God, Fantasy and Belief

I think the confusion is that my definition of religion is so much broader than I have properly explained. I am not referring to organized religion, but rather to belief in some kind of transcendent reality. Any kind. Magic presupposes that reality, an ontology that allows for it. So all fantasy presupposes a transcendent reality of some sort that underlies the world in question. I might be mistaken, but find me one that doesn't. Even less overtly magical worlds as in The Mists of Avalon, still are religious according to this interpretation.
 
KatG said:
Then again, they've found that those who don't receive any real religious training as children tend not to be religious in adult life, .
Click to expand...




My parents both grew up with religion, nothing "strict" mind you but they went to church, read the bible and other such nonsense (yup you guessed it, I'm not into religion).

I've over the years met many of my parents friends and the vast majority grew up with religion as a factor in their lives be it some form of Christianity or some other faith.

95% of them disdain religion today and do not practice or believe in the faiths they grew up with.

So I guess what I'm putting forth is that growing up with a bible/etc doesn't mean you have to stay blind to the outside world as an adult.
 
Gary Wassner said:
You think the categorical imperative really works? It doesn't for me.
Click to expand...

You stated
Simply because otherwise all moral choices would ultimately be arbitrary
Click to expand...
and I responded. Because it doesn't work for you, does that mean it is arbitrary? I think it supplies a basis for the argument a moral code does not require a god to authorize it.
I don't know that the golden rule really does make sense for everyone.
Click to expand...
Christianity is based on the love of a god and the golden rule. These were only definitions/commandments Jesus Christ ever identified for living a decent life. In broad terms, Islam seems based on the same two commandments. Judaism's 10 commandments treat the same two issues but takes three commandments to say love god and seven to say treat your neighbor as yourself.
Since the English language and U.S. culture derive from these traditions it would seem to me the vocabulary would be pretty much the same if they weren't around. Except of course using the name of god in vain; that would be hard to do.
 
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.


Every time? Gosh, I don't know Hereford. I think it presupposes right and wrong. It doesn't help us to determine right and wrong.


I guess I am not making my point clear at all. I wish sometimes that I could have some of these discussions face to face so that we could explain ourselves better.

What grounds the choices we make if there is no ultimate judge? What grounds the decisions we make if there is no God to tell us the difference between right and wrong? So many have tried to come up with a sufficient foundation, a la Kant. But I don't believe that any work. The question I am asking is not a utilitarian one. It's a moral one. And I don't think that there is an answer.

Here we go again!! Looping back to faith when what I really wanted to know is what your god or no-god (sorry Scott) looks like to you. Not whether there is one or you should or shouldn't believe.
 
Well if god is the foundation of your moral system, then it is logical to have as a reference for that system his/her/its rules. And we do in the bible/Koran etc. Now these books are mutually contradictory and inherently contradictory in the rules god hands down...but let's put that aside for a moment.

To take these rules, these foundations of morals as from god then one has to believe in a literal and accurate representation of those rules in your holy book of choice. No human intervention, because if there is the basis of your morals is not absolutely from god.

So plenty of problems piling up already. Now on another tack you have to make the assumption that as humans we are not able to come up with foundations of a moral society without the intervention or help of a god. Well we've managed to do plenty of other things without the overt or apparant help of god, so why should this be a special case?

Most human societies regardless of their god have come up with broadly similar basic moral rules. Rules that parallel the evolutionary necessity of survival of a family or family group (tribe). Do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not kill, incest is banned and so on. Equally to enforce said rules an uber parent has being invented...known as god. It makes sense for intelligent creatures to parallel naturalistic structures as both an enforcement mechanism and an explanatory one (why is there thunder? God makes it).

So I would argue that the basic morals of humans are hard coded in to us as a necessary survival mechanism, deriving directly from our evolutionary background as a hunting, cooperative, tribal-family species.

Now our morals to non-genetically linked groups or to rival nation groups decline. Again not surprising in the extended tribal resource competitive sense.

We feel more moral obligation in circles outward from us. Direct family first, friends, colleagues, nationality, civilization (The West for instance). Hence the very low coverage overseas disasters receive on the news compared to a much smaller event affecting people of the same nationality.

The point being morals are by and large hard coded, god is not necessary; we have to LEARN to extend those hard coded morals to those peoples and groups outside our immediate circles.
 
I guess you are still holding out for the arbitrariness of Kant's moral code.
I do admire the insinuation of the new requirement for a moral code: that it must be something you can do every time. Sort of like: thou shalt not kill which, even in the strictest implementations, gets a little twisted here and there. Most times it means thou shalt not kill members of your extended family but others not of us can be killed if they warrant same. I believe we call that a just war.
Thou shalt not steal works most times unless it's a neat download you've come across or a way to interpret the tax code to your advantage or a hundred other petty thefts we commit each week from spouse and children and relatives.
Every time?! Show me a moral code that us weak-willed folk never destined to be saints or Presidents can live with every time.
Kant works as good as any because it assumes that you will recognize that if what you want to do were to become a universal law, then everyone would get to do it. And that ends up being just another implementation of the golden rule.
 
