I just started writing a science fiction novel. With writing in a new genre comes research and new things begin to stand out more than normal. Many times, I come across either memes on social media or blog posts declaring that a person or group “believes in science.” I find this to be rather odd.
I’ve never read about, met, or otherwise known of anyone who doesn’t believe in the process of coming up with a hypothesis and testing it to see if the results are not only possible but repeatable. Despite what some may think, I am not sure there are many worldviews that are actively against believing in such processes. Of course, I’m not an idiot and know that this declaration is meant to counter what the scientific community’s stances are on evolution and climate change. More accurately, “I believe in science!” is a statement that has baggage which indirectly is sometimes used to discredit “religious” beliefs. Not always, but it is true rather often.
As a Christian who accepts the scientific findings, I am all too aware that the culture that surrounds my faith is known for rejecting things that appear painfully obvious to those who do not adhere to Christianity. I would argue that such an instance isn’t about rejecting science, but instead scientists’ findings and claims. Those who announce their love for science claim those who do not fully accept climate change and evolution to be real fail to understand or believe science at all. Those on the receiving side of those arguments say that there are things science cannot answer and can and has been wrong before. “Religious” folks do not see it as rejecting science as a process. Many of them believe science supports other ideas than what are mainstream. Instead they reject common belief due to worldviews and that history has shown that scientists have been wrong before. Do I as a Christian agree with this position? Not entirely. Yes, scientific consensus has been wrong in the past and until more information comes to light we might find out that is the case now as well. That is the nature and beauty of science. However, where I disagree is to use that as a catch all to simply justify preconceptions and therefore reject an idea even when heaps upon heaps of evidence, peer reviews, and testable evidence support a theory.
This topic ties into my previous blog post about truth. People believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence is given. One must not only be open-minded but have a worldview that doesn’t crumble simply because something is uncomfortable. This is true on all matters, not just heavy topics like climate change. Another thing that would help would be for both believers and non-believers to acknowledge that science and faith are not incompatible. Certainly, they are if either are layered with presuppositions, but that doesn’t have to be the case. Ultimately, believing in science does not equate believing in scientific claims. The process and the results are different. Political and religious worldviews shape how we interpret these claims. I would argue both political sides ignore important scientific truths. The reality is we must do our best to curb our natural human bias with discernment. This is possible, but a difficult endeavor.
Have you heard the legends of the “Cursed Forest of Massachusetts?” Shortly after the birth of America, the small, secluded community of Andonville, Massachusetts, rested on the border of a forest steeped in legend and rumors. People start disappearing, and Abigail loses everything. She wants nothing more than to abandon Andonville and the terrible forest, putting the past and the problems of the city behind her. Fate has other plans, however, and she gets sucked into the mysteries around her.
You can read this short story here.
I wrote a blog before about how characters are expected to change and grow. That is a fair expectation, if all characters were static they wouldn’t be interesting. Everyone changes to some degree, but how many people change significantly enough where they would be considered a “dynamic” character in a book? Honestly, I do not know the answer. Maybe it’s everyone, maybe the number is a small minority.
From my limited perspective, the anecdotal evidence in life seems to indicate that people both change and stay the same simultaneously. How is that possible? As people grow older their behaviors change, become more refined, their habits that are good and bad become deeper entrenched. It is common from what I’ve seen for people to become set in their ways and when they encounter challenges to their lifestyle they become defensive. However, they become set in their ways after adapting to the environment form their childhood and early adulthood.
True change is hard. I think we all can say we do things that we wish we would change, but despite hating certain behaviors or habits, sometimes they still rear their ugly head. From my limited point-of-view it appears that people eventually accept these habits as a part of who they are. As I said, change is hard. It takes active participation every day, and frankly not everyone has the will to follow through. There are things I am challenged with daily too. There are things that I do sometimes that I know are wrong yet do them anyway because they have become ingrained in me. This is a struggle that we all deal with, but I want to actively try to change them. Sometimes it is discouraging because it never feels like there is going to be a light at the end of the tunnel. Sometimes “discouragement” is too weak of a word, “depression” and “hopelessness” are more fitting. We feel like we can’t be better, we are a slave to our whims, passions, and habits. However, we can change. Every one of us, no matter what the issue may be. Let us all actively work hard to be better men and women everyday while accepting perfection isn’t going to be possible. We don’t have to be slaves to our habits and become set in our ways.
