baby he/him Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I find it ironic that the religion which holds Sazed as god has a faith which leaves much to be interpreted by yourself, with only a few vague rules. This was the kind of religion that Sazed would immediately label untrue, and probably why he refuses to be worshipped. 1
soulcastJam he/him Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 That depends upon which part of his life you are talking about. The jaded, angry, heart-broken Sazed would indeed have labeled it untrue. Prior to certain events he would have taught it without worrying if it was true or not. And current Sazed might see it in the light of realizing that all/many of the religions were used by intelligent design for the ultimate salvation of the planet. So, your statement is only true for the time of his life when he was most unhappy. 1
Vertigo he/him Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I thinks he states the reason why his teachings are quite vague. He wants people to make their choices and, for good or ill, deal with the consquences those choices bring.
natc Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 That depends upon which part of his life you are talking about. The jaded, angry, heart-broken Sazed would indeed have labeled it untrue. Prior to certain events he would have taught it without worrying if it was true or not. And current Sazed might see it in the light of realizing that all/many of the religions were used by intelligent design for the ultimate salvation of the planet. So, your statement is only true for the time of his life when he was most unhappy. Plus, in the end the kandra finally seem to have gotten the point across that looking for a religion not requiring blind faith is a fool's errand. Sazed himself comes to have faith in Vin to the point that Elend is surprised at the drastic change. 2
Eagle of the Forest Path he/him Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 From Terry Pratchett's Thud!: "Tak does not require that we think of Him, only that we think." 4
Arraenae Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Well, once Sazed becomes Harmony he is a very strong believer in free will, making your own decisions, etc. In that light Pathism seems like a religion that he would promote (except for the part about worshipping him).
KidWayne he/him Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) I don't think this is ironic at all. Faith is messy and subjective. No two people have the exact same relationship with their God(s). Spirituality gets mingled in with our own sense of identity, values, and perceptions. Sazed went from someone who saw the value in all kinds of truth to someone who wanted to find THE TRUTH revealed in a specific religion. After his ascension, he was reminded of the small truths contained in each religion he knew and those smaller truths assisted him in recreating the world. So, his religion - "the Path" - takes a similar approach. Sazed is a pretty humble guy; he knows that he is a lowercase "g" god. So, I interpret the tenets of the Path to mean that Sazed does not see himself as the arbiter of THE TRUTH. Sazed himself is still looking for THE TRUTH in his new capacity as a god. Since he is not a being of ultimate power, he does not see himself as worthy of worship. Instead, he expects those under his care to follow the same moral imperative that Sazed follows himself: do more good than harm. Finally, he lays out a path (the same path Sazed walked) to understand what words like "truth" and "good" mean: study the religions of the path and find the truth contained therein. Other thoughts behind spoiler tag (i.e. a lengthy example of how faith is messy and subjective, followed by my reflections on the driving force behind the growing secularism of Western society): For example, imagine two Catholic parishioners in 1750... Let's assume that they are both men of average means that live in the same area, attend the same church, and that both men are tradesmen in different but comparable industries (e.g. blacksmith and a carpenter). Further, lets assume that they had nearly identical childhood environments with one exception: their fathers. One of our guys had a father who was a moderately abusive authoritarian, a man who was very proud and concerned with how he is perceived by others. The other man had a father who was a patient and devoted parent, a kind and humble man who genuinely tried to control his passions and put others before himself. How do you think these two men approached God? I'll bet that the man with the stern father has a preoccupation with sin and punishment; I would also expect that he finds trusting God to be very difficult. As for the second man, I'd expect that he would naturally see God as a loving and gracious father. He would find it much easier than the first man to trust God; however, his struggle with faith is probably a specific temptation or an over-attachment to his family that makes it difficult for him to fully submit to God. My point here is that faith is messy. Faith and spirituality is unique to every individual, which is why so many try to make spiritual truth relative instead of absolute. Absolute spiritual truth can only be obtained via divine revelation. Trust is such an integral part of faith because trust requires a person to take action (or to abstain from