posted
I have almost finished Asimov's Robots/empire/foundation series, and while he clearly was a genious, I can't help but think there was clearly something missing in his work. It was something he would deny to his death, and yet something that continually crept into his work. This subtle theme I am referring to is the notion of a higher power. After reading of his life, it is clear that Asimov was an athiest, and yet he saw an inherent 'goodness' in humanity, a 'natural morality' if you will. Such a thing is a lovely pie in the sky idea, but doesn't have much grounding in reality. One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
This is where OSC trumps Asimov. While sharing several similar themes, and both displaying great genious in their storytelling, OSC's character development and plot creation display a more true depiction of reality - that humans are ultimately and eternally flawed in and of themselves. It is only an appeal to a higher power that lifts them above their decrepit nature. His stories of men of faith (regardless of their religion) are lights to humanity and continue to pull me in to whatever new endeavors he is involved in.
I'm not writing this to preach or to condemn man. I'm simply writing because as a believer, I see the true beauty in complete humility. The glory of admitting one's powerlessness and putting one's fate into the hands of one much more capable, powerful, wise, and loving.
Thank you, Orson, for living your faith.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were you to seek to understand those of us who are optimistic agnostics, you might come to see how a lack of faith in a "higher power" does not equal a lack of faith in general.
I actually believe people are happier if they learn to take a healthy pride in themselves and their achievements rather than view themselves as helpless and debased. To me, at least, there are far more concrete reasons to have faith in humanity than there are to have faith in God.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
My personal observation is that the general balance of people act this way, regardless of belief in a higher power. Don't underestimate the number of people who are willing to perform good deeds just to reap the reward (religious, tactile, or other.)
EDIT: I think I misread the original post the first few times through. To clarify, I don't believe that one has to believe in higher powers to motivate selfless actions.
And if you could, please apply a little breaking to the number of new threads your making and let some of the forum regulars catch up and post.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
as to your post: "My personal observation is that the general balance of people act this way, regardless of belief in a higher power. Don't underestimate the number of people who are willing to perform good deeds just to reap the reward (religious, tactile, or other.)"
Can you call it a good deed if it is to reap reward? What makes it good? The selfish motivation of reward? I am speaking of a truly selfless act. Is there such a thing?
And, as you say, one need not believe in higher powers to motivate selfless actions, then please name an example. I can think of only one - sacrificing one's life, and even then it can become clouded.
And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC? If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:OSC's character development and plot creation display a more true depiction of reality - that humans are ultimately and eternally flawed in and of themselves.
*laugh* You make some assumptions here that I think are grossly flawed.
But, then, I'm an agnostic who believes that people are at heart good, and do not need to debase themselves -- humbly or otherwise -- before any hypothetical, mythical higher power to realize the decency of their own natures.
quote:Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot?
I'm genuinely sorry for you. It must be awful to enjoy only those works produced by people who share your narrow opinion of God. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC? If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
I don't understand. Are those the only choices? And I'm setting aside the fact that I'm struggling to think which of OSC's novels could be considered about God rather than about people and stories, and I'm coming up blank. And I've read at least...oh, forty stories of his?
I also think it's presumptuous in the extreme to say, "You don't really think that, I can tell because of 'x'. You're just in denial." It's offensive because it's insulting and implies a heaping helping of ignorance on the part of the object of your criticism, and presumptuous because if he doesn't know himself well enough to be an accurate judge of what he thinks about God, who the hell are you to label him as 'in denial'?
A belief that people are good and an atheist philosophy are not, as you so casually dismiss, mutually exclusive. There is an enormous distance between 'decent' and 'good', and 'without sin' or 'stainless'.
Compounding your apparent ignorance of both Asimov and Card, I wonder what exactly you think about two of Card's heroes-Ender Wiggin and Bean (Julian Delphiki) who don't do the things you label glorious? I wonder which chapter in which book Ender admits his powerlessness and puts his complete and utter faith in some higher power? Exactly where does Bean ever think someone else is more capable, wise, and thoughtful than himself? Those two are nearly paragons of humanism.
I think you need to take a quick glance within yourself and find out if you read these books by these authors and reached conclusions you already held, or learned something you didn't expect? It took only a quick glance at your post to understand that it was the former and not the latter, but that sort of remark shouldn't bother you.
