Is Religion Killing Good Sci-Fi Shows? [minimal politics]

[theenglish]

^^^
You are simply providing a circular argument which requires somebody to accept your basic premise in order to be persuaded by your conclusions.

I, personally, do not follow a particular religion or a particular faith. That does not mean that I am not spiritual or do not have faith in a God that goes beyond human religion.

The bottom line is that Lost and BSG are well-written, internally coherent series (as much as a series can be) with finales that provide thematic and plot closures to their stories and that remain consistent with the rest of the series. Period.

If you choose not to like the series or not to follow them, that is your choice. But don't attack or insult those who do not share your particular tastes in television.

 

[Deckerd]

And come on, it's not like most Christians actually believe Genesis is literally true. There's nothing anti-Christian about acknowledging that it's a myth. Even the Vatican's official line is that the Biblical creation account is allegorical for the origin of the human soul, while science accurately explains the physical origin of the Earth and humanity. Most people are aware that the world is billions of years old, so it was probably that estimate that Giles was referring to.

Do we have any statistics on that? I mean, I'm a Christian and I don't believe in the literal truth of Genesis. But I've talked to enough Christians who (regrettably) DO believe it that I'd hesitate to generalize about "most Christians."

I think he's correct to generalise about most christians. Even very conservative branches, like the Roman Catholic church, have accepted that evolution was the origin of life on Earth. Since RC followers outnumber American creationists by a good way, I think it's okay to generalise.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Speaking of aggressive atheism, I've found perhaps a certain stubborn streak of that in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's a show filled with a lot of the standard Christian imagery seen in your typical vampire stories. Buffyverse vampires can be hurt by crosses or holy water. Buffy died at the end of Season 5 and when she came back in Season 6, she was depressed because her resurrection took her out of heaven. And yet Buffy is still unsure as to whether God exists in Season 7's "Conversations with Dead People."

But then, in the 2nd episode of the series, Giles pretty blatantly denies the creation myth from the book of Genesis. "This world is older than you know. And contrary to popular mythology, it did not start out as a paradise..."

I never watched Buffy, but going solely by your description, how is that "aggressive atheism"? If it was atheistic in nature it wouldn't have featured any of those Christian elements as real within the context of that universe to begin with. There wouldn't have been a Heaven for her to be taken out of, period. It sounds like a reinterpretation of Christian beliefs, not an outright rejection of them.

Maybe "aggressive atheism" was an inaccurate description. But I've gotten the sense that Joss Whedon is kinda your typical Hollywood liberal atheist; so stubbornly so that even a series as steeped in Christian imagery as Buffy can't bring itself to flat out admit the existence of God, even after Buffy has returned from heaven.

It is sad how many people in the States don't understand basic evolutionary theory and how it relates to our daily existent (or worse yet understand it but reject it). No wonder the US educational system is ranked so low.

I suspect it's willful rejection. There's a political force in the U.S. to aggressively reject secularism by embracing every passage of the Bible as literal truth.

But the real problem with education in the U.S. is that no one is taught critical thinking skills. I don't think any of our teachers know how to teach critical thinking. It's a shame because, if you can think critically, then you can learn absolutely anything that you set your mind to. Unfortunately, American education is geared towards facts, not anyalysis. And since facts can be so easily manipulated by anyone with an ax to grind, that's how you wind up with so much blind dogmatism.

 

[Christopher]

Maybe "aggressive atheism" was an inaccurate description. But I've gotten the sense that Joss Whedon is kinda your typical Hollywood liberal atheist; so stubbornly so that even a series as steeped in Christian imagery as Buffy can't bring itself to flat out admit the existence of God, even after Buffy has returned from heaven.

Even if that's true, it's premature to assume that's the creator's decision. As a rule, it's networks that are uneasy with overtly religious themes in TV shows, for fear of offending anyone. Considering that Buffy dealt with vampires and witchcraft and demons from various mythologies real and invented -- and given that many of same were presented sympathetically -- a lot of Christians might've been offended if the show had overtly embraced Christianity as its core theology, seeing it as an insult to or corruption of the faith. Or they might've been offended to see a faith they consider real and take seriously treated as fodder for a work of fantasy and humor. So the network may very well have asked Whedon to keep the show agnostic and religion-neutral. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't, regardless of Whedon's own views on the subject.

