Is there too much religion in Sci-Fi?

[GenericGuy]

I understand if the mods want to lock this thread, as this thread can easily turn ugly, but I hope the thread can stay civil:smallfrown:.

Anyways on topic. Is there too much religion in sci-fi nowadays? This author thinks so, but I think its more of a complaint about the deus ex machina Lost and Battle Star had. Still many sci-fi series today bring up religion far more often than Star Trek and its imitators. Do you like this trend or do you think its just lazy writing providing a cheap “god did it” excuse whenever the writer is stuck?
http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/7952/so-tell-us-honestly-is-there-too-much-religion-in-sci-fi.html

[Dr.Epic]

Who said science fiction can't have supreme deities?

[GenericGuy]

Who said science fiction can't have supreme deities?

I would say no one, but it does seem that religion has become far more important in the plot of recent Sci-Fi series, where any mention of religeon used to be very rare.

[Emperor Ing]

Well there's Dune and Warhammer 40k I can think of off the top of my head.

[Dr.Epic]

I would say no one, but it does seem that religion has become far more important in the plot of recent Sci-Fi series, where any mention of religeon used to be very rare.

Meh. Final Fantasy uses an air ship in all their games and no one complains there's high tech in a game with magic. It does really bug me so much so long as it's the right setting for gods.

[Innis Cabal]

Meh. Final Fantasy uses an air ship in all their games and no one complains there's high tech in a game with magic. It does really bug me so much so long as it's the right setting for gods.

Yes people do. It's why not everyone is in love with Ebberon.

[Mando Knight]

I would say no one, but it does seem that religion has become far more important in the plot of recent Sci-Fi series, where any mention of religeon used to be very rare.
Mercerism and Jedi are two plot-centric fictional religions in Sci-Fi from before Lost or BSG and Caprica.

Sci-Fi is often an exploration of humanity, and religion is a fairly significant part of the lives of much of humanity.

Also note that religion and deus-ex-machina-based plot resolutions are two entirely different things. The deus ex machina might rise from the source of an in-universe religion, but that's as much a problem as using magic or technology as the source of the deus ex machina.

[KnightDisciple]

I would say no one, but it does seem that religion has become far more important in the plot of recent Sci-Fi series, where any mention of religeon used to be very rare....And?

Seriously, why does it matter? Shockingly, not all writers are non-religious. So maybe religion shows up in some writings. Because maybe one person's vision of the future isn't the same as another person's, or even what's likely to occur.

Seriously, no, there's not "too much" religion. It can be poorly handled, but that's true of any ideology in any genre.

[Mewtarthio]

I'll let Howard Taylor (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2000-11-17) (in the post below the linked comic) answer this question.

Re: Religious deus ex machina: I'd say that DXM in any form is a bad thing. Having God suddenly descend from the heavens and resolve the plot is just as bad as shouting "Engineering, reverse polarity on the trans-quantum Heisenberg bifurcation relay!" and resolving the plot.

[PopcornMage]

ObligKirk: What does God need with a starship?

[KnightDisciple]

ObligKirk: What does God need with a starship?...Who said he does? :smallconfused:

I mean, yeah, sure, that line applied in Star Trek 5 (*shudders*), but not in the broader sense.

People need starships, though.

[Eldonauran]

I am actually a fan of the 'deus ex machina'. It's always refreshing to me for some all powerful being to come down and say "Shut up. You're wrong and this #&$% is over!"

On a side note: I like absolutes. Can you tell? :smallamused:

[Tyrant]

...Who said he does? :smallconfused:
Kirk said he does, I thought that was pretty clear.

I mean, yeah, sure, that line applied in Star Trek 5 (*shudders*), but not in the broader sense.
The number of posts on here that can be summed up as a quote (or simple statement) that may or may not relate to the topic is fairly noticeable. Why single out this one above all others? I also think the quote is related to the topic given the question asked. Not the situation in which the line was spoken, the line itself (which implies a mingling of sci fi and religion).

[PopcornMage]

People need starships, though.

Lies! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatmanCanBreatheInSpace)

And yes, the question is meant to be thought-provoking, not just literal. Though it does note that it has come up before in Trek...and not just the once.

[KnightDisciple]

Kirk said he does, I thought that was pretty clear. ...No, Kirk was basically saying He doesn't need a starship.


The number of posts on here that can be summed up as a quote (or simple statement) that may or may not relate to the topic is fairly noticeable. Why single out this one above all others? I also think the quote is related to the topic given the question asked. Not the situation in which the line was spoken, the line itself (which implies a mingling of sci fi and religion).Well, beyond the fact that it's a quote from a mixed up, poorly-written movie...

I already addressed this. There's nothing about sci-fi that innately precludes religion being portrayed positively, or in a neutral manner (as opposed to "only for ignorant savages"). Science fiction is, at its basic, about visions of the future. It's quite probable that religion will still be around in the future. Some, even many, writers of sci-fi realize this. Thus, religion appears in science fiction.

If we're asking why religious deus ex machinas are used...because not all writers are good. But that's a problem with the DXM itself, not how it's executed (i.e., via science, religion, magic, sociology, whatever).

[Tirian]

Meh. Final Fantasy uses an air ship in all their games and no one complains there's high tech in a game with magic. It does really bug me so much so long as it's the right setting for gods.

Every Final Fantasy game has its own storyline, but I'd guess that more often than not the magic and airships did not develop in parallel. In many games, the airship is an artifact from an ancient civilization (like in an X and I think V). In others like VI it's the other way around where it's magic that is the lost art that is breaking through. Then there are games like VIII, IX, and XII where one of the world's factions is putting a lot of research effort into creating working airships. It doesn't seem to be so often that they just merge the techs willy-nilly without explaining how they were both developed. (I think one could say that VII falls into this "trust me" category.)

As to the OP's question, I don't think so. Science Fiction exists for writers to speculate about how world would be different under certain changes in technology and focusing on the parts of the human condition that interests the writer. One very obvious thing that has traditionally interested people over the ages are the large spiritual and philosophical dilemmas, and so it is no surprise to me that writers would put a lot of effort into contemplating what those would be like in the future or under conditions like our meeting aliens or space travel or getting remarkably more advanced technologies that change every other facet of our lives.

[Tyrant]

...No, Kirk was basically saying He doesn't need a starship.
Let's try this again. The being claiming to be God said that it wanted the starship, prompting Kirk to ask the aforementioned question. Is that specific enough or should I link a video clip as well? You even stated that you knew what movie it was from, demonstarting that you knew the set up and instead chose to split hairs. What are you trying to prove/disprove/say?

Well, beyond the fact that it's a quote from a mixed up, poorly-written movie...
What does that have to do with anything?

I already addressed this. There's nothing about sci-fi that innately precludes religion being portrayed positively, or in a neutral manner (as opposed to "only for ignorant savages"). Science fiction is, at its basic, about visions of the future. It's quite probable that religion will still be around in the future. Some, even many, writers of sci-fi realize this. Thus, religion appears in science fiction.
The OP, or the person who wrote the article he linked to (which I didn't read yet) believes there's something worth discussing and that the use of religion in Sci Fi is on the rise. True, nothing keeps the two from coexisting. However, you have to admit that the two are typically not on the greatest terms (or at least it seems that way). This appears, to some, to be changing. I really don't know why you have a problem with people discussing this. I think a number of discussions on here are either pointless or outright wrong, but I don't question if they should be happening.

[Eldonauran]

If we're asking why religious deus ex machinas are used...because not all writers are good. But that's a problem with the DXM itself, not how it's executed (i.e., via science, religion, magic, sociology, whatever).

I don't believe the use of religious DXM (or any for that matter) means that the writer is ungifted. DXM can be used to firmly cement a conclusion and leave it to where it can not be argued against. DXM might even be an important part to the setting as either something to struggle against or seek to invoke.

