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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dirty Greek (Member # 8153) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dirty Greek (Member # 8153) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
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?]
 

---

Posted by Dirty Greek (Member # 8153) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
 
So I was sort of right? Aha!
 

---

Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
 
"This isn't an arguement! Its just plain contradiction!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes, it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"See? There you go again!"

What would the world be like without Monty Python?
 

---

Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 

quote:

---

You've been given well-reasoned several points of disagreement.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Picky, picky. . .
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
TL,

quote:

---

At the very least, without getting into divine powers and such, shouldn't a religion at least *claim* to be true?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

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?

---

quote:

---

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.

--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.
 

---

Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
 

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)
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
So then why is the Jedi religion silly?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
See, Dirty Greek, this is how you have a debate.
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
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 by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
I think I can understand that, Squick. Of course I don't agree but at least I see your point.
 

---

Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
Maybe in some far off world, all the novels that have ever been written are true.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I thought it was just the ones by Stephen King.
 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
Maybe each genre has its own planet.
 

---

Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
 
Papa Moose and Dagonee are the official comic relief of this high-intensity debate
 

---

Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
Who can't find humor in a moose?
 

---

Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveRogers:
"This isn't an arguement! Its just plain contradiction!"

"No it isn't!"

"Yes, it is!"

"No it isn't!"

"See? There you go again!"

What would the world be like without Monty Python?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

That sounds like quite the religion.

P.S. Hehe, you said meese
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
Why should a religion claim to be true?

Implicit in every ordinary statement is the claim that the statement is true. Here are some non-ordinary statements:

"This sentence is false." Is it true? Can it be?

"There are no absolute truths." Is it absolutely true?

Ordinary statements, like, "The yard needs mowing" or "I'm tired" or "The Lord our God, the Lord is one" have an implied "This statement is true." It would be silly to construe "the yard needs mowing" as meaning "the yard doesn't need mowing."
 

---

Posted by Elvish Wanderer (Member # 8204) on :
 
I stumbled upon this thread even though it is a week old, I thought what the heck, I would stream my thoughts out onto the sea of ether....


What causes quite a bit of the misunderstanding and chaos surrounding this topic is the understanding that there are no consistantly accepted meanings to the words truth, belief, religion, etc. . . Note that I did not say definitions. One can say that a particular dictionary states that reilgion is a set of spiritual beliefs... you can even look up the word beliefs and spiritual but all of these words are small tokens that represnet larger concepts that can't inherintly be contained by the tokens themselves... to illustrate:

I believe (I do by the way) that all beliefs are silly.

Stating this can be interpreted many many ways, among them some might state that it is an inherently contradictory statement (since I am stating a belief, then it must be silly)... but that depends on a narrow definition of silly i.e. that I consider silly an insult in this context. Also it can be interpeted as a larger insult that I believe that these beliefs are false (i.e. interpreting that in this context silly implies at least false)

Even taking those postulates as true I might have a definition of belief that means it as a filter through which I use to illuminate the world a certain way to understand something, not as something inherintly True or False (certain eastern religions focus on this understanding of belief in many different aspects)

And this is just a minor illustrative point. The words belief, religion, truth, falshood are some of the most disparately understood words because the are tokens that mean to encompass concepts which are to some uncontainable. It is neccesary to use them and to discuss them because the concepts are neccesary to be discussed; but it is very important to remember that what you read in a statement containing those words may or may not mean what you think it meant. This goes for Dirty Geek's original content because OSC's definition of religion and faith and truth and scripture may mean something then you are inteding them to mean; and as well to TL and MrSquicky as they circled around each other for two pages because they seemed not to understand that they each understood the words to mean different things... It even goes to me because I understood the two pages in a way that may not have even been meant by the authors... It also goes to anyone reading this message as I may not understand what I am posting the same way you are understanding it reading...

So just remember 0 sometimes but not always equals 1.

 

---