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

[3D Master]

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.

So, anything that can be observed in nature, ie science, is the only source of truth? The scientific method is the only way to experience life? All else is irrational?

Well, someone needs to tell all campus philosophy departments as well as theology studies that they are obsolete.

Theology students are students that study religions. Religions are real, they exist, they can thus be studied.

Philosophy students are people who study people, in the end of it, they too have something to study if they indeed stay with that.

The moment they start saying things without evidence, without reasoning, especially about how the universe works, they're overstepping their bounds, and obsolete.

 

[stonester1]

Theology students are students that study religions. Religions are real, they exist, they can thus be studied.

Ah, but that is not why most students study theology. And if you think that all a religion is, is the people in it and the words on dusty, musty books, then you miss most of the point of it all.

Philosophy students are people who study people, in the end of it, they too have something to study if they indeed stay with that.

No, they study THOUGHT. Types of thought. That which is abstract, unseen. Some of your hard core rational "science" types say thought and conscience is an illusion generated by brain activity.

The moment they start saying things without evidence, without reasoning

They have PLENTY of evidence, just not the sort that would work in a science experiment in all cases. There is pleny of all kinds of evidence. But you are under the assumption that the only worthwhile evidence is the empirical, lab type stuff.

I don't.

, especially about how the universe works, they're overstepping their bounds, and obsolete.

Oh sure, the physical processes of the universe, they need to GENERALLY stay away from. Likewise, the sciences need to stay away from the esoterical, the WHY of existence. Nuts and bolts and functioning has little worthwhile to say about this, possibly the most important considerations of life and existence.

Who are we? Why are we here? What is the meaning of it all?

For that, gotta step out of the lab.

But science FICTION can be an excellent vehicle in which to ruminate about these subjects.

 

[3D Master]

Theology students are students that study religions. Religions are real, they exist, they can thus be studied.

Ah, but that is not why most students study theology. And if you think that all a religion is, is the people in it and the words on dusty, musty books, then you miss most of the point of it all.

There is no other point.

Philosophy students are people who study people, in the end of it, they too have something to study if they indeed stay with that.

No, they study THOUGHT. Types of thought. That which is abstract, unseen. Some of your hard core rational "science" types say thought and conscience is an illusion generated by brain activity.

The moment they start saying things without evidence, without reasoning

They have PLENTY of evidence, just not the sort that would work in a science experiment in all cases. There is pleny of all kinds of evidence. But you are under the assumption that the only worthwhile evidence is the empirical, lab type stuff.

I don't.

Thoughs are not abstract, nor unseen. The fact that we do anything means they exist. They are however, nothing esoteric.

, especially about how the universe works, they're overstepping their bounds, and obsolete.

Oh sure, the physical processes of the universe, they need to GENERALLY stay away from. Likewise, the sciences need to stay away from the esoterical, the WHY of existence. Nuts and bolts and functioning has little worthwhile to say about this, possibly the most important considerations of life and existence.

Who are we? Why are we here? What is the meaning of it all?

For that, gotta step out of the lab.

But science FICTION can be an excellent vehicle in which to ruminate about these subjects.

There is no why, nor a meaning. Trying to look for them is a fool's errand. We simply are. So there's not need to go in a lab, nor out of it. These considerations are therefor, not only not important, they are useless.

 

[stonester1]

There is no other point.

Prove it.

Thoughs are not abstract, nor unseen. The fact that we do anything means they exist. They are however, nothing esoteric.

Prove it.

There is no why, nor a meaning. Trying to look for them is a fool's errand. We simply are. So there's not need to go in a lab, nor out of it. These considerations are therefor, not only not important, they are useless.

Prove it.

I say, that the question, not only can it be asked, but it's more compelling than pretty much any other, is stronger evidence than anything the other side can throw at it.

 

[Christopher]

Excuse me, 3D Master, stonester1? Why are you still having this off-topic debate here when you've been asked half a dozen times now to stay on topic and when Nerys Ghemor has kindly provided a separate thread in Miscellaneous specifically for continuing the debate you're having?

