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

[FordSVT]

^ There's nothing to say that all the Goa'uld arrived at the same time. And since the show has established that, unlike in the modern era where Goa'uld don't share territory, many Goa'uld co-existed in the various geographic areas of Earth, it's possible that the Goa'uld had a kind of staggered migration to this host-rich environment, where each newly arriving Goa'uld would claim one particular parcel of the planet (or was distributed that parcel by Ra) where no Goa'uld had previously installed him/herself as the local deity. I've always wondered what Earth would be like at that time, a single planet divided amongst so many Goa'uld lordlings and even other alien species like the Asgard.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Do you think it's possible that maybe just one or two Earth cultures originated with the Goa'uld while the rest were stolen? 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.

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.

 

[Christopher]

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.

 

[3D Master]

But then, we're not discussing anyone's real god in SF (TV), but Navaros' idea of a real god in SF (TV).

That's what Navaros is discussing, but my point is that he's defining his terms too narrowly and thus misunderstanding what's really out there in the genre.

Ah, but he doesn't really care what's out there in the genre. To him, those are all false gods. He finally wants Real GodTM, dang it! He wants to watch Real GodTM smite all those godless (Star Trek) folks, and torture them for eternity in hell, dang nab it!

 

[137th Gebirg]

Wait for Garth Ennis' "The Preacher" to be turned into an HBO miniseries. God's in it - the real one. And He's taken a vacation.

 

[Navaros]

What I want regarding God in SciFi is I want SciFi to stop taking 'the easy way out'.

SciFi makers thinking: "We don't dare feature any God in our SciFi who we portray as the real God doing anything that might be considered offensive to our real-life human sensibilities" is a very lame cop-out. That's taking the easy way out, instead of daring to be bold & original.

It adds insult to injury how shows that take the easy way out like this via recyling the 'evil false gods' premise are praised and get critical acclaim for 'daring to explore religion'. If they really wanted to and had the balls to explore religion in SciFi, then they'd stop leaning on the 'non-offensive' crutch of the 'evil false gods' premise and feature a real God or gods in their show who dares to be offensive; without the show makers imposing their viewpoints that the real God is 'evil' or 'false' just because it is offensive. They don't necessarily have to impose the viewpoint that it is 'good' either.

How about letting the viewers decide for themselves about what their viewpoint is instead of having it force-fed to them by the show makers, as is always what is done when the 'evil false gods' premise is used.

 

[Christopher]

What I want regarding God in SciFi is I want SciFi to stop taking 'the easy way out'.

If you want science fiction that doesn't take the easy way out, you need to start reading books.

Also, "SciFi" is the name of a television network. The genre is known as science fiction, SF, sf, sci fi, or sci-fi (although many in the SF community consider "sci-fi" an insulting nickname, while others see it as specifically referring to the "SF lite" sort of thing that dominates the mass media).

SciFi makers thinking: "We don't dare feature any God in our SciFi who we portray as the real God doing anything that might be considered offensive to our real-life human sensibilities" is a very lame cop-out. That's taking the easy way out, instead of daring to be bold & original.

As you've been told, it isn't the creators saying that, it's the television executives who pay their salaries. But why listen to facts when you can just restate your own straw-man position over and over and pretend that counts as having a conversation?

 

[ATimson]

SciFi makers thinking: "We don't dare feature any God in our SciFi who we portray as the real God doing anything that might be considered offensive to our real-life human sensibilities" is a very lame cop-out. That's taking the easy way out, instead of daring to be bold & original.

Or alternately, they're choosing to actually offer drama on their shows, instead of setting up a situation where a) the characters can't lose because a god always fixes things; b) the characters can't win because they can't possibly defeat a god; or c) the gods intervene only on occasion (on behalf of or in opposition to the characters), which makes any time they do so a deus ex machina, albeit without the machine. None of those three make particularly satisfying drama to watch, and I doubt it's much more fun to write either.

Or the gods don't intervene at all, but that would render their presence rather useless.

 

[Blamo]

Hmm I don't think Ulysees 31 had a false God in it.

 

[FordSVT]

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.

Sorry, I pulled the date out of my butt, I didn't know what his "real" base in reality was. Looked to me to be more like a middle-ages type Chinese Emperor you might see in a Kung Fu movie.

 

[Klaus]

False gods have worked like a charm in real human society for millennia and show no sign of slowing down... SF is just going with what works!

 

[DWF]

Johnny Byrne's comments on the Space:1999 first season ender Testament Of Arcadia.

http://www.space1999.net/~catacombs/main/crguide/vcwbttoa.html

The idea that we may have been influenced by a superior intelligence in our distant past is a very valid and very profound one, and it's certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility to assume that something strange has happened to the people on this planet. About 15,000 years ago, it seems that there was a sudden burst of knowledge and creative activity that, after millions and millions of years, accelerated the pace of evolution and pitched human-kind into being the dominant species on this planet. Now, archaeologists may give you all sorts of explanations as to how this came about, but any other reason is just as valid. You could say that the human gene-bank was, in some way, seeded with knowledge by visitors from outer space, totally transforming the thinking on this planet.

