Welcome to the Malazan Re-read of the Fallen! Every post will start off with a summary of events, followed by reaction and commentary by your hosts Bill and Amanda (with Amanda, new to the series, going first), and finally comments from Tor.com readers. In this article, we’ll cover Chapter Fourteen of Toll the Hounds (TtH).
A fair warning before we get started: We’ll be discussing both novel and whole-series themes, narrative arcs that run across the entire series, and foreshadowing. Note: The summary of events will be free of major spoilers and we’re going to try keeping the reader comments the same. A spoiler thread has been set up for outright Malazan spoiler discussion.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
SCENE ONE
Quell tells Gruntle he needs a quick look into Hood’s realm to see what is going on there. Gruntle suggests they begin by talking to the corpse that came out with them. The corpse, who calls himself Cartographer, says Hood has never before commanded but now he does, telling the dead to “come.” He adds Hood also told him to “go,” and thus he says he will not return to Hood’s realm. Quell and Gruntle enter Hood’s realm, where they see the dead gathered as a marching army. They’re approached by a Seguleh, who tells them how nice it is as a commander to have troops without fear. Quell asks what Hood wants with an army, and the Seguleh only says it isn’t to be used against the living. Three others approach: Toc, Whiskeyjack (named Iskar Jarak here) and Brukhalian. Toc asks Gruntle to tell his god (Trake) “not long now.” Whiskeyjack mentions Skinner, which gets the Seguleh all upset and he rides off. Gruntle, looking at the remaining three, sees “nothing of redemption, nothing purged—guilt, shame, regrets and grief, they all swirled about these figures.” Whiskeyjack points out that Gruntle has lost all of his followers and also that they are not in Hood’s realm. When Gruntle says “And they should be, I suppose?” Brukhalian answers they aren’t sure anymore. Toc warns Quell the gate is now closed to the living: “Where we march you cannot go. Not now, perhaps, never. Stay away, until the choice is taken from you.” Gruntle sees now that Toc’s seeming coldness to him is more anguish: “bone-deep fear and dread… the man’s warning was a cry to a friend… Save yourself… Gruntle, give this all meaning.” Quell tells the others he will inform the Guild and readies his and Gruntle’s departure as an undead dragon begins to rise from a barrow nearby. Quell and Gruntle get out, but the dragon follows them through the portal and flies off.
SCENE TWO
Traveller senses the dragon’s escape and tells Karsa and Samar “something is happening.” They prepare to move on as Samar wonders how Karsa seems different. Traveller tells her Karsa isn’t that complex: “A child dragged into the adult world, but no strength was lost… young enough to still be certain.” He informs her they are being shadowed not only by Great Ravens, but also by Hounds of Shadow. Karsa says he’ll ride off to try and see what the Hounds want, though Traveller tells him the Hounds aren’t interested in him.
SCENE THREE
Skintick recalls Andarist’s death and thinks of how many died and wonders for what cause, especially as Traveller’s easy slaughter of their enemies had made all those deaths meaningless. That day, he thinks, killed off many things he once believed in—duty, honor, honesty, courage, patriotism. He wonders if Rake grieves for any of the dead and expects when they finally meet Rake, unlike what his compatriots expect, they will be met with disdain and platitudes. He himself assumes he won’t survive the journey and isn’t sure he wants to. He thinks Nimander has changed and wonders if he might be used by Skintick, might become someone to follow down a sordid path of ambition. Skintick asks Nimander why they saved Clip, whom he trusts even less now, and Nimander says Aranatha believes Clip is needed, though he doesn’t know why she thinks this. Both Skintick and Nimander agree they feel like they are “drowning in blood,” and to Skintick’s shock, Nimander also agrees Rake will not be the answer.
SCENE FOUR
Endest meets Rake in a deep cavern where Rake sets Dragnipur down for a short while. Rake tells Endest he’s sent Spinnock away and now Endest “has no choice” but to do what he can, adding the High Priestess will help as she is able. Rake tells Endest “We were murdered by compromises. No those that followed the arrival of Light. Not those born of Shadow… The day we accepted her turning away, Endest, was the day we ran the knives across our own throats… Without the blood of dragons we would all be dust, scattered on the winds… the chaos, Endest, gave us the strength to persist, to cease fearing change… And this is why you chose to follow us, each in our time, our place.” Endest thinks to himself, “Yes so few of you proved worthy of our allegiance… until now here you stand, virtually alone… The one who was worth it. The only one.” Rake says both he and Endest will find the strength to do what must be done, and he reclaims Dragnipur’s burden.
SCENE FIVE
Seerdomin asks Itkovian if he can’t summon the T’lan Imass to help him against Salind, a way to pay back for his acceptance of their burden, but Itkovian says he won’t, that what he gave was a gift. He says Seerdomin has a choice, though he admits not much of one. If Salind wins, Itkovian says the Imass and all within him will “succumb,” insisting though that Seerdomin is not responsible for what happen to them. It was, he says, his error, his lack of “provision for judgment,” which he is trying to change. Seerdomin realizes Itkovian is talking about him, and he recoils, saying “I am not one of your pilgrims… I do not worship you!” Itkovian responds, “Precisely… believers… second guess the one they claim to worship.” When Seerdomin asks what choice they have given the god’s silence, Itkovian replies, “every choice in the world.”
SCENE SIX
Salind dances in the “bliss of certainty.” She thinks she will give the Redeemer the “gift of certainty,” allow him to see “difference… who was deserving and who was not.”
SCENE SEVEN
Karsa meets Shadowthrone and Cotillion (Cotillion seemingly unimpressed at first). Shadowthrone, noting Karsa’s resistance to magic, wonders if all humans will eventually be that way. They warn Karsa that he will be driven (by the Crippled God I assume) to Darujhistan, where a crown and throne await. Karsa replies he’ll know when to turn aside. Shadowthrone says “It is because we understand you that we do not set the Hounds upon you… We too left civilization behind… Acceptable levels of misery and suffering… Acceptable? Who the fuck says any level is acceptable? What sort of mind thinks that?” And when Karsa answers a “civilized one,” Shadowthrone responds, “Indeed!” and gives an I-told-you-so to Cotillion, who “stands corrected,” and says if the Crippled God hasn’t learned his lesson yet with regard to Karsa, he’ll obviously get more lessons. Shadowthrone warns Karsa not to stand in Traveller’s path and Karsa’s response: “We are agreed… I will not stand in his path and he will not stand in mine,” silences the two a moment as they consider it. As he prepares to leave, Karsa notes he killed two Deragoth, who were “arrogant,” and warns the two that, “You laugh at those coming to the Crippled God. Perhaps one day I will laugh at those coming to you.”
SCENE EIGHT
Shadowthrone and Cotillion discuss how the spirits in Karsa’s sword were “proud” and Shadowthrone pities the future clerks of civilization when Karsa gets around to them.
SCENE NINE
Quell’s group, much to Gruntle’s dismay, plans to hitch a ride on a huge storm heading their way.
Amanda’s Reaction
I LOVE this image of Gruntle walking around the island while Master Quell follows behind in clear sight without uttering a word to get Gruntle to stop.
This matter of Hood and his army and his new desire to command the dead is slowly ratcheting tension into the book. I wonder if this is now becoming one of the key storylines to the end of the series, or whether it is going to be dealt with by the end of this book. I am starting to wonder, as I imagine you all did on a first read, how on earth Erikson can possibly wrap up this story to any satisfaction. Right now we have such disparate storylines, and new things are being added even now, so when will we begin the final (as final as Erikson can possibly be, I guess) resolution? With the way he’s treated his readers so far, I can quite well see him leaving much of the fall-out from the ending to the imagination of the reader.
I also love the gentle humour of Gruntle facing the entire undead horde with his two cutlasses in his hands, and then putting them away.
Gruntle then gives us the parallel that we might not have seen so far—I don’t know how relevant it is (or not)—that the undead army formed by Hood sort of echoes the T’lan Imass, in terms of being undead and without fear.
And why has one of the Seguleh been chosen to command the army of the dead?
Awww: “Trake’s spitting kitten” sounds so cute and yet so derogatory at the same time!
Such a powerful scene that follows, although not the way I would have wanted to meet Whiskeyjack and Toc Anaster again. It seems their tasks are not yet done, and they have not found the peace that death should have offered—and this is down to Hood. What is he up to? Closing the gates to the living? Does that mean that no one can now die? Or does it mean that those who die are doomed to wander the world of the living as ghosts or something?
Is Hood worried about those who might come across from the world of the living to the realm of the dead, and so is closing everyone out?
This is painful to read about these particular three characters: “Looking upon these animated corpses, Gruntle saw nothing of redemption, nothing purged—guilt, shame, regrets and grief, they all swirled about these figures like a noxious cloud.”
Hmm, this message to Trake: “not long now.” Is Trake being told rather bluntly that he now has to take sides in this war? Or that he finally needs to step up to take the place of Fener as God of War? Or is it him who has to declare this war that is brewing? A little obscure for me!
That scene with the undead dragon exploding from the barrow and then fighting through the rent back to the island is simply magnificent.
The sexual tension between Karsa and Samar Dev is off the page—and also a little funny. She stares at him all the time. Pretty much her every thought is about him. Maybe it’s me, but I’d probably be acting on that impulse by now. I don’t quite know why she doesn’t.
Can Traveller feel Hood? Because he seems to know that something is different about Hood’s realm.
Poor Skintick. This is a really stark look into his past, and how the final battle on Drift Avalii has affected him, causing him to lose things like duty, and honesty, and courage. “He was having none of it, not any more, never again. And this was what made him dead now.” Tell you what, this is like a representation of depression.
And depression may be what makes him view Anomander with such scorn. The Anomander we have seen would never look at them with disdain.
His view of what their future might hold after reaching their journey’s end is a bitter representation of what the remaining Bridgeburners who opened K’rul’s Bar might have felt: “…until all we once were become memories thick with dust, barely worthy of the occasional reminiscence, some annual gathering in some tavern with a leaking roof, where we will see how we each have sagged with the years, and we’ll get drunk swapping tales we all know by heart, even as the edges grow blunt and all the colours bleed out.”
The way he views his companions’ probable futures is also terrifying and indicative of someone who is feeling depressed and unable to cope. Poor Skintick. “He did not expect to complete this journey. He was not sure he even wanted to.”
And then, dear reader of this commentary, it utterly breaks my heart to have Nimander turn to him and observe that he is smiling and therefore must be happy. As a person who has suffered from depression—and is, indeed, currently struggling through another bout—it is often a case of plastering a smile to your face (that feels more like a rictus grin) and trying to fool people that you are capable and able and happy. And inside you are a mess that can’t see a way out.
We’re being given little hints that Clip is no longer quite the same fellow: “He was, if anything, even more evasive than he had been before, and more than once Skintick had caught suspicion in the warrior’s eyes when observing the rest of them.”
Wow, seeing the reaction of the stone when Anomander puts Dragnipur against it gives a real insight into the burden that this Lord of Darkness carries: “At once the obelisk began sweating, thick, glistening beads studding the smoothed surface, then racing down the sides. Something like thunder groaned through the stone underfoot.”
Yet more hints about the darkness of the days in Kharkanas—and then when the darkness was removed from the Tiste Andii, when Mother Dark turned from them. Why would this be so? “The others, the ones outside all of that, how they watched on, bemused brows darkening with anger. Draconus, you thought you could give answer to all of us. You were wrong.” What is Endest thinking about with all of that? Is it something I just have to file in terms of the new trilogy by Erikson?
