Transcendent Outsiders, Alien Gods , and Aspiring Humans

164 Pages·2011·1.04 MB·English

by  Ryan Calvey

SSStttooonnnyyy BBBrrrooooookkk UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy

The official electronic file of this thesis or dissertation is maintained by the University
Libraries on behalf of The Graduate School at Stony Brook University.

©©© AAAllllll RRRiiiggghhhtttsss RRReeessseeerrrvvveeeddd bbbyyy AAAuuuttthhhooorrr...
Transcendent Outsiders, Alien Gods, and Aspiring Humans: Literary Fantasy and Science
Fiction as Contemporary Theological Speculation

A Dissertation Presented

by

Ryan Calvey

to
The Graduate School
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
English
Stony Brook University

May 2011
Copyright by
Ryan Calvey
2011
Stony Brook University

The Graduate School

Ryan Calvey

We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the
Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend
acceptance of this dissertation.

Dr. Susan Scheckel – Dissertation Co-Advisor
Associate Professor, English Department

Dr. Krin Gabbard – Chairperson of Defense
Professor, Department of Comparative Literary and Cultural Studies

Dr. Patricia Belanoff
Professor Emeritus, English Department

Dr. Ira Livingston – Dissertation Co-Advisor
Chairperson of English and Humanities, Pratt Institute

Dr. Brian Attebery – Outside Reader
Professor of English, Department of English and Philosophy, Idaho State University

This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School

Lawrence Martin
Dean of the Graduate School

ii
Abstract of the Dissertation

Transcendent Outsiders, Alien Gods, and Aspiring Humans: Literary Fantasy and Science
Fiction as Contemporary Theological Speculation

by

Ryan Calvey

Doctor of Philosophy
in
English
Stony Brook University

2011

This dissertation argues that mainstream discourse on theology and morality often fails to
explore the value and credibility of different theological approaches and the possibility of moral
evolution and that, as a result, we need to pay more attention to arenas which allow for deeper
speculation about theology and morality. Following an observation by Margaret Atwood, I
argue that one such space within literature is literary science fiction and fantasy. In my first
chapter, I argue that, while some science fiction merely echoes the limitations of mainstream
debate, the genres can creatively explore theological questions because, like myth and theology,
they contextualize known existence and voice what I call “transcendent outsiders,” beings who
are superior to humans and provide critical and comforting outside perspectives. In the second
and third chapters, I draw on the work of writers such as Carl Jung, Brenda Denzler, and Linda
Dégh on alien beings as spiritual/theological figures to argue that a range of narratives and films,
such as The Day the Earth Stood Still and Carl Sagan’s Contact, present aliens as godlike
transcendent outsider figures in ways that explore, endorse, or critique various theological
conceptualizations: in chapter two, the judgmental, punishing god figures of much ancient myth
and traditional religion; in chapter three, more loving, peaceful god figures echoing Eastern and
New Age theological concepts and progressive spirituality. In chapter four, I argue that science
fiction and fantasy also contextualize by depicting what I call “aspiring human” figures, a kind of
flipside of transcendent outsiders which allows us to explore human identity and morality and,
by positioning us as gods, theology. I assert that in his Wizard Knight and Short Sun series,
Gene Wolfe uses an array of aspiring humans to raise deep questions about human identity,
morality, and theology and to present hierarchical Christian solutions. I conclude by suggesting
both a fresh approach to theology that emphasizes the need for imaginative, open-minded
speculation about transcendence that goes beyond the limitations of the mainstream debate and
an increased recognition of the value of science fiction and fantasy as literary arenas in which
important, creative theological speculation is occurring.