I think a lot of people don't like it because its too simple and too final. Super-omnipresent-and-power-supernatural-god-being said jump and we said how high? Kinda hits hard in the free will department, doesn't it? :smallamused:

[Mikeavelli]

Lies! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatmanCanBreatheInSpace)



But Batman is god, not a man, bringing us full circle.

[hr]

In regards to everything else, the progression of Science hasn't really led to diminished influence of religion. Even if the existence of divine beings was conclusivley proven false, plenty of people would simply reject the proof and continue believing anyways. Refer to all the phenomina described in the most recent, surprisingly relevant xkcd (http://xkcd.com/808/), where most of the phenomina he's cited have been studied extensively, and (with the exception of Quantum physics and relativity, obviously), found to be total bull.

People still believe. So, even in a high technology setting where the actual hand of god never manifests, you could easily have religion be an important personality trait or motivation for your characters.

Going into "Soft" Sci Fi, pretty much anything goes.

[Worira]

I've read some very good science fiction in which religion played a key roll, and also in which it was either not relevant or not present at all. I don't think that the presence of religion in science fiction is a particularly good or bad thing, but I do think that a story can be negatively affected by the author inserting his opinions or beliefs where they don't fit the story. This is always extremely grating to me, even if it's an opinion I agree with.

[KnightDisciple]

Let's try this again. The being claiming to be God said that it wanted the starship, prompting Kirk to ask the aforementioned question. Is that specific enough or should I link a video clip as well? You even stated that you knew what movie it was from, demonstarting that you knew the set up and instead chose to split hairs. What are you trying to prove/disprove/say? Right. But Kirk's implication was that God wouldn't need a starship. And at the end of the movie, he speculates on what put the being there. The point being, Kirk's quote is more about being falsely claiming divinity, rather than whether religious ideas should be in sci-fi.


What does that have to do with anything? Never mind. :smallsigh:


The OP, or the person who wrote the article he linked to (which I didn't read yet) believes there's something worth discussing and that the use of religion in Sci Fi is on the rise. True, nothing keeps the two from coexisting. However, you have to admit that the two are typically not on the greatest terms (or at least it seems that way). This appears, to some, to be changing. I really don't know why you have a problem with people discussing this. I think a number of discussions on here are either pointless or outright wrong, but I don't question if they should be happening.I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss it.

I'm saying that counter to what seem to be the implications of some posters, religion being in science fiction isn't bad. It's more realistic than magically getting rid of it, as some series seem to.

Nobody's really counter-pointed, though. *shrugs*


I don't believe the use of religious DXM (or any for that matter) means that the writer is ungifted. DXM can be used to firmly cement a conclusion and leave it to where it can not be argued against. DXM might even be an important part to the setting as either something to struggle against or seek to invoke.

I think a lot of people don't like it because its too simple and too final. Super-omnipresent-and-power-supernatural-god-being said jump and we said how high? Kinda hits hard in the free will department, doesn't it? :smallamused:See, DXM is when it's just wham, bam, out of nowhere. No setup, no nothing. If there's at least hints of it, leadup to the event, it's something else entirely.

[nihilism]

yes battlestar galactica had some sort of god being, but it also dealt with the social construct aspect of religion.

i would say that perhaps the best interpretation of religion in the future is that of orson scott card's (yes i know he's a tad nuts) Ender series. Religion remains a largely static but significant force in peoples lives, as often destructive as constructive, neither good nor evil.

{Scrubbed}



religion in ender series: good

religion in battlestar galactica: good

religion in 40k: good but only in 40k

the highly subtle religion of ursula leguin's novels: good

the holy ammar empire is only tolerable in the hyper corporatist eve online universe

all other holy scifi star empires: bad bad bad.

(if any of this will get me banned please inform me, but i have not expressed personal opinions about religion.)

[Mewtarthio]

I am actually a fan of the 'deus ex machina'. It's always refreshing to me for some all powerful being to come down and say "Shut up. You're wrong and this #&$% is over!"

On a side note: I like absolutes. Can you tell? :smallamused:

You can have absolutes without having DXM. Heck, you can even have God resolve the conflict without having DXM. Deus ex machina is considered a bad thing because it pretty much renders the entire story null and void (ie if God is waiting in the wings to clear everything up, then everything that happened on stage is just pointless filler).


I don't believe the use of religious DXM (or any for that matter) means that the writer is ungifted. DXM can be used to firmly cement a conclusion and leave it to where it can not be argued against. DXM might even be an important part to the setting as either something to struggle against or seek to invoke.

There's the thing, though: If it's an integral part of the setting, and the characters treat it as such, it is by definition not a deus ex machina. DXM is only when the conflict is resolved by something that does not follow from the story.

[Eldonauran]

I see. Anyone care to point me towards some specific examples of this? Seems I need to rethink a bit of my stance on it or at least, re-evaulate my thoughts on its application.

I still like absolutes :smallwink:

[KnightDisciple]

I point to David Weber's Safehold series as one where religion is both good and bad.

Honor Harrington has it as more of a "background" feature, with the sheer variety being simply assumed.

[PopcornMage]

David Weber as an example of ambiguity??? :smallconfused:

The man writes in absolutes without even trying.

[Cahokia]

Ask enough "Why?"s and there's no difference, so I would say no.

By this, I mean to say that religion attempts to look at the world in another way, and many propose alternate realities or different natural laws. Sci-Fi does the same thing. Just as religion and science themselves are two different methods of understanding the world around you, I really don't think Sci-Fi making biblical allusions makes it not Sci-Fi, or worse Sci-Fi. It's just slightly different subject matter. Should all Science Fiction be sculpted in steel and chrome, and not in marble?

[KnightDisciple]

David Weber as an example of ambiguity??? :smallconfused:

The man writes in absolutes without even trying.He doesn't dictate which religion is actually true in either series (though Safehold comes closer).

I suppose not everyone's a fan, though. Fair enough. :smalltongue:

[PopcornMage]

I suppose not everyone's a fan, though. Fair enough. :smalltongue:

I didn't say I disliked him, or his works, I just don't get a feeling of ambiguity out of them. Or ever.

Even the Hell books, it's more a triangle with two good sides, and one bad.

[nihilism]

@ cahokia

Just as religion and science themselves are two different methods of understanding the world around you

I respectfully disagree, religion has little to do with understanding the natural world, at least in a physical sense. Yes, creation stories clash with science frequently, but the physical world aspects of religion are not the root or center of religion.

[Cahokia]

I respectfully disagree, religion has little to do with understanding the natural world, at least in a physical sense. Yes, creation stories clash with science frequently, but the physical world aspects of religion are not the root or center of religion.

I disagree with you. Religion doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, and many systems interpret what would be called supernatural to be a natural force. Science's purpose not only to understand how things work, but why. The answers one gets from religion and science may be different (though not always, as mine are not) as one sees different things through different lenses. I myself am atheistic and an anti-supernaturalist, but consider myself quite religious, as a religion is a system of belief, usually with the purpose of defining the functioning of the universe. I won't go into any further detail for fear of toeing the line that is board regulations.

[jmbrown]

I think people are shoehorning science fiction into this specific literary theme when, like "horror" or "fantasy" it's too broad too describe in specific terms. If science fiction is a work that deals with the imagined impact of science, why is it unrealistic or undesirable to also deal with the impact of human expansion into theology or philosophy?

As Einstein said, the greater the light the greater the ring of darkness around it. If theology (not necessarily religion) has survived 6,000+ years of human history, it will most certainly survive when man has expanded to the known reaches of the universe and sees even greater unknown beyond it.

[JonestheSpy]

All I can say is I read the article the OP linked to, and the fellow it quoted as saying the religious elements of Balltestar Galactica felt "tacked on" must really not have been paying attention through most of the series...

