Religion and Science Fiction
daniel patrick duffy
convergence of science and religion (not just the recent Newsweek cover
story). Many scientists are finding that their discoveries have
strengthened their belief in a Master Architect as the universe appears
less and less likely to have occured or achieved its present form purely
by chance. I highly recommend Paul Davies "God and the New Physics" as
an excellent book on this subject.
Can anyone relate any science fiction stories dealing with theme? Aside
from the works of CS Lewis, I don't recall too many SF books where
religious faith is treated in a positive light. Is this an unexplored
territory which SF should be examining, or should the "science" in SF
always assume that religion is the enemy of freedom, thought and
progress?
(Now I will go and do something safe, like stand on my roof waving a
lightening rod during a thunderstorm.)
Joe Slater
>Can anyone relate any science fiction stories dealing with theme? Aside
>from the works of CS Lewis, I don't recall too many SF books where
>religious faith is treated in a positive light. Is this an unexplored
>territory which SF should be examining, or should the "science" in SF
>always assume that religion is the enemy of freedom, thought and
>progress?
There are quite a few; there would probably be more if not for the
fact that SF is a questioning genre and any uncritically accepted
ideology makes for bad SF: consider the masses of Libertarian SF out
there. Here are some titles you might look up:
_Black Easter_, _The Day After Judgment_ and _A Case of Conscience_ by
James Blish.
_The Sparrow_ by Mary Russell, which just won the John Campbell award
for best new author.
The latter books of the _Xenocide_ series by Orson Scott Card.
jds
donna farley
Also of particular interest is Card's collection of short stories, Cruel
Miracles, not only for the stories themselves but especially for the
introductory essay, which argues persuasively that Science Fiction is in
fact the last refuge of religious literature these days.
And, ahem, I think I've plugged it here before but I'll do so again -- a
collection called DIVINE REALMS, coming from Turnstone Press, Winnipeg,
this fall.
If you appreciate Lewis, look for the recommended reading list on the
Christian Fandom page.
Donna Farley
Lizard
<thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
>There has been a great deal of discussion lately concerning a
>convergence of science and religion (not just the recent Newsweek cover
>story). Many scientists are finding that their discoveries have
>strengthened their belief in a Master Architect as the universe appears
>less and less likely to have occured or achieved its present form purely
>by chance. I highly recommend Paul Davies "God and the New Physics" as
>an excellent book on this subject.
>
I suspect this is just this generation of scientists moment of
adjustment, as happens seemingly with each generation. The next
generation will accept a random universe without qualms.
Any belief in a 'great architect' immediately demands:Who made the
Great Architect? And if the answer is 'No one, he always existed',
then that answer can apply equally well to the universe.
>Can anyone relate any science fiction stories dealing with theme? Aside
>from the works of CS Lewis, I don't recall too many SF books where
>religious faith is treated in a positive light.
A lot of...er...uhm..damn, can't remember his name, Warlock books,
Stasheff! That's it! A lot of his books treat religion, and, Darwin
help us, CATHOLICISM, as an overall good, and certainly not inherently
antihuman or antitechnology. (Well, he writes fantasy, after all)
'Babylon 5', despite being written by an atheist, actually has the
most positive portrayal of religion that I've ever seen on TV, and
without Trekkian smugness.
'Hiero's Journey' also has a positive treatment of religion, showing
at (as with 'Canticle for Leibowitz') as the preserver of knowledge
after a holocaust.
>(Now I will go and do something safe, like stand on my roof waving a
>lightening rod during a thunderstorm.)
Good idea. Much safer.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Anton Sherwood
: 'Babylon 5', despite being written by an atheist, actually has the
: most positive portrayal of religion that I've ever seen on TV, and
: without Trekkian smugness.
Don't you ever get sick of the Minbari's Elvish superiority?
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com
yan...@my-dejanews.com
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 10:43:39 -0400, daniel patrick duffy
> <thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
> >There has been a great deal of discussion lately concerning a
> >convergence of science and religion (not just the recent Newsweek cover
> >story). Many scientists are finding that their discoveries have
> >strengthened their belief in a Master Architect as the universe appears
> >less and less likely to have occured or achieved its present form purely
> >by chance. I highly recommend Paul Davies "God and the New Physics" as
> >an excellent book on this subject.
Hmm... I read the book last month, though some of the technical arguments
went over my head. From my reading, he seems to be saying that while a Master
Architect may exist, any such Architect must take account of the "new
physics". (This effectively rules out any literal interpretation of the
Biblical God). I should check the book before saying this, but my (imperfect)
memory says that it is only when considering the quantum aspects of gravity
that he believes a Master architect *may* be involved, since there is a great
chance that a slightly different set of initial conditions would not have
resulted in life as we know it. (And you can figure out why some of the
technical stuff went over my head, though I emphasize that this is more my
fault than Davies').
Personally, the anthropic (sp?) principle works fine for me. Statistically,
sometimes, you just do get a royal flush.
> >Can anyone relate any science fiction stories dealing with theme? Aside
> >from the works of CS Lewis, I don't recall too many SF books where
> >religious faith is treated in a positive light.
For titles mentioned elsewhere: I don't think James Blish's CASE OF
CONSCIENCE portrays religion positively (though it treats the priest very
sympathetically so that you can understand why he makes the final decision the
way he does).
Carl Sagan's CONTACT (the book, not the movie. Haven't seen that yet) ends
with a computer finding the 'signature of God' embedded in the value of pi.
Does Heinlein's "The Strange Profession of Jonathan Hoag" count? (This
universe is judged by an art critic, who deems it unworthy - not quite God,
but certainly a master architect).
And while Lizard disparaged Trek in its dealing with religion, (and that is
somewhat true, given Roddenberry's stance as a humanist), DS9 sometimes has
some very illuminating views on the role of faith.
Junsok Yang
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Aaron Bergman
:On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 10:43:39 -0400, daniel patrick duffy
:<thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
:
:>There has been a great deal of discussion lately concerning a
:>convergence of science and religion (not just the recent Newsweek cover
:>story). Many scientists are finding that their discoveries have
:>strengthened their belief in a Master Architect as the universe appears
:>less and less likely to have occured or achieved its present form purely
:>by chance. I highly recommend Paul Davies "God and the New Physics" as
:>an excellent book on this subject.
:>
:I suspect this is just this generation of scientists moment of
:adjustment, as happens seemingly with each generation. The next
:generation will accept a random universe without qualms.
Nah. Someone just realized that there are (gasp) scientists out there that
believed in god. This is not news. I do find it somewhat telling that some
people think it is, however.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
A permanent e-mail address would be @aya.yale.edu
Elliott Oti
Do the Dune books count as well?
> Joe Slater wrote:
> >
> > daniel patrick duffy <thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
> > >Can anyone relate any science fiction stories dealing with theme? Aside
> > >from the works of CS Lewis, I don't recall too many SF books where
> > >religious faith is treated in a positive light. Is this an unexplored
> > >territory which SF should be examining, or should the "science" in SF
> > >always assume that religion is the enemy of freedom, thought and
> > >progress?
> >
> > There are quite a few; there would probably be more if not for the
> > fact that SF is a questioning genre and any uncritically accepted
> > ideology makes for bad SF: consider the masses of Libertarian SF out
> > there. Here are some titles you might look up:
> >
> > _Black Easter_, _The Day After Judgment_ and _A Case of Conscience_ by
> > James Blish.
> >
> > _The Sparrow_ by Mary Russell, which just won the John Campbell award
> > for best new author.
> >
> > The latter books of the _Xenocide_ series by Orson Scott Card.
> >
> > jds
>
>
> Also of particular interest is Card's collection of short stories, Cruel
> Miracles, not only for the stories themselves but especially for the
> introductory essay, which argues persuasively that Science Fiction is in
> fact the last refuge of religious literature these days.
>
> And, ahem, I think I've plugged it here before but I'll do so again -- a
> collection called DIVINE REALMS, coming from Turnstone Press, Winnipeg,
> this fall.
Elliott Oti
kamer 104, tel (030-253) 2516 (RvG)
http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~oti
Karen Lea Siegel
is vague, certain religious ideas are positively portrayed in Lois
McMaster Bujold's writing (but please let's not start the "literary"
argument again). She has characters who definitely believe in something
beyond themselves, in an ultimate good or right that may or may not
benefit them directly and immediately but which is nevertheless a
governing motive for their actions. I don't know if that quite counts
as positively portrayed religion.
There's also - although it's fantasy, not science fiction - the Deryni
books by Katherine Kurtz. Actually, religion is portrayed both
positively and negatively there - which demonstrates among other things
that even religion is not good or evil in itself, but in the human
motivations which drive particularly actions.
There's also - and this is variously classified as science fiction,
fantasy, historical fiction or romance - Diana Gabaldon's Outlander
series. You'll have to dig for the religious stuff; it's mostly at the
end of the first book. But she's clearly visited monasteries, because
her characterization is dead-on; and religion is portrayed positively;
and there's the element of time-travel involved which makes it maybe
almost sci-fi or fantasy. Please note that the author herself considers
her work historical fiction.
There's also - this is even further afield, being mystery and set in the
Middle Ages - the Ellis Peters series of Brother Cadfael mysteries. I
mention these because she also contrasts good religion against bad,
particularly those who truly practice what they preach contrasted
against those whose religion is mere lip service for conformity's sake.
That's about all I can think of just now. I know I've wandered a bit
OT; but the genres do also reflect back and forth on each other,
somewhat.
kls
Andrea Lynn Leistra
daniel patrick duffy <thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
>Can anyone relate any science fiction stories dealing with theme? Aside
>from the works of CS Lewis, I don't recall too many SF books where
>religious faith is treated in a positive light. Is this an unexplored
>territory which SF should be examining, or should the "science" in SF
>always assume that religion is the enemy of freedom, thought and
>progress?
It's not an unexplored territory. There are a fair number of sf books
dealing with religion to one degree or another. Since you mention CS
Lewis, I'll assume you're particularly interested in Christianity.
_A Case of Conscience_, James Blish
_The Sparrow_, Mary Doria Russell
_A Canticle for Leibowitz_, Walter Miller
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Colin Rosenthal
>convergence of science and religion (not just the recent Newsweek cover
>story). Many scientists are finding that their discoveries have
>strengthened their belief in a Master Architect as the universe appears
>less and less likely to have occured or achieved its present form purely
>by chance. I highly recommend Paul Davies "God and the New Physics" as
>an excellent book on this subject.
Don't believe everything you read in Newsweek. According to a survey of
members of the US Academy of Sciences, published recently in Nature,
approximately 7% of top scientists believe in God.
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
liz...@mrlizard.com
>Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> writes
>: 'Babylon 5', despite being written by an atheist, actually has the
>: most positive portrayal of religion that I've ever seen on TV, and
>: without Trekkian smugness.
>
>
No, because we've been shown that they're very often wrong, misguided, or
otherwise fallible. If they were always RIGHT, I'd be annoyed, but we've seen
them by hypocritical, power-hungry, prejudiced, and otherwise
less-than-perfect.
One of the best things about B5 is that no one is right all the time, and all
the races have both good and evil cultural traits and good and evil
individuals.
tomlinson
: One of the best things about B5 is that no one is right all the time, and all
: the races have both good and evil cultural traits and good and evil
: individuals.
