I'll have to dig out that Joe Halderman book.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Jan 11, 2009 4:24 PM EDT |
It looks like he might have and give it a read, it looks like he might have got a few things right, in his social commentary.. |
| tripwire45 Jan 11, 2009 9:19 PM EDT |
Which ones? |
| tracyanne Jan 11, 2009 9:37 PM EDT |
Well he obvious wrote it before Waco, so it just goes to show. |
| tripwire45 Jan 12, 2009 10:19 AM EDT |
Which begs the question, if all cults are religious, are all religions cults? I remember thinking like that some decades ago while reading another science fiction novel (which name escapes me) that "proved" that the only way to relate to the universe was through the scientific method and anything metaphysical was superstition. I felt very gratified to see my assumptions about the universe confirmed in the book I was reading. Now, decades later, when my perspective on the universe around me has changed somewhat, I realize that you can "prove" anything in a work of fiction, including the concept that all people of faith are duped. Of course, you can also "prove" time travel" and "faster-than-light" space travel in the same manner. While there is an ultimate and objective reality to the universe, all people struggle to try and understand that reality. The scientific method, while (at least in theory) wholly objective, lacks a purpose or meaning to existence and operates without a moral center. While faith, in its many forms, is generally subjective (the historical "provability" of at least certain portions the Bible is a point of interest, to say the least), it does provide what secularism and atheism lacks...an enduring moral compass that adds meaning the direction to existence and to human lives. It's up to each person to explore their universe and to do their best to determine where their meaning lies. It's easy to dismiss another person's perspective as irrational and certainly Occam's Razor doesn't seem to point in the direction of God, at least on the surface of our experiences. When debating one viewpoint vs. another, the saying "blowing out another person's candle doesn't make yours shine brighter" seems to apply. The beauty of writing a novel is that you are given the opportunity to not only entertain but to present your personal perspectives. Reviewing a novel provides the same opportunity, as do discussion forums. |
| theboomboomcars Jan 12, 2009 10:35 AM EDT |
Quoting:Which begs the question, if all cults are religious, are all religions cults?The top definition from google is Quoting:followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practicesThough there are many others that restrict the definition to exclude some religions. One thing that I have thought of recently is that if the Universe is infinite and random then there is no fiction because every thing we can think of would have to exist somewhere no matter how improbable because the improbability is finite. |
| tripwire45 Jan 12, 2009 11:36 AM EDT |
If you Google "is the universe infinite", you'll get quite a long list of results. I found NASA's site on the Shape of the Universe to present a nice little summary of our current understanding: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html If we assume a Big Bang event, either one occurring at random or one caused, shall we say, by "creative design", then the universe started out as finite and, even though it has expanded vastly, is indeed finite. The general question posed then is, will the universe expand forever or will it stop expanding and "go into reverse", ultimately collapsing upon itself? No one, except our "creative designer" (which presupposes you believe in such a designer), has that answer, though this doesn't stop us from looking for the solution. If there is no "creative designer" (God), then all religions are false, man-made, and represent a desire of people to have meaning and order in their lives. It also probably represents a defense against the fear of dying, since most faiths include an "immortality clause". Religion also serves to present a stable, non-changing (depending on the religion) code of morality and ethics that offers some stability in a world where morality is becoming increasingly relative to context (that is, there is no real "right and wrong"). If there is a "creative designer" (God), the next question is, does God care about people, His (or Her, depending on exactly what religious form you subscribe to) creations enough to reveal Himself (or Herself) to? If so, then does God reveal a plan for our existence and the existence of the universe? If so, then one belief system among the plethora out there must be from Him (Her) and the rest are bogus. The task then becomes, to determine which one is the plan presented by the Creator and to "choose wisely" (quoting the Knight from the film "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"). If you don't believe in God, then the issue is moot. Simply go on as you always have and don't give it another thought. If you're right, you die and nothing you ever did matters on a cosmic scale. End of story. If you're wrong, then it depends on what God's perspective is on those who had a chance to seek Him (or Her) and failed to do so as to what happens next. Decisions, decisions...and it's only Monday. |
| jdixon Jan 12, 2009 1:14 PM EDT |
> If there is no "creative designer" (God), then all religions are false, Not necessarily true. I believe some religions do not have a God as such, and may not depend on a created universe. |
| tripwire45 Jan 12, 2009 1:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:Not necessarily true. I believe some religions do not have a God as such, and may not depend on a created universe.I stand corrected. Of course, that certain religions don't employ a "creative design" model doesn't mean ipso facto that they correctly represent the nature of the universe. |
| jdixon Jan 12, 2009 2:06 PM EDT |
> Of course, that certain religions don't employ a "creative design" model doesn't mean ipso facto that they correctly represent the nature of the universe. No, it merely means that they aren't refuted by the non-existence of such a "creative designer". But since that was a logical error, I thought I should point it out. |
| TxtEdMacs Jan 12, 2009 2:17 PM EDT |
RE: " ... enduring moral compass that adds meaning the direction to existence and to human lives." But that compass has has pointed in the wrong direction too many times to have it be an assured guide to what is right. [serious or joking? I let you guess, however, my credo is: don't be confused by facts when it stands in the way of a good punch line.] |
| tripwire45 Jan 12, 2009 4:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:But that compass has has pointed in the wrong direction too many times to have it be an assured guide to what is right. Religion has been blamed for everything from the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Lindberg Kidnapping. Could it be that it's humanity that has misused a "faith" in God to justify their own bad behavior rather than that faith itself? That would mean it's not the compass that's bad, but the some people who claim to be following it are merely following their own desires. Quoting:serious or joking? I let you guess, however, my credo is: don't be confused by facts when it stands in the way of a good punch line To quote Indiana Jones in the film "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall". Humanity looks to science to reveal facts. We look to faith (not religion which, after all, is just a set of rules) when we seek truth. I do appreciate a good punch line, though. ;-) |
| tracyanne Jan 12, 2009 4:46 PM EDT |
As Albert Einstein said "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." I think he's wrong, it's not stupidity it's credulity, but then again where does one leave off an the other begin. |
| tripwire45 Jan 12, 2009 4:47 PM EDT |
Didn't Einstein also say, "God doesn't play dice with the universe"? |
| tracyanne Jan 12, 2009 4:48 PM EDT |
he certainly did. |
| tracyanne Jan 12, 2009 5:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:Religion also serves to present a stable, non-changing (depending on the religion) code of morality and ethics that offers some stability in a world where morality is becoming increasingly relative to context (that is, there is no real "right and wrong"). Morality always was relative to context, and even the morality and ethics of religions is contextual. The difference is that in a religious setting the context and what is appropriate in that context is what the God makes it. In other words (for example) genocide is evil unless God says it's not. Or (for example) the murder of children, is evil unless you are a representative of God, and you ask God to kill the children. Morality and Ethics are social constructs, that is why they vary from culture to culture, and religion to religion. But they are social constructs dependant on the fact that we evolved as social animals, so what we, as humans, consider to right and wrong, is merely the codification of evolved patterns of behaviour that serve/served to keep the social group intact, and ensure it's survival. |
| ColonelPanik Jan 12, 2009 6:09 PM EDT |
My moral compass is outdated.