I am a man of faith but I have also been an atheist (well, agnostic really, I would never have categorized myself as atheist, not for any length of time) and I cannot tell you how irritating it is for anyone to come up to me and tell me in parable or plainspoken words that the things I say I believe, they're just nonsense, that I don't know myself as well as they do. Even as (mostly) benign criticisms like the ones you've made here, they're still irritating and presumptuous.
Instead of telling people what they're actually thinking, it's more respectful and effective to simply ask.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:OSC's character development and plot creation display a more true depiction of reality - that humans are ultimately and eternally flawed in and of themselves.
*laugh* You make some assumptions here that I think are grossly flawed.
But, then, I'm an agnostic who believes that people are at heart good, and do not need to debase themselves -- humbly or otherwise -- before any hypothetical, mythical higher power to realize the decency of their own natures.
And here's the funny thing. I'm a religious fanatic (or so I'm told) who believes that people are at heart good, and do not need to debase themselves -- humbly or otherwise -- before God to realize the decency of their own natures.
I think Mr. Seldon is making the common mistake of presuming that his religious views are the only religious views that exist, and that there's a dichotomy between his religious views and pure secularism. It's a little arrogant.
Okay, maybe not "little". Very arrogant. And not a little sad, because I think the vast majority of conflicts in the world can be traced to that kind of thinking.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot?
I'm genuinely sorry for you. It must be awful to enjoy only those works produced by people who share your narrow opinion of God.
I agree. And Hari? You probably won't understand this, but getting me and Tom to be in agreement is an impressive thing. It says a lot about you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are exactly right Rakeesh. I was wrong in making such a broad presumption. The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it. I know he was a staunch non-believer and that was perfectly fine with me. What I was trying to say (and I guess I didn't put it clearly) was that what was missing in his books was the fullness of character that OSC has, and from that I made the (unsafe) leap of saying that that fullness was derived out of OSC's faith.
Now, Rakeesh, I feel you are doing more than simply replying to my ideas, and that is fine if you take offense as well, but there is no denying that OSC writes from his faith. Having also read "40 books" by the author, it is quite clear he draws on it for inspiration. Is there a problem with that? To me, there is not, and yet perhaps it does bother some.
You mention the characters Ender and Bean as prime examples of humanism, and yet I think Card would be quite disgusted to learn his writing was considered "humanistic". If you have read any of his essays, you'd see that he is quite the opposite. Just because someone is not a humanist does not mean they hate humans. It just means they recognize their short comings and realize they are the be all and end all. Because if we were the be all and end all, wouldn't that be kind of depressing?
Also, on a side note, I tire of being attacked and called ignorant, irritating, short sited, and presumptious for outlining what I believe. We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian. Then you become labeled extremist, or fundamentalist or bigotted. Talk about your religious freedom.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian.
*laugh* Oh, my poor little victim. I cry all sorts of tears for how cruelly you're oppressed. You're right; no one should criticize you for coming here to insult them in the name of "religious freedom."
By the way, why do you believe Card made both Ender and Bean staunch atheists if he'd be disgusted by humanism?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: thanks for the tip.
as to your post: "My personal observation is that the general balance of people act this way, regardless of belief in a higher power. Don't underestimate the number of people who are willing to perform good deeds just to reap the reward (religious, tactile, or other.)"
Can you call it a good deed if it is to reap reward? What makes it good? The selfish motivation of reward? I am speaking of a truly selfless act. Is there such a thing?
I'm troubled by the idea that getting something out of an action lessens the value of that action. It implies a worldview in which we're not supposed to be happy. In which we're bad, and in which our suffering is a good thing.
If I love God and want to do God's will, then doing so benefits me. Only a robot can be truly selfless. Being selfless means there's no self there, and that's inhuman.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: And, as you say, one need not believe in higher powers to motivate selfless actions, then please name an example. I can think of only one - sacrificing one's life, and even then it can become clouded.
You're assuming that selflessness is a value to strive for. I dispute that. Strongly.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC?
He's an amazing writer. I love the characters (I've never really cared about any of Asimov's characters), I love the ideas, I love the action, the plot development... pretty much everything.
But I love Leo Frankowski's Conrad books, and I think his views on women and on Jews are foul beyond belief. I love a lot of Richard Wagner's music, despite his Jew-hatred. Are you saying that you can't distinguish between art and the artist?
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. Talk about just being here to stir the pot.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Ender and Bean "Compounding your apparent ignorance of both Asimov and Card, I wonder what exactly you think about two of Card's heroes-Ender Wiggin and Bean (Julian Delphiki) who don't do the things you label glorious?"
