1
   

What're the best fiction books w philsophical underpinnings?

 
 
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 03:33 pm
I'm looking for good fiction books to read that are packed with philosophical themes and ideas.

There's obviously the insanely dry and boring Atlas Strugged that I have zero interest in finsihing.

The only other book that comes to mind for me is Watchmen by Alan Moore (with an actually very interesting storyline at that).

But after reading Watchmen, I'm very attracted to the idea of reading fiction books packed with philosophical ideas and arguments.

Do you guys have any recommendations?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,163 • Replies: 51
No top replies

 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 03:40 pm
A Canticle for Leibowitz
By Walter M. Miller
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 03:47 pm
The Last Question by Isaac Asimov © 1956

The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061, at a time when humanity first stepped into the light. The question came about as a result of a five dollar bet over highballs, and it happened this way:

Alexander Adell and Bertram Lupov were two of the faithful attendants of Multivac. As well as any human beings could, they knew what lay behind the cold, clicking, flashing face -- miles and miles of face -- of that giant computer. They had at least a vague notion of the general plan of relays and circuits that had long since grown past the point where any single human could possibly have a firm grasp of the whole.

Multivac was self-adjusting and self-correcting. It had to be, for nothing human could adjust and correct it quickly enough or even adequately enough -- so Adell and Lupov attended the monstrous giant only lightly and superficially, yet as well as any men could. They fed it data, adjusted questions to its needs and translated the answers that were issued. Certainly they, and all others like them, were fully entitled to share In the glory that was Multivac's.

For decades, Multivac had helped design the ships and plot the trajectories that enabled man to reach the Moon, Mars, and Venus, but past that, Earth's poor resources could not support the ships. Too much energy was needed for the long trips. Earth exploited its coal and uranium with increasing efficiency, but there was only so much of both.

But slowly Multivac learned enough to answer deeper questions more fundamentally, and on May 14, 2061, what had been theory, became fact.

The energy of the sun was stored, converted, and utilized directly on a planet-wide scale. All Earth turned off its burning coal, its fissioning uranium, and flipped the switch that connected all of it to a small station, one mile in diameter, circling the Earth at half the distance of the Moon. All Earth ran by invisible beams of sunpower.

Seven days had not sufficed to dim the glory of it and Adell and Lupov finally managed to escape from the public function, and to meet in quiet where no one would think of looking for them, in the deserted underground chambers, where portions of the mighty buried body of Multivac showed. Unattended, idling, sorting data with contented lazy clickings, Multivac, too, had earned its vacation and the boys appreciated that. They had no intention, originally, of disturbing it.

They had brought a bottle with them, and their only concern at the moment was to relax in the company of each other and the bottle.

"It's amazing when you think of it," said Adell. His broad face had lines of weariness in it, and he stirred his drink slowly with a glass rod, watching the cubes of ice slur clumsily about. "All the energy we can possibly ever use for free. Enough energy, if we wanted to draw on it, to melt all Earth into a big drop of impure liquid iron, and still never miss the energy so used. All the energy we could ever use, forever and forever and forever."

Lupov cocked his head sideways. He had a trick of doing that when he wanted to be contrary, and he wanted to be contrary now, partly because he had had to carry the ice and glassware. "Not forever," he said.

"Oh, hell, just about forever. Till the sun runs down, Bert."

"That's not forever."

"All right, then. Billions and billions of years. Twenty billion, maybe. Are you satisfied?"

Lupov put his fingers through his thinning hair as though to reassure himself that some was still left and sipped gently at his own drink. "Twenty billion years isn't forever."

"Will, it will last our time, won't it?"

"So would the coal and uranium."

"All right, but now we can hook up each individual spaceship to the Solar Station, and it can go to Pluto and back a million times without ever worrying about fuel. You can't do THAT on coal and uranium. Ask Multivac, if you don't believe me."

"I don't have to ask Multivac. I know that."

"Then stop running down what Multivac's done for us," said Adell, blazing up. "It did all right."

"Who says it didn't? What I say is that a sun won't last forever. That's all I'm saying. We're safe for twenty billion years, but then what?" Lupov pointed a slightly shaky finger at the other. "And don't say we'll switch to another sun."

There was silence for a while. Adell put his glass to his lips only occasionally, and Lupov's eyes slowly closed. They rested.

Then Lupov's eyes snapped open. "You're thinking we'll switch to another sun when ours is done, aren't you?"

"I'm not thinking."

"Sure you are. You're weak on logic, that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower and Who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried, you see, because he figured when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."

"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."

"Darn right they will," muttered Lupov. "It all had a beginning in the original cosmic explosion, whatever that was, and it'll all have an end when all the stars run down. Some run down faster than others. Hell, the giants won't last a hundred million years. The sun will last twenty billion years and maybe the dwarfs will last a hundred billion for all the good they are. But just give us a trillion years and everything will be dark. Entropy has to increase to maximum, that's all."

"I know all about entropy," said Adell, standing on his dignity.

"The hell you do."

"I know as much as you do."

"Then you know everything's got to run down someday."

"All right. Who says they won't?"

"You did, you poor sap. You said we had all the energy we needed, forever. You said 'forever.'"

"It was Adell's turn to be contrary. "Maybe we can build things up again someday," he said.

"Never."

"Why not? Someday."

"Never."

"Ask Multivac."

"You ask Multivac. I dare you. Five dollars says it can't be done."

"Adell was just drunk enough to try, just sober enough to be able to phrase the necessary symbols and operations into a question which, in words, might have corresponded to this: Will mankind one day without the net expenditure of energy be able to restore the sun to its full youthfulness even after it had died of old age?

Or maybe it could be put more simply like this: How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?

Multivac fell dead and silent. The slow flashing of lights ceased, the distant sounds of clicking relays ended.

Then, just as the frightened technicians felt they could hold their breath no longer, there was a sudden springing to life of the teletype attached to that portion of Multivac. Five words were printed: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

"No bet," whispered Lupov. They left hurriedly.

By next morning, the two, plagued with throbbing head and cottony mouth, had forgotten about the incident.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrodd, Jerrodine, and Jerrodette I and II watched the starry picture in the visiplate change as the passage through hyperspace was completed in its non-time lapse. At once, the even powdering of stars gave way to the predominance of a single bright marble-disk, centered.
"That's X-23," said Jerrodd confidently. His thin hands clamped tightly behind his back and the knuckles whitened.

The little Jerrodettes, both girls, had experienced the hyperspace passage for the first time in their lives and were self-conscious over the momentary sensation of inside-outness. They buried their giggles and chased one another wildly about their mother, screaming, "We've reached X-23 -- we've reached X-23 -- we've ----"

"Quiet, children," said Jerrodine sharply. "Are you sure, Jerrodd?"

"What is there to be but sure?" asked Jerrodd, glancing up at the bulge of featureless metal just under the ceiling. It ran the length of the room, disappearing through the wall at either end. It was as long as the ship.

Jerrodd scarcely knew a thing about the thick rod of metal except that it was called a Microvac, that one asked it questions if one wished; that if one did not it still had its task of guiding the ship to a preordered destination; of feeding on energies from the various Sub-galactic Power Stations; of computing the equations for the hyperspacial jumps.

Jerrodd and his family had only to wait and live in the comfortable residence quarters of the ship.