iii
Table of Contents

Introduction: More/Less Theology is the Problem/Solution...…………………………………1
I. Chapter One: Science Fiction On Theology; Science Fiction as Theology……17
II. Chapter Two: Aliens as Traditional Gods……………………………………...43
III. Chapter Three: Making Contact with New Age Alien Gods…………………..73
IV. Chapter Four: Voices from Below……………………………………………102
V. Conclusion: Using and Valuing Our Spiritual/Theological Playgrounds…….138
Endnotes……………………………………………………………………………………....139
References…………………………………………………………………………………….152

iv
1

Introduction: More/Less Theology is the Problem/Solution

“Why are people so mean?”
“Because they separate themselves from the Outsider.” I had not thought
about it in those terms before and said what I did without reflection, but as soon
as I had spoken, I realized that what I had said was true. (Wolfe, Whorl 271)

If you think it would be impossible to improve upon the Ten
Commandments as a statement of morality, you really owe it to yourself to read
some other scriptures. Once again, we need look no further than the Jains:
Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single
sentence: “Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill
any creature or living being.” Imagine how different our world might be if the
Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed,
enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for
centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible. It is
impossible to behave this way by adhering to the principles of Jainism. How,
then, can you argue that the Bible provides the clearest statement of morality the
world has ever seen?
[…]
[…] Religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they
are not—that is, when they have nothing to do with suffering or its alleviation.
(Harris 22-23, 25)

We are often told what Gene Wolfe’s protagonist tells another character in the first
epigraph: that human weaknesses and flaws are the result of our lack of belief in or connection to
God, whom Wolfe’s character calls “The Outsider.” Anyone who proposes, for example, that
schools are now more dangerous and young people more violent, sexually active, or less
respectful of authority because the Ten Commandments are no longer posted on the walls and
God has been “driven out of our schools,” is invoking this theme. The implication is that
morality results from religious adherence to divine teachings or scriptures, from a spiritual
connection to God, or, in some cases, merely from a fear of divine punishment. Our secular
society has strayed from the first, lost the second, and no longer takes the third seriously, and the
result is moral regression and sometimes confusion or chaos. In brief, this diagnosis suggests,
the lack of religion/belief is what plagues us. But there is hope: things might be bad now, but if
we reconnect, we can return to a time when they were better.
And yet, if some voices in our public discourse tell us that secularism and the lack of
faith or religious belief are the problem, others, including, recently, writers dubbed the “New
Atheists,” assert that the exact opposite is true. Our moral problems are not the result of a lack
of faith, but rather the direct results of too much faith or belief in outrageous and primitive ideas
and in an outrageous and primitive God, like the Old Testament God, whom evolutionary
2

biologist Richard Dawkins describes in The God Delusion as an “evil monster” (248). As another
atheist critic, Sam Harris, has put it,
It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly
terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much
of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion—to religious hatreds,
religious wars, religious taboos, and religious diversions of scarce resources—is
what makes the honest criticism of religious faith a moral and intellectual
necessity. (56-57)
While many forces can prompt human hatred, violence, and cruelty, as Harris observes in the
epigraph quote, religion has perhaps more power than anything else to make us act badly while
believing we are doing the greatest good. According to this line of argument, to advance to a
better future, we need to disconnect and replace faith with reason. Along these lines, nun-turned-
scientist Mary in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series learns that God (in Pullman’s
world, the “Authority”) is a fraud and Christianity a “very powerful and convincing mistake”
(Amber Spyglass 393). In other words, our task is not to return to faith and better times in the
past but to advance past oppressive delusions which are holding us back from a brighter future.
If the two sides of this argument propose opposite solutions to present problems, for
fairly obvious reasons, they also sometimes see very different worlds. The voices urging us to
reconnect with God, faith, or spirituality tend to see a world in which these have been lost or, as
Wolfe’s protagonist implies, people have “separate[d] themselves from” them (Whorl 271). In
the worlds of Wolfe’s major series, for example, people have forgotten the true God and fallen
into false worship of lower beings and, as a result, morally regressed to barbarism and brutality.
The atheist side of the debate sees a world in which religion and faith dominate or tyrannize, a
world oppressively controlled, and held back, by faith and superstition. Philip Pullman’s fantasy
series, for example, depicts an alternate England controlled almost completely by a Church
devoted to repressing heresy and eradicating “dust” (what they mistakenly take to be harmful
original sin, but which is actually the gift of consciousness), which eventually requires separating
children from their very souls. At the very end of his comic documentary Religulous, Bill
Maher, standing in Megiddo, Israel, where he says, “Many Christians believe the world will
come to an end,” suggests that we must abandon religion or face cataclysmic consequences, his
commentary visually accompanied by images of violence and destruction1.
While the differences between the two sides I’ve outlined are what stand out, there are at
least two significant points of agreement. First, they both believe that present conditions could
be better, and that trying to bring about moral improvement (whether as an evolution or a return
to the past) is among the most important tasks we face. The atheist side, which in this sense
might be considered more progressive, often suggests that things are getting better and looks for
how to continue and speed up human moral evolution (faith and religion are thus roadblocks on
the highway of human progress). The “faith” side sees things as getting worse and believes that
what’s needed is a return to traditional values and religion. Less obviously, both sides agree that
theology has significant consequences for human behavior and thus plays a central role. On both
points, they are right; we do need to focus on moral improvement, and we cannot neglect the role
theology often plays. The problem is that our mainstream discussions of theology are often not
helpful, primarily because of their style/format and its impact on the participants chosen and the
potential content of the discussion.

