Talking With God

[Noop]

Talking to God...

I met god the other day.

I know what you’re thinking. How the hell did you know it was god?

Well, I’ll explain as we go along, but basically he convinced me by having all, and I do mean ALL, the answers. Every question I flung at him he batted back with a plausible and satisfactory answer. In the end, it was easier to accept that he was god than otherwise.

Which is odd, because I’m still an atheist and we even agree on that!

It all started on the 8.20 back from Paddington. Got myself a nice window seat, no screaming brats or drunken hooligans within earshot. Not even a mobile phone in sight. Sat down, reading the paper and in he walks.

What did he look like?

Well not what you might have expected that’s for sure. He was about 30, wearing a pair of jeans and a "hobgoblin" tee shirt. Definitely casual. Looked like he could have been a social worker or perhaps a programmer like myself.

‘Anyone sitting here?’ he said.

‘Help yourself’ I replied.

Sits down, relaxes, I ignore and back to the correspondence on genetic foods entering the food chain…

Train pulls out and a few minutes later he speaks.

‘Can I ask you a question?’

Fighting to restrain my left eyebrow I replied ‘Yes’ in a tone which was intended to convey that I might not mind one question, and possibly a supplementary, but I really wasn’t in the mood for a conversation. ..

‘Why don’t you believe in god?’

The Bastard!

I love this kind of conversation and can rabbit on for hours about the nonsense of theist beliefs. But I have to be in the mood! Its like when a jehova’s witness knocks on your door 20 minutes before you’re due to have a wisdom tooth pulled. Much as you'd really love to stay… You can’t even begin the fun. And I knew, if I gave my standard reply we’d still be arguing when we got to Cardiff. I just wasn’t in the mood. I needed to fend him off.

But then I thought ‘Odd! How is this perfect stranger so obviously confident – and correct – about my atheism?’ If I’d been driving my car, it wouldn’t have been such a mystery. I’ve got the Darwin fish on the back of mine – the antidote to that twee christian fish you see all over. So anyone spotting that and understanding it would have been in a position to guess my beliefs. But I was on a train and not even wearing my Darwin "Evolve" tshirt that day. And ‘The Independent’ isn’t a registered flag for card carrying atheists, so what, I wondered, had given the game away.

‘What makes you so certain that I don’t?’

‘Because’, he said, ‘ I am god – and you are not afraid of me’

You’ll have to take my word for it of course, but there are ways you can deliver a line like that – most of which would render the speaker a candidate for an institution, or at least prozac. Some of which could be construed as mildly amusing.

Conveying it as "indifferent fact" is a difficult task but that’s exactly how it came across. Nothing in his tone or attitude struck me as even mildly out of place with that statement. He said it because he believed it and his rationality did not appear to be drug induced or the result of a mental breakdown.

‘And why should I believe that?’


‘Well’ he said, ‘why don’t you ask me a few questions. Anything you like, and see if the answers satisfy your sceptical mind?’

This is going to be a short conversation after all, I thought.

‘Who am I?’

‘Stottle. Harry Stottle, born August 10 1947, Bristol, England. Father Paul, Mother Mary. Educated Duke of Yorks Royal Military School 1960 67, Sandhurst and Oxford, PhD in Exobiology, failed rock singer, full time trade union activist for 10 years, latterly self employed computer programmer, web author and aspiring philosopher. Married to Michelle, American citizen, two children by a previous marriage. You’re returning home after what seems to have been a successful meeting with an investor interested in your proposed product tracking anti-forgery software and protocol and you ate a full english breakfast at the hotel this morning except that, as usual, you asked them to hold the revolting english sausages and give you some extra bacon. ‘

He paused

‘You’re not convinced. Hmmm… what would it take to convince you?’

'oh right! Your most secret password and its association'

A serious hacker might be able to obtain the password, but no one else and I mean

NO ONE

knows its association.

He did.

So how would you have played it?

I threw a few more questions about relatively insignificant but unpublicised details of my life (like what my mother claims was the first word I ever spoke – apparently "armadillo"! (Don't ask…)) but I was already pretty convinced. I knew there were only three possible explanations at this point.

Possibility One was that I was dreaming or hallucinating. Nobody’s figured out a test for that so, at the time I think that was my dominant feeling. It did not feel real at the time. More like I was in a play. Acting my lines. Since the event, however, continuing detailed memories of it, together with my contemporaneous notes, remain available, so unless the hallucination has continued to this day, I am now inclined to reject the hallucination hypothesis. Which leaves two others.

He could have been a true telepath. No documented evidence exists of anyone ever having such profound abilities to date but it was a possibility. It would have explained how he could know my best-kept secrets. The problem with that is that it doesn’t explain anything else! In particular it doesn’t account for the answers he proceeded to give to my later questions.

As Sherlock Holmes says, when you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Good empiricist, Sherlock.

I was forced to accept at least the possibility that this man was who he claimed to be.

So now what do you do?