Is this to do with the fact that those mentioned were the ones that drank the blood of dragons to become Soletaken?
Oh God, that last line of the section featuring Endest and Anomander, that just slays me: “And his Lord stepped close then, and with one hand brushed the wetness from one cheek.”
I really like the reminder of that moment where the T’lan Imass kneeled—this is exactly right: “A moment to shake every belief, where the world drew breath and… held it.”
Oho, there is a theme of the series, if ever I saw one:
“You are free to choose,” the Redeemer replied. “Defend me, or step aside and see me fall.”
“That’s hardly a choice!”
“True. Such things rarely are.”
Eep, imagine knowing that your body has been fed on by scavengers and can no longer be returned to or used!
Oh, Shadowthrone’s view of what the world will become and the people in it has echoes of what our world is like, where there is no magic, and the gods do not walk amongst us.
Has Shadowthrone, here, finally met his match in Karsa? There does seem to be a real and instant understanding between them.
And there are still moment where laughter is surprised out of me by the dialogue in this series—love it:
“Why is it,” Mappo asked, “that Master Quell seemed indifferent to unleashing an undead dragon into this world?”
“Well, hardly indifferent. He said oops!”
Bill’s Reaction
I have to chuckle at this image of Gruntle pacing this tiny island in circles, the Bole brother waving each time he passes, and Quell walking behind him for however many circumambulations it took for Gruntle to stop and turn around. And also at the conversation with Cartographer (who continues our theme of science here—arguing he’s now proved the world is round).
We’ve seen the Seguleh Second before if you recall, hooking up with Cutter, Heboric, Scillara and the others before they were attacked by the T’lan Imass. He left his spear behind (and was angry at Skinner then too). He also spoke a lot of the Seguleh connection to Darujhistan and the Tyrant and the Tyrant’s return.
So what role does Trake have to play in this—clearly some, as Toc says Gruntle should tell the god “not long now.”
I like Whiskeyjack’s clever use of mentioning Skinner to get the Seguleh Second out of the way.
Lots of talk of the afterlife in this book. Gruntle seems a bit depressed over the idea that there’s no redemption or cleansing after one’s life.
And the mystery about Hood’s plans continue. Not just the army, which we knew about. Or the idea that the realm is closed to the living, which makes a lot of sense. But what is this issue with Trake’s followers not appearing in Hood’s realm when they die? Where are they going? Why aren’t even these folks, who appear relatively high up in Hood’s counsel, sure of what is happening? Curious.
That’s a great moment with the dragon’s escape—tense, visual, dynamic. And then a great close with Faint’s complaint they didn’t hitch a ride on it and Gruntle’s “Insane. They are all insane.”
It’s an eye-opening moment, I think, this look inside Skintick’s thoughts. We know of course they lost friends, loved ones, in that battle on Drift Avalii, but the intensity of his thoughts (knowing when he “died”) and the concreteness of his memories (the “thud” of javelins into bodies, the spilling of entrails onto the “dusty cobbles and ribbons of grass”) all drives it so much more home. And then that realization that had they just hung out of sight for a little while, that Traveller would have killed everyone, making all those deaths in defense of the place “meaningless.”
His argument that “to be told the truth was to feel the shackles snap shut on one’s ankle. Truth was delivered with the expectation that it would force a single course of action,” is an interesting one in the context of all the discussion of religion in this novel. After all, so much of religion (at least many) is predicated on the idea that their version of things is “the truth,” the one and only truth.” And many obviously come with some pretty strong expectations with regard to action or behavior. We see this in action somewhat with Itkovian and Seerdomin—Itkovian tells him what he sees as the truth (all within me will succumb) and while he says Seerdomin has a choice, to someone of a certain moral bent, there will appear only one “true” course of action.
Of course, we as readers take some of these thoughts with a grain of salt as he continues, since it’s hard to imagine Rake looking at these young Andii who have suffered so much loss with “disdain.” Perhaps even impossible. Which then makes us question his other insights. But then, when he starts imagining grim futures for them all in Black Coral, it all sounds so bleakly realistic, so grimly like actual life.
Another reference to being more suspicious of Clip. Another reference to the mystery that is Aranatha (she somehow knows Clip is “necessary”).
Nimander seems very Rake-like in the lack of despair visible to Skintick.
That’s a very Macbeth-ian line to end on: “We need to wash this blood off.” The clear implication, I’d say, is metaphorically, that’s going to be tough (even given all of Mael’s oceans).
That obelisk in the cavern is a great visual, concrete way of conveying the sense of the immense burden that Dragnipur is to Rake, the rock and earth itself react to its weight. What must it be like to carry that nearly every moment of every day for all those centuries?
Yet another ominous overtone to both what awaits Endest and what Rake plans for himself. Which, if Rake’s history lesson is relevant, would seem to have something to do with Mother Dark and her turning away and redeeming the Andii spirit. Note as well his defense of chaos as Endest looks upon Dragnipur and hears the wagon and the chaos storm drawing nearer to it: “Chaos gave us the strength to persist, to cease fearing change, to accept all that was unknown and unknowable.”
The ending of this scene, as so many between these two are, I find extremely moving—the loyalty, the love, the dignity, the sense of sacrifice. We really see the spectrum of human (I use that term broadly here) life in these books, don’t we?
From one discussion of sacrifice to another. Seerdomin, who doesn’t see any path but the one that is the “right thing” to do, apparently. And I have to say, I like this idea of a god learning as he goes, with Itkovian trying on the fly to figure out a way to add a judgment aspect (if I’m reading his conversation right) to his godhood. We’ll have to see if he figures out a solution to this problem, his “error.”
And then Salind brings us to another error—the idea that certainty is a virtue, something we’ve seen again and again is the opposite of true in this series. We can see the error of this thought in the way she defines compassion via her certainty—compassion that is to be “meted out only to the truly deserving… the rest, the could all burn, for they deserved no less.” Which would seem to pretty much not be a definition of compassion at all.
I enjoyed this meeting of Shadowthrone, Cotillion, and Karsa, beginning with Shadowthrone’s intriguing, if depressing, question about whether all humans will end up like Karsa, resistant to sorcery (we’ve had a few references, slight and rare, to the idea that magic may disappear in this world).
Is this one of the more explicit references we’ve had to why Shadowthrone and Cotillion are doing what they’re doing (if not explicit as to actually what they are doing): “Measure it all out! Acceptable levels of misery and suffering! . . . Acceptable? Who the fuck says any level is acceptable?” Is their goal to alleviate misery and suffering? We’ve said (or at least, I have but I think many of you have said so as well) that Cotillion is often a symbol of compassion in this series, so it would make sense that compassion is his (and Shadowthrone’s, though the crazy old man façade makes it trickier) long range goal. And if so, what might Hood have to do with it? And his army? Hmmmmmm.
Amanda Rutter is the editor of Strange Chemistry books, sister imprint to Angry Robot.
Bill Capossere writes short stories and essays, plays ultimate frisbee, teaches as an adjunct English instructor at several local colleges, and writes SF/F reviews for fantasyliterature.com.
“How Skintick hated that man. Competence was no gift when it arrived too late.”
Replace Skintick with Kadaspala (and then wait until you’ve read FoD.) Wow.
Karsa’s conversation with ST&C has me eagerly awaiting the Toblakai Trilogy even more.
@1: Interesting to see how SE uses TtH to (1) pick up and unify several loose strands from previous volumes, (2) set up final volumes 9&10, and (3) set up 2 additional trilogies. No wonder it´s his favorite…
“Precisely… believers… second guess the one they claim to worship.” When Seerdomin asks what choice they have given the god’s silence, Itkovian replies, “every choice in the world.”
I love Eriksons religion postulations!
the mention of skinner to the seguleh made me glad i had read RotCG.
Are MD and the Redeemer the same religion? Worship away, but expectations about anything in return are, well, both silly & futile. (Not that I don’t get the point re: the RW, I think. But, here in Wu, why bother?)
We have now had 2 recent mentions of an empty throne in Darujistan. Do we know which one it is? I do recall at least 2 empty ones during the series, but I thoought at least one of them was taken, and the other defended/protected. I don’t recall either being on Genebackis.
This is a beautiful, powerful chapter. We meet Toc and WhiskeyJack again, although they are indeed dead. The undead dragon scene would be fantastic. Rake putting aside Dragnipur and the very earth reacting is one of the most powerful scenes in the series, I think.
The conversation between the Redeemer and Seerdomin here really rebounds well from the notion that the Redeemer’s religion is one without any choice, as we discussed last chapter. Seems the Redeemer has realized the problems of inviting surrender when there is no choice, but I don’t think he’s got an answer just yet.
@GoodOlSatan
Kallor is heading towards it, and thinks that it might give him control of an entire realm. Karsa is being pushed towards it. These two would seem to imply that it is the throne of the House of Chains, available now that Rhulad has died. Even if he rejected Rhulad’s sword, Karsa could still take charge of the House. Kallor was seemingly offered the kingship via Gethol back in MoI, but was spurned and became only the Reaver (at least that’s how the Deck portrayed him), and could now be vying to claim it for sure this time.
Of course, if it *is* the throne of the House of Chains, why is it in Darujhistan?
(we’ll find out pretty soon)
I had a question related to the undead dragon:
Was the dragon Tulas Shorn or the one that meets Kallor. I am sure they are distinct, which leads me to the question, whichever this dragon is, from where did the other on come.
White Text ends here.
And what would Harlo’s Tellan infected friend know about it (given that the House, and presumably its throne, did not exist at the time of the ritual)? IDK, could it have something to do with the Tyrant?
@8: I’m pretty sure it’s your first guess, made more amusing because he was just name-dropped for the first time last chapter (I think.) To be fair, I don’t remember your second guess happening at all.
@7 & 9
I always considered the prize (throne?) to be gained was that of the Tyrant, as Orb, Sceptre, Throne makes a lot clearer later.
@8
The undead dragon is indeed Tulas Shorn, also made clearer soon.
The other dragon you are thinking of is one of a pair of Soletaken, last seen in MoI.
Hello everyone. First off, I have been reading with great interest your comments on Toll the Hounds, in particular your discussions on the themes of religion and faith that were explored in the novel. And I thought, while I could wait until the q&a session that comes at the end of the book before commenting on those themes, discussions may well have moved on by the time we get there.
By way of some background, I recall Cam and I getting together at a convention, rather early on in the the writing of the series, and discussing, at length, what it was we were attempting to create. For us, such conversations quickly move past who did what and related plot elements, to the issue of themes and subtext. We’ve always been ‘ideas’ people, and our responses to ideas will move past the framework of the rational, into the emotional or spiritual. What I mean by that is, we’re not philosophers: our interest is in striving towards the ineffable, the inexplicable. So, that night, we came to the conclusion that what this series would be about, is, among other things, religion.
But in the broadest sense of that word. Religion, as a reflection or aspect of a generalised issue of relationship — us with everything else (and by ‘us’ I mean, humanity). There is no more basic relationship than that one, and it shapes our daily, moment-by-moment dialogue with the world around us. More to the point, every religion that ever existed seeks to define that dialogue (as an aside, Dawkins’ aetheistic stance is, in its components, as much a religion as is Judaism or Bhuddism, and by extension, his dogmatic belligerence, born of unswerving faith in his own vision, is as fundamentalist as any so-called religious fanatic’s. The view that what is, is all there is, is at its core, a faith. That, and nothing more. Even the argument of demonstrable truth proves malleable when viewed historically, as perceptions change over time, and the secondary argument of the function of reducability, tick by tock, in the name of the explicable, is no more than a semantic game locked in the constraints of a consciousness that can only conceive itself … lost you yet? Let’s move on).
