Don’t steal. Don’t do anything that you wouldn’t like done to you. Nearly all of us can sign up to these values, be we Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Jedi Knights … even agnostics and atheists. It is not necessary to invoke a god to provide ‘authority’ for them. They are the common currency of humanity.
    That leaves the supernatural elements for us to disagree about, and that’s where the real trouble starts. Those elements matter, because they endow a religion with its cultural significance. Anyone can sign up to ‘don’t kill people’, but only we Righteously Reformed Rincewindian Roundworldists genuinely
believe
that the entire universe is a foot across and sits on a shelf in Unseen University.
    Prove us wrong.
    We’re sitting in the audience, and there’s a debate in progress on the stage. The protagonist is very sure of his position, has good clear pictures, and is very clear about his story. His antagonist is different. She is rather unsure; her pictures are sketches and cartoons, and she is altogether more tentative.
    Which do we tend to believe?
    It mostly depends on who
we
are.
    There are some who like certainty; they like to know just where they are. They tend to get their knowledge, their beliefs, from authoritative sources: the Bible, the Quran, textbooks, or the practices of their professions. They
know
that those who disagree with them are at least wrong, and sometimes evil. It’s certainly more than sinful for politicians to change their position on almost any topic. They simply can’t understand why someone can’t see the Truth when it’spresented to them, or that someone can’t appreciate the clarity of their assertions or the power of their arguments.
    Over the years we have found, somewhat to our surprise, that many scientists are also like this. In private, they often acknowledge that there are difficulties with the current state-of-the-art theories in their subject area. They may even accept that some key features might have to be changed as more evidence comes in. But their public face is one of complete