Google+
This blog has moved. Please go over to this link to see my new website.
Showing posts with label Belief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Belief. Show all posts

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Ruled by Intellect or Emotion? Tips on Word Choice #7

English: The words "Motivation and Emotio...
English: The words "Motivation and Emotion" are spelt out in scrabble letters on a scrabble board. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Certain words/phrases can induce fairly specific responses in readers. As writers, we all know this, but do we use the power of emotion in our work?

For the next few weeks, I’ll be looking at something subjective: how to choose between emotional and intellectual words for effect.

In this series I’m looking at the difference between words that seem intellectual as opposed to those that invoke a more emotional response. How you use them is obviously up to you. The point is that the alternatives have the same, or very similar, meanings, but their effect upon the reader can be markedly different. I’ve made some suggestions here, but I’m sure you can think of others.

Intellectual: Astute
Emotional: Smart

The leader of the opposition made the astute point that the party in power was run by fraudsters, millionaires, tax-dodgers and fools.

Georgina was not only beautiful, generous and smart as a whip, she was also green. 

Intellectual: Desire
Emotional: Hope

Members of the Tory party desire that all employees be made to labour for inadequate wages so that they can continue to call them lazy and undeserving.’

Let’s all hope the majority of the electorate will wake up to the reality of the right wing, in spite of the evidence that the contrary is usually the case.

Intellectual: Obstinate
Emotional: Stubborn

The obstinate belief amongst the bulk of voters that politicians actually care about them is difficult to comprehend.


My grandfather was a stubborn man who would argue that black was white if that was what he chose to believe, regardless of fact.

Saturday, 19 April 2014

Courting Contentious Content.

Julian Assange painted portrait - Wikileaks
Julian Assange painted portrait - Wikileaks (Photo credit: Abode of Chaos)
Are we subject to a type of censorship that curtails freedom of speech and prevents honest debate of issues of vital importance to civilisation?

In the West, we pride ourselves on our tolerance. This is especially the case in Europe and even more so in the UK, a land noted for its cultural diversity and its acceptance of the beliefs, customs and traditions of others. In order to protect those institutions, beliefs, sensibilities and creeds that differ from our home-grown varieties, government has implemented laws intended to prevent prejudice and insult. But, because of the undeniable threat of terrorism, they’ve also set in place watchdogs to detect activity that may be considered a threat to the State.

It’s my belief that the combined effect of these two factors is to stifle serious debate about religious bodies and/or traditions and customs.

Let me illustrate my point. If I wish to write a feature, or even a piece of fiction, highlighting perceived dangers presented by extremist groups, my first recourse is research, so I can get my facts right. So, I start to  investigate terms like Al-Qaeda, mujahadeen, taliban, islamist, the Army of God, Ku Klux Klan, etc. In common with most modern writers, my first port of call is the web. But wait: if I start typing such words into my search engine, am I going to immediately become a target for the anti-terrorist organisations that filter such words from our emails, texts and online searches? The danger certainly exists. And, I suspect, for many that’s sufficiently worrying to prevent them even taking the first steps.

In writing this piece, I wanted to ensure I spelt the words correctly (many of them have variant spellings, after all). For me, spelling is the prerogative of the SOED, a 2 volume version of the Oxford English Dictionary, which comes as a printed book of 20 volumes with 3 additional volumes to account for more recent words. My copy of the smaller book was printed in 2007. Al-Qaeda has been active since 1988, but doesn’t feature in the SOED. So I went to the web. I used the roundabout route of searching for Al-Jazeera, a respected broadcasting company, and was directed to the inimical Wikipedia. From there, I was more comfortable searching for the other terms.

But you see my point? Fear of the heavy-handed authorities descending on the house to remove my computer for forensic dissection, especially in light of the fate of such protectors of free speech as Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, makes me, and many others, wary of even investigating certain topics.

The other cause for concern in writing about such matters stems from the potential outcry and threats of death that may result. We have only to recall the cases of Salman Rushdie and his Satanic Verses (a book I actually read at the time, forming my own ideas about the real reason for the fatwa), and of Jyllands Posten, the Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Islamic prophet, Mohammed. But it isn’t just Islam that poses such problems. There’s evidence that raising the subject of Christian, Budhist, Hindu or any other form of religious extremism can cause serious problems for those daring to criticise such organisations.

Even at a less heated level, the criticism of many religious groups, no matter where those beliefs originate, is invariably seen as an attack on faith and belief, so that simply questioning these issues often results in tirades of abuse, threats and even physical atttack.

Those of a rational turn of mind are effectively silenced by a system that was ostensibly put in place to protect the rights of minorities. It’s become very difficult to even venture an opinion on the validity of faith, the truth about religion, or the real value of certain rites and rituals unless the writer couches such ideas in the most delicate language.