action) without verifiable evidence. We trust our parents, our parents (usually) introduce us to their faith and (again, usually) present their faith as THE TRUTH; therefore, people tend to inherit their parents' faith. So, often times, a man's faith in his God(s) is an extension of the trust that he has in his parents. My previous statement depends on how pious one's parents happen to be (if you think in the broader context of humanity instead of Western culture this generalization about inherited faith is still true). It is a curious side effect of public education, the politicization of science, and the fractured nature of the dominant religion (i.e. Christianity) that seems to be driving the secularization of western culture. Specifically... • kids are taught to question their assumptions in an effort to get them to think critically (which has the side effect of communicating the question, "Can you really trust what you were told by your parents?" to kids) • it is considered normal and acceptable for parents to lie to children about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy with the intent of surprising and delighting them; however, the kids' eventual disillusionment reinforces the notion that not everything your parents tell you is true • kids are halfway raised by the schools they attend; parents accept this and teach kids to trust their teachers. • modern science offers an alternative to faith by providing explanations for nearly all the 'how' and 'why' questions that used to find answers in faith. • Nowadays, the encroachment of science on the domain of faith causes a sort of cognitive dissonance to the faithful. It presents kids with two versions of THE TRUTH, which forces them to pick a team: do they trust their science teachers or do they trust their parents (and by extension their parents' faith)? • As we have already established, when kids are picking a side parents are at a disadvantage. In much the same way that Kaladin loses respect for King Elhokar, kids see their parents flaws. They know that their parents have been wrong and that they make mistakes. • The science books and teachers however represent the "experts." Experts are held out to be the authority on what is or is not true about the subject of their expertise. So, kids are asked to choose to place their faith in ( A ) their flawed, occasionally dishonest, and sometimes wrong parents and ( B ) the experts who can supply evidence to support what they say is THE TRUTH. Edited November 18, 2015 by KidWayne
Charononus Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) • kids are halfway raised by the schools they attend; parents accept this and teach kids to trust their teachers. • modern science offers an alternative to faith by providing explanations for nearly all the 'how' and 'why' questions that used to find answers in faith. • Nowadays, the encroachment of science on the domain of faith causes a sort of cognitive dissonance to the faithful. It presents kids with two versions of THE TRUTH, which forces them to pick a team: do they trust their science teachers or do they trust their parents (and by extension their parents' faith)? • The science books and teachers however represent the "experts." Experts are held out to be the authority on what is or is not true about the subject of their expertise. I clipped quite a bit out, but left in the points that I wanted address. Using the spoiler tag as well for consistency. First of all if you want to know my actual beliefs, reread Jasnah's, swap vorinism for religion in general and you have a pretty good description. However I disagree with you on some of these points. I may not be able to have faith, as I need proof of things, but I think that some of the best religious people don't look at things quite that way. Sure science has answered a lot of questions, we can tell you how things mechanically happen a lot of the time, but there are a lot of things that we can't answer. We can tell you the chemical changes to your body when you die, but we can't 100% answer what happens to the "you". Some will tell you that you're nothing more than an electrochemical computer, but really that can't be said with 100% certainty. Even if it could be, religion does help people with these deeper questions, and seems to be where many of the best religious people are. (I used religious rather than any faith on purpose) Anyways. I think Pathism is an attempt by Harmony (I don't think there is enough of Sazed left to call him Sazed anymore) to encourage the good parts of religion, the parts where someone can find comfort and help, yet keep away from the very nasty side of religion which is the authoritarian restrictions that were A) Part of the steel ministry, and B ) So so common in real life. I think it's an example in general of the more good than harm ideal. Edited November 21, 2015 by Charononus
Plaeggs he/him Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 (edited) You should disable emoticons. I agree with your idea, i think. Itt sounds like something Sazed would do. Edited November 21, 2015 by Patchwork Gibletish
Charononus Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 You should disable emoticons. I agree with your idea, i think. Itt sounds like something Sazed would do. Hmm not sure where to disable that at. Did edit the post upon reading thru it to make it readable.
Recommended Posts