<slightly contemptuous tone>
Well, judging from JMS's adroit backpedalling and skill at self-
justification, I'd say that he believes himself to be right all of
the time.
This is a somewhat unjust thing for me to say, I realize, but I'm
somewhat allergic to unqualified praise of "Babylon 5", and have
been ever since watching "Into the Fire". Three and a half years
of development were building up to...that?
-tomlinson
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson - San Diego State University
liz...@mrlizard.com
>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>: One of the best things about B5 is that no one is right all the time, and all
>
>: the races have both good and evil cultural traits and good and evil
>: individuals.
>
><slightly contemptuous tone>
>
>Well, judging from JMS's adroit backpedalling and skill at self-
>justification, I'd say that he believes himself to be right all of
>the time.
>
>This is a somewhat unjust thing for me to say, I realize, but I'm
>somewhat allergic to unqualified praise of "Babylon 5", and have
>been ever since watching "Into the Fire". Three and a half years
>of development were building up to...that?
Mainstays of the series from the pilot movie leave the galaxy for all time,
yes, I'd call that fairly important. More to the point, that wasn't the climax
of the series, since it was never about the Shadow War. It's like saying that
Saurman turning to evil was the 'climax' of Lord Of The Rings.
(Watch someone dis me for 'spoiling' that...)
tomlinson
: Mainstays of the series from the pilot movie leave the galaxy for all time,
: yes, I'd call that fairly important. More to the point, that wasn't the climax
: of the series, since it was never about the Shadow War.
There's more to the force of "Into the Fire" than mere plot. That
ItF ends the Shadow War, as you say, makes the episode "fairly
important".
What makes ItF the _climactic_ episode, however, is the Deep
Message that JMS obviously meant the episode to the convey. This
episode, as no other before or since, tells us what JMS thinks
our place in the universe. That the Deep Message, in the end,
consisted of nothing but insufferable banalities was what
sank the episode and the entire series for me.
: It's like saying that
: Saurman turning to evil was the 'climax' of Lord Of The Rings.
Since Tolkien does not pump into Saruman's "fall" any of the
spurious profundity that infects "Into the Fire", the
analogy isn't at all valid.
liz...@mrlizard.com
>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>: Mainstays of the series from the pilot movie leave the galaxy for all time,
>: yes, I'd call that fairly important. More to the point, that wasn't the
> climax
>: of the series, since it was never about the Shadow War.
>
>There's more to the force of "Into the Fire" than mere plot. That
>ItF ends the Shadow War, as you say, makes the episode "fairly
>important".
>
>What makes ItF the _climactic_ episode, however, is the Deep
>Message that JMS obviously meant the episode to the convey. This
>episode, as no other before or since, tells us what JMS thinks
>our place in the universe. That the Deep Message, in the end,
>consisted of nothing but insufferable banalities was what
>sank the episode and the entire series for me.
I disagree. I don't think there's a "deep message" to B5;and, if there is, it
was better and more directly articulated in G'Kars preamble to the Alliance
Constitution. That, and Sinclair's speech[1] early in S1 are the more obvious
cases of the author himself speaking to the audience.
The message of B5, to me, is that the struggle is worth it, win or lose -- the
struggle is a victory in itself. The end of "Into The Fire" was basically
saying that we do not need or want guidance, either from the Vorlons or the
Shadows -- that we will make our own way, even if we take some wrong turns in
the process.
[1]The one about "None of this will mean anything unless we go to the stars".
Brenda Clough
Andrea Lynn Leistra wrote:
> In article <35CDB5...@fuse.net>,
> daniel patrick duffy <thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
> >Can anyone relate any science fiction stories dealing with theme? Aside
> >from the works of CS Lewis, I don't recall too many SF books where
> >religious faith is treated in a positive light. Is this an unexplored
> >territory which SF should be examining, or should the "science" in SF
> >always assume that religion is the enemy of freedom, thought and
> >progress?
>
> It's not an unexplored territory. There are a fair number of sf books
> dealing with religion to one degree or another. Since you mention CS
> Lewis, I'll assume you're particularly interested in Christianity.
>
> _A Case of Conscience_, James Blish
> _The Sparrow_, Mary Doria Russell
> _A Canticle for Leibowitz_, Walter Miller
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a deeply Catholic epic, for those who have the eyes to
see. Tolkien's crony Charles Williams wrote many a spiritual thriller that
would surely be published as SF or fantasy today. James Morrow has dealt with
so many religious issues (in highly original and possibly disturbing ways) that
I seem to be perpetually trapped with him on Religion in SF panels.
If you are interested in other religions, it has been argued that the entire
Foundation series by Asimov is essentially Judaism In Space. Jane Yolen has
written a couple prizewinning fantasies about the Holocaust (I hear that THE
DEVIL'S ARITHMETIC is going to be filmed for cable TV). Orson Scott Card has
been retelling the story of the Mormon church in his Alvin books. Shariann
Lewitt and Catherine Asaro have been tinkering with Muslim, as has George Alec
Effinger.
And I am nowhere near finished with the subject myself.
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Joe Ramirez
>On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 10:43:39 -0400,
>daniel patrick duffy <thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
>>There has been a great deal of discussion lately concerning a
>>convergence of science and religion (not just the recent Newsweek cover
>>story). Many scientists are finding that their discoveries have
>>strengthened their belief in a Master Architect as the universe appears
>>less and less likely to have occured or achieved its present form purely
>>by chance. I highly recommend Paul Davies "God and the New Physics" as
>>an excellent book on this subject.
>
>Don't believe everything you read in Newsweek. According to a survey of
>members of the US Academy of Sciences, published recently in Nature,
>approximately 7% of top scientists believe in God.
Interestingly, at least two of the scientists quoted in the Newsweek
article expressly stated that they had "willed" themselves to believe
in conventional theology in order to avoid having to face the universe
alone. IMO, such individuals may be scientists by occupation, but
cannot be genuinely committed to a search for truth.
Joe Ramirez
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
also a good anthology called "Perpetual Light",
edited by Alan Ryan, (C) 1982 Warner Books. To
be honest, many of the stories really were not to
my taste, but there are a few gems, and they cover
a wide range of religious and theosophical issues.
Bruce
Joe Ramirez
>THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a deeply Catholic epic, for those who have the eyes to
>see.
Forgive me, but ... huh? *The Lord of the Rings* is so rich in
characters and pseudo-mythological doings that it's possible to layer
a number of different allegorical readings onto it, but I don't see it
as Catholic at all, let alone "deeply Catholic." For that, I'd want a
lot more than just a "king" who "returns." Maybe I should get my eyes
checked. <g>
Joe Ramirez
Lizard
Given Tolkeins Anglican background, I would be hard pressed to call it
a Catholic, as opposed to Generic Christian, story.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>And I am nowhere near finished with the subject myself.
The parrallelisms between Battlestar: Galactica and Mormonism have
also often been pointed out. (I won't go into them here.)
I think the original poster was more interested in plots that
actually contained or addressed religious elements, though, not
ones that did so in a veiled or allegorical way.
Bruce
Karen Lea Siegel
times and pick up the resonances. Granted that he's got dwarves
straight from the Eddas, wizards, Ents, elves...but Tolkien was indeed a
very devout Catholic, and his aim (according to published letters) was
to write stories where that truth would shine through without being
explicit, direct allegory (which he thought was taking the easy way out
- which is why he was kinda jealous when Lewis did it and made a mint on
it while Tolkien was still slaving along perfecting his work).
One thing I didn't notice until several readings is that there are
several Christ-figures, not just one. Gandalf is the one who gives his
life for his friends and is resurrected in a new and glorious life which
he didn't expect, robed in white. Aragorn is the king who returns to
his kingdom and restores its former glory - and the hands of the king
are the hands of healing. Frodo is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah - he
was despised and rejected, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,
etc.
It's even clearer if you know the background stories, from The
Silmarillion. For example, the creation in which the universe is sung
into being, with the first beings (like the angels) and followed by
earth and stars and so on. This creation is marred by a devil - Melkor,
the most beautiful but also most willful, proud that he is best,
determined to do his own thing instead of staying within the pattern set
by one greater than himself. He cannot make, only mock and twist what
has been made - like Satan himself.
This multiplicity of layers and meanings and ways of reading are a part
of what makes Tolkien's writing great; no matter how many times you go
back, there's something new to be seen, some new connection, some detail
you missed the first time. It is a well if not bottomless than
certainly very deep indeed.
kls
Karen Lea Siegel
biography, he was a very devout Catholic. C.S. Lewis was an agnostic
who, when he became a Christian, became an Anglican - to Tolkien's
lasting disappointment, since it was Tolkien who prompted him to come
back to Christianity.
kls
ja...@norman.carswell.com
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:55:37 GMT, jra...@ibm.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
>
> >Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >>THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a deeply Catholic epic, for those who have the eyes
to
> >>see.
> >
> >Forgive me, but ... huh? *The Lord of the Rings* is so rich in
> >characters and pseudo-mythological doings that it's possible to layer
> >a number of different allegorical readings onto it, but I don't see it
> >as Catholic at all, let alone "deeply Catholic." For that, I'd want a
> >lot more than just a "king" who "returns." Maybe I should get my eyes
> >checked. <g>
> >
> Given Tolkeins Anglican background, I would be hard pressed to call it
> a Catholic, as opposed to Generic Christian, story.
Anglican? JRRT was thoroughly Roman. He served mass weekly, IIRC, deplored
the Vactican II changes, and one of his sons is a RC priest.
LOTR counts as Catholic in a number of ways: its universe was consistent with
catholic theology, IMHO (with Eru as God and the Ainur as angels), although
tangential, and the moral universe presented is Catholic as opposed to, e.g.
Calvinist. In later life he became more concerned with the religious aspect
of the work and much of his very late work on the Silmarillion is heavily
coloured by this concern.
However, on its surface, it's not _obviously_ Catholic: it could just as well
be by a "High and Dry" (pre-Oxford Movement) Anglican in attitude.
C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams, on the other hand, were both Anglican.
Newamul K Khan
: Nah. Someone just realized that there are (gasp) scientists out there that
: believed in god. This is not news. I do find it somewhat telling that some
: people think it is, however.
Yes, an the the number of scientists that [gasp] is far lower than the
general population. And [gasp] according to a survey published in nature
a few years back it was PHYSICISTS that were the most skeptical, the ones
who are finding this 'grand architect'
Remember newsmagazines have to sell issues. They pander ok? My father is
a scientist who happens to be muslim. Phd advisor was an atheist jew.
They mentioned religion only at social events.
Only think-tanks specializing in science & religion really talk about very
much
--
----------------------------------
Razib Khan
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~khann
student, University of Oregon
major, biochemistry
----------------------------------
Newamul K Khan
: Interestingly, at least two of the scientists quoted in the Newsweek
: article expressly stated that they had "willed" themselves to believe
: in conventional theology in order to avoid having to face the universe
: alone. IMO, such individuals may be scientists by occupation, but
: cannot be genuinely committed to a search for truth.
IOW, Science does not believe in god, people do, and scientists are
people. So it is likely that many will. On the other hand, the negative
correlation with religion and technical orientation are a clue that the
two are not closely related
Newamul K Khan
: Given Tolkeins Anglican background, I would be hard pressed to call it
: a Catholic, as opposed to Generic Christian, story.