Oh, I could say more. I think the "too much" idea is ludicrous, but most folks have done a good job demolishing it.

[Ravens_cry]

I think Howard Taylor, author and artist of Schlock Mercenary put it very well (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2000-11-17).

[The Glyphstone]

I didn't say I disliked him, or his works, I just don't get a feeling of ambiguity out of them. Or ever.

Even the Hell books, it's more a triangle with two good sides, and one bad.

He can be subtle and ambigious when he wants to - the Bolo! stories he wrote come to mind. But I don't think it comes naturally, so in his own universes, he just doesn't bother.

[PopcornMage]

All I can say is I read the article the OP linked to, and the fellow it quoted as saying the religious elements of Balltestar Galactica felt "tacked on" must really not have been paying attention through most of the series...

Maybe the original series.

That said, I'm not sure I'd consider the remake's religion to be natural in feeling, but it was taken from the original anyway. Caprica, well, the conflict did feel forced to me in it.

[Innis Cabal]

I'll let Howard Taylor (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2000-11-17) (in the post below the linked comic) answer this question.

Re: Religious deus ex machina: I'd say that DXM in any form is a bad thing. Having God suddenly descend from the heavens and resolve the plot is just as bad as shouting "Engineering, reverse polarity on the trans-quantum Heisenberg bifurcation relay!" and resolving the plot.


I think Howard Taylor, author and artist of Schlock Mercenary put it very well (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2000-11-17).

So did this guy.

[jmbrown]

I haven't paid attention to Battlestar or Lost but I'm surprised the author didn't mention Firefly.

[PopcornMage]

{Scrubbed}

[nihilism]

I disagree with you. Religion doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, and many systems interpret what would be called supernatural to be a natural force. Science's purpose not only to understand how things work, but why. The answers one gets from religion and science may be different (though not always, as mine are not) as one sees different things through different lenses. I myself am atheistic and an anti-supernaturalist, but consider myself quite religious, as a religion is a system of belief, usually with the purpose of defining the functioning of the universe. I won't go into any further detail for fear of toeing the line that is board regulations.

ok i agree that religion does often have the purpose of defining the universe, my argument was that it is not the root origin or defining point of religion. as a social phenomenon.

There is a difference between a set of beliefs and religion.

i don't think this conversation should continue as its already straying far to close to the edge. i will no longer reply on the subject. (im also really tired.)

[Tyrant]

Right. But Kirk's implication was that God wouldn't need a starship. And at the end of the movie, he speculates on what put the being there. The point being, Kirk's quote is more about being falsely claiming divinity, rather than whether religious ideas should be in sci-fi.
Really? It's too much for you to just accept that the point was to throw out a quote that involved sci fi and religion mingling? It has to be explained, in intense detail, to your satisfaction? As opposed to any other similar, or identical, situation on this very site? Really?

Forget the context of the quote, the characters who said it, and the movie it came from. The quote encompasses the relevant bits of this discussion. What does God (clearly a stand in for the religious part) need with a starship (a stand in for the scifi part)?

This is exactly the same as some random moment (involving a contest, or some other situation involving only one person remaining) where someone chooses to throw out "There can be only one". In all likelyhood, they aren't meaning to imply that all involved parties will decapitate each other to absorb their essence until only one remains. Everyone seems to get this. This situation is no different and I can't understand why you are choosing to continue to pursue this.

Never mind. :smallsigh:
Nice answer.

I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss it.

I'm saying that counter to what seem to be the implications of some posters, religion being in science fiction isn't bad. It's more realistic than magically getting rid of it, as some series seem to.
Who's saying it's bad? The question was "is there too much", not "should it even be there in the first place". They aren't the same question and I don't believe anyone has asked the latter question, so I am not sure who is supposedly implicating what. As to your latter point, that's very debatable and a debate that will very likely get this locked.

Nobody's really counter-pointed, though. *shrugs*
Countered what?

[PopcornMage]

Countered what?

Countered this (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/details.aspx?name=wrath%20of%20god)!

There are authors and editors who didn't believe in religion in space/the future, but they mostly avoided it, rather than were necessarily atheist.

[GenericGuy]

Some people have interpreted what I said, or the author of the article, that religion does not belong at all in Sci-fi, but thats not what I’m asking or implying. I'm asking has anyone else noticed that what was once a subject rarely brought up in “classic” Sci-fi is now an important element in many of the newer Sci-Fi series, and how do you feel about it? Attempt to ask serious questions of faith and scientific progress? Or a way for writers to get out of complex situations by using the old line “there are some things we may never know” and moving on to the next episode.

[Avilan the Grey]

My own feeling on the matter is that I do feel cheated when the ending is "Oh it was God all along".

I have no problem with a Sci-Fi setting where religion exists, or where people are very religious. I do have a problem when God(s) take an active part of the story. Because that is Fantasy.

[warty goblin]

My own feeling on the matter is that I do feel cheated when the ending is "Oh it was God all along".

I have no problem with a Sci-Fi setting where religion exists, or where people are very religious. I do have a problem when God(s) take an active part of the story. Because that is Fantasy.

This is pretty much my view. Religion in sci-fi, as done in say Babylon 5 or Firefly is fine, in fact good, in my book. It never resolves the plot, but it motivates character development, and is treated with a reasonable amount of realism and maturity. Whether or not the religions are true is of no central importance to the story, which is as it should be.

Put another way, I like religious people in science fiction just fine. I have no interest in science fiction - or fiction in general - about gods.

[PopcornMage]

I can't say I liked religion in B5 much, if only because of what I felt was the less than subtle anvil dropped at the New Year's episode, with the line of Earth religions showing up.

Other than that, it was ok, but that one scene felt too much like Humans Are Great! rather than anything else.

Firefly barely dipped its toe into the issue, maybe if they'd had more time for Book to do things.

[Bhu]

Some people have interpreted what I said, or the author of the article, that religion does not belong at all in Sci-fi, but thats not what I’m asking or implying. I'm asking has anyone else noticed that what was once a subject rarely brought up in “classic” Sci-fi is now an important element in many of the newer Sci-Fi series, and how do you feel about it? Attempt to ask serious questions of faith and scientific progress? Or a way for writers to get out of complex situations by using the old line “there are some things we may never know” and moving on to the next episode.

It's more common now be cause television and film producers have realized a fair amount of the populace are fairly devoted to their religion due to the religious and political polarization of our society (which is a nice way of saying Hollywood suddenly thought to themselves "Hey. The peasants are religious fanatics, we need to pander to that!").

Yes that sounds cynical but so are the film and television industries. I could write what some of them actually think, but that would openly violate the rules (and serve no purpose other than to upset people). Plus in all honesty writing standards for film are getting either dumbed down or stale, and if you can't figure out how to use science (or even fantasy pseudo science) to get your way back out of the corner you've written yourself into, fantasy magic in the form of religion gives you an easy out. You can't use magic in Sci Fi too much without getting called on it, unless you clothe it in the guise of Deity. Because for some reason Unicorns aren't acceptable in SciFi, but invisible men in the sky who love you but are willing to sentence you to an eternity of torture arent.

But actual science fiction is kind of hard to find these days. Science Fantasy is a lot lore common (it's easier to write), so religion goes along with that. Star Wars is a perfect example of Science Fantasy. Personally I'm not really a huge fan of magical thinking in Sci Fi, but then I'm fairly critical of a lot of genre film any way. Hard science fiction is difficult to find outside of books, and not many people really do it anymore, possibly because fewer people who have actual scientific knowledge are writing literature, or perhaps because no one is reading it anymore. Reading does tend to disappearing slowly.

Actually peek here Wiki does a decent job explaining for once:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

[JonestheSpy]

It's more common now be cause television and film producers have realized a fair amount of the populace are fairly devoted to their religion due to the religious and political polarization of our society (which is a nice way of saying Hollywood suddenly thought to themselves "Hey. The peasants are religious fanatics, we need to pander to that!").


