John C. Wright's Blog, page 116
October 6, 2012
Faith in the Fictional War between Science Fiction and Faith
Is science fiction innately and naturally inclined to be hostile to religion?
After all, in FOUNDATION, the church of the Galactic Spirit turns out to be a hoax, likewise the messiahship of Muad-Dib in DUNE, likewise the Church of Foster in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, likewise the evil church of evil on GATHER, DARKNESS or RISE OF ENDYMION, likewise the church of the rebels in SIXTH COLUMN. On the other hand, Christians as a whole are pretty hostile to false prophets and heretics, and Americans, like all good Protestant nations, are pretty hostile to organized Churches. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, would like our church to get organized, and we will get around to that real soon. So are these portrayals of false religions innate to science fiction, or are they merely the dramatic inventions of stories who are not necessarily condemning religion as much as condemning falseness?
I would say this question breaks into three questions: (1) is there anything innately hostile in SFF to religion portrayed as a man-made institution? (2) is there anything innately hostile in SFF to religion portrayed as supernaturally-made institution? (3) is there anything innately hostile in SFF to supernaturalism in general?
All of these are difficult and subtle questions, and I am in the middle of writing a Christian Science Fiction book right now, where Mary Baker Eddy teams up with Nikolai Tesla to repel an invasion of the lepers of Mars with the help of a mind-reading lion, called ASLAN IS A SLAN, so I can deal with these difficult and subtle questions in only the most shallow and trivial way.
Let us start with a definition: science fiction is the mythology of a scientific age.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
Syllabus for Scientifiction
The fine fellows over at SFSignal ask the musical question
If you were creating the syllabus for a high school (junior or senior) English Literature course, what SF/F stories do you think should be included?
I answer the question with more than my usually curmudgeonly charm here:
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2012/10/mind-meld-sff-stories-for-english-lit-class/
And writers who treat the question with more respect than I do no doubt give wiser answers than yours truly. Enjoy.
(My answer below the cut.)
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
October 5, 2012
The Silent Planet of CS Lewis
I had the opportunity to reread CS Lewis’s OUT FROM THE SILENT PLANET and to see with adult and Christian eyes what first I read in my long-vanished and atheist youth.
If time permits in days to come I may do the same for and PERELANDRA and THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, but for now I discuss only the first book in the celebrated Space Trilogy.
Allow me to report that the works are well worth rereading, and to argue that they are not merely good science fiction, but merit the top awards and accolades our beloved genre can bestow.
I have pondered patiently the argument often made that these works are not science fiction, and, fresh from immersion in them, I can now dismiss such arguments with profound yet deserved umbrage. To say that Lewis’s works are not science fiction because they are Christian is the same as to say HG Wells’ works are not science fiction because they are Socialist.
This article is written for those who have already read Lewis’s Space Trilogy. Spoilers abound.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
Neither a Faithful Catholic nor Patriotic American
Neither a Faithful Catholic nor Patriotic American can vote for an administration which upholds the HHS Mandate, an unelected bureaucrat’s command that the Catholic Church grossly violate her deeply held and sacred beliefs. The HHS Mandate is burning the flag, using the Constitution as toilet paper, and trampling the crucifix all at once.
Mr Hall of Mordecai’s Dragon puts it this way:
The HHS Mandate is a very foul and dangerous thing. Say what you wish about the overall Obamacare Plan; it is not the issue here. Many on either side of the political spectrum will attempt to make it seem as if it were. Some have even accused the U.S. Council of Bishops of despising Universal Healthcare. This is blatantly not so, they have been for the welfare and care of all peoples, however disadvantaged, for quite some time now, if there was ever even a time they were not. In fact, many are like myself, who oppose the Mandate, but not the idea that all men should be cared for and looked after when ill or injured. We oppose this loathsome Mandate because of one reason: it forces people to act against their religious beliefs in a drastic and harmful way. Namely, it threatens any institution that holds Christian (and Islamic and Jewish and occasionally Buddhist and Hindu) pro-life values and is not exclusively run for and by members of that same religion. It hammers them with large financial penalties if they do not grievously violate their own religious tenets. Basically, it forces the organization to pay for sterilizations, birth control pills (abortifacient), morning-after pills (distinctly abortifacient) and other such things. It forces the Catholic Church, among others, to pay for the murder of children and the degradation of human beings made in the image and likeness of God.
