Mind Meld of the Gods

I'm doing it again, I'm linking to another Mind Meld over at SF Signal. This one is about Gods in Speculative Fiction».

If you are unfamiliar with a SF Signal Mind Meld let me give you a heads up: This is not an experience for the unprepared. Brew some coffee, find a comfortable seat and settle in for an intimate look into the minds of some of the greatest SF writers out there. People like Elizabeth Bear, Gregory Frost, and L.E. Modesitt Jr.

I have some thoughts of my own as to the nature of religion in stories.

More Below/Beyond the Link...


Religion in real life (there's a mindbender) is something that comes easy for some, hard for others and not at all for the rest. In Fantasy it seems to generally be an expected and active component of the world and in Science Fiction an invisible or non-existent force. I'm not saying that those are the rules for all, in fact there are some fantastic stories that defy my above statement. And how do you really classify A Canticle for Leibowitz or The Algebraist?

In world building and writing I struggle to find the difference between a god and superhuman. What makes one divine and the other merely impressive? I don't believe there is a hard line, no simple criteria or checklist. On a bell curve I would place normal man at one end, and the monotheistic omniscient god at the other end. Then on the hump I would look for my stories. To me that space is where men can achieve greatness and where the gods can falter.

Ultimately given the role faith and religion has in the real world, and the influence it has on the lives of so many, it is a mistake not to give it some thought when world building. You don't need gods with winged horses and lightening powers, just a conscious knowledge of the role religion plays in your characters lives. Some of the most powerful stories written never show the gods, or their motives, but without the characters faith there would have been no story.


For more on the religions in the two books I mentioned check out this review of A Canticle for Leibowitz from SF Reviews.net and this article on The Algebraist from Gordon's Notes





...Read Complete Post...

How To: Instantly Lose a Debate

Yup,
That's right, I know how to instantly lose a debate. I used to debate competitively when I was in school. Somewhere I have a box of trophies and plaques which should back up any claim I make to competence at debating. But today I'm not going to tell you How to Win. Today I'm going to tell you How to Lose. (and eventually tie this back to science, technology or speculative fiction writing)

It's easy to lose a debate. All you have to do is bring up one of the Forbidden Cases. These are cases (or 'debate topics' if you don't get the lingo) that will instantly polarize the room in such a way that the judges will have to give you the loss. I have seen this again and again in competition.

And I'm not suggesting you stand up and vomit in your first speech - that does not guarantee an instant loss, for proof look to the year Worlds was in Ireland.

More Below/Beyond the Link...


The Forbidden Cases:
Abortion
Euthanasia
The Holocaust/Israel

Some Non-Forbidden Cases that will likely lead to a loss in competition*
Death Penalty
Creationism in Schools or elsewhere
Marijuana

(*I should mention that these latter three are great starter debates out of competition to learn debating - just keep the debate on the floor - in other words nothing personal and when it's over leave the room friends. And again, these are lousy debates in competition.)

So why do the first 3 cases give you the loss? If it isn't obvious right away, then let me lay it out. People really care about those topics. Personal beliefs that have nothing to do with logic or reason.

In a normal debate tournament the participants are there for sport, competition, but not to actually challenge or defend their deep held personal beliefs. When things become personal all perspective is lost and the debate fails. This is why any government (case presenter in a debate) will instantly lose if they start a debate on those topics.

Now to bring us back to Science, Technology and Speculative Fiction writing.

Over at Space.com is a little bit of a bait/troll article about Wacky Scientific Theories.

Essentially the author: Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer, SETI Institute, discusses some of the wacky theories that he has been sent over the years. Ideas like:

"Aliens came to Earth a long time ago to engineer a new species, and Homo sapiens is the product."

He then goes on to suggest in a pseudo serious manner that these people pursue publication of their theories. Ideally in an academic setting, however like Galileo, they can also self publish.

It's mean, what's he's done.
It may seem funny, but most Wacky Scientific Theories are like the Forbidden Cases, people actually care about these ideas. Watch the discussion thread to see people take the bait.

Calling out the Crazies Proponents of Alternative Theories with a half mocking, half serious approach is not the way to win this argument. And it is an argument. Bad Science is a serious problem that will not go away because of laughter. Educate, Educate, Educate. Science isn't mythology, you don't need to have special privileges to understand it. You just need to learn.

What Seth Shostak does is invite these people to participate in the scientific discussion without giving them a clue as to the tools, resources and knowledge that will keep them from being dismissed or marginalized in that discussion. I would have liked to have seen Seth Shostak discuss the years of study and education that he himself went through in order to acquire the status and credentials he has in the scientific community.

In fact what I would have liked to have seen even more is Seth Shostak call for greater education in the Scientific Method, in the fundamentals of Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion, and in how it's used in science ranging from biology to quantum mechanics. That would do more to address the problem of Bad Science than any dozen or hundreds of rejected journal submissions and self published wacky ideas. (In Shostak's defence he did state that "Data" backing the idea is valuable)

In Conclusion:
Seth Shostak brought up an important topic to many people, but he handled it badly, so I'm forced to give him the loss, even though I agree with everything he says.




...Read Complete Post...

Random Darwin

Been doing a lot of reading on Darwin recently. Fascinating dood. Witty, intelligent and at times charming in his 19th century naiveté. Though I should point out that he could be devastatingly direct and painfully insightful

Some Quotes from Darwin on religion:

Letter to Asa Gray September 17, 1861

Your question what would convince me of Design is a poser. If I saw an angel come down to teach us good, and I was convinced from others seeing him that I was not mad, I should believe in design.

Autobiography of Charles Darwin (1958) p.87

Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine.

From his earliest writings to the end of his life religion played a role in shaping how he presented his theories and how they were received. Early on Darwin made a conscious decision to 'Stick to the Facts' in presenting his notes and theories. To avoid colouring his work (in particular the reception of it) with any religious interpretation, positive or negative. The above quotes were from personal letters and notes, but not from the scientific papers he published.

This later went on to become a large part of the modern approach to scientific research. Not only is it politic and somewhat sensitive and respectful of others beliefs, it also makes for better science. Clear, unambiguous documentation of experiments. Theories based only on repeatable, demonstrable evidence from those experiments. This is the foundation of trust and verification that enables science to work. Everybody can read the documentation and repeat each step if they have doubts. There is no need for a 'Leap of Faith'.

I doubt Darwin envisioned the scientific future he created with that simple political decision. I also find it sadly ironic that he and his work, more than a century after his death, is at the centre of the debate(battle) between religion and science. A conflict he consciously tried to keep from being a part of.


...Read Complete Post...