Inheritance Chapter 75 (Sub-Spork): A Man Of Conscience

[pangolin20]

jair_greycoat wrote in antishurtugal, 2013-07-22 17:37:00

Inheritance Chapter 75 (Sub-Spork): A Man Of Conscience
Finally! Although I inadvertently missed my opening to spork chapter seventy-five in its entirety, torylltales has allowed me to post a second spork following the same format pipedreamno20 used. In other words, this spork focuses on a small part of the chapter which I thought needed some additional sporking: the part where Nasuada and Eragon discuss the existence of gods and the nature of accountability.

-0-0-0-

On page 807 of the fourth book (hardcover) is the start of a discussion about whether gods exist, and whether Eragon considers himself accountable to any higher being for his actions. Even though the conversation only takes up space equivalent to a little more than a single page, I found enough in it to fill up nearly six pages of text in Libreoffice. For those who might not want to read that which could start to sound like a philosophy paper, the short summary is that Eragon is more open to the possibility of the existence of gods (or a God), but he still feels that their existence is pointless. Before I begin, I want to quote the following from the synopsis at the beginning of the book:

Then the god Helzvog made the stout and sturdy dwarves from the stone of the Hadarac Desert.

–In the Beginning: A History of Eragon, Eldest, and Brisingr

As far as I know Paolini does not attribute this to any character inside his story, and I could find no mention of error in the Inheritance wiki. As swankivy has noted, the section from which this is taken is the author’s direct narration. The elves were obviously wrong! If Arya were ever to read her author’s words because of a rift in the Fourth Wall, she would have to eat crow.

-0-0-0-

I’ll start by quoting the beginning of the relevant section:

Then Nasuada said, “Do you believe in the gods, Eragon?”
“Which gods? There are many.”
“Any of them. All of them. Do you believe in a power higher than yourself?”
“Other than Saphira?” He smiled in apology as Nasuada frowned. “Sorry.” He thought seriously for a minute, then said, “Perhaps they exist; I don’t know. I saw . . . I’m not sure what I saw, but I may have seen the dwarf god Gûntera in Tronjheim when Orik was crowned. But if there are gods, I don’t think very highly of them for leaving Galbatorix on the throne for so long.”
“Perhaps you were the gods’ instrument for removing him. Did you ever consider that?”
“Me?” He laughed. “I suppose it could be, but either way, they certainly don’t care whether we live or die.”
“Of course not. Why should they? They are gods. . . . Do you worship any of them, though?” The question seemed of particular importance to Nasuada.

I suspect that Paolini was not very comfortable writing these few paragraphs. While it could be argued that Paolini had all religions in mind when he wrote this, a later part of the text makes me think that it was Christianity, or some version of it, that Paolini thought of specifically. He (through his avatar) raises a question and makes a statement (the statement comes later) which have already been answered by Bible-reading theologians for a long time. I doubt whether Paolini has ever been exposed to a proper discussion about the Christian God. But if Paolini is only trying to “stir the pot” as it were, then he has, unfortunately, picked one that is nine days old.

Before I forget, regarding the character interaction as I see it: Nasuada, probably meant to represent the ordinary religious type, sounds sincere, but confused. Eragon, I think, sounds insincere or stupid, or both. I blame the Church Universal and Triumphant.

And now, onward!

-0-0-0-

Eragon states that if gods exist, then he does not think highly of them for allowing Galbatorix to remain in power for so long. What I think is also being implied by Eragon is that even if gods do exist, there isn't any point in following any one of them since they do not care about matters in Alagaësia. Nasuada (surprise!) agrees with the implication, while implying that one should worship these distant, uninvolved gods anyway. My problem with this is simple: a set of beliefs which claim to have their source in a god or gods (or even an Idea) who are “faraway”, and “uninvolved” is a set of beliefs (or worldview), which is ripe for human modification and corruption, even if the beliefs themselves were not corrupt to begin with. This is basic human nature.

However, since Paolini did not, and probably does not, intend for Alagaësia to have any absolute standard of truth beyond what he himself says, I cannot—ultimately—complain too much when his characters start to make a mess of philosophy. But I will say this: Eragon’s statement that he does not approve of gods who leave Galbatorix on the throne (and his assertion that they care not whether people live or die) is very similar to an argument sometimes used in the real world to try to disprove the existence of a personally involved God. The argument (reworded to fit the current context) goes something like this:

a) A god worth following would not allow evil happenings to befall good people.

b) Evil happenings befall both bad and good people all the time.

Therefore, c) No god worth following can exist.

While not trying to trivialize the problems people can have over this (it is one of the major barriers to the Christian worldview), I still have to ask whether there are any truly good, perfect people in the first place! The Christian, but non-Calvinist explanation, is roughly as follows:

a) God created people with freewill and a choice, and gave them a moral law intended to guide their choices. The First Choice was simple: would people follow God’s morality, or would they claim the right to decide for themselves what is right and what isn’t?

b) People chose to disobey God’s moral law (they decided to choose for themselves what “good” is). Since God is the only one who has the right to define what good and evil are, by choosing to disobey God people were essentially choosing evil.

c) Since God is not in the business of mass-revoking people’s freewill (robots can neither love nor hate), the only alternative is to allow evil to continue for a time.

d) But since God and evil (that is, that which contradicts God) cannot coexist forever, God will eventually remove those who, knowing evil, intentionally choose evil. But since freewill will always exist (does God want robots?), the possibility of evil will also always exist. Whether that possibility becomes reality is dependent on the choices of people.

To bring this to a conclusion (and here is a truly off-the-cuff remark), I propose that this means that Eragon strongly disapproves of Paolini, who has, I think, stated in an interview* that he is Alagaësia’s god; therefore taking on himself all responsibility for evil—if Eragon’s belief about what makes a worthy god is to be taken as Truth for Alagaësia. The irony ought not to be lost.

I think that pretty much covers my problem with Eragon’s first statement. A full explanation that included the practical Christian solution to the problem could take at least an extra page of summary, and as this is meant to be a spork, not a theological brief, I will stop.

*This is taken from memory, but I have no reference.

-0-0-0-

Again Eragon thought for a while. Then he shrugged. “There are so many, how could I know which ones to choose?”
“Why not the creator of them all, Unulukuna, who offers life everlasting?”
Eragon could not help but chuckle. “As long as I don’t fall sick and no one kills me, I may live for a thousand years or more, and if I live that long, I can’t imagine I would want to continue on after death. What else can a god offer me? With the Eldunarí, I have the strength to do most anything.”