Naturally, this is intolerable to many in this country. “I’m sorry, you have deeply held religious beliefs about the sanctity of sexuality and human life? Violate them or we run you into the ground with fines.” This applies to every school (pre-school through University level), hospital, and social work organization that is part of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. And, as I have said, many other churches besides. This act is an abomination…
[...]
We have three options now with the HHS Mandate
1) Comply. Act against our own beliefs in a horrendous manner.
2) Refuse to comply and continue to hold open our charities. We are then fined slowly to death or crippled to the point where we can do nothing.
3) Shut down. Which leaves us at the bleak point of #2.
Now, if we shut down or are forced to close, this is what will happen: all the people we served, all the needy, the children who need schooling, the sick who need healing, all of them are suddenly cut adrift in the economy. What better people to use as fodder for supporting Obamacare? Or any other expansion of Government aid our dear President might want to ram through the legislature?
Read the whole thing here: http://dragonofmordecai.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/how-to-crush-your-enemies-see-them-fleeing-before-you-and-hear-the-lamentations-of-their-women/
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
The Challenge of the Ultimate Prime Number
Andreassen characterizes my previous discussions with him concerning eliminative materialism (the doctrine that nothing but matter exists) in this way:
I am happy to present the evidence and argument that convinced me, if only we could get past the jeer of “Meat robot!” that silences all serious discussion of the point.
Sir, if the only thing halting serious conversation on this topic is alleged untoward antics on my part, let me ask you ten questions on the topic. I make no statements and propose no arguments, and leave you free to answer however you will. They are questions, pure and straightforward.
Question One: Is there or is there not an Ultimate Prime number? That is to say, is there a prime number of which there is no higher number on the number line which is also a prime?
If there is no Ultimate Prime, is there an infinity of primes, such that given any prime number there is always another prime number higher than it?
Question Two: If you know the answer to question one, by what means do you know it?
Did you make an observation with your eyes at a particular time and place; or did you make a deduction from axiomatic first principles; or do you know the answer by some other means?
Question Three: If you made an observation at a particular time and place of the infinity of primes, please tell me where and when you stood, and what you looked at, so that I may look at this infinity of numbers with my own eyes for myself, and count them as you have done, and so confirm your observation.
If on the other hand, it is not an observation, is it something known by deduction from self evident first principles?
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
October 2, 2012
Do Outrageous Claims demand Outrageous Acts?
Regarding a previous post, A reader named Vicq Ruiz writes:
What I would like to ask you is this. Do you continually confront non-Christians, using the same phrasing and sense of urgency in this article, in your face-to-face encounters with them?
…Do you often explain to your seat mates on the panel at a con (or better yet, the audience!!) how they are living in “the degrading slime and shit of sinfulness”?
If appearing at a book signing, do you make it a point to remind those in line at the table that “a perfectly just, loving, and benevolent super being can and will inflict a eternity of torture on you, and that you deserve it”???
If you can unhesitatingly answer “yes”, then my hat’s off to you. You have truly taken the argument made in your post with the deadly seriousness it deserves.
Mr Ruiz, I am not sure I understand the point of the question. The article you just read was a reaction or response to a statement I found shocking, namely, that one could agree in part with Christ and disagree in part. If someone said that to me on a panel, or while waiting in line for a book signing, or in an audience at a con, I would most likely say something along these lines, yes.
Would I bring up the topic out of the blue? Hm… (cue flashback harp music)….