He converted to Catholicism. He hung out with Anglo-Catholics like CS
Lewis though
steve_...@my-dejanews.com
> This is a somewhat unjust thing for me to say, I realize, but I'm
> somewhat allergic to unqualified praise of "Babylon 5", and have
> been ever since watching "Into the Fire". Three and a half years
> of development were building up to...that?
As opposed to what? The younger races suddenly discovering that reversing
the polarity of the neutron flow would disable First One tech? No, in
retrospect it's obvious that the only plausible way for the younger races to
win the right to their own destiny was to convince the First Ones that it was
no longer possible for them to achieve their goal of shepherding the younger
races, overwhelmingly superior force notwithstanding. In any case, JMS has
always found the aftermath more interesting than the battle.
--
Colin Rosenthal
>Aaron Bergman (aber...@premier1.net) wrote:
>
>: Nah. Someone just realized that there are (gasp) scientists out there that
>: believed in god. This is not news. I do find it somewhat telling that some
>: people think it is, however.
>
>Yes, an the the number of scientists that [gasp] is far lower than the
>general population. And [gasp] according to a survey published in nature
>a few years back it was PHYSICISTS that were the most skeptical, the ones
>who are finding this 'grand architect'
Funny thing - the latest survey of "top" scientists found that the
biological scientists were marginally _less_ likely to be believers
than the physical scientists - in contradiction to the study you
cite, which was conducted by the same people on a larger (and broader)
sample of scientists. The latest survey found that mathematicians (at 15%)
were most likely to be believers.
Colin Rosenthal
>
>: Given Tolkeins Anglican background, I would be hard pressed to call it
>: a Catholic, as opposed to Generic Christian, story.
>
>He converted to Catholicism.
...at about the age of ten.
He hung out with Anglo-Catholics like CS
>Lewis though
Is this really an accurate description of Lewis' position? Tolkien
was known to have been unhappy that although he successfully converted
Lewis to christianity, he went back to the Ulster Protestantism of his
childhood, rather than Tolkien's own Catholicism.
liz...@mrlizard.com
I assumed, incorrectly, that being a Proper English Gentleman, he would of
course have been Anglican;clearly, I was Dead Wrong.
Ken MacLeod
>If you are interested in other religions, it has been argued that the entire
>Foundation series by Asimov is essentially Judaism In Space.
This is something of a surprise. The religious backgrounds of even
atheist writers come through in the subtext often enough, God knows, but
this one is not at all obvious. Details, anyone?
--
Ken MacLeod
Mark A Mandel
: Can anyone relate any science fiction stories dealing with theme? Aside
: from the works of CS Lewis, I don't recall too many SF books where
: religious faith is treated in a positive light. Is this an unexplored
: territory which SF should be examining, or should the "science" in SF
: always assume that religion is the enemy of freedom, thought and
: progress?
This may be somewhat oblique to your question, but Poul Anderson treats
religion respectfully. What I seem to see as a pattern is that his heroes
are not religious, but they do not scorn those who are, often including
strong and important supporting characters -- nor does the authorial
voice. Offhand:
- the Flandry series, and specifically _The Game of Empire_, in which
D.F.'s daughter Diana, a nonbeliever, is partnered by two nonhumans,
including a Wodenite who is a Catholic priest
- the Anson Guthrie novels; title escapes me, but I recall crucial
assistance given to a main character by the leader of a Muslim enclave
- in the collection _All One Universe_, a Noh play about a Buddhist
priest and the mechano-avatar of another one
-- Mark A. Mandel
--
If you're reading this in a newsgroup: to reply by mail,
remove the obvious spam-blocker from my edress.
Colin Rosenthal
He was a lower middle-class, grammar-school educated, Roman Catholic,
scholarship boy. Not even _close_ to being a Proper English Gentleman.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
snip
>LOTR counts as Catholic in a number of ways: its universe was consistent with
>catholic theology, IMHO (with Eru as God and the Ainur as angels), although
>tangential, and the moral universe presented is Catholic as opposed to, e.g.
>Calvinist. In later life he became more concerned with the religious aspect
>of the work and much of his very late work on the Silmarillion is heavily
>coloured by this concern.
Which reminds me....the Nick Seafort series is one of the most grim
portrayals of the Calvinist mind-set I've ever read.
jrw
Todd D. Ellner
Colin Rosenthal <rose...@hao.SNIPME.ucar.edu> wrote:
>Funny thing - the latest survey of "top" scientists found that the
>biological scientists were marginally _less_ likely to be believers
>than the physical scientists - in contradiction to the study you
>cite, which was conducted by the same people on a larger (and broader)
>sample of scientists. The latest survey found that mathematicians (at 15%)
>were most likely to be believers.
I think I see a trend here. The ones who deal in realms of pure thought,
untainted by anything as messy as empiricism are more likely to believe
in some great abstract anthropic observer - sort of a super-mathematician.
The closer they get to icky messy things like poorly-behaved systems and
complexities which Grand Unifying Theories can't contain the less likley
they are to believe that there is someone up there who runs it all in
crystal-clear purity.
Makes sense to me....
--
Todd Ellner | If the lion was advised by the fox, he would be cunning.
tel...@cs.pdx.edu | --William Blake "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
(503)493-4431 |
liz...@mrlizard.com
Given his Shire was an idealized England filled with upper-middle class types
and their Loyal Servants, I find this intriguing. The portrayal of the working
stiffs of the Shire...Sam for one...is so condescending I figured him for a
member of the gentry. Instead, I find out he's a class traitor. :)
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On 11 Aug 1998 18:13:49 GMT,
> Newamul K Khan <kh...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> >He converted to Catholicism.
>
> ...at about the age of ten.
>
> He hung out with Anglo-Catholics like CS
> >Lewis though
>
> Is this really an accurate description of Lewis' position? Tolkien
> was known to have been unhappy that although he successfully converted
> Lewis to christianity, he went back to the Ulster Protestantism of his
> childhood, rather than Tolkien's own Catholicism.
No, Lewis didn't go back to "the Ulster Protestantism of his
childhood". He was very High Church Anglican, not very far from
Catholicism at all, and his books are quite freely used in Catholic
religion and theology classes. Tolkien was, certainly, disappointed
that Lewis didn't go all the way and become a Roman Catholic, but a
return to "Ulster Protestantism" as Lewis' family had it would have
been far more unwelcome than mere atheism, given how bigotedly
anti-Catholic a faith that was at that time.
Lis Carey
Brenda Clough
Katie Schwarz wrote:
The general Christian elements -- Christ figures and Satan figures --
> are pretty obvious in Lord of the Rings, but the specifically Catholic
> ones aren't, at least to me.
>
> --
Consider the prominent role of Galadriel, as semidivine mediatrix between the
remote unknowable Elvish higher powers and lower forms of life like hobbits and
dwarves.
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> LOTR counts as Catholic in a number of ways: its universe was consistent with
> catholic theology, IMHO (with Eru as God and the Ainur as angels), although
> tangential, and the moral universe presented is Catholic as opposed to, e.g.
> Calvinist. In later life he became more concerned with the religious aspect
> of the work and much of his very late work on the Silmarillion is heavily
> coloured by this concern.
>
mythology with his works.
--
Reverend Sean O'Hara
You two can be an ordained minister: http://ulc.org/ulc
"If the divine master plan is perfection,
Maybe next I'll give Judas a try."
Tori Amos
Spark
Avram Grumer
> Given his Shire was an idealized England filled with upper-middle class types
> and their Loyal Servants, I find this intriguing. The portrayal of the
working
> stiffs of the Shire...Sam for one...is so condescending I figured him for a
> member of the gentry. Instead, I find out he's a class traitor. :)
Condescending? Have you never noticed that Sam is the real hero of the
story? The one who volunteers to go on the trip even though it's not
expected of him? The one who never gives up?
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach him how to fish, and you can sell him equipment.
jessie shelton
> Funny thing - the latest survey of "top" scientists found that the
> biological scientists were marginally _less_ likely to be believers
> than the physical scientists - in contradiction to the study you
> cite, which was conducted by the same people on a larger (and broader)
> sample of scientists. The latest survey found that mathematicians (at 15%)
> were most likely to be believers.
Just to muddy the waters, consider the following: it is possible to be
religious (depending on how you define the term) and yet not believe in
any kind of 'grand architect'. (frex: zen buddhism.) I know/know of
several scientists who would fall in that category, though I couldn't
pretend to any kind of statistics.
jessie
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
jessie shelton (one side of moebius)
shelton(AT)princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~shelton
"Tick, clong, tick, clong, tick, clong, went the night."
- King Clode, _The White Deer_, Thurber
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Fraering
> - in the collection _All One Universe_, a Noh play about a Buddhist
> priest and the mechano-avatar of another one
"Rokuro."
Words fail me; it is excellent.
--
Phil Fraering "THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ALARM! But there probably
p...@globalreach.net will be."
/Will work for *tape*/
Graydon
>Given his Shire was an idealized England filled with upper-middle class types
>and their Loyal Servants, I find this intriguing. The portrayal of the working
>stiffs of the Shire...Sam for one...is so condescending I figured him for a
>member of the gentry. Instead, I find out he's a class traitor. :)
Or you need to read with different assumptions.
Sam is the _hero_ of :Lord of the Rings:. It's very hard to notice
this if you think humility is a failing.
--
"But how powerful, how stimulating to the very faculty which produced
it, was the invention of the adjective: no spell or incantation in
Faerie is more potent." -- "On Fairy-Stories", J.R.R. Tolkien
daniel patrick duffy
>
> On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 10:43:39 -0400, daniel patrick duffy
> <thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
> >There has been a great deal of discussion lately concerning a
> >convergence of science and religion (not just the recent Newsweek cover
> >story). Many scientists are finding that their discoveries have
> >strengthened their belief in a Master Architect as the universe appears
> >less and less likely to have occured or achieved its present form purely
> >by chance. I highly recommend Paul Davies "God and the New Physics" as
> >an excellent book on this subject.
> >
> I suspect this is just this generation of scientists moment of
> adjustment, as happens seemingly with each generation. The next
> generation will accept a random universe without qualms.
>
A purely random universe would be easier to believe in if it weren't so
mathematically unlikely. The three laws of thermodynamics ("you can't
win, wou can't break even, and you can't get out of the game") almost
ensure that a random universe is practically impossible. Long ago the
universe should have achieved a state of high entropy (disorder) defined
either by lack of structure (gaseous clouds of hydrogen instead of
ordered galaxies)of by its gravitational state (a black hole being the
highest entropy state for a gravitational system).
A simple example: disolve a sugar cube in a glass of water. It goes
from low entropy state to a high entropy state. Eventually, given
enough time, the random movements of the sugar cube molecules will
purely by chance reassemble themselves into some sort of ordered state
(not necessarily the original sugar cube). But statistically, the
amount of time needed for this to occur is billions of times longer than
the estimated age of the universe. Whether it is the random typing of
monkeys eventually producing the works of Shakespeare, throwing a deck
of cards in the air and expecting them to land in well ordered suites,
or the development of the universe as it now appears - there simpley has
not been enough time since the big bang for any of these to have
happened.