Well I've got a book on Kant somewhere in the house, but it's been years. I do remember liking Kant a lot better than many philosophers (though I have affection for poor struggling Descartes.) But I think I'll stay out of that part of the conversation.

Magic presupposes that reality, an ontology that allows for it. So all fantasy presupposes a transcendent reality of some sort that underlies the world in question. I might be mistaken, but find me one that doesn't. Even less overtly magical worlds as in The Mists of Avalon, still are religious according to this interpretation.
Click to expand...

This part I got, I think. The insertion of magical, paranormal or otherwise fantastic elements, in the creation of an imaginary world or the portrayal of the real one, does make reality broader than reality, lays open the possibility of evil or good or at least powerful forces beyond human free choice and action. So all fantasy stories do have a spiritual or other plane framework (though I think we're better off if we don't call it "religious.")

But, I think that has less to do most times with morals and the concepts of right and wrong, or even of social order, than it does with the fact that we like the idea of playing with reality. Reality is boring, at least for fantasy writers, so we jazz it up. Some of us may be exploring political issues, moral/ethical ones, religious ones, psychological ones, or just pursuing a really nice romance with exotic dragons. We do touch on a lot of themes that humans have been kicking around for ages, but not all of these are religious and concerned with transcendence. They are quite often concerning moral issues, but not very morally monochrome.

But yes, if we have magic and a magic system, well then we have a philosophy and understanding about that magic system, and if we have that, we may have a belief system, a creed, a religion, a holy cause, etc. So fantasy may not be able to escape questions of belief (as opposed to religious faith,) but I don't know that this says anything about the writers. The beliefs they are writing about are not necessarily what they believe themselves. That's certainly the case for me. :)
 
I am glad katg that I explained myself a little more clearly this time. Sometimes I don't realize that what's in my mind is not necessarily in someone else's. Yes, that was my point precisely!

I don't know either if what we represent in our books is what we believe always. I explore more often than not. I am not sure what I believe. As I said previously, I am a bit schizophrenic about all of this. I have instincts that seem to lead me down one path and intellect that leads me down another, and they don't seem to coincide always. So I ask the question of others, as I do in my books, what do you believe? What grounds your choices? What moral foundation do you ascribe to? Are we nihilists or moralists? Are we relativists or Platonists? We who read fantasy and love fantasy, do we have anything in common when it comes to God, fantasy and belief?
 
When you are exploring, GW, say with the sexual mores of one of your races, are there no judgments involved? Can you truly lay it out just as it is and refrain from passing judgment either blatantly or subtlely as in the way other characters react or the consequences of the action?
 
We are always looking at things only to the extent that our beliefs and education allow us to. I can't pretend to see things through another's eyes, so I am a victim of my own limited perspective. All that I can hope to do is ask questions, and even in asking questions I am defying the belief structures of many in this world who don't question. So can I break out of my own tiny world? No, certainly not entirely. But if I try to understand things that seem unclear to me, then I can at least try to be more objective.

We are a bundle of judgments and preconceptions all the time. Our language alone presupposes so much. But we can try to do the best that we can with the limited tools we have. All these discussions on choice and ethics are meaningful, and for me they are informative. I learn by asking, and I ask all the time here and in my books.

But isn't that what makes writing fiction so wonderful? You can create characters who represent as many sides of the issues as the issues you create. And through them and the circumstances, you can try to refrain from passing judgment simply in the process of depicting the various options.
 
Gary Wassner said:
I don't know either if what we represent in our books is what we believe always. I explore more often than not. I am not sure what I believe. As I said previously, I am a bit schizophrenic about all of this. I have instincts that seem to lead me down one path and intellect that leads me down another, and they don't seem to coincide always. So I ask the question of others, as I do in my books, what do you believe? What grounds your choices? What moral foundation do you ascribe to? Are we nihilists or moralists? Are we relativists or Platonists? We who read fantasy and love fantasy, do we have anything in common when it comes to God, fantasy and belief?
Click to expand...

Nope, we don't have anything in common. At least collectively. In small groups of writers and fans, you will probably find similar values and beliefs. So far, we haven't found a lot of commonalities in this discussion, I think.

As for discussing our beliefs, well, you have to have people who know what nihilists and Platonists and relativists are. Perhaps if we had a checklist. :)
 
Basic definitions taken from standard philosophy texts:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. Meaninglessness is also often associated with nihilism, since there is no redeeming power or transcendental justification for existence.

Platonic idealism is the theory that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth. That truth, Plato argues, is the abstraction. A particular tree, with a branch or two missing, possibly alive, possibly dead, and initials of two lovers carved into its bark, is distinct from the form of Tree-ness. A Tree is the ideal that each of us holds that allows us to identify the imperfect reflections of trees all around us.

Relativism is sometimes identified (usually by its critics) as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good; in epistemology it implies that all beliefs, or belief systems, are equally true.
 
Okay, so I'm not any of those (though I am apparently a relativist in terms of people's assessments of fiction on these boards.) But when it comes to ethics, I'm not. I haven't met a lot of people who are any of those, actually. I am a devotee of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and believe in democracy. If that's any help.
 
