Does Brandon Sanderson not understand religious jargon, or what?

[bmcclure7]

Jasnah is introduced to us as a heretic because she is an atheist, but last I checked atheism is not heresy. Calling her heretic is like calling Hindu heretics. She should be referred to as either just a heathen or since she keeps her safe hand covered and keeps other religious practices an apostate

Then there’s the reveal in wind and truth that she does believe in gods just not in an old powerful all loving God supreme God. But if that makes her an atheist invite definition, most polytheist are atheist. 
What do you think? Should we get Brandon Sanderson dictionary for his birthday with all the religious terms highlighted?

 

Edited April 22, 2025 by bmcclure7

[who_slew_aicirtap she/they]

In our current world, atheism isn't considered heresy in most places. In the US, for example, we have freedom of religion, which includes the freedom to not belong to any religion. But in Vorin society, basically everyone is a believer, and they are much more strict about it staying that way, which is why Jasnah is considered a heretic. I agree with your second point though, but I don't remember the context of her saying that.

Edited April 25, 2025 by who_slew_aicirtap

[bmcclure7]

27 minutes ago, who_slew_aicirtap said:

In our current world, atheism isn't considered heresy in most places. In the US, for example, we have freedom of religion, which includes the freedom to not belong to any religion. But in Vorin society, basically everyone is a believer, and they are much more strict about that staying the case, so that's why Jasnah is considered a heretic. I agree with your second point though, but I don't remember the context of her saying that.

You’re mistaking it pagan for heretic. Heretic implies a person is or at least claims to be a member of the religion, but does not follow the proper doctrine. An atheist by definition cannot be a heretic. Clearly, I’m being too hard on Brandon Sanderson, as it appears that the proper meaning of heretic seems to be unknown by others

 

 

[who_slew_aicirtap she/they]

4 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

You’re mistaking it pagan for heretic. Heretic implies a person is or at least claims to be a member of the religion, but does not follow the proper doctrine. An atheist by definition cannot be a heretic. Clearly, I’m being too hard on Brandon Sanderson, as it appears that the proper meaning of heretic seems to be unknown by others

 

 

You just gave the definition for pagan. Heresy is any belief that goes against orthodox religion.

[Treamayne]

On 4/22/2025 at 3:24 PM, bmcclure7 said:

Jasnah is introduced to us as a heretic because she is an atheist, but last I checked atheism is not heresy. Calling her heretic is like calling Hindu heretics. She should be referred to as either just a heathen or since she keeps her safe hand covered and keeps other religious practices an apostate

Then there’s the reveal in wind and truth that she does believe in gods just not in an old powerful all loving God supreme God. But if that makes her an atheist invite definition, most polytheist are atheist. 
What do you think? Should we get Brandon Sanderson dictionary for his birthday with all the religious terms highlighted?

Three points:

1. Jasnah does fit the definition of a Heretic (just, possibly, not the definition you prefer)
   • Wiktionary - Heretic - Noun - 2: Someone who does not conform to generally accepted beliefs or practices.
2. Brandon has always been clear that unreliable Narrator applies to all of his works. Just because some characters might use an incorrect label (and Jasnah has corrected that before) does not mean that the Author is unaware of the distinctions.
3. Sometimes Brandon makes prose decisions based on story narrative requirements. This may be like Kaladin's perceived acceleration problems - if Lashing works the way it should, he should never have to worry about blacking out due to acceleration. Brandon is aware of this and purposely chose the version of the ability that most readers would expect to be instinctively correct. The same applies - I expect it would be difficult to find a significant percentage of average readers that know or care about the fine distinctions between the definitions of heretic, apostate, heathen, etc.

WoB:

Spoiler

shinarit?

There is that scene where Kaladin takes a sharp turn at high speeds and he almost blacks out. That is normal for jet pilots, since they experience high G forces when their airplane tries to accelerate them by their backs and bottoms.

But Lashing doesn't work that way, it generates fake gravity. Accelerating your whole body shouldn't cause you anything, you can't even feel it.

Is this something that is an admitted physics hiccup or I misunderstood this kind of Investiture usage?

Brandon Sanderson

This one is actually in the process of flux, as I do more research on the effects of acceleration (including interviews with fighter pilots, which has been fun.) Basically, I realized I needed to beef up my understanding of all this, and then make some decisions on exactly how this all works, because I've been relying on instinct too much in some of these sequences.

So...that's a RAFO, I'm afraid. More because I'm still tweaking some of the little details of how I want this all to work. (In ways that become increasingly relevant as I look forward toward things like Windrunners in space.)