A "Master Architect" is easier to believe in. This does not, of course
prove that a "Master Architect" exists, that by definition will always
require an act of faith. The amount of fine tuning needed by the
physical forces present at the "big bang" to ensure that our universe
started out in an extremely low entropy state (well ordered) is too much
for this simple mind of mine to comprehend. As is the fine tuning
required of the basic forces and particles of which make up the
universe. A incredibly small change, say in the mass of a proton or the
charge on an electron, would make the formation of matter impossible.
The universe appears to be rigged to ensure that matter and life
eventually arise. If the big bang was the ultimate roll of the dice, it
appears as if Someone loaded the dice.
I don't buy the anthropomorphic principle, either in its strong or weak
forms. It basically says "I think, therefore the universe is".
Basically, its is science's way of shruging its shoulders at the whole
question. Besides, a single star with a single life bearing planet is
all that is neded to create intelligent life. Why then do we see an
entire universe capable of supporting life and intelligence?
I believe that science and religion (knowledge and faith) are both
necessary in a yin and yang sort of way. Without knowledge, faith can
produce madness and ignorance in the form of inquisitions, sectartian
violence, and witch burnings. Without faith, science can produce
technical horrors in the form of Hiroshima, the Nazism death camps
(perverted Darminism) and the Communist gulags (perverted economics).
> Any belief in a 'great architect' immediately demands:Who made the
> Great Architect? And if the answer is 'No one, he always existed',
> then that answer can apply equally well to the universe.
>
Prior to the creation of space-time, concepts such as "always existed"
have no meaning. When time does not exist, "before" is a null concept.
Besides, the question is not that the universe was created in time, but
what was its cause - a random event or a deliberate act. A deliberate
act would require Someone to perform the act.
> >Can anyone relate any science fiction stories dealing with theme? Aside
> >from the works of CS Lewis, I don't recall too many SF books where
> >religious faith is treated in a positive light.
>
> A lot of...er...uhm..damn, can't remember his name, Warlock books,
> Stasheff! That's it! A lot of his books treat religion, and, Darwin
> help us, CATHOLICISM, as an overall good, and certainly not inherently
> antihuman or antitechnology. (Well, he writes fantasy, after all)
>
> 'Babylon 5', despite being written by an atheist, actually has the
> most positive portrayal of religion that I've ever seen on TV, and
> without Trekkian smugness.
>
> 'Hiero's Journey' also has a positive treatment of religion, showing
> at (as with 'Canticle for Leibowitz') as the preserver of knowledge
> after a holocaust.
>
> >(Now I will go and do something safe, like stand on my roof waving a
> >lightening rod during a thunderstorm.)
>
> Good idea. Much safer.
Actually, the respondents to my original query have been universally
intelligent and considerate. I hope we can have further conversations
along these lines.
Katie Schwarz
<ja...@norman.carswell.com> wrote:
>
>LOTR counts as Catholic in a number of ways: its universe was consistent with
>catholic theology, IMHO (with Eru as God and the Ainur as angels), although
>tangential, and the moral universe presented is Catholic as opposed to, e.g.
>Calvinist.
As opposed to Calvinist? What does that mean, and how does it show up
in Lord of the Rings? Tell me more.
The general Christian elements -- Christ figures and Satan figures --
are pretty obvious in Lord of the Rings, but the specifically Catholic
ones aren't, at least to me.
--
Katie Schwarz
"There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs."
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass"
Mark A Mandel
: On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:39:01 GMT,
: liz...@mrlizard.com <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
: >In article <35D0449E...@pop3.concentric.net>,
KLSi...@concentric.net wrote:
: >>Lizard - Tolkien was English, but not Anglican - according to his
: He was a lower middle-class, grammar-school educated, Roman Catholic,
: scholarship boy. Not even _close_ to being a Proper English Gentleman.
And born in South Africa at that.
Katie Schwarz
Avram Grumer <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In article <6qqhsa$c...@enews1.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>> The portrayal of the working
>> stiffs of the Shire...Sam for one...is so condescending I figured him for a
>> member of the gentry. Instead, I find out he's a class traitor. :)
>
>story? The one who volunteers to go on the trip even though it's not
>expected of him? The one who never gives up?
... the one who gets the girl AND gets to be mayor AND gets to sail
west to the magic island (even Aragorn didn't get that last one).
And, of course, is the viewpoint character for the climax of the book.
I was surprised that more people didn't pick Sam when there was a
"LOTR Character You Want to Be" thread here -- *I* would. He gets all
the adventures and the exalted experiences without the wounds and
guilt that Frodo bears.
He is also used for comic relief, to be sure. And Ursula Le Guin
wrote that Sam tugged his forelock so much that she started having
visions of forming a hobbit socialist party. I like Le Guin's
interpretation that Frodo/Sam/Gollum/Smeagol are all aspects of the
same character, none of them is a whole character on his own.
Lizard
(Mark A Mandel) wrote:
>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>: On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:39:01 GMT,
>: liz...@mrlizard.com <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>: >In article <35D0449E...@pop3.concentric.net>,
> KLSi...@concentric.net wrote:
>: >>Lizard - Tolkien was English, but not Anglican - according to his
>
>: He was a lower middle-class, grammar-school educated, Roman Catholic,
>: scholarship boy. Not even _close_ to being a Proper English Gentleman.
>
>And born in South Africa at that.
>
Clearly, I need to study authors bios more...I rarely know anything
about writers I like, I prefer to study just their work.
Lizard
wrote:
>In article <6qqhsa$c...@enews1.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>> Given his Shire was an idealized England filled with upper-middle class types
>> and their Loyal Servants, I find this intriguing. The portrayal of the
>working
>> stiffs of the Shire...Sam for one...is so condescending I figured him for a
>> member of the gentry. Instead, I find out he's a class traitor. :)
>
>Condescending? Have you never noticed that Sam is the real hero of the
>story? The one who volunteers to go on the trip even though it's not
>expected of him? The one who never gives up?
The one who is always fawning over Frodo...
I mean, I'm not exactly the most PC guy on the planet, but I remember
being distinctly annoyed at Sam for most of the trilogy. He does all
the work, as you note, and Frodo gets all the credit. Hmmm...
He does all the work, and Frodo gets all the credit...
<Lucy Van Pelt>A HA!</Lucy Van Pelt>
Lizard
wrote:
>
>
>Katie Schwarz wrote:
>
>The general Christian elements -- Christ figures and Satan figures --
>
>> are pretty obvious in Lord of the Rings, but the specifically Catholic
>> ones aren't, at least to me.
>>
>> --
>
>Consider the prominent role of Galadriel, as semidivine mediatrix between the
>remote unknowable Elvish higher powers and lower forms of life like hobbits and
>dwarves.
>
For some reason, that just puts me in mind of the false introductory
excerpt from "Bored Of The Rings"....the scene that isn't in the book.
:)
Dorothy J Heydt
Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Consider the prominent role of Galadriel, as semidivine mediatrix between the
>remote unknowable Elvish higher powers and lower forms of life like hobbits and
>dwarves.
Yes, but Galadriel doesn't fill that role. She is a repentant
sinner. The real Mary-like figure is Varda/Elbereth.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
_A Point of Honor_ is out....
ja...@norman.carswell.com
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Colin Rosenthal wrote:
> >
> > On 11 Aug 1998 18:13:49 GMT,
> > Newamul K Khan <kh...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >He converted to Catholicism.
> >
> > ...at about the age of ten.
> >
I thought it was earlier than that; I'll have to re-check the biography.
> > He hung out with Anglo-Catholics like CS
> > >Lewis though
> >
> > Is this really an accurate description of Lewis' position? Tolkien
> > was known to have been unhappy that although he successfully converted
> > Lewis to christianity, he went back to the Ulster Protestantism of his
> > childhood, rather than Tolkien's own Catholicism.
>
> No, Lewis didn't go back to "the Ulster Protestantism of his
> childhood". He was very High Church Anglican, not very far from
> Catholicism at all, and his books are quite freely used in Catholic
> religion and theology classes. Tolkien was, certainly, disappointed
> that Lewis didn't go all the way and become a Roman Catholic, but a
> return to "Ulster Protestantism" as Lewis' family had it would have
> been far more unwelcome than mere atheism, given how bigotedly
> anti-Catholic a faith that was at that time.
>
> Lis Carey
>
By seriously Anglo-Catholic standards Lewis ranks as somewhere around "High
Church" or "Tractarian" in his positions. He's rarely if ever, in his
writing, explicitly protestant, but that's partly because he tends to write
about matters which were hammered out in the early ecumenical councils. For
the rest, he is highly coloured by his mediaevalia background (the _Out of
the Silent Planet_ universe is really largely an adaptation to heliocentrism
of what Lewis called "the mediaeval model"), which is consistent with certain
types of Anglo-Catholic thought.
However, Lewis did not take explicitly Anglo-Catholic positions on, e.g. the
Eucharist. For contrast, compare his (non-SF, religious) writings with, say,
Eric Mascall, T.S. Eliot, or Dom Gregory Dix.
ja...@norman.carswell.com
k...@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) wrote:
> In article <6qpn8g$bmj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ja...@norman.carswell.com> wrote:
> >
> >LOTR counts as Catholic in a number of ways: its universe was consistent with
> >catholic theology, IMHO (with Eru as God and the Ainur as angels), although
> >tangential, and the moral universe presented is Catholic as opposed to, e.g.
> >Calvinist.
>
> As opposed to Calvinist? What does that mean, and how does it show up
> in Lord of the Rings? Tell me more.
>
> are pretty obvious in Lord of the Rings, but the specifically Catholic
> ones aren't, at least to me.
>
I will note quickly that the real Satan figure in Tolkien's universe,
Melkor/Morgoth, is fairly tangential in LOTR.
Tolkien goes to fairly extensive efforts to present a moral universe in which
free will within an overall ordered purpose exists. His spokesmen
(principally Gandalf) are fairly emphatic on this point, and his characters'
actions bear it out. The presentation of temptation/fall or
temptation/resistance squares well with orthodox catholic moral theology but
is not reflective of the Calvinist model of double predestination.
The closest thing to an exception to this is the story of Turin, and Tolkien
as he went later on in life kept revising the story to minimize the element
of malign fate and emphasize free will even in that area.
The idea of invoking intermediaries (Valar) for assistance also corresponds
to Catholic practice but not to protestant practice, but that's a more minor
point.
Beth and Richard Treitel
>I should check the book before saying this, but my (imperfect)
>memory says that it is only when considering the quantum aspects of gravity
>that he believes a Master architect *may* be involved, since there is a great
>chance that a slightly different set of initial conditions would not have
>resulted in life as we know it.
Sigh. I haven't read the book at all, but if it points to an area of
physics which we don't yet understand (and I'm sure I'd have heard about it
if we had anything like a generally accepted theory of quantum gravity) as
the only place where God might be, then it leaves the God-ists in about the
same pickle as when they thought being struck by lightning was clear
evidence of Divine disapproval.
The original poster was quite right about what they should do next.
This is not to say that I think ScF should be hostile to religion (and
indeed a fair amount of it is not; see _Stranger in a Strange Land_ or
several of Clarke's works (though Clarke is certainly hostile to
*Christianity*)), but simply that every author (and for that matter every
reader) has to make their own religious convictions.
-- Richard
------
A sufficiently incompetent ScF author is indistinguishable from magic.
What is (and isn't) ScF? ==> http://www.sirius.com/~treitel/sf.html
Mary K. Kuhner
and respectful way: _Passion Play_ is the only book I can think
of featuring a fundamentalist government which does not turn all
religious folk into strawman villains, and _Nobody's Son_ has
the main character wrestling with faith in a very personal way.
