In the nineÂteen-sixÂties, the music media encourÂaged the notion that a young rock-and-roll fan had to side with either the BeaÂtÂles or their rivals, the Rolling Stones. On some levÂel, it must have made sense, givÂen the growÂing aesÂthetÂic divide between the music the two world-famous groups were putting out. But, at botÂtom, not only was there no rivalÂry between the bands (it was an invenÂtion of the music papers), there was no real need, of course, to choose one or the othÂer. In the fifties, someÂthing of the same dynamÂic must have obtained between Ray BradÂbury and Isaac AsiÂmov, two popÂuÂlar genre writÂers, each with his own worldÂview.
BradÂbury and AsiÂmov had much in comÂmon: both were (probÂaÂbly) born in 1920, both attendÂed the very first World SciÂence FicÂtion ConÂvenÂtion in 1939, both began pubÂlishÂing in pulp magÂaÂzines in the forÂties, and both had an averÂsion to airÂplanes. That BradÂbury spent most of his life in CalÂiÂforÂnia and AsiÂmov in New York made for a potenÂtialÂly interÂestÂing culÂturÂal conÂtrast, though it nevÂer seems to have been played up. Still, it may explain someÂthing of the basic difÂferÂence between the two writÂers as it comes through in the video above, a comÂpiÂlaÂtion of talk-show clips in which BradÂbury and AsiÂmov respond to quesÂtions about their reliÂgious beliefs, or lack thereÂof.
AsiÂmov may have writÂten a guide to the Bible, but he was hardÂly a litÂerÂalÂist, callÂing the first chapÂters of GenÂeÂsis “the sixth-cenÂtuÂry BC verÂsion of how the world might have startÂed. We’ve improved on that since. I don’t believe that those are God’s words. Those are the words of men, tryÂing to make the most sense that they could out of the inforÂmaÂtion they had at the time.” In a latÂer clip, BradÂbury, for his part, conÂfessÂes to a belief in not just GenÂeÂsis, but also DarÂwin and even Jean-BapÂtiste LamarÂck, who theÂoÂrized that charÂacÂterÂisÂtics acquired in an organÂisÂm’s lifeÂtime could be passed down to the next genÂerÂaÂtion. “NothÂing is proven,” he declares, “so there’s room for a reliÂgious delÂiÂcatessen.”
One sensÂes that AsiÂmov wouldÂn’t have agreed, and indeed, would have been perÂfectÂly satÂisÂfied with a regÂuÂlar delÂiÂcatessen. Though both he and BradÂbury became famous as sciÂence-ficÂtion writÂers around the same time — to say nothÂing of their copiÂous writÂing in othÂer genÂres — they posÂsessed highÂly disÂtinct imagÂiÂnaÂtions. That works like FahrenÂheit 451 and the FounÂdaÂtion trilÂoÂgy attractÂed such difÂferÂent readÂerÂships is explicÂaÂble in part through BradÂbury’s insisÂtence that “there’s room to believe it all” and AsiÂmov’s disÂmissal of what he saw as every “get-rich quick scheme of the mind” pedÂdled by “con men of the spirÂit”: each point of view as thorÂoughÂly AmerÂiÂcan, in its way, as the BeaÂtÂles and the Stones were thorÂoughÂly EngÂlish.
RelatÂed conÂtent:
Isaac AsiÂmov Explains His Three Laws of Robots
Carl Sagan Answers the UltiÂmate QuesÂtion: Is There a God? (1994)
50 Famous AcaÂdÂeÂmics & SciÂenÂtists Talk About God
Based in Seoul, ColÂin Marshall writes and broadÂcasts on cities, lanÂguage, and culÂture. His projects include the SubÂstack newsletÂter Books on Cities, the book The StateÂless City: a Walk through 21st-CenÂtuÂry Los AngeÂles and the video series The City in CinÂeÂma. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall or on FaceÂbook.
So, whats your point?
The point is reliÂgion is just like choosÂing to watch a teleÂviÂsion show. You can samÂple difÂferÂent types and no harm will come from it.It is just enterÂtainÂment not realÂiÂty.
