Malazan Empire: The fantasy genre and religion. - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The fantasy genre and religion.

#41 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,857
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:16 AM

The charitable reading is that it is not intelligent for a religion to demand blind faith from its followers.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
0

#42 User is offline   Shinrei 

  • charin charin
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,601
  • Joined: 20-February 03

Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:19 AM

That's what I was trying to get at. There is a charitable and an uncharitable reading of that statement.

H.D. makes better/more concise sense than me, and he's probably gone through a bottle of vodka already to boot! :D
You’ve never heard of the Silanda? … It’s the ship that made the Warren of Telas run in less than 12 parsecs.
0

#43 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,857
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:20 AM

I went through intense language training while getting my vodka degree.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
0

#44 User is offline   Gem Windcaster 

  • Bequeathed Overmind
  • Group: LHTEC
  • Posts: 1,844
  • Joined: 26-June 06
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:20 AM

View PostH.D., on 16 January 2010 - 04:16 AM, said:

The charitable reading is that it is not intelligent for a religion to demand blind faith from its followers.

But that's not what he typed and posted. What he typed and posted is more like: it is not intelligent to have blind faith, and most religions demand that of its followers.

This is why I asked how I should interpret the post.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 16 January 2010 - 04:22 AM

_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
0

#45 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,857
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:21 AM

That is most certainly a possible interpretation of the statement, Gem. I agree. I'm merely mentioning that there is a nicer interpretation if you so choose to accept it.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
0

#46 User is offline   Gem Windcaster 

  • Bequeathed Overmind
  • Group: LHTEC
  • Posts: 1,844
  • Joined: 26-June 06
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:23 AM

View PostH.D., on 16 January 2010 - 04:21 AM, said:

That is most certainly a possible interpretation of the statement, Gem. I agree. I'm merely mentioning that there is a nicer interpretation if you so choose to accept it.

That's why I asked for a clarification.
_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
0

#47 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,857
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:30 AM

I understand, and I'm merely offering interpretations rather than putting words in his/her mouth. Your "interpretation" post took umbrage at the statement, and understandably so if that is the actual meaning of the statement. I'm merely offering an interpretation that could mollify said umbrage until the response. I was being thoughtful to you in my charitable interpretation. :D

Edit: Words.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 16 January 2010 - 04:32 AM

Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
0

#48 User is offline   Darkwatch 

  • A Strange Human
  • Group: The Most Holy and Exalted Inquis
  • Posts: 2,190
  • Joined: 21-February 03
  • Location:MACS0647-JD
  • 1.6180339887

Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:50 AM

The vast majority of people who are religious or spiritual won't have a problem reading fantasy.
The very vocal and loud minority that does have a problem helps feed the media that blows their numbers out of proportion.

So in fact there isn't really a problem between fantasy and (the vast majority of adherents of) religion.
The Pub is Always Open

Proud supporter of the Wolves of Winter. Glory be to her Majesty, The Lady Snow.
Cursed Summer returns. The Lady Now Sleeps.

The Sexy Thatch Burning Physicist

Τον Πρωτος Αληθη Δεσποτην της Οικιας Αυτος

RodeoRanch said:

You're a rock.
A non-touching itself rock.
0

#49 User is offline   Morgoth 

  • executor emeritus
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 11,448
  • Joined: 24-January 03
  • Location:the void

Posted 16 January 2010 - 11:46 AM

View PostShinrei, on 16 January 2010 - 03:20 AM, said:

View PostAdjutant Stormy, on 16 January 2010 - 02:45 AM, said:

Though tactless, the argument is being made that blind faith is unwise, unintelligent. No need to be touchy here.



There are two interpretations to this.

1) People blindly believe what they are taught, and never question it or ponder their beliefs.

Here I would agree - this is unintelligent.

2) People question and ponder their own beliefs, and in the end decide that faith, which some would call "blind" is something they will continue to hold onto. It's the old circular argument found on so many DB threads that goes round and round - faith for some trumps what they feel are the limits of human knowledge.


I would put Gem in the second catagory, and if she's interpreting Maro's statement that way, it is in fact insulting.


I would argue that the moment you ponder or question your own beliefs - no matter the outcome - your faith is no longer blind, ergo your 2) is kind of pointless.
Take good care to keep relations civil
It's decent in the first of gentlemen
To speak friendly, Even to the devil
0

#50 User is offline   Shinrei 

  • charin charin
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,601
  • Joined: 20-February 03

Posted 16 January 2010 - 12:09 PM

@Morgoth

But some would say that faith is blind, period. Because you believe despite lack of scientific evidence.
You’ve never heard of the Silanda? … It’s the ship that made the Warren of Telas run in less than 12 parsecs.
0

#51 User is offline   Illuyankas 

  • Retro Classic
  • Group: The Hateocracy of Truth
  • Posts: 7,254
  • Joined: 28-September 04
  • Will cluck you up

Posted 16 January 2010 - 01:17 PM

In spite, even.
Hello, soldiers, look at your mage, now back to me, now back at your mage, now back to me. Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped being an unascended mortal and switched to Sole Spice, he could smell like he’s me. Look down, back up, where are you? You’re in a warren with the High Mage your cadre mage could smell like. What’s in your hand, back at me. I have it, it’s an acorn with two gates to that realm you love. Look again, the acorn is now otataral. Anything is possible when your mage smells like Sole Spice and not a Bole brother. I’m on a quorl.
0

#52 User is offline   Shinrei 

  • charin charin
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,601
  • Joined: 20-February 03

Posted 16 January 2010 - 02:16 PM

View PostIlluyankas, on 16 January 2010 - 01:17 PM, said:

In spite, even.



