chemistryguy wrote:First
The Hand of God on PodCastle and now this. I'm loving these stories concerning the nature of God. Or rather how humans act based on their perceptions of the nature of God.
What is the point of life anyway? Some people, like the characters in the story see this world as only a way station until they move onto something better. I don't recall any dialogue where anyone expressed grief over the loss of a loved one, so why the big hurry to talk to the creator? Is all of the world and companions to share it with not enough?
I'm an atheist, so my views are necessarily skewed. Would my belief system shift given the circumstances outlined in the story. Probably, but then I'm assuming I'd be dwelling on the people I'd lost, not because I missed out on the afterlife.
Things are temporary for a reason. It is the brevity of life that makes it so special. It gives us perspective. Penn Jillette says it better than I on an episode of
This I Believe, but being the parent of a child with a CHD, I've learned to take the good and hold onto it.
I found it totally repugnant that when only a handful of humanity remained, there was one who would destroy for the possibility of getting the prize behind door number two. But I guess there's humanity in a nutshell.
Sorry for the spew.
Excellent. I especially like "perceptions of the nature of God". Why is it difficult to have honest conversations between people with these different perceptions?
We are self-aware. But we are nothing but dust from the stars. How the *~*~* did
THAT happen?
And WHY?
An atheist's perception is skewed one way, and anyone who senses meaning or purpose in answering the question "why that happened" is skewed in a different way. Why does perception itself exist?
That, it seems to me, is a more interesting discussion than the stale "Does God Exist and, if so, what did we do to piss him off?"
I think good science fiction is that honest conversation. Penn Jilette writes, "Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong." What's to keep anyone else from doing the same?
Unfortunately, most of the SF audience has seemed to be weighted towards the anti-supernaturalists, which skews the conversation a bit. The question of meaning really is the exploration of whether nature is everything (Materialism). If not, then
supernature
Doesn't the very definition of SUPERnatural ("God") make any use of the phrase "nature of God" kind of self-contradictory?
Anyway, spew back atcha, chemguy