He's a terrific writer, too. I am in the middle of _Nobody's Son_
(second reading) at the moment, and I'd forgotten how good
the writing was--particularly in capturing emotional states
and realizations.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
James Nicoll
Reverend Sean O'Hara <oha...@erols.com> wrote:
>ja...@norman.carswell.com wrote:
>>
>> LOTR counts as Catholic in a number of ways: its universe was consistent with
>> catholic theology, IMHO (with Eru as God and the Ainur as angels), although
>> tangential, and the moral universe presented is Catholic as opposed to, e.g.
>> of the work and much of his very late work on the Silmarillion is heavily
>> coloured by this concern.
>>
>I seem to recall reading that Tolkien wanted to create a British
>mythology with his works.
IMS, he was part of a group of pre-WWI writers with that
idea but he was one of very few survivors of the Great War from that
group and the others didn't write after the war.
--
Gwen Byrd
I like your analogy of your stance on Science Fiction and religion being
likened to>standing on your roof waving about a lightening rod during a
thunderstorm."
You know the only instance I can think of where religion plays a positive role
is in Star Wars. ObiWan Kenobi, Yoda and Darth Vader are the last of the Jedi
warriors, occult-martial disciples like the Samurai
I am a writer. In a novel I wrote (first of a series), one of the characters
belongs to a futuristic Church originating on a space colony. Their belief
combines tenets of Islam and Catholisism. The Church splits after the return
of aliens who were thought to have been annihilated. Some believers are pious
and calm, others see the new invasion as God's wrath against nonbelieves and
turn fanatic. Hence the conflict in the story.
Gwen Byrd (aka Cheryl DuCoin)
Manny Olds
: If you are interested in other religions, ...
You could have a look at Harry Harrison and John Holm's Hammer and the
Cross series: The Hammer and the Cross (1993) , One King's Way (1995),
King and Emperor (1996). It's not thoughtful at the C.S. Lewis level (not
even close), but religion is very important to the books.
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"...When you hit your thumb with an eight-pound hammer it's nice to be
able to blaspheme. It takes a very special and strong-minded kind of
atheist to jump up and down...and shout..."Aaargh, primitive and outmoded
concept on a crutch!" -- Terry Pratchett
Kristopher/EOS
So only faith/religion produces morality, ethics, etc? Guess that
makes me an immoral monster.
I find this whole notion that anything in the observable universe
requires anything resembling the supernatural to be bogus at best.
Maybe it would be better if things had been a bit different at the
beginning...something different about electrons, or weak force...
Anything to avoid this.
Kristopher/EOS
Manny Olds
: I think I see a trend here. The ones who deal in realms of pure thought,
: untainted by anything as messy as empiricism are more likely to believe
: in some great abstract anthropic observer - sort of a super-mathematician.
: The closer they get to icky messy things like poorly-behaved systems and
: complexities which Grand Unifying Theories can't contain the less likley
: they are to believe that there is someone up there who runs it all in
: crystal-clear purity.
Assuming that the only two choices are atheism/agnosticism and "someone up
there who runs it all in crystal-clear purity".
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"The Scandinavian aristocracy put two and two together and discovered
their ability to wield political power was *much* better under
Christianity. Heathen political models were much more decentralized."
-- Carl Edlund Anderson
Michael S. Schiffer
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:32:54 -0400, av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer)
>wrote:
>> In article <6qqhsa$c...@enews1.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>>> Given his Shire was an idealized England filled with upper-middle
>>> class types and their Loyal Servants, I find this intriguing. The
>>> portrayal of the >>working stiffs of the Shire...Sam for one...is
>>> so condescending I figured him for a member of the
>>> gentry. Instead, I find out he's a class traitor. :)
>>Condescending? Have you never noticed that Sam is the real hero of the
>>story? The one who volunteers to go on the trip even though it's not
>>expected of him? The one who never gives up?
>The one who is always fawning over Frodo...
It's perhaps worth noting that service was something highly
valued by Tolkien, in part as a reflection of his religion (the
founder of which washed lepers' feet and the leader of which is known
as the "servant of servants".) It's the proud and stiff-necked who
tend to do badly in Tolkien's work, from Melkor to Saruman to
Denethor. So Sam is the servant of the fellow who gave up everything
to serve-- do you think Tolkien meant this to diminish Sam?
>I mean, I'm not exactly the most PC guy on the planet, but I remember
>being distinctly annoyed at Sam for most of the trilogy. He does all
>the work, as you note, and Frodo gets all the credit. Hmmm...
Sam doesn't do all of the work. He does an essential part of
it, certainly. But so does Frodo, who bears the weight of the Ring
under circumstances that people like Gandalf and Galadriel don't
consider themselves capable of enduring. And, as I recall, Sam is
honored with Frodo in Minas Tirith, while the Shire-hobbits honor Sam
far in excess of anything given "cracked" old Frodo.
>He does all the work, and Frodo gets all the credit...
Personally, I'd consider things like taking wounds beyond
Earthly healing and bearing the Ring across Mordor to be doing some of
the work. Sam's strength was greater _because_ he didn't have the
Ring boring into his mind. Without him, Frodo is dead or worse on the
quest. But could Sam have managed both to bear the Ring _and_ to
exhibit the strength and ingenuity necessary to keep a hobbit alive in
Mordor? (Never mind that Sam's initial reaction would have left them
without a guide, however untrustworthy, to Cirith Ungol. Which would
have left them the option of knocking on the gates at the Morannon or
heading home.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN,FCS GURPS Alternate Earths is being reprinted!
Co-author: GURPS Alt. Earths Check out Steve Jackson Games' page at
ms...@tezcat.com <http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/AltEarths/>
ms...@midway.uchicago.edu for details.
Mary K. Kuhner
>: I think I see a trend here. The ones who deal in realms of pure thought,
>: untainted by anything as messy as empiricism are more likely to believe
>: in some great abstract anthropic observer - sort of a super-mathematician.
>: The closer they get to icky messy things like poorly-behaved systems and
>: complexities which Grand Unifying Theories can't contain the less likley
>: they are to believe that there is someone up there who runs it all in
>: crystal-clear purity.
>Assuming that the only two choices are atheism/agnosticism and "someone up
>there who runs it all in crystal-clear purity".
One thing to remember in reading all these surveys is that religion
is complex and surveys are simplistic, so take the responses with a
grain of salt. It is easy to write a survey which either assumes
I'm a Christian (because I'm not an atheist) or assumes I'm an
atheist (because I'm not a Christian). Both conclusions are seriously
mistaken.
My lab, which does theoretical work in evolutionary biology in an
academic setting, consists of a Jew, a Catholic and two Wiccans.
We are all religious but the points of agreement on religion are
fairly few. None of us are the kind of conventional believers
these surveys are slanted for.
It's worth noting that most surveys which purport to show a
correlation between field of study and religious belief are
fatally flawed, both by inadequate sample size and by unrecognized
correlations. (Field of study correlates with country of origin.
Country of origin correlates with religion. Voila, instant
correlation between field of study and religion--but is it
meaningful?)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Kate Nepveu
: Several of Sean Stewart's books treat religion in an interesting
: and respectful way: _Passion Play_ is the only book I can think
: of featuring a fundamentalist government which does not turn all
: religious folk into strawman villains, and _Nobody's Son_ has
: the main character wrestling with faith in a very personal way.
In an interview on his (now apparently defunct) web site, Stewart said
that his notebook put it the following way:
"It doesn't matter whether you believe in a guy with a white beard
or not. What matters is what you do when the fucking Nazgul come."
: He's a terrific writer, too. I am in the middle of _Nobody's Son_
: (second reading) at the moment, and I'd forgotten how good
: the writing was--particularly in capturing emotional states
: and realizations.
Indeed. I highly recommend his latest, _Mockingbird_, as well.
--
Kate http://www.concentric.net/~knepveu/index.html
"I love you more than any woman's ever loved a rabbit."
--_Who Framed Roger Rabbit?_
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Gwen Byrd <gwen...@aol.com> wrote:
>You know the only instance I can think of where religion plays a positive role
>is in Star Wars.
[...]
>I am a writer.
With all due respect, I'd recommend you read more of the religious sf
suggested in this thread; if you're entirely unaware of, say, _A Canticle
for Leibowitz_, you're not only missing some great writing but you're
likely to duplicate themes that have been covered many times.
--
Permanent email address is @alumni.stanford.org
This address is going away soon.
Newamul K Khan
: Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
:
: : If you are interested in other religions, ...
:
: You could have a look at Harry Harrison and John Holm's Hammer and the
: Cross series: The Hammer and the Cross (1993) , One King's Way (1995),
: King and Emperor (1996). It's not thoughtful at the C.S. Lewis level (not
: even close), but religion is very important to the books.
And clearly a thinly-veiled anti-Catholic screed. The contempt and
hostility toward the priestridden Christians is clear and resounding.
On the other hand, I enjoyed the books considerably (not being Christian
myself, those aspects didn't bother me much)
--
----------------------------------
Razib Khan
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~khann
student, University of Oregon
major, biochemistry
----------------------------------
Sanctus
> A purely random universe would be easier to believe in if it weren't so
> mathematically unlikely.
Probability is not evidence. "That explanation is highly improbable" is
only a refutation if one can provide a plausible alternative for which
there is better evidence.
The mere fact of the improbability of one origin is not evidence for some
other origin.
> A simple example: disolve a sugar cube in a glass of water. It goes
> from low entropy state to a high entropy state. Eventually, given
> enough time, the random movements of the sugar cube molecules will
> purely by chance reassemble themselves into some sort of ordered state
> (not necessarily the original sugar cube). But statistically, the
> amount of time needed for this to occur is billions of times longer than
> the estimated age of the universe.
The amount of time for *any* ordered configuration, or any *particular*
ordered configuration?
In any case, how is this example parallel with the origin of the
universe? Do we know how much energy was available for work at "origin"?
If we don't know how much energy has been wasted, how can we compute the
probability of the current configuration?
> A incredibly small change, say in the mass of a proton or the
> charge on an electron, would make the formation of matter impossible.
Yes. Had that happened, we wouldn't be here. We are neither necessary
nor inevitable.
The classic counterexample: the human head is perfectly formed to wear
eyeglasses. If your eyes or ears were placed differently, or if your eyes
detected some radiation not refracted by curved glass, eyeglasses would
fail to perform any corrective function. Ergo, your head was specifically
designed to accomodate eyeglasses.
> I don't buy the anthropomorphic principle, either in its strong or weak
> forms. It basically says "I think, therefore the universe is".
> Basically, its is science's way of shruging its shoulders at the whole
> question. Besides, a single star with a single life bearing planet is
> all that is neded to create intelligent life. Why then do we see an
> entire universe capable of supporting life and intelligence?
Because random processes are inefficient, as you note above. A single
planet orbiting a single star would be far stronger evidence of a Designer
(less waste) than the jumbled thermodynamic mess we call a universe.
While many possible universes could not support life of any sort, a great
number might support life of a completely different nature than ours.
It's the very heart of the anthropic principle to assume that a universe
with different starting conditions can't support any form of life simply
because it can't support *our* form of life.
