PC040: Hell Is the Absence of God - PodCastle Giant

[Ocicat]

Maybe we don't know if God is dead in the story, but either way, we know that loving him has a real effect - since everyone can see the souls of the faithful rise, and those that don't love god fall.

So I don't really see if it matter if he's still around.  You still have the choice to love him or not, and that choice matters.

[roguewest]

I almost turned this off  2 minutes in because it was agonizing to listen to, and it was looking like we were about to be preached at rather than entertained. But I suffered through the poor audio quality and flat narration trusting PodCastle to present a good story (not a religious surmon), but I sadly realized my first fears were correct.

I can't find myself caring for these sheep who blindly follow anything, let alone an uncaring egocentric deity. Therefor I cared less and less for their plight as the story went on. Frankly I found the ending way too preachy for a fantasy story.

I keep being reminded of R.A. Heinlein's quote:
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

[DigitalVG]

Something I haven't seen mentioned in the comments that's long bothered me about the whole 'Heaven' thing, that I thought worth mentioning.

Why would anyone want it?  Everything is love and happy and perfect?  Honestly?  Blah.  If that's what you're looking for, start doing heroine regularly.

Are people really so insecure they want nothing more than love love love?

I _like_ being mortal and having faults and not knowing all the answers.  I like learning and reaching and growing and becoming something new and better and more beautiful.  To me, there is no greater joy than the absence of god.    I mean, if god is everything and total knowledge and perfect love, and all that then...  Really...  What's the point?

Imagine how it must be to BE God.  Everything is you.  EVERYTHING is YOU.  There's nothing to learn, there's nothing to do, there's nothing to love.  There are no questions you can ask.  You might be able to experience being each and every person, each and every atom but YOU have set the rules.  You've predestined how all this stuff is likely to play out.  Even with free will, people's behaviors are pretty easy to describe in mass societal senses and YOU exist outside of time.  You'll experience everything that every single one of them do.  You'll know it all and on some level, it's all fake, all artificial because you created them and they are just imperfect reflections of you.  You are God, and you are forever forsaken from heaven yourself because there is NO heaven for you.  You are unique.  You are eternally alone and there is nothing else out there...  Or maybe there is.  Maybe God has gods and a heaven s/he aspires to.  Perhaps the whole universe is the Buddha gazing into his own navel and man's God is just as broken and afraid as man is.

Perhaps ignorance truly is bliss because as long as you don't know it all, there is still stuff to learn.  Heaven, to me, seems far far worse than Hell.  Living, learning, growing, changing.  Life is Heaven.  I often feel a bit sorry for the devout.  They're in Heaven right now, and I imagine that if they get to the Heaven they imagine, they'll in time learn that it is Hell. :/

Neil is a fool.  He loves his wife, he loves God, but he does not love himself.  IMO, that's why he went to Hell.  He was given a great gift.  One day he might awaken to it.  Janice...  Same thing.  She was told to love herself, that her defects were the touch of God.  She devoted herself to that.  God took this away so she might learn to love herself but she was so concerned with loving God that she didn't understand it.  Her wish was granted, but ultimately, she'll probably go to Hell too.  Ethan...  I think he understood.  Having witnessed what happened to Neil and Janice, I think he understood the deeper truth.

For my own money...  I lead a good life, treat others as I'd like to be treated, try always to do what I believe is right, but really...  I'd prefer Hell or being sent back here to the standard description of Heaven.    I'd rather not be 'perfect'.

[Erenna]

I found this story absolutely heartbreaking not only because of the tragic fate of the main character but also because I'm pretty sure there are some people out there that see the world and God like this and even more people who think this is the world that I believe in.

Unlike most people who have commented I don't think this is a world with irrefutable evidence for God.  There is clear evidence for Angels and the supernatural but I see no God in this world certainly not the God I believe in.  To me the world of the story is the titular Hell of the absence of God.  In my world God is not arbitrary and capricious although to our limited perspective it can seem that way just as a parents' rules (don't eat your boogers, do eat your peas) may seem arbitrary to the perspective of a toddler.  

The biggest differences is this requirement for getting into heaven, in the story they were required to love a god who did nothing to warrant that love, in my understanding of our world it is God who loves us, a lot!  My God does not require me to love him* although he greatly desires it.  The only absolute requirement as I understand it is that we accept HIS love and the sacrifice that Jesus made in love.  Now generally this acceptance leads to a reciprocation but it is a result not a requirement.

