On iTunes University (in the MIT Arts section) there is a lecture/moderated discussion given by Joe Haldeman entitled “The Craft of Science Fiction.” In it, Mr. Haldeman briefly discusses Hugo Gernsback, one of the great early Science Fiction (hitherto: SF) pioneers, and founder of the first SF magazine, Amazing Stories. Gernsback saw SF as a tool to popularize and advocate for science and technology. Riffing off of that idea, Haldeman proposes that today SF–and especially hard SF:
“is a tool against religion…a tool for rationalism, and a rational approach to solving life’s problems.”
Ironically, Joe Haldeman’s best known work, The Forever War, could easily be construed as a story about how technology isolates us and makes us less human; hardly a tool for the rational approach to solving life’s problems, but then again we each bring our own biases to the table when we pick up a novel (or any other book).
In any event, it got me thinking: what ideological purposes does/should SF have? Should a SF story be a gospel narrative about the good news of science? Or should it be a prophetic voice calling out in the wilderness of of unbridled, post-industrial science-run-amok?
I realized most of my favorites in the genre do not advocate for faith in science or “rationality” as Haldeman would prefer, nor do they (often) completely discount science or technology. So briefly, I want to mention two books, easily some of the best in the genre, that explore science’s limits and possibilities, and at the same time have things to say about religion and spirituality. Each of these books deserve multi-thousand word reviews, but this is supposed to be a short post so please don’t let brevity undermine your understanding of these book’s quality or import.
Solaris by Stanislaw Lem
Lem, one of the world’s best and probably Europe’s best practitioner of SF, wrote Solaris in Polish in 1961. It was translated into English from a French translation in 1970, and a direct Polish to English translation was only just published as an audio book a few months ago with an ebook soon to follow. There are also two film adaptations which deviate somewhat from the novel.
Solaris is a planet with one giant, conscious organism. The human characters in the book, all scientists, discover through a certain kind of interaction with this alien organism that science cannot answer all questions, and that the most problematic and disturbing of these unanswered questions are about themselves. This is one of the great philosophical novels of the 20th century.
A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller
By my estimation, this is the greatest post-apocalyptic story of all time (and the cover, above, is totally sweet). After a nuclear holocaust, a remote Catholic monastery keeps human learning and the cultural memory of the past alive. It is deeply moving novel which–with no lack of irony–simultaneously warns us of the dangers and evils of science without conscience, and commends to us the indomitable curiosity that is one of the noblest and best aspects of humanity and is the basis of all science.
++++
Part of a (Long) Series of (Short) Posts about Science and Technology
The Tragic Irony of Technology Coltan, cellphones and being connected
Singularity, Progress, and Darwinian Common Sense Artificial Intelligence and Sciencism
Middleduction A post that would have made a nice introduction
Science Fiction as Prophetic Witness or Scientific Gospel?
Technology and Language u r n 4 a gr8 time, lol (coming soon)
Creating the Problem in Order to Fix It (coming soon)
More on Sciencism (coming soon)
Kierkegaardian Dread (coming soon)
Middleduction (Belated Introduction)
June 7, 2011
“But what about earth and all the people on it?”
“Tut, tut. We can’t let mere sentiment intrude. This is Science.” K.W. Jeter Infernal Devices
I do not hate science or technology. I am not a Luddite (hell, the Luddites weren’t even Luddites according to the contemporary usage of the word). While I am attracted to the “no-shiny-object” policy of some members of the anabaptist tradition, I utterly fail at that discipline. Despite what some of my friends and family may say (e.g. “You’re the youngest 87 year old I know” ”Why don’t you join the 21st century” ,etc.), I am a product of my generation. The point of the preceding and proceeding posts is not, then, to utterly denounce science and technology, but rather to show in various circuitous ways that science and technological advancement have lost their anchoring in the seafloor of wisdom–that is culture, history, literature, and religion–and are floating about looking for some place to safely moor. Some of these posts will be more serious than others, but none are meant to be exhaustive. They are more like little flash-rants; too short to be called essays, too long to be written on a cardboard sign for a doomsday prophet to hold while standing on the street-corner.
It should be noted that during the course of the history of western civilization guardians of certain areas of wisdom have acted rather unseemly both toward science and to their own fields of study. Burning or even threatening to burn scientists at the stake is not usually the way to win friends or influence people. And, getting lost in the cobweb-filled labyrinth of 20th century literary theory, has not exactly given the study of literature the credibility and stature it needs in order to properly temper the more lucrative practical sciences.