There are a ton of details to consider, even if I eventually hand-wave some of it with the magic. (For example, the heart pumping blood in a high-g environment. How does that interact, if at all, with stormlight? And the direct oxygenation of the brain implied by not needing to breathe while holding stormlight...)

We have several very large math-ish projects going on behind the scenes.

Phoenixdown

I think it depends on if lashing independently impacts each atom within your body simultaneously, or if it is only a subset.

Brandon Sanderson

There's one important fact you're not considering, but which is vital: reader expectation.

One of the questions I have to ask myself is this: What will the reader expect to happen? How will they expect to feel? Granted, none of us have ever flown like this before--but we generally imagine similar things, similar feelings.

As a writer, one thing I need to balance is when I go against reader expectations and when I don't. Going against the expectations can be interesting, but often takes a large burden of words and explanation to keep reminding them something is not how they'd imagine it to be.

For example, it took a relatively large amount of reader attention (and explanation) to keep reminding people in Mistborn that plants weren't green and the sky wasn't blue. In many ways, making something new (like a chull) is easier on readers than making something familiar into something strange (like the horses in Dragonsteel, which were smaller than Earth horses--and kept causing confusion problems in my alpha readers.)

As annoying as this example can me, this is why Lucas had sound, fire, gravity, etc in space. Starships banking in formation felt real to the viewers, even if it didn't make sense in context. I hope to not go that far, but these questions are something in my mind.

I try to be careful not to remove the sensations of magic, in order to keep the movements of characters grounded. Windrunning has left me having to decide how far I want to go with things like this, in order to preserve the visceral feelings for the reader.

General Reddit 2018 (June 6, 2018)

Hope that helps

Edited April 25, 2025 by Treamayne
SPAG

[bmcclure7]

47 minutes ago, who_slew_aicirtap said:

You just gave the definition for pagan. Heresy is any belief that goes against orthodox religion.

Orthodox of the religion your a part of if you an Atheist you are clearly not part of the religion 

[Ripheus23]

There is a rather odd-sounding belief called Christian atheism, IRL, which would possibly fit the bill (both atheistic and heretical). Maybe Jasnah can be described in comparable terms... As for Sanderson's level of knowledge of religious terms, even if I thought he missed the mark in these cases, he hasn't missed the mark in plenty of others, e.g. his use of the word "odium" is spot-on, here.

[Ailvara]

IIRC, Jasnah didn't fully negate that the Almighty existed. She believed there could have been a powerful being that sparked these beliefs, but who wasn't the kind of immortal almighty God that vorinism proclaimed. Or, to put it shortly: she was really close to the truth. So that could have been labelled as either atheism or heresy depending on how you look at it.

[teknopathetic he/him]

22 hours ago, who_slew_aicirtap said:

In our current world, atheism isn't considered heresy in most places. In the US, for example, we have freedom of religion, which includes the freedom to not belong to any religion. 

And i would argue that an atheist is unelectable in America. 

[Qianweilian He/him]

There is the possibility that the exact nature of Jasnah's belief may not be known to other Rosharans. Name calling is very prevalent in our world. Also, to my knowledge, the term 'heretic' comes from early Christianity and the splits between Nicean and Arian believers. We don't really know the religious history of Roshar very well other than many of the religions have roots in Honor and the Heralds, it's possible 'heretic' has a different connotation.

 

56 minutes ago, teknopathetic said:

And i would argue that an atheist is unelectable in America. 

Depends on the election cycle, it would be unusual, but it has happened: Jared Huffman

There's probably quite a few other politicians who are atheist or non-religious, but it's easier to just believe "nothing in particular"

Edited April 23, 2025 by Qianweilian

[Jult]

17 hours ago, Treamayne said:

Three points:

1. Jasnah does fit the definition of a Heretic (just, possibly, not the definition you find as primary)
   • Wiktionary - Heretic - Noun - 2: Someone who does not conform to generally accepted beliefs or practices.
2. Brandon has always been clear that unreliable Narrator applies to all of his works. Just because some characters might use an incorrect label (and Jasnah has corrected that before) does not mean that the Author is unaware of the distinctions.
3. Sometimes Brandon makes prose decisions based on story narrative requirements. This may be like Kaladin's perceived acceleration problems - if Lashing works the way it should, he should never have to worry about blacking out due to acceleration. Brandon is aware of this and purposely chose the version of the ability that most readers would expect to be instinctively correct. The same applies - I expect it would be difficult to find a significant percentage of average readers that know or care about the fine distinctions between the definitions of heretic, apostate, heathen, etc.

