r/printSF • u/Wetness__Pensive • 58m ago
A 2012 Iain Banks interview with New Humanist Magazine
I'm re-reading all of Iain Banks' works, and it seems like his hostility toward organized religion is blunter than usual in his earlier books. In "Against a Dark Background", allegedly drafted when he was in his 20s, he's particularly comically dismissive ("...buncha religious fuckwits.", "humourless hysterical dickshits" etc etc).
And books like"Phlebas" and "Games" cast religious groups/cults/theocracies as villains, while other early works constantly drop anti religious asides ("Reason shapes the future, but superstition infects the present..." - "State of the Art").
I haven't started re-reading his later novels, so maybe he maintains this blunt trend to the end. A large part of me suspects he does (20-year-old and 50-year-old Banks seems to maintain the same politics).
Anyway, curious about if he ever talked about religion outside his novels, I came across a (customarily funny and Scottish) interview he did with New Humanist Magazine (https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/qa-iain-banks/), excerpted below for those interested:
HM: In 1996, when you were first interviewed by New Humanist, you described yourself as an “evangelical atheist”. Has anything made you change your mind?
IB: Nope. In these trying, troubled times, I think it’s even more important to keep on making a proper fuss about refusing to buy into all this “religion” bollocks.
HM: In your latest novel Stonemouth, the protagonist Stewart, feels “embarrassed for us as a species” that we continue to need religion. Is this a fair reflection of your own view?
IB: It is. Homo Sapiens’ middle name is Gullible. No, really, it is.
HM: Human nature – are humans just animals as John Gray suggests, or, as Ray Tallis argues, does having a consciousness make us special?
IB: I think the statements are compatible, though I guess it depends how much work the word “just” is considered to be doing in the first one. We are unarguably animals, but just as there are profound differences in complexity and behaviour between, say, a flatworm and an ape, so there are profound differences in complexity and behaviour between the apes and us. In the end I’d side with Tallis and agree that having the sort of consciousness we have does, of course, make us different. It just doesn’t make us quite as different as some of us might like to think.
HM: Do you believe in moral progress?
IB: Cautiously, yes. It seems like a failure of both nerve and imagination not to. At worst, as something more to be aspired to than boasted about.
HM: Humanist, secularist, atheist, agnostic, freethinker, rationalist: which, if any of these, do you use to describe yourself?
IB: I am happy to sign up to all of them; the only caveat is with the “agnostic”. I’ve always felt that one ought to retain just the tiniest, sliveriest wee bit of agnosticism to season what is basically outright atheism, on the grounds that – in the end, after all – each of us is just a solitary smart ape on a piffling little planet in an ungraspably big universe, and the sheer bleeding obviousness of there being no supreme deity could itself be a huge cosmic joke on the part of a particularly annoying and mischievous god. It’s an admission that, well, you never entirely know. I maintain that this is close enough to absolute atheism as to make no damn difference.
HM: In your sci-fi civilisation The Culture, the ideas of transhumanism have come to pass – science has prolonged and enhanced life, religion has been eradicated, as has scarcity. Professor John Harris has argued that it is our moral duty to use science to enhance human life. Do you agree?
IB: In theory, yes. In practice I am not looking forward to the obscenely rich and powerful being the first to benefit from serious life prolongation. Imagining people like Rupert Murdoch dying, despite all that money, is one of my most innocent, if heartfelt, pleasures. But still, yes.
HM: You said you’d like to live in The Culture, but isn’t it the messy struggle, in which scarcity, crime and bad things are inevitable, that makes life worthwhile?
IB: No.
HM: Multiverse, String Theory, branes, parallel universes: what’s your current favourite explanation of the nature of the universe?
IB: My own. The whole concentric/nested universes thing (see Culture novels for details). Totally barmy, of course, but it’s mine.
HM: In Transition your characters “jaunt” though space. How were they able to do that?
IB: Ah. That is the multiverse theory, right there. I think. Or possibly the parallel universes thing. I recall being confused at the time. Patently I still am. When I’m asked this question “live”, as it were, I just keep waffling and waving my arms until people forget what the original question actually was. This, I am discovering, is harder in print. … So … Next question.
HM: Are you an optimist or a pessimist?
IB: Short-term pessimist, long-term optimist. That way you get fewer nasty surprises but can still keep going. With a smile, a whistle and a general air of breeziness, natch.
HM: Much of the action in Stonemouth takes place when your characters are teenagers. How do you get into the minds of the young?
IB: Honestly I have no idea. By being still a bit childish myself? Never having had the responsibility of being a dad? Still listening to Radio One? Just listening, maybe; keeping an ear open for how people younger than I am express themselves. Other than that it’s just taking a punt and getting away with it. So far.
HM: In your books about the Culture you have created a hugely complex world. How do you keep track of it all?
IB: I have a document on my writing computer – cunningly entitled “Culture Facts” – that I refer to, and sometimes I have to look back through earlier Culture books. “Culture Facts” has grown rather a lot over the years; it’s beginning to look a bit fan-tastic itself. I only started it because I kept forgetting what colour the drones’ aura fields turn when they were being sarcastic and I got fed up having to leaf through the aforesaid earlier novels.
HM: Which whisky would you choose to celebrate with if it does?
IB: Laphroaig. It would be no time for half measures.
HM: You used to enjoy driving sports cars but you gave them up. How do you chillax now?
IB: Can’t be doing with “chillax”. Not sure what “relax” did to require being replaced. (Apologies – my inner curmudgeon coming out there.) Anyway, relaxed – if you will – is my normal state. If I want to get stressed I do something foolish like visit London. Other than that: “hillwalking” would be the more cooperative answer. Well, glenwalking. It’s like hillwalking except less strenuous. Also, I still have cars; it’s just there are only two now and they’re both small, diesel-powered and regularly achieve 60 mpg. In the old days, with the 911 Turbo and the M5 and such, it was a cause for some celebration to break the 20 mpg barrier. Also, having solar panels fitted to the roof of our house even as I type, and got my eye on an Ampera or a plug-in Pious – sorry Prius. So, more relatively green motoring fun to come, chums!