Agreeing to Disagree
3

Perhaps not surprisingly, mainstream discourse about theology and morality is often
hamstrung by the same impulses that diverse observers including satirist Jon Stewart, political
bloggers Glen Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan, linguist/activist Noam Chomsky, and
essayist/fiction writer George Saunders have persuasively argued limit and in some cases neuter
most mainstream political discourse.2 Mainstream discussions of spirituality/religion/
faith/theology often take the form of brief, theatrical “debates” (in which opponents attempt to
“win”) rather than discussions in which participants attempt to find truth, understand each other,
or enlighten an audience. Straw man arguments, ad hominem characterizations, and misleading
assertions abound since the implicit objective is simply making one’s opponent look bad and
oneself appear right. Mainstream theological debates also typically feature only two sides:
atheists and “believers” (members of traditional organized religion, and even then usually only
Christianity, Judaism, or Islam)—in other words, between fixed, traditional theology and anti-
theology/no theology3. As in political discourse, media moderators demonstrate an obsession
with the appearance of “balance” (as opposed to accuracy or objective truth). The exaltation of
balance manifests itself in the idea that every discussion must have exactly two sides (which can
be represented by the “strongest” voices, typically meaning the most strident or extreme) and
that (in the interests of balance) these two sides must always be presented as if equal and all
debates left completely unsettled (One side says this; one side says that—we’re gonna have to
leave it there), regardless of the relative merits of the claims actually made or the credibility of
the speakers making them. We are led to believe that for the journalist/moderator to weigh in on
such a value (for example, pointing out that the position taken by one side is supported by a vast
consensus of evidence or the historical record and the other no credible sources, or that one
speaker is a respected figure in the field and the other merely a propagandist) is, rather than a
proper use of moral authority and the media’s essential role, the manifestation of some kind of
political bias. If it is not immediately clear how this obsession with balance is harmful, or even
how balance and accuracy are incompatible rather than complimentary, imagine, for comparison,
what we might think of the value of a world series game in which an umpire refuses to call a
pitch a ball or strike (or calls them always in equal number for both teams) for fear of seeming to
have a Pro-Yankees bias—or of a murder trial presided over by a judge who, in the interests of
“balance,” gives equal time/weight to the testimony of a court psychiatrist and a discredited
friend of the defendant4.
In mainstream discussions of theology as in political discourse, then, the brevity of the
segments; the emphasis on the appearance of victory rather than any reality of understanding or
insight; the mediator’s central focus on, at all costs, appearing “balanced”; the entertainment
motive that requires loud, polarized voices representing a limited range of familiar perspectives
all work to ensure that the odds are stacked very highly against actual discussions of real insight
and value. Much like political debates on cable news programs, mainstream theological debates
can rarely go anywhere productive because both sides “know” what they know—and both
believe they know all anyone needs know about the topic: that there is a God and God looks
exactly like my faith/inerrant holy book tells me, or that your holy book’s idea of God cannot
exist. Ironically, the primary accomplishment of the debates we tend to have about theology and
spirituality is to ensure that discussions we need to have cannot happen because neither side is
actually willing to discuss theology: one side is certain their theology is it; the other that their
traditional theology is foolish and irrational, and so theology is necessarily irrational and
harmful.
4

