|Reviews for An Atheist In Narnia|
| kyle.hill.7965692 chapter 1 . 10/31/2014
I think I figured out the story behind this. God doesn't mind if you are an atheist or not as he lets people go their own ways and oils the tracks for whatever path you choose and you will have to reap the consequences you have sown.
That's what's wrong with American elections is so many people have forgot right or wrong so vote based on *good looks* and *Promises of the world* to them using false positivity.
| basaltone chapter 1 . 6/10/2012
Very interesting story. Will it be continued, or are you leaving the resolution up to us? Either way very well written. Thank you.
| OldFashionedGirl95 chapter 1 . 2/24/2012
And THAT is why grownups usually don't go to Narnia. Nicely done.
| Patrich13 chapter 1 . 4/29/2011
| jexicon chapter 1 . 4/22/2009
interesting idea and well written, i must admit i really did enjoy it.
| nobody chapter 1 . 8/27/2004
That was very good. I liked it very much. It was the best one that I have seen on this website so far. I would rate it G for only.
| BizzyLizzy chapter 1 . 7/3/2004
That was so good and really well written.
| reader chapter 1 . 12/5/2003
I'll probably get in trouble for bringing this up again, but here goes. Concerning "Inherit the Wind"...actually, the story gets more amusing than that. Scopes was a physical education teacher, not a biology teacher, who had been hired as a test case-i.e., to go in, teach evolution, get in trouble, and be sued-with the result that his case would make the issue a national headline. The prosecution was...subpar, even under subpar, which is unfortunate.
The problem today is the same problem then-close-mindedness and running on emotion. What is being taught about evolution is scarily full-of-holes. I don't push for the teaching of intelligent design. All I want is the whole truth, and I'm not getting it.
Just some things to look into: fossil record, Cambrian explosion, cladism; the real details about the Miller-Urey experiment; the full (not the partial) results of the studies on Darwin's finches; the "feathered dinosaur" conclusions; the misrepresentative Hackel's embryos (particularly disturbing); mathematicians' objections to the probability of non-guided evolution. Phillip Johnson is an easy start. As for the scientists: Jonathan Wells; Michael Behe, biochemistry; Robert Jastrow, astronomy; Paul Davies, astrophysical math (something like that). Most are agnostic, all are Ph.D.s from top institutions (UPenn, Berkeley, to name a few)
| Elfingoth chapter 1 . 11/8/2003
this is just sheer, professional brilliance. You don't need anymore review, this is too sophisticated and meaningful to waste time talking about how well you've charcaterised someone or something equally good.
| Dougster chapter 1 . 7/15/2003
(Replying to Jehan's reply to my reply)
OK, we'll drop it. While we're on the subject of "Inherit The Wind," though, there are a few things you might want to know about it. I mentioned the wild and fabricated misrepresentations of the Christians in that film. For example, Scopes was never put in jail; he was free during the entire trial. The scene at the beginning when the stoned-faced goon squad arrests him in front of his students, never happened. Scientific evidence wasn't barred from the courtroom - in fact, a good deal of it was brought forward by both sides. And Scopes didn't have a fiance - the character of Rachel was completely made up. There was no angry, rock-throwing mob marching down the street singing about how they would string up the infidel by a sour apple tree. And after Clarence Darrow got through attacking WJ Bryan on the witness stand, he promptly instructed the jury to find his client guilty so that Bryan wouldn't get the chance to question Darrow as well! And when sentence was pronounced, Bryan, far from arguing for a stiffer penalty, offered to pay the defendant's fine himself.
What I find ironic about the film is that while it stresses the importance of thinking for oneself, it does not appeal to the intellect with evidence, but goes for the emotions with propaganda. In the end, we're meant to think that if you believe in evolution, that in itself makes you a free-thinking man and nobody's fool. And if you believe in God, that in itself makes you a bigoted ignoramus who's stuck in the middle ages.
A final thing: if Christians have ever pushed, shoved or tried to arm-twist you into converting, I apologize for that. I never liked anyone doing that to me.
| Thalia chapter 1 . 7/13/2003
Peculiar story. I'm not quite sure which way your moral ambiguity's leaning, which is oddly unlike the clarity of the Chronicles, but it's still very effective. Sometimes you sound like you're criticizing the soldier (a gun in Narnia? talk about heavy unfavourable symbolism!), and sometimes you sound like you're praising him and mocking the deus ex machina in Lewis's plots (as with the magical disarmament, etc.). Still, very interesting and well-written story. Like the dialogue - very comfortable speech.
Interestingly, I never read the C. of N. as an allegory until someone pointed it out to me. I personally think the story's more effective as a tale for children than as a way for grown-ups to live.
Re: commentary below - there are atheists, and then there are atheists. Some are open-minded and considerate of different attitudes, though assured in their own ideas like our mutual friend the Muse and myself); some are more dogmatic and inflexible, almost "fundamentalist atheists" so to speak. Some of the latter can be like that.
| Jehan's Muse chapter 1 . 7/13/2003
The complexity of the world and of human beings is not, in my opinion, proof of God's existence. It is proof of the regularity of science, and it is proof of evolution. I find it infinitely more fascinating to think that life on this earth began billions of years ago with one tiny blip in the fabric of spacetime, leading from one thing to another until humans appeared. To me, that's more credible and more interesting than "God created the heaven and the earth and made a man out of dirt and woman out of the man's rib." The Christian creation myth, and most of the Bible, having been made up in a time when science basically didn't exist, has logical holes in it, and now that we humans have the technology to understand the world around us, I see less and less evidence of God's existence.
