More Mythmaker Comment: Science Is Knowledge; Religion Is Not Truth

       Neil Aplin's comments on my earlier post Beginning My Mythmaker Analysis contain enough interesting material for several responding posts! Today I'm going to address two more of his remarks.

       Let's begin with his interpretation of my statement where I defined " ' ... science with a truer meaning: the hunger for knowledge ...' But I would say that science isn't a 'hunger for knowledge', but rather it's a proven methodology for revealing answers to questions that can be relied upon. The methodology is repeated testing of a hypothesis until a conclusion can be reached, and then peer review to try and disprove it. The 'hunger for knowledge' is just a human characteristic that drives the motivation to use the scientific method to find the truth."
       Here's what I said in context: "By the middle of the 27th century, humanism had prevailed and the concept of the scientific had been changed forever. Technology, which the Mythmakers had called “soulless,” had become subordinated to a science with a truer meaning: the hunger for knowledge."
       Possibly I could have chosen a better word than "hunger," but what I'm doing here is not defining science so much as contrasting it with technology. Precept No. 8: Science has a soul; technology is soulless. (Let's not get into the concept of soul until a later post.) Technology is a tool of science or an instrument of change; it's not a seeker for knowledge in and of itself, and when it is allowed to take control (such as when it's used to invent instruments of war) it can become devastating. Science in and of itself is neutral or even positive -- seeking knowledge is in most cases a positive goal. 
       Here is the derivation of the word science as given in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science?s=t :
"1300–50; Middle English < Middle French < Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns ), present participle of scīre to know + -ia"

       While part of the definition of science involves methodology, the word is founded more broadly; at its roots "science" means "knowledge."  In The Termite Queen v.2, Kaitrin seeks for a way to explain to Kwi'ga'ga'tei the Shshi Seer all these little "magic" boxes and gizmos that they use to communicate and to investigate their surroundings.  This exchange takes place:

 

       As Griffen and Trea scanned the crouching Alate’s wings and eyes and ran sensors over her body, she said to Kaitrin, You make your a’tas’zi| upon me. 
       “We do not call it ‘magic,’” Kaitrin said. “We call it … ” For what was the root of the word “science,” anyway? Knowledge. Systematic, demonstrable knowledge. The Shshi had two words that could apply: preiv’zi|, “something known”; and parn’zi|, “something learned.” “ … a way of knowing, a way of learning. There is much that we do not know and these boxes help us to learn. So you should call them ‘learning boxes,’ not ‘magic boxes.’”
       There are things that you can learn from the Shshi?
       “Oh, yes. A great deal.”
       The thing that we learn most from you is how much we do not know.

       Now here is another of Neil Aplin's comments:
       "You then say " ... Myth and gods are not science; they are faith-based..." Absolutely, again I agree. And basing something on faith rather than evidence is another way of explaining the meaning of the word 'hope' - so something faith-based is that which we hope is true, it's wishful thinking, or fantasy. But just because we hope something is true doesn't then make it true, although I wish this wasn’t the case – if only wishing something could actually make it come about!"

        What we have to consider here is the definition of truth and of faith. I don't see it having anything to do with hope. For example, my computer just crashed! Don't you hate that? -- all your passwords disappear! Fortunately, Blogger saves so frequently that I didn't lose anything I'd written on this post. But it gave me this example: "Gee, I hope my computer doesn't crash!" By that, I mean "I wish" this wouldn't happen. It doesn't mean I have faith that it won't -- In fact, I'm pretty sure it will sooner or later. 
       Faith is something a lot stronger than hope. Nobody ever fought a war because they "hoped" that the cause they believed in was the right one. And faith has nothing to do with scientific proof. It is an irrational, non-scientific belief that something is true. I don't have to understand anything about gravity to "have faith" that the stone is always going to fall downward when it is dropped. Experience has shown me that it will. (Of course, I suppose quantum theory might say that at times it might fall up.)
      (Parenthetically, wishful thinking is not fantasy. "I wish this were true" is not the way people read fantasy novels. While they are reading and absorbing the symbolism, they suspend disbelief. If they don't, it's a badly constructed piece of writing. But that doesn't mean they believe that fantasy embodies scientific truth or conditions that exist in the real world -- that's a serious mistake and can lead to people shooting up movie theaters and schools, or jumping off buildings because they've become convinced they can fly like angels.)
       Anyway, that's not my point. When people say they have faith in god's existence, they aren't just hoping the entity exists, they really believe it. And nobody can prove they are wrong. Neither can they prove you wrong when you say you don't believe god exists. God is an unknowable entity. 
       And if people choose to believe, they should be allowed to do so, just like the atheist or the agnostic should be allowed to "believe" what he or she wants. That's why we have freedom of thought and freedom of religion in the present day, and paradoxically it's why the Mythmaker philosophy banned the open practice of religion, because equating religion (defined as an organized belief in a unified body of orthodox dogma) with Truth is an oxymoron, in my opinion.