^This is the correct answer. I'd add to point 2 that the Vorin Church is likely applying the incorrect label on purpose. They teach that royalty is granted divine authority by the Almighty. To have a member of the royal family dispute that claim is a huge political issue for the church. I think they need to spin the narrative in a way that completely dismisses Jasnah's arguments because they likely recognize that they have little chance of winning the debate if they acknowledge her arguments. And they have to be very careful about how they do it because a good percentage of their followers are probably more loyal to the throne than they are to the church. 

Alethi politics aside.. I think you're also spot on with point 3. And that Brandon was spot on in his writing. As a catholic-turned-atheist myself, getting people to call you an atheist can be like pulling teeth. They'll often use try to replace it with a less definitive label like 'agnostic' or 'doubtful'. I really liked it (or at least related to it) whenever Jasnah corrected someone on their word-choice about her beliefs.

[Returned he/him]

There is also the issue of Jasnah being described as different things by different people for different reasons. Even we, the readers, do not have an exhaustive understanding of Jasnah's mind and beliefs; in absolute number of statements we barely have more information now than we did at the end of, say Oathbringer. Her hewing to cultural norms, like covering her safehand, may blur the line a bit with regard to social conformity versus religious conformity.

Jasnah is a heretic: Jasnah specifically spoke against Vorin teachings, highlighting some of those beliefs as wrong. She didn't just not believe the orthodoxy, nor did she just remove herself from the religion, she said that individual beliefs and traditions were wrong. That's heresy.

Jasnah is an atheist: especially in the earlier SA volumes Jasnah was reputed not to believe in any deities. This may have been a product of her specifically denying each established religion in turn (which might better be described as non-religious rather than specifically atheist), but I think it's probably better described by her own stance towards religion. Specifically, she said that she viewed religion as taking natural phenomena and ascribing supernatural causes to them while she preferred to take supernatural phenomena and ascribe mundane causes to them (I'm sure I mangled the quote a bit, but that's the spirit of it). That's not the same as saying no deities exist, exactly, but she won't accept a divine explanation for anything until she's proven it's not anything else at all, and that she could only truly do if she had perfect knowledge of everything. She does not and will not have that, and doubtless she knows it. Maybe a practical atheist, then.

Jasnah is an agnostic: Jasnah admits that she does not know everything about the universe and does not specifically rule out that deities exist and operate in the world. She doesn't know enough to state that they don't exist, only that she doesn't know that they exist and/or that existing deities have any particular characteristics.

Jasnah is a deist: Jasnah may believe in some deity or deities (at least suggested by WaT) but does not necessarily believe that they interact with the world in any way. She's a practical person, and something existing but not influencing nor being influenced by anything else anywhere, ever, may as well not exist.

Jasnah is sloppy with her terminology or Rosharan languages lack vocabulary specific enough to express her meaning: Jasnah may use terms like "gods" to indicate something other than divine-creator-ruler-source of morality. Beings referred to as gods, such as the Shards, may exist, but they're more like really powerful people than categorically different entities. A trained warrior is more capable in many ways than some random person. A Surgebinder has way more capacity than a trained warrior and radically more than some random person. A Shard has ludicrously more capacity than a Surgebinder. "God" might be the best word that would be commonly understood to indicate that difference in scope and scale but doesn't necessarily indicate any religious, spiritual, ethical, or philosophical attitude towards them.

Edited April 23, 2025 by Returned

[Terrisman]

Please don’t forget that her beliefs evolved. Originally, Vorinism only believed in Honor. Jasnah was an atheist by not believing in Honor. By WaT, Wit has confirmed for her the existence of the other Shards so she knows that gods (lower case - beings of immense power) exist and now she is doubting the existence of a Higher power (or God).

As far as conforming to societal norms, wearing a safe hand, etc, that would be like saying if someone celebrates Christmas, they can’t be an atheist. She may be doing things that started for religious reasons but eventually just are accepted traditions 

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

Two things:

1. This is not earth. This is Roshar. The culture is different, the people are different, the languages are different. Many words used in the Stormlight Archive carry a slightly different or additional meaning when used in the books due to these factors. Brandon operates on the premise that these books are originally in a different language, and have been translated to modern english to try and convey what the experience was like from the perspective of the POV characters in a way that is totally familiar and immersive to us today. And then that english version is translated to other languages with the same goal. The word Heretic in this case seems to be a term used by the Vorin religion to describe non believers. Kind of like an an Infidel - typically seen used by people of the Islamic faith when referring to non-believers. The technical meaning is basically just unfaithful, but it has developed a specific meaning that operates as a bit of a title descriptor applied to a person. 
2. A Heretic is someone who believes in or practices heresy, which is defined as "belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine". I personally think this lines up pretty damn well with Jasnah and the Vorin church - she has many beliefs and opinions contrary to the orthodox religious doctrine. She is also quite vocal about those beliefs. Dalinar gets the same treatment when he announces that the Almighty is dead - very contrary to the orthodox religious doctrine. So they brand him as a heretic. Clearly this is standard procedure for the Vorin church and a particularly intentional use of the word which carries more weight.

