Lewis, Heinlein And Anderson On The Hereafter

Introduction

This blog appreciates Poul Anderson and also recommends some other high quality sf writers including:

the early Wells

CS Lewis

the early Heinlein

James Blish

SM Stirling

Lewis

I have read Lewis' spiritual autobiography, popular theology and theologically informed fiction, both adult and juvenile. Some critics might regard Lewis' fantasy and sf as propaganda and I personally have problems in particular with his Perelandra for its anti-Darwinism. However, he did write imaginative and insightful novels and short stories which were admired by the agnostic James Blish and still are by many, including myself.

Lewis presents philosophical arguments (which I do not accept) for theism but merely assumes indefinite continuation of human consciousness after physical death. I regard such an assumption as a major weakness. Of course, we must heed any alleged arguments or evidence for survival. Lewis implies acceptance of the evidence of Spiritualism:

"'They prefer taking trips back to Earth. They go and play tricks on the poor daft women ye call mediums. They go and try to assert their ownership of some house that once belonged to them: and then ye get what's called a Haunting.'" 

-CS Lewis, The Great Divorce (London, 1982), p. 61.

Here, a resident in the hereafter plausibly describes some aspects of our experience.

Heinlein

Apparently, Heinlein believed in survival because he wanted to: the worst possible reason.

"'When you die, you don't die all over, no matter how intensely you may claim to expect to. It is an emotional impossibility for any man to believe in his own death.'"

-Robert Heinlein, "Elsewhen," quoted in Heinlein In Dimension.

(If I have "Elsewhen" upstairs, then I can check it for myself but blog readers might remember my reluctance to climb stairs late in the evening.)

It is perfectly possible to believe in our own deaths. I did not experience anything before I was born. Why should I experience anything after I am dead? I did experience my consciousness being irresistibly driven down into darkness by a general anaesthetic. I remember nothing between that extinguishment and my later reawakening. If I had died under the anaesthetic, then there would have been no further experiences or memories of this individual. Life and consciousness would have continued but mine would have ceased as they surely will. How can anything, especially something as complicated as memory and identity, continue forever?

Panshin doubted that it was emotionally impossible for any man to believe in his own death but suspected that this was true of Heinlein. Indeed.

Heinlein, through one of his characters, attempts an argument for immortality:

"I am immortal. I transcend this little time-axis; a seventy-year span on it is but a casual phase in my experience. Second only to the prime datum of my own existence is the emotionally convincing certainty of my own continuity. I may be a closed curve, but, closed or open, I neither have a beginning nor an end. Self-awareness is not relational; it is absolute, and cannot be reached to be destroyed, or created. Memory, however, being a relational aspect of consciousness, may be tampered with and possibly destroyed."

-Robert Heinlein, "They," IN Heinlein, The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag (London, 1980), pp. 138-153 AT p. 146.

Slow down, man. Emotionally convincing? A closed curve would be immortal? Why can you not end? Go to sleep and do not wake up. Self-awareness not relational? Self is recognized as such only in relationship to other, like left-right, up-down, on-off etc. Awareness or consciousness is precisely the relationship between a subject and its objects. That relationship can certainly be created and destroyed. Memory possibly destroyed? It can certainly be destroyed and that is the end of the continuity of the self. 

Heinlein's "Goldfish Bowl" should be upstairs but is summarized on Wikipedia. See the link. One of the scientists who finds himself in a featureless environment considers the hypothesis that he has died and is in a hereafter. That is how pervasive this idea is in Heinlein's works.

Anderson...

...considered a scientific rationale for survival - a similar rationale is present in Starfarers although in less detail - but, in Anderson's works, this is only a speculative story idea. Anderson had neither the religious faith of Lewis nor the emotional conviction of Heinlein.