Robert Heinlein

From Philosopedia

Heinlein, Robert A. (7 July 1907 - 8 May 1988)

The son of an accountant, Heinlein spent his childhood in Kansas City where his family lived in a two-bedroom house. The speculative fiction author is famous for his novel, Stranger in a Strange Land (1961).

He attended the University of Missouri and graduated from the Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1929, then served in the Navy for five years until discharged after contracting tuberculosis. Heinlein studied at the University of California-Los Angeles and conducted research at the Navy Experimental Air Station in Philadelphia during WWII. The prolific author, who had many pseudonyms, won four Hugos for "best novel of the year" (Double Star Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress).

Heinlein wrote,

• The faith in which I was brought up assured me that I was better than other people; I was saved, they were damned. . . . Our hymns were loaded with arrogance - self-congratulation on how cozy we were with the Almighty and what a high opinion he had of us, what hell everybody else would catch come Judgment Day.

In 1952, he wrote to his publisher:

• The idea that we could lose our freedom by succumbing to a wave of religious hysteria: I am sorry to say that I consider it possible. I hope that it is not probable. There’s a deep latent strain of religious fanaticism in this, our culture. It is rooted in history and has broken out many times in the past—it is with us now. There has been a sharp rise in strongly evangelical sects in this country in recent years, several of which hold beliefs theocratic in the extreme. It is a truism that almost any religion, sect, or cult will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so and will follow it by suppressing opposition and subverting education to seize early the minds of the young.

As for the supernatural, Heinlein wrote, “Men rarely (if ever) managed to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.”

A character in Time Enough for Love says,

• History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it to derive considerable pleasure fiddling with it.

In 1956, he was asked about humanism and responded to Warren Allen Smith:

• I have made little formal study of philosophy and that little was mostly a long time ago. I am not expert in this field; I am engineer-turned-novelist. Humanism to me that which you defined in your letter as “Naturalistic Humanism.” I am aware of the other meanings to this multi-valued word, but the other meanings strike me as having either historical interest only, or special or even mistaken connotations. This opinion probably reflects the fact that “Naturalistic Humanism” as defined in your letter most nearly reflects my own personal philosophy, of the seven categories you list. I seek no quarrel with any religionist; certainly I cannot assert that any creed is mistaken. Yet, if we stipulate without proof the existence of Deity, it seems to me inherently unlikely that one of His attributes would be that He would demand “worship” from his creatures and still less likely that He would expect of them faith or dogmatic belief without evidence. I think it still less likely that He would send messengers with Divine revelations armed with no better credentials than loud voices, legerdemain, and a conviction of righteousness. Moreover, I have not even any certainty about the beliefs, values, and hopes listed in the cited definition of naturalistic humanism. It may be that the human race, through its own efforts, can go on to greater heights, fuller understanding, and a more satisfactory life for all of us and our descendants. It would be pleasant to think so. But I do not find such a belief necessary to continue optimistic striving. We have our hands, we have our brains, we have the challenge all around us, and we have within (from whatever source) the will to strive. That is enough; there is no need to assert “belief” in that which we do not, as yet, know. The goals defined for naturalistic humanism are things which you and I and a large percentage of humans want and are willing to try hard to achieve—hands and brains and the materials at hand. Even if, in the long run, the goals should prove impossible, unreal, or beyond our human capacity, I see no alternative other than suicide in some form or other, personal or racial—and I have no taste for that. I think I have been most influenced in my views by T. H. Huxley, Eric T. Bell, Alfred Korzybski, parts of H. G. Wells’s writings, and Socrates (The Apologia).

Upon his death, Heinlein’s body was cremated.

(See Polyamory entry.)

{FFRF; TYD; WAS, 31 August 1956}