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

[stonester1]

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

No, we don't. There is any number of phenomenae out there that defy conventional explanation, that have been witnessed by professionals of all sorts of stripes, that can't simply be dismissed.

The nature of the phenomenae make them elusive, and hard to pin down. But that doesn't simply render them non existent.

There is all sorts of things we know now that we had no way of knowing. That pretty much applies to everything we no know.

Now, given that, did those things exist before we had the ability to examine it using the scientific method?

Yes.

Because something has not been absolutely locked down in scientific terms, is that proof of it's nonexistence?

Of course not.

But the die hard BELIEVER in the method might claim otherwise.

"There are more things under heaven than are discussed in your philosophies, Horatio..."

 

[Trent Roman]

If a phenomenon exists, it can be studied. The only argument you can make is that we currently lack the tools to do so. But by no stretch of logic does that render any claim made legitimate.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[stonester1]

If a phenomenon exists, it can be studied.

It can be. It's just difficult to do. To successfully do it requires something easily quantified, defined, or that can be repeated. Not always the case.
[/quote]

The only argument you can make is that we currently lack the tools to do so.

Tools, awareness, acceptance, a willingness to defy assumptions and paradigms (which often is not the case in the dogmatic world of science), a number of things.

But by no stretch of logic does that render any claim made legitimate.

No one has advocated ANY claim, have they?

But, only the foolhardy dismisses the extraordinary outright because it doesn't fall within their accepted paradigm

 

[Christopher]

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'.

The point is, it's a myth to assume that nobody can reconcile science and faith, because there are plenty of people who do. And it's also a myth to claim that science fiction is unable or unwilling to deal with faith, as the examples I've cited should prove.

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.

Whether it makes sense to you personally doesn't change the concrete fact that there is science fiction that deals with faith. I'm not interested in debating whether individuals should embrace faith or not, because that's a matter for the individual and none of us has the right to tell anyone else their choices are wrong. I'm only interested in addressing the false allegation that science fiction is intrinsically hostile to, or incapable of, explorations of faith and religion. That's an objectively testable assertion about the content of a field of literature, and an objective assessment of the evidence proves it wrong.

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.

Again you're defining science fiction far too narrowly. It isn't only capable of telling stories that rationally analyze things. That's just one branch of it, "hard" science fiction. There are countless other variations and gradations to the genre.

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).

Not contradictory -- complementary. People who embrace both science and religion see them as balancing each other out, each one addressing what the other cannot. As they see it, science is for matters that can be tested by observation and experiment, such as the origins of the physical universe or the evolution of the body of humanity, while spirituality is for more abstract matters, such as the purpose behind the origins of the universe, or the source of the human soul. Science is for the what and how, faith is for the why. I believe it was earlier in this thread that I quoted or linked to the current Pope's past writings explaining why he doesn't find evolution and faith incompatible -- because, to him, evolution explains where we came from physically but the Bible explains (allegorically) the source of our humanity and the meaning of our existence.

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.

Depends on what style of speculative fiction is being employed. Me, I write rationalist, secular-humanist hard SF, so you won't find any divine hand at work in anything I write, although you will find sympathetic portrayals of characters who believe there is one. But I'm not going to say another work of SF isn't good just because it isn't in the style I favor.

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.

I find it ironic that you're dwelling on proper labeling when you insist on using a spelling and capitalization that's specifically the copyrighted name of a television network rather than a reference to the literary genre as a whole. Capitalization and copyrights aside, the consensus tends to be that the label "sci-fi" is much looser in application than the label "science fiction" or "SF" --that it's a term that encompasses all the sorts of things you find in genre movies, shows, and comic books, works that routinely blur the lines between science fiction and fantasy. Star Wars has the Force. Quantum Leap and Journeyman have people being thrown through time by evident divine intervention. DC and Marvel Comics have the ancient pantheons of gods actually existing along with a Judeo-Christian Heaven, Hell, and Satan. Those are the sorts of things that the label "sci-fi" encompasses.

 

[MyCylon]

The point is, it's a myth to assume that nobody can reconcile science and faith, because there are plenty of people who do.

I never did assume that or state it, for that matter.

And it's also a myth to claim that science fiction is unable or unwilling to deal with faith, as the examples I've cited should prove.

Whether it makes sense to you personally doesn't change the concrete fact that there is science fiction that deals with faith.

Again, you're claiming I stated something I did not say in this form or manner. I apologize if the fault is mine and I've been unclear.
Yes, there are works that are considered science fiction that deal with faith but to me they don't qualify as science fiction.

