Well I just recently discovered the writings of Isaac Asimov.
I knew about him, of course. But as much of a nerd as I am, I’d never read a single word he wrote until about two weeks ago.
Asimov was one of those rare individuals whose output easily quadruples that of most people. He wrote hundreds of books, including of course the science fiction novels for which he is best known. But he wrote so widely as to cover topics ranging from physics (his field of expertise) to astronomy, mathematics, literary criticism, and Biblical exegesis.
There was said to have been a mutual admiration between Asimov and J.R.R. Tolkien. Asimov enjoyed Tolkien’s fantasy, Tolkien enjoyed Asimov’s sci-fi novels.
I’m not surprised by this. Though their belief systems differed markedly, both of these great men are easily recognizable for their breadth of imagination and the scope of their thinking.
One could argue that the works of both men speak to the human desire for immortality — which, in addition to the inner rebellion against death, can also be thought of in terms of wishing to escape from solitude, to be part of something bigger than oneself. Tolkien did this by crafting stories reaching back in time to the unimaginably distant past, and outside of humanity to the Elves; Asimov did it by crafting stories reaching forward in time to the unimaginably distant future, and outside of our galaxy and any others near it.
I would even go so far as to say that Asimov wrote in a deeply religious fashion, as did Tolkien. The latter was a deeply religious Catholic, the former an implicitly religious atheist. And I am talking of course of religion in a broader sense, as a plumbing of the depths of the human heart and its yearning for the transcendent.
NOTE: Video embedded for aesthetic purposes only
So I want to take a look at an interview Asimov did a few decades back. In this interview Asimov said the following:
Everyone has the right to his own beliefs and his own securities and his own likings. What I’m against is attempting to place a person’s belief system on the nation or the world generally. (…) I certainly would be very much against trying to Christianize the world. Or to Islamize it. Or to Judaize it, or anything of the sort. And my objection to Fundamentalism is not that they are Fundamentalists, but that essentially they want me to be a Fundamentalist too. Now, I can imagine they object. They say I believe that evolution is true and I want everyone to believe that evolution is true. But I don’t want everyone to believe evolution is true. I want them to study what we say about evolution and decide for themselves.
“Here it comes,” one might say. ”Dan, the devout Catholic, is going to find a way to hand Isaac Asimov’s butt to him on this issue.”
Actually, what Asimov is saying here is completely reasonable…at least as far as I can tell.
First of all, I should note that Catholic theology has no conflict with the theory of evolution. It does reject any notion that humankind is just another ”step” in the natural progression of the nature’s ladder, given the fundamental understanding of humanity being made in the image of God. Yet there is no reason to suppose God couldn’t have used the evolutionary process over millions of years as a means to arriving at man, in a way known only to Himself.
Secondly, it may surprise some people to learn that the Catholic Church stands against proselytism, which Pope Francis called ”solemn nonsense.” And in fact, in its official teaching the Church forbids the use of force to convert others — whether in the form of coercion by violence or legal sanctions, or by emotional manipulation.
This teaching comes from a robust understanding of human dignity, which in all things entails an interplay of rights and duties. All human beings, by virtue of their inalienable dignity, have a duty to seek the truth. But precisely because of this obligation, the freedom that allows people to do so must be honored. No one can be coerced to act against his/her conscience or to adopt any particular belief against his/her will.
Conversion, as we understand it, is a conquest of the heart by God from within, not a conquest by human beings on behalf of God from without. The job of the believer is to share the message s/he has been given, always presupposing an openness to God in the other.
What Asimov says regarding evolution is more or less what those who share Christ in an authentic Christian spirit want others to do. Yes, we have a gift that we want — indeed, are obliged — to share. But we want those with whom we share it to use their freedom and their intellect to examine the message honestly and openly. Certainly we don’t want them to be checkmarks on our personal convert lists, as though they were hunting trophies.
I think where I would push back a bit is not so much against a particular statement of Asimov’s as a direction in which the logic he uses will tend in the absence of caution. There is a common notion that dogmatism, ipso facto, necessarily stands in the way of thought, inquiry, and openness to the perspectives of others.
While this is true of fundamentalism, I think that to be fair we must be mindful that fundamentalism is on the hither side of openmindedness. It is too small, in other words, to allow for a healthy relationship with reality. That said, if we are truly openminded we will consider the possibility of a reality on the far side of openmindedness. G.K. Chesterton was thinking of just such a thing when he said that the purpose of an open mind was akin to that of an open mouth: to clamp down again on something solid.
Having a mind open to aspects of reality you don’t understand, and perhaps never considered, is good. I’d even say it can be an exercise in humility. A spirit of curiosity and inquiry has always been important to human life, and always will be. We should encourage within ourselves and others a desire to expand our knowledge and our horizons.
The problem is that none of us can go very far without taking a stand on something. Ethics gives us one example of where this comes into play; things like the atomic bomb, for instance, show us what can happen when we go too far with our ”curiosity.” But even in terms of how we relate to reality itself, we cannot help holding some more or less stable view in the background of our inquiries and endeavors. One such example is the scientific method, which is useful as far as it goes; too often, though, people carry it out with an underlying philosophical assumption that empirically verifiable facts are the only ones worth considering.
”This is all fine,” one might say. ”But if you think you’re right and the other person is wrong, isn’t there at least an implicit sense of superiority on your part? Or if not superiority, at least a kind of paternalism?”
No, and for two reasons.
First, the faith I profess is an unmerited gift, not an accomplishment on my part. Secondly, for Catholics the circumstances are not as simple as one party being right, the other wrong.
Yes, we Catholics believe that we have the fullness of the Truth, and that this Truth is a Person: Jesus Christ. But we also believe — actually, this is the official teaching of the Church — that all religions and philosophies, to varying degrees, have some share in this one Truth. The many truths contained within these religions and philosophies are as rays emanating from the sun of that one Truth.
Yes, we Catholics believe that we have the fullness of the Truth. But that does not mean that any one of us understands it perfectly. Very often people belonging to other Christian denominations, other religions, and other schools of thought or ways of life will understand and practice those aspects of truth they do possess better than we do. So the encounter involved in sharing our faith is, from our perspective, a two-way street. We can learn from it too.
Given my allotment of time and space, I have only scratched the surface of the surface here. But hopefully I’ve provided a helpful overview to anyone interested in this topic. And in case anyone is wondering: yes, I do plan to read more of Asimov’s work in the hopefully not-too-distant future. But as a seasoned bibliophile I have a way of making rigid reading commitments from time to time, and there are a few other things on the list to check off first.
Thanks for reading!
Acknowledgements
Jay Kay Klein – Original publication: 1994 Immediate source: From the illustration pages in I. Asimov: A Memoir (Bantam Books, 1995) between pages 292-293 (originally published by Doubleday, 1994). Uploaded: 2019-05-22 00:37:02. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov#/media/File:Isaac_and_Janet_Asimov.jpg
Unknown author. Tolkien in thte 1940s. File:J. R. R. Tolkien, 1940s.jpg. Created: between 1940 and 1949 date QS:P,+1940-00-00T00:00:00Z/8,P1319,+1940-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1949-00-00T00:00:00Z/9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien#/media/File:J._R._R._Tolkien,_1940s.jpg
John Hain. A question mark. File:Pixelbay Question mark Word Art.png. Created: 3 November 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry#/media/File:Pixelbay_Question_mark_Word_Art.png
Leave a comment