Steven Brust is a swell fellow
Aug. 3rd, 2006 08:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI like the writings of Steven Brust. They are complex, internally consistent (inasmuch as so many books, spanning a vast period of years, and set in, mostly, one place can be). They have whimsy, charm, good food, skullduggery, love, magic, sorcery, friendships, hates, people who get along on nothing more than mutual respect and those who hate each other with a cordial formality. They even poke fun at the politics of universities, writers and book reviews.
What's not to like?
Ok, his most written about hero is a mob assassin. I'll grant the moral ambiguity of that, and how it might cause some people pause.
I've also met him, once, many years ago, at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. He seemed a likeable, someone to share a bottle, and pipe and sociable evening with.
This past week, in light of the mess in Delaware of which I wrote a few days ago, there has been a discussion in Making Light, (Why Barack Obama Can kiss my ass). As is typical of long discussion threads at Making Light, it has wandered all over the map, orbiting the ideas that 1: What happened to the Dobrich family is wrong, and 2: that politicians, such as Obama, shouldn't be giving speeches which give support, and ammunition, to those who would behave as those who are oppressing the Dobrichs are (and no, Obama didn't make the speech in question in response to the situation in Delaware, he made it before this came to widespread light, but the way he expressed some otherwise laudable sentiments, was counterproductive to religious tolerance) as well as shooting off into tangents about chocolate and cats.
But a long, heated (and at times abstruse) conversation about the conflict between science and "religion" came up. Brust believes that the two are not merely in conflict, but are antithetical.
Much heat, and some light, has been shed, but he's managed to remain calm,. polite and even witty. None of which really justifies this post, until he did this, across several comments.
Brust: I am not saying you don't simultaneously embrace religion and science; I am saying you are incorrect to do so.
Person x: Let me paraphrase to make sure I have this right: It is incorrect to believe in both science and God. Is that right?
Because if it is, you've got a lot of bloody nerve, sir. Who precisely are you to tell people what to believe, again?
BrustUm...someone who believes strongly in his opinion, and simultaneously considers that opinion important enough to argue for in the context of this discussion. Who are you?
[insert more heated interogatories, and some, typical, words of passing insult; not atypical for internet argument, nor of the sort one who takes part in such should take too much offense at, some of which is Brust's doing]
Person x Someone who sees your opinion as flatly contradictory to her experience and to the experiences of many other people.
Brust: Indeed. I would even say most other people. I nevertheless hold the opinion. This is not the only minority opinion I hold. I have become used to it.
My opinion concerns your beliefs. You take your beliefs seriously, and when I say, "You are holding in your mind two contradictory ideas," you quite naturally take it personally.
But let me lay down some assertions:
1. Science and idealism (the belief in a non-material world) are contradictory.
2. It will become vital over the next period to understand, scientifically, everything we can about society in order to have a chance to change it.
3. This discussion--what were the conditions under which a Jewish family was driven from their home, and what does it mean socially, and what is to be done about it--centers around exactly these issues: a scientific understanding of how society functions, and the objective role of idealist thought in this period.
Given those assertions (at this moment, I am not attempting to justify them, I merely state that I believe them), how am I to procede? If you are suggesting that I refrain from arguing forcefully for my positions on these critical questions for fear of insulting someone, I must respectfully decline.
And then we come to the best part, best because not only is it a pleasant rhetorical flourish, a breath of; snarky, calm and bandinage in what could get ugly fast, but something I actually believe, from past observation, to be a sincere sentiment, and which manages to deflate (at least for me) all the heat which was swelling in the background.
Person x: The closest I'm getting are things about contradictions in society and the idea that a scientific explaination for a given phenomenon precludes a godly one--and since the latter, at least, is quite wrong, that can't be it.
Brust: Ahhh...substance. How pleasant. May I request that, next time, you state that you disagree with my reasoning, or even say that I'm a total fucking idiot to believe what I believe, rather than assert that I've never addressed the issue? I thank you. My blood pressure thanks you.
What's not to like?
Ok, his most written about hero is a mob assassin. I'll grant the moral ambiguity of that, and how it might cause some people pause.
I've also met him, once, many years ago, at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. He seemed a likeable, someone to share a bottle, and pipe and sociable evening with.
This past week, in light of the mess in Delaware of which I wrote a few days ago, there has been a discussion in Making Light, (Why Barack Obama Can kiss my ass). As is typical of long discussion threads at Making Light, it has wandered all over the map, orbiting the ideas that 1: What happened to the Dobrich family is wrong, and 2: that politicians, such as Obama, shouldn't be giving speeches which give support, and ammunition, to those who would behave as those who are oppressing the Dobrichs are (and no, Obama didn't make the speech in question in response to the situation in Delaware, he made it before this came to widespread light, but the way he expressed some otherwise laudable sentiments, was counterproductive to religious tolerance) as well as shooting off into tangents about chocolate and cats.
But a long, heated (and at times abstruse) conversation about the conflict between science and "religion" came up. Brust believes that the two are not merely in conflict, but are antithetical.
Much heat, and some light, has been shed, but he's managed to remain calm,. polite and even witty. None of which really justifies this post, until he did this, across several comments.
Brust: I am not saying you don't simultaneously embrace religion and science; I am saying you are incorrect to do so.
Person x: Let me paraphrase to make sure I have this right: It is incorrect to believe in both science and God. Is that right?
Because if it is, you've got a lot of bloody nerve, sir. Who precisely are you to tell people what to believe, again?
BrustUm...someone who believes strongly in his opinion, and simultaneously considers that opinion important enough to argue for in the context of this discussion. Who are you?