I'm only interested in addressing the false allegation that science fiction is intrinsically hostile to, or incapable of, explorations of faith and religion. That's an objectively testable assertion about the content of a field of literature, and an objective assessment of the evidence proves it wrong.

From my point of view your assessment is based on a false premise. Essentially, it depends on how far you're willing to stretch the label science fiction. And in my opinion you're stretching it until it snaps.

Again, I've stated before, yes, science fiction can deal with religion and faith. But if the outcome of that is the conclusion that there is something in the described universe that will never be explained and will forever remain metaphysical then in my view and understanding of science fiction it simply doesn't qualify as science fiction.

It's fine if you disagree with me on this but I see not a single point in your argument that would lead me to reconsider my assessment. From my perspective you're missing the point.

Again you're defining science fiction far too narrowly. It isn't only capable of telling stories that rationally analyze things. That's just one branch of it, "hard" science fiction. There are countless other variations and gradations to the genre.

It would appear that your "hard science fiction" is my "science fiction.

Not contradictory -- complementary. People who embrace both science and religion see them as balancing each other out, each one addressing what the other cannot. As they see it, science is for matters that can be tested by observation and experiment, such as the origins of the physical universe or the evolution of the body of humanity, while spirituality is for more abstract matters, such as the purpose behind the origins of the universe, or the source of the human soul. Science is for the what and how, faith is for the why.

I'm not saying that people who can reconcile the two feel there's a contradiction. I said there was one in my view, however.

Let me further elaborate why I can't, personally, subscribe to that view or the distinction between the "what and how" and the "why".

People in the past saw other people become ill and wondered "why" it happened. A penalty from God was often used as an explanation hence faith was used to explain the "why".

Our answer to the "why" today is this: People become ill because they come into contact with other infected people, toxins or whatever. That's all there is to it. And that's science giving you the "why" right there.

My personal take is to extend this development. If people in the past placed such things in the realm of the metaphysical and we know today that they are very down to earth instead, really, why should we assume that anything else is in the realm of the metaphysical? Why should we assume that we cannot find explanations for everything? Why don't we assume we (at the very least) MIGHT be making the same mistake as the people back then?

So, while there are people who can accept faith and science in the way you describe I simply can't agree with it, personally.

I believe it was earlier in this thread that I quoted or linked to the current Pope's past writings explaining why he doesn't find evolution and faith incompatible -- because, to him, evolution explains where we came from physically but the Bible explains (allegorically) the source of our humanity and the meaning of our existence.

The Pope is probably one of the worst examples you could possibly pick, honestly. He's the head of an institution that is faced with stiff competition from other religions in many areas of the world as well as the risk of becoming obsolte in other parts of the world.

If the Catholic Church wants to stand only the slightest chance of surviving in the Western world it HAS to concede to at least a certain amount scientific knowledge. Otherwise people aren't going to take it seriously.

The current Pope is a smart man. He can see the signs of the times and he's acting to counter them.

Now, whether he personally believes this I cannot possibly tell. I see it first and foremost as clever marketing and trying to reposition and strengthen the Catholic church in certain parts of the world.

But I'm not going to say another work of SF isn't good just because it isn't in the style I favor.

I'm not saying it's not good. I'm not passing judgement on quality here at all nor have I at any point. I'm just saying there are storys I consider science fiction and others that I don't. There are many of fiction that are lightyears removed from science fiction and I think they're excellent. That's not the point here at all.

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.

I find it ironic that you're dwelling on proper labeling when you insist on using a spelling and capitalization that's specifically the copyrighted name of a television network rather than a reference to the literary genre as a whole.

Yes, ironic, isn't it?

I've always understood "SciFi" or "scifi" or "Sci-Fi" or "sci-fi" or whatever other variations I might have missed to be an abbreviation for "science fiction", plain and simple. That may seem like a pretty wild assumption but there you are.

As you will have noticed above I've refrained from using it again.

 

[Christopher]

The point is, it's a myth to assume that nobody can reconcile science and faith, because there are plenty of people who do.

I never did assume that or state it, for that matter.

You're not the only person in this thread. I'm addressing the overall direction the conversation in this thread has taken. Multiple posters have made the assertion that science fiction is not reconcilable with faith because science is not reconcilable with faith. My comments are in response to that fallacious belief, not to any single participant in the thread.

Yes, there are works that are considered science fiction that deal with faith but to me they don't qualify as science fiction.

It's cheating to redefine the terms so you can pretend your thesis hasn't been disproven.

From my point of view your assessment is based on a false premise. Essentially, it depends on how far you're willing to stretch the label science fiction. And in my opinion you're stretching it until it snaps.