As someone who spent 30 years as a devoted Mormon (the church Brandon belongs to) there are a lot of terms like "Inactives" or "Apostates" or "Investigators" and I could go on. In religious communities there are so many terms that an outsider might be confused by, and it makes sense that Vorinism would have their own lingo and jargon that non-Vorin followers could easily be confused by. Look at the language used by other religions in Brandon's other books and you will notice that they each have their own emphasis, verbage, etc. which identifies them as separate and distinct. He does a great job of keeping them all separate from each other and linguistic tools like focusing on Heresy is one way that Vorinism is distinguished.

You also seem to be under the impression that your own personal use and understanding of the term Heretic limits how any other people or groups can/do use and understand it. I think it is helpful to recognize that the author is in charge and the language they use is usually pretty intentional. Otherwise you need to start analyzing what Brandon means by Intent, Investiture, Avatars, etc. because those meanings are quite different in the cosmere than the usual use on Earth in english-speaking regions. All that said, I also just don't think his use of Heretic is even incorrect or outlandish by any stretch.

17 hours ago, Returned said:

Jasnah is sloppy with her terminology or Rosharan languages lack vocabulary specific enough to express her meaning

Great point - Roshar uses Chicken as the word for all different kinds of birds. Roshar is the name of their continent, planet, and solar system. They are known to not be very varied in their vocabulary lol

[bmcclure7]

On 4/23/2025 at 3:31 PM, Returned said:

There is also the issue of Jasnah being described as different things by different people for different reasons. Even we, the readers, do not have an exhaustive understanding of Jasnah's mind and beliefs; in absolute number of statements we barely have more information now than we did at the end of, say Oathbringer. Her hewing to cultural norms, like covering her safehand, may blur the line a bit with regard to social conformity versus religious conformity.

Jasnah is a heretic: Jasnah specifically spoke against Vorin teachings, highlighting some of those beliefs as wrong. She didn't just not believe the orthodoxy, nor did she just remove herself from the religion, she said that individual beliefs and traditions were wrong. That's heresy.

Jasnah is an atheist: especially in the earlier SA volumes Jasnah was reputed not to believe in any deities. This may have been a product of her specifically denying each established religion in turn (which might better be described as non-religious rather than specifically atheist), but I think it's probably better described by her own stance towards religion. Specifically, she said that she viewed religion as taking natural phenomena and ascribing supernatural causes to them while she preferred to take supernatural phenomena and ascribe mundane causes to them (I'm sure I mangled the quote a bit, but that's the spirit of it). That's not the same as saying no deities exist, exactly, but she won't accept a divine explanation for anything until she's proven it's not anything else at all, and that she could only truly do if she had perfect knowledge of everything. She does not and will not have that, and doubtless she knows it. Maybe a practical atheist, then.

Jasnah is an agnostic: Jasnah admits that she does not know everything about the universe and does not specifically rule out that deities exist and operate in the world. She doesn't know enough to state that they don't exist, only that she doesn't know that they exist and/or that existing deities have any particular characteristics.

Jasnah is a deist: Jasnah may believe in some deity or deities (at least suggested by WaT) but does not necessarily believe that they interact with the world in any way. She's a practical person, and something existing but not influencing nor being influenced by anything else anywhere, ever, may as well not exist.

Jasnah is sloppy with her terminology or Rosharan languages lack vocabulary specific enough to express her meaning: Jasnah may use terms like "gods" to indicate something other than divine-creator-ruler-source of morality. Beings referred to as gods, such as the Shards, may exist, but they're more like really powerful people than categorically different entities. A trained warrior is more capable in many ways than some random person. A Surgebinder has way more capacity than a trained warrior and radically more than some random person. A Shard has ludicrously more capacity than a Surgebinder. "God" might be the best word that would be commonly understood to indicate that difference in scope and scale but doesn't necessarily indicate any religious, spiritual, ethical, or philosophical attitude towards them.

This was a good answer, but for all the wrong reasons is mainly you highlight your own ignorance of these terms, which I guess seeing that I should not be so hard on Brandon himself. 
 

1.”Jasnah specifically spoke against Vorin teachings, highlighting some of those beliefs as wrong. She didn't just not believe the orthodoxy, nor did she just remove herself from the religion, she said that individual beliefs and traditions were wrong. That's heresy. “

By this logic, a Hindu is a heretic. She’s not a heretic. She’s not a member of the religion. She disbelief’s it if she was claiming to be a vorin and then says that there is no God then yes she would be a heretic. But she does not.