I apologize if I've gotten a bit preachy but I thought it important to point out just how fundamentally different this story is from what I as a theist believe.

*I use the male pronoun not because I think God is fundamentally male but simply because our language requires gender for animate beings and in his inspired scripture and the person of Jesus God chose to represent his/her/itself as a him.  I personally think God both contains all gender and is beyond gender, but that's neither here nor there.

[DigitalVG]

The only absolute requirement as I understand it is that we accept HIS love and the sacrifice that Jesus made in love.

So...  If you were born into a Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, or Muslim family and maybe you don't have communication with any Christians, you're not getting into heaven?  That still seems pretty petty to me.

Jesus was just a man.  He had some nice ideas and said some nice things, but I don't think he had all the answers.

I actually was thinking about this story a bit and comparing Neil and Janice with Job and Jesus.

God was pretty friggin sadistic to Job, and the premise of the story is that he bet the devil that Job was a devout, then tortured the poor guy just to prove how faithful Job was.

Jesus on the other hand was often times a pretty errant child.  (Particularly if you read the texts that were not included in the bible)  But even in the bible, he abuses his power.  There's that bit with the fig tree, "If you will not serve me, you with wither and DIE!" and Jesus cast out his hand and the tree withered and died.

But back on Job.  Job kept worshipping God throughout.  That was the bet.  When Jesus was crucified, he said, "God!  Why have you forsaken me?"  You can take various readings of that.  The one I take is that he was failing the very test that would have cost Job his eternal soul.  Seems more than  a bit unfair.

Honestly though, Jesus was executed in large part by Hebrew law because there'd been a number of 'messiahs', false prophets, and whatnot.  Saul/Paul was the big proponent who claimed he was the son of God, but Saul had a pretty serious agenda in terms of a unified religion for Rome that would revolutionize the tax system and make Rome far more powerful.  He was really a pretty rotten guy IMO.

Still.  I'd be very careful about asserting one religion is THE path to enlightenment.  To do so implies that God is exceptionally cruel and has sent large portions of the world population to Hell for no other reason than because they were born in a land far away from the 'chosen' people.

[stePH]

Jesus was just a man.  He had some nice ideas and said some nice things, but I don't think he had all the answers.

I actually was thinking about this story a bit and comparing Neil and Janice with Job and Jesus.

God was pretty friggin sadistic to Job, and the premise of the story is that he bet the devil that Job was a devout, then tortured the poor guy just to prove how faithful Job was.

Jesus on the other hand was often times a pretty errant child.  (Particularly if you read the texts that were not included in the bible)  But even in the bible, he abuses his power.  There's that bit with the fig tree, "If you will not serve me, you with wither and DIE!" and Jesus cast out his hand and the tree withered and died.

But back on Job.  Job kept worshipping God throughout.  That was the bet.  When Jesus was crucified, he said, "God!  Why have you forsaken me?"  You can take various readings of that.  The one I take is that he was failing the very test that would have cost Job his eternal soul.  Seems more than  a bit unfair.

Honestly though, Jesus was executed in large part by Hebrew law because there'd been a number of 'messiahs', false prophets, and whatnot.  Saul/Paul was the big proponent who claimed he was the son of God, but Saul had a pretty serious agenda in terms of a unified religion for Rome that would revolutionize the tax system and make Rome far more powerful.  He was really a pretty rotten guy IMO.

You say all this as if Jesus were an actual historical figure.  But that's a whole 'nother barrel of fish.

[DigitalVG]

You say all this as if Jesus were an actual historical figure.  But that's a whole 'nother barrel of fish.

Does it really matter whether or not he actually existed as a living being?  He's a character of parable and at least as real as Buddha, Abraham, Nasrudin, Moses, King Arthur, and so on.  Stories about him have made a profound impact on the world.  Even if he never physically existed, he's been far more 'real' than 99.9% of the people who've ever lived.
 

[stePH]

You say all this as if Jesus were an actual historical figure.  But that's a whole 'nother barrel of fish.

Does it really matter whether or not he actually existed as a living being?  He's a character of parable and at least as real as Buddha, Abraham, Nasrudin, Moses, King Arthur, and so on.  Stories about him have made a profound impact on the world.  Even if he never physically existed, he's been far more 'real' than 99.9% of the people who've ever lived.
 