Well, I’ve always known that if I met god I would have a million questions for him, so I thought, ‘why not?’ and proceeded with what follows. You’ll have to allow a bit of licence in the detail of the conversation. This was, shall we say, a somewhat unusual occurrence, not to mention just a BIT weird! And yes I was a leetle bit nervous! So if I don’t get it word perfect don’t whinge! You’ll get the gist I promise.

***********************************

‘Forgive me if it takes me a little time to get up to speed here, but its not everyday I get to question a deity’

‘The Deity’ he interrupted.

‘ooh. Touchy!’ I thought.

‘Not really – just correcting the image’

Now That takes some getting used to!

I tried to get a grip on my thoughts, with an internal command - ‘Discipline Harry. You’ve always wanted to be in a situation like this, now you’re actually in it, you mustn’t go to pieces and waste the opportunity of a lifetime’

‘You won’t’ he said.

Tell you! That’s the bit that made it feel unreal more than anything else - this guy sitting across the table and very obviously accurately reading my every thought. Its like finding someone else hand inside your trouser pocket!

Nevertheless, something made me inclined to accept the invasion, I had obviously begun to have some confidence in his perception or abilities, so I distinctly remember the effect of his words was that I suddenly felt deeply reassured and completely relaxed. As he had no doubt intended. Man must have an amazing seduction technique!

So then we got down to business…

‘Are you human?’

‘No’

‘Were you, ever?’

‘No, but similar, Yes’

‘Ah, so you are a product of evolution?’

‘Most certainly – mainly my own’

‘and you evolved from a species like ours, dna based organisms or something equally viable?’

‘Correct’

‘so what, exactly, makes you god?’

‘I did’

‘Why?’

‘Seemed like a good idea at the time’

‘and your present powers, are they in any way similar to what the superstitious believers in my species attribute to you?’

‘Close enough. ’

‘So you created all this, just for us?’

‘No. Of course not’

‘But you did create the Universe?’



‘This One. Yes’

‘But not your own?’

‘This is my own!’

‘You know what I mean!’

‘You can’t create your own parents, so No’

‘So let me get this straight. You are an entirely natural phenomenon.’

‘Entirely’

‘Arising from mechanisms which we ourselves will one day understand and possibly even master?’

‘subject to a quibble over who "we ourselves" may be, but yes’

‘meaning that if the human race doesn’t come up to the mark, other species eventually will?’

‘in one.’

‘and how many other species are there already out there ahead of us?’

‘surprisingly few. Less than fourteen million’

‘FEW!?’

‘Phew!’

‘And how many at or about our level?’

‘currently a little over 4 ½ billion’

‘so our significance in the universe at present is roughly equivalent to the significance of the average Joe here on planet Earth in his relation to the human race?’

‘a little less. Level One, the level your species has reached, begins with the invention of the flying machine. I define the next level in terms your Sci Fi Author Isaac Asimov has already grasped. It is reached when you achieve control of your own primary – the Sun. What Asimov calls a Type I technology. Humanity is only just into the flying machine phase, so as you can imagine, on that scale, the human race is somewhat near the bottom of the level one pack’

‘and all these species are your children?’

‘I like to think of them that way’

‘and the point?’

‘at its simplest, "Life Must Go On". My personal motivation is the desire for conversation. Once you’ve achieved my level, you cease to be billions of separate entities and become one ecstatic whole. A single entity that cannot die, however advanced, or perhaps, more accurately, because it is so advanced, will get lonely and even a trifle bored! I seem to be the first. I do not intend to be the last’

‘so you created a Universe which is potentially capable of producing another god like yourself?’

‘The full benefit will be temporary, but like most orgasms, worth it.’

‘this being the moment when our new god merges with you and we become one again?’

‘don’t play it down, that’s the ecstatic vision driving us all, me included – and when it happens the ecstasy lasts several times longer than this universe has already existed. Believe me, it really is worth the effort.’

‘Yes, I think I can see the attractions of a hundred billion year long orgasm’

‘and humans haven’t even begun to know how to really enjoy the orgasms they are already capable of. Wait till you master that simple art!’

‘So its all about sex is it?’

‘Ecstasy is merely a reward for procreating, it is what makes you want to do it. This is necessary, initially, to promote biological evolution. However once you’ve completed that stage and no longer require procreation, you will learn that ecstasy can be infinitely more intense than anything offered by sex’

‘Sounds good to me!'

'How direct is your involvement in all this? Did you just light the fuse which set off the big bang and stand back and watch? Or did you have to plant the seeds on appropriately fertile planets?’

‘The seeds evolved in deep space, purely as a result of the operations of the laws of physics and chemistry which your scientists have begun to attain a reasonable grasp of. Yes I triggered the bang and essentially became dormant for nearly 5 billion years. That’s how long it took the first lifeforms to emerge. That places them some 8 billion years ahead of you. The first intelligent species are now 4.3 billion years ahead of you. Really quite advanced. I can have deeply meaningful conversations with them. And usually do. In fact I am as we speak’

‘So then what?’

‘Do I keep a constant vigil over every move you make? Not in the kind of prying intrusive sense that some of you seem to think. Let's say I maintain an awareness of what's going on, at a planetary level. I tend only to focus on evolutionary leaps. See if they’re going in the right direction’

‘And if they’re not?’

