How come SciFi always recycles the 'false gods' premise?

[Steve Roby]

And this right here is (in my personal opinion) the misconception that commonly leads to the exclusion of deity from sci-fi literature: the idea that accepting scientific truth is somehow incompatible with religious belief. There is a difference between literalist belief, that admits no deviation from the literal reading of the creation and other accounts, and a belief that views said accounts as poetic or allegorical in nature and does not expect Scripture to be a science textbook. In my own belief as a Christian, I have never had any problem with the concept of evolution--only with hard-liners on both sides claiming that somehow our scientific observations and theological ones are incompatible.

I don't have a problem with that perspective. That's the way I used to look at things, when I was still a believing Catholic. But I also know people who would flatly deny that you are a Christian if you can accept evolution.

Even just a simple acknowledgment that some people still believe and find faith an important part of their lives--without being portrayed a bunch of backwards, irrational cuckoos--would be enough for me.

Yeah, but that's not what the original poster wants, IIRC.

 

[Trent Roman]

I am not stereotyping; 'usually' means that I was identifying a broad trend, not claiming that all science-fiction was this way and no exceptions existed (although if you're classifying "Left Behind" as science-fiction, might I suggest that your definition of the genre is rather too broad?) The pattern of sci-fi hostility towards religion, particularly established religion, is quite visible in the canon, and moreover logically stems from the history of the genre, its luminaries, and how, broadly speaking, the genre is constituted. Not that it's a bad thing, as you seem to be making out; science-fiction's skeptical inquiry is one of it's best features.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

But I also know people who would flatly deny that you are a Christian if you can accept evolution.

And the majority of Christians would disagree with them. Even the Vatican's official policy is that evolution is compatible with faith -- that the scientific evidence is too extensive to deny, and that the operation of natural processes to produce the human form (as opposed to the human soul) can still be a manifestation of divine will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

 

[DWF]

But I also know people who would flatly deny that you are a Christian if you can accept evolution.

And the majority of Christians would disagree with them. Even the Vatican's official policy is that evolution is compatible with faith -- that the scientific evidence is too extensive to deny, and that the operation of natural processes to produce the human form (as opposed to the human soul) can still be a manifestation of divine will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

As long as you admit that God started the whole thing in the first place.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I don't have a problem with that perspective. That's the way I used to look at things, when I was still a believing Catholic. But I also know people who would flatly deny that you are a Christian if you can accept evolution.

Oh, I've had some bad run-ins over that sort of thing--practically got driven out of a Sunday school class with torches and pitchforks in the ninth grade once over that. Labeling a person "hellbound heretic" (in so many words) is hardly polite. But I finally came to the conclusion that I needed to make my own decision about what I believed regardless of others' boorish behavior--and try to do better, myself.

 

[MNM]

(although many in the SF community consider "sci-fi" an insulting nickname..

Yes. They're called pretentious people.

 

[Shawnster]

Off the top of my head...

1. Who is to say that NuBSG isn't about a real God? Something is guiding everything. Until we see the end of the series there is still that option. Not that I think it's really God but the option is open, isn't it?

2. Can fantasy be classified as SciFi? It seems that way when I go to the video store. Therefore movies/shows like Clash of the Titans, Xena, Hercules all fit the request.

3. Are you limiting yourself to movies or TV? If not then I suggest you read Heinlin's "JOB: A Comedy of Justice" Heaven, Hell, God, St. Peter... all presented as real characters and not super powerful aliens. I've not read any of Piers Anthony but my impression is his books fit as well.

4. Time Bandits. OK, God isn't a major character and isn't presented as an all powerful being. On the other hand, it still fits your request. Good vs. Evil. God vs. Evil.

5. Are you really looking for a movie like "Oh God" or "The Ten Commandments" just in a futuristic setting? Would the "Left Behind" series of books (and straight to video DVDs with Kirk Cameron) fit in this category?

I'm guessing it boils down to what you call science fiction. If I write a story set in the year 2009 or 2010, is it science fiction? It's about the near future, after all. Perhaps speculative fiction would be a better title.

As has already been belabored for six pages now, it appears you're looking for science fiction that fits your personal nitch of belief. That's fine. Many may get upset with you about this but hey, equal time for opposing views, no? Why is it OK for science fiction to cater to the atheist or agnostic but not the true believer?

Of course, you need to be willing to accept stories where a Jewish God or Hindu Pantheon or Muslim God is the ultimate universal being (or beings). Perhaps there are. I referred to the "Left Behind" series above. That fits with Christendom's POV. I'm not familiar enough with other cultures to know if their literature also have similar stories/authors.