Cam and I realised that we would be exploring the birth (and death) of religions, and from there, the one aspect of religious studies that rarely gets examined: that being the relationship between a civilization or culture, with its religion. In particular, in the way in which the extinction or collapse of a culture will, inevitably, slay its own god, or gods. Muse on that for a moment, if you dare. We can walk the ruins of fallen civilizations, ponder the mystery of unknown gods carved onto walls, or painted inside tombs. We can descend beneath the streets of Rome and find Gnostic temples so secret no-one knows anything about them. And yet, at what point do we step back and say, ‘hang on here. If gods existed for these people, who were fundamentally no different from us, what’s happened to them?’ And if they don’t exist anymore, why not? Because they never existed? Because we have lost our capacity to engage with them in any substantial fashion? Or, are they gone because we ceased to worship them? And, if that’s the case, what does it say about our present god/gods?
These are disturbing questions. Archaeology shows us the fleetingness of human conceits, and could lead one to a Dawkinsian conclusion. But not necessarily. After all, if you consider the notion that gods (the external force, the unknown but vaguely knowable arbiter) represent a wholly human effort to create a dialogue with reality, by giving that reality a face, a purpose, an identity, then surely the effort makes sense. Who wants to, day by day, moment by moment, talk to a faceless, indifferent, mechanistic universe? Who, in fact, would want to live in one?
Well, my father did. In his last months of life, I sat with him, and we spoke about death and what might come after death. He was adamant. His answer: nothing. Nothing comes after the end of the physical being’s life. Like flicking off a light switch, but that off-switch also encompasses the eyes with which that light was first seen. Death cut off the conversation, at whatever mid-point it chose (not that it chose anything, since it is not itself an entity; rather, the modest machine of a failing body, simply powered down, and went dark).
As for me, I found msyelf growing increasingly agnostic. I just didn’t know. I still don’t. But I was left to contemplate the mind-set and the mind-state, of my father — of a person without beliefs in an afterlife — and I found myself, well, recoiling. Because it meant to me that such a person, in that moment of terminal recognition, would then have an indeterminate amount of time to think, exclusively, on endings. That’s a scary place to be, and if I continue to hold to a kind of bafflement regarding my father’s views as he lay dying, I must still acknowledge his courage. Because I don’t know if I could focus so exclusively on negation, on the annihilation of the self.
So … religion. The means by which we aim to continue the conversation, with physical death being but a minor barrier, a shifting of perspective. What is the value of that? How about this to consider: if our civilization ultimately embraces the Dawkinsian aetheistic stance, it will be the first in human history to exist without a god or gods. By nature, then, it will be a civilization consisting of short, stuttering conversations, with every generation vanishing in the blink of time’s onward push. A scant few may be remembered, but most will be forgotten: will vanish, in fact, as if they never existed. I invite this for discussion, because to me, such a civilization will become something horrific. In service only to the moment, with an overblown sense of value regarding the material, and an insatiable appetite to amass ever more of the material. It will collectively flit from one shiny bauble to the next. It will give up asking questions. It will even surrender its doubts. The conformity of non-belief will prove tyrannical, and, I think, impoverishing.
So, better to muse and mull on religion, on the myriad languages used and created to give form to that dialogue. After all, in striving to reach beyond the self, there is no choice but to leave the limitations and confining aspects of the rational mindset. Much cherished certainties need surrendering, even abandonment. One has to push off from the shore, and swim out into the deep waters, knowing nothing of what chasm or abyss yawns below. The value of that? Well, the value is the persistence of wonder, I suppose, of possibility (Dawkins would give that a scientific flavour … exploration of nature, discoveries to be made, etc: but both exploration and discovery serves the ego doing the exploring and the discovering. It is, again, trapped entirely inside itself, but now the self is short-lived and basically pointless … no, I really can’t take Dawkins’ notions as being worthy. Push past the ego-centered excitement with its implicit arrogance, and what remains is a paucity of those things we hold to be of value).
Where does that leave me, in this rambling essay here? Well, it leaves me where I started, oddly enough. It leaves me where I was the day my father died, as I stood looking out over the strait to the distant mountains, and felt the summer heat on my face. Without the possibility of spirit, nothing awaits us. Without spirit, we are spiritless, and in the state of spiritlessness, we are pointless. This is not the same as a sense of humility — I hope that’s clear (there’s nothing humble in Dawkins’ aetheism). The pointlessness I am speaking of, in that spiritless world, is one of nihilism.
As I proceeded in writing the Malazan books, I found myself finding a particular focus, and in that focus, I began to comprehend a true enemy — to everything I was, and am. Nihilism abounds. It abounds in Fantasy fiction, film and television. It looms as death’s own face, with nothing behind it. But it smiles nonetheless, as it whispers ‘why give a fuck, about anything … here, suck on this…’
Enough background? From here, I think, we can move on, but I’ll wait till you’re all done with the novel. Because, beyond what I mentioned above, religion is also about justice, personal, collective, and cosmic. Our need to extend fairness into the universe is a core thread in our dialogue with everything else. After all, if things aren’t fair, why do good? Why strive to find the best in yourself? Some religions dispense with notions of justice, in favour of harmony, but I sense semantics in that distinction, rather than any fundamental difference.
Still, all that for another day …
Cheers
SE
Wonderful insight to the writing and the events that were shaping it and you. Thank you, Steven.
Great post, plenty of it goes over my head, but I do think your argument — or struggle? — in opposition to What’s-the-Point?-ism is explored particularly well through the Andii and Rake’s sense of responsibility for abating that feeling (and that’s throughout the series, on- and off-page). And without going into much detail for spoiler sake, there’s plenty of meaty compare/contrast opportunity between Rake and Draconus, their motivations, their methods, their results.
First off, I would like to echo @14; thank you for sharing your insights. One problem with Dawkins position, as Steven pointed out, is that it requires some kind of faith. I don’t mean faith in the scientific method or anything like that, but faith in certain answers to big questsions. When we think about the origin of the universe, atheists think that the universe just is, while many others choose to believe in some unexplainable supreme reality. Now this may just be me, but I find the concept of a universe like ours being completely unexplained just as mysterious as the concept of a being that exists outside our world. Neither of the two answers really seems better than the other in terms of explanatory power. Yet people like Dawkins cling dogmatically to the one, while others cling to the other. Personlly, I think that the fact that both answers are not satisfactory is more telling than the answers themselves. I guest you could respond nihilistically to the uncertainty, but I find it uplifting.
@Amanda
I read Samar Dev’s resistance as her unwillingness to capitulate, not in a physical sense, but in a philosophical one. She’s attracted to him, but she doesn’t want to validate what she sees as wrong headed about him.
@steven,
We’re in luck! It’s more likely to be a probalistic universe. In fitting with the discussion about certainty, I wonder if it’s any comfort that (paraphrasing) “god plays dice”. I suppose that still leaves facelessness and indifference…
This description feels depressingly close to how things already seem to be in the industrial world. Though our disbelief and soullessness lacks Dawkin’s militant cast (I suspect most couldn’t be arsed), I fear we’re sprinting toward the same hedonistic bent. Can one make a god of materialism? Without worthy struggle, no light to grow towards, what are the options beyond despair or dissipation?
@10, 11:
The second dragon I was referring to comes up a little later. It fought along side the Jaghut army against Death.
White Text end.
@SE
It’s was very interesting post, and very insightful. It gets me thinking though. I’ve always had a problem with a god, or gods, providing meaning to life. I’m agnostic myself, but I do find the lure of atheism to be seductive (mostly because I can’t bring myself to forgive the churches of Canada and the people who pray in them for what they allowed and now ignore but I understand that’s unfair of me).
It’s always been easier for me to accept the universe, reality itself is essentially meaningless. It doesn’t bother me and it doesn’t, I feel, make me nihilistic person. If anything it makes my sense of morality more urgent. I have less time to bring about a positive change on the world, and perhaps I won’t get to reap those rewards in the afterlife, but my children will in the real life, and other people might as well, others I have no other connections than be a fellow human being. And perhaps it was my upbringing, being raised from poverty, but not having materialistic things has profoundly affected me in a negative way. Some days it was either the lights or food for a week. Material goods aren’t inherently evil and I’d counter that religion just as much fueled the state of the world today as non-belief, the belief that they have the god given right to take what they want (though of course that comes back to certainty which I agree is pretty much shitty in almost all forms).
For me, there is something uplifting in the nothingness after death. A place I am not judge by my ‘peers’ for being poor, for being Cree, for being anything. The judging time is over and now my soul gets to rest. Just because the reality is without purpose or meaning doesn’t mean human interaction is. Just because there isn’t a reward of the afterlife (or punishment forever more as is often the case) doesn’t mean life can’t be rewarding. And I understand that being forgotten by history is a sad, but how would that be different than any other point in history? The few, and usually privileged, get remembered and the rest of us are forgotten, the dust of dreams as it were. I would find it more rewarding as a person to have myself stricken from records and to leave the world a better place then when I found than to carried off to eternal paradise for following a specific set of rules set out long before I was born in a place I have never been for a people I’ll never know. In a sense I more have a problem with the frame work with many religions rather than the spirituality.
Honestly I don’t know if this is a rebuttal or I’m agreeing with you or just making a fool of myself but if there is one thing I can say it’s, as always, your words get me thinking.
Thank you, Steven! Wonderful thoughts and insights. The discussion of Religion in your books is one of the more interesting aspects for me.
I love the idea of the gods living and dying in our world based on how many people do or don’t worship them. It certainly explains how religion has evolved over time.
My problem with Religion is dogma and rush to judgement of other faiths and beliefs. In the current world, it seems that Religion divides people, rather than bringing us more in touch with collective humanity, and tends to kill the possible of exploration of other dimensions, the unknown, spiritual connections, etc.
Perhaps if people spent more time in the “now”, they would treasure this time of corporal embodiment here on Earth. It could bring us more in touch with our fellow man. I dont’ see that becoming more materialistic and selfish/egotistic would result. As we age, materialism becomes less and less interesting. Stuff becomes a sea anchor. Matters of the spirit and questions of philosophy become more interesting. ( I do agree with you re: Dawkins aggressive atheism being as fundamentalist as any other closed mindset.)
Wonder must ever be maintained!
BDG91@19: I feel as you do. It’s the judgement and rules that religions have that I reject. I feel it kills freedom of spiritual exploration. I guess that puts me in the Agnostic camp, more than Atheism.
Thanks for spurring on this discussion, Steven!
When I was in Catholic school I stressed about Nihilism a bit, and let the fear that “without an afterlife, nothing matters” drive my belief in an afterlife.
Now I’m agnostic, but Nihilism doesn’t bother me. The things I do in life, I do for their own sake, even if it’s a relatively selfless act that doesn’t benefit me materially. The meaning in the act itself is enough meaning for me. Some day the sun is going to swell and gobble up the earth. Think anything we’ve done will have meaning past that? That kinda puts Nihilism in perspective for me.