Rakeesh, one could almost look on these characters as anti-heroes. Neither one of them ever finds the happiness they so desperately are in need of. They are both of almost unlimited human potential, and yet they are never satisfied, never happy, never fulfilled. While we still don't know what will happen with Bean, we have seen the End of Andrew Wiggin, and he discovered that higher power, that almost omnipotent being in Jane, In the end he couldn't do it all on his own. Food for thought I guess.
You could also look at the homecoming series. A very clear example of Card's faith at work.
He didn't try to hit you on the head with it, and I think that's why he is so popular. Yet it is still there, and for that we are all rewarded.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Neither one of them ever finds the happiness they so desperately are in need of. They are both of almost unlimited human potential, and yet they are never satisfied, never happy, never fulfilled.
Not true in either case. Have you read the entire series, both Bean's and Ender's?
The Homecoming series is based directly on the book of Mormon. Several people, myself included, don't like it because it does hit you on the head with his faith. I like stories, not sermons.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
It was never my intention to anger those of different beliefs, nor did I intend to portray myself as a victim. I am a white male christian and as such I have been afforded many blessings in my life and I have little to complain about. My faith is a center of strength in my life and I am thankful for it everyday. I was merely attempting to share in it a little bit, but it seems I have misrepresented it here in this forum a bit.
My main point is that whether or not Card is explicit in his novels about his beliefs, he is explicit in his essays and I wanted to applaud him for it.
With that said, thank you all for your replies, this has been a very interesting topic, and will likely continue.
I guess I'm better at stirring the pot than I realized, although with such an explosive subject I could have been a little more foresighted.
posted
Card is fascinated by people. His stories, with few exceptions, are powered by people: what they do, why they do it, how they act in groups, and how they deal (or don't) with the consequences of their actions. Card himself is religious and so are many of his characters, but do not make the mistake that his faith ultimately guides all of his writing.
Asimov was fascinated by ideas. His stories, with few exceptions, were powered by concepts and puzzles. His characters were often one-sided or stereotypical because they were never the point.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Side note: I am not religious at all -- I consider myself an apatheist -- but I love Card's work because his characters are rich, well-rounded people with complex emotions and motivations. That's partly because he doesn't deny them their spirituality, whatever it may be, and far too many writers ignore that to their character's detriment.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, OSC has been pretty clear that he considers Ender a humanist (certainly the speakers for the dead movement is humanist). I think actions that OSC lets his protagonists take are subconsciously/consciously informed by his particular belief system, but when that happens, it seems to create a repetitiveness in his writing, as often as any "fullness", in my opinion. You obviously feel differently.
BTW, outlining what you believe isn't the issue, it's the implying you understand what and how others believe that is wrangling most.
["If I am reading you right", for example. I have found it the case on this forum that people rarely read others correctly, particularly around anything related to morality and ethics.]
posted
And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC? If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
I enjoy OSC because of his writing. The questions his characters wrestle with interest me just as much regardless of whether we arrive at the same places for the same reasons. But I post on this site because of the vast array of people here who generally respect each other even though we have representation from all walks of life, all ages, all religious faiths.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Such a thing is a lovely pie in the sky idea, but doesn't have much grounding in reality. One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
I kind of disagree with this. But, perhaps because I have an unusual way of looking at religion.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This nice, Catholic girl would just like to go on the record as agreeing with the agnostic, the atheist, and the Jew.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup! I thought I had coined the term but a quick Google search found not only a site already set up, but a place selling DKDC ("Don't Know, Don't Care") jewelry.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it.
I'm puzzled. How could your title, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", mean anything other than "deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it."?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Communism is the way to go! To each to their abilities, to each of their needs.
Asimov I consider the greatest science fiction aurthor to have ever lived.
Only if it were apart of a hybrid system. Seriously, do you know ANYTHING at all about Mao and Stalin? Mao was the worse. Breaking his people down with fear, using every resource for his own self angrandisement (sp) Terrible person. What is needed is a combination of looking out for the interests of all of society and those of the individual. Hopefully we are struggling towards as system like that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Blayne's tongue may have been desperately trying to escape his cheek while he wrote that first sentence. It looks like it failed in the attempt.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: My main point is that whether or not Card is explicit in his novels about his beliefs, he is explicit in his essays and I wanted to applaud him for it.
