The Star – Arthur C. Clarke (1967) [pdf](sites.uni.edu)
sites.uni.edu
The Star – Arthur C. Clarke (1967) [pdf]
https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/TheStar.pdf
45 comments
This was absolutely brilliantly read on BBC radio by the actor John Shrapnel some years ago (with 4 other stories from "The Nine Billion Names of God" collection). Unfortunately I can't find a link to it.
You must be referring to this series [1] from BBC Radio.
[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010gkzz/episodes/guide
[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010gkzz/episodes/guide
Oh no! "Sorry, This episode is not currently available."
Darn. "The Nine Billion Names of God" story has long stuck with me. (Kinda messed me up, tbh.) I'd love to hear an audio version.
Darn. "The Nine Billion Names of God" story has long stuck with me. (Kinda messed me up, tbh.) I'd love to hear an audio version.
Yes - the Sentinel was particularly good too. They have very gentle background effects that work perfectly.
I like how Arthur C. Clarke accurately referenced SN 1054 [1] and SN 1572 [2].
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1054
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1054
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572
Arthur Clarke apparently had some beef with Christianity all his writing life, but sometimes he went as bitter as this.
Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "as bitter as this"? Reading the story with no context, it seems almost reverential to Christianity:
We're in the far future and space-faring humans still worship the old religion(s). A supernova that occurred roughly during the time of a key event in the religion's history turned out to have killed off another distant civilization. There is an observation that bad things can happen to good civilizations and how that doesn't square with a benevolent creator deity.
Do you perceive one of these as harsh criticism or was there some other issue in the text that I missed?
We're in the far future and space-faring humans still worship the old religion(s). A supernova that occurred roughly during the time of a key event in the religion's history turned out to have killed off another distant civilization. There is an observation that bad things can happen to good civilizations and how that doesn't square with a benevolent creator deity.
Do you perceive one of these as harsh criticism or was there some other issue in the text that I missed?
Here he basically accuses God of destroying a beautiful and desperate world to produce the light show at the Christ's birth time on Earth.
I don't see much reverence in this, just a recognition of power, like that a powerful villain might have.
I don't see much reverence in this, just a recognition of power, like that a powerful villain might have.
He’s not accusing god of anything, he’s pointing out that what one primitive civilisation saw as a sign from some supernatural being was a cosmic event with local consequences for another civilisation. He also shows how those beliefs, which in part survive from that early civilisation, are dissonant with our understanding of the universe.
It’s like a child’s belief that heaven sits on the clouds flying in a aeroplane for the first time.
It’s like a child’s belief that heaven sits on the clouds flying in a aeroplane for the first time.
How can he accuse one who does not exist?
The story merely describes a cosmic catastrophe, that some people in a primitive tribe that had not discovered science yet would interpret as a sign of god, much like lightning. And the irony that this event that became so central to this religion was in fact a stellar cataclysm that had nothing to do with earth.
The story merely describes a cosmic catastrophe, that some people in a primitive tribe that had not discovered science yet would interpret as a sign of god, much like lightning. And the irony that this event that became so central to this religion was in fact a stellar cataclysm that had nothing to do with earth.
Have you read the Bible? It's full of stuff like this. The story of the children who teased a priest so God sent a bear to kill them is a good example.
Also God letting Satan ruin Job's life (a canonically righteous man) over a bet on whether God was as awesome as He claimed. When God shows up in the last act to rebuke Job's friends for complaining about His - again, canonically unjust treatment of Job, His reply is an extended monologue about how awesome He is.
... although to be fair, Job 38 is one of the most epic parts of the Bible, hands down. When YHWH goes in, He goes in.
Also God hardening Pharoah's heart when he already wanted to let the Israelites go, in order to complete the plagues and flex on Egypt and its gods. Said plagues ended, remember, with the first Passover event and the murder of every firstborn child and animal in Egypt.
And Sodom and Gomorrah, particularly the part where God and Abraham haggle over the lower bound of righteous people it takes to avoid genocide. This is apparently at least ten.
... speaking of which, that time God commands Ezekiel to lie on his side and eat bread baked over human shit for over a year. Ezekiel objects, because the latter would be against God's own law (while the former is just sadistic torture,) and God says fine, he can use cow shit instead, just get on with it.
And the Tower of Babel. God sees that humanity united and speaking a single language is capable of anything as they try to build a tower that reaches the heavens, so He curses humanity with multiple languages to confuse them and impede human progress. This was a particular dick move on God's part, and we're probably lucky Heaven was moved somewhere less easily accessible before we learned how to build skyscrapers or go into space.
And Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. Not as much death and suffering as in the other cases but still petty AF for a guy who can literally create food from nothing.
... although to be fair, Job 38 is one of the most epic parts of the Bible, hands down. When YHWH goes in, He goes in.
Also God hardening Pharoah's heart when he already wanted to let the Israelites go, in order to complete the plagues and flex on Egypt and its gods. Said plagues ended, remember, with the first Passover event and the murder of every firstborn child and animal in Egypt.
And Sodom and Gomorrah, particularly the part where God and Abraham haggle over the lower bound of righteous people it takes to avoid genocide. This is apparently at least ten.
... speaking of which, that time God commands Ezekiel to lie on his side and eat bread baked over human shit for over a year. Ezekiel objects, because the latter would be against God's own law (while the former is just sadistic torture,) and God says fine, he can use cow shit instead, just get on with it.
And the Tower of Babel. God sees that humanity united and speaking a single language is capable of anything as they try to build a tower that reaches the heavens, so He curses humanity with multiple languages to confuse them and impede human progress. This was a particular dick move on God's part, and we're probably lucky Heaven was moved somewhere less easily accessible before we learned how to build skyscrapers or go into space.
And Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. Not as much death and suffering as in the other cases but still petty AF for a guy who can literally create food from nothing.
Job is more of a story about motives, and uses the "wager" (which one could see as an abbreviated account of the rebellion of the devil) as a background for the main question: Is it possible for a man to submit to God & truth, for their own sake, rather than because he expects success/reward? The answer we are given is yes, it is possible, even when times are hard, and that it is often not the victim's fault when times are hard. These moral questions were the primary subject of the book.
The hardening of Pharaoh's heart is described both ways, as God doing it and as Pharaoh doing it. The idea seems to be emphasizing agency, rather than the reverse: God took some actions to free the Hebrews. Pharaoh responded to these with (varying degrees of) opposition, anger, and pride. God's actions were the proximate cause, sure, but Pharaoh was not a puppet.
For Sodom, the dialogue ends at 10 because, as with Noah, we then get down to the number of the last remaining righteous (or less-bad) family, and they are commanded to leave. The indication (made explicit elsewhere in the Bible) is that God would not destroy even one righteous along with the wicked, when it's a direct action. In the Gospels, Jesus then answers another charge related to this, when he says that things like a building collapse or other random accident can and does happen to both good and bad alike.
Ezekiel and the other prophets had it rough.
Babel is about pride and evil culture, not about feats of engineering.
The fig tree was a metaphor for Israel: "All leaf, and no fruit". Not a good day for that plant, but... It's a plant.
The hardening of Pharaoh's heart is described both ways, as God doing it and as Pharaoh doing it. The idea seems to be emphasizing agency, rather than the reverse: God took some actions to free the Hebrews. Pharaoh responded to these with (varying degrees of) opposition, anger, and pride. God's actions were the proximate cause, sure, but Pharaoh was not a puppet.
For Sodom, the dialogue ends at 10 because, as with Noah, we then get down to the number of the last remaining righteous (or less-bad) family, and they are commanded to leave. The indication (made explicit elsewhere in the Bible) is that God would not destroy even one righteous along with the wicked, when it's a direct action. In the Gospels, Jesus then answers another charge related to this, when he says that things like a building collapse or other random accident can and does happen to both good and bad alike.
Ezekiel and the other prophets had it rough.
Babel is about pride and evil culture, not about feats of engineering.
The fig tree was a metaphor for Israel: "All leaf, and no fruit". Not a good day for that plant, but... It's a plant.
The story of Job is much more illuminating when you read it and PAY ATTENTION to the fact that God murders his wife and children.
His wife and children. MURDERS.
Then at the end he gets a NEW wife and NEW children.
The brazen horror of this is just ignored by the faithful.
His wife and children. MURDERS.
Then at the end he gets a NEW wife and NEW children.
The brazen horror of this is just ignored by the faithful.
I had to look that one up. To be fair, the text says that the two bears attacked 42 boys after Elisha cursed the boys, and doesn't mention if the attack was fatal.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=...
(2 Kings 2, 24)
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=...
(2 Kings 2, 24)
Not sure if this is a joke, or if you are defending God's actions?
All I see is someone trying to ensure accuracy.
Are you conflating accuracy with defending? Do you believe a wrong, should result in an alteration of truth, to make it look worse?
Are you conflating accuracy with defending? Do you believe a wrong, should result in an alteration of truth, to make it look worse?
Straightforward answers to your questions: No. No.
But, I believe you have missed the point.
It's problematic to send a bear to attack someone -- particularly if you are the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe with other methods at your disposal. Whether or not the victim dies is besides the point.
But, I believe you have missed the point.
It's problematic to send a bear to attack someone -- particularly if you are the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe with other methods at your disposal. Whether or not the victim dies is besides the point.
[deleted]
well, as i understand it, it is the star of betlehem which showed humanity that its saviour is born, the saviour which saves mankind and with that god destroyed another sentient species which is very similar to us.
how would you feel about that, if your believesystem said a genocide of another race of sentient, potentially benevolent people by god had to happen, so that you get the message your saviour came around?
how would you feel about that, if your believesystem said a genocide of another race of sentient, potentially benevolent people by god had to happen, so that you get the message your saviour came around?
The theological ramifications cut even deeper, given that said saviour is predestined to "die for your sins" - yet billions are to die just for his general announcement to happen.
The story's narrator is not a sudden unbeliever - he was obviously very religious, he does not apostate, he "falters in his belief", he realizes his blasphemy even - yet he feels unable to connect such a horrific, monstrous act to the message of an ultimately all-loving deity (and if you put it a bit further - the fact that deity choose to let them find evidence for this). In many ways, that story follows the classic catholic trope of the "Temptation of $holyperson".
The story's narrator is not a sudden unbeliever - he was obviously very religious, he does not apostate, he "falters in his belief", he realizes his blasphemy even - yet he feels unable to connect such a horrific, monstrous act to the message of an ultimately all-loving deity (and if you put it a bit further - the fact that deity choose to let them find evidence for this). In many ways, that story follows the classic catholic trope of the "Temptation of $holyperson".
The same god who also required a human sacrifice (which was also sort of himself) to back away from his own cruelty?
Seems totally congruent.
Seems totally congruent.
This is something I've never understood.Are there any reasonable theological arguments for why he had to resort to what amounts to an elaborate ploy, in order to work around his own arbitrary rules of who gets saved?
A character asks that question in Hyperion, by another sci-fi author (Dan Simmons).
The answer he arrived at was that God was not testing Abraham. He was allowing Abraham to test God. When God stayed his hand at the last moment, he knew that he'd met a god worth following.
(I'm not religious myself, but I did find this to be an interesting-enough interpretation to parrot it back to you on a web forum)
The answer he arrived at was that God was not testing Abraham. He was allowing Abraham to test God. When God stayed his hand at the last moment, he knew that he'd met a god worth following.
(I'm not religious myself, but I did find this to be an interesting-enough interpretation to parrot it back to you on a web forum)
No, I was talking about Jesus (I believe the GP was as well).
The Jesus situation is an interesting inversion of the Abraham dilemma though. This time God is prepared to sacrifice his own son – but we sort of failed the test by design, executing the sacrifice as planned even though we could have just let Jesus live. Not sure what it says about us or God.
The Jesus situation is an interesting inversion of the Abraham dilemma though. This time God is prepared to sacrifice his own son – but we sort of failed the test by design, executing the sacrifice as planned even though we could have just let Jesus live. Not sure what it says about us or God.
Let's play Devil's... I mean God's advocate here.
We seem to judge God, which is probably unwise in light of us knowing so little about the universe. Imagine that God saw the timelines of those two sentient species, and saw both devolve and lose their way, ultimately to their doom. So then God had the choice of saving one by sacrificing the other, because even God has to take when he gives, because there's a balance in the Universe, every positive thing has its negative created and annihilated at the same time.
In this case it was a choice of God letting two species die by their own hand, or kill one to save the other. It's the Trolley Problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Of course, I'm not saying Christianity saved us per se. That's the thesis Christianity would give of course. But we also know that the Christian churches imposed a thousand years of intellectual darkness on the world, by fighting science every step of the way. Is this God's mistake or do we again speak in ignorance?
Because imagine we discovered nuclear bombs a thousand years ago. Would we even exist today? Knowledge is good, and I don't think any fair deity would oppose knowing unconditionally. But there's such a thing as "knowing just enough to be dangerous". If our morality lacks severely behind our knowledge, then we'd die by our own hand.
Again, it's hard for us to judge such actions when we can't see the consequences of our actions. We predict, but don't see. A being like God which exists outside our subjective timeline would know precisely what's the effect of their interference.
If I can borrow a popular meme, "would you kill baby Hitler if you go back in time". Well, would you? Of course, there are alternatives to killing a baby, so this is a false dichotomy. You could take care of the baby so it doesn't grow up to be a militant dictator. But in some cases fate gives us the Trolley Problem and no alternatives. And then the wise decision is to make a choice, not let the choices be made for you.
We seem to judge God, which is probably unwise in light of us knowing so little about the universe. Imagine that God saw the timelines of those two sentient species, and saw both devolve and lose their way, ultimately to their doom. So then God had the choice of saving one by sacrificing the other, because even God has to take when he gives, because there's a balance in the Universe, every positive thing has its negative created and annihilated at the same time.
In this case it was a choice of God letting two species die by their own hand, or kill one to save the other. It's the Trolley Problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Of course, I'm not saying Christianity saved us per se. That's the thesis Christianity would give of course. But we also know that the Christian churches imposed a thousand years of intellectual darkness on the world, by fighting science every step of the way. Is this God's mistake or do we again speak in ignorance?
Because imagine we discovered nuclear bombs a thousand years ago. Would we even exist today? Knowledge is good, and I don't think any fair deity would oppose knowing unconditionally. But there's such a thing as "knowing just enough to be dangerous". If our morality lacks severely behind our knowledge, then we'd die by our own hand.
Again, it's hard for us to judge such actions when we can't see the consequences of our actions. We predict, but don't see. A being like God which exists outside our subjective timeline would know precisely what's the effect of their interference.
If I can borrow a popular meme, "would you kill baby Hitler if you go back in time". Well, would you? Of course, there are alternatives to killing a baby, so this is a false dichotomy. You could take care of the baby so it doesn't grow up to be a militant dictator. But in some cases fate gives us the Trolley Problem and no alternatives. And then the wise decision is to make a choice, not let the choices be made for you.
>Knowledge is good, and I don't think any fair deity would oppose knowing unconditionally.
Humanity's original sin, according to the Bible, was literally eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
Humanity's original sin, according to the Bible, was literally eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
I'm quite aware of this. The question is did God condemn humans for knowing, or condemned them for knowing before they were ready to know, and disobeying his direct orders.
Think about it like a father, who has a 3 year old toddler. You tell him "don't touch the car keys". The kid turns on the car, crashes in the garage.
It becomes pathological only if you still ban your child from driving when he's 40.
Religions are full of stories where humans tried to reach to the Gods too quickly and were punished for this. What about the Tower of Babel for example? Is this God (or Gods) trying to maintain their power by not sharing knowledge, or is it them being highly cognizant of how dangerous it is to know before you're ready? Maybe a bit of both.
There's another story from Hinduism where a person who died saw Shiva, but using a human form. The person prayed "I know this is not your true form, please show me your true form, I'm ready". Shiva tried to persuade the person that's a bad idea, but he persisted. So Shiva showed him his true form, horrifying and multidimensional and all-encompassing, filling every sense, he was a lion, and a tiger, and a tornado, and all beings at once, and the human could see Shiva in all moments from the beginning of time to eternity. And the human was horrified and begged Shiva to turn back to a human form.
We think we're ready, but we're not. The universe is a horrifyingly complex place. Of course, we should still strive to understand and learn.
Think about it like a father, who has a 3 year old toddler. You tell him "don't touch the car keys". The kid turns on the car, crashes in the garage.
It becomes pathological only if you still ban your child from driving when he's 40.
Religions are full of stories where humans tried to reach to the Gods too quickly and were punished for this. What about the Tower of Babel for example? Is this God (or Gods) trying to maintain their power by not sharing knowledge, or is it them being highly cognizant of how dangerous it is to know before you're ready? Maybe a bit of both.
There's another story from Hinduism where a person who died saw Shiva, but using a human form. The person prayed "I know this is not your true form, please show me your true form, I'm ready". Shiva tried to persuade the person that's a bad idea, but he persisted. So Shiva showed him his true form, horrifying and multidimensional and all-encompassing, filling every sense, he was a lion, and a tiger, and a tornado, and all beings at once, and the human could see Shiva in all moments from the beginning of time to eternity. And the human was horrified and begged Shiva to turn back to a human form.
We think we're ready, but we're not. The universe is a horrifyingly complex place. Of course, we should still strive to understand and learn.
Interestingly, his equally-aethiest contemporary Asimov accepted the role of religion in people's lives. I forget which book, but Asimov mentions friendly teasing between himself and a religious friend in one of the prefaces. Something about moving the Bible back out of the Fiction section of his personal library.
I vaguely remember something along those lines as well, perhaps about C. S. Lewis and the Narnia series? It's been a while though.
I don't think it is bitterness. What really interesting is the idea he put forth: maybe you could find Bethlehem star out there, in space. I think that's brilliant.
“God has no need to justify His actions to man. He who built the Universe can destroy it when He chooses. It is arrogance—it is perilously near blasphemy—for us to say what He may or may not do.”
Possibly taken out of context from the linked document.
Possibly taken out of context from the linked document.
"Some beef". A lot of science types dislike religion in general -- or is this a surprise to you.
Merry Christmas indeed.
So the edge of the observable universe was 6000 ly away ? Something doesn’t add up
Isn't that still under copyright?
Yes, this work was created after Mickey Mouse was created.
And he died well after Disney…
It is, yes.