“Live while you live, then die and be done with it.” -Faulkner
What this has to do with the book we’re reading, I have no idea. But this, too, shall pass. ; )
Steven, thanks a lot for your insight, what a treat – though I have to admit that you lost me a few times :)
I agree with 19. BDG91, that the mere fact of not believing in a god/gods isn’t nihilistic in itself and doesn’t necessarily make a horrid civilization. With and without religion very few people are remebered throughout history.
Despite the fact that there are so many beliefs in the Malazan world the people are mostly accepting of other faiths – much more so than in our world (at least as far as I have read – I finished TdH). I sometimes feel, that in our world religion is one instrument more to put people into seperate boxes – and fight our wars against each other. (In north ireland they don’t even need different religions as a basis for their “religious” war).
The agnostic “belief” doesn’t need to be nihilistic, again as BDG91 said, if there are no gods, we are responsible ourselves to shaping the world as we want it – and since I don’t want to live in a tyrannical way – civilisation isn’t necessarily bound to become so.
Tektonica @20 : I’m not certain the purpose of religion is to bring us in touch with our collective humanity. Most religions (the theistic ones, anyway) seem to be about bringing people in touch with their god or gods.
And there are two sides to judgment and rules. Moral judgments are necessary if we are to be moral actors. And rules are necessary for an ordered society. We’re all going to disagree from time to time regarding the appropriateness of specific judgments and rules in specific instances, but to disparage the concepts completely leads ultimately to an unpredictable society in which the strong prey upon the weak with no let or hindrance, and with no consequences.
Steven, thanks a lot for your musings. I read them with interest.
I have posted part of your essay on my facebook account (it never hurts to advertise that fantasy books aren’t superficial) and asked my (inter)religious active friends there what they think of this stuff. I’m curious if I can raise an interesting discussion there as well (and get some to read your books, as an nice side-effect ;-))
As you might guess, I fall more toward the nihilistic perspective. But rather than feeling lost and rudderless, I feel quite the opposite; free to forge an ethical path unencumbered by homage to an unknowable deity with questionable values, motives etc.
My question re: Mother Dark and the Redeemer (and earthly deities) in #5 is sincere: What does any worshiper get out of it? The solace of believing you are heard (and that your god cares)? That’s simply unsatisfactory: you’ve got to give me more than that to make it worth my while. [Not that I’m a fan, but even the Crippled God does more than that.]
I do not know the “cause” of the Big Bang. And, Clarke’s (3rd) Law notwithstanding, I believe it is dangerous to make a claim that the cause IS knowable. Accept it and move on to things that are knowable, and, more importantly, things upon which we can have an impact.* And, in case anyone is wondering, that (at least for me) is guided by the Darwinian form of Agency Theory. I am seeking the long (very long) term survival of my DNA (or some analogue, even distant if necessary).
You may think that as selfish (as in “The Selfish Gene”), but I would argue differently. While I may be an agent for my own DNA, I am also an agent for (all of) its analogues, yours too.
… Meanwhile, … back on Wu, … I tend to enjoy the gods who interact with their followers (although I kind of sympathize with poor Itkovean; he hasn’t asked for the worship, nor the power that comes with it.) Those gods are characters in this great story, they have different and conflicting motives and desired outcomes, and they have purposes we can struggle to comprehend (hopefully not in vain, else the feared shaggy dog). Otherwise, gods are as interesting as rocks (but, to be honest, Steve did a great job of making a rock interesting in this very chapter).
Well. Enough parentheses.
Great conversation everyone. Thanks,
GOS
* I am not of the mind that basic science in search of answers (e.g., the search for the Higgs boson) is/was pointless, rather that finding it or its predecessors won’t answer the “why” question. (or the Why,” “Why?,” “Why?” series.)
@23
Personally I’m deeply agnostic, with a fair smattering of cynicism battering my faith in Humanity, but one thing I’ve noticed is that looking across history, people who follow polytheistic religions tend to be much more tolerant of different beliefs than those who are monotheistic. Look at the extremely long coexistance of Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist faiths in the east, versus the bitter disputes in the west. Look at the Romans, who prior to the main conversion had widespread tolerance of all sorts of religion, and even after official conversion to Christianity still turned a blind eye to many of the older faiths. (Yes, at one stage they had Christians thrown to the lions, but usually for political reasons, not religious, heck for a while they tended to throw most anyone in, so it wasn’t exactly exclusive persecution)
For a monotheistic approach, look at the tolerance shown by Muslim Spain prior to the Reconquista.
Maybe it is the simple idea that if you have many gods, who is to say which is most important, or if each is worth addressing at a particular time or place. Reminds me of the simpler superstitions, where there is a god in every spring, every forest, or the demigod style Loa of Voodoo.
I can definitely agree with a lot of Steve’s comments, and especially many of the sentiments in the book. The simple phrase .. “Every choice in the world” is one heck of a powerful argument against closed minded thinking. I also reject a lot of the nihilistic philosphy being espoused today … and the whole idea of an acceptable level of suffering is a horrible one, seldom raised in public, but I suspect often considered in private thoughts.
@Amanda – Why does Samar Dev not just jump Karsa’s bones? Other than the “I will split you in half” “Sounds like fun” issue, perhaps Samar instinctively knows that involving herself with him will devour her own individuality. Karsa is overwhelming and, as the relationship between Traveller and Karsa shows, she just becomes an accessory, a pet. A beloved pet, perhaps, but she would be Samar Dev no longer but Karsa’s “woman”.
@Steve Erikson – Thank you for your interest in what your readers have to say, Mr. Erikson, and for sharing your own thoughts beyond your fiction. That is quite delightful. Also, thank you for your wonderful, thought provoking books.
First, I agree with @19 BDG91. I shall leave those points to him.
I don’t know about Dawkins – I presume you mean Richard Dawkins – but dogma is dogma, whether it is about a god or a world view. Dawkins apparently has violated one of the big MBotF no-nos. He has certainty. “Reason” can be as much a god as, well, a mythical being and be equally as mythical. First of all, someone has to define what constitutes reason.
I did think when reading the MBotF books at some point “I think Erikson’s mucking around in all these dead civilizations and seeing all the defunct gods has driven him slightly crazy.” Handling the debris from thousands of years of hubris probably would do that.
Because religions have co-opted and/or generated the terms for considerations of the “spirit” doesn’t mean those that do not have a religion have no spiritual considerations. Those who do not believe in a god or simply do not know are quite capable of wonder and discourse about ephemeral internal and external matters. You can look at yourself for evidence of that. It just may require a recasting of the term spiritual.
I think that a nihilistic culture could not survive. Human beings (and many other species) require each other to thrive and survive. We are literally wired for that. If a baby is fed but isn’t touched and handled, he or she dies. A baby and a child that isn’t touched, handled and cared for certain amount of time becomes mentally and emotionally damaged. People who have no contact with others begin to hallucinate after a short time. (Hello secluded holy men.) Solitary confinement is considered a severe punishment. People frequently can and do love each other and not because some god or religion told them to. Those needs are matters of what we call the spirit and, while they certainly can become befuddled, they are an essential part of us. Read the Viktor Frankl entry in Wikipedia, section “Life after 45”. It is the god within us.
Does the question “Why are we here and what are we here for?” really dissipate if we do not believe in god or spirit? A belief in a god actually truncates that question – we’re here to serve that god. Does evil no longer become evil because it is no longer defined by a religion? I think discarding the confines of religion in many ways opens up the discourse. It means we have to take responsibility for our definitions and constructs. That is when the real discourse begins, when we no longer can hide behind some façade for our decisions. The belief that there is nothing beyond death leads to a mechanistic universe could be very wrong. Perhaps it frees the mind to find and ponder questions you can’t even imagine right now.
Quite frankly, I think it is not moving away from gods and religion that will end our discourse, but when we eliminate all other forms of life. When our experience with life is based only on ourselves, then our self-involvement could become nihilistic. The conversation will be a dull and sad one indeed.
I haven’t been around long enough to call you Steve and please excuse the length of my post but you ask big questions.
Steven,
Thanks for popping in and for not waiting until the end so that along with having some meaty themes to discuss and insights into the genesis of some of the ideas in the series, we can be forewarned to keep any eye out for certain points as we go forward. As you say, you’ve invited discussion, so I’ll add my own sense of things, not in “debate” with you (especially considering the oh-so-personal aspect of much of what you wrote) but as others have here, just in continuation of a compelling conversation sparked by your post and your and Cam’s books.
I for one appreciate that exploration of the “birth and death of religions” along with the relationship between culture/civilization and religion. This despite my atheism (actually I prefer the term “apathist”—one who figures it doesn’t really matter if there is a god (s) or not re one’s day to day living). I always find it odd that so many fantasies take their cues from our medieval world, where religion was perhaps the dominant force, and yet many/most fantasies barely mention it. Or if they do, it’s the handwave of an odd god name or two. So I like how you and Cam dig deep into what is revealed about culture or civilization/singular humans via religion.
I fall in with those who don’t find the idea of an indifferent universe particularly depressing or damning. I’m happy with us making our own meanings—right or wrong—and the universe seems large enough to offer us lots of space (no pun intended) to make that meaning, or meanings, and adjust them (or surrender them wholly) as needed. In fact, I tend to think accepting the universe as meaningless forces one to make meaning in one’s life, rather than distracting one by an afterlife or trying to discern “god’s” meaning. I wonder at the thought that religion is the means “by which we aim to continue the conversation.” It seems children would be another and art another, so while I’m fine with religion being “”a means for some, it doesn’t appear to me to be “the” means, and thus I’m not concerned that a civilization without gods will become a series of short, stuttering conversations concerned only with the material. Religions change, so too does art, but both it seem to me extend the conversation. A big part of me in fact thinks art is one of those lines that divides modern humanity from pre-humanity (not in any “scientific sense” but in the “how do we define human” sense).
Reproduction also it seems keeps us constantly focused on the world we leave our children and their children (not, by the way, that we always do such a great job of leaving them a world we’d want them to have. Far from it too often, but still, we think about it . . . ). I also believe that a culture that doesn’t believe in god (s) has no reason to also surrender wonder (and “wonder” seems to be just another word for “doubt” in many ways). Interestingly enough, one of the reasons I tend to have a distaste for organized religion is it seems to impoverish wonder in many ways, constraining it, wrestling it into a pair of uncomfortable pants, a scratchy dress shirt, a too-tight jacket, a smothering tie . . .
I feel I’m missing something in the whole “ego” thing. If exploration suits the ego, does not the faith in a being either interested in us (caring whether we do this or that, eat this or that, say this or that, etc.) or comprehensible to us (even as we try to pretend he/she/it isn’t, all while still acting as if he/she/it is) also display arrogance (not even implicit) and suit the ego? Though perhaps you make a distinction between religion and “spirit” (I adamantly do). I’m with you on the “without spirit” and so forth, but I’m OK with spirit being embedded within science or humanity (not to mention trees and rocks)
As a personal reaction, I like your declaration of nihilism as the enemy and as a reader, I can also see it as a useful prism through which to read your work, as it seems to highlight the focus we see so often on empathy and compassion—sworn foes of nihilism. Can’t wait to continue this discussion as we move forward, both in TtH and the series as a whole (avoiding spoilers here for now). But I think the choices made by you and Cam to employ such long-lived characters, as well as various means of return/after-life were brilliant in that they serve as a great means of exploring these concepts outside the generational context of regular old humans, allowing these characters to stand in for entire civilizations in many ways (if that makes sense or is a valid read).