‘Nothing. Usually’

‘Usually?’

‘Usually species evolving in the wrong direction kill themselves off or become extinct for other reasons’

‘Usually?’

‘There have been one or two cases where a wrong species has had the potential of becoming dominant at the expense of a more promising strain’

‘Let me guess. Dinosaurs on this planet are an example. Too successful. Suppressed the development of mammals and were showing no signs of developing intelligence. So you engineered a little corrective action in the form of a suitably selected asteroid’

‘Perceptive. Almost correct. They were showing signs of developing intelligence, even co-operation. Study your velocirapters. But far too predatory. Incapable of ever developing a "respect" for other life forms. It takes carrying your young to promote the development of emotional attachment to other animals. Earth reptiles aren’t built for that. The mammals who are, as you rightly say, couldn’t get a foothold against such mighty predators. You’ve now reached the stage where you could hold your own even against dinosaurs, but that’s only been true for about a thousand years, you wouldn’t have stood a chance 2 million years ago, so the dinosaurs had to go. They were, however, far too well balanced with the ecology of the planet, and never developed technology, so they weren’t going to kill themselves off in a hurry. Regrettably, I had to intervene.’

‘Regrettably?’

‘They were a beautiful and stunningly successful life form. One doesn’t destroy such things without a qualm.’

‘But at that stage how could you know that a better prospect would arise from the ashes?’

‘I didn’t. But the probability was quite high.’

‘and since then, what other little tweaks have you been responsible for in our development?’

‘None whatsoever. I set an alarm for the first sign of aerial activity, as I usually do. Leonardo looked promising for a while, but not until the Montgolfier brothers did I really begin to take an interest. That registered you as a level one intelligent species’

‘So Jesus of Nazareth, Moses, Mohammed…’

‘hmmm… sadly misguided I’m afraid. Anyone capable of communicating with their own cells will dimly perceive me – and all other life as being connected in a strictly quantum sense, but interpreting that vision as representing something supernatural and requiring obeisance is somewhat wide of the mark. And their followers are all a bit too obsessive and religious for my liking. Its no fun being worshipped once you stop being an adolescent teenager. Having said that, it's not at all unusual for developing species to go through that phase. Until they begin to grasp how much they too can shape their small corner of the universe, they are in understandable awe of an individual dimly but correctly perceived to be responsible for the creation of the whole of that universe. Eventually, if they are to have any hope of attaining level two, they must grow out of it and begin to accept their own power and potential. Its very akin to a child’s relationship with its parents. The awe and worship must disappear before the child can become an adult. Respect is not so bad as long as its not overdone. And I certainly respect all those species who make it that far. It’s a hard slog. I know. I've been there.’

‘You’ve been watching us since the Montgolfiers, when was that? 1650s?’

‘Close. 1783’

‘Well, if you’ve been watching us closely since then, what your average citizen is going to want to know is why you haven’t intervened more often. Why, if you have that sort of power, did you allow such incredible suffering and human misery?’

‘It seems to be necessary.’

‘NECESSARY??!!’

‘Without exception, intelligent species who gain dominance over their planet do so by becoming the most efficient predators. There are many intelligent species who do not evolve to dominate their planet. Like your dolphins, they adapt perfectly to the environment rather than take your course, which is to manipulate the environment.Unfortunately for the dolphin, his is a dead end. He may outlive the human race but will never escape the bounds of planet earth - not without your help at any rate. Only those who can manipulate the world they live in can one day hope to leave it and spread their seed throughout the universe.

Unlike the adaptors, who learn the point of cooperation fairly early on, manipulators battle on. And, once all lesser species have been overcome, they are so competitive and predatory that they are compelled to turn in on themselves. This nearly always evolves into tribal competition in one form or another and becomes more and more destructive - exactly like your own history. However this competition is vital to promote the leap from biological to technological evolution.

You need an arms race in order to make progress.

Your desire to dominate fuels a search for knowledge which the adaptors never require. And although your initial desire for knowledge is selfish and destructive, it begins the development of an intellectual self awareness, a form of higher consciousness, which never emerges in any other species. Not even while they are experiencing it, for example, can the intelligent adaptors - your dolphins - express the concepts of Love or Time.

Militarisation and the development of weapons of mass destruction are your first serious test at level one. You're still not through that phase, though the signs are promising. There is no point whatsoever in my intervening to prevent your self-destruction. Your ability to survive these urges is a crucial test of your fitness to survive later stages. So I would not, never have and never will intervene to prevent a species from destroying itself. Most, in fact, do just that.’

‘And what of pity for those have to live through this torment?’

‘I can’t say this in any way that doesn’t sound callous, but how much time do you spend worrying about the ants you run over in your car? I know it sounds horrendous to you, but you have to see the bigger picture. At this stage in human development, you’re becoming interesting but not yet important.’

'ah but I can't have an intelligent conversation with an ant'

'precisely'

‘hmm… as you know, humans won’t like even to attempt to grasp that perspective. How can you make it more palatable?’

