[El Chorizo]

Science fiction lends itself to exploring, from a reasonably safe distance, questions or norms that are sometimes too near and dear to allow for adequate reflection. I love this about the genre. One thing that's always puzzled me though is why science fiction writers seem to love asking questions about the implications of science for religious belief.

Many many recent and not so recent science fiction films have posed questions about the relationship between science and faith, science and anthropomorphism, the meaning (or meaninglessness) of human life in the context of the cosmos, and whether technology will somehow prove or disprove the existence of god.

In my mind that last question is the least interesting of all and this is despite (not because of) my atheism. I'm not at all sure why a believer should be threatened by scientific discovery and I'm not sure why a non-believer would be, similarly, threatened by any scientific discovery.

In any case, here's a list of some recent films that have traded in this (and other similar) themes. I'm curious which of them you think handles the topic best.

Contact (1997)


Humans receive a message from the beyond/outer space. Once deciphered it turns out to contain instructions on building a machine that transports the passenger to another world where we meet another race of aliens. The entire narrative of the film pits science against faith and, as is usual in these films, the characters with faith or spirituality end up being right.

Contact was based extremely loosely on Stanislaw Lem's "In His Master's Voice" which is actually absolutely fantastic.

Contact, on the other hand, deals really superficially with its main theme. It manages to capture a nice sense of wonder and fascination at the importance of the discovery of alien life but it really falls flat on the thematic resolutions.


2001 (1968)


An abstract masterpiece of hard-sci. 2001 is open to several interesting interpretations and I'm open to any/all of them having an element of truth.

Humanity, it turns out, has long been tested and guided along its evolution by a mysterious extraterrestrial race that has left perfect black monoliths in key places around the solar system. These monoliths respond to interaction with intelligent species and appear essentially involved in the technological development of humans from apes to intelligent apes to whatever is 'beyond' that existence. It presents humans as both created (or guided) beings but also as creators of intelligent life in the HAL 9000 series of artificially intelligent computers.

2001 deals in big questions. It asks us to reconsider what we think we know about god, the origins and meaning if science, the purpose of human existence, the bounds of human potential, etc. It doesn't truly answer any of these questions, preferring to leave that discussion up to the viewer. What it *does* do, in my unoriginal opinion, is give us an appropriate sense of the scope of space and the difficulty and unsexiness of space travel. It is slow, difficult, and should appropriately be set to classical music.

Sunshine (2007)


Sunshine, like its predecessors, wants us to think seriously about the purpose and value of human life. Sunshine follows a group of humans who represent the absolute last possible opportunity to save the world. The sun is 'dying' and only an extremely massive explosion, one created by mining all of Earth's fissile material, can save the sun. If the crew fails then life on Earth, all of it, will die.

Sunshine, I think, is best when it is sticking close to its characters. When it pits them against one another, when it demonstrates how small the crew members are in the context of the ship and how small the ship is in the context of the sun. Sunshine itself does a fantastic job of providing perspective on human life. We are made to seem extraordinarily small and insignificant and the indifference of the universe as to our survival is palpable. It has a controversial third act that is deservedly controversial but hits its themes well.

Prometheus (2012)


The board is full of Prometheus talk so I won't take up much time on this one. I found it derivative.

Solaris (1972)


Another film based on one of Lem's novels. Solaris takes us on a journey to a space station orbiting what appears to be a planet with an intelligent ocean. Like many of Lem's works, Solaris is focused on the topic of the alienness of aliens and how difficult it would be to make sense of and meaningfully communicate with real aliens.

The ocean appears to be sending out coherent patterns but we are forever unable to fully decipher what they mean. What it IS able to do is manifest the dreams of the people on board the station and that's when things get even more interesting.

I like Solaris. I like that it stays true to Lem's work (something the later Clooney version does not do) and that it raises but does not answer questions about personal identity and the intelligibility of alien communication.

And two television shows that have recently played with this theme (perhaps too much)

LOST (2004-2010)


In LOST, things happen. Time travel, miracle healing, and a struggle between good and evil. All of this, set in the context of an island that can be controlled with a donkey wheel and whose life source is a light inside a cave.