BD—some beautifully stated points in your post
Possibly a strawman on Dawkins here. I think there is a difference between Atheistism and Fundamentalist Atheistism. Along the lines of, “There is no proof of a God, but if one comes along we will add it to the scientific theories” As opposed to “There will never be proof of a God”
The first is the scientific principle, the second is an assertion.
I will also venture that there is no way of knowing what would happen if a society/civilisation became entirely Atheististic. So there should be no rush yet for everyone to declare themselves Agnostic, as opposed to Atheistic. Agnosticism, to me, implies walking away from the choices, instead of making a choice.
27@@@@@ Grieve
Dawkins has certainty alright. But sometimes certainty IS justified.
The world is round, gravity does exist, evolution exists etc. I am very very wary of going for the argument that certainty is always wrong in every context.
Thank you Steven for taking the time to post a comment. It’s very refreshing to see the intelligent posts and replies that have been posted on such deep and complex subjects as religion, creation, faith, and truth.
I hope that Malazan Series continues to grow in popularity and hopefully gets adopted to a mini-series or a television show. I didn’t say the big screen because even a trilogy could do justice to the story and detail need to explore the universe you’ve created.
I would like to say that of all the issues that your series raises, analyzing how religions and rituals get created is one of the thought-provoking issues I have dealt with from fiction. While you argue in your post that you feel that humanity will take a turn for the worst if we set aside organized religion and a belief in god, I think the opposite is highly possible. Being an athiest myself, I find that not believing in a higher power or an afterlife has allowed me to value my life, living my life to the fullest, and valuing the lives of my fellow man even more. Someone early in this thread posted the question: why do we need to worship a god? And I believe that this is one of the more important questions that society and individuals need to ask themselves. I believe that humanity created belief in god as a way of dealing with our fear of death and the unknown. I think that a time will come when humanity as a whole with overcome that fear and that it will make us better for it.
I also feel that with the technological and medical advances that are taking place in the world today that the future for humanity looks very bright. While the possibility for world leaders and groups to inflict evil and suffering on others on a large scale, I feel that overall that we as a race can and will come together in the future to secure our existance. As an athiest I believe that our destinies are our own to create. If we as a race can focus our energy properly, life should be better for many of those who will come after us.
I’ll take the POV here of the Christian that still believes, despite overwhelming evidence and contradiction inherent of the only evidence we have of his existence.
I don’t fully understand all the philosophies many of you are talking about here, mostly because of a lack of having read and cross-referenced and studied, etc.etc…
And for sure I could never PROVE the existence of a god who no longer performs miracles, and allows us to make decisions and have actions that no matter how free-willed we think we are, will ultimately result in a predestined outcome.
Mostly, I think my religion has been corrupted. Forever and forever, since Abraham became Israel, since the Flood, since the ten commandments, the Crucifixion, the founding of the catholic church, the Crusades, the Nicene Creed, the catholic abuse cover up, the Zionist movement, the 7 Day war, and on and on. The people responsible for administering the Christian faith have destroyed it from the inside. And I think, out of everything, that is the number one reason why it is viewed with disdain.
But its absolutely wonderful to question the fundamentals of the religion. The main idea of faith in a savior who, like The Redeemer, absolves all sin and transgression, but unlike the Redeemer, requires a belief in the savior himself, faith that the Creator has prepared a place for our souls to rest in peace eternally and live forever with Him, that is a wonderful thing to me. I look forward to that. And it requires nothing of me but belief. On a personal level, I can countenance that, and it fills me with joy that I have something to look forward to beyond all “this”. But I am not oblivious to the fact that I and others can not rationally perceive of this idea beyond its mere basics. I know what I know based on my experience here in this life, and to try and understand what an afterlife is like is beyond my ken. I think that aspect of Christianity is very alienating. “Oh there’s an afterlife, you say? What’s it like? You don’t know? Then why should I try for it?” I can’t answer that question. Only you can.
This says nothing of certain offshoots of Christianity, like catholocism, which require good works, and even recently have said that good works are enough to “get to heaven”. Firstly, how would they know this? There is no direct line to God, despite what bishops and popes would have us believe. In fact, even the feeling of absolution provided by prayer and confession – the rituals, if you will – is a psychological cause and effect, purely synapses and neurons. But if they cannot know what they say they know, then how do I know what I say I know?
Faith, I guess. It all comes down to faith. And where does that faith come from? For me it comes from the same thing that Steven has discussed above: the belief that if this was all there was, then what is stopping from devolving to a point of complete nihilism? True, like Good Ol’ Satan (hilarious name for this conversation, btw), his response wouldn’t be that way, and I suspect that many others would also prescribe to a belief rooted in compassion and empathy; Golden Rule stuff, essentially. But I don’t see that holding up for too long. And even if it did, what is stopping THAT from changing for the worse? What, SE says, is the point?
We have to live beyond this existence in some way, and the way I choose is faith in my God. THere are other paths for people to choose, and I hesitate to think that choosing another path, agnosticism or atheism, Dawkins or Darwin, Buddha or Bilal, would yield a negative result. Much like Popeye, I yam what I yam, and I am a product of my experiences. Can anyone else be held to a different standard because of a different experience? That is not for me to say, and I won’t even attempt it.
I appreciate that even this minutiae was covered in the story with the polar concepts of The Redeemer and The Dying God. But also twisted a bit. The faith in the dying God yields no rewards, and the lack of faith in the redeemer is fine as long as he hugs you. He’ll take anyone. IT was a wonderful literary switcheroo, and a subversion of the trope by the master of trope subversion.
I appreciate your comments so much Steven. Its a pleasure to know that a writer who writes about the problems of religion does not necessarily hate religion, or even if you did, you respect its influence on humans, from an anthropological POV, and the role it has played in developing civilizations.
Toll the Hounds is about so much more than a blue city and people finding their way. It is my absolute, far-and-away favorite book in the series, and I cannot imagine my feelings on MBotF and your other writings to be so overwhelming without this specific book in the canon. And thank you to Bill and Tor for hosting this discussion. Its rare that the internet is so civilized and it’s a testament to the high level of quality thinky-brains of the readers of these books.
palaeologos@23: Just to try to clear up what I was saying……
The purpose of Religions today indeed does NOT seem to be “bringing humanity more in touch with each other”. Quite the opposite, horribly. It appears very devisive, to me.
You are right, it is about bringing man in touch with their god/gods. What I, personally, object to, are the “rules” and “rituals” for how to address said god/s, in order to reap rewards in the afterlife. I found this very stultifying, growing up. It provided me little in the way of exploration of the spiritual. Quite often, in todays world, the focus on Rules, seems to cause much hatred and mistrust. ( “My beliefs are right, and yours aren’t)
The rules and judgements that I mentioned was referring to various religions proscribed methods of interacting with their god/s….not about how to live within a secular governmental society. (That’s a whole other kettle of fish. One which I do not think needs religion to inform it.)
I agree with many above, not being religious does not preclude a spiritual exploration and morality. I find being firmly in the Real World, puts me most in touch with whatever common energy binds us all. A lack of ritualized belief frees me to find meaning in humanity, in the physical world, and does bring me a true sense of wonder. It doesn’t matter to me whether there is an afterlife of some kind or not. I am here now, and will be the best I can be, for the world, for my family, for it’s own sake. Why not? No nihilism here.
I also know many people who desire, and need ritual and rigorous religious belief to get them through the day. I don’t understand it, but if it works for them, and they are kind, and not judgemental, it’s OK by me.
Steven, ever played Dwarf Fortress?
It’s almost like playing god.
It has an ascii interface but it’s basically a sandbox game where you designate where to dig, plant, cook, craft etc. And these smiley icons are entities with their random attributes, likes, dislikes, physical and mental stats, and various dieties that is generated along the current map or world history.
Besides the building part of the game, there are text generated along the world building, and the history and legends resulting from clashes of different civilizations. And these can be read and exported.
Object of the game? Explore, build, and survive for “fun” trouble will eventually happen. My point is that despite playing my own games, I think part of the enjoyment I get is reading about other player’s experience, especially how their fortress succumbs to destruction.
On a personal note regarding loved ones passing, I think that the grieving and funeral rituals is for the benefit of the surviving loved ones. Sure the person who passed away is long and gone, but the emotional hurt and loss are present for the one who are still living. And if religious (my) beliefs help ease that transistion to moving on in (my) life, then it does not matter what others believe in.
One theme that is also important are “memories,” specially recalling experiences with the one who passed away, and retellting these to others. Such memories are personal, and I think that the healing and grieving some the loss are sped up by sharing memories to others who have their own memories to share.
One thing that I think I do need to mention is that the majority of you are saying “Religions”, when what you actually mean is “Abrahamic-religion.” (ie, Christianity & Islam, and some Judaic sects). Very few religions outside of those are, as @33 says, in this vein: ”
The purpose of Religions today indeed does NOT seem to be “bringing humanity more in touch with each other”.
Hinduism, Shinto-ism, religions of the indiginious peoples of the world, and (neo)paganism (to name a few) are more focused on bringinging people and the world they live in more in touch with each other.
Just my thoughts…
One of the problems that I have with Religion or believing in Gods is that it discourages innovation, new ways of thinking and questioning the basic facts of the reality that we see around us. Religion gives a good moral code to be followed in our day-to-day life, and the fear of God and the fear of an afterlife in Hell may well stop us from performing destructive actions and disrupting the peace of society. But rational thinking, common sense and an obligation to the society that you live in (and if all else fails, the fear of an-eye-for-eye) can be equally effective as religion in maintaining peace.
Every religion provides some answers to the difficult questions (such as who created the universe) and the followers are expected to have faith in these answers, because of which they will not strive to explore alternative answers. It all comes down to the question of certainty, and believing in a religion means that you have to be certain about some answers, you just cannot question them. On the other hand, Science and rationality allows you the freedom to question any fact, and if there are certainties in science, they can be logically and rationally explained. And while Science does not, at the moment, have satisfactory answers for some very basic questions, it allows the freedom for anyone to delve into these questions and try to find an answer, instead of providing some imaginary solution.
As far the question of what happens after death is concerned, I believe humanity has struggled with this puzzle since the very beginning, and this question alone has probably spurred countless people towards accepting religion and believing in God. It is amazing that each and every one of us is guaranteed to get an answer to this puzzle, sadly we will just not be able to communicate it to our living counterparts. One of the comments above gave a very nice attitude to have towards this dilemma, which is it doesn’t matter what happens to me after I die, but it matters what I have done when I lived.
Vanye, good point. In my own mind, I tend to relation those beliefs you mentioned with “spirit” rather than “religion” (I know they are considered “religions–it’s just a useful distinction in my head when I think about this topic), so when I discuss “religion,” I’m usually talking about the monotheistic being-based ones. “spirit” for me implies a breadth rather than a focus, an opening out rather than narrowing in, and a sense of underlying connectedness. But we should all be more precise in our terminology for better discussion (especially when our terms–the same words–don’t necessarily mean the same thing)
I don’t think religion stymied innovative or creative thinking for Johannes Gutenberg, or Gregor Mendel, or MLK Jr., or Homer, or the Beatles. Obviously certainty belongs to priesthoods and fanatics (and I’d agree that Dawkins is a preacher in his own right), and all power structures — secular or spiritual — have a contingent preoccupied with self service and preservation. But religion is also one route for outward looking and curiosity, about asking why…why day turns to night and back again, why the wind blows, why volcanoes erupt, etc. And sure you can think of that as crawling or baby steps, and science as walking, but I think that’s a bit too linear, and a bit too binary.