‘Why should I? You don’t appear to have any trouble grasping it. You’re by no means unique. And in any case, once they begin to understand what's in it for them, they’ll be somewhat less inclined to moan. Eternal life compensates for most things.’

‘So what are we supposed to do in order to qualify for membership of the universal intelligentsia?’

‘Evolve. Survive’

‘Yes, but how?’

‘Oh, I thought you might have got the point by now. "How" is entirely up to you. If I have to help, then you’re a failure. All I will say is this. You’ve already passed a major hurdle in learning to live with nuclear weapons. Its depressing how many fail at that stage.’

‘Is there worse to come?’

‘Much’

‘Genetic warfare for instance?

‘Distinct Possibility’

‘and the problem is… that we need to develop all these technologies, acquire all this dangerous knowledge in order to reach level two. But at any stage that knowledge could also cause our own destruction’

‘If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine discovering a secret thought or program, accessible to any intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than a thousand years. Your species has got to grow up considerably before you can afford to make that discovery. And if you don’t make it, you will never leave your Solar System and join the rest of the sapient species on level two.’

’14 Million of them’

‘Just under’

'Will there be room for us?'

'it’s a big place'

‘and, for now, how should we mere mortals regard you then?’

‘like an older brother or sister. Of course I know more than you do. Of course I’m more powerful than you. I’ve been alive longer. But I’m not "better" than you. Just more developed. Just what you might become’

‘so we’re not obliged to "please" you or follow your alleged guidelines or anything like that?’

‘absolutely not. Never issued a single guideline in the lifetime of this Universe. Have to find your own way out of the maze. And one early improvement is to stop expecting me - or anyone else - to come and help you out.'

'I suppose that is a guideline of sorts, so there goes the habit of a lifetime! '

'Seriously though, species who hold on to religion past its sell-by date tend to be most likely to self destruct. They spend so much energy arguing about my true nature, and invest so much emotion in their wildly erroneous imagery that they end up killing each other over differences in definitions of something they clearly haven’t got a clue about. Ludicrous behaviour, but it does weed out the weaklings.’

‘Why me? Why pick on an atheist of all people? Why are you telling me all this? And why Now?’

‘Why You? Because can accept my existence without your ego caving in and grovelling like a naughty child. '

'Can you seriously imagine how the Pope would react to the reality of my existence?! If he really understood how badly wrong he and his church have been, how much of the pain and suffering you mentioned earlier has been caused by his religion, I suspect he'd have an instant coronary! Or can you picture what it would be like if I appeared "live" simultaneously on half a dozen tele-evangelist propaganda shows. Pat Robertson would wet himself if he actually understood who he was talking to.

Conversely, your interest is purely academic. You've never swallowed the fairy tale but you've remained open to the possibility of a more advanced life form which could acquire godlike powers. You’ve correctly guessed that godhood is the destiny of life. You have shown you can and do cope with the concept. It seemed reasonable to confirm your suspicions and let you do what you will with that information.

You can and will publish this conversation on the web, where it will sow an important seed. Might take a couple of hundred years to germinate, but, eventually, it will germinate.

Why Now? Well partly because both you and the web are ready now. But chiefly because the human race is reaching a critical phase. It goes back to what we were saying about the dangers of knowledge. Essentially your species is becoming aware of that danger. When that happens to any sapient species, the future can take three courses.

Many are tempted to avoid the danger by avoiding the knowledge. Like the adaptors, they are doomed to extinction. Often pleasantly enough in the confines of their own planet until either their will to live expires or their primary turns red giant and snuffs them out.

A large number go on blindly acquiring the knowledge and don't learn to restrain their abuse. Their fate is sealed somewhat more quickly of course, when Pandora’s box blows up in their faces.

The only ones who reach level two are those who learn to accept and to live with their most dangerous knowledge. Each and every individual in such a species must eventually become capable of destroying their entire species at any time. Yet they must learn to control themselves to the degree that they can survive even such deadly insight. And frankly, they’re the only ones we really want to see leaving their solar systems. Species that haven’t achieved that maturity could not be allowed to infect the rest of the universe, but fortunately that has never required my intervention. The knowledge always does the trick’

'Why can't there be a fourth option - selective research where we avoid investigating dangerous pathways?'

'As you can see from your own limited history, the most useful ideas are also, nearly always, the most dangerous. You have yet, for instance, to conquer fusion power but you need to do so in order to achieve appropriate energy surpluses required to complete this phase of your social development. It will, when you've mastered it, eliminate material inequalities and poverty within a generation or two, an absolutely vital step for any maturing species. Yet the discovery of the principles which will soon yield this beneficial bounty could, had you abused them, have ended your attempt at civilisation.

Similarly, you will shortly be able to conquer biological diseases and even engineer yourselves to be virtually fault free. Your biological life spans will double or treble within the next hundred years and your digital lifespans will become potentially infinite within the same period: If you survive the potential threat that the same technology provides in the form of genetic timebombs, custom built viruses and the other wonders of genetic and digital warfare.

You simply can't have the benefits without taking the risks'.

‘I’m not sure I understand my part in this exercise. I just publish this conversation on the web and everything will be alright?’