Oh, I totally disagree with this. Never watched much 'Lost' but Galactica was a sophisticated, very intelligent show. I think the writers wanted to explore some religious issues for real, and I honestly can't imagine how someone could say a story where the heroes are polytheists and the villains monotheists is 'pandering' to American religious sentiment.

And no, I don't think SF is suddenly focusing on religion in some new way. I mean, religious conflict has been in the headlines for 9+ years now and of course writers are going to absorb and reflect back some of that, but religious themes have been part of SF for a long long time, from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to Dune to the Jedi.

[PopcornMage]

The Jedi as a religious theme?

Maybe ostensibly, but in such a generic, non-offensive way that as themes go, I'm just not impressed. Perhaps there's something to be found beyond the movies in the expanded universe (which would be no surprise), but just from the films, I feel like there just isn't much to the Jedi. Even if I write off the whole concept of Midi-chlorians...

Other stories are much better.

[bloodlover]

{scrubbed}

[RationalGoblin]

{scrubbed the original, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[bloodlover]

{scrubbed}

Look for ex at 2001 A Space Odyssey. In the book, the author describes the internet.

Also we can see The Monolith from two different perspectives :

SF - something that cant be explained by scientific methods

religious - something that cant be explained by ... well whatever personal meter one uses to measure his/her belief

The bottom line is that it can;t be understood but the way people want to understand and see it differs much.

{scrubbed}

[Korias]

The Jedi as a religious theme?

Maybe ostensibly, but in such a generic, non-offensive way that as themes go, I'm just not impressed. Perhaps there's something to be found beyond the movies in the expanded universe (which would be no surprise), but just from the films, I feel like there just isn't much to the Jedi. Even if I write off the whole concept of Midi-chlorians...

Other stories are much better.

To be fair, the "Jedi" religion is closer to a philosophy than an actual religion. It gets murky at some points, but the core tenants are closer to the "Eastern" philoso-religions.

On topic, I think that there's just enough religion in Sci-Fi: You've got situations where the different tech is named after religious icons, as seen in Neon Genesis Evangelion, situations where there's an entire theocracy in play like EVE's Amarr race, and the old standby of religions being present as plot devices, as seen in Star Trek, Halo, and Dune. But in each of those examples, the Religion serves a valid purpose, either in terms of plot, narrative, or effect.

In Star Trek, many of the original episodes were in fact Allegories. Take, for example, the episode where there are two factions that have been embroiled in a era-long war, but instead of killing each other with bombs, they use a digital copy and the citizens diligently proceed to be disintegrated. When the Enterprise is pulled into this game and destroyed, it prompts a whole introspective on the Prime Directive, but also provides a strangely accurate metaphor for the Cold War.

In Neon Genesis Evangelion, the attacks on humanity are being done by extra terrestrial life: First reaction to such things is to label it an act of god. On the flip side, the majority of the resistance attempts boil down to whether or not there's enough hope and/or the whole thing is hanging solely on the determination of the main character, which prompts psychological and philosophical evaluation of himself, especially towards the later episodes.

In EVE books, the Amarr are portrayed as a rigid, cruel theocracy following the rule of a God-queen (To be fair, it's been a while since I've read the books and the exact terminology has long since been forgotten, but the concept is there) and have built their entire empire on slavery. The largest, most powerful empire in the game, is built upon the backs of another playable faction. This promotes a nice in-game tension, and also gives the developers a basis to expand the universe from. But the way that the Amarr are portrayed - Cruel, selfish, egotistical - is a stark reminder of why such thinking could be dangerous to a civilization. Halo and Dune also follow similar patterns when portraying theocracies, in the form of the Madhi religion (The religion of war), and the Covenant (Y'know, the alien guys that humanity is waging war against for the majority of the series).

As it's been said before: Religion is an integral part of the human psyche and without taking the time to analyze it in terms of a situation that couldn't exist, we are unable to learn about ourselves in terms of a situation that does.

[Yora]

If sci-fi is "an analyzation of the present, extrapolated into the future" (which I think, the "harder" types of sci-fi are), religion has to be part of it. Just because a faith in "pure physics" has become ery popular in the last 100 years, does not mean that all other believe systems will completely disappear in the next decades.

What I do dislike about sci-fi, is when it suddenly introduces magic. Not subtle magic like many people claim to practive to these days, but "ignoring and bending the laws of physics".

[Killer Angel]

Religion is an undeniable part of human nature.
In a SF fiction, religion can be easily a part of the setting / background, more or less important to the story.
We've seen Hugo's winners with religion-based novels, there's no problem with it.

[PopcornMage]

In Star Trek, many of the original episodes were in fact Allegories. Take, for example, the episode where there are two factions that have been embroiled in a era-long war, but instead of killing each other with bombs, they use a digital copy and the citizens diligently proceed to be disintegrated. When the Enterprise is pulled into this game and destroyed, it prompts a whole introspective on the Prime Directive, but also provides a strangely accurate metaphor for the Cold War.


That's sort of what I got from the episode, but I didn't get that message as a religious one though.

I saw that episode more as a way of showing the effects of dehumanizing war, which while some religions do include it as a theme, it's also a very secular issue as well.

Don't worry, they can share. Sometimes!

And regarding the Jedi, it doesn't matter whether you call it a religion or a philosophy, it's still a shallow treatment without much examination.

[Dr.Epic]

Yes people do. It's why not everyone is in love with Ebberon.

Well I don't hear it enough, thought I did go to high school with a guy who was basically in love with Square Enix/FF VII.

Also, you do have to figure that alien races may have their own religion they practice.

[Korias]

That's sort of what I got from the episode, but I didn't get that message as a religious one though.

I saw that episode more as a way of showing the effects of dehumanizing war, which while some religions do include it as a theme, it's also a very secular issue as well.
.

The example I was trying to pull with that episode was that it was an introspective analysis using metaphors. Not necessarily religious per se, but cultural.

[PopcornMage]

Well, that is true, but it goes without saying as far as I'm concerned. The series was not at all subtle.

[The Big Dice]

Religion in TV sci-fi tends to be a little bit awkward. But in literary science fiction, it's a very different story.

Dune gets mentioned a lot, though I tend to see that as Paul Atredies desparately trying to avoid becoming a religious figure right up until it's almost too late for him to stop it. At which point he seems to embrace it, without actually believing his own hype.

Heinlein tackles religion in various ways, with the most famous probably being Stranger in a Strange Land.

Dan Simmons takes the subject on in a very quirly way in his Hyperion and Endymion books. Certainly the image of the Shrike moving backwards in time, killing hordes of pilgrims to the Time Tombs as it does, is a surreal and haunting one.

Though my personal favourite books of religion in sci-fi have to be Inferno and Escape from Hell by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. A modernisation of Dante's Inferno, filled with just as much of the writer's dislikes as the original was. And a good fun read too. What more could you want?

[PopcornMage]

I think if Niven and Pournelle weren't both primarily known as Science Fiction authors, we wouldn't even think those books are Science Fiction.

[Bhu]

Oh, I totally disagree with this. Never watched much 'Lost' but Galactica was a sophisticated, very intelligent show. I think the writers wanted to explore some religious issues for real, and I honestly can't imagine how someone could say a story where the heroes are polytheists and the villains monotheists is 'pandering' to American religious sentiment.

And no, I don't think SF is suddenly focusing on religion in some new way. I mean, religious conflict has been in the headlines for 9+ years now and of course writers are going to absorb and reflect back some of that, but religious themes have been part of SF for a long long time, from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to Dune to the Jedi.

Haven't watched the newer incarnation of Galactica so I cant comment on it. But the three examples you mentioned are largely Science Fantasy as opposed to Science Fiction. Gothic horror stories were big when Shelley was a writer, and that's basically what Frankenstein is: A Gothic Horror story, most of which were obsessed with the idea of God or some other agency punishing the human race.