[insert more heated interogatories, and some, typical, words of passing insult; not atypical for internet argument, nor of the sort one who takes part in such should take too much offense at, some of which is Brust's doing]
Person x Someone who sees your opinion as flatly contradictory to her experience and to the experiences of many other people.
Brust: Indeed. I would even say most other people. I nevertheless hold the opinion. This is not the only minority opinion I hold. I have become used to it.
My opinion concerns your beliefs. You take your beliefs seriously, and when I say, "You are holding in your mind two contradictory ideas," you quite naturally take it personally.
But let me lay down some assertions:
1. Science and idealism (the belief in a non-material world) are contradictory.
2. It will become vital over the next period to understand, scientifically, everything we can about society in order to have a chance to change it.
3. This discussion--what were the conditions under which a Jewish family was driven from their home, and what does it mean socially, and what is to be done about it--centers around exactly these issues: a scientific understanding of how society functions, and the objective role of idealist thought in this period.
Given those assertions (at this moment, I am not attempting to justify them, I merely state that I believe them), how am I to procede? If you are suggesting that I refrain from arguing forcefully for my positions on these critical questions for fear of insulting someone, I must respectfully decline.
And then we come to the best part, best because not only is it a pleasant rhetorical flourish, a breath of; snarky, calm and bandinage in what could get ugly fast, but something I actually believe, from past observation, to be a sincere sentiment, and which manages to deflate (at least for me) all the heat which was swelling in the background.
Person x: The closest I'm getting are things about contradictions in society and the idea that a scientific explaination for a given phenomenon precludes a godly one--and since the latter, at least, is quite wrong, that can't be it.
Brust: Ahhh...substance. How pleasant. May I request that, next time, you state that you disagree with my reasoning, or even say that I'm a total fucking idiot to believe what I believe, rather than assert that I've never addressed the issue? I thank you. My blood pressure thanks you.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 05:23 pm (UTC)I still think he was being arrogant as all hell. And the snarky bit that you quote at the end doesn't change my opinion of him at all.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 06:06 pm (UTC)But it's not as if he has been either the only person engaging in arrogance, nor the only person saying the other side was, out of hand wrong.
What he did do was maintain civility (if snarky) and address the points raised. Were I in his shoes (and of his beliefs) I might have decided nuance was failing, and just make the simple statement of belief, "You are wrong."
I have done that to students, whom I felt to be wrong ("If that was your intent, your intent was wrong."). It was probably seen by them as arrogant.
It's a hot-button issue, and I think he handled what was going on fairly well.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 06:13 pm (UTC)I find no incompatibilities betweeen religion and science, no contradiction between evolution and creation, no conflict between the scientific method and spiritual enlightenment. Of course, I don't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator deity who is simultaneously watching every sparrow fall and heaping hellfire on abortion proponents.
The claim, "Science and idealism (the belief in a non-material world) are contradictory," is a null statement. Science has always had to deal with a "non-material" world, that being "the stuff science doesn't have a way to measure yet." That modern (mostly western European) science is unwilling to delve into spirituality is a remnant of the Church's control, not a sign of incompatibility between them.
Calling a mental state "alpha" instead of "meditational focus" doesn't change it, and saying "that's not a connection to divinity, it's a brainwave pattern" is like saying "you're not running; your leg muscles are contracting and expanding in a particular pattern." Finding a "scientific" label doesn't change the activity, and not having a scientific label doesn't mean the activity (and its results) aren't real.
(Okay, I stop ranting now.)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 06:46 pm (UTC)If science were to delve into the non-measurable realm, it would stop being science, and move to being religion (one of the things those whose faith ischallenged by the measuring of things which can be measured (and which contradict how they believe in things, accuse it of being).
As for the first, if they are a-theist, then their non-belief in all divinity is what one would expect, in fact to be an atheist means to believe no "divinity" exists.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-08-04 01:27 am (UTC)I disagree that the non-material is the realm of "religion"--emotions and personal relationships are non-material, but not considered religious matters. You can't measure "friendship," but that doesn't make it a religious concept. It may be something science doesn't deal with--but that doesn't mean a person should choose between embracing science, and having friendships.
I don't agree that disbelief in deity (a-theism) is the same as disbelief in divinity (a-theotism?). (I spent some time poking around the web looking for a word meaning "belief in divinity;" I failed to find one. This goes in my list of "religious terms that English doesn't have a word for.")
And I've met many, many "atheists" who, on discussion, admit they have no great disbelief of the various entities traditionally known as "gods" in some cultures (for whom there is some evidence)... they call themselves "atheists" because they don't believe the evidence for/existence of one particular god. They have accepted the Abrahamic definition of "God," and decided that since that doesn't exist, there are no "gods"--regardless of the concepts in other languages & cultures that were translated as "god" when they moved to English.
(And I don't think "faith" is a crucial requirement of religion, but that's a whole rant of its own.)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-04 02:54 am (UTC)But I didn't say all non-material things are religious in nature.
I will, however, argue that someone who is sincerely an atheist, as opposed to irreligious on the Abrahamic model, won't believe in the divine, though might believe in the numinous (by which I am trying address the sense of awe in things which people feel, as when they try to comprehend the Grand Canyon, a baby's toes, the sweep and scope of the night sky, etc.).
For lack of a good word in English (or any other language I know) they fall back on the divine, and accept it.
If, however, they grant the possibilty of gods outside the tradition they grew up in, they aren't atheists, they are agnostic; but with a limit in that they deny the ones they know.
TK