ReliÂgion had sevÂerÂal major purÂposÂes:
1) It solidÂiÂfied the tribe against the “othÂer.”
2) The conÂcept of the afterÂlife, even if in Hell, made killing othÂers so much easÂiÂer.
3) It obviÂatÂed the need to do the hard work of thinkÂing.
4) If the tribe comÂmitÂted atrocÂiÂties, they were excused by the sancÂtion of the God.
5) If the tribe failed, that was explained by the tribeÂmemÂbers not being pious enough.
6) The effects of (5) and (6) meant that the priests and rabÂbis would always win.
who cares what untrained BibÂliÂcal scholÂars who were nonÂbeÂlievÂers think? they dead and know God and ChrisÂtianÂiÂty is real now anyÂways. ForÂevÂer and ever withÂout end.
ReliÂgion was — and is — a means of conÂtrolÂling the popÂuÂlaÂtion, sureÂly? The priest/vicar/rabbi was seen as your god’s mouth-piece on earth, and if he said that there was an afterÂlife, benefÂiÂcent or othÂerÂwise, the popÂuÂlace was usuÂalÂly so ill-eduÂcatÂed that they dare not conÂtraÂdict him.
Thus, the threat of an afterÂlife spent in torÂment was rather a good incenÂtive to toe the line and not rock the EstabÂlishÂment boat, as it were. WitÂness our own lawÂless times and the conÂcomiÂtant decline of reliÂgious belief.
How can two dead guys weigh in on anyÂthing???
Wow…Dingo is right…won’t you guys be surÂprised in the afterlife…Say hi to Carl Sagan while your down there..
Brian…it’s “you’re.” The reliÂgious are typÂiÂcalÂly illitÂerÂate.
These guys are specÂuÂlaÂtive ficÂtion writÂers, not sciÂenÂtists, so do let’s make allowances. I’m a writer myself, someÂtimes specÂuÂlaÂtive, but mostÂly strivÂing to enterÂtain. Care for some enterÂtainÂment? Go to AmaÂzon, books, search term GarÂman Lord. What enterÂtains me is the thought that there are three kinds of deep thinkers in the world, sciÂenÂtists, theÂoloÂgians and philosoÂphers, all writÂing, supÂposÂedÂly, about the same thing, ultiÂmate realÂiÂty, so why are all their descripÂtions of ultiÂmate realÂiÂty all so ultiÂmateÂly difÂferÂent? I like to bear that conunÂdrum in mind as I write and specÂuÂlate; it keeps me from getÂting cocky.
The real fanÂtaÂsy is believÂing that evoÂluÂtion is responÂsiÂble for the world around us.
EveryÂone agrees that it is utterÂly ridicuÂlous to believe that the keyÂboard that I am curÂrentÂly typÂing on evolved from bilÂlions of years… yet peoÂple believe that the hand and finÂgers that I use to type this mesÂsage, which is infiÂniteÂly more advanced than this keyÂboard… was evolved over bilÂlions of years.
EvoÂluÂtion is super attracÂtive simÂply because there is no “highÂer authorÂiÂty” to account to.
What real eviÂdence do we have to show EvoÂluÂtion is true? There are no tranÂsiÂtion fosÂsils across species. What sciÂenÂtifÂic method can we valÂiÂdate our theÂoÂries are true from someÂthing that hapÂpened bilÂlions of years ago? How does evoÂluÂtion explain where intelÂliÂgence came from? It is all techÂnobÂaÂbÂble that you realÂly have to take by faith… actuÂalÂly more like blind faith.
No think you… frankly I do not have enough faith to believe in evoÂluÂtion.
AnyÂone with a modÂicum of trainÂing in phiÂlosÂoÂphy and logÂic underÂstands the conÂcept of magÂiÂcal thinkÂing.
A reaÂsonÂably comÂpreÂhenÂsive introÂducÂtion to the study of phiÂlosÂoÂphy includes Descartes, and the oriÂgin of skepÂtiÂcal phiÂlosÂoÂphy.