You must have very, very limited experience with the science fiction genre if you believe that. I'm not "stretching" the definition any farther than most authors, editors, and critics in the field would consider valid. On the contrary, your definition is so ludicrously strict that it would exclude the works of many acclaimed authors whose work is widely regarded as science fiction.

Anyway, trying to draw restrictive lines between what "counts" and what doesn't is missing the whole point. The literature is not so rigidly cubbyholed as that. It's a continuum with endless gradations. An inclusive definition is more useful and more realistic than any exclusive one.

I'm not saying that people who can reconcile the two feel there's a contradiction. I said there was one in my view, however.

Why should that matter to this conversation? You seem to think we're all here to talk about you and your opinions. We're here to talk about the broader issue of how a literary genre handles a particular issue. This is a public forum with many readers, not an exchange of PMs.

I've always understood "SciFi" or "scifi" or "Sci-Fi" or "sci-fi" or whatever other variations I might have missed to be an abbreviation for "science fiction", plain and simple.

Which further proves that your familiarity with the genre and its associated culture are profoundly limited. In much of the SF community, "sci-fi" is considered a derogatory nickname; some people get as angry about it as if it were a racist slur. (Don't even get Harlan Ellison started on it. Although of course you wouldn't want to get Harlan Ellison started on anything.) Even those of us in the community who don't share that hostility toward the term are still very much aware of it and would never assume it was freely interchangeable with "science fiction" or the preferred abbreviation of "SF."

 

[stj]

Conceding that science is knowledge but religion is just a personal decision to believe what you want for no reason is the only way the two have been reconciled. You cannot have the nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion because religion has no magisterium. The use of "religion" is deception that ignores the fact that religious claims are mutally contradictory and hence impossible.

 

[stonester1]

Conceding that science is knowledge but religion is just a personal decision to believe what you want for no reason is the only way the two have been reconciled.

Science is a method, it in itself is not knowledge. And religion is not just a personal decision. It's a frame of reference that, for whatever reasons, varying from individual to individual, they decide to adopt. Their reasons may include experiences, VERY REAL experiences that can only make sense to them in that reference. Science may not be able to provide a satisfactory answer, they find one elsewhere.

Science is a method, a very reliable method, but a method, limited, with it's own set of assumptions, and it's hardcore followers capable of being just as dogmatic as any theist.

There are other frames of references. They may not pass the "science" test, but that doesn't render them, or the individual experience invalid.

The use of "religion" is deception that ignores the fact that religious claims are mutally contradictory and hence impossible.

What you are talking about is dogma. What most of the advocates seem to be saying is allowing for ideas and frames of reference that break through scientific assumptions, that allow for multiple frames of references, lenses.

Letting NO ONE'S dogma dictate terms.

 

[MyCylon]

The point is, it's a myth to assume that nobody can reconcile science and faith, because there are plenty of people who do.

I never did assume that or state it, for that matter.

You're not the only person in this thread. I'm addressing the overall direction the conversation in this thread has taken. Multiple posters have made the assertion that science fiction is not reconcilable with faith because science is not reconcilable with faith. My comments are in response to that fallacious belief, not to any single participant in the thread.

You quoted me and responded to me directly hence my assumption. And it's not a "fallacious" believe it's a different opinion.

It's cheating to redefine the terms so you can pretend your thesis hasn't been disproven.

I haven't redefined anything. And, no, the thesis has not been disproven. Believe it if you will but it's contrary to the facts.

Furthermore, I would like to ask you to refrain from claiming I've made statements that I simply haven't made. It's not a good style and makes decent discussions almost impossible.

You must have very, very limited experience with the science fiction genre if you believe that. I'm not "stretching" the definition any farther than most authors, editors, and critics in the field would consider valid. On the contrary, your definition is so ludicrously strict that it would exclude the works of many acclaimed authors whose work is widely regarded as science fiction.

The problem from where I'm standing is that you don't understand my definition, either by choice or pure lack of understanding. I can't possibly tell.

Anyway, trying to draw restrictive lines between what "counts" and what doesn't is missing the whole point. The literature is not so rigidly cubbyholed as that. It's a continuum with endless gradations. An inclusive definition is more useful and more realistic than any exclusive one.

Any definition is exclusive as well as inclusive. (otherwise it's not a definition) The question is how far you stretch the definition AND in how far you're able to see what that actually means. That's where you're completely missing the point in my view.

I'm not saying that people who can reconcile the two feel there's a contradiction. I said there was one in my view, however.

Why should that matter to this conversation? You seem to think we're all here to talk about you and your opinions. We're here to talk about the broader issue of how a literary genre handles a particular issue. This is a public forum with many readers, not an exchange of PMs.