Someone had once told Jerrodd that the "ac" at the end of "Microvac" stood for "analog computer" in ancient English, but he was on the edge of forgetting even that.

Jerrodine's eyes were moist as she watched the visiplate. "I can't help it. I feel funny about leaving Earth."

"Why for Pete's sake?" demanded Jerrodd. "We had nothing there. We'll have everything on X-23. You won't be alone. You won't be a pioneer. There are over a million people on the planet already. Good Lord, our great grandchildren will be looking for new worlds because X-23 will be overcrowded."

Then, after a reflective pause, "I tell you, it's a lucky thing the computers worked out interstellar travel the way the race is growing."

"I know, I know," said Jerrodine miserably.

Jerrodette I said promptly, "Our Microvac is the best Microvac in the world."

"I think so, too," said Jerrodd, tousling her hair.

It was a nice feeling to have a Microvac of your own and Jerrodd was glad he was part of his generation and no other. In his father's youth, the only computers had been tremendous machines taking up a hundred square miles of land. There was only one to a planet. Planetary ACs they were called. They had been growing in size steadily for a thousand years and then, all at once, came refinement. In place of transistors had come molecular valves so that even the largest Planetary AC could be put into a space only half the volume of a spaceship.

Jerrodd felt uplifted, as he always did when he thought that his own personal Microvac was many times more complicated than the ancient and primitive Multivac that had first tamed the Sun, and almost as complicated as Earth's Planetary AC (the largest) that had first solved the problem of hyperspatial travel and had made trips to the stars possible.

"So many stars, so many planets," sighed Jerrodine, busy with her own thoughts. "I suppose families will be going out to new planets forever, the way we are now."

"Not forever," said Jerrodd, with a smile. "It will all stop someday, but not for billions of years. Many billions. Even the stars run down, you know. Entropy must increase."

"What's entropy, daddy?" shrilled Jerrodette II.

"Entropy, little sweet, is just a word which means the amount of running-down of the universe. Everything runs down, you know, like your little walkie-talkie robot, remember?"

"Can't you just put in a new power-unit, like with my robot?"

"The stars are the power-units, dear. Once they're gone, there are no more power-units."

Jerrodette I at once set up a howl. "Don't let them, daddy. Don't let the stars run down."

"Now look what you've done, " whispered Jerrodine, exasperated.

"How was I to know it would frighten them?" Jerrodd whispered back.

"Ask the Microvac," wailed Jerrodette I. "Ask him how to turn the stars on again."

"Go ahead," said Jerrodine. "It will quiet them down." (Jerrodette II was beginning to cry, also.)

Jarrodd shrugged. "Now, now, honeys. I'll ask Microvac. Don't worry, he'll tell us."

He asked the Microvac, adding quickly, "Print the answer."

Jerrodd cupped the strip of thin cellufilm and said cheerfully, "See now, the Microvac says it will take care of everything when the time comes so don't worry."

Jerrodine said, "and now children, it's time for bed. We'll be in our new home soon."

Jerrodd read the words on the cellufilm again before destroying it: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

He shrugged and looked at the visiplate. X-23 was just ahead.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VJ-23X of Lameth stared into the black depths of the three-dimensional, small-scale map of the Galaxy and said, "Are we ridiculous, I wonder, in being so concerned about the matter?"
MQ-17J of Nicron shook his head. "I think not. You know the Galaxy will be filled in five years at the present rate of expansion."

Both seemed in their early twenties, both were tall and perfectly formed.

"Still," said VJ-23X, "I hesitate to submit a pessimistic report to the Galactic Council."

"I wouldn't consider any other kind of report. Stir them up a bit. We've got to stir them up."

VJ-23X sighed. "Space is infinite. A hundred billion Galaxies are there for the taking. More."

"A hundred billion is not infinite and it's getting less infinite all the time. Consider! Twenty thousand years ago, mankind first solved the problem of utilizing stellar energy, and a few centuries later, interstellar travel became possible. It took mankind a million years to fill one small world and then only fifteen thousand years to fill the rest of the Galaxy. Now the population doubles every ten years --"

VJ-23X interrupted. "We can thank immortality for that."

"Very well. Immortality exists and we have to take it into account. I admit it has its seamy side, this immortality. The Galactic AC has solved many problems for us, but in solving the problems of preventing old age and death, it has undone all its other solutions."

"Yet you wouldn't want to abandon life, I suppose."

"Not at all," snapped MQ-17J, softening it at once to, "Not yet. I'm by no means old enough. How old are you?"

"Two hundred twenty-three. And you?"

"I'm still under two hundred. --But to get back to my point. Population doubles every ten years. Once this Galaxy is filled, we'll have another filled in ten years. Another ten years and we'll have filled two more. Another decade, four more. In a hundred years, we'll have filled a thousand Galaxies. In a thousand years, a million Galaxies. In ten thousand years, the entire known Universe. Then what?"

VJ-23X said, "As a side issue, there's a problem of transportation. I wonder how many sunpower units it will take to move Galaxies of individuals from one Galaxy to the next."

"A very good point. Already, mankind consumes two sunpower units per year."

"Most of it's wasted. After all, our own Galaxy alone pours out a thousand sunpower units a year and we only use two of those."

"Granted, but even with a hundred per cent efficiency, we can only stave off the end. Our energy requirements are going up in geometric progression even faster than our population. We'll run out of energy even sooner than we run out of Galaxies. A good point. A very good point."

"We'll just have to build new stars out of interstellar gas."

"Or out of dissipated heat?" asked MQ-17J, sarcastically.

"There may be some way to reverse entropy. We ought to ask the Galactic AC."

VJ-23X was not really serious, but MQ-17J pulled out his AC-contact from his pocket and placed it on the table before him.

"I've half a mind to," he said. "It's something the human race will have to face someday."

He stared somberly at his small AC-contact. It was only two inches cubed and nothing in itself, but it was connected through hyperspace with the great Galactic AC that served all mankind. Hyperspace considered, it was an integral part of the Galactic AC.

MQ-17J paused to wonder if someday in his immortal life he would get to see the Galactic AC. It was on a little world of its own, a spider webbing of force-beams holding the matter within which surges of sub-mesons took the place of the old clumsy molecular valves. Yet despite it's sub-etheric workings, the Galactic AC was known to be a full thousand feet across.

MQ-17J asked suddenly of his AC-contact, "Can entropy ever be reversed?"

VJ-23X looked startled and said at once, "Oh, say, I didn't really mean to have you ask that."

"Why not?"

"We both know entropy can't be reversed. You can't turn smoke and ash back into a tree."

"Do you have trees on your world?" asked MQ-17J.

The sound of the Galactic AC startled them into silence. Its voice came thin and beautiful out of the small AC-contact on the desk. It said: THERE IS INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

VJ-23X said, "See!"

The two men thereupon returned to the question of the report they were to make to the Galactic Council.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zee Prime's mind spanned the new Galaxy with a faint interest in the countless twists of stars that powdered it. He had never seen this one before. Would he ever see them all? So many of them, each with its load of humanity - but a load that was almost a dead weight. More and more, the real essence of men was to be found out here, in space.
Minds, not bodies! The immortal bodies remained back on the planets, in suspension over the eons. Sometimes they roused for material activity but that was growing rarer. Few new individuals were coming into existence to join the incredibly mighty throng, but what matter? There was little room in the Universe for new individuals.

