It is the alien, Joe, that gives us the clearest - not very clear - statement of the Cosmic religion:
"'I know a little of your god,' said Joe. 'Your all-pervading primordial Cosmos, whom you do not even pretend to understand.'" (p. 28)
I question the application of the personal pronoun. And of course the totality transcends understanding!
Joe criticizes Cosmos as a machine god or a mathematician's god. The primordial Cosmos pre-existed machines but is partly understood through mathematics. But Joe prefers gods of life, of trees, rivers, winds etc. Life is part of Cosmos! Joe decries meaningless hugeness. Why meaningless? He also acknowledges that Cosmos is:
"'Awe and wonder and impersonal magnificence...'" (ibid.)
Yes. And the impersonal is "THAT," not "whom."
Joe asks Pete how many human beings there are. Is he a spy?
He says that he has worked his way along trade-lanes and has not been on any other:
"'...great worlds of the Galaxy.'" (ibid.)
How many such worlds are there? This dialogue hints at a number of interstellar civilizations that we are not shown in the Psychotechnic History.
12 comments:
The Cosmos religion strikes me as unlikely -- it doesn't satisfy the emotional needs that most religions do.
It would suit me because I would just meditate anyway.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. That Cosmos religion is only slightly better than that religion of Science with its Galactic Spirit cynically cooked up by the First Foundation as a tool of state in FOUNDATION.
Anderson did better with invented religions in later stories, such as the Cosmenosis we see in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN.
Ad astra! Sean
It takes a certain amount of mental work for an atheist author to get into the "mental shoes" of a believing character. Asimov didn't try; Poul did, and eventually successfully, I think.
We certainly see authentic Catholics in Emberverse.
Well, I tried. I don't think (particularly in a de-technologized world) atheists would be all that common.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Any religion worshiping the Cosmos doesn't really much sense. The cosmos/universe is not a Being, a Person that cares about others. It's merely matter and energies.
I thought as well of "Journeys End," the telepath in that story was tormented by all the minds he unwillingly he had to "read." Including the minds of monsters and depraved perverts. But a Catholic priest he came to know was an exception: calm, gentle, serene, and wise. Anderson also knew how show us devout believers.
Mr. Stirling: You did, esp. Fr. Ignatius. And the abbot/bishop of Mount Angel
You might be an atheist, but you are not one of those blindly hostile atheists.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Everyone must come to their own understanding in these matters. The cosmos is not a being but is being, the ultimate reality, which theists personify as God. I do not think that the totality can be a person which requires self-other relationships. We need not worship the totality but can realize our oneness with it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that's not good enough. A star is only a star. A planet is only a planet. A tree is only a tree, etc. Such things--as things--are not aware of themselves or others. They just "exist."
We have discussed your objection to the existence of God, and I don't believe it. To say nothing of how I believe the existence of the Persons of the Trinity within the one Godhead answers that objection.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course it is good enough! There is no one single obviously right view here. To claim that is doctrinaire.
The universe is conscious of itself through us.
You need to prove the existence of God. I do not have to disprove it. I have replied on why I think that the Trinity does not answer that objection.
Paul.
Sean,
You seem to think that, in these matters, it is appropriate to disagree, argue and try to get the other party to acknowledge that he is mistaken in just a few sentences. We know that this is impossible. If that is the only point, then it is pointless even to begin an exchange.
Paul.
How can self recognize other if they are not spatially separated and if they do not exist for any length of time?
The 4th Gospel deifies the Son and personifies the Spirit yet remains monotheist. Thus, 3 divine persons but 1 God = Trinity. That doctrine follows from that text. It does not address the self-other question.
Post a Comment