In Dune technology has advanced not due to computers, which are now forbidden, but due to psychics. Psychic is just another way of saying wizard, it's just more acceptable to a Scfifi crowd.

Star Wars is openly science fantasy. Replace robots with Golems, Jedi with gish, and light sabers with magic swords. If you can do the same story in a fantasy setting without having to make changes because the story largely revolves around science, its science fantasy, not science fiction. Plus the whole virgin birth thing with Anakin, the Jedi being required to be celibate, etc tend to be a Christian allegory. A poorly done one, but when has Lucas ever done anything good in the last few decades?

The difference in past scifi and modern scifi in the way they handled religion was belief. In most classic scifi religion tends to be just a belief system. There's no proof or evidence for any of it's concepts, the same as in real life. It's adherents practice it on blind faith, and hope they're right. If they have any abilities it's due to something other than their beliefs. Or they use religion as an evil cult because they need an antagonist, or the gods merely turn out to be powerful aliens capable of some form of mind control (or they have some other means of having a hold on their worshipers). In a lot of modern science fiction (which again is mostly science fantasy), being a believer has actual tangible benefits, and the god(s) interfere on behalf of their worshipers. That isn't science, its magic.

[pendell]

@Bloodlover: You say that certain views are SF? I contend *life* is SF to a rational thinking person. We speak with people on the other side of the world instantaneously. We have robotic slaves to open our garage doors and sometimes sweep our houses. We fly through the air and sail under the sea. I can press a button and instantly see things happening on the other side of the world, in real time.

Granted, it's yesterday's SF, but we are *living* in an SF novel. A Jules Verne novel, to be specific.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[arguskos]

@Bloodlover: You say that certain views are SF? I contend *life* is SF to a rational thinking person. We speak with people on the other side of the world instantaneously. We have robotic slaves to open our garage doors and sometimes sweep our houses. We fly through the air and sail under the sea. I can press a button and instantly see things happening on the other side of the world, in real time.

Granted, it's yesterday's SF, but we are *living* in an SF novel. A Jules Verne novel, to be specific.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
You know, I bring this up all the time in real life. I look around, and I say, "holy hell, I live in the FUTURE. :smalleek: When'd that happen?!" And everyone I know just looks at me like I'm stupid or something. Makes me sad, it does, that no one else seems to realize that we live in a world of miracles and wonders. Everyone just takes it all for granted, instead of looking at things with a fresh eye and realizing that this world is miraculous in nature. Or maybe I'm just stupid. *shrug*

[Mando Knight]

Nah, Verne would be too retro... early-to-mid 20th century would be Verne-ish Sci-Fi, but he never conceived of so many of the things that we take for granted now.

[Fiery Diamond]

*Pops in*

Niven is Science Fantasy.

*pops out*

[pendell]

Not so fast! Defend your statement. "Ringworld" is the archetype hard SF novel.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[JonestheSpy]

Haven't watched the newer incarnation of Galactica so I cant comment on it. But the three examples you mentioned are largely Science Fantasy as opposed to Science Fiction. Gothic horror stories were big when Shelley was a writer, and that's basically what Frankenstein is: A Gothic Horror story, most of which were obsessed with the idea of God or some other agency punishing the human race.




Once again, I disagree. There seems to be a pretty condescending attitude out there that if it's not hard science fiction it's "science fantasy". Star Wars? Totally, there's no science in it at all, just a lot of old space opera imagery. But even if Shelley had no scientific justification to base Frankenstein's experiments on, it's still science fiction - the extrapolation of what might happen as the result of a scientific experiment to create artificial sentient life. Nowadays someone could write the same story but use bio-engineering and/or AI instead of electrical reanimation, and no one would call it "science fantasy" except the most totally hardcore hard sf fans.

Same with Dune - Herbert was concerned with ecoscience, and the effects of the environment on people. Psychic powers? Yup, but not crazy mutant powers, rather ancestral memory and time perception - not all that out there when you look at the theories about genetic memories and the nature of time at the quantum level. Not the same as "A wizard did it" at all.

[HandofCrom]

If by religion we mean the beliefs and practices of people and cultures, there has been a lot of good sci-fi adressing it, and there is plenty of story potential involving it. We mentioned Babylon 5 and Firefly, while I've read works dealing with religions reacting to drastic shifts in society and culture in reference of the work. It definitely has its place in fleshing out the work. What I personally have seen lacking is religions developing in light of alien species, as well as good alien religions. I can understand the lack of good alien religions considering the sad prevalence of humanoid aliens, but in works with starfish aliens good starfish religions would add to the work.

If by religion we mean fantastic elements such as FTL or the Force, those can work if the author uses them well. Hardness of sci fi does not determine value of sci fi. However, when the fantastic elements are an inconsistent and annoying conflict vanishing tool, it detracts from the work (sonic screwdriver as an example).

If by religion we mean magical plot games, I think any amount of such bad writing is a blight to the genre. Even good fantasy doesn't resort to deus ex machinas. Works with a resolution on the level of people clapping their hands and the conflict vanishes need not be set lightly aside, but rather hurled with great force (new BGS).

[Yora]

While some people will probably have a hard time to adjust their world view in the face of the confirmed existance of aliens, it wouldn't be an issue at all for other religions.
Especially in indian religions the existance of countless other "worlds" (either planets or dimensions, or both) that are inhabited by sentient people is explicitly assumed and often stated. And even in religious traditions that assume the earth to be the center of all creation and humans to be the only sentient beings that exist, large numbers of believers have abandoned that idea long ago. Given the unbelievable size of the universe, with it's number of stars and planets, it seems rather unlikely that it all would have been created if everything important is confined to a single planet. If the universe was created the way it is on purpose, other parts of it are surely populated as well.

The real fun would most probably be the new religions introduced by aliens. Because as history shows, humans really like to adopt religions that are different from the one they are surrounded by. Humans following alien faith seem very likely, yet I've not seen that to happen that often. Only exception that comes to my mind are the human Rangers of Babylon 5, wo seem to follow the minbari believes that humans and minbari share the same souls and are reincarnated in either species. Though in Babylon 5, this can actually be proven and magic and souls are known to exist, so it's not that interesting.


Makes me sad, it does, that no one else seems to realize that we live in a world of miracles and wonders. Everyone just takes it all for granted, instead of looking at things with a fresh eye and realizing that this world is miraculous in nature.
Fun fact: We can already build you a fresh arm or leg, and fresh eyes have been in development for some years. :smallbiggrin:

[PopcornMage]

Granted, it's yesterday's SF, but we are *living* in an SF novel. A Jules Verne novel, to be specific.


There's a quote that more has changed about daily life in the past couple of hundred years than in the past several thousand before it.


Not so fast! Defend your statement. "Ringworld" is the archetype hard SF novel.

Respectfully,



Queue chorus shouting "The Ringworld is Unstable! The Ringworld is Unstable!"

For those who don't know, Larry Niven had to retcon the Ringworld because he failed to consider that while the Ringworld was stable along its axis, it wasn't stable along the plane. That means it would eventually collide with its sun...bad news, y'know? :smalltongue:

So he wrote a sequel. I'm not complaining! :smallamused:

He also had to correct a bit where he got the rotation of the Earth backwards.

[Mx.Silver]

Sci-fi dealing with religion is not something I have a problem with at all. It's a rather persistant part of human behaviour and is therefore likely to be present in the future.
However, when it comes to 'miracles' (i.e. direct divine intervention in the physical world) then it becomes rather difficult to keep reffering to the show as being science fiction. This is especially problematic if the deity in question happens to be one from an existing real-world faith, since, even if such a deity exists, historically speaking this is not something seems to occur up until now and the assumption that this will suddenly start happening at some point in the future seems more than a little iffy. (Note: fiction dealing with an overtly religious apocalypse are seldom/never classified as science fiction).

