Thank you for posting this. I know its been 2 years since you posted it. One of the wonders of youtube. You never know, when somebody will happen on your channel. I've a massive fan of both F. Herbert and D. Lynch. What a wonderful experience to sit an listen to both of them. All the best!

Thank you for posting this. I know its been 14 years since you posted it. One of the wonders of youtube. You never know, when somebody will happen on your channel. I've a massive fan of both F. Herbert and D. Lynch. What a wonderful experience to sit an listen to both of them. All the best!

It's not a matter of worldview or religion. Herbert's concern as stated is about the interaction of dynamic power structures in the face of a messianic reformer. Paul redefines the organization of the entire universe and in subsequent novels, his and Leto II's mark on history are felt for thousands of years.

@Tondars sorry for late reply. 2:07 genesis for Dune. Herbert is a history buff, he wanted to create something that showed the history of a messiah as the creation of a power structure (fascinating by the way, he's brilliant). I would bet he's talking specifically about Islam but he's applying it broadly. So Dune is an analogue for a power structure we see in the world. I revert back to my initial post. He has a worldview, he is not exempt. Power structure, corruption, charisma...

@anaximander66 ... may be parts but conflating them into the whole does little to falsify the historicity or postulates of the philosophy. Dune is not simply about Paul, like all great novels there is a point about history here and he reveals his prejudice he does not actually refute messianic truth claims. If he wanted to do that he would have had to survey the internal claims of the view its self. Which is why I am not an Atheist, internally inconsistent.

This fascinates me. The fact that each messianic figure is a reformer says nothing about the authenticity of the figure itself. All anthropological studies reveal the need for reform, so it should not be a surprise that this would be the case. The question is one of internal consistency. Herbert clearly assumes his own worldview is true and that religious worldviews are false, but there are no good arguments here to substantiate this assumption. Too bad he never studied philosophy proficiently.