That was flippant, LOST was good at getting our attention while it was on and it is to be commended for raising questions about morality and metaphysics that most shows wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Unfortunately, LOST gives us an example of WHY most shows don't touch those questions with a ten foot pole: it's very hard to craft a satisfying narrative.

Last but not least:

Battlestar Galactica (2003-2009)



BSG explicitly set out to weave a story set in a universe where Gods created man, where man created artificially intelligent life, and where artificially intelligent life creates man in what seems to be an eternally recurring loop of life, death, and rebirth made possible by technology.

BSG did a lot of interesting things, it played with ideas of philosophical determinism, faith, the existence of God, morality in a ticking time bomb scenario, and even what it means to BE a god. Like LOST, BSG had trouble ending its narrative and it will always be marred by the way several important characters were handled. Unlike most science fiction narratives that ask questions about god and faith BSG opts to make the gods both real and potentially demystified but, like 2001, leaves the answer up for discussion.

So, fellow RTers, what Science Fiction films handle the god topic the best?

[Dead and Messed Up]

The Man From Earth is a lovely little chamber drama that approaches much of what you're talking about. The underlying premise is that a professor, about to leave his college, proposes a thought experiment in a cabin. He claims to be a man who was born in prehistory and has somehow survived up to now. In addition to the anthropological questions that would spring up, religious questions come with the territory.

I think its later discussions of faith might qualify as a spoiler, so...spoilers.

Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

The entire premise eventually hinges on main character John intimating that not only did he study under the Buddha - he took some of the Buddha's teachings with him to Israel, and it didn't go over so well. In short, he was Jesus Christ, escaping off the cross thanks to a play-dead trick he learned in the East. Among the professors is a woman who's very, very Christian, and despite the insistence of other professors, she sobs and pleads for him to stop mocking her faith (at this point in the film, most are assuming John's being honest with them). I think the film handles such a tricky development remarkably well, by making John hesitant to discuss the possibility and by showing the believer to be a woman of science as well, intelligent in many ways, but religious in such a personal way that threats to her faith become assaults on who she is. It's also worth noting that John retracts the whole story, claims it to be false, and apologizes to the woman. He isn't condescending - he simply doesn't like seeing his friend so hurt. His take on religion is simple. He's been around so long and heard so many different ideas about God that he figures nobody knows what they're talking about and the idea isn't worth exploring.

I think science-fiction interweaves with religion because both of them are venues through which we pursue big questions. Where did we come from? A god, or maybe abiogenesis. Is there an essence in us separate from our bodies? Maybe a soul, or a mind. What is love? Baby don't hurt me. How did all this come to be? A creator, or a big bang...or it has always been. What is the purpose of life? Ah, now that, most useful faiths and sciences agree on.

The purpose of life is twofold: to learn and to help.

[El Chorizo]

Originally Posted by Dead and Messed Up

The Man From Earth is a lovely little chamber drama that approaches much of what you're talking about. The underlying premise is that a professor, about to leave his college, proposes a thought experiment in a cabin. He claims to be a man who was born in prehistory and has somehow survived up to now. In addition to the anthropological questions that would spring up, religious questions come with the territory.

I think its later discussions of faith might qualify as a spoiler, so...spoilers.

Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text


I think science-fiction interweaves with religion because both of them are venues through which we pursue big questions. Where did we come from? A god, or maybe abiogenesis. Is there an essence in us separate from our bodies? Maybe a soul, or a mind. What is love? Baby don't hurt me. How did all this come to be? A creator, or a big bang...or it has always been. What is the purpose of life? Ah, now that, most useful faiths and sciences agree on.

The purpose of life is twofold: to learn and to help.

I really love that film. I saw it purely on a whim on Netflix a few years ago and was blown away by it. Thanks for reminding me of it.