It's worth noting that many people feel his essays are excessively didactic and uninteresting for this reason. You'll find that his fiction is considerably more popular, perhaps because it is in general less preachy. (And yet, IMO, I consider his fiction a more effective moral argument than his essays.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreeing with starLisa is peculiar. Agreeing with Tom Davidson is odd. Agreeing with both of them at once (as well as some other folks) is bizarre.....
I'm a deeply religious guy--something of a fundamentalist, in fact. Yet I've never agreed with the idea that people are evil by nature. I don't always agree with Asimov's perspectives, but that's one area where I admire him.
I enjoy the fact that OSC is not afraid to integrate his faith and writing, and don't take quite the offense at his essays that some people here do. (They remind me of traditional writing in the churches of Christ, actually. *wry grin*) But I agree with him less often than I do with Asimov, ironically enough.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian.
*laugh* Oh, my poor little victim. I cry all sorts of tears for how cruelly you're oppressed. You're right; no one should criticize you for coming here to insult them in the name of "religious freedom."
By the way, why do you believe Card made both Ender and Bean staunch atheists if he'd be disgusted by humanism?
I will strongly disagree with the assertion that Ender and Bean are both "staunch atheists." At one point Bean actually says he believes in God. And Ender, I think, is more of an agnostic.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: thanks for the tip.
as to your post: "My personal observation is that the general balance of people act this way, regardless of belief in a higher power. Don't underestimate the number of people who are willing to perform good deeds just to reap the reward (religious, tactile, or other.)"
Can you call it a good deed if it is to reap reward? What makes it good? The selfish motivation of reward? I am speaking of a truly selfless act. Is there such a thing?
And, as you say, one need not believe in higher powers to motivate selfless actions, then please name an example. I can think of only one - sacrificing one's life, and even then it can become clouded.
And more specifically, what are your views on the writings of OSC? If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to care too much about a higher power. Yet you post on a site devoted to an other who is quite devoted to God. Do you enjoy OSC inspite of his faith, or are you here to stir the pot? Just curious.
How old are you?
:::Edited because I read his later posts.:::
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem I have with some authors is that they don't have the skill to convey their worldview as part of a consistent, interesting, and unfolding narrative. In fact, they tend to just take a shortcut and give some character a longish speech about how the world MUST work. Or, worse yet, they just break frame and preach at the reader directly.
Card manages to avoid those problems to the point where I can enjoy even his works that ARE more or less directly taken from his personal social or religious views. Even the series that I knew ahead of time were more or less based on LDS narrative elements I was able to just enjoy the story and not worry about whether the books represented an attempt to preach a particular message. I simply enjoyed the time I spent reading them.
Asimov, probably because his stories were less strong on character and dialog -- his own analysis of the original Foundation Trilogy is brutal and spot-on -- tends to give the reader his views on things in a less story-driven manner. But still, he does it well because he was telling a story and was pretty well wrapped up in the story when he was writing. Part of his genius, I think, is being able to keep it all straight given that he pretty much published first drafts and his writing process was a lot like a compulsive disorder (from what he said about about it).
I found some of Asimov's to be off-putting. When Asimov stuck strictly to science (which he really did know well), I liked his essays immensely. In other cases, I felt like he came off as an egotistical, opinionated, narrow-minded jerk. I can't remember specifics now, but there were definitely a few times where I thought "whoa, what a @$@#$#."
I find it's often the case that when people are well respected in one field, they become sought-after "opinion makers" on practically everything. (My favorite example is Linus Pauling. For some reason, after he shared the Nobel Prize, he was like an instant expert on everything. Reporters would get quotations from him on anything that sounded even vaguely like "science," whether it was in his area of expertise or not.)
Ultimately, I have just learned to discount people's opinions when they stray from their area of true expertise.
It's possible for even a brilliant man like Asimov to have merely a layman's casual knowledge of a vast many topics -- especially complex social issues -- and his opinions should be treated pretty much the same way one would treat the opinion of just about any other person who lacks real depth of knowledge in a specific area.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it.
I'm puzzled. How could your title, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", mean anything other than "deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it."?
quote:By the way, why do you believe Card made both Ender and Bean staunch atheists if he'd be disgusted by humanism?
Ender was not a staunch atheist - he specifically states that he believes in God in Xenocide, and he makes no such positive statement either way prior to that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, as much as I dislike inaccurate descriptions of others beliefs, which Hari almost certainly did, I don't think putting a *laugh* in front of a statement disagreeing with his own opinion is any better on the politeness scale.
quote: We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian.