This second category seems to be what the OP is driving at (Lost and the new BSG can, I think, both be placed in this category). While it's not necessarily a bad thing in writing (provided Deas Ex Machina is avoided) divine intervention does not gel well with the idea of Science-Fiction, and is likely to push it over the fantasy divide.


Once again, I disagree. There seems to be a pretty condescending attitude out there that if it's not hard science fiction it's "science fantasy".
It's only condescending if you take 'fantasy' to be a pejorative. That said, I do agree that there is distinction to be drawn between soft sci-fi and science fantasy and that Frankenstein is probably not an example of the latter.



Same with Dune - Herbert was concerned with ecoscience, and the effects of the environment on people. Psychic powers? Yup, but not crazy mutant powers, rather ancestral memory and time perception - not all that out there when you look at the theories about genetic memories and the nature of time at the quantum level.
Yeah, it still is; particularly in regards to genetic memory. Quantum mechanics is often used as an excuse to try and give magic a scientific gloss (including by some new age alt-therapy types in real life) but such thinking rests on the incorrect assumption that because the quantum level follows different rules to the macro level that said rules are optional for macro-level objects.


Not the same as "A wizard did it" at all.
Not all magic is 'a wizard did it' either. Still doesn't mean it isn't magic.

[jmbrown]

It's more common now be cause television and film producers have realized a fair amount of the populace are fairly devoted to their religion due to the religious and political polarization of our society (which is a nice way of saying Hollywood suddenly thought to themselves "Hey. The peasants are religious fanatics, we need to pander to that!").

Yes that sounds cynical but so are the film and television industries. I could write what some of them actually think, but that would openly violate the rules (and serve no purpose other than to upset people). Plus in all honesty writing standards for film are getting either dumbed down or stale, and if you can't figure out how to use science (or even fantasy pseudo science) to get your way back out of the corner you've written yourself into, fantasy magic in the form of religion gives you an easy out. You can't use magic in Sci Fi too much without getting called on it, unless you clothe it in the guise of Deity. Because for some reason Unicorns aren't acceptable in SciFi, but invisible men in the sky who love you but are willing to sentence you to an eternity of torture arent.

But actual science fiction is kind of hard to find these days. Science Fantasy is a lot lore common (it's easier to write), so religion goes along with that. Star Wars is a perfect example of Science Fantasy. Personally I'm not really a huge fan of magical thinking in Sci Fi, but then I'm fairly critical of a lot of genre film any way. Hard science fiction is difficult to find outside of books, and not many people really do it anymore, possibly because fewer people who have actual scientific knowledge are writing literature, or perhaps because no one is reading it anymore. Reading does tend to disappearing slowly.

Actually peek here Wiki does a decent job explaining for once:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Hard science fiction has never found a large audience because the average person thinks it's boring. Looking back on some of the most popular sci-fi from Barsoom, H.G. Wells' material, The Martian Chronicles, pulp works like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, Star Wars, Philip K. **** (seriously? No, seriously??), Brave New World, L. Ron Hubbard, and even Vogt's work and you can tell that it deals far more with fantastical elements, philosophy or theology (as in Burrough's Martian religion or Wells' Social Darwinism), or the human condition more than it deals with actual SCIENCE.

[The Big Dice]

Queue chorus shouting "The Ringworld is Unstable! The Ringworld is Unstable!"
I think it's awesome that scientifically and mathematically capable readers of his books did the math for him and came up with a slew of engineering requirements for the Ringworld. Which he then incorporated into his next book.

And then did the same with another book when people pointed out issues with the genetics of the species living on the Ringworld.


For those who don't know, Larry Niven had to retcon the Ringworld because he failed to consider that while the Ringworld was stable along its axis, it wasn't stable along the plane. That means it would eventually collide with its sun...bad news, y'know? :smalltongue:

So he wrote a sequel. I'm not complaining! :smallamused:
The fact that he wrote a sequel because fans ran the numbers for him and showed where his vision had design flaws was kind of cool. Especially as he didn't simply throw a tantrum like many writers might have. Instead, he turns what some people saw as a mistake into a story feature.

And more Niven is always a good thing imo.


He also had to correct a bit where he got the rotation of the Earth backwards.
That edition of Ringworld is worth quite a bit of money if you can find one.

Also, Louis Wu's religion can probably be summed up as a combination of TANSTAAFL and TANJ.

[Bhu]

Once again, I disagree. There seems to be a pretty condescending attitude out there that if it's not hard science fiction it's "science fantasy". Star Wars? Totally, there's no science in it at all, just a lot of old space opera imagery. But even if Shelley had no scientific justification to base Frankenstein's experiments on, it's still science fiction - the extrapolation of what might happen as the result of a scientific experiment to create artificial sentient life. Nowadays someone could write the same story but use bio-engineering and/or AI instead of electrical reanimation, and no one would call it "science fantasy" except the most totally hardcore hard sf fans.


No Frankenstein was about giving life to inanimate tissue that had already died, i.e. resurrecting the dead. He may have put the creature together from various parts of human and nonhuman organisms, but he basically gives life to a corpse. Making a zombie isn't science fiction, its fantasy.

[Tyrant]

No Frankenstein was about giving life to inanimate tissue that had already died, i.e. resurrecting the dead. He may have put the creature together from various parts of human and nonhuman organisms, but he basically gives life to a corpse. Making a zombie isn't science fiction, its fantasy.
Is it really resurrecting the dead though? It was a new creature created from the remains of other creatures. It wasn't just the brain reanimated with a new body, it was a new creature all together that happened to be made from dead body parts. I don't think that's a zombie (especially since it could think, reason, and communicate). A zombie is a reanimated corpse that either contains the essence of the original occupant in an undead state, or it contains a new (or altered), foreign entity with only one purpose. They are either altered by a virus/chemical or are possesed by a will with the singular goal of eating people. The monster was a living, thinking creature with an entirely new will (that I don't believe is ever implied to be other worldly in origin) driving it. I guess what I am saying is can it really be called resurrecting if it is an entirely new creature that arises and the only connection to an older creature is the body parts, not the will driving the new creature? When I hear resurrection, I think of bringing a particular person back to life, not just their body (parts), so I wouldn't consider a zombie to be a manner of resurrection unless the original will was driving the undead shell (as in Return of the Living Dead). That could possibly still be called science fantasy however.

[Bhu]

Does it matter? He gave it life via pseudo scientific gobbledygook which was left deliberately vague, but to give life to an inanimate corpse, even if it's new life, he has to give it a soul. So unless he pulled a soul at random from the afterlife via alchemy, he played Deity. If you're talking about whether or not a human being can give something a soul, your straying away from scifi into fantasy. Zombies as found in myth are the resurrected dead, and aren't necessarily mindless. It's Romero's films (and previously Hollywood's wildly inaccurate voodoo films) that popularized those concepts.

One of the ideas of AI in scifi stories is "does it have a soul"? Most people quietly ignore the other side of the equation, that if you can create artificial intelligence via electrochemical or other reaction, then life doesn't require a soul, and there's no need for an afterlife for it to go to (but they also probably figure that won't sell to the public so well as the former question). And Frankenstein's stated goal wasn't creating artificial intelligence, it was life. Specifically returning dead tissue to life, since A.I. via computers or other means wasn't really much of a concept at the time, other than stories relating to the Jewish Golem myth. At Shelley's time the processes of life were so little understood it could be considered scifi then, but now that we understand things a little better, the concept is neither believable or plausible that you can resurrect someone by alchemy (or even electricity which the films use) other than trying to restart a malfunctioning heart by shocking it (and that's not true resurrection). The methods by which Frankenstein brings his creation to life include references to alchemy. Frankenstein's creation is less an exploration of scientific themes (which would be science fiction) and more the expression of fear of science straying too far into the realm of God and him punishing us for it.