(Ugh. Eragon speaks about the Eldunarí as if he owns them. Just a side note.)

“The gods also provide the chance to see those we love again. Don’t you want that?”
He hesitated. “I do, but I don’t want to endure for an eternity. That seems even more frightening than someday passing into the void, as the elves believe.”

I should point out that Eragon’s first statement is one that could be given only by one who is truly lazy, or by one who truly doesn’t care, or by one who is both lazy and uncaring. Of all the book-reading Eragon supposedly did in the elf country, one would think he had studied the various cultures and religions in Alagaësia, and therefore was at least a little knowledgeable about them, beyond just an opinion that “rocks don’t grow, therefore dwarves are stupid”. Did those elves give him a real education (beyond a vocabulary in the Ancient Language) or did they just fill his head with a web of vacuous ideas about the world? But I digress.

In one sense, Eragon is consistent in rejecting eternal life. The decision depends on what one believes about the nature of life in eternity. Eragon, evidently, does not believe that any possible afterlife could be significantly different from the life he lives now. One possible reason for not wishing to live forever is found by assuming that one’s suffering would also last forever—in which case, the conclusion is that everlasting life is not so much life in heaven, as it is life in hell. What is it to live forever if one makes friends, only to lose them to time and decay, over and over again without end? If this to be the kind of afterlife a person can expect in Alagaësia, then I pity everyone there, except the dwarves. They seem to have it figured.

-0-0-0-

Nasuada appeared troubled. “So you do not hold yourself accountable to anyone other than Saphira and yourself.”
“Nasuada, am I a bad person?”
She shook her head.

Wrong answer, Nasuada.

Begin rant:

In roughly chronological order: Eragon broke faith with his uncle and cousin (by not telling them about Saphira before trouble came). Eragon lied to some of the people of Carvahall after trouble came. Eragon wasted much time on a hotheaded quest for revenge, resulting in the death of his father. Eragon rescued Arya only to use her injuries as an excuse to touch her. Eragon cursed a child, Elva. Once Arya recovered Eragon stalked her for months, at least once without her knowledge. Eragon was at one time racist against urgals. Eragon allowed himself to be used as an engine of indiscriminate slaughter during the Battle of the Burning Plains. Eragon lied to Roran and Katrina about Sloan. Eragon claimed to be above the law. Eragon punished Sloan without due process of law, or the right to trial by his own countrymen (Eragon does not count). Eragon murdered soldiers (one of them possibly a teenager?) in a situation (and others) where the loss of life was utterly unnecessary. Eragon falsely blamed Elva for the death of an elf. Am I missing any? I probably am.

In fact, if Eragon were really a good person (just misunderstood), so much of the story would have been different, and this community might not even exist. But it does exist, and we do have a record of his problems. Therefore, Eragon is a BAD person.

End rant.

“Then trust me to do what I believe is right. I hold myself accountable to Saphira and the Eldunarí and all of the Riders who are yet to be, and also to you and Arya and Orik and everyone else in Alagaësia. I need no master to punish me in order to behave as I ought. If I did, I would be no more than a child who obeys his father’s rules only because he fears the whip, and not because he actually means good.”

This is the part of the chapter that seems to confirm what I suspect: that Paolini had Christianity in mind when he wrote this section. Eragon’s argument sounds like a phrase I heard a long time ago–in part, it goes “Fear of hell, hope of heaven”, or, in plainer terms, “Why should one obey God?” Although other theistic religions could have the same question applied to them, historically it has been Christians to whom the accusation—that we obey because of the threat of punishment or because we are only looking for a reward (both selfish reasons)—has been leveled.

So I’ll break this down. The essence of Eragon’s statement is of course correct: Obedience that comes from the base motive of fear is not truly good. It is merely slavish (think sucking up to the boss), and does not come from love and a good relationship. But correct point is not that one needs a master so that one can be punished for wrongdoing, the point is that one ultimately needs a master in order to know what to obey. Otherwise, each person would be their own ultimate master. Since each person is different, you can guess where that leads.

However, Eragon claims all of Alagaësia as his master. Given the multitude of cultures and the different (and sometimes mutually contradictory) definitions of right and wrong that one could realistically expect to exist in Alagaësia (bad world-building being ignored for the sake of argument), Eragon has essentially claimed to succeed at the impossible. You can’t please all cultures! Eragon should pick one and stick with it.

I would ask Eragon a question, if I could: “Eragon, if, when you were growing up in Garrow’s house, you obeyed your uncle as if he was your own father—did you obey him and do right by your farm because you loved and honored him, or because you feared him?” I propose that this is a fitting analogy representing why one should obey God.

Finally, I can only say that if, in this analogy, Eragon were to be an evil son to Garrow: by smashing door-hinges, by bringing over destructive friends, by letting the cow out of the barn to be eaten by wolves, by constantly getting into serious fights with Roran with chisels and pitchforks, by taking drugs disruptive to his thinking, by being unwise in the management of money—Garrow would have every right to disown Eragon and throw him off the farm. For Eragon to not fear this (if indeed he were to act as I described) would be incredible arrogance.

I am going to assume that Eragon did not obey Garrow out of fear, but because obedience was right, and Garrow, being the owner of the farm, defined what was right for it. So, if there is any Truth in Alagaësia, why would Eragon suppose that following it would necessitate fear of punishment?

It is only the thief and the murderer who need fear the policeman. Everyone else is fine.

She gazed at him for several seconds. “Very well, then, I will trust you.”

Thus Nasuada ends that conversation. Even though she is evidently troubled by Eragon’s lack of a moral anchor, she chooses to trust him anyway. I most certainly would not: Eragon has chosen to sail merrily along on the Sea of Contradictions, propelled by the Winds of Contrariness.

21 comments

[1]

Anonymous
July 23 2013, 09:35:07
“Eragon, if, when you were growing up in Garrow’s house, you obeyed your uncle as if he was your own father—did you obey him and do right by your farm because you loved and honored him, or because you feared him?” I propose that this is a fitting analogy representing why one should obey God.

No, this doesn't tell anyone why they should obey some abstract concept like god. There's a difference between your uncle, who you've known all your life and who feeds/clothes/educates you and some random construct that in no way impacts your life. Just ****believing**** in something doesn't provide you/your family with shelter, food etc.
Now if the gods were "among us" then people would have a reason to worship them.

Faith in a medieval peasant setting where the gods are uninvolved is a tool of oppression that justifies the shitty lot peasants get in life by promising them rewards in the "next life", as if this life is just some tutorial practice run or something. It's blatant manipulation.