Well, yeah. Goes without sayin'. :D
You’ve never heard of the Silanda? … It’s the ship that made the Warren of Telas run in less than 12 parsecs.
0

#53 User is offline   Morgoth 

  • executor emeritus
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 11,448
  • Joined: 24-January 03
  • Location:the void

Posted 16 January 2010 - 02:18 PM

View PostShinrei, on 16 January 2010 - 12:09 PM, said:

@Morgoth

But some would say that faith is blind, period. Because you believe despite lack of scientific evidence.


I would respond to these "some" that they should learn the meaning of a word or a phrase before making judgmental comments.

Blind faith:
- belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination.

Faith
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

(definitions copied from the online dictionary. Corresponds to the definitions in my Norwegian dictionary)

These are clearly very different concepts and it's not the fault of those who have faith that many don't know the difference.


... and not to give the wrong impression: Shin, I know you're just being the devil's advocate here.
Take good care to keep relations civil
It's decent in the first of gentlemen
To speak friendly, Even to the devil
2

#54 User is offline   Tsundoku 

  • A what?
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 4,629
  • Joined: 06-January 03
  • Location:Maison de merde

Posted 16 January 2010 - 02:36 PM

I wouldn't so much say "intelligence" as "education". And not so much level of education, just access to an education system that allows people to make their own choices.

You can be intelligent and have faith, and you can be as dumb as dogshit and be agnostic/atheist.

However, a freely (non-indocrinational) educated populace would - probably - operate on the bell curve. At one end fanatical fundamentalism, and at the other extreme atheism. In between the vast masses who mostly couldn't give a shit until someone put them on the spot.
"Fortune favors the bold, though statistics favor the cautious." - Indomitable Courteous (Icy) Fist, The Palace Job - Patrick Weekes

"Well well well ... if it ain't The Invisible C**t." - Billy Butcher, The Boys

"I have strong views about not tempting providence and, as a wise man once said, the difference between luck and a wheelbarrow is, luck doesn’t work if you push it." - Colonel Orhan, Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City - KJ Parker
1

#55 User is offline   Gem Windcaster 

  • Bequeathed Overmind
  • Group: LHTEC
  • Posts: 1,844
  • Joined: 26-June 06
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 16 January 2010 - 06:18 PM

View PostDarkwatch, on 16 January 2010 - 04:50 AM, said:

The vast majority of people who are religious or spiritual won't have a problem reading fantasy.
The very vocal and loud minority that does have a problem helps feed the media that blows their numbers out of proportion.

So in fact there isn't really a problem between fantasy and (the vast majority of adherents of) religion.

I agree. This is true, and I do think sometimes people have a preconceived notion of what fantasy is, without even reading it, that maintains the idea that it's sort of anti-religion. At some level I don't blame them, because religion is sometimes depicted as very violent and/or dark in fantasy. Sometimes people can get the impression that fantasy is bashing religion genre. What I think is true for example, is that fantasy often tells stories about the dark side of people, which could be interpreted to be the authors own view of what for example faith is (despite there being a lighter 'counterpart'). However, in well written fantasy, this interpretation is, if even present, a misconception - often by people that haven't even read the book in question. I don't agree with the idea that when a fiction writer depicts a dark side of a society, they are somehow bashing religion - in my eyes they are bashing bad people. If one personifies with a good part of humanity, and not bad people, why would you be insulted if someone writes about the bad part of humanity? (or bad elves or whatever)

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 16 January 2010 - 06:19 PM

_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
0

#56 User is offline   Soulessdreamer 

  • Fist
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 266
  • Joined: 25-December 08
  • Location:Hill of Bitter Memories, the City of Sails, in the Land of the Long White Cloud
  • Interests:Sword fighting, HEMA, roleplaying, reading (fantasy and sci fi), weapons and Gaming (PC and Xbox)

Posted 17 January 2010 - 01:00 PM

My approuch to religion is thus;

Man is not perfect therefore any revalations or scripture interpreted by man is flawed.

Even if said man directly communes with god or his agents it would be like trying to teach an ape partical phyics using sign language.

So therefore the differences between religions are clutter and irrelivent and should be ignore to focus on the general gist which is the same once you get past all the silly trappings.

