Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Living in Omaha, Nebraska, Shelly went to church every Sunday until she was 12. To learn more about her and her fiction, visit http://www.shelly-li.com.,
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Comments
Commenting on this article is now closed.
Edward Gordon
Eventually there will be a way to remove religious notions from the minds of people. It's not like there's no examples of godless creatures in the world. The whole of the animal kingdom (insects, mice, frogs) lives without any revelation of God. Eventually, we'll be just like them. Isn't science wonderful!
Ron Chan
I thought Nature was dedicated to science. Since when did Nature lend a hand to cults that celebrate men as gods? I suppose we shall soon see articles of groups supporting the 2012 phenomena as well.
Ron Chan
I wonder if Shelly Li has even read the Bible.
Dustin Cote
A very nice piece. I think the point is not a belief in God but rather a willingness to embrace abstract ideas that may not immediately manifest themselves as readings on scientific instruments. In that case, knowledge of the Bible or any other religious text is unimportant. After all, it took faith to put money in testing the theory of general relativity and others. Without that faith, we would still rely on the "common sense" of Newton.
Michael Rohr
According to the story only one system of thoughts and accompanying sensations were removed. Neat that a particular "faith story" can be identified. People have faith about other topics which they do not have sufficient evidence to support it being fact. Wonder what the difference is? Perform an experiment in which another "faith story" is identified by the brain satellites and remove it and see if the absense is the same feeling as a religious one. A little drastic that all that technology is incorporated just for religious faith. Religious faith must have had (have) an incredible negative impact on society.
Jon Web
Is the horror here the destruction of her ability to feel "faith"? Or is it the brutal actions of a police state seeking to break her physically or mentally? I mean, you could rewrite this story, set it in the Inquisition, and replace the cops and doctors with old age soldiers and priests. Then stick the poor girl in a dungeon or chop off her limbs. I can't see it as any less horrific.
That the inquisitors attack a lobe of your brain rather than chopping off your hands or branding your face shouldn't really matter. The horror lies not in the nature of punishment, but in the willful disregard for human rights and human dignity that allow one man to abuse and mutilate another.
It seems that in Shelly's rush to paint the godless as evil, the true evil in the story – the destruction of an individual's free will – gets lost amid the partisanship.
Jon Web
I think Shelly seriously misses the point of her own writing. She has an authoritarian government burst into a young girl's home, kidnap her, and mutilate her without her consent. You don't need religion or atheism to make that a horrible crime against humanity. Swaddling the story in "faith" and claiming the real crime is violating her love with God is exactly what is wrong with religious-minded mentality. If the kidnappers had taken an arm or a kidney, would the crime have been any less heinous? And yet, the focus is heavy on the girl's belief in God, rather than her basic human rights, it feels like the author isn't really considering the ramifications of the little world she's crafted for herself. The author imagines up a great deal of self-pity, without any real empathy or understanding for those who don't share her personal beliefs.
shriram Bhosle
God and religion teach us the way of life, if it is not there then there won't be difference between animal and human. Science and relegion are complementry to each other.
Ron Chan
I guess we should expect to see articles about Harry Potter and Percy Jackson soon.
Ruth Brandt
I have to say I am very surprised at some of the comments here. It seems that once a controversial subject is being dealt with, common sense (or is it Common Sense?) just flies out the window.
As Shelly is the one who wrote this, I doubt that she seriously misses the point of her own writing, though as in all good literature people can understand the piece in ways the author did not plan. However, I don't see how one can assume – based solely on the story, rather than on assumptions as to her morals based only on the fact that she used to go to church until she was 12 – that she hasn't noticed that taking a man in his 30s or 40s from his home and operating on him against his will is a horrible crime. I see nothing in the story indicating that she considers it worse than taking his liver. But as this is the 'Futures' section, a story about black market organ harvesting would be a little out of place.
She also doesn't 'rush' to paint anything. The police are not all a uniform evil ("his tone fails to match the hardness of his gaze"), and generally the godless here seem to think they are doing the protagonist a favour. I noticed no evil-mastermind laughter from anyone, though the readers are naturally not encouraged to sympathize with their actions.
As a good work of short fiction (Oh yes, it is fiction, not an article. And as I don't think J K Rowling writes short stories, I doubt we'll see a Harry Potter story here any time soon), it raises more questions than it answers – how did this society get to where it is? Where is the line – which has clearly been crossed in the world painted here – between convincing and forcing? How far should people go in their fight against ideas they do not accept and which they deem dangerous?
These questions are what I – as a religion-averse atheist, with strong beliefs in human rights – would have loved to see discussed here.