Precept No. 10. The Right Way is universal; the Truth is parochial and divisive.

       The problem is that many people believe so strongly that their religion embodies the one and only Truth that they want to suppress or destroy everybody who doesn't believe the same thing. An uncountable number of wars over the centuries of history have been fought over these truths, causing an incomprehensible amount of misery, destruction, and death. So believe your own truth -- your own faith -- but keep it to yourself and live peacefully, listening to the inner moral directives that come from being human (the Right Way).

(A disclaimer: I can't say I feel really qualified to be discussing such esoteric topics, but I feel strongly about these things, so I plan to keep right on pontificating!)

Mythmakers: Some Responses to a Comment

       I've had some interesting comments by Neil Aplin on the earlier Mythmaker posts (see the comments here) and I need to respond, so here goes!  It was about time I wrote a new Mythmaker post!  This is rather hastily composed, but I'm going to post it today anyway (without a serious proofread).

       Mr. Aplin writes: "Just because man’s internal sense of right and wrong doesn't preclude the supernatural, it doesn't necessarily mean that the supernatural must therefore exist." 
       My response: Neither I nor the Mythmakers say that man's ability to discern what is right proves the existence of god or the spiritual, only that there can be no proof that god or the spiritual doesn't exist. That is Precepts No. 1 ("No one can know deity; neither can it be proven that it does not exist")
and 3 ("Since the purpose of deity for humans, or even whether it had a purpose for humans, is unknowable, it is incumbent upon humans to look within themselves and find the way to right action"). 
       I refuse to be a full-blown atheist, because I think a lot of them to be just as closed-minded and bigoted as the most hot-headed religionists. I find Richard Dawkins to be like that.  I don't even particularly like the term "agnostic."  These terms suggest fixed beliefs with no room for growth or development or change or novelty -- the very opposite of scientific! It seems to me that there will always be something beyond what science can teach us -- beyond the Big Bang, beyond what came before what came before that -- but we will never know its nature.  Therefore, it could come in any form.  That's why  we can write fantasy.  A true atheist couldn't write fantasy because it would go against his belief in the supernatural.  It would be a travesty to have spirit beings or gods working miracles in a book.  A true atheist should have a big book-burning and get rid of every allusion to anything spiritual that has ever been written.  Throw Tolkien on there, because his elves cannot be scienfically proved to exist!
 