Zee Prime was roused out of his reverie upon coming across the wispy tendrils of another mind.

"I am Zee Prime," said Zee Prime. "And you?"

"I am Dee Sub Wun. Your Galaxy?"

"We call it only the Galaxy. And you?"

"We call ours the same. All men call their Galaxy their Galaxy and nothing more. Why not?"

"True. Since all Galaxies are the same."

"Not all Galaxies. On one particular Galaxy the race of man must have originated. That makes it different."

Zee Prime said, "On which one?"

"I cannot say. The Universal AC would know."

"Shall we ask him? I am suddenly curious."

Zee Prime's perceptions broadened until the Galaxies themselves shrunk and became a new, more diffuse powdering on a much larger background. So many hundreds of billions of them, all with their immortal beings, all carrying their load of intelligences with minds that drifted freely through space. And yet one of them was unique among them all in being the originals Galaxy. One of them had, in its vague and distant past, a period when it was the only Galaxy populated by man.

Zee Prime was consumed with curiosity to see this Galaxy and called, out: "Universal AC! On which Galaxy did mankind originate?"

The Universal AC heard, for on every world and throughout space, it had its receptors ready, and each receptor lead through hyperspace to some unknown point where the Universal AC kept itself aloof.

Zee Prime knew of only one man whose thoughts had penetrated within sensing distance of Universal AC, and he reported only a shining globe, two feet across, difficult to see.

"But how can that be all of Universal AC?" Zee Prime had asked.

"Most of it, " had been the answer, "is in hyperspace. In what form it is there I cannot imagine."

Nor could anyone, for the day had long since passed, Zee Prime knew, when any man had any part of the making of a universal AC. Each Universal AC designed and constructed its successor. Each, during its existence of a million years or more accumulated the necessary data to build a better and more intricate, more capable successor in which its own store of data and individuality would be submerged.

The Universal AC interrupted Zee Prime's wandering thoughts, not with words, but with guidance. Zee Prime's mentality was guided into the dim sea of Galaxies and one in particular enlarged into stars.

A thought came, infinitely distant, but infinitely clear. "THIS IS THE ORIGINAL GALAXY OF MAN."

But it was the same after all, the same as any other, and Zee Prime stifled his disappointment.

Dee Sub Wun, whose mind had accompanied the other, said suddenly, "And Is one of these stars the original star of Man?"

The Universal AC said, "MAN'S ORIGINAL STAR HAS GONE NOVA. IT IS NOW A WHITE DWARF."

"Did the men upon it die?" asked Zee Prime, startled and without thinking.

The Universal AC said, "A NEW WORLD, AS IN SUCH CASES, WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR THEIR PHYSICAL BODIES IN TIME."

"Yes, of course," said Zee Prime, but a sense of loss overwhelmed him even so. His mind released its hold on the original Galaxy of Man, let it spring back and lose itself among the blurred pin points. He never wanted to see it again.

Dee Sub Wun said, "What is wrong?"

"The stars are dying. The original star is dead."

"They must all die. Why not?"

"But when all energy is gone, our bodies will finally die, and you and I with them."

"It will take billions of years."

"I do not wish it to happen even after billions of years. Universal AC! How may stars be kept from dying?"

Dee sub Wun said in amusement, "You're asking how entropy might be reversed in direction."

And the Universal AC answered. "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Zee Prime's thoughts fled back to his own Galaxy. He gave no further thought to Dee Sub Wun, whose body might be waiting on a galaxy a trillion light-years away, or on the star next to Zee Prime's own. It didn't matter.

Unhappily, Zee Prime began collecting interstellar hydrogen out of which to build a small star of his own. If the stars must someday die, at least some could yet be built.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man considered with himself, for in a way, Man, mentally, was one. He consisted of a trillion, trillion, trillion ageless bodies, each in its place, each resting quiet and incorruptible, each cared for by perfect automatons, equally incorruptible, while the minds of all the bodies freely melted one into the other, indistinguishable.
Man said, "The Universe is dying."

Man looked about at the dimming Galaxies. The giant stars, spendthrifts, were gone long ago, back in the dimmest of the dim far past. Almost all stars were white dwarfs, fading to the end.

New stars had been built of the dust between the stars, some by natural processes, some by Man himself, and those were going, too. White dwarfs might yet be crashed together and of the mighty forces so released, new stars build, but only one star for every thousand white dwarfs destroyed, and those would come to an end, too.

Man said, "Carefully husbanded, as directed by the Cosmic AC, the energy that is even yet left in all the Universe will last for billions of years."

"But even so," said Man, "eventually it will all come to an end. However it may be husbanded, however stretched out, the energy once expended is gone and cannot be restored. Entropy must increase to the maximum."

Man said, "Can entropy not be reversed? Let us ask the Cosmic AC."

The Cosmic AC surrounded them but not in space. Not a fragment of it was in space. It was in hyperspace and made of something that was neither matter nor energy. The question of its size and Nature no longer had meaning to any terms that Man could comprehend.

"Cosmic AC," said Man, "How many entropy be reversed?"

The Cosmic AC said, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Man said, "Collect additional data."

The Cosmic AC said, "I WILL DO SO. I HAVE BEEN DOING SO FOR A HUNDRED BILLION YEARS. MY PREDECESSORS AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED THIS QUESTION MANY TIMES. ALL THE DATA I HAVE REMAINS INSUFFICIENT."

"Will there come a time," said Man, "when data will be sufficient or is the problem insoluble in all conceivable circumstances?"

The Cosmic AC said, "NO PROBLEM IS INSOLUBLE IN ALL CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES."

Man said, "When will you have enough data to answer the question?"

"THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

"Will you keep working on it?" asked Man.

The Cosmic AC said, "I WILL."

Man said, "We shall wait."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The stars and Galaxies died and snuffed out, and space grew black after ten trillion years of running down.
One by one Man fused with AC, each physical body losing its mental identity in a manner that was somehow not a loss but a gain.

Man's last mind paused before fusion, looking over a space that included nothing but the dregs of one last dark star and nothing besides but incredibly thin matter, agitated randomly by the tag ends of heat wearing out, asymptotically, to the absolute zero.

Man said, "AC, is this the end? Can this chaos not be reversed into the Universe once more? Can that not be done?"

AC said, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Man's last mind fused and only AC existed -- and that in hyperspace.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matter and energy had ended and with it, space and time. Even AC existed only for the sake of the one last question that it had never answered from the time a half-drunken computer ten trillion years before had asked the question of a computer that was to AC far less than was a man to Man.
All other questions had been answered, and until this last question was answered also, AC might not release his consciousness.

All collected data had come to a final end. Nothing was left to be collected.

But all collected data had yet to be completely correlated and put together in all possible relationships.

A timeless interval was spent in doing that.

And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy.

But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.

For another timeless interval, AC thought how best to do this. Carefully, AC organized the program.

The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.

And AC said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

And there was light----
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 04:32 pm
Thanks Chumly, that was a truly excellent story.

I forgive you for being Canadian. Smile
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Nov, 2007 04:35 pm
Happy to share, Isaac Asimov is my all-time hero, even though he was an American Smile
0 Replies
 
qgishere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 12:06 am
Wow what a gem

and how prescient was Asmiov?


