[Chiblade]

mxlm;204134 said:

So I picked up the first Dresden book, and Butcher (or his character?) managed to piss me off sufficiently in the first five pages that I put it at the bottom of my 'to read' pile.

Science the largest religion of the late 20th century? Ha fucking ha.

Hey, I think he's right, now you remind me about that line. I mean, the definition of a religion is a system of dogmaticly held beliefs, right? And so far as I know, the majority of people in the US, not to mention everyone I've met from other parts of the world, dogmaticly believe in the near infallibility of science w/out knowing that much of the processes behind scientists assertions. They seem to have forgotten that in highschool science we're taught that science is never sure, only highly probable.

Lots of people who are religious believe this too. Take for example christians who believe in ID while not knowing the processes behind it, just because its a "scientific" way of passing off creationism as secular. They assert its truth, as a system of beliefs, and then dogmaticly hold to that assertion. Sounds like a religion to me.

[Duvodas]

Chiblade;204236 said:

Lots of people who are religious believe this too. Take for example christians who believe in ID while not knowing the processes behind it, just because its a "scientific" way of passing off creationism as secular. They assert its truth, as a system of beliefs, and then dogmaticly hold to that assertion. Sounds like a religion to me.

I don't want to get you wrong, but sounds like you mean that everything we believe in is a religion. I mean, if I want to "dogmatically hold to the assertion" that my wife is the best on the world, would I have just created religion there? Maybe I'm way off topic, but that's what you sounded like.

And by the way, who said religion was always "sure." As far as I remember, every religious book has been written by humans. And, alas, humans are not perfect.

[Chiblade]

Duvodas;204244 said:

I don't want to get you wrong, but sounds like you mean that everything we believe in is a religion. I mean, if I want to "dogmatically hold to the assertion" that my wife is the best on the world, would I have just created religion there?

Not nescesarilly(sp?). To quote myself

chiblade;204252 said:

"[religion is] a system of beliefs"

. And I might add that I kinda left something out of the definition of religion. There is a second part that I, wrongly, assumed everyone assumed. That is, that religion is a system of beliefs that defines three things: 1) Man's place in the universe, his nature and purpose; 2) Why the world is the way it is, its nature and pupose (this part of the question ussaully aslo deals with the problem of evil; & 3) Who or what god is if he/she/it exists and why, the nature and purpose of god.

Your dogmatic assertion about your wife (who is, I am sure, a wonderful person) is not a religion under that definition. First, your assertion isn't a system of codified beliefs. Second, it doesn't answer the three question every religion answers.

Duvodas;204244 said:

And by the way, who said religion was always "sure." As far as I remember, every religious book has been written by humans. And, alas, humans are not perfect.

Every religion I've ever heard of titles itself to be sure with the one exeption of agnosticism, and every agnostic I've ever met or heard of is an adherent to the religion of Modern Science.

[mxlm]

Quote

Hey, I think he's right, now you remind me about that line. I mean, the definition of a religion is a system of dogmaticly held beliefs, right? And so far as I know, the majority of people in the US, not to mention everyone I've met from other parts of the world, dogmaticly believe in the near infallibility of science w/out knowing that much of the processes behind scientists assertions. They seem to have forgotten that in highschool science we're taught that science is never sure, only highly probable.

IME, pretty much everyone who says 'science is religion' is a willfuly ignorant, intellectually dishonest tool whose goal in life is to get Jesus into biology courses. So my gut reaction was to associate Butcher with those types, which led me to toss the book aside.

Not that I'm calling you a tool, mind.

[Falco]

I see what you mean, but he had to insert magic into the current world. Meaning he had to dismiss science. Meh.

[Coco with marshmallows]

but he doesn't really dismiss science, merely states that it isn't the be-all and end-all, which is exactly what every writer of low fantasy has to do.

And he does, after all, have a number of characters who regularly use guns/bulletproof armour, mace, etc.

P.s. - before anyone jumps down my throat for the 'low fantasy' comment,
low fantasy = normal world with a twist, eg Dresden, HP, etc
high fantasy = completely fantasy world, eg Malazan, LotR, etc.

Coco, timidly trying to settle the argument (hopefully. Don't attack me )

[mxlm]

Argument? Not with me, surely?

*shrug*

[polishgenius]

mxlm;204276 said:

IME, pretty much everyone who says 'science is religion' is a willfuly ignorant, intellectually dishonest tool whose goal in life is to get Jesus into biology courses. So my gut reaction was to associate Butcher with those types, which led me to toss the book aside.

I don't think he was saying it is a religion itself, but that people treat it that way, like Chiblade says. Which I agree with - the amount of people who hold forth on scientific concepts they don't actually understand at all and are taking on faith from the scientists, how is that different from a religious approach of faith?

I'm a Christian, and I'm more scientifically educated and rational than most people who try to convince me that I shouldn't be because it's not rational.