[Huntressmoon13]

Interesting thread. I don't have a huge amount of time to write on it, but I enjoyed the exploration of religion by the Bajorans, namely Kira Nerys, on Star Trek Deep Space Nine. While yes, with the character of Kai Winn it showcased the hypocrisy and corruption that could occur in organized religion, I liked that it showed on a personal level the struggles and the peace one could have as a devout follower of a particular faith. Where it delves into science fiction is that "The Prophets" of Bajor to outsiders on DS9 are the "Wormhole Aliens," a nonlinear time traveling race of beings that live in a stable cosmic phenomenon, so to see where faith and science come together and sometimes conflict was interesting.

Probably one of the best even-handed portrayals out there.

[Noface]

I don't know if movies that are still in the project phase count... but one of my favorite Sci-Fi books of all time is 'The Sparrow'.

Short summary- a SETI-like process finds an occupied planter near Alpha Centuri, and the Jesuits decide to fund a contact mission. The driver behind this mission (Emilio Sandoz) is pretty close to being a saint... that is, until the mission arrives, and things go catastrophically, brutally wrong.

The writer (Mary Doria Russell) has training as an ecologist, linguist, etc. It's one of the smartest novels I've read in a long time... and in terms of explorations of Faith, I haven't read anything better).

Brad Pitt bought the movie rights a few years back, and was planning to play the main character... but things seem to be in limbo.

I can't recommend the book highly enough.

[Janson Jinnistan]

I had a more favorable experience with Prometheus it seems, but I thought I'd provide this article which is a very interesting look at some of what the film's mythos are based on:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...258357/#slide1

Although the Tarkovsky version is obviously superior, I didn't have a problem with Soderburgh's more streamlined take on Solaris. He doesn't have nearly the hypnotic, meditative power of the original, but it maintained the integrety of the themes while making them accessible for an American audience. I thought the use of dream-flashbacks was a novel device to shorthand Tarkovsky's more subconscious process. It seems anathema at first, but I respect this alternate approach because it seems to be about as faithful as what you can expect from a Hollywood studio.

[El Chorizo]

Originally Posted by Dead and Messed Up

T
I think science-fiction interweaves with religion because both of them are venues through which we pursue big questions. Where did we come from? A god, or maybe abiogenesis. Is there an essence in us separate from our bodies? Maybe a soul, or a mind. What is love? Baby don't hurt me. How did all this come to be? A creator, or a big bang...or it has always been. What is the purpose of life? Ah, now that, most useful faiths and sciences agree on.

The purpose of life is twofold: to learn and to help.

I've been wanting to come back to this but only to ask a question (to everyone, I guess) about it.

I get that science and (most) religions do both aim to provide explanations about the universe. I can even understand that historically scientific and religious explanations were interwoven together. I can *even* understand that some people might think that faith is supposed to provide answers to EVERY question, even mundane ones.

What I have trouble understanding is how so many films take up the point of view that scientific and religious explanations must conflict, that we have to have characters who are 'men/women of faith' and 'men/women' of science. This might be the ONE thing that Prometheus does accurately (though does not write so well) is that at least some people can separate scientific/empirical questions and answers from religious ones.

Even as an atheist it strikes me as insulting that we have to have religion or faith presented as if it were opposed to scientific explanation instead of outside of it.

Originally Posted by Huntressmoon13

Interesting thread. I don't have a huge amount of time to write on it, but I enjoyed the exploration of religion by the Bajorans, namely Kira Nerys, on Star Trek Deep Space Nine.

Her character grew on me. Worf was also good for this in that he was clearly spiritual but not cartoonishly so. The wormhole aliens were also very 'Star Trek' in that they were gods, but empirically understandable gods. Voyager on the other hand...

[Space for Rent]

Originally Posted by El Chorizo

Even as an atheist it strikes me as insulting that we have to have religion or faith presented as if it were opposed to scientific explanation instead of outside of it.

Perhaps that's because science fiction always takes touchstones from present day reality in order to establish a feel of realism or plausibility. In our contemporary reality, organized religion frequently takes an adversarial stance to science, dismissing it if it becomes inconvenient, and even seeking to redefine the very concept of science in order to force it to acknowledge faith based perspectives that *should* be entirely outside the purview of science.