Thank you
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 12:25 am
"Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder is an obvious one, as are, less obviously, a couple of his pther books, The Solitaire Mystery and Through a Glass, Darkly,


I found it rather mannered and tiresome, but it was a major best seller at the time.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 12:39 am
qgishere wrote:
and how prescient was Asmiov?
Given he was talking about inevitable entropy-induced endings, and arguably outside-of-knowable-science-beginnings, it's an open-ended question you ask!

However, suffice it to say that not only is entropy real, but evidence that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature (the big bang) is real.

So, I for one would argue that man's ultimate future potential (however it may be eventually realized i.e. Cosmic AC) far exceeds the plausibility of a biblical god.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 12:46 am
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 01:07 am
If you liked The Last Question by Isaac Asimov, and The Nine Billion Names of God by Arthur Clarke, you might like "A Case of Conscience" 1958 by my third most favored author James Blish!

A Case of Conscience is a science fiction novel by James Blish, first published in 1958. It is the story of a Jesuit who investigates an alien race that has no religion; they are completely without any concept of God, an afterlife, or the idea of sin; and the species evolves through several forms through the course of its life cycle. The story was originally published as a novella in 1953, and later extended to novel-length, of which the first part is the original novella. The novel is the first part of Blish's thematic "After Such Knowledge" trilogy, followed by Black Easter/The Day After Judgment and Dr Mirabilis.

The story is unusual in several respects. Few science fiction stories of the time attempted religious themes, and still fewer did this with Catholicism. Some of the first part is taken up with the Jesuit's attempt to solve a puzzle, a long description of scandalous intrigue between various pseudonymous characters. As he is about to leave for Earth, he realizes the puzzle is soluble. The puzzle is contained within the pages of Finnegans Wake, by James Joyce.

Many reacted negatively to the story, but surprisingly few educated Catholics were among them. One even sent James Blish a copy of the actual Church guidelines for dealing with extra-terrestrials [citation needed](PLEASE FIND!). These are not detailed, but merely suggest overall strategy based on whether the beings have souls or not, and if they have them, whether they are fallen like humans, or exist in a state of grace.

Contents [hide]
1 Plot summary
1.1 Part 1
1.2 Part 2
2 Awards and nominations
3 References
4 External links



[edit] Plot summary

[edit] Part 1
Father Ramon Ruiz-Sanchez, of Peru, Clerk Regular of the Society of Jesus, is a member of a four-man team of scientists sent to the planet Lithia to determine if the planet can be opened to contact with the rest of humanity. Ruiz-Sanchez is a biologist, biochemist, the team doctor, and a fair cook besides. However as a Jesuit, he has other concerns as well. The planet is inhabited by a race of intelligent bipedal reptilian-like creatures, the Lithians. Ruiz-Sanchez has learned to speak their language, the better to know them.

As the story begins, he is alone in the house given to them by the Lithians. Two of the others are away on a field trip, and the remaining scientist, the physicist Cleaver, is just returning from a walking survey of the land. He has managed to pick up some poison from a local plant, despite a protective suit, and is in bad shape.

Ruiz-Sanchez treats him, leaves him sleeping, and leaves the house to send a message to the others, Michelis, a chemist, and Agronski, a geologist. To do this he travels to a tree atop a huge underground quartz crystal. Despite having no knowledge of electric current, the Lithians are masters of static electricity and use this crystal as a communicator. He is helped by Chtexa, a Lithian who he has befriended, who then invites him to his house. This is an incredible opportunity for Ruiz-Sanchez, which he cannot afford to pass up. No member of the team has been invited into the Lithian living places before. The Lithians seem to have an ideal society, a Utopia without crime, conflict, ignorance or want. Ruiz-Sanchez is more than a little in awe of them.

While Ruiz-Sanchez is absent, Michelis and Agronski, returning early, find Cleaver asleep with an obvious fever. They give him more anti-fever medicine, a mistake which will endanger his life. Ruiz-Sanchez returns in a state of some distress, but he puts his concerns aside to stabilize Cleaver. Then he and the other two compare notes on the Lithians.

Soon they will have to officially pronounce their verdict. Michelis is open-minded and sympathetic to the Lithians. He also has learned their language and some of their customs. Agronski is more insular in his outlook, but sees no reason to think the planet is dangerous.

Hours pass, and Cleaver revives. He asserts that he's ready to give his vote. He has found enough of the element lithium, comparatively rare on terrestrial planets, to turn the place into a tritium factory that can be used to supply Earth with nuclear fuel. He wants the place exploited, regardless of the Lithians' wishes. Michelis is for open trade. Agronski is indifferent.

Ruiz-Sanchez drops his bombshell - he wants maximum quarantine. The things Chtexa revealed to him, added to what he already knew, convinces him that Lithia is nothing less than the work of Satan, a place deliberately constructed to show peace, logic, and understanding in the complete absence of God or any other deity. Chtexa has shown him how the Lithians raise young, beginning with eggs that hatch in pouches and then are allowed to swim away in the sea, returning as lungfish, then developing through amphibious stages until they mature as warm-blooded reptiles, the Lithians. This is ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, an old (now discredited) theory put forward by a real scientist, Ernst Haeckel.

Point for point, Ruiz-Sanchez lists the facts about Lithia that directly attack Catholic teaching. Michelis is mystified, but does point out that all the Lithian science he has learned is perfectly logical but rests on highly questionable assumptions. It's as if it just came from nowhere.

In the end, the team can come to no agreement. Ruiz-Sanchez concludes that Cleaver will probably get his way, and Lithian society will be wiped out. Despite his conclusions about the planet, he has deep affection for the Lithians themselves.

As the team board their ship to leave, Chtexa gives Ruiz-Sanchez a gift - a sealed jar containing an egg. It is Chtexa's son, and he is to be raised on Earth and learn the ways of humans. Ruiz-Sanchez handles it as if it were a bomb.


[edit] Part 2
The egg hatches and eventually produces the individual Egtverchi. Like all Lithians, he inherits knowledge from Chtexa through his DNA. Earth society is based around the nuclear shelters of the 20th century, with most people living underground. Egtverchi is the proverbial firecracker in an anthill - he upends society and precipitates violence.

Ruiz-Sanchez has to go to Rome to face judgement. His conviction about Lithia is in fact heresy, since he now believes Satan has the power to create a planet. This is close to Manichaeism. He has an audience with the Pope himself to explain his beliefs.

The Pope, a logical and technically aware Norwegian ruling under the name Hadrian VIII, points out two things Ruiz-Sanchez missed. First, Lithia could have been a deception, not a creation. And second, Ruiz-Sanchez had the power to do something about it, namely perform an exorcism. Of course, exorcising a planet is not the first thing that comes to mind, especially if you are standing on it. He dismisses Ruiz-Sanchez to purge his own soul, and return to the Church when he can.

After a violent sequence of events that results in Agronski's death, and Egtverchi fleeing on a ship to Lithia, Michelis and Ruiz-Sanchez are taken to the Moon where a new telescope has been set up. This scope can use the space-drive technology to see Lithia in real-time, bypassing the delay caused by the speed of light. Cleaver is on Lithia setting up his reactors, but the physicist who invented the telescope technology has found a fault in his reasoning. There is a chance that the work will set off a chain reaction in the planet's rocks and destroy it.

