posted
Mr. Card (and whoever else would like to respond),
I am writing in response to This article you wrote for beliefnet. In it you talk about the Jedi beliefs as though they have any impact on the real world, which is fine, but what's really strange is the irony in your words. Now, Mr. Card, I have loved every one of your books you've ever written. Your style is amazing. Your descriptions are always so well detailed while refraining from the overdone. The characters are well developed. The scenes are intense. However, it seems that whenever you write about the real world, something is broken. You seem to say things that make little or no sense. I'm using the Jedi article as an example here to illustrate my point:
You say:
quote:It's one thing to put your faith in a religion founded by a real person who claimed divine revelation, but it's something else entirely to have, as the scripture of your religion, a storyline that you know was made up by a very nonprophetic human being.
Also, you state that
quote:Of course, all this quibbling would be moot if, in fact, the Jedi religion actually worked—if people could tap into the Force and do the miracles that the Jedi routinely perform.
Right. Whereas Christians can "tap into" Jehovah and have bad guys smoten and just generally be saved from badness by Jesus, who flies in wearing a cape and zaps the evil right out of the world every day, whenever anyone prays to him.
quote:In a way, this is kind of bittersweet. It shows that the universal hunger for meaning is still prevalent, even in our agnostic era, which is encouraging; but these true believers will eventually realize that the philosophy behind Star Wars is every bit as sophisticated as the science — in other words, mostly wrong and always silly.
Again, completely unlike Christianity, which asserts that a man born of a virgin died and came back from the dead. Or, even sillier, that a man in early America translated four golden tablets that were written in a language that only he could read that he was directed to by one of the original Native Americans - who were originally white because they were actually from Israel.
Mr. Card, while I respect you very highly (as does my brother, who sold you some paintings in a store in Asheville, NC last summer), I honestly think you should stick to writing fiction. You're a far better writer than I could ever hope to be, and I'm not stooping to the level of personal attacks like many have done. But seriously, Mr. Card, please think about what you're saying when you write about the real world. Strange, illogical statements are hard to defend.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, wait I'm confused. What in these makes no sense? They make sense if you read them without your little interpretations and then they become all, "Fulkfsajkfljsfijalf!" Or nonsensical, in other words.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't make sense at all. Mr. Card is being logically inconsistent. He's saying that the "Jedi Faith" would be great if it provided actual results, but it doesn't provide actual results, so it doesn't make sense. However, Mr. Card's own religion doesn't provide direct results either - nor should it. Religion is about faith. When you start trying to "prove" a religion scientifically is when you run into problems. Using logic to defend God is like using a toothpic to defend yourself against a broadsword. It's not about logic; it's about faith.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, don't get me wrong - I agree that if someone takes the whole Jedi thing seriously, it's completely illogical. I just don't think the Mormon faith is any more logical, and I don't think there's any more proof that someone like Joseph Smith is a prophet than there is that Luke or Annakin Skywalker is some sort of prophecied savior.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that Lucas says he made it up and it's not meant to be a religion. You don't see that as a big difference?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He isn't saying what you claim he's saying.
He's saying that it was written as fiction, and so should be taken as fiction. However, if that which was written as fiction turned out to be true (a la if believing makes it so as in the "outside" of Xenocide), then by all means stick with it. Absent that, living by something that never claimed to be anything but fiction is silly.
I also suspicion that Mr. Card (and countless others) would strongly disagree with you that his own religion doesn't provide direct results.
Welcome to Hatrack.
--Pop
[Edit -- dangit, Dag. I suppose I can deal with the fact that you're intelligent and quick, but how do you expect to be a successful lawyer when you're succinct?]
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am quite sure people would disagree with me. If I didn't think anyone would disagree, I wouldn't bother posting What's the fun of a debate if everyone agrees?
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But this thing about which they would likely disagree doesn't make a good debate topic -- the cross-examination is generally something along the lines of "prove it" or "nuh-uh." Maybe I'm biased, but I've always preferred discussion to debate anyway.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fun of a debate isn't mere disagreement. It's the well-reasoned responses to points of disagreement. You've been given well-reasoned several points of disagreement.
It's your turn to make it fun.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with your arguments in general. I'm not sure I agree with them but I don't think you do any offense by posting them. However, what bothers me, and I am one who will complain when bothered, is you plea for Mr. Card to stick to only fiction. Why should he? I, and many of the people here, love reading his reviews and opinions of the world around us. I don't always agree with what he says but he has said some very interesting things that have lead me to see things a little differently. So you don't like his article about the Jedi religion, so what? Start asking around here about how people feel about his articles on gay marraige, or politics or even movies. We all have different opinion about some of the things he says through his review column but we all, or most of us, respect that it is his right to say them. Just as it is your right to disagree with them, but don't ask the man to stop having an opinion. That's like asking him, or anyone else, to stop breathing. I doubt it is possible. I mean, do you want people to tell you to shut up everytime you voice an opinion?