 

[MyCylon]

I think probably the main reason that SciFi features no 'real' god or gods is that it goes against its very premise.

Science fiction bears a relationship to science not just in name but also in the fact that you approach the universe with the assumption that you will be able to explain things through scientific research. Just because humans can't explain something today or because the human mind as it is may be too limited to explain certain things no matter how hard we try doesn't necessarily mean it's inexplicable.

So, again, the premise is to assume everything can be explained in some form. That's the approach that science takes, and that's also the approach that science fiction takes.

That approach, however, is absolutey opposed IMHO to the way religions tend to view their god or gods. In Christian faith, for example, it is a key point of faith that God's existence cannot be proven.

There's a wonderful section on this in the IMHO marvelous "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":

"The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."


God or gods can and will appear in SciFi but IMHO for it to remain SciFi there's really only two approaches which are, depending on how you look at it, pretty much the same:

- The god or gods are false gods. They appear to have unlimited power etc. but in fact they don't and their just abusing their superiority.

- There are beings that appear god like because they are so much more advanced. They don't necessarily choose to be seen as gods (they may not even be aware of man who bestowes this label on them in the first place). So you could call them false gods in the sense that man considers them gods but they're not since they're existence can be proven (within the context of the story). On the other hand they're not pretending to be gods they're just existing the way they are - and can you really blame them for that?


So, in the end, I suppose it comes down to how you define god or gods. If you're willing to see beings that are vastly superior as gods then that fits within the SciFi context very well in my opinion. However, if you believe in a god whose existence can never be proven because that is a key part of the faith then IMHO it simply has no place in SciFi. It's the wrong genre because it's taking a totally contrary approach.

 

[3D Master]

Excuse me, 3D Master, stonester1? Why are you still having this off-topic debate here when you've been asked half a dozen times now to stay on topic and when Nerys Ghemor has kindly provided a separate thread in Miscellaneous specifically for continuing the debate you're having?

That thread has nothing to do with our discussion.

There is no other point.

Prove it.

Thoughs are not abstract, nor unseen. The fact that we do anything means they exist. They are however, nothing esoteric.

Prove it.

There is no why, nor a meaning. Trying to look for them is a fool's errand. We simply are. So there's not need to go in a lab, nor out of it. These considerations are therefor, not only not important, they are useless.

Prove it.

I say, that the question, not only can it be asked, but it's more compelling than pretty much any other, is stronger evidence than anything the other side can throw at it.

I don't need to, in fact, I can't. You're the one who makes the positive claim, YOU need to prove it. One cannot prove a negative, trying to do so is stupid. Claiming however there is meaning and whatnot, and the questions are interesting, YOU have to prove these to be true. Not the other way around.

 

[DWF]

I don't need to, in fact, I can't. You're the one who makes the positive claim, YOU need to prove it. One cannot prove a negative, trying to do so is stupid. Claiming however there is meaning and whatnot, and the questions are interesting, YOU have to prove these to be true. Not the other way around.

The existence or nonexistence of God can't be proven scienfically speaking it's a matter of faith. Getting somewhat back to the topic at ahnd I can't see how a writer of a TV series can write about a God they don't believe in personally.

 

[stonester1]

So, in the end, I suppose it comes down to how you define god or gods. If you're willing to see beings that are vastly superior as gods then that fits within the SciFi context very well in my opinion. However, if you believe in a god whose existence can never be proven because that is a key part of the faith then IMHO it simply has no place in SciFi. It's the wrong genre because it's taking a totally contrary approach.

On the contrary, literary science fiction has taken far more approaches than just those two.

And even TV science fiction, which previously has been trapped in those two limited paradigms, has been breaking out. Bablyon 5 has been very open about the real power of faith and the possibility of higher powers (NOT ancient aliens) acting in the universe. Very lightly, until the Lost Tales, but it was there.

Battlestar Galactica has gone even more deeply into it.

I for one welcome this. It's about time televised science fiction broke out of several doldrums, including those.

 

[MyCylon]

On the contrary, literary science fiction has taken far more approaches than just those two.