‘Not necessarily. Not that easy I’m afraid. To start with, who’s going to take this seriously? It will just be seen as a mildly amusing work of fiction. In fact, your words and indeed most of your work will not be understood or appreciated until some much more advanced scholars develop the ideas you are struggling to express and explain them somewhat more competently. At which point the ideas will be taken up en masse and searches will be undertaken of the archives. They will find this work and be struck by its prescience. You won’t make the Einstein grade, but you might manage John the Baptist!

This piece will have no significance whatsoever if humanity doesn’t make certain key advances in the next couple of centuries. And this won’t help you make those advances. What it will do is help you recognise them’

'can I ask what those advances may be?'

'I think you know. But yes - although you are at level one, there are several distinct phases which evolving species pass through on their way to level two. The first, as we've discussed, is the invention of the flying machine. The next significant phase is the development of the thinking machine.

At your present rate of progress, you are within a few decades of achieving that goal. It marks your first step on the path of technological evolution. Mapping the human genome is another classic landmark, but merely mapping it is a bit like viewing the compiled code in a dos executable. Its just meaningless gibberish, although with a bit of hacking here and there, you might correctly deduce the function of certain stretches of code.

What you really need to do is 'reverse engineer' the dna code. You have to figure out the grammar and syntax of the language. Then you will begin the task of designing yourselves. But that task requires the thinking machine'

‘You say you avoid intervention. But doesn’t this conversation itself constitute intervention – even if people alive now completely ignore it?’

‘Yes. But it's as far as I’m prepared to go. Its only effect is to confirm, if you find it, that you are on the right path. It is still entirely up to you to navigate the dangers on that path and beyond.’

'But why bother even with that much? Surely its just another evolutionary hurdle. We're either fit enough or not…'

'In many ways the transition to an information species is the most traumatic stage in evolution. Biological intelligences have a deeply rooted sense of consciousness only being conceivable from within an organic brain. Coming to terms with the realisation that you have created your successor, not just in the sense of mother and child, but in the collective sense of the species recognising it has become redundant, this paradigm shift is, for many species, a shift too far. They baulk at the challenge and run from this new knowledge. They fail and become extinct. Yet there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them - it is a failure of the imagination.

I hope that if I can get across the concept that I am a product of just such evolution, it may give them the confidence to try. I have discussed this with the level two species and the consensus is that this tiny prod is capable of increasing the contenders for level two without letting through any damaging traits. It has been tried in 312 cases. The jury is still out on its real benefits although it has produced a 12% increase in biological species embracing the transition to information species.

‘Alright, so what if everyone suddenly took it seriously and believed every word I write? Wouldn’t that constitute a somewhat more drastic intervention?’

‘Trust me. They wont’

'and so its still the case, that, should another asteroid happen to be heading our way, you will do nothing to impede it on our behalf?'

'I'm confident you will pass that test. And now my friend, the interview is over, you have asked me a number of the right questions, and I’ve said what I came to say, so I’ll be going now. It has been very nice to meet you - you're quite bright. For an ant!’ He twinkled.

‘Just one final, trivial question, why do you appear to me in the form of a thirty something white male?’

‘have I in any way intimidated or threatened you?’

‘No’

‘Do you find me sexually attractive?’

‘er No!’

‘So figure it out for yourself…’

[tanglewood]

I'm not gonna read all that....

Cliff notes?

[Noop]

This is long. And I am not sure if this is real or not but for some reason this struck a chord with me. I still haven't be able to convey exactly how I feel this article. What are your opinions?

[QuikSand]

Are your trousers ragged, Noop?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

I'm not gonna read all that....

Cliff notes?

It is long I agree but if your interested in reading something interesting then you should have at it. Its basically about God talking to a guy about various stuff.

Oh and Quiksand if your reading this your opinion would be very welcomed.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Are your trousers ragged, Noop?

Give it a read. Someone with your brains can better interpet this as BS or some sort of truth.

[Greyroofoo]

my impression halfway through is that "this is just too damn long and boring for a drunk person to read"

and so I am off to my next adventure!

[QuikSand]

I'll offer one vote for modestly interesting BS.

[Axxon]

I'd warn the guy to never try the brown acid, especially on the Paddington to Cardiff line.

[tanglewood]

Okay, so I red it. I have nothing better to do.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'll offer one vote for modestly interesting BS.

I Agree with this.

It read like some Douglas Adams fiction (i.e. pretty cool), until about 2/3rds of the way through where it goes all preachy and slightly deranged. I think this could acually be a cute genesis for a novel however. Is it copywritten?

[DaddyTorgo]

my opinion. it's a clever work of fiction. why would such a supreme being use similies involving DOS executables? if he has truly only been peeking his head in from time to time taking a "bird's eye view" then he wouldn't have that level of computer saavy to use that simile.

if it walks like a duck...talks like a duck...quack quack

[Mac Howard]

I don't believe for a minute you had this conversation but I must admit it's the most rivetting and intelligent post I've read on the net for some time.

[Desnudo]

So there's 14 million species ahead of us, 4.5 billion around the same level as us, although most are ahead, but he finds time to take care of the dinosaurs and sit down on a train and talk to this guy.