All the contributions here represent personal opinions. People add their opinions without which there would be no discussion.

You were using the fact that there are people who can reconcile the two as a means of backing up your opinions and your views. To that I replied with my opinion.

I've always understood "SciFi" or "scifi" or "Sci-Fi" or "sci-fi" or whatever other variations I might have missed to be an abbreviation for "science fiction", plain and simple.

Which further proves that your familiarity with the genre and its associated culture are profoundly limited.

No, this proves your familiarity with me is profoundly limited.

 

[Bingo]

ScifFi goes for the 'false gods' (code for anti-religion) because science-fiction is generally pro-science, in so far as its methodology goes- questioning your own assumptions, beliefs, etc, in the 'belief' (one that I share) that we actually can learn more by questioning everything. But's it's pretty hard to do that if you hold anything sacred. If it's sacred, you can't question it. Which obviously means it might be in the way etc. A truly enlightened person is capable of holding certain things sacred but questioning them at the same time? Can this be done? I don't know.

Scifi overthrows false gods (and religions) because a lot of religions (maybe most) have had a few negative traits attached to them that make the whole project seem shady. Some people thnk the shady features are outweighed by the good things. Others think the opposite. Either way, if you're busy worshipping Apollo as the source of civilization you might not look to closely into how your own civilization originated or is being run today. So destroy Landru, expose the Prophets as aliens and question everything!

But of course, the idea of questioning everything is nonsense too. Star Trek, for example, has had characters say, literally, that they hold life sacred. Hmm. Where is the evidence for that one? Sounds nice, I agree, but really, do they ever question that idol? Perhaps it was arrived at through Pure Reason. Right.

Anyway, while it's great to overthrow false gods (because anyone claiming to be a god or its emissary immediately has some power over you, and some of these insiders are up to no good), it's also dangerous to put them all to the stake. Burning 'Life is Sacred' or 'Knowledge is good for its own sake' on the pyre seems pretty crazy too. But who I am? I'm just a limited human with humanist idols.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

A truly enlightened person is capable of holding certain things sacred but questioning them at the same time? Can this be done? I don't know.

Though I'm afraid I don't have the time to look up actual references, I believe that Christian mystics and apologists have stated that one does not grow spiritually except where questioning is included in the process. And in my own personal experience I can say that is true.

 

[Trent Roman]

But of course, the idea of questioning everything is nonsense too. Star Trek, for example, has had characters say, literally, that they hold life sacred. Hmm. Where is the evidence for that one? Sounds nice, I agree, but really, do they ever question that idol? Perhaps it was arrived at through Pure Reason. Right.

I think that's just a way of speaking metaphorically, however. I've recently said, for instance, that I think of places like Auschwitz and Hiroshima as being 'hallowed ground'. That's not to say that I actually attribute any spiritual/mystical associations to these places, since I'm an utter unbeliever; merely a way to express the emotional import of those sites. Saying 'life is sacred' in Trek is just a lyrical, short-hand way of saying 'life is of the utmost value to me'.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[DWF]

Well Paramount didn't like the idea of DS9 doing stories about the Bajoran religion.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Accession#Background_Information

The producers had to fight to get this episode made because the studio had told them not to do any shows about Bajoran religion. Episodes such as "In the Hands of the Prophets" from the first season and "The Collaborator" from the second had proved to be somewhat unpopular with viewers, and Paramount felt that shows dealing with religion in general, and Bajoran religion in particular, were not ratings winners. According to Hans Beimler, "Shows about religion, alien religion and the Prophets, are extraordinarily difficult. Not because they're hard to produce, but because they're not proven ratings winners. As a result, the studio tends to be happier when DS9 is doing action stories." Similarly, René Echevarria explains, "The studio doesn't like Bajor stories. And Bajor's religion is one aspect of Bajor to which they really don't respond." (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion)

 

[chardman]

Sci Fi regularly reuses the "False God" premise, because it accurately reflects real life.

I can think of well over a dozen people in my lifetime who claimed to be the second coming or some other sort of incarnate god. I'm not talking isolated lone nutcases in psych wards, whom no one took seriously, but people who actually attracted groups of followers (sometimes large groups at that) who actually believed in them, and were willing to die for them.

But, guess what? Chucky Manson turned out to be a false messiah. As did Jim Jones, Marshal Applewhite, and David Koresh, just to name a few.

In fact, since I've been alive, not one of those claiming to be the living god has turned out to be the actual living god. Moreover, of those who've died, not a one has risen from the dead to prove his divinity.