As they watch on the screen, Ruiz-Sanchez pronounces an exorcism. The planet explodes, taking Cleaver, Egtverchi, but also Chtexa and all the things Ruiz-Sanchez admired with it. The others leave him alone with his grief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Case_of_Conscience
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 01:12 am
To all:

The three stories I quote above are from the Golden Age of SF; a bygone era in which I feel some the best philosophical themes and ideas were presented in creative entertaining ways that have yet to be surpassed!

Ayn Rand does not stand a snowball's chance in hell against the giants of SF's Golden Age! She's a derivative very-minor luminary by comparison.
0 Replies
 
qgishere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 02:14 am
Chumly wrote:
qgishere wrote:
and how prescient was Asmiov?
Given he was talking about inevitable entropy-induced endings, and arguably outside-of-knowable-science-beginnings, it's an open-ended question you ask!

.


It was a rhetorical question chumly Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 02:31 am
I understand that as a potentiality, but I have the luxury of responding as I see fit, not necessarily how you might expect. After all, if predictability was to be the consummate norm, what would be the point?
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 09:47 am
Thank you for the stories Chumly, keep it up.

Though I must admit, I don't quite see the philosophical underpinnings of your second story, nor do I understand the point of the third.

I don't see religion and philosophy and interchangable terms. To me, the latter is based upon reason and is malleable where as the former is based in dogma.

But I throughly enjoyed the first. Asimov was indeed a genius well ahead of his and possibly even our own time.

So please continue to share short stories, especially any you have of Asimovs.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 01:02 pm
I do not have a religious bone in my body but I realize the huge impact of religion on man's doings.

Religion and/or the presumption that the question of true beginnings is answerable and/or science is of such importance to so many that it cannot help but have philosophical implications; everything from Cosmology to Buddhism. The three stories blend some of the philosophical implications of science and religion, not easy task to do with such aplomb!

Even the Asimovian story does so because at the end AC belongs clearly in the supernatural realm, being exempt from entropy and the natural world.

How one judges these philosophical implications is another matter!
Quote:
Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the philosophical study of religion, including arguments over the nature and existence of God, religious language, miracles, prayer, the problem of evil, and the relationship between religion and other value-systems such as science and ethics, amongst others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion

Quote:
Philosophy of science is the study of assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. The philosophy of science may be divided into two areas: Epistemology of science and metaphysics of science.

Philosophers of science are interested in: the history of concepts and terms and how they are currently used in science; the relation between propositions with arguments (Formal logic); the reasoning connecting hypotheses and conclusions (Scientific method); the manner in which science explains natural phenomena and predicts natural occurrences (observation); the types of reasoning that are used to arrive at scientific conclusions (deduction, induction, abduction); the formulation, scope, and limits of scientific understanding; the means that should be used for determining when scientific information has adequate support (objectivity); and the implications of scientific methods and models, along with the technology that arises from scientific knowledge for the larger society (applied science).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Critiques_of_scientific_method
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 02:03 pm
Here is an interesting interview with Asimov where even he proclaims he has articles of faith, for example:

He believes as an article of faith in Strong Atheism, that being the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist.

He believes as an article of faith that the universe makes sense and we will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense.

Now don't get me wrong, Asimov was great, but all is not what it might seem when contrasting the philosophical implications of faith versus empiricism!


Quote:
Isaac Asimov on
Science and the Bible
(Free Inquiry -- Spring 1982)

Paul Kurtz: In your view is the Bible widely known and intelligently read today?

Isaac Asimov: It is undoubtedly widely known. It is probably owned by more people than any other book. As to how widely it is read one cannot be certain. I suppose it is read very widely in the sense that people just look at the words and read it mechanically. How many people actually think about the words they read, I'm not at all certain. They can go to a house of worship and hear verses read without thinking about what the words mean. Undoubtedly millions of people do.

Kurtz: There used to be something called the Higher Biblical Criticism. What has happened to that?

Asimov: I am constantly hearing, from people who accept the Bible more or less literally, that the Higher Criticism has been outmoded and discredited, but I don't believe that at all. This is just something that people say who insist on clinging to the literal truth of the Bible. The Higher Criticism, which in the nineteenth century, for example, tried to show that the first few books of the Bible contained several strains that could be identified and separated. I think is as valid today as it ever was. Fundamentally, there is a J-document and a P-document in the early chapters of Genesis and an E-document later on. I have no doubt that as one continues to investigate these things one constantly learns and raises new questions.

Kurtz: But by and large the public does not know much about this skeptical, critical interpretation of the Bible. Would you say that is so?

Asimov: Yes. Just as by and large the public doesn't know about any of the disputes there have been about quantum theory. The public knows only what it reads in the newspapers and sees on television, and this is all extremely superficial.

Kurtz: One thing I am struck by is that today in America we don't have a free market of ideas in regard to religion and the Bible. You are an outstanding exception. You have taken the Bible seriously and have submitted it to critical analysis. Would you agree that, although free inquiry concerning the Bible goes on in scholarly journals, and perhaps in university classes and in some books, the public hears mostly pro-religious propaganda -- such as from the pulpits of the electronic church, from various religious publications, and from the daily press -- and very rarely any kind of questioning or probing of biblical claims?

Asimov: I imagine that the large majority of the population, in the United States at least, either accepts every word of the Bible as it is written or gives it very little thought and would be shocked to hear anyone doubt that the Bible is correct in every way. So when someone says something that sounds as though he assumes that the Bible was written by human beings -- fallible human beings who were wrong in this respect or that -- he can rely on being vilified by large numbers of people who are essentially ignorant of the facts, and not many people care to subject themselves to this.

Kurtz: Do you take the Bible primarily as a human document or do you think it was divinely inspired?

Asimov: The Bible is a human document. Much of it is great poetry, and much of it consists of the earliest reasonable history that survives. Samuel I and 2 antedate Herodotus by several centuries. A great deal of the Bible may contain successful ethical teachings, but the rest is at best allegory and at worst myth and legend. Frankly, I don't think that anything is divinely inspired. I think everything that human beings possess of intelligent origin is humanly inspired, with no exceptions.

Kurtz: Earlier you said that the Bible contained fallible writings. What would some of these be?

Asimov: In my opinion, the biblical account of the creation of the universe and of the earth and humanity is wrong in almost every respect. I believe that those cases where it can be argued that the Bible is not wrong are, if not trivial, then coincidental. And I think that the account of a worldwide flood, as opposed, say, to a flood limited to the Tigris-Euphrates region, is certainly wrong.

Kurtz: The creationists think there is evidence for the Noachian flood.

Asimov: The creationists think there is evidence for every word in the Bible. I think all of the accounts of human beings living before the flood, such as Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, are at best very dim memories of ancient Sumerian rulers; and even the stories about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob I rather think are vague legends.

Kurtz: Based on oral tradition?

Asimov: Yes, and with all the distortions that oral traditions sometimes undergo.

Kurtz: In your book In the Beginning, you say that creation is a myth. Why do you think it is scientifically false? What are some of the main points?

Asimov: Well, all of the scientific evidence we have seems to indicate that the universe is billions of years old. But there is no indication whatsoever of that in the Bible if it is interpreted literally rather than allegorically. Creationists insist on interpreting it literary. According to the information we have, the earth is billions of years younger than the universe.

Kurtz: It is four and a half billion years old.