       Mr. Aplin quotes me as saying "Myth and gods are .... a truth, which the individual recognizes by some instinct built into the genes."  But the full text of what I said is this: "Myth and gods are not science; they are faith-based. But by that very nature, they can't be proved to exist; they can be neither denied or proved true or real. They can only symbolize a truth, which the individual recognizes by some instinct built into the genes." "Symbolize" a truth is different from saying they "are" a truth.  When symbols are used, as in poetry or literature -- or myth -- it gives us a deeper insight into what is reflected or embodied.  By "built into the genes," I'm talking about the need of the evolved human brain to explain the world in which it finds itself.  I remember reading somewhere that there may be a genetic component to this need.  Non-human creatures don't seem to be able to explain the world through symbols or to have a need to do so (well, bower birds do have a certain artistic capability!) 
       Gradually these primitive symbolic explanations (such as Zeus hurling thunderbolts) become replaced with scientifically provable facts.  But again, there is always that point beyond which we cannot go.  Therefore, we can write fantasy or construct mythic systems -- we can satisfy our need for symbols by embodying the unknown in our personal creations, and by gaining deeper insight through those creations.  I consider all religious writing to be mythic in nature, including the Bible (or perhaps especially the Bible).  I'm not against religious myth; I'm only against dogmatic religious institutions that proclaim they have the one and only Truth and want to force the entire world to believe as they do.
       So -- maybe infinitely huge entities exist, inhabiting a plane of existence or a dimension we can't even conceive of (see my short piece "A Little Laboratory Work"), playing soccer with comets and using the entire universe as a laboratory.  Maybe malevolent beings lurk out in deep space -- beings who don't want us out there (that's in my Man Who Found Birds among the Stars).   
       And maybe there really is a big Termite Queen (see at left) who fills up the sky with the mighty creative force of her belly, lays the stars from her ovipositor, and occasionally meddles in her creation.  I can have this Goddess talk to the Seers among those who worship her, even though Earthers have become humanists and don't believe in her or any other god.  Or maybe humanity believes more than they realize.  Decide for yourself after you finish v.2 of TQ!

This is enough for now.  I've only touched on Mr. Aplin's remarks.  I'll get back to more of them at another time.

Review and Analysis: The Children of God, by Mary Doria Russell

       Earlier I wrote an analysis of The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell, and now I've finished reading the sequel.  In Goodreads, I gave it 4 stars, while I gave the first volume 5.  While I found the book rewarding and a must-read for anyone who wants to complete the story of Emilio Sandoz, there are certain reasons why I didn't enjoy it quite as much as the first volume.
       In the beginning I thought I might actually like the sequel even better because we learn so much more about the fascinating alien species that Russell created. However, certain technical details about the book make it a more difficult read.  The Sparrow jumped backward and forward in time, but there were only two basic time sequences and it was done in a very controlled and orderly way.  In Children of God several different time periods are involved and in some cases chapters are even broken between two times because the sections are too short for a whole chapter.  It's difficult to ascertain where particular happenings fit in relation to previous chapters.  A table of contents would help, making it easier to see the shape of the timeline at a glance.
       Because of the large geographic sweep of events, a map of the Rakhat lands in question (perhaps showing some of the migrations) would also help the reader to get a visual picture of events.
       As a writer myself, I get the sense that in The Sparrow Russell was writing from what I call inspiration.  I would bet anything that she had the whole story conceived in her head and all she had to do was transcribe it.  In Children of God, I sense more improvisation, more tentativeness.  It's as if she were thinking, "I've got to finish Emilio's story, but what should happen?   Well, this might work and this, but I'm not sure -- I'll have to try out some things ... "  She may have had the ending in mind (the essential business with the music and the DNA) and certain other events along the way, but a lot of the filling feels improvised.  She keeps introducing new characters with only a brief role in the plot.  And the end feels rushed to me, as if she were saying to herself, "This is getting too long -- let's hurry and get it over with."  And while the fight between the two champions was skillfully described, there is a sense of futility about it rather than a truly epic struggle, and the war that follows seems like a blip, important only for its outcome.  Of course, she is not really trying to write epic fantasy here, but rather philosophical and psychological speculation, so emphasizing the battles to a greater degree would likely be superfluous.
       In the author interview at the end of the book, Russell talks about how Chapter 21 was the hardest to write.  In it she summarizes 20 years of Rakhat history.   She says, "I rewrote that chapter a dozen times ... I tried a straight historical narrative and that didn't work.  I tried a lot of stuff, but ultimately the least bad solution to this narrative problem was to convey the information in a conversation between the two canniest political minds in the story. ...  It wasn't a perfect solution, but it was the best I was able to come up with ... "
       Well, I can certainly empathize with that!  What she's doing is breaking the rule of showing and not telling, but frankly I don't really subscribe to that rule!  Sometimes showing would require a whole novel in itself.  For the sake of brevity, you have to tell certain things.  In my Termite Queen I used a chunk of 8 printed pages to summarize 900 years of Earth's future history. Certainly there was no way I could put that whole history in narrative form, and it would feel highly artificial to have two characters sit down and discuss it in that much detail.  So I simply chose to put it in a knotty chunk, which readers can skim or even skip if they want to (although I don't recommend doing that!).  It was the "least bad solution"!
      Now, I must touch on the theology and philosophy, because I think Russell achieved her purpose. In the author interview, she speaks about needing to solve Emilo's dilemma: "Either God is vicious -- deliberately causing evil or at least allowing it to happen -- or Emilio is a deluded ape who's taken a lot of old folktales far too seriously. That may not be good theology, but at the beginning of Children of God Emilio believes those are his only choices: bitterness or atheism, hatred or absurdity."
       Russell always works from the premise that  there is a God who has a purpose for us.  The almost inarticulate Isaac enunciates to Sandoz the ultimate conclusion here: "It's God's music.  You came here so I could find it," thus revealing to Emilio the purpose for his suffering: that the fact humans and aliens are all children of God could indeed be "proven" through a scientific construct.  Even though I don't work on that premise, there is a similarity between that statement and my Mythmaker Precept No. 19: Take joy in sharing your genetic heritage with all the bio-organisms of this planet, and of the universe.  My statement is less lyrical, but the idea of the music of the spheres being encapsulated in the DNA of all biological organisms is strikingly similar.  So even though my premises are humanist and I don't try to maintain that these things were "God's purpose" (something I feel we can't prove), nevertheless I can see a strong connection here between what Mary Doria Russell is trying to say and what I'm trying to say in all of my own writings.  In my world, Emilio would have a third choice -- to view both good and evil as coming from the inner nature of humanity and of those who share in the qualities that make us human -- those who have evolved the power to reject evil and find the Right Way within themselves.
 