> Without faith, science can produce
> technical horrors in the form of Hiroshima,
Nearly all the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were
believing Christians or Jews. The Enola Gay crew were believers, as was
then-President Truman, who authorized the deployment.
>the Nazism death camps
As has been pointed out too many times, Hitler considered himself a
Christian, and believed the Third Reich had been ordained by God. Racism
long predates poor maligned Charles Darwin, and some of its chiefest
proponents have been religious folk. Have a look at the U.S.'s dealings
with the "Indian problem" and chattel slavery for two examples of
"Darwinism" based on faith, not science.
> and the Communist gulags (perverted economics).
The atrocities of Stalin and his ilk demonstrate that atheists have no
lock on virtue. I hasten to point out that the Soviet Union was no
bastion of science or rationality, though; how long did they go before
finally accepting "counter-revolutionary" Mendelian genetics?
The examples you cite are all failures of reason and ethics. Whether one
looks at Hitler purging Jews, Custer purging Indians, the Catholic Church
purging "witches" or Stalin purging pretty much everyone, the story is the
same: dogmatic adherence to any belief system leads to fanaticism.
There's no reason to conclude a marriage of faith and science would serve
us any better than a simple rejection of brutality.
> Prior to the creation of space-time, concepts such as "always existed"
> have no meaning. When time does not exist, "before" is a null concept.
> Besides, the question is not that the universe was created in time, but
> what was its cause - a random event or a deliberate act. A deliberate
> act would require Someone to perform the act.
When time does not exist, "event," "act," and "deliberate" are null
concepts, too.
Keith Morrison
>
> Daniel,
>
> I like your analogy of your stance on Science Fiction and religion being
> likened to>standing on your roof waving about a lightening rod during a
> thunderstorm."
>
> warriors, occult-martial disciples like the Samurai
Nonsense. There are a bunch I could name off the top of my head
where religion is treated positively. Just on TV, "Babylon 5"
showed respect for religion. I'm thinking of a first season
episode where the last scene is of Sinclair introducing various
religious types to the alien ambassadors (various Christian and
Jewish sects, Hindus, Muslims, assorted minor aboriginal religions
and so on). The record on Star Trek is less than stellar, so to
speak, but the Bajoran religion is respected. For instance, on
the season finale last year of DS9, Dax went to the temple (I forget
what they call it) on the station to "talk" to the Prophets (of
course, it helps that they actually exist, but since most of the
time they don't actually intervene they are more like the human
concept of a deity these days). And the Klingon religion, through
Worf, gets a whack of respect.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Michael Straight
> In article <6qpn8g$bmj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ja...@norman.carswell.com> wrote:
> >
> >LOTR counts as Catholic in a number of ways: its universe was consistent with
> >catholic theology, IMHO (with Eru as God and the Ainur as angels), although
> >tangential, and the moral universe presented is Catholic as opposed to, e.g.
> >Calvinist.
>
> As opposed to Calvinist? What does that mean, and how does it show up
> in Lord of the Rings? Tell me more.
>
> The general Christian elements -- Christ figures and Satan figures --
> are pretty obvious in Lord of the Rings, but the specifically Catholic
> ones aren't, at least to me.
I'm tempted to say that LOTR is Catholic in the sense that Catholic
writers in this century seem to be more successful that Protestants at
using religious themes in their writing without causing complaints of
propaganda or too much allegorizing (e.g. Graham Green, Flannery O'Connor,
Walker Percy).
Some even see theological reasons for this. I've heard people claim that
it's partly the result of Catholic emphasis on incarnation (embodyment of
the spiritual), which gives Catholic writers greater resources for showing
instead of telling, embodying spiritual ideas in characters and events
without having to spell it all out. Protestant writers seem to feel more
obligated to explicitly mention God, Jesus, etc.
I don't meant this as a critique of anyone's religion. I'm a Protestant
myself.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Brenda Clough
Andrea Lynn Leistra wrote:
> In article <199808121520...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> Gwen Byrd <gwen...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >You know the only instance I can think of where religion plays a positive role
> >is in Star Wars.
>
> [...]
>
> >I am a writer.
>
> With all due respect, I'd recommend you read more of the religious sf
> suggested in this thread; if you're entirely unaware of, say, _A Canticle
> for Leibowitz_, you're not only missing some great writing but you're
> likely to duplicate themes that have been covered many times.
> --
Was it Moorcock who wrote "Behold the Man"? And religion is a very powerful
element in Atwood's THE HANDMAID'S TALE. How much is there in LORD OF LIGHT? I
haven't re-read Zelazny in some years. CHILDHOOD'S END is a very clever take on
some religious elements. Actually, when you think about it, there's tons of
overtly or covertly religious themes in the genre.
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
liz...@mrlizard.com
>>
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 10:43:39 -0400, daniel patrick duffy
>> <thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
>>
>> >There has been a great deal of discussion lately concerning a
>> >convergence of science and religion (not just the recent Newsweek cover
>> >story). Many scientists are finding that their discoveries have
>> >strengthened their belief in a Master Architect as the universe appears
>> >less and less likely to have occured or achieved its present form purely
>> >by chance. I highly recommend Paul Davies "God and the New Physics" as
>> >an excellent book on this subject.
>> >
>> I suspect this is just this generation of scientists moment of
>> adjustment, as happens seemingly with each generation. The next
>> generation will accept a random universe without qualms.
>>
>mathematically unlikely.
'Random' is the wrong term, and I regret using it. "Causeless", perhaps. Or
"undesigned".
For example, what are the odds of every marble you drop from your hand heading
straight down? Given the thousands of directions it could fly in, for it to
fall DOWN every time, time after time, must be a trillions-to-one shot.
When people talk of the odds against DNA forming from random chemicals, or the
like, they usually use some ludicrous analogy like 'an explosion at a
publishing house producing an unabridged dictionary'. But if every time I
shook up a box of lead type, words formed, regularly and repeatedly, I would
be quite correct in assuming dictionary-producing-explosions occured with some
frequency given billions of years and trillions of publishing houses.
In the case of the universe, what evidence do you have it COULD HAVE BEEN ANY
OTHER WAY? That is, it might well be that the universe is as it is because it
could not have been anything else.
The three laws of thermodynamics ("you can't
>win, wou can't break even, and you can't get out of the game") almost
>ensure that a random universe is practically impossible. Long ago the
>universe should have achieved a state of high entropy (disorder) defined
>either by lack of structure (gaseous clouds of hydrogen instead of
>ordered galaxies)of by its gravitational state (a black hole being the
>highest entropy state for a gravitational system).
>
Why long ago? The math indicates one of these things will most likely happen,
given enough time. We happen to exist early on in the process.
Newsweek (the bastion of intellectual thought) did a recent cover story on the
possibility that infinite universes are being continually 'spun off'. From
being the Center Of Gods Creation, we are now reduced to being one of a 100
billion worlds in one of billions of galaxies in what may be one of an
infinite number of universes. Cool.
>A simple example: disolve a sugar cube in a glass of water. It goes
>from low entropy state to a high entropy state. Eventually, given
>enough time, the random movements of the sugar cube molecules will
>purely by chance reassemble themselves into some sort of ordered state
>(not necessarily the original sugar cube). But statistically, the
>amount of time needed for this to occur is billions of times longer than
>the estimated age of the universe. Whether it is the random typing of
>monkeys eventually producing the works of Shakespeare, throwing a deck
>of cards in the air and expecting them to land in well ordered suites,
>or the development of the universe as it now appears - there simpley has
>not been enough time since the big bang for any of these to have
>happened.
>
See above. The process isn't wholly random. In a vaccuum, sufficiently
large clouds of particles form into spheres -- ALWAYS. Not cubes, rectangles,
triangles, or dodecahedrons. God doesn't play dice, because you can't roll a
sphere. (Well, those damn d100s from Zocchi are close...)
>A "Master Architect" is easier to believe in.
Until you ask "Where did he come from?" If he is an exception to the laws,
then, there might well be others, and, perhaps, the laws are wrong. Where did
God get his "Get Out Of Entropy Free" card?
This does not, of course
>prove that a "Master Architect" exists, that by definition will always
>require an act of faith. The amount of fine tuning needed by the
>physical forces present at the "big bang" to ensure that our universe
>started out in an extremely low entropy state (well ordered) is too much
>for this simple mind of mine to comprehend. As is the fine tuning
>required of the basic forces and particles of which make up the
>universe. A incredibly small change, say in the mass of a proton or the
>charge on an electron, would make the formation of matter impossible.
You're assuming that such changes could have happened, that the charge or the
mass could have been anything. This is like wondering why Hydrogen and Oxygen,
subjected to the right conditions, bond to form water -- and not, say table
salt.
>The universe appears to be rigged to ensure that matter and life
>eventually arise.
Because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.
IOW, we are wondering about the universe because the universe permits us to
exist. If it didn't, we wouldn't be wondering about it. Closed circle. So the
odds were one in a trillion-trillion-trillion. We got lucky.
The odds of winning the lottery, after all, are 1 in 60 million, but someone
wins every week or two. SOMEcombination of numbers has to come up;SOME
combination of proton mass and electron charge had to be chosen. (If such
things can vary at all)
If the big bang was the ultimate roll of the dice, it
>appears as if Someone loaded the dice.
>
Why? If the dice are rolled, SOME number will come up. If you roll a million
dice, the odds of any one number coming up will be one in 6^10^6 -- but there
will be A NUMBER, nonetheless. No matter what it is, someone can point to it
and say, "Wow! Think of the odds of it being THAT NUMBER!" But it has to be
SOME number. Comprende?
>I don't buy the anthropomorphic principle, either in its strong or weak
>forms. It basically says "I think, therefore the universe is".
>Basically, its is science's way of shruging its shoulders at the whole
>question. Besides, a single star with a single life bearing planet is
>all that is neded to create intelligent life. Why then do we see an
>entire universe capable of supporting life and intelligence?
>
Because it's the only way the universe could be, perhaps? Must there be a
purpose? Can't you accept:"That which is, is."?
>> Any belief in a 'great architect' immediately demands:Who made the
>> Great Architect? And if the answer is 'No one, he always existed',
>> then that answer can apply equally well to the universe.
>>
>Prior to the creation of space-time, concepts such as "always existed"
>have no meaning. When time does not exist, "before" is a null concept.
How does a being exist outside of space-time? I have an easier time accepting
a universe which Simply Is.
liz...@mrlizard.com
>In article <6qqhsa$c...@enews1.newsguy.com>, <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>>Given his Shire was an idealized England filled with upper-middle class types
>>and their Loyal Servants, I find this intriguing. The portrayal of the working
>
>>stiffs of the Shire...Sam for one...is so condescending I figured him for a
>>member of the gentry. Instead, I find out he's a class traitor. :)
>
>
I just need to reread LOTR, period. It's been way too long.
>Sam is the _hero_ of :Lord of the Rings:. It's very hard to notice
>this if you think humility is a failing.
Which, of course, I do.
One of my favorite scenes in Babylon 5 is the bit where Sheridan storms into
Kosh's quarters and demands that the Vorlons "get off their encounter-suited
butts and DO something!" This after two and a half seasons of obsequious
fawning by Delenn and other "in the know" characters.
no...@nowhere.edu
> A purely random universe would be easier to believe in if it weren't so
> win, wou can't break even, and you can't get out of the game") almost
> ensure that a random universe is practically impossible.