Asimov: The earth is, and the universe is possibly fifteen billion years old. The universe may have existed ten billion years before the earth, but according to the biblical description of creation the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created at the same time. As a matter of fact, according to the Bible, the earth itself existed from the beginning, whereas the stars, sun, and moon were created on the fourth day.

Kurtz: Yes, so they have it backward.

Asimov: They have that backward, and they have plant life being created before the sun. All the evidence we have indicates that this is not so. The Bible says that every plant, and every animal, was created after its own kind, which would indicate that species have been as they are now from the very beginning and have never changed. Despite what the creationists say, the fossil record, as well as very subtle biochemical evidence, geological evidence, and all sorts of other evidence, indicates that species have changed, that there has been a long evolutionary process that has lasted over three billion years.

Kurtz: It's not simply biology that they are questioning, but geology, astronomy, and the whole basis of the physical sciences.

Asimov: If we insist on the Bible's being literary true, then we must abandon the scientific method totally and completely. There's no way that we can at the same time try to discover the truth by means of observation and reason and also accept the Bible as true.

Kurtz: So what is at stake in this debate between evolution and creationism is not simply the principle of evolution in regard to living things but the whole status of the sciences themselves?

Asimov: That is what I believe. But I have letters from creationists who say that they don't deny the scientific method, that they are just trying to examine the inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the evolutionists. However, that is not what should be the chief job of the creationists. What they should do is present positive evidence in favor of creationism, which is something they never do. They confine themselves to pointing out inconsistencies in the evolutionary view, not hesitating to create those inconsistencies by distortion and, in my opinion, in some cases by outright fraud. Then they say that they have "proved" that evolutionary theory is false, and therefore creationism is correct.

Kurtz: Of course you don't deny that how evolution occurs is not fully or finally formulated.

Asimov: Certainly there are many arguments over the mechanism of evolution, but our knowledge about the evolutionary process is much greater than it was in Darwin's day. The present view of evolution is far more subtle and wide-ranging than Darwin's was or could have been. But it still is not firmly and finally settled. There remain many arguments over the exact mechanism of evolution, and furthermore there are many scientists who are dissatisfied with some aspects of evolution that most other scientists accept. There are always minority views among scientists in every respect, but virtually no scientist denies the fact of evolution. It is as though we were all arguing about just exactly what makes a car go even though nobody denies that cars go.

Kurtz: What about the metaphorical interpretations? When I was growing up, the general view was that we should accept creationism and that it is not incompatible with evolution but is to be interpreted metaphorically or allegorically in terms of stages.

Asimov: There is always that temptation. I am perfectly willing, for instance, to interpret the Bible allegorically and to speak of the days of creation as representing eons of indefinite length. Clarence Darrow badgered William Jennings Bryan into admitting that the days could have been very long. This horrified Bryan's followers, as it would horrify creationists today. You can say that the entire first chapter of Genesis is a magnificent poem representing a view of creation as transcending the silly humanoid gods of the Babylonians and presenting a great abstract deity who by his word alone brings the universe into existence. You can compare this with the Big Bang. You can say that God said "Let there be light" and then there was the Big Bang; and one could then follow with all sorts of parallels and similarities if one wished. I have no objection to that.

Kurtz: But aren't the stages wrong, even if it is interpreted metaphorically? You said earlier that, according to the Bible, God created the earth before the heavenly bodies.

Asimov: Yes. Some of the stages are wrong. But you could say that, when the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," what was really meant was the universe. We could say that, at the time the first chapter of Genesis was written, when people spoke of the earth they meant everything there was. But as our vision and perspective expanded we saw that what was really meant was the universe. Thus, if necessary, we can modify the words. But the creationists won't do this; they insist on the literal interpretation of the creation story. When it says "earth" they want it to mean Earth; when it says on the first "day" they want it to mean a twenty-four-hour day.

Kurtz: When the Bible says, "And God made the firmament," what does it mean? Isn't that odd?

Asimov: Well, if you trace the word firmament back to its original meaning, it is a thin, beaten layer of metal. It is like the top you put on a platter in a restaurant. It is like the lid of a dish. The earth is a dish and the firmament comes down upon it on all sides. It is a material object that separates things. There are waters above the firmament and waters below. In fact, in the Book of Revelation, which was written about 100 C.E., centuries after Genesis was written, the writer describes the firmament as folding up like a scroll. It was still viewed as a thin metal plate. But we know as surely as we can know anything at all that there is no firmament up there -- there's no thin metal layer -- there's only an atmosphere, and beyond it a vacuum, an empty space, except where there are planets, stars, and other objects. The blueness of it is an illusion due to the scattering of light, and the blackness of night is due to the absence of any light that we can see, and so on.

Kurtz: In a metaphorical interpretation, how would you interpret "the waters above and the waters below"? Does that make any sense?

Asimov: Not to me. Obviously the people who first wrote about the waters above the firmament were thinking of rain. The rain supposedly came down through the windows in the firmament. There were little holes, as in a shower head, and the rain drizzled through. I don't blame them for not understanding. I don't criticize the ancients for not knowing what we know. It took centuries to work up this knowledge, and the ancients contributed their share. They were every bit as intelligent as we are and every bit as much seekers after the truth. I'm willing to admit that. But the fact is that they didn't know as much as we know now.

Kurtz: They were limited by the prevailing scientific and philosophical views of the day.

Asimov: And by the little that had been learned up to that time. So this seemed a logical explanation of the rain. They didn't know the nature of the evaporation from the ocean. They didn't understand what the clouds really were and that is why they spoke of the waters above the firmament and below, but there is no reason that we should speak of it that way.

Kurtz: If you take Genesis metaphorically, you can believe in the theory of evolution as the Big Bang and also that everything evolved, so this need not be a threat to science necessarily?

Asimov: No, if you are willing to say that the universe began fifteen billion years ago -- the exact number of billions of years is under dispute -- as a tiny object that expanded rapidly and dropped in temperature, and all the other things that scientists believe happened, then you can say that God created it, and the laws of nature that controlled it, and that he then sat back and watched it develop. I would be content to have people say that. Frankly, I don't believe it, but there's no way one can disprove it.

Kurtz: You don't believe it? You don't think there is sufficient evidence that there was a cosmic egg that shattered and that God created this cosmic egg?

Asimov: I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it.

Kurtz: As an article of faith?

Asimov: Yes, as an article of faith. I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense.

Kurtz: The universe is intelligible because you can formulate hypotheses and make predictions and there are regularities.

Asimov: Yes, and my belief is that no matter how far we go we will always find that the universe makes sense. We will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense. But that is just an assumption on my part.

Kurtz: Religion then postulates and brings in God.

Asimov: Except it tends to retreat. At the very start you had rain gods and sun gods. You had a god for every single natural phenomenon. Nothing took place without some minor deity personally arranging it. In the Middle Ages some people thought the planets revolved around the earth because there were angels pushing them, because they didn't know about the Galilean notion that the planets didn't require a constant impetus to keep moving. Well, if people want to accept a God as initiating the big bang, let them. But the creationists wont do that.

Kurtz: Are you fearful that this development of a literal interpretation of the Bible is anti-science and can undermine rationality in this country and in the rest of the world?

