If you wish to understand...

If you wish to understand a philosopher, do not ask what he says, but find out what he wants. – Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

This is one of the few truths I find in Nietzsche’s writings. (However, some of his other statements, such as ‘God is dead’, are more poignant than some Christians want to believe - again, another story for another time.) Perhaps the skeptic in me is attracted to the common sense of this notion, but nonetheless, that reflex is there.

However, this reflex is still not quite developed enough, as I still have to apply this practice ex post facto for things I have read or heard in the past.

Case in point: The acclaimed book Foundation (1951) by Isaac Asimov.

For those of you who are not well acquainted with me (and I hope more of you will become more acquainted by reading these entries), I am an avid sci-fi fan. I used to be a certifiable Trekkie (minus the conventions; I wasn’t that much of a space cadet, har har), and I still read sci-fi books quite frequently, as long as they aren’t of the corny type.

Therefore, when I found this book at a thrift store for practically nothing, I jumped at the opportunity. I had never read the book, but anyone who knows sci-fi knows Asimov; he was a pioneer in the field, and his writings are captivating, to say the least.

The first time I read Foundation was several months ago, and my expectations were more than exceeded. It has all the qualities a good sci-fi book should: a somewhat realistic vision of the future, a distant but familiar setting, new and groundbreaking thoughts on our current perception of the universe, plus excellent character development and interaction. As a piece of literature, it is quite good, and I recommend it highly, regardless of the following commentary.

Since I wanted to read some more from authors whose works I have enjoyed in the past, I picked up a copy of the original Foundation trilogy at the library by my workplace. (I also picked up Shadows of the Hegemon by Orson Scott Card and Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson, but that is entirely irrelevant here.)

After re-reading Foundation, the first book in the series, I happened to pick up on a theme that I had previously thought was clever but now find a little insulting. Here is a short synopsis of the plot up to the point where this theme becomes central: A man named Hari Seldon predicts, through a science called psychohistory, that the long-standing Galactic Empire will soon fall and that thirty thousand years of barbarism will follow. In turn, he gathers a group of people – the Encyclopedia Foundation – to help limit that time of barbarism to a mere thousand years in preparation for a Second Galactic Empire. (Sounds weird if you’re not into sci-fi, I know, but keep following; I have a point here.)

Through psychohistory, Seldon is also able to predict future crises that will plague the Foundation after he is long gone, and so he manipulates the situations in such a way that only one choice is possible at each impasse, each leading towards the final goal of galactic unity once more. The first method of controlling the ensuing degradation is through the task of gathering information for the Encyclopedia Galactica, which will preserve vital information for posterity. The second, which is the one I am getting around to, is through – get this – religion.

Yes, you heard me right. Asimov steps a little bit over the line here, but even more so when considering the apparent model on which he built his religion of deceit, namely Christianity.

Am I being a little too distrusting by that assumption? I doubt it, but judge for yourself. Here are some quotes (page numbers included):

“…and then [King] Lepold [of Anacreon] said, ‘Everyone believes it just the same. I mean all this talk about the Prophet Hari Seldon and how he appointed the Foundation to carry on his commandments that there might some day be a return of the Earthly Paradise: and how anyone who disobeys his commandments will be destroyed for eternity. They believe it. I’ve presided at festivals, and I’m sure they do.” (pg. 103)

“…‘The religion–which the Foundation has fostered and encouraged, mind you–is built on strictly authoritarian lines. The priesthood has sole control of the instruments of science we have given Anacreon, but they’ve learned to handle these tools only empirically. They believe in this religion entirely, and in the . . . uh . . . spiritual value of the power they handle.’...‘The Foundation has fostered this decision assiduously. We’ve put all our scientific backing behind the hoax.’ (pg. 106-7, emphasis mine)

It is not at all unreasonable to assume that Asimov meant to parallel Hari Seldon with Jesus Christ, the Foundation with the founders of Christianity, and so forth. One can only assume from there what Asimov thought of Christianity, if not religion itself.

But now we must try and figure out where Asimov was coming from. Fortunately, there are a good many number of resources on Asimov’s views of religion. Where the next problem comes in is which ones are more correct.

Asimov Online, a site entirely devoted to Asimov’s work and life, says this in their FAQ page:

“Asimov had no religious beliefs; he never believed in either God or an afterlife. He considered himself a Humanist…Asimov was a strong proponent of scientific reasoning who adamantly opposed creationists, religious zealots, pseudoscience, and mysticism. Asimov did not oppose genuine religious feeling in others. He did, however, have little patience for intolerance or superstition masquerading as religion.”

However, Mike Brummond, in a well-researched paper he has graciously hosted online, shows some other revealing quotes from Asimov himself:

“I would not be satisfied to have my kids choose to be religious without trying to argue them out of it, just as I would not be satisfied to have them decide to smoke regularly or engage in any other practice I consider detrimental to mind or body” (as cited in Corvallis Secular Society, 1997, emphasis mine).

Perhaps even better is the quote from the Corvallis Secular Society’s “Isaac Asimov on Religion” page:

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." (emphasis mine)

Now we have a better idea of what is going on in the story; Asimov is trying to draw a comparison to how humanity is kept in check by religion. He even has a character in Foundation state (perhaps ironically), “Religion is one of the great civilizing influences of history, and in that respect, it’s fulfilling…”

This is perhaps more a rant than a lesson to be learned. But remember this - Keep a watchful eye, because everything may not be as it seems the first time around. Think critically, but don’t necessarily be critical.

Now, a few notes for the comments I received:

Dave: I agree that Christianity should be simple (as it is idealistic by nature), but defending it is no simple matter. The world often opposes what Christians have to say even before they say it, and I would like to see more Christians speak intelligently and honestly about what they believe. It’s one thing to agree to disagree, as it were; it is totally another thing to let your opposition think you are ignorant or even foolish for your opinions or beliefs. Thank you for your kind words, however; I try and keep my relationship with Christ simple, even if I must think critically about the defense of my faith. But that is not relevant to the purpose of this site, so I digress.

Viva: I hope I can hold your attention, then! You surely know what I was talking about when I mentioned that a background akin to mine makes it easy to become complacent. I won’t criticize your choice (which appears on the surface to be rejection due to complacence or possibly other reasons), but I do applaud your willingness to listen to reason, even if you disagree personally. Many of the topics I cover are not meant to be of a directly spiritual nature, so I hope more “netizens” not of the Christian persuasion will find these essays interesting as well. After all, alienation doesn’t make you friends, or readers, for that matter.

As a final note, I am currently seeking help in turning this site from just a blog with limited capabilities to a full-fledged site, with more interactivity and discussion in addition to these essays. If anyone has any interest in helping with this transition or feels compelled to jump on board the TCC boat, let me know.

And remember, if you ever want to reach me personally, just E-mail thechristiancynic@gmail.com. I'm always ready for input.

~Brody