What are the others in your view?

And even TV science fiction, which previously has been trapped in those two limited paradigms, has been breaking out. Bablyon 5 has been very open about the real power of faith and the possibility of higher powers (NOT ancient aliens) acting in the universe. Very lightly, until the Lost Tales, but it was there.

I haven't seen Lost Tales but I never had the impression that B5 acknowledged "higher powers" in the sense you're talking about. Again, I think it was taking the approach of forces or entities that are not explicable in that particular time and place - which doesn't mean, however, that that will always be the case.

Battlestar Galactica has gone even more deeply into it.

I think that remains to be seen. I think we'll have to wait to see how it ends in order to be able to fully comment on it.

I for one welcome this. It's about time televised science fiction broke out of several doldrums, including those.

I don't think the discussion is limited to tv if I understood the OP. Irrespective of that, no, I really don't this is something it needs to break out of at all. I think you're really talking about creating a new genre which one might call "faith fiction" or something of the kind but not science fiction.

I think it's important to distinguish because we're seeing some of the trappings of failing to do so in real life (the whole concocted Darwin vs. Intelligent Design thing is a prime example of the dangers). And giving up certain aspects would IMHO mean running the risk of sinking the genre.

 

[stonester1]

What are the others in your view?

Ok...

That there is "something" out there. It defies easy definition and dogma, but something is working.

Or the blatant, hey, there IS some kind of diety, wow. And there IT is. Peter F. Hamiliton's Night's Dawn saga dealt with it in that way.

I haven't seen Lost Tales but I never had the impression that B5 acknowledged "higher powers" in the sense you're talking about. Again, I think it was taking the approach of forces or entities that are not explicable in that particular time and place - which doesn't mean, however, that that will always be the case.

Perhaps, but very few were holding their breath that that day was coming.

I for one welcome this. It's about time televised science fiction broke out of several doldrums, including those.

I don't think the discussion is limited to tv if I understood the OP. Irrespective of that, no, I really don't this is something it needs to break out of at all. I think you're really talking about creating a new genre which one might call "faith fiction" or something of the kind but not science fiction.
[/quote]

Why? Why should science fiction hold itself to narrow assumptions? It welcomes several other variations, why not this one?

I think it's important to distinguish because we're seeing some of the trappings of failing to do so in real life (the whole concocted Darwin vs. Intelligent Design thing is a prime example of the dangers). And giving up certain aspects would IMHO mean running the risk of sinking the genre.

No, it wouldn't. Scientific inquiry and a field of FICTION are two entirely different issues.

 

[stonester1]

I don't need to, in fact, I can't.

Of course you can't.

You're the one who makes the positive claim, YOU need to prove it.

Actually, no I don't. My experience has sufficiently proven it to me. And I say that if you actually went about it with an open mind, you would find your own. Not up to me to walk that path for you.

One cannot prove a negative, trying to do so is stupid. Claiming however there is meaning and whatnot, and the questions are interesting, YOU have to prove these to be true. Not the other way around.

The only one I have to prove this to is myself. That's been done. At this juncture, I'm now just advocating.

But there never will be "proof" on your terms. There IS evidence, if you care to look. But the conclusion, you have to arrive at yourself.

That's kind of the point.

 

[MyCylon]

What are the others in your view?

Ok...

That there is "something" out there. It defies easy definition and dogma, but something is working.
[/quote]

That there is "something" out there doesn't contradict the assumption it might be explainable in some fassion. As you state yourself, it might define "easy" definition but that doesn't mean it can be defined in some form or manner.

Or the blatant, hey, there IS some kind of diety, wow. And there IT is. Peter F. Hamiliton's Night's Dawn saga dealt with it in that way.

Unfortunately, I haven't read this myself. I looked it up on Wikipedia and from what I could see it sounds more like the concept of advanced beings that I talked about earlier.