It also includes a study of why proofs of the exisÂtence of a Deity inevitably fail.
What’s left is the sciÂenÂtifÂic method.
It has an advanÂtage reliÂgion lacks: it works.
Where’s the eviÂdence of God’s exisÂtence? Oh… that’s right, there’s faith. You don’t need proof when you have faith.
You have the gist of it but you have some errors that need to be addressed. It was the Code of HamÂmuraÂbi that was the modÂel for “law” and how crimes would be hanÂdled. It preÂcedÂed the bible by about 300 years. But it was ChrisÂtianÂiÂty with simÂiÂlar MosaÂic law that was more than likeÂly responÂsiÂble for proÂlifÂerÂatÂing the conÂcept throughÂout the westÂern world. It was elf-servÂing priests who are responÂsiÂble for twistÂing reliÂgion so that they could favor their own pockÂet books and banks in their dogged deterÂmiÂnaÂtion for the bible to be takÂen as the litÂerÂal word of God. SureÂly the word was givÂen with some flexÂiÂbilÂiÂty to allow it to remain relÂeÂvant to the changÂing times. I mean, if someÂthing was meant to endure throughÂout eterÂniÂty, there would absoluteÂly have to be room for interÂpreÂtaÂtion. I believe that’s what the artiÂcle was inferÂring.
Why is there so much vitÂriÂol on both sides of this diaÂlogue? “The reliÂgious are typÂiÂcalÂly illitÂerÂate”. “The irreÂliÂgious are typÂiÂcalÂly mean and spiteÂful”. NeiÂther comÂment does much to advance the conÂverÂsaÂtion — it just demonÂstrates a fear of perÂspecÂtive of othÂers so it is easÂiÂer to shut them down with insults. Let’s have real, thoughtÂful, respectÂful conÂverÂsaÂtions. Let’s stop bashÂing each othÂer and pickÂing out microÂscopÂic defects (that we all have) and start lisÂtenÂing to each othÂer.
ReliÂgion was the first sciÂence, sciÂence the first reliÂgion.
It all had to do with tryÂing to explain:
snow
rain
death
life
the sun
the moon
etc.
All the othÂer shit came latÂer.
Ok. I read it. It’s a ramÂbling artiÂcle about 2 dead men who didÂn’t conÂdone or pracÂtice “reliÂgion.” From a ChrisÂtÂian perÂspecÂtive, that’s their choice since we are givÂen free will. The probÂlem with that lies withÂin the fact that no one we know–outside Jesus Christ– has ever been docÂuÂmentÂed as havÂing “descendÂed into hell” at death, only to rise again to ascend to heavÂen, again, with the watchÂful eyes of witÂnessÂes to that fact. While they’re both great writÂers, I don’t read them for their reliÂgious beliefs.
All agnosÂtic and atheÂist always call it a reliÂgion. HowÂevÂer, it is about you havÂing a relaÂtionÂship with Christ Jesus. Whom by the way has full docÂuÂmenÂtaÂtion of 500 witÂnessÂes of him being alive after death. It is your soul that we are talkÂing about. Where do you want your soul to be? In HeavÂen, where you are loved, cared for, merÂciÂful, kind, comÂpasÂsionÂate, humÂble, forÂgivÂen, are all the qualÂiÂties of. Or perÂhaps you want the oppoÂsite there of, hate, anger, enviÂous, jealÂous, mockÂing, selfÂish, a place of no water to quench you thirst, the absence of God whom creÂatÂed you, conÂstant bulÂlyÂing by the dark angles whom where thrown out of HeavÂen. UltiÂmateÂly it is your choice, as is givÂen to you from God. Just in case you choose Christ, repent your sins pubÂlicly with witÂnessÂes, be genÂuine and sinÂcere for he will know. Ask for him to come into you, body, mind, soul and spirÂit in his name, Christ Jesus. Get conÂnectÂed to him, through the spirÂit (his helper) by readÂing the Bible and pray daiÂly or as often you are comÂpelled. Just for your info, my very 1st verse writÂten upon my heart is from the Book of MathÂew, ChapÂter 7, verse 14; “Small is that door, narÂrow is the path that leads to life and few will find it.” That door is opened by Christ, either he and you have a relaÂtionÂship or not, for he will know, whom opens or closÂes that door. NarÂrow is the path, that being the examÂple Christ had used and demonÂstratÂed while here upon earth. RememÂber I will not judge you in your choice, for it is God’s and Christ’s alone. I am a felÂlow citÂiÂzen in the KingÂdom of Christ. Let me be the 1st to say welÂcome brothÂer or sisÂter. Have a Blessed day everyÂone.