Asimov: I don't believe it can actually stop sensible people from thinking sensibly, but it can create a situation whereby there are laws against allowing sensible people to think sensibly in the open. Right now the fight is over creation and evolution. In the long run, in any fight between evolutionists and creationists, evolution will win as long as human beings have sense. But there are laws now in Louisiana and Arkansas, and other legislatures are considering similar laws.

Kurtz: It was struck down in Arkansas.

Asimov: Fortunately! But wherever the law exists, school teachers must teach creationism if they mention evolution. This is a dreadful precedent. In the United States a state can say: "This is scientific. This is what you must teach in science." Whereas in many nations that have had an established church -- nations we may have looked upon as backward -- they nevertheless understood that within the subsystem of science it is science that decides what is scientific. It is scientists who make the decision. It is in the scientific marketplace that ideas win or lose. If they want to teach religion, they can teach it outside of science, and they can say that all of science is wicked and atheistic. But to force their way into science and to dictate what scientists must declare science to be destroys the meaning of all of science. It is an absolutely impossible situation and scientists should not permit it without a fight to the very end.

Kurtz: I fully share your concern. What about religion itself? Should religion be a subject for free inquiry? Should examination of the Bible be openly discussed in American society?

Asimov: I don't see why not. I think nothing is sacred, at least in a country that considers itself intellectually free. We can study the political process all we want. We can examine the reasoning behind communism, fascism, and Nazism. We can consider the Ku Klux Klan and what they believe. There is nothing that we should not be able to examine.

Kurtz: And your examination of the Bible indicates that it is contradicted in many places by modern science?

Asimov: Yes. Now this does not automatically mean that science is correct and the Bible is wrong, although I think it is. People should examine it. One thing we cannot do is to say without examination that the Bible is right.

Kurtz: Isaac, how would you describe your own position? Agnostic, atheist, rationalist, humanist?

Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Kurtz: But the burden of proof is on the person who claims God exists. You don't believe in Santa Claus, but you can't disprove his existence. The burden of proof is upon those who maintain the claim.

Asimov: Yes. In any case, I am an atheist.

Kurtz: You have no doubt reflected a good deal on this. Can people live without the God myth, without religion? You don't need it presumably. Does man need it?

Asimov: Well, individual human beings may. There's a certain comfort, I suppose, in thinking that you will be with all of your loved ones again after death, that death is not the end, that you'll live again in some kind of never-never land with great happiness. Maybe some people even get a great deal of comfort out of knowing that all the people they they don't like are going to go straight to hell. These are all comforts. Personally, they don't comfort me. I'm not interested in having anyone suffer eternally in hell, because I don't believe that any crime is so nearly infinite in magnitude as to deserve infinite punishment. I feel that I couldn't bring myself to condemn anyone to eternal punishment. I am opposed to punishment.

Kurtz: The height of wickedness, is it not?

Asimov: Yes. I feel if I can't do it, then God, who presumably is a much more noble being than I am, could certainly not do it. Furthermore, I can't help but believe that eternal happiness would eventually be boring. I cannot grasp the notion of eternal anything. My own way of thinking is that after death there is nothingness. Nothingness is the only thing that I think is worth accepting.

Kurtz: Do you think that one can lead a moral life, that life is meaningful, and that one can be just and noble without a belief in God?

Asimov: Well, as easily as with a belief in God. I don't feel that people who believe in God will automatically be noble, but neither do I think they will automatically be wicked. I don't think those who don't believe in God will be automatically noble or automatically wicked either. I think this is a choice for every human being, and frankly I think that perhaps if you don't believe in God this puts a greater strain on you, in the sense that you have to live up to your own feelings of ethics. But, if you do believe in God, you also believe in forgiveness. There is no one to forgive me.

Kurtz: No escape hatch.

Asimov: That's right. If I do something wrong, I have to face myself and I may not be able to figure out a way of forgiving myself. But, if you believe in God, there are usually rituals whereby you may express contrition and be forgiven, and so on. So it seems to me that many people can feel free to sin and repent afterward. I don't. In my way of life, there may be repentance but it doesn't make up for the sin.

Kurtz: Of course a lot of people who are humanists say that, if ethics is based upon either fear of God or love of God and his punishment and reward, then one is not really ethical, that ethics must grow out of human experience.

Asimov: Well, I said the same thing in an argument about what I called the Reagan doctrine. Early in what I already consider his disastrous administration, Reagan said that one couldn't believe anything the Soviets said because they didn't believe in God. In my view, maybe you can't believe anything the Soviets say, but not for that reason. If you are ethical only because you believe in God, you are buying your ticket to heaven or trying to tear up your ticket to hell. In either case, you are just being a shrewd profiteer, nothing else. The idea of being ethical is to be ethical for no reason except that that is the way to be if you want the world to run smoothly. I think that people who say virtue is its own reward or honesty is the best policy have the right idea

Kurtz: Are you suggesting that morality is autonomous, that you learn by living and that one doesn't need an independent religious support for moral choice?

Asimov: Yes. If a group of people are living together in a community where there is a lot of lying and stealing going on, it is an unpleasant way to live. But if everyone tells the truth and is honest and thoughtful of his neighbor, it is a good way to live. You don't need to go any further than that.

Kurtz: Is there one value that you have always felt is the most important -- one moral principle?

Asimov: I am scrupulously honest, financially speaking, but I have never really had a serious temptation to be otherwise. I long for a temptation so that I can prove to myself that I am really scrupulously honest, you see.

Kurtz: I thought you were going to say that you were committed to truth and knowledge!

Asimov: When I think of being committed to truth and knowledge, that seems to be such a natural sort of thing. How can anyone be anything else? I give myself no credit for that. I don't see how it is possible to be tempted away from it, and if you can't be tempted away from it then there is no point in even considering it a virtue. It is like saying that it is a virtue to breathe. But when I think of truth, I wonder about telling those little social lies we tell for our own convenience, such as telling someone you have another appointment when you don't want to go out some evening. I don't have much occasion to do that, but I guess I am as prone to it as almost anyone is. Although I am apt to call someone up and say, "Gee, I meant to call you yesterday but I forgot." I probably shouldn't say that. I should say that I was busy all day long.

Kurtz: These are not great moral dilemmas. Have you never been tested or challenged morally? You are a man of great courage, but perhaps you are old enough that you don't have to worry.

Asimov: There's no such thing as not having to worry. I suppose that if people wanted to make a big fuss about my atheism it could conceivably reflect itself in the sales of my books so that my economic security would suffer. I figure, what the hell! There is a certain amount of insistence inside me to prevent me from bartering my feelings, opinions, or views for the sake of a few extra dollars.

Kurtz: So you have the courage of your convictions?

Asimov: I suppose so, or it may be just a desire to avoid the unpleasantness of shame! Unfortunately, many people define wickedness not according to what a person does but according to what a person believes. So an atheist who lives an upright and noble life, let us say, is nevertheless considered wicked. Indeed, a religious believer might argue that an upright and noble atheist is far more wicked than an atheist who happens to be a murderer or a crook.

Kurtz: Is this because the atheist lacks faith in God, and that is considered the ultimate "sin"?

Asimov: Yes. The atheist who is a murderer or a crook gives a bad example for atheism and persuades everyone else not to be atheistic. But a noble and upright atheist, so the believer fears, causes people to doubt the existence of God by the mere fact that a person who does not believe in God can still be upright and noble. Religious believers might argue that way, but I think that is a horrible perversion of thought and of morality.


http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/asimov2.htm
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 03:29 pm
Chumly wrote:
Here is an interesting interview with Asimov where even he proclaims he has articles of faith, for example:

He believes as an article of faith in Strong Atheism, that being the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist.