The Mythmakers: What is Religion?

       In my August 20 Mythmaker post (which you can access here), I talked about the Mythmakers' agnostic/humanist view of god, which covered the first five Precepts.  This post will skip to Precepts 10 and 11 and will discuss the nature of religion, which is something quite different from a consideration of the nature of god or spirituality or belief.

10. The Right Way is universal; the Truth is parochial and divisive.

       Here the important thing is to define terms.  I define religion as the organized promulgation of a body of dogmatic beliefs that claim to be the exclusive truth, anathematizing all other beliefs -- turning them into the work of infidels who don't worship the True God and therefore should be either coerced to believe the "Truth" or else expunged from the Earth. That's the most extreme view, of course, but you can see the evidence of such situations everywhere in our modern age and, in fact, throughout history. Whenever a belief system is in its infancy, it is persecuted.  As soon as it attains dominance, it begins to persecute others. The Romans persecuted the Christians, who won the fight and began to persecute the Jews. Then Islam arose, and Christians and Muslims began to seek to destroy each other, each religion claiming to possess the ultimate "Truth" and calling the other "infidel." That's still going on in our own enlightened times.
       Of course, this doesn't happen only on a global scale; these religions can't get along within themselves, inevitably splintering into ever smaller groups, each of which maintains it has the one and only "Truth." Unfortunately, in my view of future history, the conflicts among these religious entities only get worse until all institutions manage to destroy one another and themselves (see footnote).
       The "Right Way" is a term found in many Mythmaker works.  It represents the common thread that human beings can draw from within themselves as to what constitutes right thinking and behavior.   But that Right Way of thinking and acting is not Truth with a capital T. The Right Way can be attained by many different paths.  "Truth" is an absolute term -- I alone (or the group with which I identify) knows what the Truth is and all other beliefs or ways of thinking are false.   Any person who in this way declares he has found the "Truth" is dividing himself from the rest of humanity. This is why the open practice of "religion" has been proscribed by the 28th century in my version of future history.