Less than 100 years ago, the Wright brothers were flying something with a bit of string. Now we're flying to the moon. That development has taken place in only 100 years. If you take that pace of development, or if you take how fast that development can happen, you can see that something quite remarkable did happen in that very short time all those years ago, in terms of human understanding, social organisation, technology and all the rest of it.
The other element in "Testament of Arkadia" was the Adam and Eve story, which is a very primal type of story in our consciousness. It's difficult to say whether it's purely biblical, some form of inspiration, or whether it maybe matches up to some sort of racial memory that we have of a time when we all did live in some kind of land of plenty, a veritable Eden. There's a symbolism in the Adam and Eve story which is good for all time and, I think, whether you're religious or not, it has a kind of sense to it...a philosophical sense.

All of these things were at the back of my mind when I came to write this story. David was very keen on doing it, although I was less keen at the time for all sorts of reasons. It seemed to me to be too "on the nose": making a very direct form of statement about who we were, and the way in which the story was being driven to the point where we were imposing a very definite form of religious context into it. Now, although I'm not a practising Catholic, I am an Irish Catholic, which is like saying that I have Catholicism "genetically coded" in my system. I was a very devout Catholic growing up, as most people of my generation were, and that spiritual exercise is what develops your spirituality. Even if you practice Catholicism or not, that expanded presence inside you is there and it finds an outlet in all sorts of other different ways: in humanism, in philosophy, in understanding, and in a speculative consciousness...that is, the capability to not dismiss things because they're not provable. The most important thing is to accept that there are mysteries to life and that if things are not provable, it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist. This, to me, is a fundamental part of my development as a writer: that I don't need to prove things to know that they are real.

Writers are aware of story possibilites and like to express them in an intellegent manner but they have to straddle a line or two in process.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Plenty of fantasy uses "real" gods, gods with real supernatural power who exist on a plane beyond the mortal, because that sort of thing fits in fantasy. It works with fantasy's rules. It's harder to do in science fiction because science fiction is at least nominally about a universe in which scientific principles apply, and there's not a lot of room for a God, because a God (especially in the Christian sense) is beyond the realm of science.

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.

The idea of a conflict between faith and science (despite popular portrayal) is actually a relatively new one in human history and in the past, religious belief has not always been viewed as antithetical to clearminded scientific observation. Much is made of the spat between Galileo and the Catholic Church--yet when you look at many of the individual astronomers and what drove them to conduct their research, they actually saw their work as a way of coming closer to God (to understand His creative nature by observing His works, basically) and had no fear of what might be revealed. Johannes Kepler is a prime example of this--so are others like Newton, Descartes, Pascal, and so on.

The idea of allowing science and faith to buttress each other (without compromising the integrity of either) is an idea that has been lost these days and that's why I think you often see people treat science-fiction that includes faith as an oxymoron. Some sci-fi writers may well have an atheistic agenda, whereas others may simply feel (on grounds that to my belief are not legitimate) that discussion of faith simply has no place in the genre. To my mind...this does not have to be.

Then there's the question of depicting a God from the real world as a character. If, for example, you depict a God who's supposed to be the Christian God, you're bound to do something with the character that will have half the audience react negatively if you don't match their notion of what the Christian God is like.

A story in which one character knows everything that's going on, can bring the dead back to life, can create the entire universe... well, how do you effectively use an all-knowing, all-powerful God in a story? The characters can't be in conflict with such a God; they certainly can't win against that God. Is God just supposed to show up occasionally and save the day for them? Any of the godlike aliens already on TV could do that, but they generally don't, because it doesn't make for good TV drama.

What exactly do you want to see? How would it work?

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.

 

[Christopher]

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.

I'm not convinced that there is such an exclusion. Certainly a lot of SF authors are atheists or agnostics, but there are certainly those who are devoutly religious (such as Orson Scott Card, a noted Mormon), and there are indeed works of SF literature that do explore religion or God (God and religion are not the same subject). I've read plenty of SF literature with sincerely religious characters and examinations of religious questions.

As I said before, it's mostly filmed and televised SF that steers clear of religious issues, and that's because of network executives preferring to avoid controversy in general. You can't draw any conclusions about science fiction as a whole based on the narrow, rigidly limited subset of it represented by film and TV.