So we find ourselves in a world where the academic study of humanities is all but dead. Art, music and literature programs are the first to be cut from public schools. Scientific and technological progress have either become ends to themselves, or they are the means of much more insidious and destructive forces, which seek to harness these advances for the purposes of greed and power-lust. And yet science and technology already do much to decrease suffering, and make the lives of all humans better. The potential to advance in this capacity is great, but science and technology cannot and will not do it alone.
++++
Part of a (Long) Series of (Short) Posts about Science and Technology
The Tragic Irony of Technology Coltan, cellphones and being connected
Singularity, Progress, and Darwinian Common Sense Artificial Intelligence and Sciencism
Middleduction A post that would have made a nice introduction
Science Fiction as Prophetic Witness or Scientific Gospel? (coming soon)
Technology and Language u r n 4 a gr8 time, lol (coming soon)
Creating the Problem in order to Fix It (coming soon)
More on Sciencism (coming soon)
Kierkegaardian Dread (coming soon)
Singularity, Progress, and Darwinian Common Sense
June 5, 2011
A TIME magazine article a few months back explores the idea of technological Singularity. The jist of it is that technology is advancing at a faster and faster rate and will eventual reach a point of near infinite growth, the point of Singularity. At this point, machines will become conscious, and “the human age will be over.” Now of course the article cites several science fiction authors, but it mainly quotes and profiles legitimate scientists. There are a lot of people who take this seriously. Many believe that it is inevitable. Some have put a date on it (2045 CE, to be exact). There is a significant group of scientists and inventors who are working toward it. They have their own Singularity convention that is described in the article as something between ComiCon and an academic symposia.
The article quotes the Singularity Movement’s detractors as accusing it of being a Silicon valley version of the Evangelical rapture; a bunch of sad, dissolusioned geeks looking to technology for salvation. This places the Singularity movement firmly within a growing trend of scientists and technologists whose faith in Science (with a capital S) to solve all our problems is absolute. One such person mentioned in the article is Cambridge trained biologist Aubrey de Grey, who believes that death is simply an illness and he’s looking for the cure, and seems to believe that merging human and (inevitable future) machine consciousness may be the key: the scientific version of everlasting life.
In my opinion the biggest problem with the Singularity movement is they stopped reading science fiction back in the early fifties when it was still optimistic and have neglected to read the science fiction of the past 5 decades. Maybe they’ve never seen a minor, underground, cult classic, indie film from the 80s–I’m sure you’ve never heard of it–it’s called, Terminator. Science fiction has been grappling with artificial intelligence and Singularity for a long damn time, which leads me to my favorite quote from the article, one that could have come directly out of a science fiction story (Lev Grossman, the author of the article is also a science fiction/fantasy author). It expresses my skepticism with clarity and wit:
“You don’t have to be a super-intelligent cyborg to understand that introducing a superior life-form into your own biosphere is a basic Darwinian error.”
++++
Part of a (Long) Series of (Short) Posts about Science and Technology
The Tragic Irony of Technology Coltan, cellphones and being connected
Singularity, Progress, and Darwinian Common Sense Artificial Intelligence and Sciencism
Middleduction A post that would have made a nice introduction (coming soon)
Science Fiction as Prophetic Witness or Scientific Gospel? (coming soon)
Creating the Problem in order to Fix It (coming soon)
More on Sciencism (coming soon)
Kierkegaardian Dread (coming soon)
An Advent Note On The Virgin Birth
December 22, 2008
It was inevitable that this year I would ponder the truth and necessity of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. There are so many irregularities that go with it, from the LXX mistranslation to the historical and mythological precedents, and the science that says you need two kinds of chromosomes to come together to create the emergent properties of human life.
But there it is in Matthew and Luke and the Creeds.
On the one hand I could resort to the back-up plan provided by oh so many RC and EO friends…”It’s a mystery” That surely is true if the doctrine is true, but for your part, it is a mystery legitimized by the authority inherent in the Church, and I am not convinced of that infallable authority.
But on the other hand there is the skepticism which says I myself have all knowledge, I know what is scientific, and I know what happens in the world. In doing so I not only proclaim my pure objectivity, but I sit in judgment on my Church, both past and present.
How many billions have been baptized and/or confirmed to the Creeds?
No, it is not for me to debunk something which is said every week in worship and prayer. The creed, after all, says “WE Believe” So if it changes, it will also say “WE believe” One of the most powerful truths I have learned from contemplating the Catholicity of the Church, is that this whole thing is a lot bigger than ME, and what I think that I know. I say this, not to hold on to an out of date belief, the classic “thoughtful conservative” who finds proof under a rock to justify an incredible belief. I have my doubts.. But I also am part of the One, Catholic, Holy and Apostolic church, and to it I am captive.
In true Advent style, I await the revealing of our coming Lord.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