If people find comfort in the trappings then more power to them but they should realise that there are many paths to god and faith and that the harder they strain to force others onto there path the further from it they wander.

My personal peeve is those creationists who claim that god is all powerful and then seek to limit/deny his/her capacity in creating a universe as complex and diverse as the one in which we find ourselves.

Not to mention they seem to know the mind and will of a being they say is so far beyond us as to be nigh on incomprehensable.

Blind faith in anything or anyone is stupidity in essence.

TTFN
Imagine a world without such souls.
Yes, it should have been harder to do.
2

#57 User is offline   King Lear 

  • Une belle quelquesomething sans merci
  • Group: Mott Irregulars
  • Posts: 678
  • Joined: 01-October 09

Posted 17 January 2010 - 02:42 PM

Maybe one reason why there are so many voters atheism and agnosticism is because they appear to be good starting points to question and evaluate how necessary/useful/fundamental religion is to a given person. Fantasy is also a good medium for questioning the world, since it takes what the author knows in his/her experiences and subjects it to evaluation through different set of lenses. Other genres can do this too, but they don't have the opportunity of replicating the real world in a new setting.

One of Erikson's ideas which has stuck with me since I read it is in RG, where the Invigilator (I love that title!) -whose name escapes me right now- lectures his henchman on who the truly dangerous people are in the world, the ones who are quietly confused. This leads them to question everything, constantly. Not that I'm saying that I think you have to be outside of religion in order to decide whether it has value. I just think that people who are prepared to challenge their own beliefs know that what they do believe in is worth the belief.
*Men's Frights Activist*
0

#58 User is offline   Gem Windcaster 

  • Bequeathed Overmind
  • Group: LHTEC
  • Posts: 1,844
  • Joined: 26-June 06
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 17 January 2010 - 03:37 PM

View PostCrone, on 17 January 2010 - 02:42 PM, said:

I just think that people who are prepared to challenge their own beliefs know that what they do believe in is worth the belief.

Yes, definitely. To know yourself is to know the truth.
_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
0

#59 User is offline   maro 

  • Fist
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 14-November 09

Posted 18 January 2010 - 01:04 AM

View PostGem Windcaster, on 16 January 2010 - 04:20 AM, said:

View PostH.D., on 16 January 2010 - 04:16 AM, said:

The charitable reading is that it is not intelligent for a religion to demand blind faith from its followers.

But that's not what he typed and posted. What he typed and posted is more like: it is not intelligent to have blind faith, and most religions demand that of its followers.

This is why I asked how I should interpret the post.



How do you "Know" what I typed? Admittedly. I was a bit harsh with the Panties comment but your posts illustrate why these debates always devolve into personal attacks.

You assume I know nothing of Religion, whereas most Atheist's have had plenty of exposure to it.

If you read Roman Catholic history, blind obediance is indeed the preferred mode for followers. They don't like dissent or questioners of the faith at all. Excommunication still happens today (if not burning).

Back to the comments about the Bible being the "One true word of God", I give you Judges 19

:pirate:



A little tip. Whilst I may diss Religion, I respect your beliefs. Don't take it personally.
0

#60 User is offline   Gem Windcaster 

  • Bequeathed Overmind
  • Group: LHTEC
  • Posts: 1,844
  • Joined: 26-June 06
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 19 January 2010 - 12:21 AM

View Postmaro, on 18 January 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

View PostGem Windcaster, on 16 January 2010 - 04:20 AM, said:

View PostH.D., on 16 January 2010 - 04:16 AM, said:

The charitable reading is that it is not intelligent for a religion to demand blind faith from its followers.

But that's not what he typed and posted. What he typed and posted is more like: it is not intelligent to have blind faith, and most religions demand that of its followers.

This is why I asked how I should interpret the post.



How do you "Know" what I typed?
Dude, you know that thing they call reading? I can do it.

View Postmaro, on 18 January 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

Admittedly. I was a bit harsh with the Panties comment but your posts illustrate why these debates always devolve into personal attacks.
I don't care about panties,
but you were saying you didn't call anybody stupid, which I have since proven you did - it's not a personal attack, it's a discussion.

View Postmaro, on 18 January 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

You assume I know nothing of Religion, whereas most Atheist's have had plenty of exposure to it.
I assume nothing, I just respond to your actual posts. I can't read minds.

View Postmaro, on 18 January 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

If you read Roman Catholic history, blind obediance is indeed the preferred mode for followers. They don't like dissent or questioners of the faith at all. Excommunication still happens today (if not burning).

I am not exactly a fan of the Catholic church either, but this by no means give credence to the stupidity-theory of yours.

View Postmaro, on 18 January 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

Back to the comments about the Bible being the "One true word of God", I give you Judges 19

What's your point, dude.

View Postmaro, on 18 January 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

:pirate:

Again, what's your point?


View Postmaro, on 18 January 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

A little tip. Whilst I may diss Religion, I respect your beliefs. Don't take it personally.

How can you respect something that you clearly haven't got the first idea about.
_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users