True reliÂgion is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul, and to love your neighÂbor as yourÂself.” This is of course a seemÂing overÂsimÂpliÂfiÂcaÂtion…
EvoÂluÂtion and a highÂer authorÂiÂty aren’t mutuÂalÂly excluÂsive. HighÂer authorÂiÂty’s pulling the EvoÂluÂtion strings.
A fasÂciÂnatÂing book for enquirÂing minds is Dr. Armand M. Nicholi’s “The QuesÂtion of God”, subÂtiÂtled “C.S.Lewis and SigÂmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex and the MeanÂing of Life”. If you saw the recent movie FREUD’S LAST SESSION (2023) with AnthoÂny HopÂkins, the book is a much more far-reachÂing and proÂfound examÂiÂnaÂtion of the conÂvicÂtions of two of the twenÂtiÂeth cenÂtuÂry’s most influÂenÂtial thinkers. UnforÂtuÂnateÂly, you can’t “get at” God from an anthroÂpoÂlogÂiÂcal or hisÂtorÂiÂcal angle. It needs to be from a perÂsonÂal angle, which is what this book does.
So many peoÂple talkÂing about the opinÂions of “two dead writÂers, who aren’t even sciÂenÂtists”, this in defense of ideas writÂten down by peoÂple who are also dead and also not sciÂenÂtists.
CitaÂtion NeedÂed!!
ReliÂgion is whatÂevÂer anyÂone choosÂes to believe about anyÂthing and everyÂthing they don’t underÂstand.
No one realÂly knows and no one ever will know what the ultiÂmate truths are.
The underÂlyÂing probÂlem with reliÂgion comes from those self-appointÂed indiÂvidÂuÂals or groups of indiÂvidÂuÂals who have conÂcoctÂed it into servÂing their own selfÂish interÂests for powÂer, wealth, or any myrÂiÂad of othÂer anti-social reaÂsons whether seemÂingÂly well intendÂed or not.
The only avenue remoteÂly capaÂble of reachÂing the truth is sciÂence.
There is not a sinÂgle reliÂgion, faith, belief, proÂnounceÂment or writÂing that has ever answered any quesÂtion of who we are; where we came from; or why we are here.
VirÂtuÂalÂly every bit of our comÂpendiÂum of knowlÂedge curÂrentÂly in exisÂtence has come from sciÂence.
So I’m going with that.
“VirÂtuÂalÂly every bit of our comÂpendiÂum of knowlÂedge curÂrentÂly in exisÂtence has come from sciÂence.” Every bit? As a perÂson trained in the physÂiÂcal sciÂences, I kind of doubt the sweepÂing genÂerÂalÂiÂty of that stateÂment. SciÂence is very modÂel-driÂven. Some would claim that sciÂence can explain everyÂthing. I have to counter that by sayÂing that sciÂence doesÂn’t explain; it describes. SciÂence (as you said) can answer the quesÂtion “How?”, but it can’t answer the quesÂtion “Why?”. And you should give a litÂtle credÂit to phiÂlosÂoÂphy and mathÂeÂmatÂics. Two words: Gödel’s TheÂoÂrem.
Ray BradÂbury had a high school eduÂcaÂtion. But an amazÂing imagÂiÂnaÂtion…
Issac AsiÂmov howÂevÂer was a sciÂenÂtist, and also wrote Non FicÂtion. We was a Bio ChemÂistry ProÂfesÂsor. No allowances needÂed.