I do think there’s merit to people suggesting that the ephemerality of life w/o an afterlife can lead one to appreciate the here and now that much more, carpe diem, all that. But I’m not sure how that pans out when you scale it to a civilization. And as Vanye points out, there’s plenty of religions that don’t conform to immediate Abrahamic connotations, where the goals of faith are less tit-for-tat transactional. But if there’s value to be had in even those faiths, it’s in the lesson that actions have consequences. Not to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I think that may be a driving concern in Steve’s point about civilizations falling into hedonism and nihilism. You might be able to teach that lesson generation after generation without the need of religion, I personally think it’s plausible, but religion is undoubtedly one of humanity’s foremost girds of continuity.
I’m not going to weigh in extensively on this. I find online forums to be an inadequate mode of interaction for religious debate. I have tried it more than once and for true discussion it’s best done face to face.
I’ll let it suffice then to say, that as a Christian, I find a lot of sweeping generalization about religion being made here. I’m one to agree that religion has done damage in the world, mostly in misapplication by its adherents. Certainly some of the previous posters have even felt that injustice. But I question whether religion itself is to blame, or is it more that it has been misapplied. I disagree with a lot of things that Christian churches have done or are doing. I don’t disagree with the faith itself. I think there is a distinction and some of the previous posts are ignoring that. It’s also in my opinion wrong to say that all the ills of the past are down to religion. There’s plenty of ill where there is no religion too. One need not look to far to find them.
As to the claim that religion stymies scientific progress and innovation I find that utterly spurious. Worrywort has mentioned a few names, it would not be a difficult exercise to look back at many innovators in the past few hundred years and examine their beliefs. Among the western world there would be many who are Christian. I’m less knowledgable about other religions but I dare to wager that there would be plenty among Muslims, Hindus and whatever other religion you care to mention.
In any case, this shall be my sole post on the topic, and I appreciated reading the thoughts of others on the subject.
I can’t help but feel that this claim about Dawkins by Steven Erikson is profoundly incorrect, and indeed as an athiest myself I found some of its implications actually quite offensive:
Dawkins is open to the idea that there could be a god out there, but there is no evidence as yet to suppose there is (and if such evidence arises he has stated he would have to adjust his position accordingly) – in particular when considering the forms of religion as we know them right now. Hardly unswerving dogmatic faith – are the religious open to the nonexistence of their gods? Furthermore, stating arguments forcefully yet peacefully and in his mild mannered way hardly ranks as belligerence, unless that term is completely redefined.
And as for a claim of fundamentalism by Dawkins, that’s just not supported in any meaningful sense of the word, by any evidence. I also don’t quite get the qualification of “so called” applied to the term “religious fanatics.” There are indeed a great many religious fanatics out there, and their positions and beliefs are a great deal more harmful – directly, appallingly harmful every day across the planet – than any atheist’s (and just to preempt a likely response, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler did not do what they did because of atheism). So comparing strong atheists to religious fanatics is profoundly wrong and insulting.
I think from this mischaracterisation or misunderstanding of strong atheism come further errors in subsequent comments about atheism made by Mr Erikson and others. I find atheism to be a far more optimistic and inclusive position than any religion and most certainly not a recipe for selfishness, self-centredness and despair – claims about atheism that are simply tired old stereotypes based on misconceptions and personal bias.
Very well said JimmyBlue.
Steven, like us all, isn’t perfect and I think in this case he has distorted what Atheism is in order to make his point.
The point here isn’t the rightness or wrongness of Steven’s thoughts. He is letting us in on the thoughts and experiences that he was having as he wrote the book. The visceral sharing of these thoughts is an insight into the process that really sets this reread apart.
Witness.
I am against religion because of how it has been corrupted over time. For the most part, I have found it just as an excuse to justify the things that can’t be explained (creation of the Universe etc), or to justify one’s actions (for example, as JimmyBlue points out, Hitler). I don’t know if he truly believed that his actions were justified by God or not, but either way, it comes down to the fact that it is only an excuse.
But I do think, religion can hurt being innovative. On counter to the examples worrywort gave, Heliocentricism faced lot of opposition because it was against what Bible says. In worryworts examples, I don’t believe (and I most likely will be wrong about this) that any work of creativity by the people actually went against what (any) religious texts stated.
What exactly doesn’t get corrupted over time? That’s an impossible standard. The film industry has plenty of corruption, do you oppose movies? Or just that corruption? As far as justification goes, I see no reason to give atheism’s monsters any more of a pass than religon’s monsters. I certainly don’t accept it as a given that Stalin (mentioned as a JB example) wasn’t guided in large part by his atheism, particularly since it was a cornerstone and objective of Sovietism. In fact I’d suggest that claim is outright false. And generally speaking, if one of the strongest tenets of an atheist’s faith is a lack of accountability, I don’t see why that’s not as faciliatory to certain individuals as the promise of paradise. People, being what they are, tend to justify their actions in the shape of their beliefs…or rather, sometimes they bend one towards the other, or vice versa, and sometimes they bend both towards each other. One could certainly call that corruption, but if so, that corruption reaches into basically every human institution.
As far as the Heliocentrism example, you’d have to discount Galileo’s devout Catholicism and Copernicus’s status as an actual cleric, while simultaneously emphasizing that religiosity with the Church officials, and that requires pretense. And all that’s only if you want to focus on the European Renaissance…the Greeks certainly weren’t atheists, but I’ve never seen anyone go out of their way to ignore Pythagoras’s faith.
Apologies for the length, but I got a bit carried away.
The argument that religion stifles scientific progress is very much a fundamentally flawed one – as soon as you do any form of study of history, you can see great strides in understanding being made by humanity in all parts of the world, whether in a religious environment or not.
In the western hemisphere, you had the polytheistic Greek and Roman civilizations, from which almost all the western languages and artistic traditions derive, along with vast understanding of the fundamentals of the world. From the deeply fundamental Moslem heartlands, we had enormous advances in Mathematics, Astronomy, and other cerebral pursuits. The moslem Moorish kingdoms of Spain took and vastly expanded our understanding of ancient engineering, particularly fluid mechanics, and horticulture, which then passed on to the burgeoning Renaissance in central Europe. For centuries, the greatest knowledge and understanding of Medicine was kept and preserved by Jews, along with vast expertise in economic theories.
The primary “Religion hinders science” argument stems from a flawed understanding of the Dark Ages of central europe, where an ill educated populace stunted progress until the renaissance. Which was primarily a political issue, not a religious one – much of the initial stimulus was caused by the fall of the Byzantine empire to the Turks, and the flight of many Greek scholars to the Italian peninsula, where they were fortunately welcomed by the rulers.
Every great thinker in the west from that period on was religious. That faith was what drove them to discover more about the world around them. Darwin himself was deeply religious, although his research moved him away from the Christian traditions he grew up in to a more agnostic view.
*Organised Religion* on the other hand, has long been a method for controlling societies from small scale to large. Whether it be the tribal witchdoctor all the way up to the Papal States, an Incan Sun King or a village mullah, the formal organisation of religion has been and is a political tool to preserve the status quo, and to reduce the impact of external cultural changes. That has had a stifling effect on scientific progress and heretical thought as far as mankind has existed.
The only reason the power of religion as a tool has been … limited … in the last centuries comes down to what Banks described best in Excession – an Outside Context Problem. The whole idea of the modern age, the insane rate of progress since 1900 driven by war, by expansion, by rapid communication and by global trade – is something that a Greek philosopher or Victorian Engineer simply could not comprehend. It has enabled vast leaps in scientific knowledge, vast progress in enriching the world, in education, in health, and in life itself. But has it done this at the cost of the soul … at the cost of a belief in something greater than the self or immediate family?
One side effect of the huge expansion in communication and the explosion of the internet is a corresponding shrinking in the knowledge of many individuals. We arrange ourselves in self reinforcing small communities, where our own ideas are reflected back on us. Our news is gated, our knowledge which once boomed is being limited once more, for political reasons. And Religion is once more being used as a tool in that struggle. Look at the demonization of the American Christian, now defined to the outside world as a fundamentalist Bible Bashing state who is ignorant of their surrounds and bans the teaching of Evolution in schools. Or Islam, which is shown in the western media almost as a religion for those too poor to afford shoes, corrupting them to blow themselves up for the good of the enemy of the hour.
As I said earlier, I am not a believer in any way in any of the religious traditions. But I am fascinated by them, by the ideas behind them and how they developed. In religious traditions, you can see simple environmental influences, such as food preservation in hostile climates. You can see increasingly complicated rules for preserving societies once they exceed certain numerical limits, of how to treat strangers, and how to treat friends. There are many rules that make no sense whatsoever in today’s world, whether cultural, sexual or political, but the underlying philosophies on art, on purpose, and fundamentally on what it is to be human?
Now there is something greater that religion has to offer, once you take the time to look beyond the trappings.
And I really appreciate the opportunities that authors provide when cloaking those explorations in Fantasy, because it lets us consider the underlying ideas behind particular creeds, without the stifling assumptions that our upbringing makes us bring into it.
Well now, this has burgeoned into a fascinating discussion. I’ll join in here by way of elaboration on the things I’ve already said. Regarding Dawkins … I have watched his debates in the UK, with various religious leaders, and I stand by my assessment of the man. Not just dogmatic and belligerent, but inclined to bully through force of personality: these are all fundamentalist traits. As for his equivocation regarding the ‘finding’ of God somewhere in the universe, that’s lip service. He doesn’t believe it, so it costs him nothing to say it.
Anyway, it was for me very encouraging to read so many posts from readers stating that they lead moral lives (with or without religion): that they seek to do right by their world. My slightly plaintive response to them is: ‘alas, there’s not enough of you.’ In other words, step back and look at who’s running things (inasmuch as this wildfire is being run by anyone), and ask yourself, do they operate by ethical or moral standards? If not, then why are they in charge? What element of power as expressed here in our world, both encourages and bolsters the worst of us in positions of authority?
BDG91: you state that it’s ‘unfair’ of you to hold churches in low esteem, to which I can only respond: ‘no it isn’t. You have every right to do so and there is absolutely no need to be apologetic about it.’ As I am sure you are all too familiar with, the legacy of that systematic cultural assassination lives on here in Canada. More to the point, I’ve had my own brushes with that ongoing racism (I was pulled over while driving a university vehicle on a highway because a Plains Cree happened to be sitting beside me in the passenger seat. The RCMP officer wanted to know if I was all right. I told him I was fine, and that I’d just gone into the reserve to pick up one of our workers. Afterwards, as we drove away I asked my friend if that happens often. He said: “Every time.”). As a civilization we’re good on lip service, on the empty apologies and meaningless promises. So no, you are not being unfair for having the feelings you have, BDG91.
Thanks Mayhem for your posts, but you keep taking the words from my mouth! I get all geared up to respond to something, only you beat me to the punch, and between the two of us, you are by far the more concise.