Sidney Galloway
Hi Shelly,
I just finished reading your excellent short story, END OF GOD, and look forward to reading more of your work. I will take a look at your website later today.
Noticing the brief bio on the Nature page that says, "Living in Omaha, Nebraska, Shelly went to church every Sunday until she was 12", led me to write you. My own bio would sound very much the same regarding my early years. As I watched my parents and others at church express their "faith", I too thought that "Faith means believing in something when common sense tells you not to", as your character in End of God stated. I also believed that faith and logikos reasoning were antithetical – diametric opposites. So, back then I became convinced that science and scripture must be contradictory not complementary. As a result, I left "church" and pursued philosophy, psychology, biology, etc for the answers to ultimate questions of origin, meaning, and destiny.
Now after having met many world renowned scientists who are also "believers" because of the evidence, not in spite of evidence, I've come full circle and have a "faith" that is as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews describes as ". . . the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Just as the smell of smoke leads a person to "believe" that there is most probably a fire (though unseen), a massive mountain and an overwhelming ocean of evidence leads to the logical conclusion of God.
These scientists who helped me to build rational belief in God instead of blind faith include the inventor of the MRI – Dr. Damadian, the inventor of TERRA at Los Alamos – geophysicist Dr. Baumgardner, the inventor of the Biolistic Gene Gun at Cornell University – Dr. John Sanford, one of the world's top chess masters (and PhD chemist) who can play up to 12 opponents simultaneously while he is blind folded – Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, one of the top philosophers of science – Dr. Stephen Meyer, among scores of others. Of course Nature, PBS, Sci Am, Nat Geo love to claim along with Dawkins that no reputable scientists exist who have rejected vertical evolution of an original prokaryote into new orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms through the mechanism of mutational errors plus selection. There are hundreds of world renowned scientists who are censored by the politically correct powers to be in academia, media, etc. Such censorship is not free thinking or critical scientific iron sharpening, but dogma in the guise of science.
I encourage you Shelly to utilize the links on my website to investigate the scientific evidence that leads to the logical inference not only of an intelligent designer, but ultimately to the Creator who is a Good Shepherd. If you'd like to dialog with an OLD sheepdog of the Good Shepherd, it would be my privilege. As an old zookeeper / family counselor / wildlife rehabilitator and biology teacher / father of six / husband of the most wonderful woman in the world (love is blind – but not true faith), then I'd be eager. I know I could learn from your perspective and who knows, perhaps you might at least find the evidence for my worldview to be a motivation for further writing :-) Sid
Phil Roberts
What we have here is an example of fairly mediocre sci fi, executed competently.
If the protagonist of the story wants a feeling of warmth and connectedness, I would be perfectly happy to write a character who will sell her some drugs. Such drugs would probably be in very high demand once the overreach of the government manifested itself in unforeseen ways, such as artists losing their muse or nations losing their volunteer armies. I know that, should such a program be implemented by an all-powerful anti-abstract-thought dictatorship (about as likely as the Second Coming of Christ, but this is sci fi after all!), the first thing I would research would be the import and sale of hallucinogenic chemicals.
But, alas, failure to think through the full implications of one's initial idea can often result in vaguely interesting but ultimately unsatisfying science fiction. Although I'm sure this weak tea provides a little solace to some people feeling a little besieged by the "New Atheist" movement, so in that sense I might well be completely misinterpreting it, and we might be dealing with a work of particular postmodernist genius. Weak tea and temporary solace – what else gives us that, I wonder?
Nicholas Bauer
I agree with Phil Roberts' assessment for the most part.
Obviously, she's riffing off the line of "militant" atheists that religion is entirely a delusion and we'd be better off getting rid of it. An extension of their worldview might be to forcibly remove those feelings, though I'm not sure they've been accurately characterized.
The author somehow equates abstract thought with religious thought. Abstract thought is in general extremely important in science, let alone life. Religious thought may be an example of the abstract, but it is by no means the exclusive province of it. Though I would also dispute that it is entirely abstract, because people with faith often have very concrete ideas about what God is and how it relates to them. But it also seems to escape the protagonist's notice that if removing an area of her brain could really sever her tie to God, that would necessarily mean that her idea of God only existed in her brain. I would have liked to see the protagonist consider that a bit more deeply and react to that realization, rather than attributing the disconnection to an action of God. The fact that she didn't come to that realization of course reflects the view of some atheists that religious people are beyond reason, and don't change their minds no matter what the evidence may be.
Further, the author unfortunately seems to view atheists as people who live in a cold, dim world because they have no connection with what she considers to be God. I can't speak for others, but for my own part I experience wonder at the beauty of the world, of a truly dark, starry night sky. One doesn't need God to experience such things, though. Some people may because that's what they were born into and its been integrated deeply into their personality.