From Wikipedia:

"The Sleeping God is eventually revealed to be an entity created by an ancient, long departed culture, which was able to create a stable, naked quantum singularity. This singularity has untold knowledge and power, and talks with Calvert for some time, able to transplant its consciousness across time and space, to Earth and Louise, and to the point at which the possession began. Bestowed with the god’s power Calvert is able to exorcise the infected across the Confederation, and discover the truth behind human existence."

I suppose this is what you're referring to. However, again, I haven't read this myself, unfortunately.

Perhaps, but very few were holding their breath that that day was coming.

That may be. But - to me anyway - that's not the point. Even if there are only a few that leaves room for that particular possibility (there being an explanation) which is really all I'm asking for in SciFi.

Why? Why should science fiction hold itself to narrow assumptions? It welcomes several other variations, why not this one?

They're not narrow at all IMHO. They're scientific which is why it's SCIENCE ficiton.

No, it wouldn't. Scientific inquiry and a field of FICTION are two entirely different issues.

Yes, the fiction area is allowed to play around and imagine. That's why it's fiction. But the roots at least of the concept of SciFi are still in science. So at some point it simply wouldn't IMHO deserve the name science fiction anymore if it were to integrate, for example, faith and god/gods in the way you suggest.

That's not to say it can't be a good read, movie or tv show or that it can't be good entertainment. I think it just wouldn't fit that lable anymore.

 

[stonester1]

That there is "something" out there doesn't contradict the assumption it might be explainable in some fassion. As you state yourself, it might define "easy" definition but that doesn't mean it can be defined in some form or manner.

No, but none is provided in the story, and it's clear the characters present can't.

"The Sleeping God is eventually revealed to be an entity created by an ancient, long departed culture, which was able to create a stable, naked quantum singularity. This singularity has untold knowledge and power, and talks with Calvert for some time, able to transplant its consciousness across time and space, to Earth and Louise, and to the point at which the possession began. Bestowed with the god’s power Calvert is able to exorcise the infected across the Confederation, and discover the truth behind human existence."

I suppose this is what you're referring to. However, again, I haven't read this myself, unfortunately.

It is, although it was never made clear that the Sleeping God was created by anyone, it is a possibility.

But it was a god level being, and benevolent, too.

That may be. But - to me anyway - that's not the point. Even if there are only a few that leaves room for that particular possibility (there being an explanation) which is really all I'm asking for in SciFi.

Oh, I've no problem with leaving ambiguity, as long as that ambiguity, by it's existence, allows for the possibility it is something truly transendental.

They're not narrow at all IMHO. They're scientific which is why it's SCIENCE ficiton.

There is all kinds of stuff in science fiction that isn't science at all. But it's still there, because of trappings or what not.

If in the end, Battlestar Galactica has it clear that there is something supernatural at work, still won't change the fact it's science fiction. Just something unconventional.

I don't think that science fiction HAS to accept an atheistic default world to qualify as science fiction.

Yes, the fiction area is allowed to play around and imagine. That's why it's fiction. But the roots at least of the concept of SciFi are still in science. So at some point it simply wouldn't IMHO deserve the name science fiction anymore if it were to integrate, for example, faith and god/gods in the way you suggest.

Sure it would. As mentioned above. Science fiction isn't just about the trappings. Science fiction, at it's best, IMO, is about IDEAS, about the questions on who we are. And theological thoughts are fundamental in such musings, IMO. Throw in space ships and what not? Boom, science fiction.

That's not to say it can't be a good read, movie or tv show or that it can't be good entertainment. I think it just wouldn't fit that lable anymore.

Well, I do. But we're both entitled to our opinions.

 

[3D Master]

I don't need to, in fact, I can't.

Of course you can't.

You're the one who makes the positive claim, YOU need to prove it.

Actually, no I don't. My experience has sufficiently proven it to me. And I say that if you actually went about it with an open mind, you would find your own. Not up to me to walk that path for you.

One cannot prove a negative, trying to do so is stupid. Claiming however there is meaning and whatnot, and the questions are interesting, YOU have to prove these to be true. Not the other way around.

The only one I have to prove this to is myself. That's been done. At this juncture, I'm now just advocating.