It is only the thief and the murderer who need fear the policeman. Everyone else is fine
LOL no. Corruption among the ranks, abuse of powers, indoctrination/brainwashing---all sorts of problems that authority institutions create. It all leads back to the problem of" who will watch the watchers" and in this case religion (like any institution) is guaranteed to lead to all sorts of problems.

[1A]

jair_greycoat
July 23 2013, 12:13:01
There's a difference between your uncle, who you've known all your life and who feeds/clothes/educates you and some random construct that in no way impacts your life.

The assumption that god--or even an abstract idea held to be absolute--does not impact a person's life is fundamentally flawed. Even if it could be positively proved to be true for some people, it would not be the norm. Everyone has a religion (or worldview) whether they realize it or not. Even Atheists (they have to believe there is no god). What a person believes affects the way that person will live. I am of course speaking about real life, not Paolini's world. The difference, then, is whether a person believes in something that is mostly (or absolutely) true, or whether they believe something that is mostly (or absolutely) false. Since truth is by definition consistent with reality (but not necessarily with interpretations of reality), it follows that a person who has a false (or mostly false) belief system will be at odds with reality. This is hardly nothing.

As for the question you quoted, that was an analogy. But now that I read it again, I did have a word wrong: in the phrase "why one should obey God" the word "why" should be "how". (Meaning, the mindset one should have.) Why one should obey God is a slightly different matter.*

Just ****believing**** in something doesn't provide you/your family with shelter, food etc.

I agree. But consider: if a large segment of society did what was right, according to the truth which is consistent with reality (commitment--not mere belief) does it not follow that society as a whole would benefit? Individual commitment, of course, does not pay the bills. But that is not how Christians do (or should) look at the issue--we don't obey God to get the reward or because we fear hell (or even because we believe that if we give ten dollars we'll get a hundred back--and no, we won't), any more than a child loves and obeys his/her parents because they fear a spanking. If the child fears a spanking, their love is not love.

Now if the gods were "among us" then people would have a reason to worship them.

According to the Bible God was among us. Yet even then a lot of people did not believe their eyes and ears. And if there were any gods among us today, most would disbelieve it--aliens landed, probably. Or maybe superman is real. Those who might believe would be automatically relegated to the "fringe"--regardless of the actual truth of the matter. And except in the most extreme of extreme cases, there would be plenty of good reasons (so people would think) to not believe it.

LOL no. Corruption among the ranks, abuse of powers, indoctrination/brainwashing---all sorts of problems that authority institutions create. It all leads back to the problem of" who will watch the watchers" and in this case religion (like any institution) is guaranteed to lead to all sorts of problems.

That was an analogy. The policeman represents God. If a religion based on absolute truth causes problems, the failing is in the religion (or the people "managing" it, for lack of a better word), not in absolute truth. Nevertheless, people who purposely choose to go against God (or absolute truth, or reality) should still fear.

But if you are talking about religion in general, then I agree. Most belief systems were (and are) invented by humans. Often, if the religion is a theistic one, then the gods are no more than super-men with failings like any human. (such as the ancient Greek gods). Religions which have no god of any sort are in the same trap: without ultimate truth, everyone can do what they please, and be as selfish as they like. After all, Eragon's statement also works in reverse: if there is no penalty, then murderers and thieves will have no fear.

*On second though, "why" and "how" may actually be hair-splitting. The reason for both is, in the Christian worldview, ultimately the same: because it is true, not because of "fear of hell, hope of heaven".

[2]

epilogueexile
July 23 2013, 16:41:03
So, as an atheist, I obviously disagree with a lot of what your arguments. But the one I want to address is the idea that a God is necessary for morality.

Most non-religious people you'll speak to don't actually believe morality is a matter of opinion. Neither is god-dictated morality without flaws of it's own. To use the parent-child metaphor, at some point, a child needs to determine what is right and wrong on their own, divine command morality is equivalent to a parent telling their child not to hit their sibling "because I said so". A moral rule needs to be based on fact, it can't just be a dictum that's inherently true by virtue of it's provenance. If god said murder was good, would it be? The fact that the prospect seems impossible suggests either a failure of human imagination, or that morality has a fundamental underpinning beyond "God said so". Finally, god-dictated morality isn't very convincing because the bible doesn't seem to actually be the unfailing source of morality it should be. The human species would have had an easier time of the last few centuries if god hadn't neglected to include injunctions against slavery, gender/race discrimination, and totalitarianism in the ten commandments alongside "don't worship idols or I'll punish your great-grandchildren for it" (Exodus 20:4-6).

"The point is that one ultimately needs a master in order to know what to obey."
I completely disagree. Morality is something we use logic to discover, not something we're handed down. The best move in a chess game is determined by strategy, not what a grandmaster tells you. Likewise, what is morality but the best action for a member of a society to take? And that too is determined by concretes: for people trying to live cooperatively, allowing murder is as poor a strategy as a queen sacrifice is for a chess player.

[2A]

jair_greycoat
July 24 2013, 06:16:35
You are of course right that a lot of Atheists don’t believe right and wrong are matters of opinion. I watched a classroom debate this morning (U.S. time) where the Atheist proposed exactly that. But if this is the argument, then I can ask the question: If morality is not mere opinion, and neither does it come from God, then where does it come from?

If morality is what people decide for themselves (individually), then, since each person necessarily thinks differently, each person will have a different morality, and they will be in conflict.

But if morality is what the culture (or a large group of people) decides, then, what can the Atheist say when there is another culture whose beliefs are downright strange (even contradictory) to the beliefs of their own culture? If one group of people believe widows should throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre (mainly because they believe a widow without a husband is a drain on society), and another culture treats widows with respect by giving them compensation and putting them on welfare (if they are too old to support themselves), then who can say who is more right?

It is as evolutionist William Provine said, in a debate at Stanford University, April 30, 1994:

“First, the argument from design failed. There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly. Modern evolutionary biology not only supports Darwin's belief in evolution by descent, and his belief in natural selection, but all of the implications that Darwin saw in evolution have been strongly supported by modern evolutionary biology.”

(Bolding mine.)

Please note that I am not saying Atheists cannot be moral. Of course they can. I merely question the philosophical foundation for that morality. According to the Bible, certain aspects of morality are self-evident, because God made it self-evident, by hard-wiring it into people. This is, I believe, why (almost) no one thinks to question the law of non-contradiction (a law of logic). An Atheist might say that no one questions the law of non-contradiction because it has survival value in terms of evolution. But if this were really true, then it is no longer a law. It is just a widely held opinion.

To use the parent-child metaphor, at some point, a child needs to determine what is right and wrong on their own, [...]

There is a point in every analogy where the analogy breaks down. In this case, the child will eventually grow up and become completely independent from his or her parents. But no person can become completely independent of God, as this would require that the person be God. If a person becomes God, then that person could also be an ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. What happens when they disagree? Even the idea that a person could become God is absurd. One cannot reach infinite power through successive addition.

[Continued . . .]

[2A1]

Anonymous
July 25 2013, 04:02:38
If morality is what people decide for themselves (individually), then, since each person necessarily thinks differently, each person will have a different morality, and they will be in conflict.

Not really, no. Most broad things everyone will agree on (murder is bad, don't steal etc.), it's only when you get people that think their way is the only, absolute truth that conflict arises, Religion pushes this conflict the most because there is no tolerance for those that don't conform-it's why you get things like the horrible abortion/reproductive rights mess in Texas or all the idiots going on about the sanctity of marriage.

Also your burning widows example is horrible. Any normal person would question the sanity of suicide by fire, but only religious people would 100% blindly endorse it (assuming it was part of their religion).

According to the Bible, certain aspects of morality are self-evident, because God made it self-evident, by hard-wiring it into people. This is, I believe, why (almost) no one thinks to question the law of non-contradiction (a law of logic). An Atheist might say that no one questions the law of non-contradiction because it has survival value in terms of evolution. But if this were really true, then it is no longer a law. It is just a widely held opinion.

Ugh. Morality is self-evident because it goes in hand with self preservation (not killing people makes it less likely you'll die and so on), there doesn't need to be a god anywhere for basic morality to work out. God is basically a cop out for anything that can't be instantly seen or answered.

Law IS basically the codification of mass opinion. I have no idea what else you're trying to say here.

But no person can become completely independent of God, as this would require that the person be God. If a person becomes God, then that person could also be an ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. What happens when they disagree? Even the idea that a person could become God is absurd. One cannot reach infinite power through successive addition.

Wat.

You don't need fear of damnation or god to keep people sane and moral. Honestly, if the only thing keeping you from murdering everyone around you is the fear of some magic sky man then you have serious psychological issues.

Plenty of people have tried to become something of a god (hello monarchy) and it's never worked out because one person can't keep the masses down forever. People get pissed off and society changes and shifts all the time without god ever having to be part of the process.

God is meaningless in the post-industrial, consumerist society we live in-that's basically a fact.

[2A1A1]

Anonymous
August 8 2013, 14:57:32
Any normal people according to your worldview and culture. But if morality is derived from what is best for society, then widows committing suicide could be moral. You are basing the assumption that any normal person would find that immoral on an absolute morality that you apparently can't find a basis for. Not killing others is not a matter of self preservation. Self preservation is doing what is best for you to survive. If widows were a drain on society then it would be in the interest on society to get rid of them, no?

Self preservation is not always in the interest of society. The argument that morals is based on self preservation is ridiculous. Charity is not in the interest of self preservation. Even with the idea of paying it forward or karma of whatever.

Also, religion and spirituality is not blindly accepting something. At least not for the religious people I know. It is, for them, about examining what to believe and why they believe.

Yes, religious fanaticism is bad. But I say that all fanaticism is bad. That's why there are people who get really depressing because of sports, or the twilight people, or countless other things. Reason and rationality are much more important regardless of beliefs.

[2B]

jair_greycoat
July 24 2013, 06:17:05
[Continued from previous.]

[...] divine command morality is equivalent to a parent telling their child not to hit their sibling "because I said so".

In the ultimate analysis, this is probably true. But is it arbitrary? God, if He exists and is all-powerful and created the universe, would have the perfect right to define morality. Can the creature say to the Creator, “What is this Your hands have made?”

A moral rule needs to be based on fact, it can't just be a dictum that's inherently true by virtue of it's provenance.

This sounds a bit arbitrary. Fundamentally, you are assuming that facts are higher than God—why would you assume that? But since God defines morality—even reality—and because the Christian worldview says that God will never contradict himself, it therefore follows that all facts (not necessarily people’s interpretations of facts) will align with God’s reality (that is, logic and morality). The statement is a little like saying “truth needs to be based on fact, but facts don’t need to be defined by God.” Replace “God” with “Truth” and the arbitrary circle will be evident.

If god said murder was good, would it be? The fact that the prospect seems impossible suggests either a failure of human imagination, or that morality has a fundamental underpinning beyond "God said so".

In the Christian worldview God could never declare murder (the selfish killing of another person, outside of absolute law) good, for if He did He would be in utter contradiction with Himself. But let us suppose for the sake of argument that He did say such a thing. It then follows that it would be okay to murder God. If it is okay to murder, then logically suicide must be okay too. So, why hasn’t God committed suicide yet (sometime in eternity past) if suicide is ultimately good?

Morality is something we use logic to discover, not something we're handed down.

The fact that a person ought to use logic in the first place is morality in itself. When a child gets some equations on a math sheet wrong, those answers are considered “wrong”, not simply “another logic”. If this kind of morality came about because of evolution, then other kinds did too. It would be legitimate for another culture to have a different set of societal rules—maybe for them, burning widows, which relieves economic strain from the rest of the population, is the perfectly right thing to do. In the same way, the argument that society should do what is right for its long-term survival has the same problem—the problem is with the word “should”. If atheism is true, then there is no “should”, no “ought”, and no ultimate standard by which a person can say, “Yes, some things are absolutely wrong.”

The best move in a chess game is determined by strategy, not what a grandmaster tells you.

If the grandmaster is God, then the grandmaster will know all possible strategies. Indeed, if the grandmaster is God then the grandmaster has defined the rules and the strategies. Given that chess is a complex game, would you rather trust your own ability to think about strategy (which may be faulty—perhaps you overlooked a choice your opponent could make in ten turns) or would you rather take the word of the grandmaster (who, being God, can’t contradict Himself, and therefor could never lie), and wait until later to learn the reasons for the move? I choose the latter.

[2B1]

Anonymous
July 25 2013, 04:48:32
the Christian worldview says that God will never contradict himself, it therefore follows that all facts (not necessarily people’s interpretations of facts) will align with God’s reality (that is, logic and morality)

LOLLOLOLOL

Pop open the Bible and you'll see god contradicts himself and either full on murders people or orders his followers to kill.

It's sad that you can't seem to get over the simple hurdle of morality/logic=don't need no god.

In the Christian worldview God could never declare murder

>.>
I'm sure that's why he killed like 99,999% of people in a flood, or ordered a man to kill his son as a show of devotion, or let Adam/Eve sin despite being omnipotent, or was basically a huge dick to anyone who wasn't his follower...

trust your own ability to think about strategy (which may be faulty—perhaps you overlooked a choice your opponent could make in ten turns) or would you rather take the word of the grandmaster (who, being God, can’t contradict Himself, and therefor could never lie), and wait until later to learn the reasons for the move? I choose the latter.

Yeah, lets just sit on our asses and do nothing, what could ever go wrong?

God is a jumble of the superimposed qualities and ideas humans attribute to him. So he can't ever be 100% right or better than anything else-because no person is ever right or better than all others. Not to mention that there's so many versions of god-anything from the Christian god to Zeus to Chernobog-none of them are particularly better than the other, but over time people jump from one to the other because society changes and the sort of qualities and ideas that are popular at that time become embodied by the god.

The thing that turns many atheists off religion is the very attitude you have. You're so cocky and ridiculously condescending about morality/logic, as if your version of god is any better than all the others that have come before him. Odin was big once and now he's nothing more than some fairy tale. What makes you think the Judo-Chrsitian god is any more right? He's not, but some people just can't get over themselves and so we have to have "debates" over things like gay marriage or abortion because clearly an all loving omnipotent cloud man has nothing better to do than design people a certain "wrong" way and then torment them. Thankfully his obedient followers are here to force everyone to do things the right way!

[2B1A]

jair_greycoat
July 25 2013, 17:54:39
Your argument boils down to the idea that it is possible to justify absolute morality without God. My argument is that if Atheism were true then there could be no absolute justification. Ignoring the argument from philosophy for the moment, I supported my assertion with a quote from an evolutionist/Atheist (whom you can verify), which you seem to have overlooked. Going back to the philosophical side of the issue: The idea that one can find absolute morals or ultimate truth through logic is vicious circular reasoning, because in using logic, a person is implicitly assuming that to use logic is something that is morally right and absolutely true. Part of my argument is that this is an assumption that no one person or culture can consistently use apart from a belief in a transcendent God, in Whose existent words like “right” and “good” find their absolute meaning.

Biblical Christianity says that the reason people have a basic, common morality (which includes a common logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, and the common expectation that others will follow that logic) is because everyone lives in God’s world. Everyone knows these rules—basic morality and logic—because logic and morality are a necessary part of God, and God created people in His image. It would be impossible for anyone to successfully live in God’s world while consistently denying logic or morality; therefore few people actually try to do so. Since the Bible is for me a presupposition, and not something I arrive at after using unaided reason (the idea that one can reason unaided by any assumptions is provably false), this is not meant to be taken as an attempt to prove that Christianity is true.

When you say that any normal person would detest widow-burning, you are implicitly assuming a standard of “goodness” by which you can make that claim. You are assuming that one culture is “normal” and the other is not. But what does the word “normal” mean in a universe where different cultures can have different values? Don’t misunderstand me—I also say that widow-burning is evil. There are plenty of arguments that can be made against widow-burning, but ultimately, I believe it is evil because it violates the image of God which God has placed from Creation in each of us. For me, each and every argument against widow-burning would boil down to that. The problem with Atheism is that, for the Atheist, there is no concept of ultimate or absolute that the Atheist can use while remaining in perfect consistency with their professed beliefs. Thus, it is as Dostoevsky wrote (although he probably did not believe it himself):

“But,” I asked, “how will man be after that? Without God and the future life? It means everything is permitted now, one can do anything?” “Didn't you know?” he said. And he laughed. “Everything is permitted to the intelligent man,” he said. “The intelligent man knows how to catch crayfish, but you killed and fouled it up,” he said, “and now you're rotting in prison!”

[2B1A1]

jair_greycoat
July 25 2013, 17:55:18
[Continued from previous.]

Basically, if you can get away with it and it benefits you (or if a society can get away with it and it benefits the society according to what the society believes), then what on earth is holding you (or the society) back? History has shown us where this leads. I need not name the things which are now permanent scars on the collective human consciousness.

Please don’t misunderstand. I am not saying “Atheists must act bad ‘cause they don’t have God; religion is good ‘cause religion has God.” I do believe in the law of non-contradiction. If one religion is true in certain claims it makes, then all other religions which claim the opposite must necessarily be false, at least in those specific claims. Atheism it itself a religion—the Atheist must believe there is no God; something that is inherently unprovable. So is Agnosticism—the Agnostic must believe that claims about absolute truth are unknowable. In fact, Agnosticism is immediately self-refuting: since it is itself an absolute truth claim, it would be unknowable by its own standard. If people hold to a false religion, or worldview, it follows that there is a high probability (not one-hundred percent) that those same people will engage in practices others would condemn as evil, even if the people doing the condemning also believe something false.

You mention that if the only thing that keeps a person from murdering people is the fear of punishment, then that person must have psychological problems. I agree. However, this point fails to refute anything in Christianity, considering that Biblical Christianity does not teach obedience through fear, but rather obedience through love. I already answered this objection in greater detail both in the spork and in another comment.

The last point you make (of those points which are not simply unargued assertions) is that God is a moral monster. You evidently believe the destruction of the pre-Flood world was mass-murder, and accuse God of a number of other atrocities. Regarding God’s consistency, you say the Bible is full of lies and therefore God has contradicted himself. However, according to your worldview, you believe morality is defined by social consensus. Since the ancient Israeli population followed God (so it is claimed), it follows that they permitted (according to you) lying and murder. Since the Israeli population numbered more than a million, possibly more than two million (some estimates reach three million), that should be more than enough to establish “social consensus.” Given that Israel has survived for two thousand years, despite numerous conquests, these evil values (which you attribute to the God they used to follow) must have had some survival value (in an Atheistic, evolutionary universe).

Yet, despite believing that morality is defined by social consensus, you still believe murder and lying are absolutely wrong. I agree that that these things are wrong, and I believe they are wrong because I believe, first, that God does not do them himself (despite what you claim), and second, because He commanded humans not to. I do not believe morality comes from “social consensus”, I believe it comes from God—the only Being in existent who could have the power and the right to define morality itself. And now I come to the big question: did God really do these things? This question is one of those questions which should just be answered directly, rather than simply telling the critic that they don’t have a leg to stand on to make the charge. Unfortunately, the answer to the charge is way too long.

christianthinktank (dot) com

The above website, representing a large amount of research, is dedicated to answering tough questions, such as questions about God’s morality and the way He led the Israelites in ancient times. In my experience some of the articles are extremely long, and contain lots of quotes.

[2B1A2]

cherrypep
July 26 2013, 02:59:25
What'd'you mean, 'if atheism were true'? Atheism is rejection of belief in deity. Blatantly, atheism (like 'brunette' or 'enjoys icecream' or 'keeps goldfish') is 'true' of some individuals and not others.

In any case the argument you present is approximately half-right, half-wrong. The 'right' bit relates to the idea that sans God, absolutes such as 'good' are negotiated quantities. The 'wrong' bit relates to the idea that words like 'right' and 'good' and indeed 'bible', 'God' or 'Christianity' have an absolute meaning. They have negotiated meanings in Christianity just as they do externally. They are negotiated through a different process, semiotic network and referent set, sure. In the case of Christianity the discussion happens with reference to imperfectly translated Ancient Greek, you say kamelos I say kamilos. In the case of the secular process, people may apply analogies, legal frameworks, theory from science or philosophy or plain old asking whether you'd like it if someone dropped garbage all over your front yard. But either way written texts are only ever going to be a starting point. There is a massive poverty-of-the-stimulus problem if you go looking for the answers for all possible questions in one book so one must fill in the gaps through interpretation, whether one admits to oneself that one is doing so or not.

It hardly matters where you start the reasoning process as long as you come to an understanding of the specific situation and the context and make a reasoned judgement. Think of it as a hill-climbing process (see wikipedia): "an iterative algorithm that starts with an arbitrary solution to a problem." Wherever our starting point, we are by and large all trying to come to the least worst consensus available to us given the facts and pressures, because to do otherwise would be societal suicide.

Now as for: " If people hold to a false religion, or worldview, it follows that there is a high probability (not one-hundred percent) that those same people will engage in practices others would condemn as evil, even if the people doing the condemning also believe something false."

I see no reason to presume that a change of fundamental texts leads to radically dissimilar conclusions. Indeed, society seems to be doing a good job of proving the opposite. People with various religions or no religion living in the same society tend to manage to develop a more-or-less compatible idea of what's okay and what isn't, despite the fact that they very clearly aren't working from the same hymn sheets. That suggests either that all religious texts coincidentally say very nearly the same thing (unlikely) or that people are working with the interpreted wisdom of their religion, constitution or what-have-you (far more likely). On the old principle that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of the influence of a religion upon an individual's behaviour is not in what it says it does, but in what it does. And what it does is... mostly pretty minimal. Because the situation you describe very seldom happens, and when it does the reasons are very often cultural (FGM, for example) rather than religious.

[2B1A2A]

jair_greycoat
July 27 2013, 06:10:36
Whether Atheism is defined as mere unbelief in any god, or whether it is defined as a belief that there are no gods at all, is, I believe, a distinction that is for all practical purposes meaningless. This is because whether a person believes in no god or whether a person says no gods exist, the result in both cases is the same: the concept of God (that the person might be morally answerable to an absolute standard) does not enter into the person’s reasoning process. Thus when I use the term “Atheist” I mean both kinds.

When I hypothesize that “if Atheism were true” I am assuming for the sake of argument, simply, that when an Atheist says that there is no God, or that one should believe in no God, they are telling an absolute truth about reality, and not simply asserting their personal opinion, or the opinion of the society around them. However, since I perceive that you believe that words in and of themselves are given meaning only through cultural consensus, I am not surprised when you say that words like “right” and “wrong” have no absolute meaning. At least we seem to agree that such words wouldn’t, without God. It’s then only natural that according to this way of thinking, words like “Christianity” and “Bible” are also relative.

However, you claim that I am wrong in saying that these words have absolute meaning. If I claimed this without also assuming the existence of the Biblical God, you would be right, but it is not the case that I assume the possibility of absolutes without God. I do presuppose that God exists and defines morality, and therefore, as you implicitly admitted, these words do have absolute meaning in the Biblical worldview.

I should point out that saying that words are defined by cultural consensus is not significantly different from saying morality is defined by cultural consensus. The same problem I mentioned earlier arises, but in different terms: when you tell me that the meaning of words are determined through negotiation, and when you say that I am wrong to suppose that some words have an absolute meaning, you are implicitly saying that I should take your words as if they were the truth about reality. How is this possible if the meaning of words is purely relative? Please keep in mind that as a Christian, I am a member of a culture with a worldview that is—in principle—different from every non-Christian-based culture in the world. Therefore you couldn’t logically use words negotiated within your own culture (non-Christian) to communicate with me, unless you allowed that your words have meaning that transcend cultural consensus (and thus, worldview differences). I give this as a thought experiment.

[Continued . . .]

[2B1A2A1]

jair_greycoat
July 27 2013, 06:11:58 Edited: July 27 2013, 06:16:41
[Continued from previous.]

I of course agree completely when you say that written texts are only a starting point to base a worldview on, in much the same way that all logical arguments must start with one or more assumptions which are assumed to be true at the outset. In the case of the Bible, for instance, there is indeed a lot of filling in of gaps through reasoning. The Bible does not answer every single question people can come up with, mainly because it would be impossible to do that in a single set of books anyway. Thus, the Bible was written with the expectation that people who believe it will use the starting assumptions it lays out (which are generally found in the book of Genesis) as the basis for all other reasoning. Atheists also have their own texts which they trust—for instance, research papers from scientists committed to evolution (which assumes that God is completely unnecessary), and the books written by other, high-profile Atheists.

However, a key point I should make is that to be consistent (especially since consistency and non-arbitrariness are two of the qualities the Bible says people should have), the reasoning that is built on the foundational assumptions, the base texts, should not at any point or for any reason contradict the texts themselves. If the reasoning built on a foundational text contradicts the text, then what was the point of starting with the text in the first place?

Finally I come to your last set of points, which seems to be based around the idea that fundamentally, a change in texts or basic beliefs (which would contain foundational assumptions) does not necessarily lead to different results. Sometimes this is true; for instance the ancient Roman empire allowed (any?) religion within its borders, so long as the people worshiped the Emperor. To make an analogy, this is like saying that you can drive any color of car you want, as long as it’s black. Most religions got along fine with this, at least one did not. But it should not go overlooked that those people who chose to worship the Roman Emperors in addition to their own gods had to amend their own religions. And if a religion can be amended to contradict anything it taught previously, it can no longer be absolute, but proves itself false.