[Chiblade]

mxlm;204276 said:

IME, pretty much everyone who says 'science is religion' is a willfuly ignorant, intellectually dishonest tool whose goal in life is to get Jesus into biology courses. So my gut reaction was to associate Butcher with those types, which led me to toss the book aside.

Not that I'm calling you a tool, mind.

Well thank you for not calling me a tool. Not that I would have minded (I'm reading MOI currently and everyones favorite First Sword just keeps getting better and better).

polishgenius;204483 said:

I don't think he was saying it is a religion itself, but that people treat it that way, like Chiblade says. Which I agree with - the amount of people who hold forth on scientific concepts they don't actually understand at all and are taking on faith from the scientists, how is that different from a religious approach of faith?

I'm a Christian, and I'm more scientifically educated and rational than most people who try to convince me that I shouldn't be because it's not rational.

Thank you Polish, you are a genius, or something close to it, because you summarized what I was trying to say in less than half as many words. I to am a christian, and it was my study of the scientific theories arrayed against ID and my disapointment with fellow christains who don't "know thier stuff" (unlike you) and just "vote the party line" about scientific issues that brought me to the realization about science being treated like a religion by most people.

[mxlm]

Quote

the amount of people who hold forth on scientific concepts they don't actually understand at all and are taking on faith from the scientists, how is that different from a religious approach of faith?

Short version: because their everyday lives are inundated with the works of 'Science'; cars, TVs, video games, movie theaters, cameras, airplanes, traffic lights, computers, medication, radios...the list goes on, and on, and on. And no one with even a modicum of respectability tells them these things result from anything other than 'Science'.

I suppose believing, well, everyone, is faith, but it's not really equivalent to religious faith.

Now, the people who think that science will solve all the world's problems...sure, call 'em religious.

[Abyss]

I took Butcher's 'science/religion' comment to be a nutshell description of how the majority of humanity in his books cannot accept that magic exists/works, ergo, belief in science = disbelief in magic. Nothing more profound than that and it's not really a running theme in the books beyond the basic idea that most of what happens is not known to the general public.

That said, MXLM, i won't try ad nauseum to convince you to try the series again, but will note your reason for shunting it aside seems to be based on one turn of phrase by the author. Then again, i know people who chucked WoT half way through 'a wind blew, took a left at the mountain and kept on blowing somewhere down a beach where a butterfly farted, turning the wind south and changing weather patterns etc etc...', so as you like.

@COCO- i could be wrong about this, but my take was that your 'typical' swords and sorcery, brave knights, heroic farmboys etc is 'high' fantasy. Butcher, and other like him, who set their fantasy books in the present time, write 'urban' or 'modern' fantasy.

There's also 'dark' fantasy, which, depending on who you ask, is either gothic dark and heavy stories with lots of sex, blood drinking and curses; anything with vampires; or anything sword and sorcery'ish where the 'high fantasy' definition doesn't fit.

- Abyss, favours 'drunk fantasy'.

[Coco with marshmallows]

again, abyss - showing my age


the traditional split was high/low going by the descriptions i gave above, totally fantastical and a twist on the normal world. they covered everything that way.

Coco, doesn't like these flashy,new fangled multi-categorised types of writing. Preferred it when there was fiction/non-fiction. Now i can't find the books i want in the store, and i'm too scared to ask the young assistants in case they happy-slap me or something #gummily smacks mouth#

[mxlm]

Abyss, you don't need to convince me to try it again; I fully intend to.

Just not before I read the other dozen novels I have in my to-read pile.

[Abyss]

Fair enuf.

In other news, the tv series has been officially tanked.

- Abyss, can't really summon much regret.

[Chiblade]

Abyss;204694 said:

Fair enuf.

In other news, the tv series has been officially tanked.

- Abyss, can't really summon much regret.

Neither can I. It sucked. Period.

[Zanth13]

If they were to make a movie who do you think would play the best dresden???????????????????

Maybe Hugh Jackman.
Maybe Bruce Willis (just because they both get the shit kicked out of them allot.)

[Abyss]

I despise myself for saying this, but Jude Law would nail it.

Jackman's too wolveriny and Willis is too old.

On the other hand, Samuel Jackson would just rock it...

"Hand me back my staff."
"Which one is it?"
"It's the one that says 'badass muthafukin' mage on it', fool."

- Abyss, yes, it's 'Pulp Invocation'...

[Zanth13]

Jude Law is in trouble for beating up Poporazzi, lol,

a rule breaker just like dresden...

though shalt not kill with magic

and

though shalt not strike down poparazzi

[polishgenius]

For some reason I think Jamie Bamber would be pretty good. Got the right mix of world-weary and badass.

[Tsundoku]

Oddly enough, except for the height thing (which really isn't important to the story) I always saw Harry as more like Sebastian Spence.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0817819/

Cheers,

La Sombra, more like Marty Feldman
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001204/
("Money can't buy poverty")