AIEEEE!
And what's this I hear about Luke's dad?
And what's this I hear about Luke's dad?
Is Religion Killing Good Sci-Fi Shows? [minimal politics]
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
He went on to become an announcer for ESPN
Cain't have "magic" in science fiction. We must have PURITY.
Well, what do people feel about the opposite approach then? Is modern Doctor Who/Torchwood "improved" because of the atheistic view of that series? Do people enjoy both Lost or BSG and the Doctor?
I enjoy them both, though I would disagree that Doctor Who/Torchwood is neccessarily "atheist".
Well, Torchwood has tended to include a lot of stuff about how there's nothing after death, to the point that it feels like a rather aggressive authorial intrusion.
Conversely, though, TW has done one or two episodes in which the menaces were blatantly, unambiguously supernatural (like the evil fairies episode), in contrast to Doctor Who, where anything seemingly supernatural has always been explained by the Doctor as an exotic form of science or technology. So it's not that easy to pigeonhole TW's position on the supernatural.
Conversely, though, TW has done one or two episodes in which the menaces were blatantly, unambiguously supernatural (like the evil fairies episode), in contrast to Doctor Who, where anything seemingly supernatural has always been explained by the Doctor as an exotic form of science or technology. So it's not that easy to pigeonhole TW's position on the supernatural.
This article was a great one I found on religion in Doctor Who. It described the picture as being far more ambiguous than some might think.
http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2009/05/religion-in-science-fiction-6-doctor-who.html
http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2009/05/religion-in-science-fiction-6-doctor-who.html
Hmm, I think that blogger's interpretations are kind of... idiosyncratic.
Yeah, there were a few references to that in "They Keep Killing Suzie," "Random Shoes," & "Out of Time." When they did it, it sometimes felt a little heavy handed. But then, what didn't feel heavy handed in the 1st season?
OTOH, Doctor Who has just steered clear of religion altogether. Except for certain odd moments of ironic, anti-Christian imagery, like destroying a spaceship that kinda looked like the Star of Bethlehem in the Christmas special "The Runaway Bride." But then, at the same time, the Doctor will sometimes validate Christian stories by casually mentioning being there at the time. He once admitted that he took the last room at the inn. He nearly told one of the bus pasengers what really happened re: Christ's resurrection before being interrupted in "Planet of the Dead."
Speaking of aggressive atheism, I've found perhaps a certain stubborn streak of that in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's a show filled with a lot of the standard Christian imagery seen in your typical vampire stories. Buffyverse vampires can be hurt by crosses or holy water. Buffy died at the end of Season 5 and when she came back in Season 6, she was depressed because her resurrection took her out of heaven. And yet Buffy is still unsure as to whether God exists in Season 7's "Conversations with Dead People."
But then, in the 2nd episode of the series, Giles pretty blatantly denies the creation myth from the book of Genesis. "This world is older than you know. And contrary to popular mythology, it did not start out as a paradise..."
But then, in the 2nd episode of the series, Giles pretty blatantly denies the creation myth from the book of Genesis. "This world is older than you know. And contrary to popular mythology, it did not start out as a paradise..."
I never watched Buffy, but going solely by your description, how is that "aggressive atheism"? If it was atheistic in nature it wouldn't have featured any of those Christian elements as real within the context of that universe to begin with. There wouldn't have been a Heaven for her to be taken out of, period. It sounds like a reinterpretation of Christian beliefs, not an outright rejection of them.
Well, Joss Whedon's shows are certainly better for his abiding atheism.
Huh? I took that as being more based on a star atop a Christmas tree. I mean, it doesn't look like a real star, it looks like a solid object in the shape of a concave polygon like our culture's graphical representation of a star. It was Christmas imagery, not Christian.
Buffy is not atheistic so much as agnostic, or perhaps pantheistic. It acknowledges the reality of countless "dimensions" of heaven and hell, but leaves their true nature deliberately ambiguous -- as it probably should, given that a show whose hero battles creatures from countless different mythoi would have a rather muddled theology at best.
And come on, it's not like most Christians actually believe Genesis is literally true. There's nothing anti-Christian about acknowledging that it's a myth. Even the Vatican's official line is that the Biblical creation account is allegorical for the origin of the human soul, while science accurately explains the physical origin of the Earth and humanity. Most people are aware that the world is billions of years old, so it was probably that estimate that Giles was referring to.
Do we have any statistics on that? I mean, I'm a Christian and I don't believe in the literal truth of Genesis. But I've talked to enough Christians who (regrettably) DO believe it that I'd hesitate to generalize about "most Christians."
Well, in America the percentage of Creationists is higher than in most of the world, because our schools do a rotten job teaching science. Sadly, it's about half and half in the US -- 40% buy evolution, 40% believe in Creationism, 20% unsure. But most Christians in the world are not American. Here's a chart from Wikipedia showing the percentage of people who accept evolution in various countries; the USA is second from the bottom. Though it's population as a whole, not specifically Christians.
On the other hand, the majority of prominent Christian churches in the US, the actual establishments as opposed to the rank-and-file members, do support evolution.
So on the whole, evolution is not deemed inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity by most of those in authority.
On the other hand, the majority of prominent Christian churches in the US, the actual establishments as opposed to the rank-and-file members, do support evolution.
So on the whole, evolution is not deemed inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity by most of those in authority.
This is pretty interesting information. It is sad how many people in the States don't understand basic evolutionary theory and how it relates to our daily existent (or worse yet understand it but reject it). No wonder the US educational system is ranked so low.
I quit watching Lost in the first season because it was perfectly obvious it would fail to make sense, but got sucked back in by a family member who hadn't seen much scifi wrecked by stupidity. And both of us skipped practically the entire last season. It's nobody else's fault you didn't notice how dumb it was getting.
However, the claim that it was obvious that Lost was religious fantasy is just as silly as similar claims that BSG was religious fantasy. Ben's incredible ability to manipulate people was plainly magical, right? Except of course that people would indignantly deny even now that Ben was therefore actually an island spirit or whatever. The hacks who think science is technobabble (and simple common sense is dull as well, or so it seems,) make it impossible to go by anything except in universe explanations. The characters on Lost barely spoke to each other.
In real life, religion that claims to be doing miracles is fraud. Always. Being about religion doesn't mean being religious fantasy. Besides, in what sense was Lost about "Science?"
When did anybody ever condescend to think about their situation on that show, as opposed to emoting? Much less discuss, or even, experiment?
Yet another bad faith argument! That's not what the show did at all. Rational understanding is dismissed, totally. There are no people who aren't entirely in the hands of some supernatural force or scheme in the finale. There is nothing comprehensible at all about why Jack etc. should be blessed or cursed with sideways life. Jack finding faith has nothing to do with actually being the person who kills the Man in Black. Or having a grotesquely inflated Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. Whichever.
If Kate's spiritual struggle didn't come to terms with first degree murder, then it wasn't much of a struggle. I said in a post above that lots of religous people would be taken aback at some of these moronic supernatural endings, and Lost should become a classic example. My opinion is that you get such witless drivel because religous thinking demands you disregard reason, including moral reasoning.
Repeating the idea that a supernatural ending is only objectionable if it proselytizes for a particular religon doesn't make it true. What it boils down to is, I like the idea there's real magic! There isn't, and pretending there is undercuts any relevance to anything but fanboy wishful thinking.
The 4400, an unfinished series, had huge plot holes (deliberately left,) and extraordinary implausibilities and references to religion, albeit of the cultish kind that all right wing Americans hate. Are we supposed to think that well, it might be a religous parable?