When I spoke about the base needs underling religion, I was trying to strip things back, past the trappings of organised religions as they’re generally viewed, to a more basic psychological state. In that sense, I was approaching a sense of the spiritual. Science holds that one cannot make something from nothing, and yet somehow we are to imagine that the creation of sentience, of consciousness, to be more precise, is a natural evolution from a universe made of otherwise inanimate or at least non-sentient material — this is my problem with both the mechanistic and the probalistic universe theories. We cannot help but be reflection of our universe (star-stuff and all that): accordingly, all that we are and exhibit and express (consciousness) must also be a reflections of at lease some aspect of the universe. The aetheistic world-view on this issue stumbles badly, to my reading of it. This issue, however, is not in any way addressing the notion of an active agency somewhere out there that may or may not exist. Rather, what I’m trying to parse here is the most basic relation between us and everything else.
respond at will.
Oh, and one last thing: agnosticism is not running away from anything. The line may sound good, but it’s facile and dismissive. I’m standing right here, not moving. Could be I’m the deer in the headlights. Or maybe I’m trying to deny the car’s existence, and its imminent introduction to my forehead. All things are possible. Except fleeing, that is.
cheers
SE
Steven@46:For your last point first, I completely agree that agnosticism is not at all a fleeing from anything. Rather it is both an active pursuit of the boundaries of reason and the courage to discard any inclination to aspire to conclusions that are not based upon the ability to be either demonstrated or demonstratable.
As such, both the deist and the atheist attempt to provide answers of certainty where there are no answers nor even valid questions.
For the question of the emergence of consciousness within the framework of a mechanistic universe, I’ll first admit that all of the answers are certainly not known at this time (no strong AI exists yet) but that all indications continue to point that such answers are fully attainable. My favored direction is one of an emergent phenomena based upon a recursive sensory apparatus with statistical reasoning/memory mechanisms (neural basis).
Well, Steven, as regards agnosticism, perhaps you and I (and Dawkins) have different definitions of it. I thought of it as been along the lines of “I can’t decide between God and Non-God, its a 50/50 difference, so I’m going to stay here on the fence” but Dawkins himself describes himself as an agnostic so maybe its “There probably is no god, but if he jumps out of view from behind that new Galazy we spotted, we will revise our thinking” I think a better analogy then deer in headlights would be one woman/man, 2 roads diverging (in a wood where there are deer maybe!), which one do you take. Of course there are probably multiple roads going left and right, some of the left roads probably only going vagually left, the same for the right etc.
But… speaking of more extreme turns of teh road, I have to mention and draw attention to this passage you wrote, which tarred many atheists (or Dawkins-like agnostics) with a frankly insulting brush:
“How about this to consider: if our civilization ultimately embraces the Dawkinsian aetheistic stance, ………. I invite this for discussion, because to me, such a civilization will become something horrific. In service only to the moment, with an overblown sense of value regarding the material, and an insatiable appetite to amass ever more of the material. It will collectively flit from one shiny bauble to the next. It will give up asking questions. It will even surrender its doubts. The conformity of non-belief will prove tyrannical, and, I think, impoverishing”
So hows about some…dare I say it..proof of this statement? Or is it just based on a vague gut feeling? Because, and forgive me if I am telling you you your own previous trade here, there is no equivalent previous civilisation to compare this to, so automatically assuming an atheistic civilisation will be all bad (from a materialistic point of view) is very spotty thinking. Bordering on fear of the unknown/new to me. Why would an atheistic civilisation be so bad? Does atheism necessitate the rise of excess consumer spending? Why does lack of the spirtual, equate to “lets spend it like drunken sailors”
stevenhalter
Atheists are only as certain as long as evidence makes them certain. If new evidance comes along, out goes the certainty. Religious certainty…well I guess that changes with societal changes too which slowly changes the religion.
Eoin8472@48:Over the years various definitions have been attached to the word agnostic. The neutral definition–on the fence as you put it is a relatively recent spin and one I somewhat cringe at, but English is a plastic language.
The word agnostic was coined by Thomas Huxley around 1869. Basically, it was originally defined as a denial of non-evidentiary knowledge. So, basically, any statement of the sort “I believe X without any reproducible process or evidence” is considered to be a null statement.
So, given that, if someone asks, “Does God exist?” the answer would be, please define a reproducible experiment (or rigorous mathematical proof, …) with terms accurately defined and we will see. Lacking such a repeatable demonstration, no meaning can be attached to the sentence.
Now, if the question is “Do you believe in God?” (ignoring for the moment the ill-defined term God) the answer would have to be “No, I have seen no repeatable demonstration of the existence of any such entity.”
You will note that this roughly corresponds to your assertion that,
“Atheists are only as certain as long as evidence makes them certain.”
@stevenhalter
The concept of “agnosticism” is far older than the 19th century – you find greek as well as chinese philosophers voicing these ideas, and as it is an entirely logical stance it is probably even older than that. If you take Protagora’s statement “Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life.” for example, I would say that this is pretty much “on the fence”. And quite old.
Well then yes, its basically the same thing if we use that phraseology. Agnosticism becomes “If there is proof, its real, if no proof, then spirituality doesn’t exist”
Does Atheism, by that definition, become then, “If God comes up, I will deny it to its face” because it isn’t real? I can’t see that viewpoint ever lasting.
Also should so Steves entire argument/warning should have been about the dangers of an angnostic civilisation? Doesn’t help it.
Kah-thurak@50:Yes, the general concepts have been around and defined in various fashions. The particular label “agnostic” has (originally) a very precise meaning and origin.
@stevenhalter
Only if you choose to define it that way. Obviously the word is used more widely than that and as with all such things meanings do vary. Anyways. There are little to none “recent spins” on any of these ideas. They have been known for millennia. Though for some reason the believe in specific gods was ever more popular.
@48-53
With regards Theism, Agnosticism and Atheism, I always considered it as Theists believe in god(s). Atheists actively disbelieve in god(s). Agnostics neither believe, nor disbelieve, they just don’t tend to consider belief to be relevant to day to day life. Please note I do not mean apathetic – this is not dismissal or disinterest, merely a state indicative of … passive consideration. Should something pertinent come along, then that state is open to change.
Regardless of view, some may go to great lengths to persuade you to their views, others may keep it entirely internalised.
The first type are the true proselytising dogmatics, like Dawkins or missionaries … the fundamentalists as it were who are Certain in their beliefs, and adamant that everyone else should share them. The second type tends to be more spiritual – they have deeply held beliefs, but those are personal to them, and they tend to be much more considerate of other views. Personally I feel the second type are much more comfortable in their faith, they don’t have the need to express it. The first type are more shallow, so disguise an underlying fear or self doubt with an excess of zeal.
@Eoin8472
“If there is proof, its real, if no proof, then spirituality doesn’t exist”
And for his next trick Mankind proved black was white and went on to kill himself at the next zebra crossing.
Why do you need proof for spirituality to be real? What do you define as proof? Why this all consuming desire for certainty?
Consider Taoism, Jainism, even Buddhism. All are very old, deeply spiritual religions, without divine beings. None rely on materialistic actions, rather they all consider the deeper questions of what it is to be human, and mans place in the world. Many have procedures by which one can become “enlightened”, or more deeply aware of the world around. Yet all share the common thought that there is no one true way. And as a really positive state as far as I am concerned … none of the eastern religions was ever used as a primary driver for war, rather they coexisted within cultures for millennia and contested amongst themselves for followers.
The thing I have really drawn from a lot of study of cultures is the whole idea of keeping an open mind to other thoughts, other ways of life, of reading through the books of history and actually learning something from them. Which frankly is a disappointing trend these days, because few to none of our leaders choose to do the same.
I think you completely misunderstand the horror SE describes above – the horror is not in Dawkin’s stance. The horror is in the shallowness of the culture that will result, bread and circuses for the masses, reality shows where for the unfortunate few from among them there is a fleeting glimpse of hope before they are dragged back down and discarded in favour of New, and above all the exalted affluent lead shallow lives obsessed with image and status, but there is no longer any depth. Remove all spirituality, and you cheapen life itself.
For a vivid glimpse of that horror, watch Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror series. For there is little worse than the tyranny of absolute democracy.
This discussion continues to intrigue. The ‘aetheistic’ world I described was actually a commentary not on the future, but on the present, on what I see around me. Perhaps I was being too obscure? While arguable, it would seem that much of our Cartesian take on our present (Western) reality is effectively godless, or, rather, devoid of the value of a spiritual component. Capitalism is a fine example of this paucity of spirit as a means of existence, persistence and advancement. My sense is, this is the very paucity that underscores our destructive progress. In saying that, however, I do not for a moment suggest that instances of willful destruction are unique to cultures where spirtiuality has been broken or rejected, and certainly there are plenty of cases where spirituality, codified into religion, proves absolutely disastrous (Mayans) to the point of collapse for the civilization in question. But then, we are no longer sacrificing prisoners of war and/or virgins atop a pyramid. Are we?
While I have written in response to Derek Jensen’s ideas regarding the end of modern civilization, I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in a cogent criticsm of the religion of science in modern Western society, would do well to look at his book, Dreams. You need only read the first third or so (and if desired, discount the recounting of dreams as well, since their provenance and veracity is dubious). Even the notion that science is based on empirical evidence and provable constructs is itself based upon a particular worldview, and that worldview actually shapes how we see and approach everything around us (and, by twisted misjudgement, it also shapes how we look upon ourselves and each other — you will find no more chilling an argument for the low value of a human life than you will when witnessing one that is presented from rational precepts. But never mind life in general, these arguments extend to economic worth, collateral damage, and the homeless man down the street).
Years ago I sat on my first panel at a World Fantasy Convention. I can’t recall who else sat with me, apart from Gene Wolfe, primarily because the entire table was tilted in his direction (I say this with some humour), and that table reverberated to his fist many times during that session. This was immediately after 9-11, and the brave organizers had posed a panel topic relating to something about notions of God and violence. Some of that fist-pounding was in answer to my comment that the question of whose God was in the right was actually irrelevant, as the argument was being played out between mortal people, at the cost of mortal lives. At the end of the session I noted that I was the only humanist sitting up there. The point to all that, I suppose, is that there was a time when I did indeed consider myself a humanist (and an aethiest), and in the merging of the two notions, I thought I recognised a strong sense of responsibility for the stewardship of this planet and its myriad life-forms.
Things change. Responsibility seems out the window. Stewardship is a joke. And so I ask myself, when it comes to broader scheme of things (not our day to day squabbles, not even our wars of dominance and religion, but the continued survival of the planet), where do I turn? Science may well be an amoral tool, so what? Its application is anything but amoral, and the extent to which we apply the argument that if we’re capable of doing something, we have to right to do it (tarsands, fracking, etc), even when the ‘need’ is mired in a moral quagmire of self-justified habits of excess, science in truth offers us nothing when it comes to questions of right and wrong.
Religion, for all its flaws, is all about right and wrong, and even when it gets it woefully wrong, at least it’s addressing the issue. In other words, to replace a moral debate with a rational, amoral worldview, strikes me as anything but a solution.
Hope that clarifies my position somewhat. My agnosticism is about searching, and wondering. Still searching. Still wondering.
Cheers
SE
Steven, the current state of worldwide ecological problems provide a multitude of excellent examples of people doing things incorrectly. But, instead of providing examples of the misuse of rationality, I would assert that they are at their base all the results of irrationality in action.
It is a profoundly irrational act to destroy the only world we have at the moment. Short term greed coupled with an indescriminant misuse of science are indeed a dangerous combination.