Edward Gordon
Eventually there will be a way to remove religious notions from the minds of people. It's not like there's no examples of godless creatures in the world. The whole of the animal kingdom (insects, mice, frogs) lives without any revelation of God. Eventually, we'll be just like them. Isn't science wonderful!
Ron Chan
I thought Nature was dedicated to science. Since when did Nature lend a hand to cults that celebrate men as gods? I suppose we shall soon see articles of groups supporting the 2012 phenomena as well.
Ron Chan
I wonder if Shelly Li has even read the Bible.
Dustin Cote
A very nice piece. I think the point is not a belief in God but rather a willingness to embrace abstract ideas that may not immediately manifest themselves as readings on scientific instruments. In that case, knowledge of the Bible or any other religious text is unimportant. After all, it took faith to put money in testing the theory of general relativity and others. Without that faith, we would still rely on the "common sense" of Newton.
Michael Rohr
According to the story only one system of thoughts and accompanying sensations were removed. Neat that a particular "faith story" can be identified. People have faith about other topics which they do not have sufficient evidence to support it being fact. Wonder what the difference is? Perform an experiment in which another "faith story" is identified by the brain satellites and remove it and see if the absense is the same feeling as a religious one. A little drastic that all that technology is incorporated just for religious faith. Religious faith must have had (have) an incredible negative impact on society.
Jon Web
Is the horror here the destruction of her ability to feel "faith"? Or is it the brutal actions of a police state seeking to break her physically or mentally? I mean, you could rewrite this story, set it in the Inquisition, and replace the cops and doctors with old age soldiers and priests. Then stick the poor girl in a dungeon or chop off her limbs. I can't see it as any less horrific.
That the inquisitors attack a lobe of your brain rather than chopping off your hands or branding your face shouldn't really matter. The horror lies not in the nature of punishment, but in the willful disregard for human rights and human dignity that allow one man to abuse and mutilate another.
It seems that in Shelly's rush to paint the godless as evil, the true evil in the story – the destruction of an individual's free will – gets lost amid the partisanship.
Jon Web
I think Shelly seriously misses the point of her own writing. She has an authoritarian government burst into a young girl's home, kidnap her, and mutilate her without her consent. You don't need religion or atheism to make that a horrible crime against humanity. Swaddling the story in "faith" and claiming the real crime is violating her love with God is exactly what is wrong with religious-minded mentality. If the kidnappers had taken an arm or a kidney, would the crime have been any less heinous? And yet, the focus is heavy on the girl's belief in God, rather than her basic human rights, it feels like the author isn't really considering the ramifications of the little world she's crafted for herself. The author imagines up a great deal of self-pity, without any real empathy or understanding for those who don't share her personal beliefs.
shriram Bhosle
God and religion teach us the way of life, if it is not there then there won't be difference between animal and human. Science and relegion are complementry to each other.
Ron Chan
I guess we should expect to see articles about Harry Potter and Percy Jackson soon.
Ruth Brandt
I have to say I am very surprised at some of the comments here. It seems that once a controversial subject is being dealt with, common sense (or is it Common Sense?) just flies out the window.
As Shelly is the one who wrote this, I doubt that she seriously misses the point of her own writing, though as in all good literature people can understand the piece in ways the author did not plan. However, I don't see how one can assume – based solely on the story, rather than on assumptions as to her morals based only on the fact that she used to go to church until she was 12 – that she hasn't noticed that taking a man in his 30s or 40s from his home and operating on him against his will is a horrible crime. I see nothing in the story indicating that she considers it worse than taking his liver. But as this is the 'Futures' section, a story about black market organ harvesting would be a little out of place.
She also doesn't 'rush' to paint anything. The police are not all a uniform evil ("his tone fails to match the hardness of his gaze"), and generally the godless here seem to think they are doing the protagonist a favour. I noticed no evil-mastermind laughter from anyone, though the readers are naturally not encouraged to sympathize with their actions.
As a good work of short fiction (Oh yes, it is fiction, not an article. And as I don't think J K Rowling writes short stories, I doubt we'll see a Harry Potter story here any time soon), it raises more questions than it answers – how did this society get to where it is? Where is the line – which has clearly been crossed in the world painted here – between convincing and forcing? How far should people go in their fight against ideas they do not accept and which they deem dangerous?
These questions are what I – as a religion-averse atheist, with strong beliefs in human rights – would have loved to see discussed here.
Sidney Galloway
Hi Shelly,
I just finished reading your excellent short story, END OF GOD, and look forward to reading more of your work. I will take a look at your website later today.