Fear of causing offence, coupled with very real concerns over both official and extremist responses, has effectively neutered those who wish to hold open and honest debates about certain religious beliefs, traditions and customs. It takes a brave writer to raise these contentious issues. I suggest that the balance of the law has shifted dangerously toward censorship of those who employ reason and rationality and is now overprotective of those who wish to maintain what are often erroneous and frequently dangerous belief systems. This fear stifles the very necessary discussion of subjects that are often directly responsible for much injustice and harm in the world. What do you think?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 25 December 2011

Stuarts' Daily Word Spot: Daft/Sane

English: Model Mayra Veronica sings "Sant...
Image via Wikipedia

Daft/Sane

Daft: adjective - silly; lacking intelligence; stupid; wild or reckless; unsound of mind; crazy.

Sane: adjective - sound of mind, not mad; sensible and rational; moderate; free from misguiding prejudices.

'It is often said that those who believe in any form of scripture must be daft. And this may be so. But such a stance takes account only of rational intelligence. It makes no allowance for emotional intelligence, where the subject recognises their need for some moral or heroic leader to guide them through life and therefore chooses to give credence to some doctrine that cannot be true on a reasoning level.'

'The only really sane stance on religious matters is to recognise that any form of organised religion is the product of man and has little or nothing to do with God. The sane person understands that we are incapable, as a species, of fully comprehending any power capable of designing, manufacturing and installing what we understand as the known universe. Science can sometimes appear adamant that God doesn't exist, but this is to take on the same dogmatic stance as religion: it requires faith in an absolute that cannot be demonstrated to exist.'

On a lighter note, more fitting to the season, perhaps:

'Sally was daft enough to follow Jack's urging and donned the ridiculous Santa outfit that displayed her ample cleavage and left her long legs exposed almost to the point of his desire.'

'Jane was sane enough to understand that skating on the frozen pond was not a good idea and refused to join David as he skidded over the cracked surface and finally broke through it so he was plunged into icy water to a level that cooled his ardour rather rapidly.'

1 - The first Christmas, according to calendar-maker Dionysus Exiguus. But the evidence, such as it is, suggests Jesus was probably born in either January or July somewhere around 4-6BC. But people will inevitably believe what they choose to, since it has long been shown that belief has little or nothing to do with either fact or evidence and much to do with a mixture of nurture and personal preference.

1818 - The first known Christmas carol Silent Night, Holy Night was sung in Austria, sparking one of the more attractive and seductive elements that make up the spiritual Christian festival today.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 11 December 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Hachiman

A scroll depicting kami Hachiman dressed as a ...
Image via Wikipedia

Hachiman: another in my occasional, and probably self-indulgent, series designed to show the religious that there's more than one god worshipped in this inexplicable world of ours. All these deities exist in the minds of those who hold them holy, but none of them is real or any more special than the others.

Hachiman is the Japanese god of archery and war, combining elements of both Shinto and Buddhism. He's defined as the god of warriors, safeguarding and protecting them. Also divine protector of Japan and the Japanese, his name means God of Eight Banners; a reference to the eight heavenly banners signalling the birth of the divine Emperor Ojin. The dove is his symbolic animal and messenger.
Hachiman has long been worshiped by peasants, as the god of agriculture, and by fishermen hoping he'd fill their nets with fish. In the Shinto religion, legend identifies him as the Emperor Ojin, the son of Empress Consort Jingu, C3-4 AD.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, 2 December 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Fable/truth


Fable/truth – antonyms.

Fable: noun - a fictional narrative or statement; a myth or legend; a fiction devised to deceive; a ridiculous or dishonest story; idle talk; something falsely claimed to exist, or not existing outside legend; a short story with animals as characters conveying a moral; someone or something that has become proverbial.

Truth: noun - faithfulness, loyalty, constancy; trust, confidence; belief, a creed; disposition to speak or act truly or sincerely; truthfulness, sincerity; fact, facts; the matter or circumstance as it really exists; the real thing, as opposed to a representation or imitation; a Religious belief or doctrine held to be true or orthodox; orthodoxy; conduct in accord with a divine standard; spirituality of life and behaviour; what is true or real; reality; a true statement; something held or accepted as true; a fixed or established principle; conformity with fact; genuineness; authenticity; accuracy of representation in art or literature; lifelike quality; in Architecture, without pretence or imitation; conformity with a standard, pattern, or rule; accuracy, precision, correctness.

'Most of the stories and reports concerning religious entities are fables; that these myths and legends have long been mistaken for truths is a matter for great concern amongst those who understand the value of honesty.'

'The behaviour and values of the vast majority of politicians, in particular the leaders in that field, demonstrate that they have no understanding of the meaning of truth. Like so many journalists, they mistake opinion for fact and proceed as though their particular beliefs about social matters equal truths, when, in most cases they represent only their own narrow and often distorted views of reality.'