[Mikeavelli]

I love Niven's work, and he's only suffering from the same problem all other "hard" Sci Fi writers eventually fall prey to, plot points that were plausible at the time they were written gradually become more blatantly false. Not just the instability of the ringworld, but things like breeding humans for Luck (Niven was a BIG fan of the "Nature" side of "nature vs nurture" and thought pretty much any trait you can think of could be bred into, or out of, a population), or an extra-terrestrial origin of humankind, etc. Also, most of his ringworld sequels solve the older problems of the universe by introducing newer, stranger problems that he can just handwave away as magical superscience.

Nevertheless, he does do what a Science Fiction writer really should do, examine how new Scientific advances affect society in possibly unexpected ways, especially his earlier works.

- How, in Known Space, the perfection of organ transplant technology and the possibility of near-immortality led to the death penalty being a standard punishment for every crime. Fairly implausible given all the bleeding-heart types today, but it reminds you that they're there for a reason.

- Very rarely do his characters suffer from the idiot ball, and even then it's usually because he's retconning something for the sake of science.

- etc.

[Zevox]

Does it matter? He gave it life via pseudo scientific gobbledygook which was left deliberately vague, but to give life to an inanimate corpse, even if it's new life, he has to give it a soul.
Considering that the very notion of a soul is a matter not of science but of religion or other spiritual beliefs, it seems it is you who is taking things into the realm of fantasy here by making that assumption.

Have you ever read H.P. Lovecraft's Herbert West: Reanimator? That would be a good example of a story that could be science fiction if it had gone differently and deals with this. The titular character is a scientist who attempts to restore life by chemical means, restoring and maintaining the physical and chemical functions of life artificially. This character, like Lovecraft himself, does not believe in the existence of a soul, so he is convinced that such a thing can be done. The story even proceeds in a science-fiction like manner for a while, with Herbert discovering for example that he'll need an extremely fresh body to test his serums on in order to avoid any decay to the brain. The results eventually place it more in a fantasy style, and in either case it would also be a horror story, but it's one example of how such a concept could work as a sci-fi story.

And that one actually deals with resurrection. Frankenstein doesn't - it deals with the creation of new life entirely.

Zevox

[Bhu]

Considering that the very notion of a soul is a matter not of science but of religion or other spiritual beliefs, it seems it is you who is taking things into the realm of fantasy here by making that assumption.

Have you ever read H.P. Lovecraft's Herbert West: Reanimator? That would be a good example of a story that could be science fiction if it had gone differently and deals with this. The titular character is a scientist who attempts to restore life by chemical means, restoring and maintaining the physical and chemical functions of life artificially. This character, like Lovecraft himself, does not believe in the existence of a soul, so he is convinced that such a thing can be done. The story even proceeds in a science-fiction like manner for a while, with Herbert discovering for example that he'll need an extremely fresh body to test his serums on in order to avoid any decay to the brain. The results eventually place it more in a fantasy style, and in either case it would also be a horror story, but it's one example of how such a concept could work as a sci-fi story.

And that one actually deals with resurrection. Frankenstein doesn't - it deals with the creation of new life entirely.

Zevox

I think I've read everything Lovecraft has done, and Wests goals are the same as Frankenstein's:

"Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption. "

He isn't discussing creating new life, and initially does not intend to. He wants to resurrect the dead due to obsessions from his earlier life. When all his works fail he decides to make his own corpse instead of finding one. But it's still just a corpse. West is an obvious madman, and his story too is less about new roads in which science can take man, and more a warning that man is trying to play God and fool about with things he has no business fooling with. Herbert also reassembles and reanimated composites of body parts just to see if he can, and eventually they (as well as later efforts) prove to be intelligence. Their resurrection may not be perfect being as they're now undead, but undead are the realm of fantasy (and some science fantasy). Not science.

[Zevox]

I think I've read everything Lovecraft has done, and Wests goals are the same as Frankenstein's:

"Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption. "

He isn't discussing creating new life, and initially does not intend to. He wants to resurrect the dead due to obsessions from his earlier life. When all his works fail he decides to make his own corpse instead of finding one. But it's still just a corpse. West is an obvious madman, and his story too is less about new roads in which science can take man, and more a warning that man is trying to play God and fool about with things he has no business fooling with. Herbert also reassembles and reanimated composites of body parts just to see if he can, and eventually they (as well as later efforts) prove to be intelligence. Their resurrection may not be perfect being as they're now undead, but undead are the realm of fantasy (and some science fantasy). Not science.
...which all is exactly in line with what I said. I was offering the premise of the story - West's explanation for how he reanimates life, and the fact that it has nothing to do with, and indeed presupposes the lack of existence of, a soul - as an example of how the concept can be science fiction, and how your assertion that life requires a soul and therefore anything involving creation of new life or reanimation of the dead is there fantasy, is flawed.

Zevox

[SuperPanda]

My quick thoughts on "Is there too much religion is Sci-Fi" are as such:

1) No. Religion is normal function of the human experience as pointed out by the poster who cited his own religion as Atheism. A setting would need to be composed entirely of agnostics to be without religion and that itself presents a problem because agnostics are generally just undecided.

2) Lost was not science fiction, not in any sense. It didn't try to be science fiction, it didn't want to be science fiction, but it did tease that it might be. The power of faith and the fantasy/magic of the setting were frequently put up against cold and rational minds and they triumphed every time. I don't think the series had a clear focus after the first year but looking at the last year of it I'd say that it was a piece of religious and/or philosophical fiction. It has been suggested that it was heavily influenced by Egyptian religions and that the island was Fire Island of one of the old underworlds.

3) Battlestar Galactica / Caprica brought up and dealt with an interesting aspect of religion. Polytheism and monotheism as conflicting belief systems and the "dangers" of monotheism as presented in the series were fun and interesting... they somewhat distracted from the "science" in the setting and fit in somewhat illogically. If the religious beliefs had been used exactly as they were but were given no credence ("trust me on this, god has a plan" fails as often as it works, the prophecies don't always match up) then I think it would have been even better. As it is I have enjoyed it.

4) Jedi are very much a religion as described even in the original movies. The original movie was based (heavily) on a Japanese film and "the force" was very heavily taken from asian religions. That some asian religions are based more in philosophy than "god did it" is more reflective of those cultures than on those religions (because they all have god or god like figures if you look hard enough).

5) Science fiction vs. Science Fantasy.
Neither is better, neither is pure, neither is more or less deserving of praise.

I love Doctor Who, probably more than anything else I've seen as a telly show. Its set in a future (sometimes) setting, with time travel, aliens (who sometimes are gods or talk to them), technology so advanced it seems like magic (and sometimes is called magic). There is no attempt to make it seem plausible or real, it is just pure escapist fun.

It is pure Fantasy, there is no need for the science. I'd actually say that Discworld is more deserving of Science Fantasy than Doctor Who is. On Discworld (A flat world carried through space on the back of four elephants who stand upon the shell of the star turtle, The Great A'Tuin) there are things like the clacks (to quote Pratchett, "Somthing like what the internet might look like if instead of electricity what we had was lots and lots of string"). Discworld explores human(oid) relgious, cultural, scientific, and philosophical issues with a very sharp knife (often while demanding all their money) and does so in a reliably witty fashion.
Doctor Who on the other hand is usually just fun with a side of spooky.

Discworld is called Fantasy because there are wizards and dwarves and a flat world on the back of a turtle. Doctor Who is called SciFi because there is an alien in a blue box, time travel, and techo-babel.


5) (and finally). If you look at most hard sci fi there is an element of religion either included or implied.