Instead, the content of such discussions is typically limited to simplistic questions which
make for easy “yes/no” shouting matches but actually do little to enlighten: Does God exist? Is
religion a force for good? What is the value of faith? Can we have morality without religion?
From the perspective of the media, such questions are perfect, because they will certainly not be
“settled” in any way, the debates will be entertaining, and by presenting “strong” voices for such
obviously different sides, they will appear balanced. But will we learn anything more than the
obvious? One side is sure God exists and is of course an anthropomorphized being exactly like
their faith portrays him (it is virtually always a him); the other will argue that belief in such a
God-figure is irrational. One will argue that religion and faith are the only true sources of
morality, and atheism leads to nihilism and moral collapse, while the other will argue that
morality exists despite religion and that, when religion prompts moral behavior, it does so for the
wrong reasons5.
In addition, the focus on those simplistic questions keeps us from exploring two
interconnected issues I’d like to argue are far deeper and more useful than the simple “Does God
exist?” approach of mainstream discussions: (1) what we consider transcendent/how we define
the transcendence (what ideas about transcendent beings such as God or gods make sense to us
now, given our current understanding of ourselves and the world) and (2) what moral
improvements are desirable and how could they become possibilities, even realities. The mere
presence or absence of belief (what most mainstream discussions cover) is an unproductive focus
since it is objectively beyond debate that either can produce the best and the worst behavior,
providing reasons for treating others with striking love and compassion or a rationale for the
most shocking brutality. Considering transcendence and moral evolution keeps our focus on
what actually shapes behavior—in the case of believers, the content of their theology; in the case
of atheists and agnostics, their moral decision-making about what, in the absence of any spiritual
context, is best for the individual and for humanity in general in life in the here and now.
When we discuss theology, our most important concern should be the content and effects
of different theological visions. Exactly what concept of God, spirituality, or transcendence does
a particular view provide? How rational, compelling, and sophisticated does that vision appear
to be? Perhaps most important, how successful is such a belief and the approaches to life it
sponsors at producing happiness and alleviating suffering and despair6. In what cases have such
concepts or visions of transcendence sponsored approaches to life that lessen happiness/increase
suffering and despair? If such visions or concepts have weaknesses in either conception or
impact, what conceptions of God, spirituality, or transcendence might make more sense? The
key factor regarding theology, then, is something rarely broached in the mainstream debate
discussed above: what one imagines that God to be, how one envisions that spiritual framework,
and how one fits oneself into both ideas, what one envisions both demand of him or herself.
Some theological ideas promote compassion and alleviate despair; others prompt incredibly
brutal, irrational behavior that, at least in our modern world, could hardly be justified or agued
for except with resort to some variation of the “God wants it” rationale7. Theology, like atheism
and agnosticism, cannot be assessed categorically, but this point is missed when, as in most
mainstream debate about theology/spirituality, the options are simply to dismiss all of theology
because of its worst offenders or to choose from one of the official, proper choices, which thus
appear to stand for all spiritual and theological possibilities.
In an atheistic or agnostic view, what is most relevant is how, morally, one should react
to an atheistic conclusion: if there is nothing else but the world we observe with our senses and
the lives we are experiencing at this moment, what approaches to those realities would have the