Saying

Jesus was just a man.  He had some nice ideas and said some nice things, but I don't think he had all the answers.

seems to me like a pretty firm assertion that he really existed.  But I've never seen any documentation that he did, outside the Bible itself.

[Swagman]

Yes, it was tough listen due to the understated narration and the subject matter...but I also found it one of the psychologically scariest stories I have ever heard!

I liked the examination of a world where God is a universally accepted and a given presence. How would people react to events that were definitively God's handy work?  I found a compelling tension between the concepts of blind probability and God's will. We try our best to explain events in our own world with very little to go on but faith (or lack of it) and/or science and/or an acceptance of a chaotic universe tempered by natural laws. In the world of the story, the characters knew that almost everything was ordained - and all they could do was try to figure out why they had been singled out to experience such blessings or travesties. What a burden to bear! All they can do is wait for some supernatural event to reveal where they stand in God's graces. One would naturally spend their life trying to justify or explain their personal fortunes.  It could drive a man mad knowing God had simply chosen him to suffer (or prosper...or be ignored).

The main character, Niel, was pretty much a victim of God's will - through no fault of his own. He simply wasn't given the means of redemption - and yet he also experienced the ultimate perfection of knowing and loving God. And thats the rub - There is no Hell without the agonizing tension between having known God (even for an instant) and knowing you will never experience Him again. I imagine that everyone in Hell knows that despair (at least in the story's Hell). That's a really scary and depressing concept in my book - and I am not even remotely religious!

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Woof.  This story made me not love God. 

But seriously, this could have been so much shorter and more interesting without so much exposition.  I took the blase attitude of the angels and the complete ambivalence of God as a given; it was the most realistic part of the story to me.  Having the characters' various (and IMHO boring) motivations and attitudes spelled out in excruciating detail killed my joy, though.  I was stuck in traffic for most of the tale, and sat in my driveway for the last ~60 seconds hoping something worse than mere ennui would strike Kneel after suffering through all of that.

At least it was a better use of my time than listening to my local NPR station ask me for more money.

[internalogic]

Again, as important as my own feelings are to me, it seems misguided to take my current feelings as the yardstick by which I measure the Cosmos.  Even in 20 years my own feelings and awarenesses have changed fairly radically just through the conventional processes of psychological development and maturation.  If I were able to live for 300 years more, I sincerely hope that many of the convictions and commitments that are extremely compelling to me now would have become somewhat irrelevant by that point.  Because I hope that I'd continue to learn, to develop and to mature.

If I would not even bind my own future self to my current views and feelings, how can I bind the organizing principles and forces of the Cosmos to such transitory foundations? 

There's a saying among mystics and spiritual adherents.  'Take the path seriously, but don't take yourself seriously'. 

This is the perspective in which I listened to Ted Chiang's story.  I think he did a masterful job.  Chiang's 'God' is an utterly compelling force that transcends consciousness and morality.  It is neither good nor bad. 

Think about this: any 'God' that you could understand very easily would be ultimately quite a disappointment. 

[Dwango]

This seems to be an exercise similar to Terry Pratchet's Pyramids, without the humor.  Would it really be better if a Christian God showed his power and the mythos of the bible truly happened on a daily basis?  I think this story showed what a scary place earth would be, in his view.  I would not want to live in that world, nor worry about going to heaven or hell, and which is worse.  The final love of God by the main character was forced.  Seems to me choice really was not a part of the equation.

Honestly, this story dragged for me.  I guess I did not like the setting much and the characters did not pull me in.  I don't really like these kind of controversial religious pieces.

[eytanz]

I think the choice of reader was really unfortunate - he clearly was not comfortable in the role, nor particularly good at it. The droning monotone made a long story seem much longer.

I gave up about midway, as the story itself failed to engage me to the point where I could overcome the difficulty in listening. Which is a shame, since I actually am interested in the themes that the story brought up. But the combination of a slow pacing with a really slow uninflected reading was too difficult to bear.

I think giants should always be given to very experienced readers who are known to be engaging. Any problem with the reading style is going to be made a lot worse by the length of the story. Test new readers out on the shorter stories.