But there never will be "proof" on your terms. There IS evidence, if you care to look. But the conclusion, you have to arrive at yourself.

That's kind of the point.

What you yourself believe is besides the point. Whether scholars should spent useless times discussing them, was the point. And any positive claim you make at large, that applies to more than you, YOU have to prove to THEM. You can't simply say, "I've proven it to myself, duhuh." That's idiotic and childish.

 

[stonester1]

What you yourself believe is besides the point. Whether scholars should spent useless times discussing them, was the point.

That's up to them to decide. Many of them DON'T agree with you that it's useless time spent.

 

[Christopher]

I think probably the main reason that SciFi features no 'real' god or gods is that it goes against its very premise.

Science fiction bears a relationship to science not just in name but also in the fact that you approach the universe with the assumption that you will be able to explain things through scientific research. Just because humans can't explain something today or because the human mind as it is may be too limited to explain certain things no matter how hard we try doesn't necessarily mean it's inexplicable.

So, again, the premise is to assume everything can be explained in some form. That's the approach that science takes, and that's also the approach that science fiction takes.

That approach, however, is absolutey opposed IMHO to the way religions tend to view their god or gods. In Christian faith, for example, it is a key point of faith that God's existence cannot be proven.

That's too narrow a definition of science fiction. That's the root of it, but it's a very broad and flexible genre. And it's also a myth, as I've said several times now, that faith and science are mutually antagonistic. There are plenty of people who are able to value both, simply by recognizing that they address different questions and are complementary to one another.

Indeed, even in fiction about science, there's value in exploring that very question of how science and faith interact. This is something Sagan's Contact does very well. And there are works of SF, such as James Blish's A Case of Conscience, that approach religious questions through the speculative format of SF -- i.e. positing what-if situations involving religion and exploring their consequences.

So once again, there's no sense trying to explain why religion is absent from science fiction, because that premise is false to begin with. I've already given multiple examples that disprove the premise, examples of SF works that explore religion and SF authors who are strongly religious. One I forgot to mention before is Philip K. Dick, whose later works dealt heavily with theological and metaphysical questions.

So, in the end, I suppose it comes down to how you define god or gods. If you're willing to see beings that are vastly superior as gods then that fits within the SciFi context very well in my opinion. However, if you believe in a god whose existence can never be proven because that is a key part of the faith then IMHO it simply has no place in SciFi. It's the wrong genre because it's taking a totally contrary approach.

Absolutely dead wrong. Science fiction is not closed to any idea. Yes, a lot of it is rigorously scientific and rational, but there's plenty of speculative fiction that's more allegorical, philosophical, etc. It overlaps with fantasy and horror, and it can overlap with other types of metaphysical storytelling as well. To say that all science fiction has to be rigorously scientific and hostile to metaphysical or spiritual ideas is a gross stereotype that is very easily proven false.

That thread has nothing to do with our discussion.

Neither does this one. We're supposed to be talking about depictions of gods and religion in science fiction, not about general questions of religion and faith.

 

[stonester1]

Christopher, voice of reason.

 

[MyCylon]

Oh, I've no problem with leaving ambiguity, as long as that ambiguity, by it's existence, allows for the possibility it is something truly transendental.

I'm completely happy with that myself. To me, what's really important is that I can see the possibility of an explanation (even if it's not given in that particular case).

So I think that's a point where we both get what we're looking for without one or other having to run off in the other direction .

And it's also a myth, as I've said several times now, that faith and science are mutually antagonistic.

It's not a myth by any means. Personally, I feel they are exclusive if you really get down to it. Just because other people can reconcile the two doesn't mean my take on it is a 'myth'.

I'd also point out that one should consider that humans are extremely capable of being inherently contradictory in general. So if one assumes - as I do - that faith and science are mutually exclusive then people reconciling the two simply fits the picture very well but doesn't necessarily mean it makes a lot of sense.

Indeed, even in fiction about science, there's value in exploring that very question of how science and faith interact. This is something Sagan's Contact does very well. And there are works of SF, such as James Blish's A Case of Conscience, that approach religious questions through the speculative format of SF -- i.e. positing what-if situations involving religion and exploring their consequences.