However, most of the rest of history shows that different beliefs do lead to different results. Even in modern times, wars have been fought because of differences of worldview (belief systems), and one side wanted to dominate the other. If I may refer to a specific country in order to give an example: America itself is currently embroiled in a culture war. Without mentioning the current battleground issues (and no matter which side a person is on), one thing cannot be denied: the cultural consensus in America is undergoing nation-wide change, and it is being caused by differences in worldview—mainly Atheism and Christianity.

[Edit: I hope I'm not coming off as unnecessarily abrasive. But I wouldn't be much of a Christian if I didn't present an explanation of the Biblical worldview to people when the opportunity obviously presents itself.]

[2B1A2A1A]

cherrypep
July 27 2013, 11:30:20
Your observation that I 'believe' that words in and of themselves are given meaning only through cultural consensus is somewhat accurate, although obviously a) there is a large aspect of inheritance, b) 'only' is a big word and b) 'consensus' is, too (cumulative result of local effects - not a central dictionary). Some concepts are pretty strictly tied into the physical universe, whatever they might happen to be called, and those are reasonably invariant although the names used for them are not. The classical example is colour concepts, some of which are moderately invariant (red), some variant (blues/greens). Something to do with the way the eye works apparently, but you can test the fact that it is the case using cheap, simple standard experiments, so we either have to assume that all these experiments have been hijacked by pranksters with a very odd sense of humour, or accept that lots of concepts vary culturally and that some vary more than others.

Unless I miss my guess, your view is that early Christian views of the concept of evil, right, wrong etc are similar to present Christian views of the concepts of evil etc and so early Christians would agree with modern Christian views of 'right' and 'wrong' and so forth, and also that modern Christian views of 'right' and 'wrong' are culturally invariant, unlike those held by atheists. If that is your view, the modern Christian bit is certainly susceptible to experiment, so I'd say - test it! :-) As suggested in my prior comment my expectation would be that in practice the views of modern Christians will vary widely, although whether they would vary as widely as the views of those of other religious persuasions with otherwise similar cultural backgrounds is an interesting question. Maybe someone's done a study on it but if they have I haven't read it...

Yes, wars have been fought because of differences in worldview, but if they were inevitable truths resulting from interactions between religions then why aren't Manhattan and London criss-crossed with permanent trench warfare? Doesn't the fact that wars come and go whilst the religions continue to exist imply that the problem has an addressable cultural dimension, and that coping strategies are developed?

You ask why the text should be used if the result were to contradict it - well, first, one doesn't know that it will/must contradict until it's tried; second, it's a broad-brush text; third, from a point of view that is agnostic of the value of any given text, one might take the view that anything that encourages critical evaluation is a good thing, whatever the foundation text underlying that effort. In short: why not?

[2B1A2A1A1]

jair_greycoat
July 29 2013, 11:15:45
Well, I don’t disagree with what you say regarding the changeability of culture, language and words. You mention that I wrote in a previous comment that I used the word “words” and “meaning” interchangeably. You are right—I shouldn’t have gone and blindly committed the fallacy of equivocation when trying to make my argument. But I don’t think this is fatal to the point I was trying to make, which is that a changeable word such as “wrong” must have an unchangeable and non-relative meaning (that is, ‘wrongness’) in order to be useful in communicating across cultures or worldviews.

“I'm not sure I would agree with the suggestion that I implicitly admitted that any words have absolute meaning in any worldview, since I don't think that.”

However, you also wrote: 1) “The 'right' bit relates to the idea that sans God, absolutes such as 'good' are negotiated quantities.” 2) “The 'wrong' bit relates to the idea that words like 'right' and 'good' [...] have an absolute meaning.”

In #1, the reverse is: “If God does exist and defines absolutes, then the concepts of “right” and “good” do have absolute meaning.” In #2, you switched from using the word “absolutes” to using the word “words”. I don’t know what to make of this, so may I assume that you still meant “absolutes”? In that case, the idea that concepts (such as ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’) do not not have absolute meaning automatically includes the idea that God is not involved.

You note that some concepts are tied into the physical universe. I agree that the concept of “color” can be communicated between different human cultures. But what if you were to try to communicate this to an alien race? Their eyes might see less of the color spectrum—or they might not have eyes at all. And if these aliens had a sense different from any of the human senses, how would they ever be able to describe it to a human? This is, I believe, a situation analogous to the concepts of “rightness” and “wrongness”, and how they relate to communication between worldviews. These two concepts, because they are concepts, are therefore not part of the physical universe. Thus, these concepts cannot even exist unless a god exists who makes them exist. As color is dependent on the human eye, so “rightness” is dependent on God.

My belief is not that early Christian views on right and wrong are the same as modern Christian views, but rather that both modern and early Christian views on the subject ought to be the same. They aren’t, of course. I believe the Bible’s views on right and wrong are culturally invariant. However, this brings up the question: How does one know whether one’s interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? Well, since I presuppose that the Bible is the word of God, meant to communicate about God to all cultures, I believe that in regards to interpretation, the Bible should be read as one would read any other book, or the newspaper. If “complex” interpretation was needed, the Bible would be locked to a specific culture, which would contradict its original purpose.

You mention that the fact that religious wars are no longer the norm indicates that cultures have in general changed to cope. I certainly agree that this is the case. But what is the coping strategy which allows this? I believe it is because a large number of people no longer take their religion (whatever it is) seriously. They have a mentality that “it’s okay to have any religion you want as long as you don’t bring it to the workplace.” However, this belief in itself is part of a worldview of cooperation—because the truth, in effect, no longer matters. Thus, it could be argued that most people have the same “overriding” worldview that takes precedence over their personal worldviews.

Regarding why one should continue to use a text (or worldview) even after the reasoning built on it contradicts it: May I suggest that in the case of a contradiction, good evaluation would necessitate either throwing out the text (or worldview), or would require a recheck of the reasoning built on the text to make sure there is no error? Why would one want to tolerate a contradiction in a base text which they use to support their worldview?

[2B1A2A2]

cherrypep
July 27 2013, 10:42:09
lol! No, you're not coming across as abrasive, but thank you for worrying - it is much appreciated.

No, you shouldn't take my *words* as truth about reality. My words are an imperfect person's imperfect attempt to encode as much of their understanding about a domain as possible and post it across the internet to a person who is probably several thousand miles away. You can take as read that my words are an attempt to encode what I would view as a good-faith attempt to communicate my personal view, but that's as far as it goes. It's up to you to reconstruct as much as you can be bothered to reconstruct of the message, such as it is, and decide what if anything you make of it. Personally I'd recommend a paper plane or possibly a small hat.

