Religeous conservatives like sci fi and fantasy too

[ClintMemo]

If so, I would say that everyone has a moral responsibility to tear the fences down.

But only if they tear their own down first, if not, then people would just be trying to push the content of their fenced in areas onto other people, unaware where their own fences are.

[Anarkey]

Let me amend my statement: Not all racists are unreasonable or ignorant in a general sense, but racism itself can only persist through unreason and ignorance.  Hence, anyone with racist opinions must necessarily have a piece of mental landscape with a sturdy fence around it, even if reason has free reign over the rest.

I appreciate you revising your statement, but I still don't buy it.  I just don't believe that if we were all Mr. Spock, in control of our emotions and ruled by logic, that we would suddenly be good people without prejudices or blindspots.  As I said before, rational thinking does not automatically lead to empathy or attunement with others and their plights.  This stubborn adherence to the supremacy of rational thinking is a concept I encounter over and over again in sf circles and it always perplexes me.  To those of us who don't just blindly accept that everything can be fixed by thinking about it, it comes across as a quirky obsession.  I sometimes wonder if this logic worship isn't a reformulation of that old Natur/Geist dichotomy, with the ideal being cerebral instead of spiritual.  Wherever it comes from, philosophically, it is not something I am willing to take for granted as a given, and I've been offered no evidence that more rational beings are happier, more successful, better people, sexier, less racist, or whatever. 

I also don't believe that thinking about one's own prejudices magically makes them vanish simply because they might be, under rigorous analysis, non-rational.    Rational thinking is just as useful for rationalization as it is for self-analysis, and it's extremely difficult for the person doing the thinking to tell which one they are indulging in if they themselves are the subject (hello, observer bias!).  I could probably go on, but I've already tackled this once, on the thread about rational thinking a few months ago.  I didn't convince anyone that enshrining rational thought was perhaps a flawed approach to better understanding ourselves then, either.

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

[Mr. Tweedy]

Does that include the fences around religious belief??

Absolutely.

If so, I would say that everyone has a moral responsibility to tear the fences down.

But only if they tear their own down first, if not, then people would just be trying to push the content of their fenced in areas onto other people, unaware where their own fences are.

I was referring only to one's own internal fences.  A person does not have the ability to tear down a fence in someone else's mind.  (You can beat someone else into submission, but that is not at all the same as changing their mind.)

[Mr. Tweedy]

I just don't believe that if we were all Mr. Spock, in control of our emotions and ruled by logic, that we would suddenly be good people without prejudices or blindspots.

I don't believe that either.  I didn't say that a Pure Reason Revolution (good band) would lead to utopia, I just said that racism is irrational, and that's all I meant.

[Russell Nash]

Does that include the fences around religious belief??

Absolutely.

I don't buy that one bit.  Belief by definition has no factual grounding.  Yet you can never convince anyone that their belief is flawed unless they were already doubting it on their own.  It's worse they trying to tell a smoker that he would be better off if he quit.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I'm confused.  Are you questioning my sincerity or saying that you think religious belief is inherently irrational?

Belief (Oxford American Dictionary): "The acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

Confused again: How does that definition exclude factual grounding?

[ClintMemo]

I just don't believe that if we were all Mr. Spock, in control of our emotions and ruled by logic, that we would suddenly be good people without prejudices or blindspots. 

I think it's more basic than that - without emotion, a lot of "good" and "evil" have no meaning.  And some decisions can't be based on logic (is it logical to be in love?).

People need to be more logical, but not totally logical and emotionless.

[Russell Nash]

I'm confused.  Are you questioning my sincerity or saying that you think religious belief is inherently irrational?

Belief (Oxford American Dictionary): "The acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

Confused again: How does that definition exclude factual grounding?

See here's the funny thing.  Your definition is from a site I don't subscribe to, and none of the definitons from Dictionary.com say that belief is acceptance of something that is true.  It says belief is confidence in something being true, but it isn't neccesarily true.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) 
be·lief  –noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

American Heritage Dictionary
be·lief  n.  
1    The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2    Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3    Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

WordNet
belief - noun
1. any cognitive content held as true 
2. a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary 
beˈlief1 [-f] noun
 faith or trust
Example: I have no belief in his ability.
beˈlief2 [-f] noun
 (often in plural) something believed
Example: Christian beliefs.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: be·lief
Function: noun
: a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence

The last definition gets close, but all the others say you can hold a belief that the earth is flat and there are no facts backing that up.