Customer: “Hello, Mr Wright! That is a nice hat you are wearing. Why did you put a spanking scene in ORPHANS OF CHAOS?”
Me: “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.”
Customer: “I liked your portrayal of Oberon and Titania in MISTS OF EVERNESS, but I had a question about the ending. What ever happened to the changeling boy from India? Did you intend a sequel?”
Me: “By the mere pleasure of God, I mean his sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God’s mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment.”
Waiter: “Sir? Did you want a refill on your triple espresso with extra caffeine?”
Me: “There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men’s hands cannot be strong when God rises up.”
Fire Marshall: “We will have to clear the building. Proceed in an orderly manner to the fire exits.”
Me: “The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands.”
… So was that the point of your question, sir? My answer is that I talk about Christianity about as often as James Morrow talks about Atheism, or Harlan Ellison acts like a jackass. A fair amount, but perhaps not constantly.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
September 28, 2012
The Outrageous Claim
Alan Silverman, one of the few men on the Internet who uses a human name, writes:
Though I do not follow the dictates of Jesus, I do not hold Christianity or its scripture in contempt. I merely disagree with certain points.
Friend, I am glad you do not hold Jesus or His servants in contempt. However, I am also disappointed and shocked that you do not.
I do not mean to seem impolite, but there is no such thing as disagreeing with Christianity on certain points. The claims Christianity makes are too extreme and large for that. One is either a baptized Christian, and saved, or one is not, and damned.
If you are not a Christian and yet regard Christians as reasonable people, we are doing something wrong.
We are not a political party or a philosophical movement.We are not making a claim someone can partly agree with and partly disagree with.
If you are not a Christian and do not hold Christianity in contempt, the outrageous nature of our love and our demands, our desire to change you and save you and make you a saint, should scandalize and offend you.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
September 27, 2012
Vocabulary word of the Day
(plural borborygmi) Noun:a rumbling or gurgling sound caused by the movement of gas in the intestines.
My comment: my next Dark Lord in my next book shall certainly be called Balthrog the Borborygmus.
I am so totally kidding. My next Dark Lord is actually named Enmeduranki Nimrod-nipu Shitimgal Duhumunamaru, He Who Binds Earth to Heaven, Son of the Mighty Hunter, Architect of the Tower of Darkness Absolute.
Borborgymus is the name of his Dark Land. It is beneath the shadow of Mount Eructation.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
September 26, 2012
What is this Election About?
I don’t think people who have not studied economics can grasp the magnitude of what’s been done to us, and how swiftly all our modern world-wide extended order can grind to a halt.
I hope everyone understands that the money, including all future earnings of your children and grandchildren, has been spent, and that we are SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in the hole. Borrowed money represents a promise against future labor.
That means that no labor performed for the next several decades will have any value. The result is the same whether the debt is paid or repudiated: a collapse of the credit market and of the holding value of the dollars.
It will happen as suddenly as a run on the bank. Foreign lenders who are currently bankrolling most of our National Debt will suddenly realize that they are unlikely to get repaid. And so they will sell treasury bonds and other loan instruments as fast as they can; and once one debtor sees the other selling, the price will drop precipitously, causing more to sell quickly and below cost.
Do you remember what caused the recession we are in? Since the newspapers bent heaven and earth to hide the causes, perhaps even well informed people do not know, but ask any sober (i.e. non-Keynesian) economist.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
For the Undecided Catholic Voter
Perhaps you say the two Parties are too similar to make any vote between them make a difference. Perhaps in other areas, this may or may not be so. But turn your eyes to those issues where you may have to answer on Judgment Day before the Great White Throne for your words and deeds. Christ will likely not question you about tax policy or stump speech gaffes.
Democratic Party Platform on Abortion (source http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm)
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
The Republican Party Platform on Abortion (http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm)
Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Abortion (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm)
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
John C. Wright's Blog
- John C. Wright's profile
- 449 followers