 

2.“Jasnah is an agnostic: Jasnah is a deist: “ 

now I think you’re confused you cannot be an atheist agnostic and a deist all at once make up your mind. She has to be one of them, but she cannot be all 3 

“4. Jasnah may use terms like "gods" to indicate something other than divine-creator-ruler-source of morality.”

This is why you show your own ignorance. Most gods worship and believed by pagans will not be described as any of these things Zeus in the source of nor a divine creator. He is I suppose a divine ruler, but so is retribution. As I said, not believing in a single divine creator, makes her a polytheist not at atheist.

 

[Qianweilian He/him]

27 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

By this logic, a Hindu is a heretic. She’s not a heretic. She’s not a member of the religion. She disbelief’s it if she was claiming to be a vorin and then says that there is no God then yes she would be a heretic. But she does not.

Many great people in this thread have mentioned how Jasnah fits into the dictionary definition of heresy. While I agree that your definition of heresy is generally what people mean when they use the term on Earth, you can't really say that Brandon has the "wrong" meaning of the word

27 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

now I think you’re confused you cannot be an atheist agnostic and a deist all at once make up your mind.

Returned was breaking down the various names Jasnah is being called and the arguments. To my knowledge, it's not being said that Jasnah is our world's definition of a deist, atheist, and agnostic simultaneously.

27 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

As I said, not believing in a single divine creator, makes her a polytheist not at atheist.

A large part of her character is saying she doesn't worship these shards as gods; how would she be a polytheist?

 

I'm sorry bmcclure7, but you seem to be applying informal definitions of our religious terms to characters in a fictional world with a completely different religious background and supernatural, powerful beings who act like gods, create life (even planets), and give them magical power. I don't see how this is a productive discussion anymore. We've all presented our arguments and you are not listening.

Edited May 4, 2025 by Qianweilian
Fixed grammatical errors

[bmcclure7]

14 minutes ago, Qianweilian said:

Many great people in this thread have mentioned how Jasnah fits into the dictionary definition of heresy. While I agree that your definition of heresy is generally what people mean when they use the term on Earth, you can't really say that Brandon has the "wrong" meaning of the word

Returned was breaking down the various names Jasnah is being called and the arguments. To my knowledge, it's not being said that Jasnah is our world's definition of a deist, atheist, and agnostic simultaneously.

A large part of her character is saying she doesn't worship these shards as gods; how would she be a polytheist?

 

I'm sorry bmcclure7, but you seem to be applying informal definitions of our religious terms to characters in a fictional world with a completely different religious background and supernatural, powerful beings who act like gods, create life (even planets), and give them magical power. I don't see how this is a productive discussion anymore. We've all presented our arguments and you are not listening.

You’re right polytheist is probably the wrong word but certainly not an atheist and atheist is not someone that doesn’t worship gods but someone that doesn’t believe in gods. If she doesn’t fit our definitions for these words, that is surely something else is she not?  That’s like saying that it’s fine for the sheep to be hairless by bipedal carnivores because it simply using a different definition of sheep. 

[Qianweilian He/him]

It's an interesting discussion on what she is exactly, but I don't think it's accurate that Sanderson doesn't understand the meaning of the words.

[Returned he/him]

19 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

This was a good answer, but for all the wrong reasons is mainly you highlight your own ignorance of these terms, which I guess seeing that I should not be so hard on Brandon himself. 

I'm not ignorant of the terms. Hindus are considered heretics by some other religions, some religions are less certain and strict in their beliefs and approaches to knowledge and so do not label others as heretics. I'm not sure why you keep returning to this example, history is replete with religious groups engaging in conflict with other religious groups with charges of heresy for not believing the same things. It's not the only way things happen but it certainly has happened. People have responded in this thread with the dictionary definition of heretic and it covers Jasnah's position. Even if that's not your preferred use of the word it certainly fits and that definition exists and is in common use-- the most common use, perhaps.

19 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

now I think you’re confused you cannot be an atheist agnostic and a deist all at once make up your mind. She has to be one of them, but she cannot be all 3 

I was giving examples of different words that might describe Jasnah's beliefs and orientation towards Vorinism and Rosharan religions more broadly, not listing out everything Jasnah definitely is. I prefaced this by saying that we only get a little bit of insight into Jasnah's beliefs and then listed some potential descriptions along with explanations of why the text might support them.

19 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

This is why you show your own ignorance. Most gods worship and believed by pagans will not be described as any of these things Zeus in the source of nor a divine creator. He is I suppose a divine ruler, but so is retribution. As I said, not believing in a single divine creator, makes her a polytheist not at atheist.