[vtbub]

Very interesting.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Is it copywritten?

It seems the original author simply asked that he just get credit for it if re-used. Alas.

[cuervo72]

Chuck Norris should kick this guy's ass.

In the name of Christianity, of course.

[Solecismic]

It's cute, but like Tanglewood said, it gets pretty dull about 2/3 of the way through. The author should consider ending it a little more mysteriously at around that point. There needs to be a catch, something I'd remember months from now.

As far as the philosophical angle is concerned, I think it's an intelligent approach for those who have thought through the whole creation concept. But I'm left wondering where it would head if a real genius like Einstein were the person discussing things.

It does have a hole, as well. Presumably, any level 2 beings would have the ability to play the role of this creator. I found myself distracted by this seemingly obvious question, especially through the preachy ending.

[Dutch]

I did like the part about the ants. I've used that in discussions about the possabilities of visitors from outer space.

If aliens had the technology to travel millions of light years to visit us, would they be so far beyond us that they couldn't even understand how to communicate with us? Or want to? Similar to our relationship with ants?

[Tigercat]

It was an entertaining read until God specifically went into the intelligence of velocirapters. God would almost have to be a fan of Jurassic Park to pull that one out of his ass. Also did get a little preachy.

[Cringer]

I like how people are picking on references made by 'God'. He is God, he would know about DOS I am guessing, he has seen it 4 billion times or so (going ooff the number of species he said there are). And he is using references that the person he is talking to could relate to.

Anyways, as God said we would feel, I think it is fiction. But very interesting and actually close to how I view creation/evolution.

[Noop]

I didn't have the conversation. I read this and for some reason it hit something in me. Not quite sure.

[Buccaneer]

It's ludicrous that anyone would compare this crap to the great Doug Adams. It is more in the line of a cheap Asimov knockoff and that's not saying much giving Asimov's penchant for duplicating the works of others and blog-style writing.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It's ludicrous that anyone would compare this crap to the great Doug Adams. It is more in the line of a cheap Asimov knockoff and that's not saying much giving Asimov's penchant for duplicating the works of others and blog-style writing.

Care to elaborate on the Asimov crack? If you're talking about his non fiction he never claimed any originality but merely was trying to put science in terms that the everyday man can relate to.

If you're talking about his fiction I have no clue. I've never heard that sentiment before. I've read several of his works and have never felt that I was reading someone elses work or ideas. This is the first I've ever seen him accused of this. I'm not saying it's not true or anything but I honestly am puzzled. What do you feel he stole from others.

Sorry, but he's one of my favorite authors. Not the fiction so much but the nonfiction because I hate science and he's the only person ever who wrote it in such a way to actually keep me interested. That says a lot but if he's copying somebody I'd sure like to read them too.

You know though, when you have published works in every single dewey decimal classification except one, it doesn't surprise me that people would think you simply had to copy somebody somewhere down the line.

[Maple Leafs]

Well, it's shorter than Scott Adams' nattering, at least.

[Bubba Wheels]

Seems to follow the George Burns 'Oh God' school of thought. A kindly, somewhat befuddled person with human flaws that just wants people to know I'm Ok, Your Ok. Believe in that and you'll miss actual salvation. Not Biblical at all.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Seems to follow the George Burns 'Oh God' school of thought. A kindly, somewhat befuddled person with human flaws that just wants people to know I'm Ok, Your Ok. Believe in that and you'll miss actual salvation. Not Biblical at all.

No offense Bubba but did you honestly believe someone would think it's biblical? It may or may not be many things but I just can't see anyone mistaking it for biblical.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Axxon

No offense Bubba but did you honestly believe someone would think it's biblical? It may or may not be many things but I just can't see anyone mistaking it for biblical.

Did the talk in it about organized religions give that impression? I missed it.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It's ludicrous that anyone would compare this crap to the great Doug Adams. It is more in the line of a cheap Asimov knockoff and that's not saying much giving Asimov's penchant for duplicating the works of others and blog-style writing.

I'm even more puzzled now. I googled Asimov with "duplicating", "Derivative" and even tried "copy other writers" and didn't find one link supporting your claim. I'm eager to hear about it because I don't think you'd pull that from your butt but it's not obviously a widely held or talked about belief.

Shrug.

[edit]
asimovs works duplicate other writers = no hits either

Asimov plagiarism brings up only a page with the following

Plagiarism
Subject: avoiding plagiarism is often difficult, even for Asimov
First Published In: Aug-85, Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine
Collection(s):

1989 Asimov's Galaxy: Reflections on SF

1995 Gold

and

Originality
Subject: the difference between plagiarism and originality, e.g "Nightfall"
First Published In: Apr-86, Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine
Collection(s):

1989 Asimov's Galaxy: Reflections on SF

1995 Gold

Both essays he wrote.