You're right-I don't want to believe in God. I don't support the concept of being expected to believe in something simply because I'm told to. I don't believe in blindly following something that might not exist. Yes, I said "might." I'm perfectly open to the possibility that I could be wrong, and God could exist. I'm not open to people trying to convert me and convince me that their beliefs are the "right ones." If I'm going to renounce my Atheism, I'll do it on my own time and after careful consideration of my own thoughts and beliefs, with no help from people who seem to think they get bonus points or something for ever soul they "save."
As for "Inherit the Wind," which I have read many times, I think that its ridicule of the type of people it portays is justified. The Christians in "Inherit the Wind" are stubborn, unreasonable and refuse to accept things that contradict their viewpoints even when shown hard, irrefutable evidence. Not all Christians are like that, and the play doesn't poke fun at or mock reasonable, open-minded Christians. You'll also notice that it ridicules stubborn, close-minded Atheists as well...just look at how Drummond deals with Hornbeck at the end, and how Hornbeck makes a fool of himself and exits in disgrace.
I'd like to think of myself as a Drummond rather than a Hornbeck, but I admit to having Hornbeck-esque qualities at times. You seem like a reasonable, open-minded person, and you're a good writer. I suggest we drop it here and respect each others' viewpoints.
| Dougster chapter 1 . 7/11/2003
While a character totes a gun in my story, there are no morons or maniacs(except maybe the White Witch). Randall's reasons for targeting her are intelligent and thought-out. He's also commended by Aslan for his bravery. You're putting words in my mouth. If you want to see something that paints people as morons, watch "Inherit The Wind." And I see that you've written a fanfic based on that. Have you ever had any problem with all the wild (and almost completely fabricated) ridicule and derision of Christians in that story?
As far as evidence for God goes, it's all around you. The complexity and the balance of the earth and its systems, and most of all, its life. I wish that cells were better understood in Darwin's time, because since then they've been found to be such intricate and amazing machines that simple chance and/or natural selection don't begin to account for them. To
paraphrase an argument, imagine finding a watch in a field and not believing it was designed and constructed by a watchmaker! And how much more complex is a human. No, the whole world and the universe point to a Creator, and the burden of proof is on those who don't believe in Him. And they'll have to show me something better than the nothing-somehow-turning-into-everything-given-enough-billions-of-years premise. That's a bigger miracle than any Christian ever believed in! It also doesn't help that several of the ape men (like Piltdown Man) turned out to be outright frauds, and that entropy itself rules out the idea of life forms upgrading by themselves over time.
Yes, I have talked to atheists about their beliefs, and they've talked to me about mine. And what I got from them would not call the term "free thinker" to mind. For example, I asked one of them where he thought the first man came from. Believe it or not, he kept saying he didn't know what I meant by "first man" and kept asking me to define the term.
Isn't it true that your not believing in God has more to do with your will than with your intellect? It might seem noble to tell yourself that you reject the idea because there's no evidence, or because there's too much evidence for something else(like evolution), but that just doesn't wash. Going back to the atheists, I found that there's really just one reason why they didn't believe in God: because they didn't want to. This is the case with Randall, and from what I read in your review, it appears to be the case with you, too.
| Jehan's Muse chapter 1 . 7/10/2003
Hmm. Yeah, I really like how you've shown that Atheists are morons who think they can conquer the world with their unbeliever dogma and will do anything to avoid having to believe in something. [/sarcasm]
I'm an Atheist, and I wouldn't bring a gun into Narnia to try and prove that Aslan was unnecessary. Yeah, I understand the symbolism. No, I don't have a problem with it. In the fictional Narnian universe, Aslan is God, and Aslan is necessary. That doesn't mean I believe that it's true for our universe, and it doesn't mean that I would be offended by it in the Narnian universe.
If God showed up in front of me, and gave evidence that he was, indeed, God, I'd believe him and apologize for not believing in him before. I strongly, strongly doubt that's ever going to happen. But if it ever did, I'd accept it. I wouldn't try to convince myself that it was a "weakness" that I had to "fight." The reason a lot of Atheists don't believe is because there's no proof or even credible evidence that God exists. If we had proof, we'd believe.
This story tells me you've probably never talked to an Atheist about his or her beliefs, and that you operate on misconceptions about us. Speaking as your average Atheist, I'm not offended by religious symbolism in books. I am, however, offended by stories that portray Atheists as ignorant, gun-toting maniacs.
| Shadsie chapter 1 . 5/10/2003
I've been re-reading the Chronicles and came to this section on out of curiousity. Now, I'm glad I did because I found this story.
I found it quite deep and enjoyable, and true to the spirit of Narnia. Foolish man - thinks he can defeat evil on his own, without God - with his own cleverness - when it's just not true. It has been the same throughout the ages, since the days of swords and archery to our day of guns and smart bombs. I also like that Randall goes back, disbelieving - not because it didnt' happen but because he just doesn't *want to believe*.