I think this is true to some extent, but only because the term "Christian" tends to be broadly defined by those outside the club and narrowly defined by those inside it.
That is, the family next door would probably state that the "Christianity" of practicing Catholics is questionable, and that LDS doctrine is cultish, possibly even Satanic. This is not my personal belief, mind you, but they would definitely exclude a great number of people who would self-identify as "Christian" from their definition of True Christianity. (I think most Christian denominations do this, actually).
Why they haven't wrapped their house in aluminum foil, I'll never know. (FYI, they are not named "Flanders", but the kids can't come over anymore because they saw a Peewee's Playhouse video here once, and I let my kids watch Scooby Doo. *shame* )
Christianity, in my experience, is like a room that is much smaller on the inside than it is on the outside.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it.
I'm puzzled. How could your title, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", mean anything other than "deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it."?
I think Hari simply misspelled, "Oops."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: The title of my post was also somewhat misleading. I did not mean that deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it.
I'm puzzled. How could your title, "Asimov - a man of faith in complete denial", mean anything other than "deep down Asimov was a man of faith who just refused to admit it."?
Well Hari?
I think our Hari may have turned out to be a hit and run poster. I think he didn't realize who/what he was dealing with when he dropped in here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alternately, you know, he could have been posting from work and had other things to do with his evening, and will be back online today. You can't expect a guy to become as addicted as we all are on his first day.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: By the way, as much as I dislike inaccurate descriptions of others beliefs, which Hari almost certainly did, I don't think putting a *laugh* in front of a statement disagreeing with his own opinion is any better on the politeness scale.
Maybe not, but you have to admit it's either pretty humorous or pretty sad that he can be so out of tune with other people's feelings that he could write the initial post in this thread, then cry "oppressed Christian victim" when he's called on it.
To be fair, though, he later tries to apologize and for the most part he seems sincere. That's more than many people are willing to sacrifice in the name of civil conversation. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, Rakeesh, I feel you are doing more than simply replying to my ideas, and that is fine if you take offense as well, but there is no denying that OSC writes from his faith. Having also read "40 books" by the author, it is quite clear he draws on it for inspiration. Is there a problem with that? To me, there is not, and yet perhaps it does bother some.
Who's denying it? You're speaking against an argument that hasn't been made. There's a term for that.
quote:You mention the characters Ender and Bean as prime examples of humanism, and yet I think Card would be quite disgusted to learn his writing was considered "humanistic". If you have read any of his essays, you'd see that he is quite the opposite. Just because someone is not a humanist does not mean they hate humans. It just means they recognize their short comings and realize they are the be all and end all. Because if we were the be all and end all, wouldn't that be kind of depressing?
I think you're on shaky ground talking about how disgusted Card would be to hear his characters viewed in such a way, but at least this time you prefaced it with "I think". I've read every essay the man's got posted on this website, including his World Watch and War Watch essays. Don't you understand humanism well enough to know that it basically devolves to "Love thy neighbor"? Furthermore, not all types of humanism are incompatible with religious beliefs.
quote:Also, on a side note, I tire of being attacked and called ignorant, irritating, short sited, and presumptious for outlining what I believe. We live in a society that preaches tolerance and religious freedom, until you say you're a Christian. Then you become labeled extremist, or fundamentalist or bigotted. Talk about your religious freedom.
Well if you tire of being attacked, you could try not saying ignorant, irritating, short-sighted and presumptuous things. As for your little persecution complex...well, frankly I think it's hysterical. Our religious freedom isn't threatened. I didn't even mention your Christianity, all I said was that I found it irritating when religious people speak the trains of thought you have (and the same for atheists, really), and you leapt to my attacking your Christianity?
So apparently an attack on religion-which I didn't make-is in your eyes an attack on Christianity. There's more of that presumption. Oh, and 'as a side note' I didn't label you a fundamentalist, extremist, or bigot.
quote:Rakeesh, one could almost look on these characters as anti-heroes. Neither one of them ever finds the happiness they so desperately are in need of. They are both of almost unlimited human potential, and yet they are never satisfied, never happy, never fulfilled. While we still don't know what will happen with Bean, we have seen the End of Andrew Wiggin, and he discovered that higher power, that almost omnipotent being in Jane, In the end he couldn't do it all on his own. Food for thought I guess.