What is science fiction? Would a story about the Crusades be science fiction? What if you take the story of the Crusades and set it in the far future (or a long time ago ) with lightsabers instead of swords? Is changing the tech level or planetary location enough to make it science fiction or is that just window dressing?

As a side note - Someone mentioned something about God "needing" worshipers. That's not correct. God doesn't "need" worshipers. He doesn't need anything.

 

[3D Master]

As a side note - Someone mentioned something about God "needing" worshipers. That's not correct. God doesn't "need" worshipers. He doesn't need anything.

If he doesn't need them, how come he's so desperate for them, to threaten everyone who doesn't with eternal torment, and fulfills that threat to boot? If he didn't need worshipers, he wouldn't bother, and wouldn't care whether we worship him or not - and he most certainly wouldn't eternally torment, torture and burn all those who don't.

 

[TeknoNurd]

Not that I post here much, but...

Doesn't all science fiction that doesn't deal with the existence of a "real" god represent the "real" god? An omnipotent, all knowing god that doesn't APPEAR to meddle, but does so subtly, even undetectably, through coincidence? In such science fiction prayers are answered, and unanswered. Everything, even bad things, are part of god's plan. At least, that modern experience with the "real" god.

Even when science fiction reveals aliens or super-beings as being false gods, does it automatically follow that the "real" god isn't the (hidden) force in revealing the false gods? Would not revealing a false god actually be the "real" gods will?

 

[Silvercrest]

As a side note - Someone mentioned something about God "needing" worshipers. That's not correct. God doesn't "need" worshipers. He doesn't need anything.

If he doesn't need them, how come he's so desperate for them, to threaten everyone who doesn't with eternal torment, and fulfills that threat to boot? If he didn't need worshipers, he wouldn't bother, and wouldn't care whether we worship him or not - and he most certainly wouldn't eternally torment, torture and burn all those who don't.

Actually it's not God doing the threatening, it's the overzealous Bible-thumpers. There are very few places in the Bible that flat-out say "You must worship God or else he will punish you with eternal torment". The passages that do need to be interpreted in context. So I don't think we can conclude that God is desperate for worshippers.

I sense a thread derailing. I'll shut up now.

 

[Neroon]

Yes, the thread is derailing but it can still be salvaged. Please keep to the topic.

 

[Michael Chris]

Sorry to go off topic, but I feel this must be addressed.

Ah, but many of the angels mentioned in the bible and secondary sources; the names; you'll find, are the many gods of earlier religions.

Just speaking of the Bible. And not secondary sources such as the Talmud. There are between two and four angels named in the Bible. There may be others named in far more disputed books, as well as Jewish oral tradition. There are certainly more angels mentioned in the Bible, but they are not named. The named ones are:

Gabriel - mentioned in the widest accepted canon
Michael - ditto
Raphael - mentioned in the disputed book of Tobit
Uriel - mentioned in the largely rejected book of Enoch

There are one or two others that are given descriptive titles (not names):

Apollyon - identified as an angel meaning destroyer. Found in the largely symbolic book of Revelation.
Satan - never identified as an angel in the widest accepted canon, but commonly believed to be.

So out of the many angels named in the widest accepted canon of the Bible (Gabriel and Michael). In what mythologies did they appear as gods?


In regards to the topic: I don't see the issue. There are certainly people of faith in Science Fiction. And any real God is going to be like the real one, so wouldn't being showing Himself to peeps on any regular sort of basis.

 

[Neroon]

Sorry to go off topic, but I feel this must be addressed.

No, I don't feel it really does, please... let's all get back to the topic.

 

[Michael Chris]

He was misconstruing the Bible. In such a case I give little regard to the governance of a bulletin board as compared with with my commission to spread truth.

 

[David cgc]

I know this discussion is primarily about SG-1, but the movie shows the first arrival of Ra (when he took his host) taking place thousands of years before modern civilization and the TV show never contradicted that. As well, the Egyptian motif, pyramid architecture and hieroglyphic language is presented on SG-1 as having existed before that time.

I don't remember anything at all on SG-1 that was goa'uld-related that predated Ra coming to Earth including hieroglyphics.