Issac Asimov's I Robot has a scene in it where the human pilots of a faster than light ship die and their souls are in line to get into hell.
H.G.Well's The Invisible Man and also Jules Verne's 20,000 leagues show what happens what a human attains the ability to remove himself from the rest of human society and stand above it. Its about playing god.

Jurassic Park was pretty good sci fi (the book, not the movie) and it delt with genetics, cloning, chaos theory, evolution. Not everything in the book made sense for when it was set, but the assumptions about the science weren't all that far off. The major thing in that story was Man trying to be God. You can't have that theme in a story without first acknowledging that A) Man is not god, and B) there is some thing which we understand to be God that in this case man has tried to usurp.

the movie AI, as pointed out, deals with the question of whether or not artificial intelligence will have a soul (and the reason the question is not asked in the other direction is that it is implied in the direction it is being asked in.) If the AI does have a soul, then did we create it or did god create it through us? If it does not have a soul, how to we measure that? If it does not have a soul, and we can find no difference between it and us, how can we persist in the belief that we have a soul?

1984 deals with the religion of patriotism, a religion made all the more dangerous by the fact that its gods will knock on your door if you stop believing.
____________________

To be brief for those who don't like to read through the whole thing:

1) No, there isn't "too much religion."
2 - 4) Lost, Star Wars, and Doctor Who are not science fiction. Lost doesn't even try to be. All three are pure and wonderful Fantasy (which happens to be one of my favorite genres). I haven't seen Dune, but it probably falls here.

If Terry Pratchett's Discworld is considered "only" fantasy because it uses Wizards and dwarves then I'd say an eco-science inspired setting with giant sand wurms and quantum psychics counts too.
5) Still babbling about how the remaining Sci Fi seems to all have religious themes running through it.

Religion is a part of the human being, I just wonder which chromosome it is found on.

[Fiery Diamond]

Answering Pendell: The Neutron Star collection is the only bit of his work I've actually read, and in my mind, it is Science Fantasy.

Not that Sci Fantasy is a bad thing.

[Rockphed]

You know, I bring this up all the time in real life. I look around, and I say, "holy hell, I live in the FUTURE. :smalleek: When'd that happen?!" And everyone I know just looks at me like I'm stupid or something. Makes me sad, it does, that no one else seems to realize that we live in a world of miracles and wonders. Everyone just takes it all for granted, instead of looking at things with a fresh eye and realizing that this world is miraculous in nature. Or maybe I'm just stupid. *shrug*

"Humans have an almost unlimited ability to take things for granted." I wish I knew who said that.

[Bhu]

...which all is exactly in line with what I said. I was offering the premise of the story - West's explanation for how he reanimates life, and the fact that it has nothing to do with, and indeed presupposes the lack of existence of, a soul - as an example of how the concept can be science fiction, and how your assertion that life requires a soul and therefore anything involving creation of new life or reanimation of the dead is there fantasy, is flawed.

Zevox

I'm not saying life requires a soul, I'm saying most authors at some point take that assumption with artificial life stories, and that wondering about souls place it in science fantasy because there's no scientific evidence for the existence of a soul. Also, Frankenstein, being a Gothic fiction work, does have religious overtones. Wests explanation is due to Lovecraft (like me) being an atheist. In his mind sentience is an electrochemical reaction. But once life is gone, it's gone. You can bring someone back from the dead, because that's wish fulfillment fantasy, not science. West accomplishing resurrection s great for purposes of horror fiction, but as scifi it falls flat because he accomplishes something not scientifically possible. If something can be done by science, even if it's only in theory, it's science fiction. If it's something that can't possible be reproduced by science, it's science fantasy.

[Zevox]

I'm not saying life requires a soul,
Yes you did:


Does it matter? He gave it life via pseudo scientific gobbledygook which was left deliberately vague, but to give life to an inanimate corpse, even if it's new life, he has to give it a soul. So unless he pulled a soul at random from the afterlife via alchemy, he played Deity. If you're talking about whether or not a human being can give something a soul, your straying away from scifi into fantasy.
Zevox

[Bhu]

:smallsigh:

It's Gothic horror fiction. Gothic horror fiction spends a lot of time discussing souls, God, and the afterlife. I meant from it's viewpoint to give a corpse life it needs a soul. I generally tend to type these in a hurry, so perhaps i don't write as clearly as I should. I, personally, do not think life requires a soul, and fiction that states such is fantasy, not science fiction. Does that make it clearer, or shall we continue to slightly derail the thread?

[Zevox]

:smallsigh:

It's Gothic horror fiction. Gothic horror fiction spends a lot of time discussing souls, God, and the afterlife. I meant from it's viewpoint to give a corpse life it needs a soul. I generally tend to type these in a hurry, so perhaps i don't write as clearly as I should. I, personally, do not think life requires a soul, and fiction that states such is fantasy, not science fiction. Does that make it clearer, or shall we continue to slightly derail the thread?
You certainly didn't make that distinction in the statement that originally prompted my replies - and in any event I don't recall Frankenstein ever making any definitive statement on the matter (or even bringing it up, actually), which it would have to for that point to be relevant.

Zevox

[Bhu]

It's direct inspiration was Paradise Lost. What else would it be about?

And seriously if we wish to discuss this, lets do it via PM. The thread always walks a tightrope being about religion, lets not take it up with our own discussion. :smallwink:

[Zevox]

It's direct inspiration was Paradise Lost. What else would it be about?
The monster that Doctor Frankenstein created, how it reacted upon creation, and Frankenstein's reactions to what he accomplished? All of the things that it seems to focus on?

(Honestly, outside of the "creating life" thing I don't really see any significant parallels between Frankenstein and Paradise Lost, and in any event there would still need to be some mention of the whole soul matter in Frankenstein itself for it to be a valid point here.)


And seriously if we wish to discuss this, lets do it via PM. The thread always walks a tightrope being about religion, lets not take it up with our own discussion. :smallwink:
Nah, it's not that important. I was simply raising an objection to your disqualifying anything involving resurrection or creation of life on the whole soul grounds. I'm not really interested in pursuing the discussion further than that.

Zevox

[The Big Dice]

Answering Pendell: The Neutron Star collection is the only bit of his work I've actually read, and in my mind, it is Science Fantasy.

Not that Sci Fantasy is a bad thing.

Larry Niven's Neutron Star collection? IF that's science fantasy, I have no idea what it would take to qualify as hard science fiction in your mind. I mean, there are relics of ancient civilisations, a story that got adapted to Star Trek by Niven himself, stories about the consequences of meddling with biochemistry in clinically insane people and a story that features gravity as the mysterious killer.

On every count it's not fantasy, though there are elements that could be considered fantastic.

[Frozen_Feet]

... now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever read a single Science Fiction story that did not brush religious topics to some extent. In fact, some of the best I've read were rather heavy on religious musings. (His Master's Voice and First Contact come to mind.)

No, that isn't too much. What matters more than the presence of an element is how it is handled, and there's a vast space of good ways to handle a topic - even when you're obviously preaching for one side.

Now, what comes to this odd discussion of Science Fiction Vs. Science Fantasy, (in my days, I think we used to call those 'soft' and 'hard'... I feel old): again, it's not the presence of elements, but how they are handled.

It's entirely possible to write a hard scifi story revolving around resurrection, souls, or some other typically 'fantastic' element - if all those things are explored and explained through a thoroughly scientific viewpoint, and in some way grounded on modern theories of existence. The existence of supernatural does not disqualify the work from the genre, because supernatural sufficiently analyzed is only extension of the natural.

Likewise, one must realize that science tends to march on - there are many old works that were grounded on theories popular and supported back then. These works look increasingly unrealistic and fantastic to modern reader, because theories they leaned have become obsoleted. Focusing on the 'proven impossibility' of some elements misses the point - it's the attitude the work takes towards those elements that's key to identifying its proper place in Science Fiction Hardness Scale.