2/12/1697 - St Paul's Cathedral was opened in London
2/12/1755 - The second Eddystone Lighthouse was destroyed by fire.

Pic:  Barmouth beach, Dorset.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 16 August 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Verisimilitude


Verisimilitude: noun - apparently true or real, resemblance to truth, reality, or fact; realistic quality, probability; a statement  that has the mere appearance or show of being true or factual, an apparent truth.

‘Most writers rely on verisimilitude to draw their readers into the fictional world of their novels, hoping that their suspension of disbelief will carry them through the events of the book.’

The classical, literary notion of verisimilitude focusses on the role of the reader engaging with the fictional work of art. The novel should offer a pleasurable experience to the reader by facilitating the reader’s willingness to suspend disbelief. Verisimilitude is the means of achieving this mindset. To promote the willing suspension of disbelief, fiction needs to be credible. Something that’s physically possible in the worldview of the reader can be defined as credible. Through verisimilitude, the reader can glean truth even in fiction because it reflects realistic aspects of life.

Pic: Humber estuary at Hessle, East Yorkshire.

Sunday, 20 February 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Cabal

Title page of first printed edition of the Zoh...Image via Wikipedia
Cabal  nounKabbalah, a conspiracy, secret intrigue, a faction, petty plotting, secret meeting, political clique: verb - come together for a private end, intrigue against.

'The cabal of opposition senators plotted to overthrow the incumbent leadership, intent on establishing their own version of government regardless of the wishes of the people.'

'Members of the secret conspiracy caballed underground to discuss the assassination of the president.'
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 13 November 2010

God: a Reality, a Fantasy, or an Unknown?

If you’re easily offended by religious ideas that fail to match your own, please don’t read on. But, if you have an open and enquiring mind, you might like to share your thoughts and comment on what I intend to explore here.
Raised as a Christian, I passed through atheism, induced by my mother’s death in a road accident when I was 16, to my current state of agnosticism. The agnostic stance, as with most religious viewpoints, has several manifestations. My own is quite simple:

I believe that IF there is a God, that being or power is certainly not in any way a personal deity and can have no gender. I believe such an entity is likely to be too complex and ineffable to be even remotely comprehensible to humanity.

As a result of this philosophical stance, I see ALL definitions of God as inadequate and sometimes downright insulting to this power. However, because I have no emotional bond to the idea – it’s an academic consideration rather than a sentimental desire to have unanswerable questions easily answered – I feel no personal concern at such insults. I do, however, find sympathy with some of Richard Dawkins’ ideas, especially regarding the indoctrination of children in Faith schools.

If we are brought up, steeped in any religious tradition, these ideas are so deeply ingrained into our consciousness that not only are they difficult to counter in later life, but they exist as a subconscious set of rules for our later beliefs and behaviours. Language itself is difficult to use without, in the case of Christian countries, Biblical references; the same applies in Muslim countries with the Qur’an. No doubt there are similar ties in other languages with Hinduism and Buddhism, though the latter is a little less aggressive than most religions. If children are taught a certain dogma as fact, then they are less likely to view opposing ideas with sympathy and, in some cases, are likely to view such opposition as hostile. We educate our children in a specific religious belief at the expense of their intellectual and spiritual freedom. That this is done by the religious groups primarily as a way of perpetuating and increasing their particular viewpoint, is undeniable, though they will all deny it, of course.

It strikes me that most religious doctrine (by which I mean the dogma; the insistence that their version of events is the only one, the right one) is so clearly based in factually questionable ideas as to be transparently doubtful. However, most adherents, disciples and converts to the various faiths are so desperate to be seen as members of their particular club or tribe that they willingly paper over the obvious cracks. Often, the arguments brought to bear in defence of their particular stance are so far-fetched as to be risible when subjected to rational analysis. Religion is the only area of human life where a belief in something which cannot be proven is considered a positive quality. There’s as much evidence for the existence of fairies, a flat Earth or a Moon made of green cheese, as there is for the existence of the type of God described by most religions. (This, of course, is only the case if you remove from consideration as evidence the religious books – Bible, Qur’an, Torah, etc, - since history proves that these were clearly written by men and have nothing whatsoever to do with any higher power) Yet believers in the other fantasies listed are pilloried and ridiculed, whilst believers in the faiths are praised, especially by others of the same persuasion. Faith in things intangible encourages our children to believe myths, mistruths, rumours and lies, instead of promoting questioning everything around them and fostering the search for evidence. Do we really want to steep our children in dubious myths, which have long since been discredited, and thus perpetuate divisions caused by loyalty to organisations that exist primarily as power bases for those with a personal need for authority and control over others?

So, no doubt having enraged members of all major faiths, I invite all and sundry to comment, refute, agree or question. BUT I’ll delete any comments that are simply insulting or deliberately offensive, whatever side of the argument they support.   

Enhanced by Zemanta