My criticsm of Dr. Robert Fields view of H.G. Wells " The First Men in the Moon" novel being "anti-religious"

Dear Readers,


This reference on Wikipedia is concerning the "anti-religious views" in H.G. Wells' novel " The First Men in the Moon" which influenced C.S. Lewis' own science-fiction trilogy.


10.Jump up ^ "Wells's work shows a persistent anti-religious bent, from the curate in War of the Worlds, a disgusting caricature, to favoring the idea of persecution and complete destruction of organised religion in The Shape of things to Come. One need not be a religious believer oneself to decry this bias as a serious flaw" (Dr. Robert Fields, "Sociological Themes in Science Fiction", chapter 4).


Influence on C. S. Lewis[edit]
 C. S. Lewis explicitly stated that his science fiction books were both inspired by and written as an antithesis to those of H. G. Wells. Specifically, he acknowledged The First Men in The Moon to be "the best of the sort [of science fiction] I have read...." (From a letter to Roger Lancelyn Green).
 The influence of Wells's book is especially visible in Out of the Silent Planet, the first book of Lewis' Space Trilogy. There, too, a central role in the story line is played by a partnership between a worldly businessman interested in the material gains from space travel (and specifically, in importing extraterrestrial gold to Earth) and a scientist with wider cosmic theories.
 Also in Lewis' book, the two quietly build themselves a spaceship in the seclusion of an English country house, and take off into space without being noticed by the rest of the world. (It may be noted that both Wells and Lewis, like virtually all science fiction writers until the 1950s, grossly underestimated the resources needed for even the smallest jaunt outside Earth's gravitational field.) Like Wells's book, Lewis' reaches its climax with the Earth scientist speaking to the wise ruler of an alien world (in this case Oyarsa, the ruler of Malacandra/Mars) and blurting out the warlike and predatory nature of humanity.
 However, in Lewis' book the businessman-scientist pair are the villains of the piece. Moreover, his scientist, Professor Weston, has a philosophy diametrically opposite to Cavor's, being an outspoken proponent of human colonization of other planets, up to and including extermination of "primitive natives".[10]






C.S. Lewis was a well-known Christian apologist and his scientific character promotes the destructive of primitive civilizations. Did Dr. Robert Fields consider that not all people who disagree with organized religion are in favor of persecuting religious people, despite their disagreements? What does Fields think of religious people who desire the complete destruction of secularism, atheism, the rejection of scientific teachings that don't support the views of religious persons or religiously-inspired persecution? Does Fields disagree with those ideas? I would personally say "no".  If he does not disagree with those ideas, then isn't he as biased as H.G. Wells?  It is true that one does not need to be a religious persons to see H.G. Wells "bias" as a "serious flaw", but again, what does Fields think of those religious people who hate secularism and the idea of the existence of non-religious people and seek to coerce, manipulate, blackmail or even force people to convert into a religion whose beliefs and practices that they disagree with after critically examining such beliefs and practices as held by religious people?  Organized religion should not be exempt from criticism and Fields comes across as pretty biased himself.  Personally, I don't see the criticism of religion or wishing that religion would fade from the mind's of humanity as a "serious flaw".




 Fields doesn't seem to take religiously-based persecution into account and his implied view that criticism of religion is a form of "persecution" or is "biased" shows you that Fields has his own prejudices. Criticism of religion is not a form of "persecution". Criticizing organized religion does not make you "biased" unless you do something like blaming religion for all the problems of the world. I think that Fields has committed a serious flaw by implying that organized religion should be exempt from criticism.  It shouldn't. The prevention of the right to critique an idea, including organized religion has consequences, limiting free speech ( such as the anti-blasphemy laws in numerous European countries), limiting freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Non-religious persons deal with criticism all of the time and many don't view it as a form of "persecution" unless a religious critic of atheism intends to incorporate prejudices into their argument, non-religious people will refute religious apologists if they see a flaw in their argument that needs to be addressed.  Criticism is an important right that should be extended to any idea, including organized religion.  I think that Lewis' scientist character and Fields himself, are more of  disgusting caricatures than " War of the Worlds" is.