Alternative Culture: Age of Aztec review

Aziciting Aztecs!
What happened if the Aztecs conquered the old world? In this novel, James Lovegrove explores an alternate reality where the Aztecs had ruled the world for hundred of years.

Synopsis
Welcome to 2012 London, where a premier footballer willingly sacrifices his life (and literally his heart) to appease the Aztec pantheon. The crowds cheer in support and even children are brought to marvel at the sight.

Enter the Conquistador, a vigilante with similarities to the Punisher and Batman. With an ambitious aim to overthrow Aztec rule over the British, the Conquistador is not above killing and using terror tactics to pursue his goals.

Mal, a police officer is dispatched to stop the Conquistador, even as her loyalties to the Aztec are questioned. Who will prevail?

What I liked
I really enjoyed the idea on how theology drives the culture of the world. For instance, captial punishment is regarded as the norm and violence is accepted as part of sporting and workplace culture. This puts us in a perspective that should be uncomfortable with the modern day person, who tends peace for granted.

Furthermore, the Aztec gods are portrayed as bickering superhumans, as opposed to the omnipotent and omnibenevolent Judeo-Christian God we are all so used to.


What was missing
I kind of wished that the author explored the world more. Although passing references were made to the Mayans, Japanese, French and the Americans, I wished he had described what had happened in Africa and the rest of Asia.

I also wished he had described more of how Europe fells to the invading Aztecs.

Conclusion
The novel is a great read, and explores how theology guides society. I give it a 75/100.

Theology 1.0: What is poisoning the well?

An ad-hoc fallacy
Imagine two people having a debate. The first man begins by denouncing his opponent of being liar, an adulterer and untrustworthy person.

His statement (while it made be true) is an ad-hoc fallacy. It is an attempt to disprove an argument by discrediting the person. In debates, this tactic is called "poisoning the well" (Sire, 2006).

But how does this apply to apologetics?
In our attempts to reason with our non-believing friends, we may unwittingly use such tactics. Let's see some example statements:

"This person doesn't know anything about theology."

"He comes from a church that promotes materialism."

"She does not come from a reputable school."

Sometimes, the tables get turned. For instance, my Christian friends and I have been accused of being "fundamentalists", "imposing morality" and "misguided idealists".

Conclusion
Every argument should be treated on its own merit, and should be independent of the reputation of the person making the argument.



References
Sire, J.W. (2006) Why good arguments often fail