Those POVs weren't meant to be exclusive. There are countless more.


But any belief system, even if it's an unconscious one, presuspposes a metaphysic. It has to. Your decisions may seem simple and clear to you, but they are based upon a consistent structure that underlies the thought process. You believe that right and wrong can be defined and you believe that freedom of speech and capitalism are the the best systems, and that the right to vote is important. So you are not a relativist and you are not a nihilist. In one sense, you are a Platonist. The forms of right and wrong are out there for us to measure our actions against.

It's not important to label yourself. Those definitions are only meant to help us to understand that different persepctives on truth and action exist.

But each day and each moment we make decisions, we make choices. We need to base those choices on something, some belief that we hold that we are doing the right thing and not simply obeying the laws of the land. Even if all we are doing is obeying out of fear of retribution, prison, our mother's ire, etc, we are still applying a code of ethics and responding to circumstances in response to that code. Why do people have rights? Why is life sacred? Why is murder bad? Why is rape bad? Why is stealing from someone bad?

To believe in magic is to believe in a greater power. To believe in God or gods is to believe in a greater power. To be superstitious is to believe.

What do you believe?
 
A great discussion. As I mentioned before...why is rape/murder/incest/stealing bad? Well very simply it hampers the survival potential of a human embedded in a cooperative tribe/family group. Hence we don't generally do it. These rules are and were common thorughout many disparate groups and tribes.

It's not a particularly romantic explanation but the widespread and separately arising nature of these "rules," indicate an evolutionary answer. So the answer to "why" is actually quite profound, it keeps up alive.
 
But maybe this cooperative tribe/family ultimately leads to mediorcrity and the decline of the race. Would it then be better and thus good, according to your utilitarian definition, to rape/murder/commit incest/steal?
 
Gary,

If it aided the survival potential of the tribe to do this they probably would (kill/rape/steal). The evolutionary approach argues that there is no moral imperative behind our behaviours, rather what we deem morally good and morally bad is a reflection of those behaviours that aid and hinder survival.

Interestingly enough kill/rape/enslave/steal is a recurring them of our existence, but it is general tribe on tribe, nation on nation. The calculation been made that taking from another non-genetically, or more distantly related people is good for the survival of your group, so good in terms of resource that it's worth the risk of being killed.

Hence the assymetry of morals in society until recently. What you cannot do to your own people is OK to do to others. Think of the Roman, Spanish Empires, the Vikings etc. They rarely perceived that what they were doing was immoral, because they were doing it to others. Indeed it was regarded as morally good in many societies to kill/make war or "civilize" other societies. Slavery in the US has a long line of this argument.

It is only fairly recently that we have in effect tried to turn tribal rights, or moral codes into universal human rights. Not with vast success.

Hence morals seem to have a localized evolutionary hard coding, the philosopical debate comes at the extension of those morals through our thought, overriding the natural unconcern for non-related groups, and trying to universalize moral hard coding.
 
But there are also some fundamental disagreements with regard to the true evolutionary success of the herd mentality. Does it help or hinder the race or does it foster mediocrity at the expense of genius?

Just to survive? Is that what we live for? If so, the standards upon which we weigh the successes or failures of mankind are extremely low, and we can say that we are definitely succeeding. Life is being extended. People are living longer and with genetic research, we are pushing the limits everyday.

But is survival the measure of success? Why?

Some say that the fittest don't survive at all. That society has evolved in such a way that the weakest survive and the fittest are supressed.

Double standards prevail. That's nothing new. But still we need to make choices each day. How do we do that? How does your mind work? What do you think about when you decide to help someone who's in need or pass them by? And what do you reap thereby?
 
Bol, you're speaking my language. Although I suffer (it's often considered some sort of weak-minded affliction!) from "Idealism". I understand the concept of tribal hard-wiring, and how one would hope a kind of universal hardwiring to make us see our distant neighbours as ourselves would be something many "idealists" might seak. Certainly, as a pacifist, and a socialist, war is obhorent too me, and my views about global corporations and politics are very close to those expressed by Harold Pinter in his Nobel Prise exceptance speech. But I can also see the tribal hard-wiring that makes us capable of killing our neighbours without remorse, and it many ways I explore this through my art and fiction - the tantalising, virile and potent power of warfare, strength, fearlessness and lack of empthy witnessed in so many fantasy archetypes. I think these probably are deep-rooted Jungian symbols of that tribal hard-wiring.
As for Gods, personally I struggle to comprehend how they have a place any more, as I started a naturally spiritual person, but my passion for the anthropological roots of religions, etc. has brought me to the conclusion that faith is (and please believe me, it's only my conclusion! I'm by no means certain of anything!) a kind of mass delusion. I can think of hundreds of reasons for man to invent God, but not one for a God to invent man. I would dearly LOVE to believe in gods and magic, but I fear I don't. Ultimately, though, I explore this through my work in realms where there ARE gods, and there IS magic.

Just my feelings! I'm an agnostic cynic with relativistic sympathies and a pagan heart! LOL!

Liam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.

Latest posts

Back
Top