Mathematical references for this conclusion, please? This is the
standard argument used by creationists against evolution, and it's
completely off base.
> A simple example: disolve a sugar cube in a glass of water. It goes
> from low entropy state to a high entropy state. Eventually, given
> enough time, the random movements of the sugar cube molecules will
> purely by chance reassemble themselves into some sort of ordered state
> (not necessarily the original sugar cube). But statistically, the
> amount of time needed for this to occur is billions of times longer than
> the estimated age of the universe. Whether it is the random typing of
> monkeys eventually producing the works of Shakespeare, throwing a deck
> of cards in the air and expecting them to land in well ordered suites,
> or the development of the universe as it now appears - there simpley has
> not been enough time since the big bang for any of these to have
> happened.
Well, suppose I apply some heat to the glass of sugar water. We'll
find little sugar crystals forming, as we all know from our grade
school science experiments. There you go. It didn't take billions of
years, either.
Here's a simpler example: I deal out four bridge hands, and I get some
particular distribution of cards. "My goodness!" I say. "If I were
to have shuffled and dealt out cards at random (as I just did), it
should take me five billion deals to get these four hands. But I've
only been at it for about thirty seconds! There must be a Master Card
Shark at work here." Of course, the flaw in my thinking is that
there's a specific goal that the random processes are working toward.
In this case, any goal will do, and it takes little time to reach it.
You might argue that it's still pretty implausible that we could have
gotten here with a few zillion rolls of the dice. True, but that's
because what's happening now depends on what's happened in the past;
evolution doesn't work by way of Bernoulli trials, independent dice
throws. For concreteness, some biologists have built models of how
long it would take our eye to have evolved, starting from a simple
patch of light-sensitive membrane, each mutation giving a tiny bit of
improvement in survival ability, and have found the models to be
consistent with what we actually know about the evolution of the eye.
(I may have the details wrong---it's been some time since I read about
this stuff.)
--
Rob St. Amant
Chris Byler
wrote:
>In article <6qq31f$8uq$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>,
>Colin Rosenthal <rose...@hao.SNIPME.ucar.edu> wrote:
>>Funny thing - the latest survey of "top" scientists found that the
>>biological scientists were marginally _less_ likely to be believers
>>than the physical scientists - in contradiction to the study you
>>cite, which was conducted by the same people on a larger (and broader)
>>sample of scientists. The latest survey found that mathematicians (at 15%)
>>were most likely to be believers.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "least unlikely". The rate
in the general population (non-scientists) is much higher than 15%.
>I think I see a trend here. The ones who deal in realms of pure thought,
>untainted by anything as messy as empiricism are more likely to believe
>in some great abstract anthropic observer - sort of a super-mathematician.
>The closer they get to icky messy things like poorly-behaved systems and
>complexities which Grand Unifying Theories can't contain the less likley
>they are to believe that there is someone up there who runs it all in
>crystal-clear purity.
>Makes sense to me....
I'm quite surprised that mathematicians were the most likely to be
believers of the groups measured. Mathematicians are notorious for
not accepting anything without completely rigorous,
beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof; none of this "Most of the available
evidence indicates..." nonsense, thank you very much.
I guess professional and personal judgment don't necessarily coincide,
or even follow the same rules. But then, it didn't take a survey to
tell us _that_.
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"I'm not a speed reader. I'm a speed understander."
-- Isaac Asimov
Chris Byler
>On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:17:20 GMT, mam-DIE-S...@world.std.com
>(Mark A Mandel) wrote:
>
>>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>>: On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:39:01 GMT,
>>: liz...@mrlizard.com <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>>: >In article <35D0449E...@pop3.concentric.net>,
>> KLSi...@concentric.net wrote:
>>: >>Lizard - Tolkien was English, but not Anglican - according to his
>>
>>: He was a lower middle-class, grammar-school educated, Roman Catholic,
>>: scholarship boy. Not even _close_ to being a Proper English Gentleman.
>>
>>And born in South Africa at that.
>>
>Clearly, I need to study authors bios more...I rarely know anything
>about writers I like, I prefer to study just their work.
Well, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you're going to read
the author's life into his work (a pursuit I generally avoid), you
have an obligation to know what his life was like, first. That's all.
Todd Masco
>from low entropy state to a high entropy state. Eventually, given
>enough time, the random movements of the sugar cube molecules will
>purely by chance reassemble themselves into some sort of ordered state
>(not necessarily the original sugar cube). But statistically, the
>amount of time needed for this to occur is billions of times longer than
>the estimated age of the universe.
This is actually an excellent example that happens to go against your
point: in time the sugar will crystalize while the water vapor
evaporates. Much as the universe has formed systems like galaxies,
stars, and planets, leaving a lot of energy in the cosmic background
at the time that matter "froze out." from the higher energy cosmic
soup, and pumping a lot more energy into the expansion of the universe.
The laws of thermodynamics do not say that the universe should now be
a smear of chaos. What they say is that parts ordering themselves will
do so at the cost of order elsewhere.
The laws of physics as we know them don't tell us that the basic
systems we know are unlikely. In fact, they say quite the opposite.
--
Todd Masco | I arise in the morning torn between a desire
cac...@hks.net | to improve the world, and a desire to enjoy
http://www.hks.net/~cactus/ | the world. This makes it hard to plan the day.
- E. B. White
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> A purely random universe would be easier to believe in if it weren't so
> mathematically unlikely.
But, if the Universe were totally random and chaotic, what would
mathematical probabilities have to do with anything?
--
Reverend Sean O'Hara
You two can be an ordained minister: http://ulc.org/ulc
"If the divine master plan is perfection,
Maybe next I'll give Judas a try."
Tori Amos
Spark
Joe Ramirez
[deleted]
>
>Newsweek (the bastion of intellectual thought) did a recent cover story on the
>possibility that infinite universes are being continually 'spun off'. From
>being the Center Of Gods Creation, we are now reduced to being one of a 100
>billion worlds in one of billions of galaxies in what may be one of an
>infinite number of universes. Cool.
This particular cosmological speculation seems to have achieved pop
culture critical mass recently. I've recently read two novels built
around this idea and the notion of wormhole links between universes:
*Cosm* by Gregory Benford, and *Einstein's Bridge* by John Cramer.
The former is being made into a movie with Angela Bassett and Dustin
Hoffman. Now Newsweek has jumped on board. The most interesting
thing about the "multi-verse" hypothesis -- and both novels, written
as they were by physicists, make the point in a way (Cramer is
explicit) -- is that it may be easier to contact intelligent life in
another universe than in our own, due to the relativistic constraints
on interstellar travel within universes.
Joe Ramirez
Joe Ramirez
[deleted]
>Here's a simpler example: I deal out four bridge hands, and I get some
>particular distribution of cards. "My goodness!" I say. "If I were
>to have shuffled and dealt out cards at random (as I just did), it
>should take me five billion deals to get these four hands. But I've
>only been at it for about thirty seconds! There must be a Master Card
>Shark at work here." Of course, the flaw in my thinking is that
>there's a specific goal that the random processes are working toward.
>In this case, any goal will do, and it takes little time to reach it.
Daniel C. Dennett has discussed a particularly neat demonstration of
this point. What are the odds that any person could correctly predict
30 coin tosses in a row? Simple math tells us that the odds are
extremely low, verging on impossibility for any particular person.
Yet, simply by staging a 30-round, single elimination coin tossing
tournament -- the person who calls heads or tails correctly wins, and
moves to the next round -- we can produce such a person quickly.
(We'd need only about a billion people for the tournament; Earth has
plenty.) Of course, we couldn't predict *in advance* which person
would win the tournament, only that someone would. After the winner
is produced as a result of the tournament -- which Dennett describes
as an algorithmic process similar to evolution -- it simply makes no
sense for an observer to marvel at the incredible, "miraculous" luck
of the winner. A winner was the inevitable outcome.
Joe Ramirez
Ernest Sjogren
>There has been a great deal of discussion lately concerning a
>convergence of science and religion (not just the recent Newsweek cover
>story). Many scientists are finding that their discoveries have
>strengthened their belief in a Master Architect as the universe appears
>less and less likely to have occured or achieved its present form purely
>by chance. I highly recommend Paul Davies "God and the New Physics" as
>an excellent book on this subject.
>
-- snip --
Haven't read the book, so I can't say. What this _sounds_ like,
however is a very common type of journalistic scam, which works as
follows: to support a viewpoint the author (or broadcaster) says
_many_ (as in "many scientists") and then cites a few "examples" that
are too few to have any hope of being "many" and that often themselves
don't really support what is being argued, except when taken out of
context. However, having flummoxed (no offense intended) or dazzled
the audience with lots of prose or lots of tv, the author/broadcaster
dramatically recaps his assertion at the end of the piece and often
succeeds in persuading people that the asserted change is indeed
occurring among "many" significant people.
Inferior broadcast journalism, and the Religious Right "argue" this
way all they time.
Just how many scientists can you definitely say have recently come to
believe in a Master Architect? (For some reason, mealy-mouthed terms
like "Master Architect" go hand-in-hand with this type of argument,
especially when the Religious Right is doing the arguing.) Go back
and examine Mr. Davies' evidence carefully. Is it sufficient to
demonstrate signigicant conversion of scientists to belief in a Master
Architect, or does Mr. Davies simply want us to believe it is?
-- Ernie Sjogren
Ernest Sjogren
-- snip -- (sorry, it's late, and I haven't read it all)
>I believe that science and religion (knowledge and faith) are both
>necessary in a yin and yang sort of way. Without knowledge, faith can
>produce madness and ignorance in the form of inquisitions, sectartian
>violence, and witch burnings. Without faith, science can produce
>technical horrors in the form of Hiroshima, the Nazism death camps
>(perverted Darminism) and the Communist gulags (perverted economics).
>
Just what knowledge was lacking that would have saved the faithful
from carrying out inquisitions, sectarian violence and witch burning?
Explain it to me one type of attrocity at a time. And as for lack of
faith, I'm sure that many if not most of the people involved with
"Hiroshima" considered themselves to be religious people.
-- Ernie Sjogren
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (not, as
stated earlier, "Anthropomorphic"), I recommend
reading the book by the same name, "The Anthropic
Cosomological Principle", by John D. Barrow and
Frank J. Tipler. It consists mainly of essays,
everything from the light philosophical to the
deeply mathematical, that address and discuss
this topic. There is a growing percentage of
scientists now adopting this view. Essentially,
the reason things are the way they are is because
we are here; if they were any different, we would
not be here to ask the question. That only leaves
the question, in my mind, of how we managed to get
such a universe on a roll of the dice... were we
extremely lucky? Well, personally, I also believe
in a Many Worlds / Quantum Foam Mutliverse, where
essentially *all* the possible universes happen.
So the dice were rolled not just once, but many
times, so it's not surprising we showed up in one
of the resulting universes.
Bruce
ja...@norman.carswell.com
[SNIP]
> Just how many scientists can you definitely say have recently come to
> believe in a Master Architect? (For some reason, mealy-mouthed terms
> like "Master Architect" go hand-in-hand with this type of argument,
> especially when the Religious Right is doing the arguing.) Go back
> and examine Mr. Davies' evidence carefully. Is it sufficient to
> demonstrate signigicant conversion of scientists to belief in a Master
> Architect, or does Mr. Davies simply want us to believe it is?