So why don't we ever hear about the wacky cults that actually are run by REAL gods? As absurd as that question must sound, it's really no more ridiculous than the question asked in the opening post of this thread. And the answer to both questions is pretty much the same as well. It simply wouldn't be remotely believable to any sane person, be it as a supposed occurrence in real life, or as a plot point in a work of remotely plausible fiction.

False Gods and False Messiahs, aren't all that uncommon. Real Gods and Messiahs, on the other hand, are rare enough that there's little consensus as to whether or not they exist at all.

 

[chardman]

Wow. What happened here? This conversation was really rockin', then suddenly died completely. I was hoping for at least some feedback to my post. Granted, I quite enjoy having the last word, but at the same time hate the idea of being a thread killer.

I guess this is little more than a rationalized "bump", but so be it.

 

[stonester1]

For what it's worth, chard, I thought you made a good point.

 

[Shawnster]

It's too easy for me to stray off topic... So I'm keeping quiet.

 

[MyCylon]

For what it's worth, chard, I thought you made a good point.

I agree.

Wow. What happened here? This conversation was really rockin', then suddenly died completely. I was hoping for at least some feedback to my post. Granted, I quite enjoy having the last word, but at the same time hate the idea of being a thread killer.

I guess this is little more than a rationalized "bump", but so be it.

Speaking only for myself I found I had to pull out of the discussion if only for a while because I felt, on a certain level, I was becoming too emotional about the whole thing.
Questions and discussions that touch on god and/or faith seldom seem to be easy. Add to that the fact that there's lots of people here (obviously) who really love science fiction and feel very strongly about it (I really mean everyone here) and you've got a tricky mixture.

 

[chardman]

Let's put this whole notion in a larger perspective.

How many spy novels/films/shows have involved plots where a real and tangible God is depicted as an actual character?

How many Mysteries?

Gothic Romances?

Erotic Thrillers?

Westerns?

Face it, outside of stories based on ancient mythology, the appearance of gods in any works of fiction, regardless of genre, is so rare as to be practically non-existent. And because science fiction and fantasy does sometimes delve into classic mythology (more than any other genre, I'd warrant) it probably depicts far more gods (both real and false) than any other genre.

 

[Shawnster]

Well, I don't know how much perspective that is. I mean, how many of those same genres deal with false gods? Now, I can see where a church or clergy or religious characters can appear in such works. Still, if you want to feature Gods and delve into the supernatural or metaphysical, that in itself will limit the genre for the story.

How much science fiction even treats religion in a positive light? Is there an imbalance when it comes to positive vs. negative characterizations of religion and religious individuals in science fiction? It appear so.

I'm reading Ben Bova's "Grand Tour" series of books right now. One of the main features of this is the organization called the "New Morality" - a religio-political organization charged with keeping man on God's path through force, intimidation and legislation. A 21st Century Spanish Inquisition of sorts.

It's leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Always religion and the New Morality are portrayed in a way that makes me sick. Not that I find the portrayal blasphemous or anything. Sadly the portrayal is based upon historical precedents like I stated above. Still, I would like to see a religious character OPPOSE the New Morality movement. I would like to see a devout religious character that is on the side of the "good guys."

Most people fall under the perception that the Bible is anti-science. This is as far from the truth as you can get. The Bible, while not a science textbook, is scientifically sound. The Bible has portrayed the universe in scientific accuracy hundreds of years BEFORE man was able to figure things out.

It's not been the Bible that has challenged and chafed at science and progress. It's been the false religious leaders. It's been the ones in charge that have felt threatened by those seeking facts. It's been these individuals in power that have corrupted and abused the Bible, twisting it to suit their own whims that have challenged individuals such as Galileo and bullying them into silence.

It's been these same individuals that have burned people at the stake simply for owning or reading the Bible.

Sadly these ones have left a sour taste not only in authors mouths but in the mouths of many of you here. As a result ALL religion is portrayed as bad, evil or against science. More often than not religion and religious individuals are portrayed as incompetent, stupid, ignorant, radical or on the side of the "bad guys."

And perhaps that is what Navaros is really chafing at here. He may be like me, a science fiction fan that is also religious. He may want equal time for opposing views. He may be tired of feeling like HE is attacked. That he is wrong or stupid to have a belief in God and yet respect science and science fiction.

God isn't fiction. Perhaps Navaros is tired of being told that He is.

But the initial question seems to have been answered. There are scores of science fiction stories that deal with God as real and not simply fiction or a myth. The stories seem to be more in book form than in movies or TV. As stated, movies and TV target a much broader audience and, as a result, tend to shy away from such stories because they don't want to alienate viewers.