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've been given well-reasoned several points of disagreement.
Where?
Your first point you issued a quotation, and didn't even argue it, much less post a refutation. Your second point you incorrectly interpreted the quotation. In your third point, Mr. Card was making a comment on the philosophy, and you took it as a comment on the science.
D'oh!
I was going to refrain from posting this as soon as I realized that Dagonee rather than DirtyGreek posted that, but I'll pute my idiocy out there for all to see. Helps keep me humble. That which cannot be avoided must be embraced, after all.
posted
The Christian religion does not claim that anyone who becomes Christian gaines super powers (other than going to heaven when you die...and you have not shown that that has not happened). The Jedi of star wars DO get super powers for becoming a Jedi.
Also, the Christian religion was created by the followers of the son of God (or if you are an athiest, you would argue it was created by people who claimed to be following the son of God). The Jedi religion was created by a made who said it was fiction, created only for his movie.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems a little surprising that the points Lupus and beatnix made even had to be mentioned... As Dagonee pointed out, Dirty Geek's argument lacks any sort of foundation and hence lacks any reason for debate.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, the Christian religion was created by the followers of the son of God (or if you are an athiest, you would argue it was created by people who claimed to be following the son of God).
More accurately, you would argue this if you were anything but Christian. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, from the perspective of an adherent to a One True Religion, wouldn't this be the perspective on pretty much all other religions? That is, they are fictions, created by people to deceive and/or entertain. Does it make it more meaningful because people believe in the originator's false claims to be a prophet? Or considering that the other religions are usually maintained by people who are constantly claiming to be in touch with the divine, can it actually be better to not adhere to the dictates of liars and con men?
From the (non-Western but still a prevelent religious belief) perspective that religious meaning is more discovered and possibly created than revealed, a fiction that speaks to you can be a powerful tool in understanding the universe.
As to the Jedi thing itself, it's a fiction, but one based in the work of Joseph Campbell with a smattering of Zen Buddhist stuff thrown in. While I think people would be better served to grapple with these things directly, I can think of many worse bases for faith - for example, if you assume that they wree not divinely inspired, there are plenty of strong arguments that Luther and Calvin created their religions out of their seemingly severe psychological problems. I'd expect that the further experiences of at least some of the people who follow this belief would have moved far beyond the admittedly weak philosophy and gee-wiz magic tricks of the movie, possibly into many of the same realms that the sources of this idea dealt with.
It comes down to what does it mean to be a religion, really. Is a religion that which gives people a perspective on meaning and the universe, a means for tapping into the divine and/or divine power, or something else?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is silly. The difference is obvious. The Jedi exist in fiction and never claim to be anything other than fiction. The specifics of the Jedi powers are not based on the work of Joseph Campbell, and even if they were, Joseph Campbell does not claim to be a prophet or the son of God.
At the very least, without getting into divine powers and such, shouldn't a religion at least *claim* to be true?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the very least, without getting into divine powers and such, shouldn't a religion at least *claim* to be true?
Why? Especially why from the perspecitve of someone who is going to believe that it is false no matter what people claim?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, the Christian religion was created by the followers of the son of God (or if you are an athiest, you would argue it was created by people who claimed to be following the son of God).
More accurately, you would argue this if you were anything but Christian.
very true...I was thinking along the line of athiests wouldn't believe that there was a God to be a son of...but of course other religions would believe there is a God, but that Jesus was not his son.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Joseph Campbell does not claim to be a prophet or the son of God.
quote:very true...I was thinking along the line of athiests wouldn't believe that there was a God to be a son of...but of course other religions would believe there is a God, but that Jesus was not his son.
Could we at least give a nod to the idea that people's interpretation of religion excedes the boundaries of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know, from the perspective of an adherent to a One True Religion, wouldn't this be the perspective on pretty much all other religions? That is, they are fictions, created by people to deceive and/or entertain.
From the Mormon perspective, most other religions are seen as honest attempts to understand the moral, the spiritual, and the divine, which attempts are successful to varying degrees, and which may or may not involve some amount of true inspiration. We may consider ourselves to be the "One True Church" but that doesn't automatically mean that we reject all the others as abject silliness.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems we cannot even agree on a basic definition of religion. You asked "Why" a basic tenant of religion should be that it claims to be true.