Again, I was describing a possibility about Jasnah's beliefs. Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly did believe that their gods were fundamentally different from mortal humans in some important ways, different from something like a Surgebinder (definitely an ordinary mortal who has access to magic powers beyond ordinary mortals) which is the difference I was trying to highlight. The objects of worship don't need to be participants in a creation myth. The point of that item in my list was to suggest that Jasnah may not have been using "gods" in any religious sense (contrasting with the Vorins) while the Vorins seem to use "god" exclusively in a religious sense.

Someone is showing something in this thread, but it's not me showing ignorance of English. Dictionaries directly oppose your position here, and in relying on them Sanderson is on pretty solid ground. You're coming off a bit abrasive (maybe it's just my reading and not you at all) and I'm not sure why-- dictionaries flatly refute what you're saying. Suggesting that use of the word should be different than it is is one thing (and I'm sympathetic to that position!) but using a word in the way a dictionary defines it is about as close to definitely using a word correctly as it's possible to be. Maybe you can expand on why you feel the dictionary definition isn't suitable in this case?

Edited May 5, 2025 by Returned

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

30 minutes ago, Returned said:

Someone is showing something in this thread, but it's not me showing ignorance of English.

I don't think we will ever get this person to understand what we are trying to say. They seem to be convinced of their own superiority and our ignorance to their particular thought patterns. I thought your explanations were quite clear and easy to follow. It seems to me that this person is trying to set hard lines about how words can be used, suggesting that their frame of reference is the only correct perspective. We're beating a dead horse at this point, perhaps the cognitive shadow of a dead horse

[Returned he/him]

10 minutes ago, CognitiveShadow said:

It seems to me that this person is trying to set hard lines about how words can be used, suggesting that their frame of reference is the only correct perspective.

If it's dismay over common use of a word being upsetting (especially through being used in imprecise ways) I can totally understand! I got to go through my rant about the word "nonplussed" twice recently, and even though it's never anything more than me venting it's still very cathartic.

[bmcclure7]

On 5/5/2025 at 9:39 AM, Returned said:

I'm not ignorant of the terms. Hindus are considered heretics by some other religions, some religions are less certain and strict in their beliefs and approaches to knowledge and so do not label others as heretics. I'm not sure why you keep returning to this example, history is replete with religious groups engaging in conflict with other religious groups with charges of heresy for not believing the same things. It's not the only way things happen but it certainly has happened. People have responded in this thread with the dictionary definition of heretic and it covers Jasnah's position. Even if that's not your preferred use of the word it certainly fits and that definition exists and is in common use-- the most common use, perhaps.

I was giving examples of different words that might describe Jasnah's beliefs and orientation towards Vorinism and Rosharan religions more broadly, not listing out everything Jasnah definitely is. I prefaced this by saying that we only get a little bit of insight into Jasnah's beliefs and then listed some potential descriptions along with explanations of why the text might support them.

Again, I was describing a possibility about Jasnah's beliefs. Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly did believe that their gods were fundamentally different from mortal humans in some important ways, different from something like a Surgebinder (definitely an ordinary mortal who has access to magic powers beyond ordinary mortals) which is the difference I was trying to highlight. The objects of worship don't need to be participants in a creation myth. The point of that item in my list was to suggest that Jasnah may not have been using "gods" in any religious sense (contrasting with the Vorins) while the Vorins seem to use "god" exclusively in a religious sense.

Someone is showing something in this thread, but it's not me showing ignorance of English. Dictionaries directly oppose your position here, and in relying on them Sanderson is on pretty solid ground. You're coming off a bit abrasive (maybe it's just my reading and not you at all) and I'm not sure why-- dictionaries flatly refute what you're saying. Suggesting that use of the word should be different than it is is one thing (and I'm sympathetic to that position!) but using a word in the way a dictionary defines it is about as close to definitely using a word correctly as it's possible to be. Maybe you can expand on why you feel the dictionary definition isn't suitable in this case?

1. A Hindu can only be considered heretic by other Hindus. A Christian never considered a Hindu a heretic. A Muslim never consider a Hindu a heretic. It’s not what that word means.

2. Is there any other use for god except in a religious sense? Unless you’re suggesting that she using some sort of hyperbole? Or that she’s using it in a more broad sense to describe any spiritual being as the ancient sometimes used to use it? 
 

 

Edited May 6, 2025 by bmcclure7

[Returned he/him]

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

1. A Hindu can only be considered heretic by other Hindus. A Christian never considered a Hindu a heretic. A Muslim never consider a Hindu a heretic. It’s not what that word means.

