Is it true that the Foundation series is atheist propaganda?

Not gonna waste my time on it if it is

Attached: 4AE61FF6-3E9F-4041-8CCC-515BF041773C.jpg (327x500, 54K)

It's a love letter to statistics. It doesn't deal with religion in any directly critical capacity, as far as I can remember

I started reading it myself. Asimov obviously has a hard on for statistical modeling, but judging from the introduction written by Isaac, the story itself is about the interesting premise, inspired by WW2 partly and The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, etc. It's not even that much of diatribe against politics and human institutions. The idea is that, over many thousands of years and much data, the probabilities of the galactic Empire of trillions of people can be reasonably predicted by a crew of mathematicians and models.
The scientific/math field he creates requires some suspension of disbelief, but it's neat to see science fiction about an actual theoretical concept rather than some advanced technology or aliens.
I like it so far, and I'm Christian. Don't think Asimov was too interested in the subject (and he wrote that one novel, "Anathem," I think, that had some inspiration from liturgy) I wouldn't sweat it.

>fact propaganda

The Virgin Social Scientist vs the Chad Mule

>hasn't heard of white propaganda

Not really. It is an annoyingly simplistic and smug view of history, though.

>hey guys!
>what if ...
>its a planned economy?
>but a philosopher king plans it!

It's propaganda for the all-knowing, benevolent conspiracy of experts, like Colobel House's "Philip Drew, Administrator." Some time in the early seventies we turned a corner, but before that corner, highly intelligent people had this now-inexplicable faith in bureaucracy.

Not like those books are any good anyway.

t. Hasn't read the books

The science presented in the book is never presented as if it's sure to be developed in real life as is, it's just a neat idea of "what if we managed to invent something like that that works?". And even inside the fictional universe of the book, it's not presented as infallible at all, see the mule.

The worst prose I have ever read. The ideas were somewhat interesting but Jesus Asimov needed to take a creative writing course

Those STEMtards are all spatial intelligence and no verbal.

>Phillip Drew, Administrator

Nice. Deep cuts, user.

What is a "fact" is in constant flux as man learns more about the world's working and develops more advanced technology to better understand the world's workings. The atheism off today is not fact, just a disease of the modern man

It's not that bad considering it was written at the apprentice stage of his career. If you want to see some dreadful prose, check out Arthur C. Clarke's mature style in Rendezvous with Rama.

>Did you call me?

Attached: hqdefault3.jpg (480x360, 24K)

Psychotechnic League

I don't know if I would call it atheistic propaganda but the series does suppose that a sort of naturalism or materialism is true. Materialism would have to be true for sociology to ever advance as a science to the point where very large and complex societies can be predicted and accounted for.

>not the Chad First Speaker
t. didn't read the novel

Attached: 1559610990454.png (255x410, 239K)

>Author dispenses with annyoing, debauchant, self-gratifying purple prose, for the benefit of telling the tale of a truly gripping epic - in the true sense of the word - with historical scope
>'ohhhh men it challenge me hard to read (5 angry emojis)'

Attached: 1554097106092.png (1920x1080, 3.25M)

Yes, especially the end.

I read the first (i.e., main) three two months ago.
Religion is discussed for maybe a paragraph in the first book. Any reference to superstition is usually shorthand for 'these people don't know how the technology works, so they attribute it to magic and higher learning'. Those called priests are really engineers.
There are references to a galactic religion with belief in some Great Spirit, but it's never dwelt on or a serious plot point.

it's objectively good prose

>Materialism would have to be true for sociology to ever advance as a science to the point where very large and complex societies can be predicted and accounted for.

Why?

>one of the most intelligent, most prolific, and best writer of all time wrote to describe events and ideas instead of making words pretty.
>some anonymous faggot on a Canadian cartography forum thinks that's not how you should write
What kind of outlook do you need to have to not consider that maybe you're wrong?

>what if we managed to invent something like that that works?
I wish science fiction referred to almost exclusively this. Too much of the genre is just 'action/thriller, but with laser guns and spaceships'

Attached: silly.jpg (243x393, 86K)