As far as your personal beliefs… Having read what you write in these forums, I believe that your belief is firmly behind the fence.

Before you scream at me I have one question.  Did you totally discount the gospel of Judas before or after you read it?

[Mr. Tweedy]

As far as I can see, all those definitions are pretty much the same, and pretty much the same as the one I gave.  Belief is accepting that something is true or real.

What you said, and what I disagree with, is that "belief by definition has no factual grounding."  That is not true according to any of the definitions you provided.  Belief might have factual grounding or it might not.  You might hold the erroneous belief the Earth is flat, or you might hold the accurate belief that the Earth is round.  In either case, you are believing something.

As far as your personal beliefs… Having read what you write in these forums, I believe that your belief is firmly behind the fence.

I'm sorry I've come across that way to you, but that accusation is really too vague for me to offer a defense.

Before you scream at me I have one question.  Did you totally discount the gospel of Judas before or after you read it?

I haven't read it and I'm not going to.  Do you have any idea how many heretical "gospels" there are out there?  It would take a year to read them all, and I don't feel motived to start reading them just because The Da Vinci Code has made them cool all of a sudden.  Have you read every book that you discount?  Has anyone?

I don't scream at people.  You can't believe as I do without developing a thick skin.   

[Russell Nash]

As far as I can see, all those definitions are pretty much the same, and pretty much the same as the one I gave.  Belief is accepting that something is true or real.

Accepting that something is true means it's true and you say, "ok, I guess it's true."  The other definitions say, "I think it's true whether it is or isn't."

[eytanz]

As far as I can see, all those definitions are pretty much the same, and pretty much the same as the one I gave.  Belief is accepting that something is true or real.

Accepting that something is true means it's true and you say, "ok, I guess it's true."  The other definitions say, "I think it's true whether it is or isn't."

Russel - you seem to be conflating - "I think something is true even though I don't have independent evidence for it" with "I think something is true regardless of whether it is true or not". Those are very different positions.

[Swamp]

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

[Anarkey]

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

Here's my cute puppies offering, hopefully marginally on topic:  a book that I think political conservatives and/or religious people might enjoy is A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr.  If you've read it and are religious and/or conservative, share your opinion.  If you have other books that might fit that category, share them now.  If it works, we might even end up on topic again.

I've never read the sequel, but I hear it's not as good.

[Russell Nash]

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

This is not where I was trying to go, but having reread it, I realize I shouldn't go banging away at stuff like this late on a friday night.(I'm 6 hours ahead of the East Coast) 

Please indulge me while I back up.  Mr Tweedy had said No one should have any fences around ideas in their heads.  I find this idea to be absolutly preposterous.  I therefore did the quick (and I admit nasty) attack.  I hit right at his fenced area.  It was the easy attack, but I made a sloppy job of it.

I'll try something else. 

I don't think it is possible to not hold on to some thoughts.  I have some I don't even try to hide.  When I see someone who dresses and acts like they're dangerous, (Mostly types trying to act like rap "singers" who claim they were violent criminals) I treat them like a clear and present danger.  Given where I live they are almost never black.  They are white or Turk.  This is "attitude/clothes" racism.  It lives inside of a fenced area in my head and I gladly give it the funding for better security.

I think everyone has something like this.  The question is more a one of how ready they are to admit it.

[Mr. Tweedy]

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

In my defense:

I essentially made two statements: 1.) Racism is irrational and 2.) we should all try to be as rational as possible.  For some reason, I've taken heat for those statements.  This seems bizarre to me.  I was not trying to start any debate and wasn't expecting any: Those seem like statements everyone would agree with.

[Swamp]

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

In my defense:

I essentially made two statements: 1.) Racism is irrational and 2.) we should all try to be as rational as possible.  For some reason, I've taken heat for those statements.  This seems bizarre to me.  I was not trying to start any debate and wasn't expecting any: Those seem like statements everyone would agree with.

Mr. Tweedy and Russell --

My above comments were not necessarily aimed at you personally (even though I used your names).  I'm just tired of the same debate that seems to show up in every thread.  Tweedy, you've become a magnet for criticism.  Some of it you've brought on yourself (especially early on) and some of it is just residual since you speak up to defend your beliefs (which I admire).  In either case, we don't need to discuss it on this thread any further.

Anarkey --

I appreciate your efforts to bring the discussion back on topic.  It's interesting that you bring up A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr.  It is about the third reference I've heard about it recently.  I am going to have to look that up and read it.  What is the general premise?

[eytanz]

I appreciate your efforts to bring the discussion back on topic.  It's interesting that you bring up A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr.  It is about the third reference I've heard about it recently.  I am going to have to look that up and read it.  What is the general premise?

Very briefly? It is a story in three parts, examining the evolution of faith in a post-apocalyptic future.

[DKT]

Wow, that was a great elevator pitch.  I might have to pick that up, too!

[Holden]

"The greatest science fiction novel of all time is A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller, Jr. C.S. Lewis highly recommends it in his Letters. It has been in print every year since it came out in the 1960s, selling millions of copies, yet is not well known or publicized in the literary or science fiction establishments. Why? Because it is a very Catholic book. The hero and protagonist is the Church herself. It is also a profoundly pro-life book."

-Peter Kreeft, author and C.S. Lewis scholar


I've read it. The book is divided into three loosely connected parts, each of which could be a stand alone story. Part one was an entertaining story with fun characters and an interesting plot. Part two left me a bit flat, but part of the reason for that may have been my disappointment in the realization that part two was not a direct continuation of one, and the subplots in one had ended completely. Part three was disturbing, yet entrancing. Reading part three was like having your eyes locked on a grotesque figure, horrified, but unable to look away.

I would describe it a pro-life book, a Catholic book, but not necessarily a Christian book. Catholics are Christians to be sure, but this book embraced Catholicism at the expense of ‘mere’ Christianity.

[Anarkey]

Very briefly? It is a story in three parts, examining the evolution of faith in a post-apocalyptic future.

That was succinct and exact; I'm not going to be able to better than that, even with an extra two dozen words.  If you want a more rambling, less eloquent description, kmmrlatham, ask me again.

I do encourage you to read it, though.  It's an excellent book. 

[Swamp]

I will definately be adding that to my "Need to Read" list.  I typically don't seek out sf books or stories specifically for religious content, but I do enjoy when an sf book or story treats the subject of religion respectfully or at least without contempt. 

For instance, I have never had a desire to read the Left Behind series.  It just seemed like a pretentious premise and I wasn't interested in fictional speculation about the Book of Revelations with action hereos.  Now I know I may be off base, but I'm just not interested in reading it.

On the other hand, there was a story in the Writers of the Future anthology a couple years back.  (I can't remember the title and I'm away from home) about a Catholic preist who is also an accomplished scientist who attends the unveiling of a supper collider that may cause the next big bang.  He is warned of this by Muslim scientists, and after reviewing their data, tries to stop the exhibition.  In the end, he resorts to sincere prayer.  I really enjoyed his inner struggle to come to terms with his interests and devotion to religion and science.  It was very interesting and well done.  It didn't just bring out the stock Catholic preist character with oppresive motives that I am used to reading about in sf and fantasy.  (However why does it always have to be a Catholic preist or a televangelist.  There are various other religions out there) 

Like I was saying, I didn't seek after this story, but I enjoyed it and appreciated how it was written. 

[Swamp]

Another example of a fun story with religous content was Last Respects featured on Psuedopod and written by the forum's own DKT.  It is about church going vampires who take communion literally and look forward to the ressurection.  I said the following in the episode comments:

Regarding religion, like I said, you were very creative.  I had never thought of how vampires might interpret communion to be a celebration of their blood sucking practices.  I suppose a religious person could be unsettled if they took the story very seriously, but I mean, come on, we are talking vampires here.  And honestly, you showed religion in a positive light in the meaning, direction, and comfort it brought to the characters.  The sunrise funeral was a cool idea, and I liked that ressurrection had meaning for vampires, too.

[DKT]

Dude, your check's in the mail 

[Russell Nash]

Dude, your check's in the mail 

What are your rates?  I can start pimping too.

[DKT]

I work to a strict model: Pimp first, pay later.  (*You* pimp first, *I* pay later...just in case you were wondering.)