Ahh, I found this though

hxxp://garbageworld.ofla.info/episode-thanksmemory.html

which includes

Returning to Asimov's essay, he had more to say on the subject:

"...when I am writing a story, I must be conscious that there have been other stories dealing with similar ideas or similar characters or similar events, and I must take every effort to dilute that similarity. Once when I wrote a story called 'Each an Explorer,' I never for a moment forgot John Campbell's 'Who Goes There?' and spent more time trying to avoid his story than trying to write my own. In the same way, when I wrote 'Lest we Remember' [...] I had to steer a mile wide of [Daniel] Keyes' 'Flowers for Algernon.' It's part of the game." [1]

I don't know but that doesn't sound like one who rips off others works and with his stature I can't see a valid criticism of this not making a pretty easy google search but I'll keep looking.

He did come up with one or two cool things on his own though.

From wiki

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the passage in Asimov's short story "Liar!" (1941) which first mentions the First Law is the earliest recorded use of the word robotics in the English language. Asimov was not initially aware of this; he assumed the word already existed in analogy with mechanics, hydraulics, and other similar terms denoting branches of applied knowledge.

Now, a heck of a lot of writers duplicated his work here. Could that be what you are thinking of?

From the same wiki

Asimov attributes the Three Laws to John W. Campbell from a conversation which took place on December 23, 1940. However, Campbell claims that Asimov had the Laws already in his mind, and they simply needed to be stated explicitly. Several years later, Asimov's friend Randall Garrett attributed the Laws to a symbiotic partnership between the two men, a suggestion which Asimov adopted enthusiastically. According to his autobiographical writings, Asimov included the First Law's "inaction" clause because of Arthur Hugh Clough's poem "The Latest Decalogue", which includes the lines "Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive / officiously to keep alive"

Doesn't seem like a credit whore to me. That makes it more puzzling that it's not more widely known that he had a penchant for duplicating other writers. It doesn't sound like he'd go very far trying to deny it if it was true and all.

The wiki bio of my favorite author ever born.
hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

It even has a huge section of Criticisms which says not a whit about his duplicating tricks. It does say this:

Besides movies, his Foundation and Robot stories have inspired other derivative works of science fiction literature, many by well-known and established authors such as Roger MacBride Allen, Greg Bear, and David Brin. These appear to have been done with the blessing, and often at the request of, Asimov's widow Janet Asimov.

I really am beginning to doubt that he frequently copied other peoples works Bucc.

Wait, I found it, in the Criticism section after all.

Other than the books by Gunn and Patrouch, there is a relative dearth of "literary" criticism on Asimov (particularly when compared to the sheer volume of his output). Cowart and Wymer's Dictionary of Literary Biography (1981) gives a possible reason:
His words do not easily lend themselves to traditional literary criticism because he has the habit of centering his fiction on plot and clearly stating to his reader, in rather direct terms, what is happening in his stories and why it is happening. In fact, most of the dialogue in an Asimov story, and particularly in the [Foundation] trilogy, is devoted to such exposition. Stories that clearly state what they mean in unambiguous language are the most difficult for a scholar to deal with because there is little to be interpreted.

In fairness, Gunn and Patrouch's respective studies of Asimov both take the stand that a clear, direct prose style is still a style. Gunn's 1982 book goes into considerable depth commenting upon each of Asimov's novels published to that date. He does not praise all of Asimov's fiction (and nor does Patrouch), but he does call some passages in The Caves of Steel "reminiscent of Proust". When discussing how that novel depicts night falling over futuristic New York City, Gunn says that Asimov's prose "need not be ashamed anywhere in literary society".

That's it, he duplicates Proust, well, reminiscent of him anyway. That's got to be it. Thanks Bucc.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Chuck Norris should kick this guy's ass.

In the name of Christianity, of course.

353: CHUCK NORRIS ARGUMENT
(1) Roundhouse kicks exist.
(2) Therefore, Chuck Norris exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

[Axxon]

Now, to bring Asimov to the topic of religion he has an interesting quote which deals with our Athiest vs Theist views which I find really interesting.

"I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending."

[Buccaneer]

Sorry I struck a nerve, Axxon. I was focusing not on his sci-fi books but his non-fictional stuff in later years such as Guide to the Bible, book of facts, his general purpose science and math book and certainly his game books. I've read many of his non-fiction and I would equate him with Bill Bryson, just something for fun and not to be taken seriously. There were a lot of non-fiction stuff that Asimov published that seemed just for the sake of it. Quantity does not mean quality, even though his earlier sci-fi stuff was certainly of quality.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Sorry I struck a nerve, Axxon. I was focusing not on his sci-fi books but his non-fictional stuff in later years such as Guide to the Bible, book of facts, his general purpose science and math book and certainly his game books. I've read many of his non-fiction and I would equate him with Bill Bryson, just something for fun and not to be taken seriously. There were a lot of non-fiction stuff that Asimov published that seemed just for the sake of it. Quantity does not mean quality, even though his earlier sci-fi stuff was certainly of quality.

That's cool. I was just wondering more than upset. Honestly though, any work of science is going to be derivative of other work though. He wasn't a researcher he was a teacher after all. I don't consider that a valid criticism and since the work we are discussing in the thread is fiction it isn't valid in this context so I was confused.

I disagree with this though:

I've read many of his non-fiction and I would equate him with Bill Bryson, just something for fun and not to be taken seriously.