Interesting how the issue of whether scientists are believers mutates so often
into some form of discussion of the argument from design.
In my experience, relatively few people _become_ believers because of the
argument from design. Davies' book amounts to a repetition of the argument
with a new spin: but the same objections which can be applied to Paley can be
applied to the newer arguments regarding the anthropic principle.
A more interesting question, to my mind, is the ability of different
religious views (derived, usually from other sources) to assimilate
scientific findings. Naive views, for example, which see God as an efficient
cause of most events, tend to get heavily disrupted by evidence of efficient
causation independent of divine involvement. (The question of final causes
is a philosophical rather than a scientific one, since the methodology of
science restricts it by definition to the investigation of efficient causes.)
As another example, literalist views of the bible have _real_ problems with
modern cosmology, anthropology, biology ...
However, there are also views which coexist relatively comfortably with the
findings of science, because the way in which they see divine involvement,
etc., is consistent with those findings (not, you will note, _implied by_
those findings, which would merely get us back to the argument from design
again). And I don't think many of those religious worldviews would find a
phrasing like "Master Architect" particularly natural.
This being the case, I would expect the proportion of scientists believing to
be smaller than that in the general population, because those who had
religious worldviews inconsistent with their scientific studies would have
dropped them or dropped science. However, I would expect as a corollary that
the makeup of those scientists who are believers would be different in detail
from the overall population; the realtionship between rates of scientists
with "compatible" religious worldviews and those in the general population
with the same or similar worldviews I would expect to be somewhat closer than
the general figures.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Karen Lea Siegel
incarnational focus. We only steal from the best!
kls
Jeff Suzuki
: Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> writes
: : 'Babylon 5', despite being written by an atheist, actually has the
: : most positive portrayal of religion that I've ever seen on TV, and
: : without Trekkian smugness.
: Don't you ever get sick of the Minbari's Elvish superiority?
The interesting thing about the Minbari is that their beliefs are quite often
_wrong_. The more enlightened among them realize this; the rest toe the party
line...
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
: Don't believe everything you read in Newsweek. According to a survey of
: members of the US Academy of Sciences, published recently in Nature,
: approximately 7% of top scientists believe in God.
And why not? A belief in God does not equate to a disbelief in rational
processes, something most people think to be true. The key difference is that
a scientist who believes in God is more likely to realize that their belief in
God _is_ a belief.
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
: Yes, an the the number of scientists that [gasp] is far lower than the
: general population. And [gasp] according to a survey published in nature
: a few years back it was PHYSICISTS that were the most skeptical, the ones
: who are finding this 'grand architect'
Is there any truth to the claim that mathematicians are the most atheist of
all academicians?
Jeffs (a mathematician..and an atheist)
Jeff Suzuki
: In article <35CF9C18...@erols.com>, Brenda Clough
: <clo...@erols.com> writes
: >If you are interested in other religions, it has been argued that the entire
: >Foundation series by Asimov is essentially Judaism In Space.
: This is something of a surprise. The religious backgrounds of even
: atheist writers come through in the subtext often enough, God knows, but
: this one is not at all obvious. Details, anyone?
The original series, which Asimov himself stated was based on Gibbon, was more
akin to the rise of Catholicism in the decaying aftermath of the Roman
Empire. This is most obvious in _Foundation_, where we actually see "priests"
and "miracles" occurring.
_Prelude to Foundation_ is the most obvious tie-in to Judaism in space. We
have the Diaspora; the wailing wall; and the "of course we're the chosen
ones..." attitude.
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
: Just to muddy the waters, consider the following: it is possible to be
: religious (depending on how you define the term) and yet not believe in
: any kind of 'grand architect'. (frex: zen buddhism.) I know/know of
: several scientists who would fall in that category, though I couldn't
: pretend to any kind of statistics.
Define "religious" and you'll get your answer.
There are at least two types of "God" we are dealing with. There is the
"Grand Architect", and there is the God who listens to prayers. Deists
believe in the Grand Architect, but not necessarily in the God who listens to
prayers; there's no point in praying to Him, because He's finished His
contract and moved on to another construction site.
Buddhism, or at least some of its flavors, is like the second category. The
universe exists: deal with it. There are paradises and there are hells, but
for the most part part, there is just a return to this world. The Buddha
listens to prayers...sort of...at least, if you're an Amidist. (The Japanese
have never really "understood" religion...they accept it pragmatically. If it
works, good; if it fails, it's time to get a new religion)
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
: daniel patrick duffy wrote:
: >
: > A purely random universe would be easier to believe in if it weren't so
: > mathematically unlikely.
: But, if the Universe were totally random and chaotic, what would
: mathematical probabilities have to do with anything?
Well, that's the whole point of mathematical probabilities: to make sense of
the randomness. (Chaos is another issue)
Jeffs
Colin Rosenthal
Chris Byler <cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu> wrote:
>>I think I see a trend here. The ones who deal in realms of pure thought,
>>untainted by anything as messy as empiricism are more likely to believe
>>in some great abstract anthropic observer - sort of a super-mathematician.
>>The closer they get to icky messy things like poorly-behaved systems and
>>complexities which Grand Unifying Theories can't contain the less likley
>>they are to believe that there is someone up there who runs it all in
>>crystal-clear purity.
>
>>Makes sense to me....
>
>I'm quite surprised that mathematicians were the most likely to be
>believers of the groups measured. Mathematicians are notorious for
>not accepting anything without completely rigorous,
>beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof; none of this "Most of the available
>evidence indicates..." nonsense, thank you very much.
This may be true, but mathematicians also tend to have platonic tendencies -
and no, I don't mean they have trouble getting laid.
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
Colin Rosenthal
Ernest Sjogren <sjog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Haven't read the book, so I can't say. What this _sounds_ like,
>however is a very common type of journalistic scam, which works as
>follows: to support a viewpoint the author (or broadcaster) says
>_many_ (as in "many scientists") and then cites a few "examples" that
>are too few to have any hope of being "many" and that often themselves
>don't really support what is being argued, except when taken out of
>context. However, having flummoxed (no offense intended) or dazzled
>the audience with lots of prose or lots of tv, the author/broadcaster
>dramatically recaps his assertion at the end of the piece and often
>succeeds in persuading people that the asserted change is indeed
>occurring among "many" significant people.
That wouldn't be fair on Davies. He's not a journalist but a highly
respected physicist, and the views he presents are his own. I have
to say that I didn't find "God and the New Physics" particularly
enlightening. Most of the physics arguments seemed tired and familiar -
but that may just mean I'd already seen Davies' arguments rehashed
elsewhere before getting them from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Colin Rosenthal
Check the article in Nature. Mathematicians were the most likely (or least
unlikely) to be _believers_.
Del Cotter
Chris Byler <cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu> wrote
>I'm quite surprised that mathematicians were the most likely to be
>believers of the groups measured. Mathematicians are notorious for
>not accepting anything without completely rigorous,
>beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof; none of this "Most of the available
>evidence indicates..." nonsense, thank you very much.
Which makes them spectacularly ill-prepared for dealing with real-world
propositions. For that you need science, which is quite different from
mathematics.
>I guess professional and personal judgment don't necessarily coincide,
>or even follow the same rules. But then, it didn't take a survey to
>tell us _that_.
No, mathematicians don't come equipped with *any* personal judgement as
a result of their profession; scientists do. Which is why I continue to
be surprised (though only mildly) by scientists who have a faith.
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
The Alien Design Bibliography
http://www.branta.demon.co.uk/alien-design/
Del Cotter
daniel patrick duffy <thed...@fuse.net> wrote
>A purely random universe would be easier to believe in if it weren't so
>mathematically unlikely. The three laws of thermodynamics ("you can't
>win, wou can't break even, and you can't get out of the game") almost
>ensure that a random universe is practically impossible. Long ago the
>universe should have achieved a state of high entropy (disorder) defined
>either by lack of structure (gaseous clouds of hydrogen instead of
>ordered galaxies)of by its gravitational state (a black hole being the
>highest entropy state for a gravitational system).
This is comletely wrong. There are a large number of introductory texts
on thermodynamics in your local libraries. Please read some of them.
>> >(Now I will go and do something safe, like stand on my roof waving a
>> >lightening rod during a thunderstorm.)
>>
>> Good idea. Much safer.
>
>Actually, the respondents to my original query have been universally
>intelligent and considerate. I hope we can have further conversations
>along these lines.
You were doing fine asking for sf with a positive view of religion, but
if you start repeating creationist pseudoscience, you really *will* be
asking for trouble around here. Please don't start a flame war.
jessie shelton
> There are at least two types of "God" we are dealing with. There is the
> "Grand Architect", and there is the God who listens to prayers. Deists
> believe in the Grand Architect, but not necessarily in the God who listens to
> prayers; there's no point in praying to Him, because He's finished His
> contract and moved on to another construction site.
You misunderstand me; there are belief systems, usually called religions
[1], which do not require their subscribers to have faith in *any* kind
of God, or god. Nothing supernatural at all.
jessie
[1] Some people have called Zen not so much a religion as a philosophy,
hence the temporizing.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
jessie shelton (one side of moebius)
shelton(AT)princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~shelton
"Tick, clong, tick, clong, tick, clong, went the night."
- King Clode, _The White Deer_, Thurber
---------------------------------------------------------------
John VanSickle
>
> In article <6qpn8g$bmj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <ja...@norman.carswell.com> wrote:
> >
> >LOTR counts as Catholic in a number of ways: its universe was consistent with
> >catholic theology, IMHO (with Eru as God and the Ainur as angels),
This is hardly specific to Catholicism, or even to Christianity in
general.
> >although tangential, and the moral universe presented is Catholic as
> >opposed to, e.g. Calvinist.
>
> As opposed to Calvinist? What does that mean, and how does it show up
> in Lord of the Rings? Tell me more.
Calvinism is fatalistic (which of course begs the question "Why is
there a Bible is we have no choice about obeying it?"), whereas the
Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of freewill.
> The general Christian elements -- Christ figures and Satan figures --
> are pretty obvious in Lord of the Rings, but the specifically Catholic
> ones aren't, at least to me.
I'm trying to think of any Tolkien character gathering followers and
foretelling his own murder.
--
"Okay, let's see here... Shatner, Shatner... no, doesn't look like
he's in this one; we're safe." -- Tom Servo
Lizard
>And why not? A belief in God does not equate to a disbelief in rational
>processes, something most people think to be true.
I eagerly await hearing of the rational process which produced God.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Matt Austern
> > As opposed to Calvinist? What does that mean, and how does it show up
> > in Lord of the Rings? Tell me more.
>
> Calvinism is fatalistic (which of course begs the question "Why is
> there a Bible is we have no choice about obeying it?"), whereas the
> Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of freewill.
As I understand it, that's a misrepresentation of Calvinist doctrine.
Calvinism does acknowledge free will, and does acknowledge that we
have a choice about whether or not we follow the appropriate laws.
However, an omniscient diety knows what our choice will be.
It makes sense to me, at least to the extent that either free will or
omniscience makes sense in the first place. Omniscience (emphasis on
*omni*) surely includes knowledge of the future. And all flavors of
Christianity, after all, believe in divine prophecy. Calvinism just
points out what knowledge of the future means when applied to
individuals.
I'm not sure whether this is really a disagreement between Calvinism
and Catholicism, or whether it's just a difference in emphasis.