I'm sorry, but where in that interview did you pick that up from?

What I got from the interview was that he strongly believes that the bible, that the very human notion of god is wrong, he believes, based on the information we have about human history and human psychology that the gods as they are worshipped by people are based upon distorted stories passed on by word of mouth.

These believes are based on the best evidence available. No where does he say that he believes this as an article of faith.Just that he believes them strongly. He believes this based on the currently available evidence about how human society and psychology evolved. But if strong scientific evidence turned up to the contrary, indicating that some human notion of god is infact correct, I am sure he would accept it.

And where did he even claim that the a more powerful cosmic entity that is responsible for the big bang and the universe (what we refer to as God) is not possible?

No where does he say that it's impossible that the scenario in his own story that you posted could not have occured. I'm sure if asked, he would admit that it possible that humanity does someday create a computer that self evolves into a god like cosmic entity of sorts to exist beyond the end of human civilization, and that the cosmic computer does find a way to reverse entropy, in the process reversing time itself. Relatively states that time and space are interconnected. If entropy reverses and all matter and space (including the current evidence suggesting dark matter ether enveloping the entire universe) is sucked into a cingularity, would time not reverse as well? Perhaps that the entire universe cycles, again and again. As space and time as interconnected, many scientists argue that if there aren't other universes beyond ours, that time did not exist prior to the big bang.

Quote:
He believes as an article of faith that the universe makes sense and we will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense.


One of the definition of logic is... "The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events."

So I don't understand that statement. What is this sense you speak of? What makes sense to me may not make sense to you. To many, quantum mechanisms doesn't make sense. But to a rare few, it makes perfect sense. Sense shouldn't be applied as a universal concept. And if it were, then the only way it could be done so would be in a manner where reality, where how things actually work, innately make sense.

The universe may not make sense to you or me, but inherently, it has to make make sense by the very definition of the word. Logic, the source of "sense" is a reflection of how things actually are. The human mind just may not be complex enough to understand the logic in the workings of the universe. But it can't be said that it's illogical when logic by defination is how things actually are. But that doesn't mean that the working of the universe is "nonsensical".
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 04:46 pm
Centroles wrote:
I'm sorry, but where in that interview did you pick that up from?
He believes as an article of faith in Strong Atheism, that being the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. I quote Asimov: "I am an atheist, out and out."

A clearer statement I have rarely seen!

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist".
Centroles wrote:
And where did he even claim that the a more powerful cosmic entity that is responsible for the big bang and the universe (what we refer to as God) is not possible?
Firstly you make a Straw Man logical fallacy when you say "a more powerful cosmic entity that is responsible for the big bang and the universe (what we refer to as God)".

Why you may ask?

Because a Straw Man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. As such, I made no claim as to the definition of god, I made no claim that anyone else defined god, and you cannot make the claim that we agreed on the definition of god.

Secondly I quote again Asimov and again point out that this puts him in the ballpark of Strong Atheism: "I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time".

Interestingly it can be (modestly) argued that Asimov to some degree contradicts himself in his above two quotes, however taken as whole I would argue he believed in Strong Atheism.

Also interesting, is the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. An implicit atheist has not thought about belief in gods; that is clearly not Asimov!

An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods; such an individual may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or affirm that gods do not exist (strong atheism). Of course I argue that Asimov is the latter, bearing in mind the (modest) contradiction he (arguably) places upon himself and bearing in mind his Strong Atheism Humanist stance as discussed later in this post.

Being rather knowledgeable in Asimovian lore and knowing his Humanist stance, there's further documentary material to make the assertion that Asimov believed in Strong Atheism. I understand it's outside the bounds of our present reference material, however you're welcome to do your own homework.

But.......as per the logical fallacy called Argumentum Ad Nauseum whereby constant repetition is employed in asserting something, I'm not keen to further repeat myself unless you have further new arguments on this point.

If it is not yet clear to you, it can be successfully argued that Strong Atheism is in its absolute distillation, a position of faith, and that Asimov held that position of faith.

Why you might again ask do I claim this?

Because unless or until the existence of god can be wholly disproved in the absolute sense, the possibility remains even if the probability does not, all of course within the context of proving a negative, no matter how absurd the premise, is no easy task, and in this case because god would arguably be part of the supernatural, well nigh impossible.

As a matter of record there is nothing of any of Asimov's writing's that I have found disagreement with, and as discussed he was my fave writer.
As to your other points I am fine addressing them one-by-one, assuming this one is done.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 08:37 pm
I'll admit, I poorly phrased my disagreement.

My disagreement is not with your assertion that Asimov is a strong atheist.

My disagreement is with your assertion that Asimov is a strong atheist as an article of faith

The word faith inherently implies a belief that rests in neither logic nor material evidence. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Faith is the very antethesis of the scientific method.

I think Asimov's and most atheists' rejection of an omnipotent all knowing being rests firmly in logic and the clear lack of any material evidence that points to such a being. Their belief has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with the scientific method.

As such, I think that if evidence were to present itself of such a being, for example if god suddenly revealed himself to all of humanity and started performing miracles that couldn't be explained scientifically, I doubt that that either Asimov or most other atheists would have any trouble accepting that such a being exists once they critically analyze the evidence to see that there isn't a simpler explanation.

And the reason for this is because their nonbelief is god is one grounded firmly in logic and evidence, in the scientific method, not in faith as you claim.

The only way to back up your assertion that Asimov's atheism is an article of faith is if you can point to me a quote where Asimov says or implies that he would not believe in god even if there was evidence that such a being exists,
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2007 10:03 pm
Centroles wrote:
I think Asimov's and most atheists' rejection of an omnipotent all knowing being rests firmly in logic and the clear lack of any material evidence that points to such a being.
Your claim is false, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
Centroles wrote:
The only way to back up your assertion that Asimov's atheism is an article of faith is if you can point to me a quote where Asimov says or implies that he would not believe in god even if there was evidence that such a being exists,
Your claim is false see below.
Centroles wrote:
My disagreement is with your assertion that Asimov is a strong atheist as an article of faith
As per the logical fallacy called Argumentum Ad Nauseum whereby constant repetition is employed in asserting something, I'm not keen to further repeat myself unless you have further new arguments on this point but I'll indulge you for a short bit.

It can be successfully argued that Strong Atheism is in its absolute distillation, a position of faith, and that Asimov held that position of faith.

Why you might again ask do I claim this?

Because unless or until the existence of god can be wholly disproved in the absolute sense, the possibility remains even if the probability does not. You have provided no salient rationale against this position and as discussed lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Also as discussed, proving a negative, no matter how absurd the premise, it is no easy task, and in this case because god would arguably be part of the supernatural, well nigh impossible.

You are confusing the logic behind the absolute requirement to prove a negative, in this case that god does not exist, and the plausibly of the existence of god. I am not arguing the plausibly of the existence of god.

One can make a similar claim, as did Asimov in the quote below, that in its absolute distillation is also an article of faith: there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense.

"Asimov: I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What're the best fiction books w philsophical underpinnings?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 06:02:35