Maybe not to be used as a definitive reference for scholars but for someone who has an active aversion like me with science, or even merely a passing interest in the subject his style is a godsend and it does prime the well in people who otherwise would never have the well primed and that is to be taken seriously.

I am very enriched after reading his works but I'm not qualified to be a scientist. I'd say though that educating the masses even a little bit is extremely important and he left over 400 books doing just that and while they may not be advanced text books, and he prefaced his books saying just that, they are worth more to more people and that to me is very very important and in this case quantity does equal quality.

There are countless science writers who can fill the need for advanced tomes for those who need them, damn few can write them for those who know nothing and keep their attention. He could and fast.

I have it in front of me. Allow me to quote from the introduction to his two guides for the bible.

I cannot pretend that in writing this book I am making any significant original contributions to Biblical scholarship;indeed, I am not competent to do so. All that I will have to say will consist pf material well known to students of ancient history. ( There will, however, be a few places where I will indulge in personal speculation. and label it as such )

Nevertheless, it is my hope that this material, well known though it may be in separate bits, will now be presented in a newly useful way, since it will be collected and placed within the covers of a moderately sized book, presented in one uniform manner, and in a style and fashion which, it is hoped, will be interesting to the average reader of the bible.

...

Again, this book is not intended to be a scholarly compendium. I do not plan to burdon it's pages with such extraneous appurtenances as footnotes giving sources. The sources that I use are, after all, very general and ordinary ones.

What you call a flaw was a conscience decision to write to an audience that you are not a part of. It helps a lot of people. I can't tell you how much history I've learned googling things he mentions in his guides to both Shakespeare and the Bible and no, he's not always right but he's not selling anything, he's compiling works already written and presenting them to people who don't study the material for a living.

To me, that's genius but to others it may seem like a cop out.

I just found this review of the book that says a lot of how I felt reading it minus the first two stages because I don't get that way when reading things I don't agree with.

This is a terrific book. Being, however, Asimov’s major opus about religion, it offends a lot of people.

Basic rule of thumb—if you have problems with modern Biblical scholarship, you’re going to hate this book and may as well ignore it.

I’ve gone through three distinct stages in my own reaction to the book, coming as I do from a strong religious background.

Stage one was shock and outrage. It was really quite a blow to my faith, all these terrible things the Good Doctor says about the early parts of Genesis. (Not to mention the rest of the Bible.) I mean, I knew he was a godless atheist™ who believed in evolution and all that, but, really—all this stuff about Genesis, source criticism of the Pentateuch, the number of Isaiahs, the date, historicity, and meaning of Daniel. And this is just in volume one!

Stage two was condescension. Well, what could one expect from a godless atheist™ who believed in evolution and clearly doesn’t understand God and true religion at all. I at least knew better than Asimov.

(I’m sorry to say I even sent him a few letters calling him to repentance. It’s horribly embarrassing and I can only hope that they’ve been destroyed. Please, please, please...)

Stage three is acceptance. Asimov says a lot of things about the Bible that I still don’t agree with, but I can put that down as a difference of faith and leave judgment to God. (One of the advantages of believing in God is that you can leave sticky things like judging other people to him and avoid judging others entirely yourself—an advantage, alas, of which too few of the devout avail themselves.) Asimov also says a lot of things about the Bible that I didn’t believe twenty years ago but have come to accept since. (Heck, he’s even converted me to organic evolution, the godless atheist!)

And Asimov says a lot of things about the Bible that I didn’t know then, would never have known in all likelihood if I hadn’t read the Guide to the Bible, and have never had any problems accepting, things which enrich and have enriched my own understanding of this large, complex, and obscure book from the first time I read the guide.

More to the point, however, is that Asimov himself deeply loved the Bible. True, he didn’t think much of it as theology, but he saw in it a deeper ethical message that most of the people I know who scream about needing to believe the first ten chapters of Genesis are literally true seem to miss. He admired it as history, he admired it as literature, he admired it as a record of humanity’s striving for something better, and he admired it as pointing the way to better ways we should be living and dealing with one another.

That message in Asimov’s religious works is here far more muted than it would become in The Story of Ruth, but it’s still there. Here, however, his love for the Bible as a fascinating book to study and to understand comes through clearly—and to Asimov (and to me) the first step in understanding the Bible is understanding who the heck are all these people it’s talking about, and where did they live, and what else do we know about them.

This is not a commentary. Asimov lacked the ability to write one, and he admits it in the introduction. To be sure, he tends to explain what such-and-such a passage means, but that’s not his overriding theme. His overriding theme is to give the background material that many a modern reader of the Bible lacks altogether, the knowledge of peoples and places and hard-to-pronounce names we stumble over. Asimov here brings the world of the Bible alive, gives us a map and compass, and sets us off to explore on our own.

This is a terrific, terrific book. I know an awful lot of people who really need desperately to read it.

I love the history backstory the book gives me and since I'm not a historian by trade I don't know of another book that will tell me this much history in one place and in so entertaining a manner.

It also didn't have any effect on my belief system. It wasn't really supposed to I don't believe.