The answer is: who could possibly believe in a religion that does not even purport to be true? Other than crazy people. Nobody. That should be so obvious that to refute it totally defeats the concept of further debate.
It's like trying to debate someone who claims that trees do not grow.
Just -- utterly bizarre.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff (assuming that you're going along with the Jedi = silly thing), So, from that perspective, how is someone living as a Jedi in an honest attempt to understand the moral, the spiritual, and the divine something worthy of ridicule? What is it about the nature of their belief that makes it different from other non-LDS religions and shuts them off from these things?
---
Hey TL, I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me crazy, thanks. Just because you don't understand why someone believes the way they do doesn't mean that they are crazy. Perhaps the problem may lie more in your lack of perspective.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't call you crazy. At no point in this thread have you said, "Hey, I'm a Jedi." If you had said that, my approach would have been different.
You can call it a lack of perspective but you still have not even responded to my basic question: How can you believe that something is true when it makes no attempt ever to be taken as truth?
I keep asking because I am trying to understand it. And you guys keep ignoring the question.
This is not meant as an attack. I really would like to know.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Joseph Campbell does not claim to be a prophet or the son of God.
quote:very true...I was thinking along the line of atheists wouldn't believe that there was a God to be a son of...but of course other religions would believe there is a God, but that Jesus was not his son.
Could we at least give a nod to the idea that people's interpretation of religion exceeds the boundaries of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim?
Not sure what you are getting at. We were talking about specific aspects of religions that believe in a God. I don't think a religion has to claim to come from God to be thought of as a religion. I do think that the creator of the religion has to think of it as true though. I would still think it was false, but it still would be an attempt at finding truth. However, it seems silly to create a religion from a fictional book/movie. I don't think that believing that starting a religion from a movie is silly is due to a prejudice against religions that don't conform to jewish/muslim/christian beliefs. I think society in general holds the belief that fictional movies are fictional.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who said I believe that what I believe is true? What I believe is a specific (though shifting) perspective on what is. Through the nature of belief, I both come to understand and create/influence what is. Truth and falsity don't enter into it. Truth (with a capital T) is unknowable. It can only be lived. To abstract it, to analyze it, is to destroy it. Life is an art, not an equation.
I'll ask again, why is it important for a religion to claim that it is true? Also, again, from the persepctive that all other religions besides my own are false, why is a religion that doesn't claim it is true worse than one that does?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lupus, What I was taking issue with was that people's definitions of religion seem to be centered around the revealed truth, transcendent deity perspective of the Levantine religions, which was excluding all the other possible and real world alternatives.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you don't believe that what you believe is true? That strikes me as something of a contradiction. What you're saying is that you don't, in fact, believe what you believe.
And you're upset that we are not giving credibility to your beliefs. Odd.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, How about, instead of insulting me, you try to answer my questions? I'm not actually upset, but I am trying to get you past the point where you think that anyone who disagrees wtih you on this is completely unreasonable. If you're willing to make that effort, I'm pretty sure that it will be rewarding.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Your first point you issued a quotation, and didn't even argue it, much less post a refutation. Your second point you incorrectly interpreted the quotation. In your third point, Mr. Card was making a comment on the philosophy, and you took it as a comment on the science.
D'oh!
I was going to refrain from posting this as soon as I realized that Dagonee rather than DirtyGreek posted that, but I'll pute my idiocy out there for all to see. Helps keep me humble. That which cannot be avoided must be embraced, after all.
--Pop
And the funny thing is that I was complimenting you when I posted that.
Squick, there's an obvious difference between someone taking a work of fiction and drawing moral and philosophical meaning and principles from it and someone believing that a set of mystical teachings, stated outright by their creator to be a fictional part of a fictional story, are true. It's not a question of finding truth where one can find it. It's a question of someone believing something to be true when the person who made it up says it's not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess because religion is generally defined as a belief or a faith in something. If you believe or have faith in something, you think it is true. When you start out with something that is designed to be false, and start believing in it, then it seems delusional in my opinion.
I think a person's belief is important in many aspects of life...both in religion and in other ways.
One area that belief is important in, is when you make a statement. If you make a statement that is false, but you believe it to be true, I don't think you are lying. But if you make a statement that is false, and you know it is false it is a lie.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, all this quibbling would be moot if, in fact, the Jedi religion actually worked—if people could tap into the Force and do the miracles that the Jedi routinely perform. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. Whereas Christians can "tap into" Jehovah and have bad guys smoten and just generally be saved from badness by Jesus, who flies in wearing a cape and zaps the evil right out of the world every day, whenever anyone prays to him.