The novelization of the film went into some more detail about the history of Ra. As I recall, most of the iconography already existed in the proto-egyptian society (the horus and jackal headdresses, specifically, but I remember there were a few other recognizable elements noted). Also, "Ra" was the actual name of the boy the alien possessed. It was also, obviously, a bit more overt in saying Ra built the stargate, such as by having Jackson recognize that the constellations were off by modern standards, but matched ancient egyptian depictions, and noting that general shape and the horizontal stripes on the chevrons (the ones that glow on the series) evoked the headdresses worn by the Pharaohs, the nemes.

Also, it went into more detail on Jackson's theory about the pyramids, a cornerstone being that the interior had no hieroglyphics, implying to him that they were built before the language developed.

Pretty interesting stuff. It was nice when I finally read it, since SG-1 had been less mythology heavy recently, having apparently used most of their backstory potential up over the course of eight years.

But it's pretty obvious that a System Lord who imitates a 15th Century Chinese Emporer did not originate the Chinese culture, he stole it.

Fifteenth century? Lord Yu is based on the Jade Emperor Yuhuang Shangdi, a mythological figure who is the ruler of Heaven in traditional Chinese religion. In one version of the myth, he's the creator of humanity. Nomenclature aside, the Jade Emperor pretty much is what we Westerners would call a god. Lord Yu has also been referred to as "Yu the Great," suggesting an identification or confusion with the legendary/historical emperor of that name from the 21st century BC, who is himself often mythologized as a being of divine power.

Given the goa'uld's long lifespans, I suppose it's possible that Yu was both of these figures, and that he'd simply left Earth in the meantime.

By the way, I don't really like the idea of the Goa'uld making use of the Antarctic stargate. I mean, if they knew about it and could use it, why would they ever stop? If the Giza gate was buried, that'd make coming to Earth far more difficult (remember, this is before the season one hyperspace breakthrough, when Goa'uld hyperdrives could only go ten times the speed of light and and stargates were a necessity, not a luxury), but if the Goa'uld still needed fresh slaves, they'd probably keep dropping by in ships until they had established themselves offworld. If they had easy access to a stargate that wasn't buried and surrounded by armed and angry former slaves, there's no reason they wouldn't maintain a presence. I figure the Serpent Guard in the antarctic got there the same way O'Neill and Carter did, either by accident while the Giza gate was still active, or after an attempt to force a connection once it was buried.

 

[stonester1]

She did say (or sing) "I think I was in Heaven," but we never got explicit confirmation, and it certainly was never defined in explicitly Christian terms. "Heaven" is a fairly generic term in English; we even use it to (mis)translate the Chinese concept of tian, which doesn't pertain to an afterlife at all but rather to a cosmic force of righteousness, like a sort of ethical law of physics.

In the Buffyverse, both in eps of Buffy and Angel, it's fairly clear that there are MANY higher and lower planes. Just about every version of Heaven, Hell and probably any other realm you can think of can be found there.

If someone has already pointed this out, I apologize.

 

[Christopher]

^^Well, that essentially is what I was pointing out.

 

[stonester1]

It's called science-fiction. Science is rational. Faith is not. Therefore, faith is often antagonistic in science-fiction. It's a feature of the genre, just like technology and industrialization is often antagonistic in fantasy. Don't like it? There's always Left Behind and Chick tracks for those who want to be comforted about their faith.

Horse hockey. Faith IS rational. What's irrational is the idea that the only truth comes from guys in labcoats wielding test tubes.

I said TRUTH, not fact.

 

[3D Master]

It's called science-fiction. Science is rational. Faith is not. Therefore, faith is often antagonistic in science-fiction. It's a feature of the genre, just like technology and industrialization is often antagonistic in fantasy. Don't like it? There's always Left Behind and Chick tracks for those who want to be comforted about their faith.

Horse hockey. Faith IS rational. What's irrational is the idea that the only truth comes from guys in labcoats wielding test tubes.

I said TRUTH, not fact.

Uh, sorry, but faith is believing something is real despite no evidence to support it, or evidence to the contrary. That's irrational, whether you like it or not. And nobody believes the only truth comes from "guys in lab coats wielding test tubes". Indeed not, it comes from people genuinely willing to examine and observe nature.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

No, the difference between science and faith is the difference between objective and subjective experience. A "pure science" mindset would have one dismiss everything that is of a non-material or internal nature. The trouble one gets into, though, is this...do you trust your own perceptions by which you take in those perceptions you consider to be objective? If so, on what grounds? That such perceptions are valid is an act of faith, as you cannot step outside of your own self to verify them.

Yet this is considered rational and the acceptance of other subjective experiences is not. It is more rational to state a disagreement with somebody's subjective perspective, than to say that they are irrational for even thinking about said perspective.