There is pleanty of blame to let fall on both the religious and areligious sides. Unfettered greed fettered to a lack of compassion.
Moral principles can be derived within a rational framework and amoral actions can flow from a religious basis.
Searching is an excellent state.
I’m afraid I tend to think in much simpler terms, and I perhaps deserve chastisement for being reductive and missing the mark, but I can’t help but relate at least some of that to a simple example like Saying Grace. That’s what comes to mind when you say “at least it’s addressing the issue.” One says Grace before a meal because one sees a connection between the food on the plate, and the sources and efforts that brought it there, and one is thankful for all of it. It’s outward-looking, it’s even collective, even if for some people it’s focused on God as the ultimate source, right or wrong. But there are plenty of “spiritual” people who don’t necessarily believe in God, yet still see the value in recognizing and acknowledging that chain or web of what went into the meal. And there’s plenty of decidedly non-spiritual people who do the same. Doesn’t have to happen all the time, at every meal, but a general conscientiousness and appreciation seems pretty healthy.
The “anything but a solution” option would be replace superstitious Deity-focused Saying Grace with the vacuum of indifference (passive or active, the latter of course not actually indifference, but rather a pretend version). To hold to a simple incurious work-money-purchase-eat perspective requires its own set of blinders and self-deceptions. And if you blew that up to worldview level, to a purely mechanical universal default of indifference, you don’t exactly need an extreme concept like Hell to make me recoil from it. I mean the notion of eternal damnation for petty crimes may sound sillier to me, I’m not comparing them that way, but they’re still both unpalatable. Now I suppose that’s all a pretty imperfect metaphor, and as I feared, entirely too reductive of the various facets here, but hopefully it’s not all together braindead. And of course I’m not discounting the possibility of self-inflicted human extinction no matter what course its various faiths and non-faiths go, but I do think there’s value in avoiding it if we can do so responsibly.
And of course I’m side-stepping a whole host of problems (ecological, political, economic, moral) when I’m using the meal as an example. Mostly just chewing (and still chewing afterward) on the very heady stuff you guys are talking about, in my own simple terms.
Mayhem@54
You have paraphrased my stance into something that I catagorically did not say.
It’s not :
“If there is proof, its real, if no proof, then spirituality doesn’t exist”
its
“If there is proof, its real, if no EXISTING proof found at moment, then spirituality PROBABLY doesn’t exist, as far as we can tell”
Theres a bit of uncertainty in my stance which you have glossed over in order to pigeon-hole me into a position on SE’s ” Certainty is bad” axiom. I have stated that if God is seen around that next Galaxy in the bend,well there he is and no-one can deny him. Please don’t exaggerate my position into some sort of an imagined Dawkins-avatar stance.
“The horror is in the shallowness of the culture that will result, bread and circuses for the masses, reality shows where for the unfortunate few from among them there is a fleeting glimpse of hope before they are dragged back down and discarded in favour of New, and above all the exalted affluent lead shallow lives obsessed with image and status, but there is no longer any depth. Remove all spirituality, and you cheapen life itself.”
Sorry…but why? Does spirtuality provides all the depth to a culture? Maybe I am been too evidance-based again, but I have to ask you to, well not prove it I guess, but explain why things like the arts (SE’s own book series comes to mind), hobbies, passions and other stuff non-spiritualy based isn’t enough to provide said “depth” to the culture. Is that all just surface stuff then? What about practitioners of meditation(sans the spirtual element)?
@eoin
You are correct, and I apologise – I blurred your response to someone else with your earlier statements.
On the subject of spirituality, I think we might be arguing similar points from differing directions. I view the passions that inspire the arts, hobbies, literature and meditation etc as being influenced by something greater than selfish motivations. That … sense of wonder as it were. Like the feeling you get looking out on a landscape or walking through a forest. One person sees wet trees and a lack of civilisation and feels deeply out of place. Another sees an interplay of light and shadow that inspires an artwork. Yet another gets a feeling of relaxation, peace and tranquillity. Nothing has changed in the scene, yet the reactions are completely different.
In theory, it would be possible to explain exactly why each person feels the way they do – a mixture of upbringing, ancestry, environment and culture would be significant influences for sure. But do we really need to? Is there a tangible benefit to society in reducing that to a scientific explanation?
I don’t consider that spirituality provides all the depth as it were, rather I think it is one of the primary influences that is associated with drive and passion in humanity, and what results from that drive, for good or for ill.
I do however think that western culture is becoming increasingly shallow, and that the relentless corporate requirement to treat every thing as having a discrete value is causing humanity to turn on itself. Because if everything has a value, then when you assign value to a person, you abstract yourself from considering the commodity as a person, and all that that entails. Is a person in Delhi worth the same as a person in New York? If so, why so. If not, why not.
And I think that spirituality, whether via organised religion or no, has something to bring to that discussion.
I am still decidedly against the fundamentalist churches, but that is to do with hypocrisy and politics, not necessarily the underlying philosophies.
Mayhem@60:I also completely agree that a sense of wonder is a marvelous thing. I just don’t need to ascribe it to mystical sources. Knowing that there is an explanation doesn’t preclude the joy of discovery or the delight in watching as manifold complexities reveal a symphony from some strings and hides vibrating.
Emotions are quite clearly a real thing. Taking journeys of the imagination and dreaming of castles, wizards and far flung space adventures are great fun (for me and most of us here I suspect).
I also agree that the relentless stampede towards short term corporate profits is a dangerous trend and that the purposes of society as a whole are, perhaps, not best served by the end state that points towards. Something like the Culture seems like a much better place to end up.
Man this blew up while I was away! There are a couple points I’d liked to tackle, but I’d firstly say it’s so great to see an author engage his fans like this! Atheism, much like any religion, is built of personal belief. You can say it’s based on evidence, and to say so, I think, is to heavily misunderstand faith and spirituality. How can you ever possibly find evidence of an all-powerful being? Or the forces of yin and yang? Or karma? If existence is infinite, as in always existing then I fail to see how your Atheism is based on anything but belief. Science itself fails to explain the birth of the universe and thus reality because what becomes before the Big Bang? And before that? And before that? And what of the end? What happens after that? Can you honestly say with the certainty that none of this perhaps had a higher power involved? This may seem like a contradiction of my pervious statement but I only said atheism was seductive, but in all honesty I don’t know the meaning of life anymore than anyone else. I also agree with SE on the moralization of science. It’s happened before, we call it Social Darwinism and it’s fucking terrible. It’s also been used to justify numerous hideous things in history from slavery to genocide. An evidence-based reality where everything is given an empirical value is almost as scary as eternal suffering. How do you put value on life, no matter how small? How do you put value on suffering or happiness? It’s not life I’d like to live. And for contrast I don’t think to live a spiritual life one needs religion of any sort (religion for me is a way of taking ones spiritual beliefs and normalizing it, and then putting in a hierarchy and then building an underclass to raise up the elites…I am so cynical). You could simply chose to believe in human goodness, and not put a figure, face or force on it. I would think it would be just as enlightening as a sermon. In some ways a religion, and all religion is organized in a way, is putting the immensity of the universe and all its possibilities in a box. It might be a big box, but I doubt it can hold an ocean. Every atheist I have every meant spiritualized something, be it rugby, video games or sex. It was how it was emotional experience, a changing one, something that connected to them on a very different level that normal mundane life. They would generally use very ‘religious’ language. I believe such things are possible in even an uncaring world with no inherent value. I even believe such things are possible on a nation-wide level. But I doubt schools would ever have an ethics and morality class. Again my post is derivative and I’m not really sure what I am saying. Hopefully I didn’t offend anyone to much.
Sorry for the wall of text, there was paragraphs I swear! And now I can’t go back and edit it.
I’m a bit behind in the re-read as I am just a few chapters behind so didn’t see this very interesting conversation until now. Lots of great points here but I disagree with some. Religion is not about what is right and wrong. The cynic in me would argue that religion goes through stages.
Stage 1 (infancy) the religion attempts to explain the unknown.
Stage 2 (expansion) the religion attempts to gain acceptance
Stage 3 (entrenchment) the relgion attempts to force out competition and gain power
Stage 4 (maintenance) religion spends effort on maintaining power
Stage 5 (corruption / downfall) may be tied to their society or their actions
I am no religious scholar and I may be getting myself in a large bit of hot water but based on my limited knowledge the concept that religion dictates right/wrong is a relatively recent development. The roman/egyptian/norse/greek mythologies appear to me to embody different aspects of the human experience, not moral rights/wrongs. Less than 2000 years ago Paul came up with a different idea.
If there are no gods (and there certainly is a paucity of evidence supporting their existence) I disagree that it makes our existence or our universe any less meaningful. I understand the discomfort with that view but just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you can deny it. Personally I’d rather not create some construct to make me feel better.
Feel free to eviscerate what I’ve posted here. I welcome any critique/commentary as I am always trying to learn.
My biggest issue with religion is the concept of a god that takes note of our existence. I’m fine with the idea of some all powerful being to which we are as ants are to us – so small that we, at most, take academic note of from time to time, but otherwise consider irrelevant and occasionally annoying. But a god that considers us worthwhile? Given all the tragedy we’ve experienced in our history, I can think of three possibilities under which a being can be effectively omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously. 1: it’s playing with us. Stuff like the Holocaust was able to happen because it was amusing to it. 2: it’s supremely apathetic, and will never step in. (People make the argument about free will, but I have big issues with that argument when you start thinking of some of the horrible shit that’s happened. Why do millions of people get to be locked away, tortured and killed because a handful of people exercised their free will and the autocratic power they held to do so? How does any good being accept that?) 3: There’s more than one such being, and while there may be a good one, there’s also an outright evil one and they’re blocking each other’s attempts to change anything. So either god’s a psychopath, a lazy jerk, or is locked in an eternal war with an absolute monster. I don’t like the idea of being the potential plaything of the first, I have no respect for the second, and the existence of that evil deity is a concept that fills me with existential dread.
There’s also the Occam’s Razor argument to be made in favor of a purely mundane world: I’ve heard the argument mentioned by theists of many types argue that the problem with a mundane, scientific model is that it fails to explain why the big bang happened, and what happened to cause whatever caused the big bang, etc, arguing that this chain of causality can only be brought to an end by introducing a god to act as the creator. Thing is, all you’ve done is added a step – why is there a creator god? What happened to make some intelligent being that makes universes? The scientific approach only goes back to the big bang because, as yet, that’s as far back as we have evidence for. Adding in a god to kickstart things without evidence just introduces unnecessary complexity.
As for a meaning in life, one need only look to the world around you. Whatever the cause might be, whether it be divine mandate or simple chance, we humans find ourselves as the most powerful beings on this planet. There are beings around who left us to inherit the world as they left it, and there will be others who we leave to inherit it after we’re gone. Surely we should all be able to see the value in leaving it better off than it was when we found it, or at the very least leaving it in the same condition we found it. We’re not very good at doing this yet, but I feel it’s a worthy goal we should all be striving for. What should we do when we actually achieve that goal? I dunno, I’ll leave that for the people around at the time to figure out. I’ll probably be dead for centuries by the time we actually reach the point that question becomes relevant.
This is all just my worldview. If you disagree, you’re free to do so. I’m not arrogant enough to say you’re wrong. I live in a country where my right to decide what I believe about the world is legally protected, and that means I don’t get to impose my decisions on anyone else.