Anyone have a moral GPS? Einstein was right! |
| jdixon Jan 12, 2009 6:15 PM EDT |
> ...is merely the codification of evolved patterns of behaviour that serve/served to keep the social group intact, and ensure it's survival. Or, equally valid, the codification of patterns of behavior which serve to keep the social group intact and ensure its survival, because they match the way we were designed. There's no real difference between the two. People are what we are, and we haven't changed significantly in recorded civilization. So whether the rules were handled down from above by a designer or worked out by trial and error, as long as they match our nature they'll work. |
| tripwire45 Jan 12, 2009 6:22 PM EDT |
tracyanne, what you say is true only if there is no absolute moral standard (an absolute God). If there is one Creator for the universe who "makes the rules" so to speak, then there is an absolute moral standard regardless of human context. Of course, plenty of people across time have claimed to represent God and used their claims to support the commission of heinous acts including torture and murder. I think part what Haldeman was trying to illustrate in his novel, was that people use other people's faith in God to control them. Hardly a new idea. His assumption though, is that *all* expressions of faith have their origins in an elite group wanting to control "the masses", and that there are basically only two groups of religious people: The schemers and the pawns. Part of the reason I wrote the review (I almost never review fiction) was to point out that people of faith see a third role that they represent; people seeking their Creator. Sure, I could be mislead by an untrustworthy religious leader, but only if I knew nothing about my faith and just accepted what I was told without checking the source material. I could also be mislead by TV commercials and political leaders (regardless of party). I wanted to point out in my review that, except for the character of Martha, no person of faith represented in the novel was considered to be more than a cardboard cut out villain or hapless victim, and even Martha lost her faith once separated from her context. This might or might not happen in real life, depending a person's (here, I'm going to say it) relationship with God. Having faith is what enables people to maintain a moral center when removed from their context, even for an extended period. A person of faith doesn't consider themselves an "animal", social or otherwise, since no other creature has the awareness to ask "What's the purpose of life?" I didn't write the review or participate in this thread to "prove" my point of view...only to indicate that Haldeman didn't even consider it. I'm sure the vast majority of science fiction readers who do not have a faith in a "Creative Being" will love the book and read Haldeman's religious commentary without blinking an eye. However,it doesn't hurt to get the minority opinion, which, at least in terms of this thread, I represent, and it's why I wrote the review. |
| jdixon Jan 12, 2009 7:19 PM EDT |
> Part of the reason I wrote the review (I almost never review fiction) was to point out that people of faith see a third role that they represent; people seeking their Creator. Tripwire45, have you ever been to Vox Day's blog? I think it might be of interest to you. He's made similar points in the past about how little most sci-fi writers understand faith. |
| azerthoth Jan 12, 2009 7:53 PM EDT |
Politics and morality are at times difficult to separate from open source at the best of times. Religion, short of discussing saint stallman, that should be a no brainer. I'm sure that there are appropriate places for implications of religion and morality upon various societies. 'given a long enough span of time, the survival rate of any test group drops to zero' after that you can have your definitive answer for these and other burning questions. |
| tracyanne Jan 12, 2009 8:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:tracyanne, what you say is true only if there is no absolute moral standard (an absolute God) There is an absolute moral standard. it's the set of genes that control our ability to function successfully as part of a social group. However we codify it, whatever unsubstantiated claptrap, we attach to it, that is the absolute. |
| tripwire45 Jan 12, 2009 10:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:Tripwire45, have you ever been to Vox Day's blog? I think it might be of interest to you. He's made similar points in the past about how little most sci-fi writers understand faith.So many blogs, so little time. Thanks for the tip, jdixon. Quoting:There is an absolute moral standard. it's the set of genes that control our ability to function successfully as part of a social group. However we codify it, whatever unsubstantiated claptrap, we attach to it, that is the absolute.Guess we'll just have to disagree, tracyanne. Cheers. -Trip |
| tracyanne Jan 12, 2009 10:21 PM EDT |
::shrug:: |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!