Card's messages are not often about happiness but about joy, which to me means finding something good and honorable and worthy of love in a life filled with suffering. Wiggin and Bean strove all their lives, yes, and never really found nice happily ever after ending happiness, it's true. But they both also constantly worked for the betterment and protection of their friends, human and otherwise, at great cost to themselves.
In what way, exactly, is that an 'anti'-hero? Is there some unwritten rule that heroes must find happiness, lest they be anti-heroes? As for Jane, when you make remarks like that I cannot help but think you're speaking from ignorance. Because there was something of Ender in Jane, and the other way around. Jane was not Jane until she met Ender. The governing spirit was there, but did not become Jane until Ender.
As for the Homecoming books, of course they're an evidence of faith. They're a work in telling the Book of Mormon in a science-fiction setting. It would be almost impossible not to be a work of faith.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe not, but you have to admit it's either pretty humorous or pretty sad that he can be so out of tune with other people's feelings that he could write the initial post in this thread, then cry "oppressed Christian victim" when he's called on it
True, but the laugh I'm speaking of isn't related at all to that issues. It's targeted squarely at his statement of what he believes, not what he thinks others believe. And it was made before the "oppressed" comment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Hari shows quite a bit of promise. He's well spoken, obviously reads and thinks about the stuff he's reading, and seems interested in getting along. He's got opinions that a lot of us disagree with pretty strongly, but many people here have opinions that a number of us disagree with pretty strongly.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Alternately, you know, he could have been posting from work and had other things to do with his evening, and will be back online today. You can't expect a guy to become as addicted as we all are on his first day.
Let this be a warning to you, Hari. If you maintain your present course, hopeless addiction lies in your future. Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:yet I think Card would be quite disgusted to learn his writing was considered "humanistic". If you have read any of his essays, you'd see that he is quite the opposite. Just because someone is not a humanist does not mean they hate humans. It just means they recognize their short comings and realize they are the be all and end all. Because if we were the be all and end all, wouldn't that be kind of depressing?
You should Google 'Secular Humanist Revival' sometime, Hari. They used to have an audio of it in the Hatrack Store, but I guess they sold out...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For fear of setting off another round of violent response, I offer this: Clearly I have been caught in a position that seems very difficult to defend, and to even some laughable and juvenile, as witnessed by some of the more derrogatory replies I have recieved. To be honest, I did not expect such a one sided, polarized debate, so I feel it necessary to be completely honest with the forum.
As is quite obvious from my posts, I am a Christian (duh). However, I am also well educated in the sciences and arts due to 5 expensive years of university (student loan OUCH). Already, this begins to open up room for contradiction in one's life. But why stop there? My best friend is a WASP, yet on his wedding day, as he married a beautiful Lebanese girl, he announced he was converting to Islam (huh?!). I shall continue. My wife was raised a Christian also, but it is helpful to note that her father was born and raised in Han China as a staunch buddhist. Her dad's family remain staunchly buddhist and we get to put fruit by Buddha every time we visit them in Toronto.
Now, my intention is to neither induce sympathy, nor is it to show how tolerant I am, and it is definately not a covert attempt at racism. My point is that life is usually wrapt in contradiction, and yet I have little doubt regarding my belief in Christ. Why? Because of faith. Some might immediately laugh at me for my faith in the unknown, but upon further examination, don't we all possess some faith in the unknown?
Those who are religious will not disagree, but those who are not, just consider it for a moment. Doesn't belief in evolution require the same, if not more, faith than belief in Christ? (DID I just open another can of worms? Or as my American friends say, Night Crawlers?) Ok, evolution aside, b/c that's another day, to those of you agnostics, doesn't a belief in man's inherent goodness require even an ounce of faith? Its not something that can truly be proven one way or another is it?
This is my point, we all have faith, whether we admit it or not. That is what makes being human so wonderful, and is often what separates humanity from robots in Asimov's books - their ability to have faith, to make a leap of reason. While many of you hit it on the head re: Asimov's humanism, I still do not back off from saying that he was a man of faith - I guess I just had to qualify that statement a little better.
Oh yes, and about becoming addicted - you're right, this is deadly... good thing my job is so slow! Forgive me for not being able to reply in a more timely fashion.
And on a completely unrelated note - Has anyone seen V for Vendetta yet? I know its only out today, but BitTorrent probably had it out for a month Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