When it comes to television, beware the auteur theory. Never, never assume that every single thing in a show can be attributed solely to the beliefs or preferences of the showrunner. Television is a highly collaborative enterprise, and very few showrunners have ever been given total creative freedom. They have to answer to network and studio executives, censors, advertisers, etc. And all those groups see religion as a hot-potato subject and try to minimize its presence in television. Not because of any ideological agenda, but just because you don't make as much money if you offend parts of your audience. (Deep Space Nine had to fight the studio to get to do stories about an alien religion.)

But the real problem with education in the U.S. is that no one is taught critical thinking skills. I don't think any of our teachers know how to teach critical thinking.

Quite true. It's a fundamental weakness in the system.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

But the real problem with education in the U.S. is that no one is taught critical thinking skills. I don't think any of our teachers know how to teach critical thinking.

Quite true. It's a fundamental weakness in the system.

It's inaccurate to say that the problem is that teachers do not know how to teach critical thinking -- not that there aren't a few bad teachers, but the issues are far more systemic. The bigger issue is the fact that education is highly politicized. Educational policy is often dictated by politicians looking to score political points in election campaigns, rather than being set by educators. As a result, teachers are often directed to teach a specific curriculum using specific methodology.

As a case in point, consider the high stakes tied to standardized testing. Standardized tests are not, in and of themselves, a bad idea. They do provide some useful information on student progress. But they are not exact representations. By placing such high value on the tests, curricula are now being written simply to get students to pass the tests -- real-world critical thinking skills are being given lower priority over test-taking skills. And educators who do not comply with those directives or subscribe to those priorities are often shown the door.

 

[Sharr Khan]

OK, reading through the entire thread I find myself mostly in agreement with Christopher and stonester1 regarding this issue.

Its not "Is Religion Killing Good Sci-Fi Shows", its more a bit of some Scifi geeks undergoing culture shock and becoming annoyed that their preferred entertainment is not reinforcing their biases and world view.

Look, if Star Trek or should I say Star Trek: The Next Generation is your singular touchstone for what makes "Science Fiction", shows like BSG - Which was created out of Glen Larson's Mormonism (It would NOT BE BSG without a religious element) is likely to throw you for a loop.

But its been my observation many Science Fiction fans tend to get more upset that "Oh No!" my Scifi is suddenly not being the secular propaganda that I want for it to be.

There is no rule, and there should not be any rule which limits what elements a storyteller should be allowed to use in telling their story. I find it arrogant on the part of some fans who presume to throw up such barriers. People in real life do have religious experiences, despite what TNG claimed, that's not EVER going to vanish from the human condition.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^ Amen! Well stated.

 

[Kegg]

Hey, anyone remember the Force? Now there's a religious polemic...

Really, the issue is never 'should sci-fi prioritize religion' but whether or not the story is any good. A bad or mishandled story about religion is as problematic as a bad or mishandled story about science. It's not even a problem for me for the writer to relate personal experience of a religious nature into their sci-fi work - Philip K. Dick did this more then once, and y'know what, the results were pretty good reads.

However, the approach that say, Battlestar Galactica had to its theological cosmos was decidedly muddied and unclear; invoking God was at least partly a cop out to get out of some of the more confused elements of the narrative. And cop outs - of any persuasion, religion, science or great gazebos - never make for good television.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Caprica - life after death

"Caprica"

The series was beginning to tackle the notion of life after death with the transporting of one’s identity into a computer. The whole idea of man creating a virtual heaven and achieving life after death was a fascinating concept that bordered on blasphemy, and it could have riled up those of a religious persuasion.
But alas, nobody really cared.

Is 'Caprica' a victim of this popularity loss, or is it a cause?
by DAN COMPORA, Posted Nov-18-2010
SciFi 101: Science-Fiction: A Genre In Decline?

 

[Sisk0]

Politics and especially religion can be volatile to a story regardless of the genre. It sometimes gets obvious in a show that a writer or creator has an axe to grind with a particular politician/party or religion or religious aspect. That's when it annoys me.

We live in a multicultural society, I enjoy shows that show a plurality of perspectives like DS9 and shows that not only contrast belief systems but compare them and build on them like B5.

