Gary Gygax

There's a new piece in Wired on the late Gary Gygax. For you non-gamer folk, Gygax was the creator of Dungeons & Dragons. Mark Stricherz of GetReligion comments on the end of the article, which mentions Gygax's religious beliefs. Apparently towards the end of his life he came to believe in some sort of Creator, as well as in prayer.

In the GetReligion comments section, a person says that Gygax was actually one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that the religious turn wasn't anything new. Perhaps the Wired article is wrong, or perhaps Gygax at some point left the J-dubs and then later adopted revised religious beliefs.

Personally, I'd find it hard to believe that Gygax was a JW in good standing when he was working on D&D. My impression is that the wave of apprehension and outright hysteria about devil-worship and D&D in conservative evangelical circles quickly jumped social barriers to affect many JWs. (Except they called it "demonism." The same thing happened with Smurfs: there was a frantic purge of all Smurf-related objects. Later it happened with Harry Potter.) When I was growing up as a JW (in the '80s and '90s) there was still a lot of suspicion surrounding role-playing games and, to a lesser extent, fantasy stories that included magic. I managed to evade these prohibitions, and I knew at least one adult JW who was into fantasy and gaming. But I never did play D&D proper, and I remember tensing up when friend and I were questioned by a circuit overseer (something like a travelling bishop) about role-playing games. We managed to make them sound like harmless fun. I think.

Spiritual characters in science fiction

In movies and TV, that is. Beliefnet's got a top ten list. I'm not all that familiar with the TV characters, but that's because I don't watch TV.

I am, however, going to get caught up with this new Doctor Who series everyone's been talking about. Soon.

Jews and Judaism in science fiction

There's a site devoted to the topic here. Also, in this article Jeff Berkwits of the San Diego Jewish Journal talks with some Jewish sf authors and discusses some Jewish themes.

Tidbits

1. Rose, over at Refracted Light, has reviewed Jay Lake's Mainspring. She objects to the crazy monkey sex section (take that, search engines!), which did strike me as one of the weaker parts of the book, because it was somewhat gratuitous. And yes, you should take "monkey" literally - there is an intelligent apewoman involved. It reminded me of the interspecies stuff in one of the Ringworld books.

2. I finally got around to watching Sunshine. I didn't like it as much as Gabriel did. It had many striking visual moments, some interesting ideas, and I generally liked the actors.* But it couldn't seem to make up its mind: should it be a thoughtful, innovative sf film, with an indie vibe? You know, something off the beaten track. Or should it aim to be the stereotypical, nonsensical Hollywood blockbuster action movie featuring the painfully hackneyed villain who just won't die? The first half chose the first option, but the second half devolved into a clash between the indie vibe and the blockbuster. The blockbuster kept winning out until finally I reached the heckling, eye-rolling stage. I wished the sun would die, just so the movie would be over. But check out the well-written SF Gospel review, which points out some of the intriguing aspects of the film.

*Nice to see some real ethnic diversity, including the psychologist played by Cliff Curtis. Though (as usual) the white characters survived longer than the non-white ones. Sigh. It's like non-white characters are redshirts.

Planet Narnia

I've been hearing about this book for awhile, but didn't know if it was worth mentioning. Today, however, after coming across yet another favourable reaction I thought I should post about it. It is:

Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis, by Michael Ward. Published by Oxford University Press, in 2008.

Basically, Ward thinks that Lewis' seven Narnia books match up to the seven planets (in the medieval schema) and the symbols associated with them. He argues that Lewis did this on purpose, drawing on his deep knowledge of medieval and Renaissance literature.

At first I thought this was just another highly speculative literary-conspiracy-theory book, but, as I said, it's been getting good reviews - such as this one by Tom Shippey. It sounds like Ward's theory brings out all sorts of interesting details and associations in the Narnia books. And even if the theory is ultimately faulty, it sounds like his book is still a rewarding read.

John Wilson writes:

We can imagine the reaction of the sort of Christians who have gone into a frenzy over Harry Potter. Astrology! But what Ward has discovered is entirely consistent with Lewis' Christian humanism. The imaginative worldview embodied in the medieval lore of the planets speaks to something fundamental in our experience; it is not to be rejected but rather baptized, made harmonious with the underlying Christian vision that governs Narnia.

The Mars Hill Audio Journal has done an hour-long interview with Ward, which is available here.

Sounds like science fiction?

N. T. Wright, the biblical scholar and Anglican bishop, has put a new book out (by my estimates Wright publishes a new book every single day). Wright has long argued that, in the biblical view, resurrection and "afterlife" are very material affairs, and that otherworldly ideas about spirits or "The Rapture" are misguided. This idea isn't particularly new, of course, but Wright's background as a scholar enables him to read and discuss the relevant texts very closely. Apparently this book consists of lectures on this topic.

