This italicized passage has been copied from an article on CS Lewis and James Blish. See here. One section of the article, called "Ten American Future Historians and Four Related Authors," summarizes coverage of religion in several future histories, including Anderson's.
Why does Aycharaych pity God? If God is omniscient, then He lacks mystery. But, if meaning is in mystery, then God has no meaning. And, if God is immortal and death is completion, then God is incomplete. I think that Aycharaych's conclusions follow from his premises although I do not accept the premises.
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
As I thought, given your philosophic interests, Aycharaych's astonishing comment about pitying God aroused your interest.
Quite true, given His omnipotence, omniscience, and existence from all eternity, God cannot possibly be incomplete and lacking in meaning. And, being God, He is also infinitely happy, because He lacks for nothing that would make Him happy. As you said, the premises from which Aycharaych drew his astonishing conclusion and comment about pitying God were not accepted by either of us.
Sean
Another thought came to me, how can death be a "completion" of one's existence? If we interpret death in the most absolute possible way as meaning a complete and total nothingness and non existence, of an eternal blackness which never knew anything different, how can Aycharaych consider that a "completion" of one's life? How can any beings existence be "completed" if they never even knew they existed, after death?
No, I have to firmy disagree with Aycharaych about both death being a "completion" and in pitying God.
Sean
Sean,
Aristotle wrote that a life cannot be assessed until it is complete but, of course, other people have to do the assessing!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree with both Aristotle and you!
Sean
Post a Comment