The problem comes in when one view is solely promoted above all others. But i personally think that just as big a problem is when a show represents all beliefs and cultures homogeneously the same.

 

[Bonzo the Fifth]

Hey, anyone remember the Force? Now there's a religious polemic...

Really, the issue is never 'should sci-fi prioritize religion' but whether or not the story is any good. A bad or mishandled story about religion is as problematic as a bad or mishandled story about science. It's not even a problem for me for the writer to relate personal experience of a religious nature into their sci-fi work - Philip K. Dick did this more then once, and y'know what, the results were pretty good reads.

However, the approach that say, Battlestar Galactica had to its theological cosmos was decidedly muddied and unclear; invoking God was at least partly a cop out to get out of some of the more confused elements of the narrative. And cop outs - of any persuasion, religion, science or great gazebos - never make for good television.

This... Personally, I consider myself an agnostic humanist (the question of God's existence/nonexistence is immaterial, even if they do exist, it's better to live our lives by human principles, for the betterment of our lives on Earth and humanity at large), but I don't mind watching religion on television. Like any element of fiction, it's just a plot device. It may not be true in our world, but that doesn't mean it isn't true in the world of the story.

I figure that, especially in SF, you're going to have some elements that are simply impossible, where impossible can be defined a number of ways. Some of you may find supernatural events and circumstances of all stripes impossible, some may just find faster than light travel and antigravity impossible.

Irrelevant.

Like all plot devices, the key is in their execution. Are these devices used to make a workable world, with realistic effects and consequences, or are they used to provide a cheap narrative escape hatch for whenever the plot writes itself in a corner?

Phrased like that, religion is really no worse than technobabble in a SF series, it's just all in the execution. In Star Trek, Buffy, B5, BSG, nuBSG, what have you, religion has been obliquely or directly referenced and used to varying degrees, both for and against it's relevance/existence. It's also been used effectively and really, really badly, but I don't fault the religion for that, I fault bad writing necessitating a deus ex machina.... it's no worse just because in this case, the deus is literal instead of metaphorical.

 

[Kaijima]

I am reminded of one time that J. Michael Straczynski was called out on a Usenet thread for secretly promoting "religion" because of his "religious views" with Babylon 5.

Straczynski responded personally with a generally polite yet searing remark that he was anything but a religious man, and found himself utterly incapable of identifying with a list of spiritual traits. His writing for Babylon 5 was examining concepts and "what if's?" that he, himself, could not bring himself to work with in his personal life.

It underlines the danger of confabulating fiction with an author's personal beliefs and philosophy, no matter how often some authors do use their fiction as polemic. Fans, of course, tend to view things very two-dimensionally. They just like what they like because they identify with it, and they tend to assume everyone involved with it is just like them - in other words, if an author writes a hard SF novel in which the protagonist is viciously myopic rational positivist militant atheist crusader, the fan will tend to assume that this is what the author is really like. By the same token, if a fan finds themselves annoyed at something in a genre book - like religion represented in a positive light and not as ancient and terrible superstition - then the fan assumes that the author is "betraying" Science Fiction as they see it, and that the author is a soft-headed numbnut wishy washy "Superstitionist" or some such pap.

What's interesting about the current generation of sci-fi fans is that they'd have a great deal of trouble dealing with a lot of the history of speculative fiction, and classic writers such as Philip K. Dick who contemplated a wider range of ideas and wrote in elastic realities; somewhere along the line, "science fiction" has come to represent Bed Time Stories for Atheists for a great many people. The "speculative" and even "fictional" parts seem to have lost their meaning.

Perhaps it is due to the increasing tension in society over issues of rationalism versus superstition and a perceived war between "science" and "religion". People are behaving stupidly as human beings tend to, and lining up on either side to fight it out, clutching their sacred tomes to their chest as they do so; be it a bible on one side, or Asimov on the other.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I think the problem is that writers are using "religious happenings" as stand-ins for logic and storytelling.