I'm at a loss here, unfortunately, since I haven't read any of these works. So I can't comment on them specifically.

But things like approaching religious questions through the SciFi format to me sounds very much like what I'm talking about - assuming there's an explanation, something that can be proven, and trying to approach that. That, however, goes against faith in the sense we've been discussing so far.

So once again, there's no sense trying to explain why religion is absent from science fiction, because that premise is false to begin with. I've already given multiple examples that disprove the premise, examples of SF works that explore religion and SF authors who are strongly religious. One I forgot to mention before is Philip K. Dick, whose later works dealt heavily with theological and metaphysical questions.

I certainly agree that religion isn't absent from SciFi nor do I think it should be. What's important to me, personally, as a SciFi reader is that I can assume there is an explanation to what's going on.

Religion challenges people to believe in something that cannot be proven or substantiated. Hence, faith is required. Science, on the other hand, seeks to explain what happens and provide substantial facts.
Of course, in many cases, both seek answers to the same questions: Where do we come from? What happens after death? But IMHO the approaches are so radically different that I don't see how they can be reconciled (other than assuming they're totally contradictory and being happy with that contradiction).

I expect SciFi to be curious yet sceptical. It can deal with all sorts of questions, I totally agree with that - it's one of the things that attracts me to the genre.
To me, good SciFi can DEAL WITH religion and faith but it can't BE LIKE religion or faith. The question (or the ambiguity) of a possible explanation IMHO should always remain.

So, in the end, I suppose it comes down to how you define god or gods. If you're willing to see beings that are vastly superior as gods then that fits within the SciFi context very well in my opinion. However, if you believe in a god whose existence can never be proven because that is a key part of the faith then IMHO it simply has no place in SciFi. It's the wrong genre because it's taking a totally contrary approach.

Absolutely dead wrong. Science fiction is not closed to any idea. Yes, a lot of it is rigorously scientific and rational, but there's plenty of speculative fiction that's more allegorical, philosophical, etc. It overlaps with fantasy and horror, and it can overlap with other types of metaphysical storytelling as well. To say that all science fiction has to be rigorously scientific and hostile to metaphysical or spiritual ideas is a gross stereotype that is very easily proven false.

Not dead wrong, just my personal opinion: "However, if you believe in a god whose existence can never be proven because that is a key part of the faith then IMHO it simply has no place in SciFi."

And I agree that it's not closed to any idea in the sense that it can deal with all sorts of issues, a very broad, nearly unlimited spectrum. But there's always got to be the possibility of an explanation IMHO.

That's not to say there's SciFi or what's considered SciFi that goes against that. I'm not challenging that. However, I would question if some of it is properly labeled.

Also, I'm not demanding that SciFi be "hostile to metaphysical or spiritual ideas". I'm demanding that it be scientific at heart - that is to assume there is an explanation or proof whether it is provided in the story itself or not.

To me, a story that concludes that there is, in fact, a God in the described universe and he/she cannot - by any means or at any time - be explained or proven in its existence just isn't SciFi. That's my understanding of SciFi.

 

[Trent Roman]

Actually, no I don't. My experience has sufficiently proven it to me. The only one I have to prove this to is myself. That's been done. At this juncture, I'm now just advocating.

Everybody who makes wild, unsupported claims will call upon personal experience to back them up in the absence of all and any evidence. This is as true of religionists as it is of UFO/Bigfoot enthusiasts or those receiving CIA transmissions on their fillings or having nice pleasant chats with the ghost of Oscar Wilde. If only making a claim made something true, then there would no falsehoods and everything would be equally true. We might as well throw open the doors of the asylum and let out all those who think they're getting new inventions from Albert Einstein in the beyond (since their experience proves it to them) or who think they are Napolean (since they only have to prove it to themselves).

This is why true knowledge is based in facts, in objective reality. This is why we expect 'true' claims about the world to be objectively verifiable, falsifiable, and duplicatable. Otherwise, we merely degenerate into solipsism again.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman