I'll have to ask David how I get to read his play. My own take (over 30 years ago) on the devil (Lucifer rather than Satan) as the rebel, anarchist, and rationalist:
He e-mailed me a copy, he's very approachable. reading your piece yeah. The whole original sin thing leaves me cold. Also, all the other … yeah. I suppose in practical terms, you can regard me as a Humanist.
A brilliant analysis. My only nitpick would be that Mongoose forgot C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" and "Screwtape Letters".
David Brin is a great writer with absolutely great ideas, even if or when he is wrong. From the synopsis, it appears that he has added significantly to the canon of great literature about hell. I hope someone posts the play on YouTube!
Unfortunately, the biggest problem with the hell canon is that it is not logical--if you accept the foundational ideas of the Bible: That God is Truth, that God is Love, and that God is Existence. Add to these premises the idea that while God is omniscient, hell is one place that He is not. That means that Hell is infinitesimally small (Lewis points that out quite clearly). It also means that there is no love or truth in hell. That is why one of Satan’s titles is “Father of Lies” (Scott Peck makes that clear in his fascinating best-seller, “People of the Lie” Note: Peck did not believe in the Devil until he witnessed two exorcisms).
If God loves you, but you don't really like him, then what is He supposed to do with you when you die? He can’t bring you to heaven – that would be agony for you to be exposed to Him in all his glory. So, he sends you to the one place he does not exist. Doesn’t sound bad, does it? Except that it has no love and no truth, and almost no existence. That may not sound *that* bad, but that is because you’ve never experienced it. You have no freaking idea how bad it is. If you experience for one second, then you will be frozen in horror. You will *much* prefer to be thrown in a lake of fire—just to distract you a little from the vast hollowness of knowing with certainty that you were never loved, that you never loved anyone, and that love never existed anywhere.
As far as explaining why Satan hates humanity, I’m surprised that few authors provide believable motives. But pretend that you were the most beautiful, powerful, intelligent, purely spiritual, and immortal being in this universe. Then the guy who created you tells you that you will need to obey these massively stupid little bags of sh*t that crawled out of the mud. I’m not surprised that he rebelled.
Of course, if you don’t think that the Bible correctly characterizes the God who fine-tuned the Big Bang in order for us to exist… well, (other than having to explain the improbability of our existence) you can truthfully say that false premises always result in nonsense. But if you don’t believe in the Bible, then why believe in hell, other than a silly story? In that case, I’d be like Ray Kurzweil, who is working hard on life extension, trying to get to escape velocity. Will the Singularity hit by 2035? If I was any older, I’d be praying like hell that it gets here fast.
This is a really generous and thoughtful comment — thank you. You're right that I should have engaged with Lewis more directly; Screwtape especially is doing some of the same work Brin is, just from inside the tradition rather than alongside it. I read quite a bit of Lewis, but for space reasons I couldn't engage with him in this piece.
I should be transparent about where I'm standing, though: the Mongoose is not a Christian. I read the Bible as literature — some of it extraordinary literature — but I don't find it to be a coherent guide to living in the world. I suppose you could say I'm Christian in roughly the sense that Che Guevara was a Marxist: shaped by the tradition, swimming in its cultural water, but not a believer in the foundational premises.
Your Satan-as-jealous-angel paragraph is genuinely well done, though. That's a motivation that makes dramatic sense whether or not you accept the theology behind it, which is exactly what good mythological thinking should do.
I'm not familiar with Morrow, actually. Good stuff? - I'm just starting into part two of The Silent City. In my bestiary, Elisa is the Unicorn. I'm looking forward to writing about her. She's a lovely coming-of-age character. In a scary damn world.
Suit yourself. I don't see it as a No True Scotsman. The Mongoose and I have an ongoing conversation on the subject, as suggested by the shout-out he gave me in the text. Because of that, I felt appropriate to defend the kid's possible intentions, rather than to immediately discount him as a naive, defiant troublemaker.
Maybe that's all he is, though. But you know what? He's fictitious, so all he is will be whatever the Mongoose wants him to be.
Of course, you knew that with a title like that, you'd be at the top of my reading list today. I've also always had a fascination with the Prince of Darkness.
However, and I think you knew I'd mention this, I think you're going to feel a little silly about your characterization of the anarchy kid once you continue farther down your path against Hierarchy (the true god of civilization). It might sound cliche, but the kid is just misunderstood. He isn't trying to burn down his life support, as you characterize it.
Patrick, I'll be honest, regarding 😈 i pretty much agree with you. I had to limit my example texts, for space considerations. But MY very favorite reading of the Devil and Hell is from Heinlein. JOB: A Comedy of Justice. Heinlein's Lucifer was just the younger brother, assigned to a role in the Big Guy's pageant, and long since weary of the whole foolish game. It's very easy for me to do a sympathetic reading of the anarchist rebel. It's not the motivations I doubt, it's the outcomes. Nevertheless, it's part of the Mongoose Method. I will follow the readings where they lead without prematurely choosing a conclusion. I'll dive into part two on the Anarchy series, probably tomorrow.
That feels like something of a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Yeah, granted, the kid in the Anarchist T-Shirt may not have been a "true" Anarchist.
But the archetype described, "[The kid] wearing the anarchy shirt, burning down the structure that was keeping him alive, because he thought defiance was the same thing as freedom", Tom Petty's 'Rebel without a Clue', is instantly recognizable, and supports the logical structure of the piece.
I'll admit, the stereotype is a wee bit of a cheap shot. I trusted Patrick enough that i figured he could see the bit of humor in the spirit it was intended. Because i do want to engage honestly with his ideas, whether i agree with the premises or not. Because that's what we do here at the mongoose, we ask questions and follow ideas. Answers are rarely final, and reality always bats last.
Pascal's wager struck me as a sucker bet when I first encountered it in my teens. It presumes that the same purportedly omniscient god also can't tell the difference between pragmatism and adherence. I've always identified with Huck and been able to detect those who also did (or would) and made friends with those folks. Far more recently I've been able to articulate the underlying idea. The dogma of religions is based on the idea that you can judge things as 'right' and 'wrong', AND that you can determine those in advance and write them down - possibly on a stone tablet. My philosophy is at its core the idea that life itself is sacred and that supporting life vs degrading life is the gray area we have to navigate in each moment. The divinity inside us is just as important as the divinity around us, as is the relationship between them. And love is really the root under all of that. Love of life drives the most valuable choices - even when it's not the body you inhabit that gets to keep living.
Right? Pascal's wager only works out if you start from the assumption that the god your mommy taught you is the one and only really true god of the universe. If you go all in on yahweh and the real big deal was ganesh all along, you are screwed. Personally, i follow the Bastard. *touching my thumb to my lips, in respect.* Bujold has one of the kindest and most inclusive pantheons I ever encountered.
It also only works if you give up your mental sovereignty and commit to belief without evidence - something I resist with every fiber of my being. Once you choose to unanchor your reality, you are incapable of discerning it.
I'll have to ask David how I get to read his play. My own take (over 30 years ago) on the devil (Lucifer rather than Satan) as the rebel, anarchist, and rationalist:
http://www.davidacook.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/in_praise_of_the_devil__max_more.pdf
He e-mailed me a copy, he's very approachable. reading your piece yeah. The whole original sin thing leaves me cold. Also, all the other … yeah. I suppose in practical terms, you can regard me as a Humanist.
A brilliant analysis. My only nitpick would be that Mongoose forgot C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" and "Screwtape Letters".
David Brin is a great writer with absolutely great ideas, even if or when he is wrong. From the synopsis, it appears that he has added significantly to the canon of great literature about hell. I hope someone posts the play on YouTube!
Unfortunately, the biggest problem with the hell canon is that it is not logical--if you accept the foundational ideas of the Bible: That God is Truth, that God is Love, and that God is Existence. Add to these premises the idea that while God is omniscient, hell is one place that He is not. That means that Hell is infinitesimally small (Lewis points that out quite clearly). It also means that there is no love or truth in hell. That is why one of Satan’s titles is “Father of Lies” (Scott Peck makes that clear in his fascinating best-seller, “People of the Lie” Note: Peck did not believe in the Devil until he witnessed two exorcisms).
If God loves you, but you don't really like him, then what is He supposed to do with you when you die? He can’t bring you to heaven – that would be agony for you to be exposed to Him in all his glory. So, he sends you to the one place he does not exist. Doesn’t sound bad, does it? Except that it has no love and no truth, and almost no existence. That may not sound *that* bad, but that is because you’ve never experienced it. You have no freaking idea how bad it is. If you experience for one second, then you will be frozen in horror. You will *much* prefer to be thrown in a lake of fire—just to distract you a little from the vast hollowness of knowing with certainty that you were never loved, that you never loved anyone, and that love never existed anywhere.
As far as explaining why Satan hates humanity, I’m surprised that few authors provide believable motives. But pretend that you were the most beautiful, powerful, intelligent, purely spiritual, and immortal being in this universe. Then the guy who created you tells you that you will need to obey these massively stupid little bags of sh*t that crawled out of the mud. I’m not surprised that he rebelled.
Of course, if you don’t think that the Bible correctly characterizes the God who fine-tuned the Big Bang in order for us to exist… well, (other than having to explain the improbability of our existence) you can truthfully say that false premises always result in nonsense. But if you don’t believe in the Bible, then why believe in hell, other than a silly story? In that case, I’d be like Ray Kurzweil, who is working hard on life extension, trying to get to escape velocity. Will the Singularity hit by 2035? If I was any older, I’d be praying like hell that it gets here fast.
This is a really generous and thoughtful comment — thank you. You're right that I should have engaged with Lewis more directly; Screwtape especially is doing some of the same work Brin is, just from inside the tradition rather than alongside it. I read quite a bit of Lewis, but for space reasons I couldn't engage with him in this piece.