[Aquarello]

This story makes a good mirror. Each one of us looks at it, and sees what he believes. As a Christian, I look at it and say, literally, "Thank God it's not like that." The atheists might look at it and say, "If there was a God, that must be what he's like." You can't not have an opinion about it. That's what makes it an amazing, award-winning story. Sure, we can bitch about narration quality, length, etc., but that's telling us something about you, too. It's a beautiful piece of heartache, and we respond to it in the same way that we respond to the rest of life's imponderables.

[supergrover]

This was a very long yawner.  I did not find any of the characters sympathetic in the least.

[wyrder42]

Yeah, at the start I didn't like the tinny sound, and the narrator seemed flat.  After a few minutes though, I didn't notice the tinny sound, and I chose to believe that the choice of narration style was intentional. 

I suppose this story could have been done in less space, but I don't believe the large length was wasted.  Sometimes if you want to make the events feel more epic, you've got to space them out more.  Neal's struggle has to really feel like it's been a long one, you can't just have the author write "he struggled long and hard" and then jump to the end.

This story messed with my head.

So we have Neal there in Hell for all eternity and loving God with all his heart even knowing that God does not love him back.  And, the narrator chose to tell us directly that this was not a punishment from God to Neal, but rather was more like capricious happen-stance.

Now to those religious folks that say "this is not how God works".  Well, ok sure you can say that, but let's be honest--if God is ultimately unknowable, then this could very well be exactly how he works.  If you claim to know otherwise, you're violating the "God works in mysterious ways" thing and you're more-or-less proclaiming to know the mind of God.   Yes, yes the Bible tells us that God loves us bunches, but it also has a fair amount to say on the wrath of God and you could read it such that he seems pretty unpredictable.

Also, to the state in which Neal was left, i.e. in a state of total adoration for a God he can never get back to--here again, there are certain versions of Bible study that match with this exactly.

But if God were to turn out to be totally random and capricious, then what use is he?  I mean why does it matter if you believe in him or love him if it has no bearing on your fate?  But then, that is what unconditional love would be.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

[Anarkey]

Huh.

I've read this story before.  I know I've read it, probably in one of the year's bests.  And it had completely slipped my mind that I'd read it.  And hearing it again, it's kind of easy to see why.  It's weird because if you asked me if I like Chiang I'd say mostly yes, I find him enjoyable but not a favorite, and he nails endings.  But I'd say that without giving any weight to this story because I'd completely forgotten its existence.  I wonder how many other authors I have in my mental category of "usually like", who have written utterly unimpressive and forgetful stories that slid right out of my mind and thus go untallied in my regard for them.  Well, I suppose there's that for hearing this story again.  I'm not likely to forget there's Chiang stories I don't like after that hour plus.
 
In theory, this story has an automatic hook for me because it treats in theology and philosophy, which are subjects that interest me.  But I don't think it treats in theology deeply enough (especially if that's all that it has going for it) and so the long, drawn out theology 101 stuff was tiresome.  I'll take the theology in Cup and Table over this any day of the week.  And the problems I have with the story's treating in theology are less about "discomfort" as Rachel calls it than what I see as dishonesty.  Frex, Sarah is devout, but there's no outward sign?  None?  She never prays?  Never reads any sacred scripture?  Never fasts?  Never gives alms?  Never goes on retreats? Never sings hymns of praise?  Never meditates? Never talks about angels? So she's devout...how?  Because the author tells me so?  Sorry, not buying.

Also yes, a thousand times yes, to the much given opinion that Trimarco was the wrong reader for this piece.  The material itself was so dry and cerebral that it needed some iota of passion injected into it, and that passion should have been in voice.

Of course winning a Nebula or a Hugo in short fiction is like a disrecommendation for me because so many of the nominees' stories make me want to put a chopstick in each eye so that I never have to read again (most recently this sentiment was occasioned by Wolfe's novella "Memorare" which makes me so sad because I like to think Wolfe's a genius, but c'mon!).

For those of you who were very disenchanted by this story, I'd like to recommend a Chiang story I thought much more of, which in my opinion dealt more fairly and less abstractly with its subject matter.  Still brainy, mind you, but more elegant than this PC episode: Division by Zero.   

Don't give up on Chiang if you didn't like this one.  He can do better. 

[wyrder42]

Huh.