The idea of a conflict between faith and science (despite popular portrayal) is actually a relatively new one in human history and in the past, religious belief has not always been viewed as antithetical to clearminded scientific observation. Much is made of the spat between Galileo and the Catholic Church--yet when you look at many of the individual astronomers and what drove them to conduct their research, they actually saw their work as a way of coming closer to God (to understand His creative nature by observing His works, basically) and had no fear of what might be revealed. Johannes Kepler is a prime example of this--so are others like Newton, Descartes, Pascal, and so on.

Absolutely. Darwin was a devout Christian as well.

The idea of allowing science and faith to buttress each other (without compromising the integrity of either) is an idea that has been lost these days and that's why I think you often see people treat science-fiction that includes faith as an oxymoron.

It hasn't been lost, not in the world at large. It's mainly just certain factions in the United States, and in other highly insular societies like Iran, who have a problem reconciling science and religion. Most educated religious people accept science, and plenty of scientists are religious.

Some sci-fi writers may well have an atheistic agenda, whereas others may simply feel (on grounds that to my belief are not legitimate) that discussion of faith simply has no place in the genre.

And there are definitely SF writers who do explore questions of faith extensively in their work. In fact, I find that atheist writers often produce some of the most thoughtful and fair-minded explorations of religion and faith -- as in Carl Sagan's Contact, for instance, a book which extensively explores religious ideas and even implies that there may be a divine hand underlying the laws of the universe.

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.

It's out there.

 

[Trent Roman]

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.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[3D Master]

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.

I'm not convinced that there is such an exclusion. Certainly a lot of SF authors are atheists or agnostics, but there are certainly those who are devoutly religious (such as Orson Scott Card, a noted Mormon), and there are indeed works of SF literature that do explore religion or God (God and religion are not the same subject). I've read plenty of SF literature with sincerely religious characters and examinations of religious questions.

Card is also completely cookoo, so that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Absolutely. Darwin was a devout Christian as well.

He started out that way. He became atheist toward the latter part of his life as he learned more and more through his research.

And there are definitely SF writers who do explore questions of faith extensively in their work. In fact, I find that atheist writers often produce some of the most thoughtful and fair-minded explorations of religion and faith -- as in Carl Sagan's Contact, for instance, a book which extensively explores religious ideas and even implies that there may be a divine hand underlying the laws of the universe.

If it's anything like the movie, it's also very bad. Especially the conclusion.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

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.

I'm not convinced that there is such an exclusion. Certainly a lot of SF authors are atheists or agnostics, but there are certainly those who are devoutly religious (such as Orson Scott Card, a noted Mormon), and there are indeed works of SF literature that do explore religion or God (God and religion are not the same subject). I've read plenty of SF literature with sincerely religious characters and examinations of religious questions.

As I said before, it's mostly filmed and televised SF that steers clear of religious issues, and that's because of network executives preferring to avoid controversy in general. You can't draw any conclusions about science fiction as a whole based on the narrow, rigidly limited subset of it represented by film and TV.

And I agree that books tend to lend themselves to the more complex treatment of such questions than do movies and concede to the Orson Scott Card example--however, I think we have seen the attitude exhibited in other posts here, of which I speak.

But it is interesting that the "false god" premise would set off less controversy than suggesting there could be one--or even if not involving God right in the plotline, just building sincere and non-crazy belief into sci-fi characters as part of their characterization.

The idea of a conflict between faith and science (despite popular portrayal) is actually a relatively new one in human history and in the past, religious belief has not always been viewed as antithetical to clearminded scientific observation. Much is made of the spat between Galileo and the Catholic Church--yet when you look at many of the individual astronomers and what drove them to conduct their research, they actually saw their work as a way of coming closer to God (to understand His creative nature by observing His works, basically) and had no fear of what might be revealed. Johannes Kepler is a prime example of this--so are others like Newton, Descartes, Pascal, and so on.

Absolutely. Darwin was a devout Christian as well.

It hasn't been lost, not in the world at large. It's mainly just certain factions in the United States, and in other highly insular societies like Iran, who have a problem reconciling science and religion. Most educated religious people accept science, and plenty of scientists are religious.

Among the religious in the world of large, I would agree with you. However, in many of those other societies, faith itself has lost ground partly because of the unflattering behavior of those certain factions you refer to.

 

[Christopher]

And there are definitely SF writers who do explore questions of faith extensively in their work. In fact, I find that atheist writers often produce some of the most thoughtful and fair-minded explorations of religion and faith -- as in Carl Sagan's Contact, for instance, a book which extensively explores religious ideas and even implies that there may be a divine hand underlying the laws of the universe.

If it's anything like the movie, it's also very bad. Especially the conclusion.

Yeah, I meant to add that: Don't assume that the book is anything like the movie. It's vastly richer, fuller, smarter, and more nuanced. I strongly recommend it.

And I agree that books tend to lend themselves to the more complex treatment of such questions than do movies and concede to the Orson Scott Card example--however, I think we have seen the attitude exhibited in other posts here, of which I speak.

