tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post3710429468815415945..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: TOF at Chicon 7TheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-4172494095628147352012-09-08T13:37:33.446-04:002012-09-08T13:37:33.446-04:00Certainly usages may change. When the change is t...Certainly usages may change. When the change is to make discourse less clear, I reject it. When the change clarifies, I may embrace it. The problem really arises when the topic under discussion was formulated and argued in another language or under a different distinction, yet is argued against from a muddier modern street-understanding. How long would Evolution stand if discussion was allowed only under common usage? <br /><br />That is, Adam formulates an argument or a testimony for X (and Y and Z). Centuries later, Bob messes up the definition of X by creating his own version X' which then becomes the common understanding. Later still, contradictions and paradoxes arise between X' and Y and Z and Charlie becomes completely confused by arguments against X' which are presented as arguments against X. <br /><br />In any case, the distinction of faith and religion stands, even today. There are clearly people who participate in religious services who do not believe, but rather prize the social interaction. It may be a chance to make a sale. And as well we find those who claim to be "spiritual" but "not belonging to any religion." Why cast about for euphemisms when the terms are ready to hand? <br /><br />The confusion may rise because Christianity is a religion based on faith (i.e., trust in Jesus) and we Late Moderns tend to project our categories onto other times and places. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-18522280591322013682012-09-08T11:14:56.926-04:002012-09-08T11:14:56.926-04:00I frequently find TOF's fiction to be excessiv...I frequently find TOF's fiction to be excessively ornate, but I agree with the majority of his philosophical and theological positions, so it grieves me to feel obliged to pick a nit regarding anything on his blog. However: <br /><br />I attended the Faith in SF Panel, and I think TOF's neighbor's objection was that TOF was drawing a distinction between faith and religion that might have existed between the Latin words _fides_ and _religio_, but that did not exist in contemporary English. The current meaning of words is not defined by their etymology. (Consider the curious etymology of "guy," for instance.) He may have been a little ungracious in not allowing TOF his own definitions for the sake of his own argument, but it might have been a better strategy on TOF's part to make the argument about the distinction between external sociopolitical ritual and internal faith without playing etymology games. I think the characterization of the neighbor as "huffing" is inaccurate. <br /><br />On the other hand: When Mary Doria Russell was the Worldcon way back when (I believe it was in San Antonio), I made a similar objection directly to her about the absence of a reference to Christ, particularly regarding God's attitude toward suffering. Russell had some character say that God feels compassion along with the sufferer, but conspicuously fails to mention that Christians believe that God became incarnate and got Himself tortured to death. Russell seemed to accept the validity of the objection, although she did say she had run the draft past Jesuits (obviously not Brother Guy, who may not even have been a Jesuit yet then).<br /><br />At the Faith panel, I had my hand up in the question session but was not called on. Had I been, I would, like marycatelli here, have adduced Poul Anderson as an agnostic/atheist who did a good job of depicting characters with religious faith. I would also have similarly mentioned Lois McMaster Bujold.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> patrickmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06541013498999403104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-30746917610955874272012-09-07T22:47:24.049-04:002012-09-07T22:47:24.049-04:00A delightful recanting. And I should say -- Sir, t...A delightful recanting. And I should say -- Sir, that Writers Under Glass exercise reminds me of Harlan Ellison's fantastic period of cranking out remarkably decent short stories in bookshop windows, stories generally typed on actual typewriters, while chatting merrily with the otherwise admiring or (not xor) befuddled. http://www.doorly.com/writing/HarlanEllison.htm I am sure he'd have quite a bit more to say about such exercises, all rude yet full of pith. And vinegar.<br /><br />As to your move to "define terms before discussing them"... well, I say G-d Bless you, so to speak, as a (so to speak) social scientist. Which is to say, reality is contextual, but one has to enter it to win. As to the historically challenged, well, one must resist the urge to ask, "Ah. So. Are you making that up?" Doesn't go over well on panels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-55494540574860204652012-09-07T22:46:38.082-04:002012-09-07T22:46:38.082-04:00Poul Anderson also manages to do convincing pictur...Poul Anderson also manages to do convincing pictures of believers. I remember because it's so rare.<br /><br />What struck me about Martin's world was the lack of social pressure behind religion. You could pick and chose as you pleased. Isn't anyone afraid that the gods will be angry if they aren't properly propitiated?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com