11. Institutions that grip souls merely for the purpose of gripping souls will always become destructive.

       This related Precept reinforces the dangers of institutions that proclaim they have found the "Truth."  Such groups can be religious in nature, or they can be political or social. "Gripping souls" implies proselytizing for one's "Truth" and converting (brainwashing) others into the same belief. Collect as many "souls for god" as you can. Destroy indigenous beliefs of native peoples because they aren't the "Truth." But since deity is unknowable, who are you to say which beliefs about deity have no validity?  The same applies to political ideologies. How many individuals have been destroyed in the name of the "Truth" of Nazism or communism, or simply to maintain the power of the regional tyrant?

       I want to make it clear that religious organizations are rarely evil in their totality; they can do a lot of good when they take a wider view and remain willing to tolerate others' beliefs. The doctrines of all religions and mythologies contain positive elements, and that's why the Mythmakers use the symbolism of myth in their writings. Since the paths of the Right Way are many, to reject all myths simply because they are promoted by misguided individuals would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In my future history, only institutionalized religions are banned; you can believe anything you like as long as you don't promote your beliefs publicly, practice them openly, or organize in order to force them on others.  Proselytizing is a imprisonable offense. 

       But "remnant religions" do still exist, either in manifestations to which EarthGov chooses to turn a blind eye, or under the guise of cultural phenomena, or in specially set-aside enclaves, within whose boundaries belief systems can be practiced openly.  I talk about all this a lot in "The Man Who Found Birds among the Stars," my big, formless, unfinished, impossible novel.  

       So, if you like, you can privately worship a big Termite Queen that dwells nameless among the stars.   But even my termites have their problems with intolerance and with "infidels."  You'll begin to learn about that in v.2 of "The Labors of Ki'shto'ba Huge-Head."

       The next time I work on the Mythmakers, we'll touch on some of the Precepts that deal with social relationships.

Note: Here is an extract from "My Future History."  There is undoubtedly enough material in this paragraph to write a dozen works of dystopian fiction.  I did expand a little bit on one aspect of this part of future history in "The Man Who Found Birds among the Stars," but I don't know if it will ever be published.
       "The militant religionist movement that began early in the 21st century resulted in a succession of conflicts known as the Zealot Wars. Fundamentalist believers took over the organizational structures of all ancient religions, which fought openly both among one another and among splinter groups within themselves. The fanatical Romish Letin Revival of the 22nd century led to the first bombing of the holy Islemist and Judish sites in Arbia and Israil. This movement in turn saw its last Pope assassinated in 2310 by a faction of Kristen Scripturists. Later reconstructions of the Middle Eastern holy sites were ultimately obliterated in 2341, not by Kristens but by radiant bombing perpetrated by insane Islemist and Judish tyrants." 

Who are the Mythmakers and Why Do They Matter?

       It's been a while since I wrote something substantive about my future world, so I think it's time I started a discourse on the philosophy that underlies the culture of the 26th through 30th centuries -- something I've been threatening to do since I started this publication gambit.  Anyone who has read "The Termite Queen" or who has looked at this blog's page called "My Future History" may remember references to the Mythmakers.  Here's a quote from the "Future History":

       "In the 25th century a mysterious group of humanist philosophers rose from among the ranks of those Underground Archivists. They came to be known by the collective name “Mythmakers” and even in the 30th century they remained anonymous. They composed mainly works of fantasy – drama, fiction, and poetry as well as music and graphic art: works of rare beauty and symbolic power from which emerged a new behavioral code, a new system of morality based not on arbitrary prescriptions of religious dogma but on the humanist tenets of respect for life, the unity of humankind, and personal responsibility.

