God and Sheri S. Tepper

Some of you may be familiar with the works of feminist science fiction writer Sheri S. Tepper. I really enjoy her books, but one thing really puzzles me.In her books she's endlessly critical of patriarchal power structures like government or religion - especially religious governments. Her heroes are usually scientific-minded women at odds with fundamentalist males, or young girls taken advantage of - both, often.All in all I find she expresses the same sort of sentiments that John and Schraf and I express on this forum in regards to gender, religion, and inequality. But unlike us, who lean towards atheism, Tepper seems content to posit a God who is non-interventionist, uninterested in human affairs, but yet somehow still integral to the universe and human existence.I guess my point is a question - to those of you familiar with her work, why isn't she an atheist? She seems to hold the exact views that lead many of us to atheism. Why does she prefer a distant, uncaring God over no god at all?

I haven't read any of her work. Do you get these views from her works of fiction or somewhere else?

From her work, pretty much. I'm not aware of any essay work she's done or anything. I haven't read any anyway.I guess I'm not so much inerested in what Sheri S. Tepper believes personally as much as I'm interested in why she chooses to write about the beliefs that she does.If nobody's read her books, looks like I'll be talking to myself on this one.

'I guess I'm not so much inerested in what Sheri S. Tepper believes personally as much as I'm interested in why she chooses to write about the beliefs that she does.'hi crash remember me
this belief about a distant God who does not intervene is if i am not totally wrong similar to Einstein's belief, or so i have heard.
i think he believed in God glorified by the amazing universe (space),and not a personal one ,i too am usually more amazed by the universe than anything else. But my question to you crash is , would you rather her be an atheist?by the way if i am totally late in commenting then ignore this!

It's not my place to determine her beliefs. I just wonder, if Tepper and I have many of the same criticisms about religion and superstition, why is it that I am led to reject the supernatural for those reasons and she, on the other hand, is not?It's really something I was hoping to talk about with another person who's read her books.

Hi Crash,I'm new, but it sounds like Sheri is a Deist. I don't know how familiar you are with Deism...you might have considered and rejected it on the way to Atheism.I would classify myself as a Deist right now rather than an Atheist because, perhaps for the same reasons as Sheri, I haven't ruled out the existence of God.Deism traditionally (and I apologize in advance if you already know this) holds that there is a God, he just doesn't "fiddle" with the universe anymore. He created it and that's that. Some people use a watchmaker analogy: God made the watch, wound it up, and now he just leaves it alone and lets it run.wr/Geno

I'd say you're right about Tepper being a Deist...As you say, I rejected it on the way to atheism. What's the point of a god that doesn't have anything to do with the universe anymore? I mean, what need does that fulfill except some human insecurity about being alone in the universe? What's the purpose of a god that doesn't do anything? What does god do all day if he doesn't alter the universe?

quote:

---

What's the point of a god that doesn't have anything to do with the universe anymore? I mean, what need does that fulfill except some human insecurity about being alone in the universe? What's the purpose of a god that doesn't do anything? What does god do all day if he doesn't alter the universe?

---

Well, there's so many good tangents here...if you don't mind I'd like to just do a couple here and get your thoughts on it? I haven't rejected Atheism and I sure wouldn't say that Deism is "better" or anything...I just haven't gotten that far in my thinking yet.I personally don't need God because of a human insecurity about being alone in the universe as I haven't ruled out the possibility that there is other sentient life in the universe.Like most Deists, I need God to satisfy causality.[this reply is truncated because my first long reply back to you got blown out! The general points remain the same wr/
Geno

I've heard this argument - the thing is, there's no reason to assume that causality is a principle that extends beyond the start of time. Certainly, at the subatomic level, causality does not always apply, so why is it necessary for the universe to have a cause?

Well, I stopped at Agnosticism.If we don't know if there was a first cause, then there's no way of knowing if god exists or not.I don't rule out the possibility of God (as an Agnostic). Anything's possible. I just don't see any evidence for the supernatural.God (or ghosts or whatever) might be out there. I just can't tell.

quote:

---

there's no reason to assume that causality is a principle that extends beyond the start of time. Certainly, at the subatomic level, causality does not always apply, so why is it necessary for the universe to have a cause?

---

I agree that there's no reason to assume causality must be--it's just generally how things work (in this universe) on a large scale and it's how we logically work backwards in time in search of origins. There's no reason to stop using it just because we come to a big bang singularity [in a macro sense]--what caused the Big Bang singularity?[rhetorical]So that brings up the quantum aspect of the pre-Big Bang universe...which I must admit is VERY interesting stuff which I've only started to explore. If the early universe came into being/did not come into being--that is, time simply changed its dimensional nature, it does result in the non-causal formation of the universe as we know it today. [Please do not kill me on this second paragraph--I know that I have to continue to study it : ) ]However, that still doesn't rule out the possibility of a creator who made the original conditions for the above and, of course, if you reject the arguments of those who assign quantum properties to the early (pre-Big Bang) universe, then you have even further to go to rule out causality. It is a very new theory and not overwhelmingly accepted yet, as far as I have heard--I like it though.

quote:

---

Well, I stopped at Agnosticism.
If we don't know if there was a first cause, then there's no way of knowing if god exists or not.
I don't rule out the possibility of God (as an Agnostic). Anything's possible. I just don't see any evidence for the supernatural.

---

Well Scraf, you're right.Like that story about the old woman who believed the universe rested on the back of a giant turtle. When she was smugly asked what the turtle stood on, she replied, "you can't fool me, it's turtles--all the way down!" If you can't find first cause . . .Really, I'd say the only difference between a Deist and an Agnostic is optimism--personally, I just don't know enough right now to say, "It can't be known."warm regards to you both,
Geno

Same here. I'm only a casual student of the sciences, myself.I guess I am led to atheism because, as a result of the evidence I observe, the only kind of god that could exist is one who is indistinguishable from no god at all.If that's the case, why assume a god? Hence, atheism.What I find weird is that Sheri S. Tepper seems to arrive at the same thought about god, but leaves it there - that the god who does exist is indistinguishable from no god at all, for reasons known only to god. I don't see why that's better. It seems worse to me.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-11-2003]

You know, I will try to check her out. What's a good book to start out with?

quote:

---

What I find weird is that Sheri S. Tepper seems to arrive at the same thought about god, but leaves it there - that the god who does exist is indistinguishable from no god at all, for reasons known only to god. I don't see why that's better. It seems worse to me.

---

I'd like to continue discussing Atheism/Deism/Agnosticism, but, since I'm new at this, don't know if I should continue in this forum or start a new topic somewhere else?wr/Geno

"Grass" is the one I started out with, and "The Visitor" is the one I just finished. Those two books are what largely prompted the topic at hand. She's most famous for "The Gate to Women's Country" but I haven't read that one, so I can't speak to it. I do know it's widely regarded as a classic of contemporary sci-fi. Well, no one seems to be willing/able to really talk about Tepper's books, so I guess we might as well talk about it here. At any rate, it'll be a good place to keep talking if you happen to read her work later.

'I guess I am led to atheism because, as a result of the evidence I observe, the only kind of god that could exist is one who is indistinguishable from no god at all.'is this derived from personal experience?
i guess my point is is that i could say God is a personal God.the only evidence that i exist to you is that i am typing back to you,however does this mean because you have relatively no scientific evidence , that means i do not exist?(by the way if you do not want to talk to me crash thats fair enough).