I think you misunderstood. I think he meant that if someone could prove that they could actually tap into the force and shoot lightning out of their fingers because of the force then Jedi-ism would prove to be a real religion. Christianity never claimed to grant its followers these powers if they followed the Christian religion. (that's just how I understood the comment)
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the thing I'm saying is that religion is not adequately defined in terms of truth or falsity. Even within western religions, there are traditions that regard religions as more a way of determining what questions are important rather than a set of answers. Outside these religions, this idea has an even greater sway. In many of these traditions, truth in terms of religious belief is seen as a conceit and an illusion. Belief is rather a place to stand when looking at the world. Often coupled with this is the idea of a immanent divinity, i.e. one that is part of creation and thus part of the believer, rather than a transcendent, separate being.
I'd suggest that most of the people who claim to be Jedi do not in fact believe in the specifics of the Jedi religion as laid out by the Star Wars movies, but rather find many aspects of this belief and what this belief leads them to to speak to them in a meaningful way. To a certain extent this can be seen as analoguous to the syncretic adoption of pagan practices by Christianity, i.e. the fertility festival of Easter, though not being Christian in origin, nonetheless spoke to a deep part in people and thus was brought into the Christian religion, as were so many other things.
And, again, looking at it from the perspective of a OTC, I don't see any reason why a false religion that people don't actually claim is true is so different (and may even be better) than a false religion that people claim is true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, at no point in this thread have I insulted you. And I do not think that anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable. That's a blanket statement with no basis in truth. I don't find *your* position to be very reasonable because you say you don't believe what you believe, while at the same asking us to take your beliefs seriously.
To me, that is the very definition of unreasonable.
And sure, I will answer your questions.
1) Why is it important for a religion to claim that it is true?
Looking up the definition of religion, we find:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
So my answer to your question is: Because *belief* is a requirement of religion.
2) Also, again, from the persepctive that all other religions besides my own are false, why is a religion that doesn't claim it is true worse than one that does?
The answer is: Because *belief* is a requirement of religion.
And by the way, I don't share the perspective that all other religions besides my own are false. For the record, my perspective is that every religion is true.
Well then, how can I question yours? Because you yourself say you don't believe in it.
And *belief* is a requirement of religion.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, But I do believe in it. I just don't believe that it is true or that truth/falsity is a domain in which my belief can be understood. I believe in the world that I sense, but I don't believe that the world that brain makes out of the electrical impulses from my sensory neurons is true. I believe in my response to a book or a paiting or a sunset or any other aspect of existence, I believe in the stories I tell, the dances that I dance, the prayer that I live, but I don't believe that any of these are true. They are. Truth doesn't enter into it.
Could you explain to me how you see every religion as being true? Do you mean literally tru, such that Jesus is the son of God and that Jesus is not the son of God but only a prophet and that Jesus is just some guy and there is no such thing as a separate God and that God is only one of the many aspects of Vishnu and Yaweh is an evil deity and Jesus is the incarnation of the snake from the Garden of Eden story and everything else? If these are all literally true, how do you deal with the logical contradictions? If they are not literally true, in what fashion are they all true?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, well, with clarification your position makes a little bit more sense. Thanks.
And sure, I will talk about my personal beliefs here. I believe in God, and I believe that all religions, or nearly all religions anyway, represent ways of communicating with God. I believe that anyone who is earnest can have a relationship with God, regardless of the specific nature of their beliefs. That all the specific trappings of each religion are irrelevant. I don't believe that God cares about the seemingly arbitrary rule-systems that exist within the different religions. So every religion is true.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am someone who rejects organized religion as a general principle. But I respect it and understand that faith is a part of people's lives. I accept certain levels of what I consider to be self-deception with the understanding that other human beings think it is real.
I don't understand how anyone could believe that the Jedi are real. It has never even pretended to be anything other than fiction.
Does that make sense?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I'm not getting it, you cry! It's not that you believe the Jedi are real, it's that you like the principles they practice and the idea of The Force seems accurate to you and your acceptance of it can no more be defined than a rainbow can be eaten! What is, is, and it is.
posted
It seems to me that those who profess a belief (or non-belief <cough...cough..Mr Squicky>) in the "Jedi" religion are extrapolating out the philosophy and spirituality that speaks to them. To that point, it doesn't matter if George Lucas declares the Jedi religion to be untrue because it has been adopted into these people's personal belief systems and made real.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My religion believes that he who looks for humor in a moose will find it and thus live out the spiritual truth that all meese are humorous.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
What's the fun of a debate if everyone agrees?
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