Not so, per the dictionary definitions included multiple times above. Your claims that the word does not and cannot mean anything but what you feel it should (with the implication that it has never been used in that way) would be greatly supported by you showing a definition which conforms with your position and specifically excludes all others, or better still offer an explanation for why the accepted, alternate uses listed in Merriam Webster's dictionary should not be accepted. Continued refusal to do so is telling. This is particularly the case given that the OP suggests (jokingly, I assume) a dictionary be sent with the definition for "heretic" highlighted. You yourself seem unimpressed by the dictionary definition

Merriam Webster's definition specifically does not contain the limitations you assert. It seems that you would prefer the word be used in a more limited, precise way. I can sympathize. But "the definition of the word is [X], and everyone who uses it differently is wrong" is a difficult position to maintain when the dictionary definition is not, in fact, [X] (or, more precisely, is not only [X]). For reference:

Quote

1.  a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma

     b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church

    c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

2. a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice

    b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

If a religion's dogma states that the world was created on a Tuesday, and Jasnah knows that, and she specifically says that this is not true and that the world was created on a Thursday, that fits definitions 1c, 2a, and 2b. You appear to be focused on definition 1a as the only valid definition. You've offered no support for why this should be the case and only restated your assertion over and over again. I'm not interested in interacting with that assertion again. You seemed incredulous as to how Sanderson's use of the word to describe Jasnah could have happened. The above-quoted definition is how.

 

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

2. Is there any other use for god except in a religious sense? Unless you’re suggesting that she using some sort of hyperbole? Or that she’s using it in a more broad sense to describe any spiritual being as the ancient sometimes used to use it? 

Yes. I sketched out an explanation in my earlier post and explicitly mentioned that it could be sloppiness in word choice on Jasnah's part (which would mean she's using a word without accounting for its connotations, including religious overtones), but more precisely the word "god" is frequently used in colloquial and poetic ways unrelated to religious statements. A concert billed as featuring "the gods of rock 'n' roll" is a concert claiming to have the most important rock 'n' roll groups performing, not promising a rock music-based religious event.

My suggestion was that she might have used the word to indicate the pinnacle of capacity, the most powerful thing which exists, without necessarily attaching any spiritual or metaphysical elements. I'd direct you to the dictionary for this, also, but that has not been an effective tack in this thread previously. I'll include the definition here for completeness:

Quote

1. God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as

    a: the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe

    b: Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

 

2. or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers

specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3. a person or thing of supreme value

 

4. a powerful ruler

 

Edited May 6, 2025 by Returned

[bmcclure7]

On 5/6/2025 at 3:34 PM, Returned said:

Not so, per the dictionary definitions included multiple times above. Your claims that the word does not and cannot mean anything but what you feel it should (with the implication that it has never been used in that way) would be greatly supported by you showing a definition which conforms with your position and specifically excludes all others, or better still offer an explanation for why the accepted, alternate uses listed in Merriam Webster's dictionary should not be accepted. Continued refusal to do so is telling. This is particularly the case given that the OP suggests (jokingly, I assume) a dictionary be sent with the definition for "heretic" highlighted. You yourself seem unimpressed by the dictionary definition

Merriam Webster's definition specifically does not contain the limitations you assert. It seems that you would prefer the word be used in a more limited, precise way. I can sympathize. But "the definition of the word is [X], and everyone who uses it differently is wrong" is a difficult position to maintain when the dictionary definition is not, in fact, [X] (or, more precisely, is not only [X]). For reference:

If a religion's dogma states that the world was created on a Tuesday, and Jasnah knows that, and she specifically says that this is not true and that the world was created on a Thursday, that fits definitions 1c, 2a, and 2b. You appear to be focused on definition 1a as the only valid definition. You've offered no support for why this should be the case and only restated your assertion over and over again. I'm not interested in interacting with that assertion again. You seemed incredulous as to how Sanderson's use of the word to describe Jasnah could have happened. The above-quoted definition is how.

 

Yes. I sketched out an explanation in my earlier post and explicitly mentioned that it could be sloppiness in word choice on Jasnah's part (which would mean she's using a word without accounting for its connotations, including religious overtones), but more precisely the word "god" is frequently used in colloquial and poetic ways unrelated to religious statements. A concert billed as featuring "the gods of rock 'n' roll" is a concert claiming to have the most important rock 'n' roll groups performing, not promising a rock music-based religious event.