I've read this story before.  I know I've read it, probably in one of the year's bests.  And it had completely slipped my mind that I'd read it.  And hearing it again, it's kind of easy to see why.  It's weird because if you asked me if I like Chiang I'd say mostly yes, I find him enjoyable but not a favorite, and he nails endings.  But I'd say that without giving any weight to this story because I'd completely forgotten its existence.

That's phenomena is related to something called "confirmation bias".  As you say, because you found this story so massively nonplussing, it didn't really "stick".  At some point, liking most of Chiang's work, you unconsciously or semi-consciously decided he was good author.  At that point, the memory of having heard this story before had almost no chance of coming back into your mind.  This is one of the reasons why I have a lot of trouble trusting people's (including my own) recollection of events.  Our brains have evolved to let us believe things passionately or not at all.  Our brains have not evolved to be good at determining what is true and what is not.  If that were the case, then science wouldn't need to be a "discipline".
 

-- snip --
I'll take the theology in Cup and Table over this any day of the week.

I really liked that one too.

Frex, Sarah is devout, but there's no outward sign?  None?  She never prays?  Never reads any sacred scripture?  Never fasts?  Never gives alms?  Never goes on retreats? Never sings hymns of praise?  Never meditates? Never talks about angels? So she's devout...how?  Because the author tells me so?  Sorry, not buying.

It seems clear then, that you and the author have a difference of opinion about what the word "devout" means.  I seem to recall reading about Socrates really getting people's goat with the word "pious".  He would go around asking people in the street, "What does it mean to be pious?  Do you know what piety is?"  So the person would answer along the lines, "Well of course I know what it is.  See the priest there?  He's obviously pious almost by definition.  And that gentlemen in yonder shop, he gives to charity every Sunday and he's honest and hard working so he's pious."  And to all of this and more, Socrates would keep pressing the point.  He would say, "but how can you know that just because that person does this or that thing that, that makes a person pious?  How can you know that the gods will see that person that way?  Ultimately, how can you presume to know what it means to be pious?"

And so on.

I think that might be what the author was going for there.  But, of course, I could be wrong.  I also like to think that if Socrates got resurrected today, and if he could speak modern English that he and I would get along famously.  But here again, I could be in error.

[Paranatural]

I expected I'd hate this story. I ended up liking it. I think if there were a god, the way the world is in this story would basically be exactly what the world would be like.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

...the ending is still a punch in the gut.  The story puts forth a rather unappealing world view: that the afterlife is just as random and unfair as this life, and even God doesn't care. I was bothered that there wasn't even an explanation. Not even a reason given for why things happen. Ultimately it paints a picture of a God that is undeserving of the love and worship given Him by His children.

Maybe I'm just a softie, and prefer an ordered universe...

I think that the view of God being unreasonable, unkind and unjust was presented solidly throughout the story in the aftermath of the visitations.  That there there is no explanation makes sense, because no one in Neil's universe knew.

I don't know if Ted Chiang is a theist or an atheist, but I considered that story to be amazing, thought-provoking, and yes, a punch in the gut.  In my opinion, once Neil embarked on the light-seeking path, he could not be saved.  Had he been given both Heaven and his wife, the story would have fallen flat because he would not have fully earned that happy ending. 

It was far more interesting (though cruel) to have Neil finally discover what it is to love God and then lose all chance of being with his beloved wife and in the continued rapture of the holy spirit.  Had he earned this unhappy ending?  No.  But to have what is promised taken randomly away underscored the concept of the unjust and uncaring God presented throughout the piece.

Myself, I am a theist.  Questions of lack of justice and the unfairness of God and the universe do plague me, and often cause me to question not "Why?" of God so much of the "How? of myself.  They cause me to ask, "If this bothers you, what can you do to make things better?  How will you act in the face of injustice and suffering?"  My faith calls moments of trembling discomfort on the brink of scary questions a "leading" -- the recognition that no matter how much you might wish otherwise, you are being called into duty to act.  Leadings are uncomfortable and scary as hell.  Leadings arise out of the same kind of profoundly uncomfortable feelings that this story invokes.

I think that the true message of the story was summed up by the fallen angels (who tellingly, hurt no one when they visited) when they said, "Decide for yourselves.  It's what we did."

Thanks for airing this magnificent story.  I wish that the audio had been better, but the story pulled me in anyway.

Hmm