It is said that truth is something that cannot stay hidden. Many believe that no matter how long it takes, truth eventually comes to light and reveals itself. I may write fiction, but good fiction is driven by truths. Truths mostly about the human spirit and condition. This may sound cynical, but I wonder if indeed truth cannot stay hidden, or if our bias and private perspectives blind us.
In our postmodern era, perhaps not everyone would agree that truth is truth regardless of culture or perspective, but I’m certain most would. After all, we know there is only one star that our solar system revolves around. Someone may believe the moon is a star too, but that wouldn’t be correct, no matter what worldview that person would use to justify his belief. There are other things that get trickier, and truth begins to blur so much with worldview that they become almost indistinguishable.
If a person believes that evil spirits and not microbes are the cause of illness, even if he is shown the bacteria under a microscope, that is when a worldview interferes with truth. We know intellectually that just because an idea is widely believed, that doesn’t make it true, but we are social beings who want to be accepted. The more an idea is floated around and made prominent, the more readily accepted it becomes. Sometimes this happens for good, sometimes for bad. History is replete with examples of both. Slavery is an example of an evil in humanity, while civil rights and freedoms are examples of good.
There are things that I feel are true and have been tested and proven as such, yet in some instances certain people are unwilling to mold their worldviews to the truth. In other cases, what was once accepted as truth even “common sense” appears to be becoming lost in western culture. The inability for people to see through their worldviews is largely what is at the heart of the political strife in America. Anymore either side cannot agree on what is right even at a fundamental level.
This situation is nothing new. For the entirety of human culture, people have refused to acknowledge truth based on presuppositions. If that is the case, then how can truth always come to light? Having beliefs is normal and essential to being human, so do not misunderstand me. Nor do I feel that beliefs should always be compromised by what someone else says is truth. Merely, I find it fascinating that truth while apparent to some may not be as apparent to others. Truth in some matters might be understood by a person, but the same man or woman may be blinded by untruth in other matters. Something to think on.
Goodreads is an interesting Social Media platform. It is surprisingly large considering it is only for readers. As a reader I never found it useful. I don’t understand the point in announcing to the world what I’m reading and how long it took me to read something. I talk about what I’m reading with the people I know and that’s pretty much it. Occasionally I will review something on Goodreads or mark a book “to-read.” As an author, Goodreads is essential for good or ill. Generally, I find the platform from a writer’s perspective to be bitter-sweet. Particularly the review system is bare-bones. Unlike Amazon, Goodreads allows people to put a star rating without a written review. Based on the ratings “Crystal Moon” has received on Goodreads, I get the sense that it is misunderstood. However, without feedback that is conjecture.
“Crystal Moon” is an experimental book, it started with a fun idea that a man was a huge Star Wars fan who became paranoid and convinced his wife was a Dark Lady of the Sith. When I started writing the story I changed the main character’s paranoia about his wife being a Sith to being a witch. The novel was intended to be a quirky, dark comedy for a niche audience. It is, an experiment. It has thriller elements mixed with dark comedy in an Urban Fantasy with a message about the breakdown of communication in marriage. These factors on top of the book being written in journal format make it for a unique audience. It was something I had fun with and I invite the reader to have fun too by not taking the book too seriously.
So, what does this have to do with Goodreads? On the social media site, I’ve been getting lukewarm to disappointing ratings. Frankly, it isn’t surprising due to the reasons I listed above, but here is the catch I do not get feedback from the people who rate the book on Goodreads. Honestly, if you hate it, think my book is poorly written, or there is a glaring plot-hole I missed, I want to know. The same goes for positive reviews too. Do you like a book? Are you going to take the time to rate it? Follow through with a written review. My beta-readers gave valuable feedback on “Crystal Moon” and generally it was positive with some critiques. The irony of this is that “Crystal Moon” is selling decently well despite these ratings. Maybe my targeting is off with the book, maybe people are turned off by the quirky plot or the journal format. If I do not get feedback I do not know.
Another possibility is that people are rating “Crystal Moon” without reading it because it comes up on their “suggested reading” list. Who knows, but while I stand by my book, I do acknowledge it isn’t for everyone, and that it isn’t above criticism. So please, feel free to read it and write a review. It doesn’t have to be glowing, all I ask is that it is thoughtful and constructive. If you enjoy a fun and quirky light read that has heart but doesn’t take itself seriously, take a look at “Crystal Moon” on Amazon here.