Noticing the brief bio on the Nature page that says, "Living in Omaha, Nebraska, Shelly went to church every Sunday until she was 12", led me to write you. My own bio would sound very much the same regarding my early years. As I watched my parents and others at church express their "faith", I too thought that "Faith means believing in something when common sense tells you not to", as your character in End of God stated. I also believed that faith and logikos reasoning were antithetical – diametric opposites. So, back then I became convinced that science and scripture must be contradictory not complementary. As a result, I left "church" and pursued philosophy, psychology, biology, etc for the answers to ultimate questions of origin, meaning, and destiny.
Now after having met many world renowned scientists who are also "believers" because of the evidence, not in spite of evidence, I've come full circle and have a "faith" that is as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews describes as ". . . the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Just as the smell of smoke leads a person to "believe" that there is most probably a fire (though unseen), a massive mountain and an overwhelming ocean of evidence leads to the logical conclusion of God.
These scientists who helped me to build rational belief in God instead of blind faith include the inventor of the MRI – Dr. Damadian, the inventor of TERRA at Los Alamos – geophysicist Dr. Baumgardner, the inventor of the Biolistic Gene Gun at Cornell University – Dr. John Sanford, one of the world's top chess masters (and PhD chemist) who can play up to 12 opponents simultaneously while he is blind folded – Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, one of the top philosophers of science – Dr. Stephen Meyer, among scores of others. Of course Nature, PBS, Sci Am, Nat Geo love to claim along with Dawkins that no reputable scientists exist who have rejected vertical evolution of an original prokaryote into new orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms through the mechanism of mutational errors plus selection. There are hundreds of world renowned scientists who are censored by the politically correct powers to be in academia, media, etc. Such censorship is not free thinking or critical scientific iron sharpening, but dogma in the guise of science.
I encourage you Shelly to utilize the links on my website to investigate the scientific evidence that leads to the logical inference not only of an intelligent designer, but ultimately to the Creator who is a Good Shepherd. If you'd like to dialog with an OLD sheepdog of the Good Shepherd, it would be my privilege. As an old zookeeper / family counselor / wildlife rehabilitator and biology teacher / father of six / husband of the most wonderful woman in the world (love is blind – but not true faith), then I'd be eager. I know I could learn from your perspective and who knows, perhaps you might at least find the evidence for my worldview to be a motivation for further writing :-)
Sid
Phil Roberts
What we have here is an example of fairly mediocre sci fi, executed competently.
If the protagonist of the story wants a feeling of warmth and connectedness, I would be perfectly happy to write a character who will sell her some drugs. Such drugs would probably be in very high demand once the overreach of the government manifested itself in unforeseen ways, such as artists losing their muse or nations losing their volunteer armies. I know that, should such a program be implemented by an all-powerful anti-abstract-thought dictatorship (about as likely as the Second Coming of Christ, but this is sci fi after all!), the first thing I would research would be the import and sale of hallucinogenic chemicals.
But, alas, failure to think through the full implications of one's initial idea can often result in vaguely interesting but ultimately unsatisfying science fiction. Although I'm sure this weak tea provides a little solace to some people feeling a little besieged by the "New Atheist" movement, so in that sense I might well be completely misinterpreting it, and we might be dealing with a work of particular postmodernist genius. Weak tea and temporary solace – what else gives us that, I wonder?
Nicholas Bauer
I agree with Phil Roberts' assessment for the most part.
Obviously, she's riffing off the line of "militant" atheists that religion is entirely a delusion and we'd be better off getting rid of it. An extension of their worldview might be to forcibly remove those feelings, though I'm not sure they've been accurately characterized.
The author somehow equates abstract thought with religious thought. Abstract thought is in general extremely important in science, let alone life. Religious thought may be an example of the abstract, but it is by no means the exclusive province of it. Though I would also dispute that it is entirely abstract, because people with faith often have very concrete ideas about what God is and how it relates to them. But it also seems to escape the protagonist's notice that if removing an area of her brain could really sever her tie to God, that would necessarily mean that her idea of God only existed in her brain. I would have liked to see the protagonist consider that a bit more deeply and react to that realization, rather than attributing the disconnection to an action of God. The fact that she didn't come to that realization of course reflects the view of some atheists that religious people are beyond reason, and don't change their minds no matter what the evidence may be.
Further, the author unfortunately seems to view atheists as people who live in a cold, dim world because they have no connection with what she considers to be God. I can't speak for others, but for my own part I experience wonder at the beauty of the world, of a truly dark, starry night sky. One doesn't need God to experience such things, though. Some people may because that's what they were born into and its been integrated deeply into their personality.