I should be transparent about where I'm standing, though: the Mongoose is not a Christian. I read the Bible as literature — some of it extraordinary literature — but I don't find it to be a coherent guide to living in the world. I suppose you could say I'm Christian in roughly the sense that Che Guevara was a Marxist: shaped by the tradition, swimming in its cultural water, but not a believer in the foundational premises.
I wrote a bit about where that leaves me here:
https://jamesmack2.substack.com/p/in-service-to-life?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Your Satan-as-jealous-angel paragraph is genuinely well done, though. That's a motivation that makes dramatic sense whether or not you accept the theology behind it, which is exactly what good mythological thinking should do.
I'm out of my league and depth here, but how about P Pullman's 'His Dark Materials?'
I’m not familiar with it. Is it good?
I like the series. It's Pullman's take on Milton's Paradise Lost (ish), with inspiration from Blake (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/45492649?seq=1 )
"He who dies with the most books win."
I’m at least in the running.
I'll have to add that to my ridiculously long lifetime worth of aspirational reading.
Interesting readings of classics, and less classic. I didn't know David wrote plays. That one seems really clever. Hope it is or will be published.
(And of course, you know James Morrow's novels, as far as confrontation between humans and God are concerned?)
I'm not familiar with Morrow, actually. Good stuff? - I'm just starting into part two of The Silent City. In my bestiary, Elisa is the Unicorn. I'm looking forward to writing about her. She's a lovely coming-of-age character. In a scary damn world.
As far as I am concerned, very good stuff.
Suit yourself. I don't see it as a No True Scotsman. The Mongoose and I have an ongoing conversation on the subject, as suggested by the shout-out he gave me in the text. Because of that, I felt appropriate to defend the kid's possible intentions, rather than to immediately discount him as a naive, defiant troublemaker.
Maybe that's all he is, though. But you know what? He's fictitious, so all he is will be whatever the Mongoose wants him to be.
Of course, you knew that with a title like that, you'd be at the top of my reading list today. I've also always had a fascination with the Prince of Darkness.
However, and I think you knew I'd mention this, I think you're going to feel a little silly about your characterization of the anarchy kid once you continue farther down your path against Hierarchy (the true god of civilization). It might sound cliche, but the kid is just misunderstood. He isn't trying to burn down his life support, as you characterize it.
Have a great one, friend.
Patrick, I'll be honest, regarding 😈 i pretty much agree with you. I had to limit my example texts, for space considerations. But MY very favorite reading of the Devil and Hell is from Heinlein. JOB: A Comedy of Justice. Heinlein's Lucifer was just the younger brother, assigned to a role in the Big Guy's pageant, and long since weary of the whole foolish game. It's very easy for me to do a sympathetic reading of the anarchist rebel. It's not the motivations I doubt, it's the outcomes. Nevertheless, it's part of the Mongoose Method. I will follow the readings where they lead without prematurely choosing a conclusion. I'll dive into part two on the Anarchy series, probably tomorrow.
That feels like something of a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Yeah, granted, the kid in the Anarchist T-Shirt may not have been a "true" Anarchist.
But the archetype described, "[The kid] wearing the anarchy shirt, burning down the structure that was keeping him alive, because he thought defiance was the same thing as freedom", Tom Petty's 'Rebel without a Clue', is instantly recognizable, and supports the logical structure of the piece.
I'll admit, the stereotype is a wee bit of a cheap shot. I trusted Patrick enough that i figured he could see the bit of humor in the spirit it was intended. Because i do want to engage honestly with his ideas, whether i agree with the premises or not. Because that's what we do here at the mongoose, we ask questions and follow ideas. Answers are rarely final, and reality always bats last.
That was a lot to take one with my first cup of tea. 💕
A HELLA lot! Get more tea, love.
Pascal's wager struck me as a sucker bet when I first encountered it in my teens. It presumes that the same purportedly omniscient god also can't tell the difference between pragmatism and adherence. I've always identified with Huck and been able to detect those who also did (or would) and made friends with those folks. Far more recently I've been able to articulate the underlying idea. The dogma of religions is based on the idea that you can judge things as 'right' and 'wrong', AND that you can determine those in advance and write them down - possibly on a stone tablet. My philosophy is at its core the idea that life itself is sacred and that supporting life vs degrading life is the gray area we have to navigate in each moment. The divinity inside us is just as important as the divinity around us, as is the relationship between them. And love is really the root under all of that. Love of life drives the most valuable choices - even when it's not the body you inhabit that gets to keep living.
Right? Pascal's wager only works out if you start from the assumption that the god your mommy taught you is the one and only really true god of the universe. If you go all in on yahweh and the real big deal was ganesh all along, you are screwed. Personally, i follow the Bastard. *touching my thumb to my lips, in respect.* Bujold has one of the kindest and most inclusive pantheons I ever encountered.
It also only works if you give up your mental sovereignty and commit to belief without evidence - something I resist with every fiber of my being. Once you choose to unanchor your reality, you are incapable of discerning it.