        "In the 26th century a movement to codify their philosophy began, inaugurating an era known as the Neo-Religious Period. It was a time when society and technology were reconstituting themselves – a time of few wars but of much social and intellectual ferment, including vehement debate concerning the implications of the Mythmakers’ works, the nature and necessity of religion, and the relationship between religion and science. By the middle of the 27th century, humanism had prevailed and the concept of the scientific had been changed forever. Technology, which the Mythmakers had called “soulless,” had become subordinated to a science with a truer meaning: the hunger for knowledge. It could have hardly been otherwise, given the tenor of the Mythmakers’ thinking, which became crystallized in the Twenty Precepts that formed the foundation of 30th century societal philosophy."

       The key word here is "humanism"; the foundation of morality and ethics has shifted from reliance on divergent, competing, and mutually belligerent dogmatic religious systems to a belief in the power of humanity to access the part of its nature that makes it human -- respect and compassion for one's fellow humans and for life in general, the recognition that all varieties of human beings are the same species, and a sense of personal responsibility.

       The Mythmakers took their name from the fact that they composed mostly what we would call fantasy  art.  The Mythmaker Canon consists of

197 long pieces of literature (dramas, novels, narrative poems) (This includes probably the most important one of the lot -- a drama entitled "The Valley of the White Bear," which is discussed in "The Termite Queen.)

681 lyric poems, 97 with musical settings

213 pieces of graphic art

89 major musical compositions

8 operas

       Myth has always been the means to convey truths, and what is myth but fantasy?  What is God but a fantasy of the human spirit?  What are any creation stories but the most wonderful fantasy?  But does that make God or the gods less meaningful?  Myth and gods are not science; they are faith-based.  But by that very nature, they can't be proved to exist; they can be neither denied or proved true or real.  They can only symbolize a truth, which the individual recognizes by some instinct built into the genes.  That means there is no one truth and to set out to assert that there is and to coerce others to subscribe to that view of the truth is a crime against all that makes us human.

       I'm going to devote the remainder of this post to a list of the Twenty Precepts mentioned in the above quotation and referred to at intervals throughout my novel "The Termite Queen," and then later I'll comment on them.  Or maybe some of you would like to comment on them and question them and start a discussion.

   1.  No one can know deity; neither can it be proven that it does not exist.

  2.  Humans have within themselves the ability to see beyond themselves and hence to act rightly without supernatural stimulus.

  3.  Since the purpose of deity for humans, or even whether it had a purpose for humans, is unknowable, it is incumbent upon humans to look within themselves and find the way to right action.

   4.  Humans must take responsibility for their own behavior, not seeking to put blame on imposed rules (of deity or human) or on fate, chance, or the intervention or willfulness of deity.

   5.  Humans will never succeed absolutely in achieving these goals; nevertheless striving for right action is its own purpose.

   6.   The closest humans can attain to deity is the symbolism of myth and art.

   7.   If a human have nothing else, it has its own soul, which must remain inviolate.

   8.   Science has a soul; technology is soulless.

   9.   Conduct your wars with words, not weapons.

 10.   The Right Way is universal; the Truth is parochial and divisive.

 11.  Institutions that grip souls merely for the purpose of gripping souls will always become destructive.

 12.   To achieve understanding of the unlike is a divine goal.

 13.  Love is as unknowable as deity, but every soul attests that it exists.

 14.  Let men and women make the vows of love in the music of the bedchamber, not with empty words.

 15.  Evolution has failed to structure the human organism for moderation; nevertheless the ability to recognize and strive for this virtue distinguishes human beings from other animals.  [Corollary:  The human organism is not innately a peaceful animal, but its ability to recognize and strive for peace sets it apart from other animals.] [Corollary:  Moderation promotes peace.]

 16.  Animals neither punish, seek revenge, forgive, nor blaspheme, nor recognize a need for any of these things.

 17.  There are creatures on this planet [amended later to in the universe] who speak, form symbols, and share emotions; these may be called human.

 18.  Study history and learn from it, but look to the future and do not let yourself be trapped by nostalgia or revenge.

 19.  Take joy in sharing your genetic heritage with all the bio-organisms of this planet [and of the universe – amendment added later].

 20.  Everything in the universe shares in the principle of life, hence we have a moral obligation not to destroy life in our infinitesimal portion of the universe.