Obviously we have a certain level of consensus in that we nominally speak the same language. So we can communicate in that you can attempt to encode a message in words and I can attempt to decode it, and I can attempt to do the same, and we succeed to an extent because mostly we have a shared vocabulary and a large number of shared referents, like cheese and income tax and the works of Christopher Paolini, so there are a lot of meeting points in there. But obviously we disagree on certain points and would have to negotiate to reach consensus on the details... ;-)

That said, you speak a lot about words, and then you also discuss meaning as though they are one and the same thing. But you know that the language in which you are writing post-dates the origin of the Bible by a startling number of centuries, so you will undoubtedly be aware that the words of which you speak have shown up after the event, if you see what I mean, as a matter of historical fact. So given that the words showed up after the fact, blatantly the words *themselves* acquired that meaning or were assigned to that meaning. The meaning itself may or may not be an invariant part of society, Christian or otherwise, but the words sure aren't.

You can argue that the meaning is invariant and not the words, yeah. I'm not sure I would agree with the suggestion that I implicitly admitted that any words have absolute meaning in any worldview, since I don't think that. I'll cheerfully 'admit' that a number of words are widely used in present-day English-language Christianity, for example, but I'd have difficulty with the idea that they are used across the population of Christians according to a single invariant definition or interpretation. That would not reflect my experience of the multifaceted nature of Christianity today. I'd also have difficulty with the idea that the meanings are invariant in interpretation across time. Learning some Greek is recommended if you haven't, then getting into the Biblical text; speaking of the word 'evil', πονηροῦ (Matthew 6:13) has been the subject of debate for many centuries (the debate being: is evil personal, or an abstract force?) So, on the whole I'd say that there's nothing unique about words like this. People are trying their best to interpret the text correctly but even on something as important as the Lord's prayer, there are variations in the way that they are read and applied in English by different 'camps' of Christians, and in the way that they are understood by Christian scholars.

[3]

torylltales
July 23 2013, 19:49:23
Regardless of any further philosophical argument, I think we can all agree that Paolini has not demonstrated that he has had nearly enough discussion or done nearly
enough reading/debate/self-searching to appropriately weigh in on the matter.

[3A]

jair_greycoat
July 24 2013, 06:18:27
Now there is something I can agree with one-hundred percent!

(Thanks for letting me spork this. It was a pleasure.)

[4]

Anonymous
July 26 2013, 02:13:25
I think you'd receive a lot less "LOLNO" from the peanut gallery if you prefaced this by distinguishing that you're doing this from the perspective of a religious person, that is, what Nasuada is trying to understand about Eragon's perspective. Eragon's being very disrespectful to a woman who clearly has strong beliefs and no matter what you believe, that's not cool.

From what I can gather, it's not that Nasuada is saying Eragon is a bad person because of his atheism; she's just confused about why he would have this sort of opinion and is trying to understand, while Eragon is, at least in part, saying that she only does what she does out of fear of reprisal or hope of reward from some unforeseen benefactor. The conversation is mostly turned toward Eragon's moral stability and textual aggrandizement. There is no reason for this conversation to be occurring except to say, "Hey, look at out how logical and smart Eragon is, and such a great person even without having a religion to force him to do the right thing!"

Because it's just reiterating the fact that Paolini obviously looks down on religion. I know there was something about his mother being part of a particular, kind of cult-y sect, and that left a bad taste in his mouth, but every time religion comes up it's not viewed as a viable life decision; Eragon's atheism is always put on a pedestal and he always proves to those silly worshipers that he's just as good as them even though he doesn't believe.

Which has two problems:

One, there is absolutely no point to this. 100% none. There is no conflict between church and state, Galbatorix wasn't manipulating the papacy, religion doesn't even come up until Eldest and it served no purpose there, either. If it were just a flavor thing -- dwarves have their gods, the humans have their own pantheon, whatever -- and it were treated respectfully, there would be absolutely no issue. I don't see why Paolini keeps bringing it up just to snootily dismiss the whole concept of religion when it has precisely no impact in the actual story except narrative aggrandizement of Eragon.

Which leads into two: Eragon learned the concept of atheism from the elves. In other words, half a year ago. And it wasn't like he spent a while coming to terms with natural law and fitting it into his worldview, he walked up to some elves, they made fun of the dwarf gods, he vaguely alluded to human religion (never once mentioned before the elves arrived) and then he just became an atheist through instant osmosis. There wasn't any real struggle casting aside his previously held beliefs (which he apparently did have, not that it's ever mentioned, because it's not important), he didn't grow as a person because his spiritual journey eventually led him to consider that humans (well, man-elves) had to do what the so-called 'gods' refused to do, there was no discovery. He just became an atheist, because the elves are cool and now he can flaunt his superiority over theists.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an atheist as a main character, or having them butt heads with theists, or get into arguments. But when you make it so your atheistic character is always going to win the argument (and not even say, "I can respect your decision", but generally either cow or confuse the religious debater), you're going to come off as a morally superior smug jerk who, judging by the quality of his writing, can't even fathom what the actual religious side of the argument is (which is why Eldest had scenes like Arya, in her infinite elven serenity, arguing over religion with an angry and flustered dwarf and rebutting all of his positions with graceful poise while the dwarf just got angrier and less coherent).

Or, tl;dr
Paolini is a hack writer who can't fathom two equal sides of a debate because whatever he believes is obviously right.

[4A]

cherrypep
July 26 2013, 03:06:33
Definitely. Eragon's whole atheism thing is as irritating to the reader as a completely non-foreshadowed newly minted vegetarian wandering into chapter 75 and spending several pages monologuing about their moral choices... which is probably in the book somewhere too :-(

And also what Torylltales said about Paolini not really having much to say on the subject ...!

[5]

Anonymous
August 8 2013, 15:08:23
Eragon has made himself the ultimate moral authority. Which is stupid. Good people do bad things. Eragon essentially said, "I am responsible to people of (I don't know how to spell it) and to everyone even though they have literally no way to punish me." Eragon made himself the decider of everyone's morals when he said that he was a good person. Yes, he's a good person to some people. Did the dead king think he was? No. What about the bug-bird guys? No. But he says he's responsible to them.

He assumes absolute morals that everyone holds to, but clearly that cannot be the case because there is this whole war in the first place. Then he made himself a political pawn to a cause that some are opposed to. He put himself above morals. He made himself the absolute judge and that is terrible.