Arthur C. Clark--The Star

a reply to: thesearchfortruth

I think this is more of a story about faith rather than one of death and destruction of a capricious God (bad thing happens to good people).

It is not a "rebirth" of a dead and burned out planet but that seed of death (super nova) planting the seed of faith in a far and away removed people. The question is then of "blind faith" versus a need to believe. A fine line that is paining our narrator.

It also trying to reconcile science and religion. Not sure why but it is a good ruse to hold back the punch line at the end of the story.

Thanks for the read! Check out the EM Forster story if you have not.

originally posted by: Astyanax
The Star is (to belabour the obvious) fiction.

Arthur was a strong atheist with deep spiritual and theological interests. These can be seen at play in the story but its plot is simply that of a cosmic coincidence that destroys a Jesuit astronaut's faith. It's a great story -- I read it at least forty years ago but I can still remember the last line -- but it is not meant to be discussed as if it really happened.

In the world of The Star, God either does not exist, or is a force of evil. But the world of The Star exists only in a two-page science fiction story.

as a non religious person i deeply enjoyed his works and avidly consumed his narnia series from front to back. particularly the ending which hints at some fascinating multiversal concepts. addressing the actual original post in this thread, its an interesting and complex premise that this star story proposes. it sort of nudges at the ultimately check and balance nature of the universe where something must be lost in order for something of equal value to be gained. destroying an entire civilization to generate a beacon for a baby is a little over the top in my opinion but what do i know of intergalactic ethics. in my mind it speaks more toward symbology and the comparison between actual events and how they are perceived by the less informed, which feels like an intelligent way to look at religious history and the mechanisms of its evolution in the psychology of the masses. a truly thought provoking narrative provided you dont mind asking yourself some uncomfortable questions.

as an aside, whats with all the pedo chat going on here? i dont think thats the direction of the topic at all. more derailing than anything else. make another thread folks.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I agree with what you wrote about "events and how they are perceived by the less informed"...

...as far as this story goes, I think Clarke makes a typical 'atheistic' assumption in having the priest interpret the super nova as an intentional act by God.

As a person of 'Faith' (not strictly Christian) myself, I think the more realistic portrayal would have the priest concluding that God, having foreknowledge of the super nova, set the timing of Jesus' birth to coincide...

...so, while some might still be argue that God was 'evil' for 'allowing' that civilization to perish, in a cosmogony where 'God' has a strict 'hands off the larger Universal events' policy -

- one could say that He sanctified the loss of that civilization by turning the 'tragedy' of the destructive super nova into the blessing of Bethlehem's star..

p.s. I don't usually like to play 'know-it-all', but being a huge 'Narnia' fan myself...I have to point out that those books were not written by Arthur C. Clarke, but by C.S. Lewis -

- who having been an atheist in youth, actually became a Christian in his middle years after having a spiritual experience..

a reply to: lostgirl

...well i dropped the ball on that one. thanks for correcting my mistake. however providing a navigation device for a baby shower by killing off an entire civilization still seems in poor taste. especially when that baby ends up being murdered a few decades later. seems that the grand design simply cant help but revolve around people suffering miserable fates.