My suggestion was that she might have used the word to indicate the pinnacle of capacity, the most powerful thing which exists, without necessarily attaching any spiritual or metaphysical elements. I'd direct you to the dictionary for this, also, but that has not been an effective tack in this thread previously. I'll include the definition here for completeness:

“Yes. I sketched out an explanation in my earlier post and explicitly mentioned that it could be sloppiness in word choice on Jasnah's part (which would mean she's using a word without accounting for its connotations, including religious overtones), but more precisely the word "god" is frequently used in colloquial and poetic ways unrelated to religious statements. A concert billed as featuring "the gods of rock 'n' roll" is a concert claiming to have the most important rock 'n' roll groups performing, not promising a rock music-based religious event.“

 

using the word god that way is using it hyperbolically. In what way was she being hyperbolic in her statement? 
 

She’s talking a shard  by definition it is metaphysical. Transcending the physical room entirely, with access to the cognitive and yes, spiritual realms. So I don’t see how this is irrelevant.

 

2.” or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers

specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality. “
 

This definition fits retribution perfectly as such. She is not being hyperbolic when she refers to him as a god.

 

“denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church“

you noticed the baptized member part . Seems like it does contain that limitation.
 

The world heretic itself originally means subset. Should be enough to tell you that you must be of the category to be heretic

[Returned he/him]

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

using the word god that way is using it hyperbolically. In what way was she being hyperbolic in her statement? 
 

She’s talking a shard  by definition it is metaphysical. Transcending the physical room entirely, with access to the cognitive and yes, spiritual realms. So I don’t see how this is irrelevant.

I'd lean towards describing this potential use of "gods" as poetic (here read as "not literal") for the reasons I already described, more than once now: an extreme disparity in relative power/capacity/influence of some beings over others. The "gods of rock 'n' roll" example I gave expresses this very precisely with literally no metaphysical aspects. In such a usage, "hyperbolic" might be a fair descriptor.

I'd lean against suggesting that Cosmere magics are metaphysical because the books go to great lengths to establish that magic is a part of the physical universe in which the stories take place, and that that magic is bound by very specific rules exactly as mundane phenomena are. I could probably be convinced otherwise. But that's off-topic for this thread as the point I'm making is that the word "god" can be used without religious or metaphysical implications, as above.

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

This definition fits retribution perfectly as such. She is not being hyperbolic when she refers to him as a god.

That one definition might fit a usage, among other definitions that also might fit, does not mean that that one definition is definitely the one that was intended. The old Twilight Zone episode To Serve Man is a great example of exactly this phenomenon.

Another perspective on this might be Vorinism, which specifically held that there was only one God, the Almighty, and no others (as far as I recall, maybe other posters can correct me if I'm mistaken on that). From the Vorin perspective, then, Retribution could not be a god in the same sense that they considered the Almighty to be. A very powerful being, certainly, but categorically different from the Almighty whom they believed to be the only god that could have that description.

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

you noticed the baptized member part . Seems like it does contain that limitation.

When multiple definitions of a word are listed, that word can mean any of those definitions. It does not need to mean all of them at once-- that's why there are multiple definitions instead of just one. The baptized member part is not the only definition listed, and the other definitions do not include that limitation, and so there are uses of "heresy" which do not require the baptized member component. Either a person meant to use that one specific definition for Jasnah, and was wrong in trying to use it, or they were using one of the other definitions and so that component does not apply. There isn't any reason to think that the former is the case.

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

The world heretic itself originally means subset. Should be enough to tell you that you must be of the category to be heretic

Etymology is interesting but that a word once meant one thing doesn't indicate that it can never ever mean anything else, no matter how people use it in practice. Merriam Webster's dictionary, as posted here so many times now, lists several definitions for "heresy" which are currently in use. Several of them are perfectly applicable to Jasnah in relation to the Vorin church. Feel free to write to them to complain, if you feel so strongly about it.

You are free to not like that usage of a word has expanded, and that as a result you have to accept people expressing some of those other usages in order to communicate with them. Again, I sympathize: I like language to be precise. But your preferences aren't going to control how other people use English, and violating your linguistic preferences doesn't make a person wrong.

The dictionary entry is decisive here: you are 100% incorrect in deciding that other people must mean what you want "heresy" to mean when they use that word, rather than any of the other definitions (which have almost certainly been in use for longer than any of us have been alive). The word has more possible definitions than you assert, and that's true whether you accept it or not, whether you like it or not. You are not the czar of American English (that's czar, meaning "one having great power or authority" or "emperor", derived from tzar, derived from tsĭsarĭ, derived from kaisar, derived from Caesar. I am using the current definition, not suggesting that there might be confision over whether or not you are the long-dead Roman emperor ).

In any event I don't see anything more to discuss here as you've chosen to ignore the plain definitions listed in the dictionary because you don't like them, and in ignoring them there simply isn't any way to engage on the topic. Maybe usage of English will shift more towards your preferences in the future. Good luck to you.

Edited May 8, 2025 by Returned