Hey God/angels did it, it doesn't have to make sense! See: Battlestar Galactica (a fine show)

 

[Christopher]

As far as Galactica goes, it's worth noting that the original series was designed as a space-opera retelling of the Book of Mormon, so there was an element of religious allegory built into it from the start. Larson's series introduced advanced "Beings of Light" who were stated to be a highly-evolved forerunner race (basically like the Stargate franchise's Ancients) but were overtly allegories for angels and demons. "Experiment in Terra" even featured a Being of Light who used Apollo as his agent and was invisible and inaudible to everyone around Apollo, just like the Messengers ("angels") in the remake series, though much less cryptic about his nature and origins and far more capable of wielding direct supernatural power over the physical world. So it seems to me that the Messengers in Moore's BSG could well have been an intentional part of the concept from the start, building on the precedents laid in the original series, rather than an afterthought thrown in to patch plot holes. (Which is not to say that Moore's BSG didn't have a ton of things that were patches after the fact, like the whole Final Five thing, which was just a dodge to justify why only the seven previously revealed Cylon models were ever seen during the New Caprica occupation. I just don't think this was one of them.)

 

[stj]

Religious characters are not the same thing as showing miracles.

Dramatizing themes with religious overtones, or simply the kind of questions usually reserved for religion, is not the same thing as showing miracles.

Showing miracles at the end, so the favorite characters can have happy endings, or happy afterlives anyhow, without the characters ever having a religion that involved ever doing, or even saying, anything, without dramatizing the religious themes, however, is the same thing as fantasy. As in wishful thinking. That is what Lost did, and BSG, and it is bad, because it is just tacked on. It's bait and switch.

The fiction in science fiction is pretty much always fictional, which hacks tend to read as meaning "shamelessly stupid and ignorant." The thrill of magic is supposed to be breaking the laws of nature, which are apparently regarded as some sort of straitjacket on the personality (instead of what makes us exist.) There are plenty of thrills in science fiction, but that's not one. The fundamental one is, who knows what might happen when people find out more about the laws of nature. Profoundly ignorant people who can't tell the difference between science and magic think it's all the same, of course.

The occasional irruption of religion that works into science fiction occurs because people compartmentalize their everyday lives and their fantasies. By and large, people live like atheists, and the exceptions tend to be victims of faith healers and other such frauds. They tell themselves that the supernatural will save them at the end. Sometimes the science fiction drags in religion at the end in the same way. This is indeed bad writing because it ignores the genuinely interesting issues posed by the idea of some religion being true.

 

[atlantalliance]

TOS, TNG, Stargate, etc... did fine without it.

.

I like less religion in scifi

Maybe shows like Trek and Babylon-5 did the religion thing good - at times

Personally I think there is too much religion in science fiction

 

[auntiehill]

It's generally not a good idea to raise a nearly 5 year-dead thread unless you really have something pertinent to add.

 

[atlantalliance]

I have something GREAT to add
http://winteryknight.com/2015/08/27/does-reading-science-fiction-predispose-people-to-atheism-2/

Does reading science fiction predispose people to atheism?

http://suvudu.com/2015/08/science-r...-provocative-quotes-from-atheist-authors.html

Are religion and science incompatible? No, according to evolutionary geneticist Jerry A. Coyne. In his new book Faith vs. Fact, Coyne argues that religion fails when the standards of science are applied to its claims; that this is the principle difference between the two:“Looking at methodology,” Coyne writes, “I claim that the difference between science and religion can be summarized in how their adherents answer the question, ‘How would I know if I were wrong?’”People of faith would likely argue that their religion addresses this and other questions in a satisfactory manner, and I’m not here to argue that: I have my own beliefs and feel very strongly that—provided you don’t hurt anyone—you’re entitled to believe whatever you want. Hey, it’s America, right?There are, however, plenty of science-fiction and fantasy authors for whom atheism has played a significant role in their writing and lives. Here are six of them, along with some of their most amusing, enlightening, or just plain memorable quotes.

 

[Kemaiku]

It ruined the fuck out of Quantum Leap so either do Scifi, religious television or fantasy, but mixing them usually ends up turning pretty shit fast.

 

[T'Girl]

It ruined the fuck out of Quantum Leap ...

Quantum Leap's weekly intro said "putting right what once went wrong," and Sam once met another leaper who obviously was being guided by evil. In the final episode we find out that Sam's guiding force/director (the bartender) was the same person who was watching him make the test fight in the very first episode.

It was clear early on that Sam wasn't just randomly leaping into random people, but instead into specific people who needed help in some form. Help that Sam was going to be capable of providing.

How did religion "ruin" Quantum Leap? It was one of the show's central pillars.