But my point is that the attitude is wrong -- that science fiction itself (as opposed to TV and film which happens to include SF/fantasy) does not, in fact, have any institutionalized hostility toward religion as a subject worthy of exploration.

But it is interesting that the "false god" premise would set off less controversy than suggesting there could be one--or even if not involving God right in the plotline, just building sincere and non-crazy belief into sci-fi characters as part of their characterization.

Like I said, nobody's done more to keep God off the airwaves than the intolerant religious right. They're so easily offended by any depiction of God that conflicts with their narrow views that networks and advertisers find it easier to take the path of least resistance and avoid the subject altogether. Stories about false or fictional gods don't come close enough to genuine belief to be likely to cause offense.

Although certainly fundamentalists have often taken offense at depictions of "pagan" mythologies in film and TV, even when it's been obvious that no sincere belief was being promulgated. They've even objected to depictions of witchcraft and "pagan symbols" in children's cartoons. So there is controversy on that side too. People who define their morality on the basis of other people's moral failings can always find some basis for taking offense.

 

[Silvercrest]

It adds insult to injury how shows that take the easy way out like this via recyling the 'evil false gods' premise are praised and get critical acclaim for 'daring to explore religion'. If they really wanted to and had the balls to explore religion in SciFi, then they'd stop leaning on the 'non-offensive' crutch of the 'evil false gods' premise and feature a real God or gods in their show who dares to be offensive; without the show makers imposing their viewpoints that the real God is 'evil' or 'false' just because it is offensive. They don't necessarily have to impose the viewpoint that it is 'good' either.

How about letting the viewers decide for themselves about what their viewpoint is instead of having it force-fed to them by the show makers, as is always what is done when the 'evil false gods' premise is used.

Like I said earlier, the TNG episode "Justice" meets practically all of your criteria. It has "gods" who have set down laws for their culture. It has a group of believers who have no problem obeying these laws, and a group of nonbelievers who come into conflict with the believers. The nonbelievers raise moral questions as to the rightness of these laws, but the show does not present them as being automatically correct, and does not represent the "gods" as evil. (Even the characters acknowledge this.)

The "gods" are shown to have supreme power. They step into the situation to enforce their laws and protect their believers (and, it is implied, would be willing to smite the nonbelievers). The nonbelievers are not in a position to fight, escape, or otherwise overcome them, but are forced to appeal to them.

As far as I can tell, this is what you're looking for. So, did you think that was a good episode?

Also consider that the "gods" were in favor of killing Wesley.

 

[Trent Roman]

But my point is that the attitude is wrong -- that science fiction itself (as opposed to TV and film which happens to include SF/fantasy) does not, in fact, have any institutionalized hostility toward religion as a subject worthy of exploration.

It's not in engagement but in depiction that science-fiction reveals broad hostility towards religion, particularly when it is itself institutionalized. If sci-fi engages with religion, it's usually to demonstrate it as false and/or controlling, or else as a primitive misunderstanding of greater truths revealed through scientific methodology. If nothing else, a genre based on interrogation ill-accomodates any kind of face-value representations, and acceptance, of deities and metaphysics that the OP seems to want.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

It's not in engagement but in depiction that science-fiction reveals broad hostility towards religion, particularly when it is itself institutionalized. If sci-fi engages with religion, it's usually to demonstrate it as false and/or controlling, or else as a primitive misunderstanding of greater truths revealed through scientific methodology.

You're stereotyping. "Science fiction" is not one thing. The range of what passes for SF in the mass media is stringently limited, which creates the impression of it as a monolithic genre, but the literature itself is unbounded by its very nature. (There have been those who have suggested that "mainstream" fiction is nothing more than a narrow subset of speculative fiction: fiction constrained to one planet and one timeline in the recent past or immediate future, with the speculative elements being limited to the existence of imaginary individuals, businesses, events, etc.) While it's true that there is SF literature that fits your description, there is also SF literature that doesn't. I've already mentioned Contact, which doesn't fit your stereotype at all; while it does expose the follies of certain interpretations of religion, it also depicts a number of sincerely spiritual characters and refuses to reject the validity of faith per se.

And there has been science fiction specifically written to promote a religious point of view. I've mentioned Card. There's also the Left Behind series, for a fairly extreme example. Somewhat less blatantly, the original novel When Worlds Collide (very loosely adapted into a George Pal film) strongly suggests that the cataclysm that destroys the Earth -- combined with the uncanny coincidence of providing a new world for a few select survivors to migrate to -- is God's latest attempt to cleanse and reboot the human race, the sequel to the Great Flood. It's not explicit on that point, and there are characters who dispute that interpretation, but it definitely feels like the novelists were on the side of the characters who did feel it was God's work.