I happened to come across a review and I noticed this paragraph:

Reflecting on the notion of “reigning” in texts like Rom 5:17 and 1 Cor 6:2, Wright says that the renewal of the cosmos will leave “plenty to be done, entire new projects to undertake...the garden will need to be tended once more and the animals renamed.” He admits that these are “only images”; yet they serve as “true signposts to a future reality—a reality to which most Christians give little or no thought.” Still, tending gardens in a transformed universe comes close to sounding like science fiction.

Of course it does! And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's a compliment! Particularly in light of this later snippet:

Origen, the great 3rd-century thinker and Scripture scholar, let his imagination roam when he thought about what might await human beings after death. For him, it would involve ongoing seminars where he could learn more about cosmology and the nature of the stars.

Heaven should include ongoing astronomy and cosmology seminars? Not everybody's cup of tea, perhaps, but it sounds good to me.

Islam & Science Fiction

Here's a site that collects information about Islam & science fiction. It discusses Islam's portrayal in sf books and movies, sf written by Muslims, and related topics. I think it was put together by Mohammad Aurangzeb Ahmad.

Moderate views

I just wanted to share a few links that I found encouraging, because they display a moderate thoughtfulness on the topic of science & religion:

Matthew C. Nisbet's area of expertise seems to be the way science is communicated to the general public, and the ways in which a supportive public environment can be created for the pursuit and funding of science. He's an atheist, but he thinks that the promotion of the "eternal warfare of science & religion" mythos will be harmful to the flourishing of science. Here he adds some of his own thoughts to those of Frances Collins, and over here he posts about a new study which examined the religious affiliations of professors in the natural and social scientists.

The study itself is interesting. It indicates that such professors are less likely to be religious than the average population (52% reported no religious affiliation) but the reasons for this were quite complex and had less to do with abstract beliefs that you might expect - well, actually, that won't surprise anyone who has studied the sociology of religion. Among other things, the scholars argue that people from religious backgrounds tend to retain some sort of religious identity when they become scientists. It turns out the scientists studied are a little different from the general population, where older people are more likely to be (traditionally) religious than young people:

"RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."

Another finding is that students from non-religious households tend to 'self-select' for advanced scientific training. This may indeed reflect a conflict between religious and scientific ways of thinking, but it should be remembered that this also has to do with intellectual (or anti-intellectual!) traditions and economic class. Different religious backgrounds are usually linked to different educational outcomes - some groups strongly encourage university training, have a highly educated constituency, and also tend to be more wealthy. If I remember correctly Jews, Episcopalians, Quakers, and Unitarian Universalists tend to be statistically over-represented in academia. And I can say that my own Jehovah's Witness upbringing (insular, working class/lower-middle class and creationist) very strongly discouraged advanced training in the natural or social sciences.*

Anyways, back to the links. Physicist Chad Orzel is an "apathetic agnostic" but he doesn't much like the eternal warfare model either. He's got a list of recent news links on science and religion here (which is where I got the Nisbet links from), and here he posts about the views of his thesis advisor, William Phillips.

Phillips is an interesting figure: a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and a Methodist. He's got an autobiography here. He's also one of the founding members of the International Society for Science & Religion.

And here's the interview with Frances Collins, which Nisbet mentions above. One thing I noticed is the role history plays in Collins' understanding of science and religion- knowing what Augustine, and Galileo, and B.B. Warfield (and maybe Ramanujan!) actually said about these questions helps put them in perspective. Much of the furor is driven by events in our current political and cultural milieu, so regardless of our personal opinions, it helps to take a step back.

(Thanks to Aka for pointing out the Orzel links.)

*This probably has something to do with my own post-JW attraction to Quaker and Anglican/Episcopalian communities.

Something More by Paul Cornell

Check out this review of Paul Cornell's Something More. Of particular interest are these tidbits about the plot:

The Reverend Jane Bruce is a chaplain of the Reformed Church of England - reformed in the sense that shortly before the GEC a rogue vicar discovered that electromagnetic fields directly stimulate a certain area of the brain, one of which at least is partly responsible for religious visions and sensations; so the RCoE uses voltmeters and evocative neurochemicals called 'greens' in its daily rituals.
...
But Cornell has much bigger plans than simply scaring us, because then Something More turns (as the title of chapter 44 says) into 'A Mad Sort of C.S. Lewis Thing'. There isn't much more that can be said about the final quarter of the book without spoiling much of the first three-quarters.

I'm pretty sure "A Mad Sort of C.S. Lewis Thing" implies some sort of theological twist. Unless it simply involves a talking lion, or a discourse on Renaissance literature.

Cornell is best known for his work on Doctor Who (he's even been nominated for a Hugo), but he's a prolific guy. I've mentioned his British Summertime before: it's a strange book that puts some intriguing spins on certain New Testament symbols. (The longer I think about them the more intriguing and relevant they seem.)

His Wikipedia entry has recently been edited to read:

In an interview on the Doctor Who: DWO Whocast, Cornell stated that this entry in Wikipedia described him as "both a Christian and a pagan," which he has chosen not to correct as it illustrates his sympathies for the pagan world. He then goes on to state that he is an Anglican but is very "Low Church, almost a Calvinist," and this is partly because he doesn't enjoy hymns.