Is religion fundamentally opposed to science by default? Of course not. Do some religious groups adopt an adversarial relationship to science, and actively attack it? You betcha.


Science Fiction literature, in large part, has always had a very cynical view towards religion. In most of the major works I can think of offhand, when it's portrayed, it's portrayed as a manipulation or exploitation of ignorance, or a deification of an extraordinary, but otherwise rational and explainable phenomenon. While I'm sympathetic to that position, I think you could make a case for science fiction as a genre as an atagonist. Again, though, it's usually reacting to some real world touchstone, and science didn't start this fight.

In comparison to classic science fiction literature, I find Sci Fi movies are generally much more mild and apologetic towards the subject of religion, some of them even reverently recreating religious concepts for easy digestion. They have to pull their punches much more than a writer would.


In the examples you listed, I find Contact a very interesting movie. I've grown to appreciate the movie much more over the years, than when I first saw it. I think it's one of the few movies that actually gives a compelling argument for the other side, when a rational person admits that at some point, her testimony comes down to a matter of faith. It's one of the few movies I've found that actually achieve a sort of parity with either outlook.

Compare that to something like Red Planet (2000), where Terrence Stamp's space-priest character says, "Science can't answer any of the really interesting questions". Such a pandering sentiment, and it betrays a complete ignorance of real science. Science has discovered more wonder than myth has ever hinted at, and the most interesting human questions, from the fabric of reality, down to the very rational and quantifiable nature of human consciousness are on the forefront of modern science. If you want to make a case for religion in science fiction, you have to try harder than that.


Battlestar Galactica, on the other hand, is not something I would have included in your list as worthwhile depictions of religion in sci fi. The religious elements in that show are more a result of lazy writing trying to resolve a "make it up as we go" plot that had gone off the rails, rather than a sober exploration of religion and faith in a science fiction setting. Consider, this was a show that started out with plausible scientific explanations for all of the concepts on the screen, down to the anachronisms like why they were using paper printouts, and human piloted attack craft instead of much more likely AI-driven offensive solutions. It ended up with a plot resolution of "God did it all". At that point, it might as well have been Star Wars.

[El Chorizo]

Originally Posted by Phell

Perhaps that's because science fiction always takes touchstones from present day reality in order to establish a feel of realism or plausibility. In our contemporary reality, organized religion frequently takes an adversarial stance to science, dismissing it if it becomes inconvenient, and even seeking to redefine the very concept of science in order to force it to acknowledge faith based perspectives that *should* be entirely outside the purview of science.

Is religion fundamentally opposed to science by default? Of course not. Do some religious groups adopt an adversarial relationship to science, and actively attack it? You betcha.

I agree. I think it's problematic for films to recapitulate this extremist view of the relationship between science and religion. Instead of addressing or analyzing the problem of extremist religious anti-science, it ends up defining the dialogue in terms of it. That's far less interesting than it should/could be.

Science Fiction literature, in large part, has always had a very cynical view towards religion. In most of the major works I can think of offhand, when it's portrayed, it's portrayed as a manipulation or exploitation of ignorance, or a deification of an extraordinary, but otherwise rational and explainable phenomenon. While I'm sympathetic to that position, I think you could make a case for science fiction as a genre as an atagonist. Again, though, it's usually reacting to some real world touchstone, and science didn't start this fight.

I'm not sure what the ratio of antagonist to neutral to faith-endorsing novels would be in sci-fi. I'm sure you're right that what attracts many atheists to science fiction is the tacit endorsement of atheism or at least scientism that exists in some of the novels. I'm fairly certain that many science fiction novels are open to faith-based interpretations and many are invested in retaining (instead of explaining away) the mystical or religious.

In comparison to classic science fiction literature, I find Sci Fi movies are generally much more mild and apologetic towards the subject of religion, some of them even reverently recreating religious concepts for easy digestion. They have to pull their punches much more than a writer would.

I agree here as well though I don't think this is always about 'pulling punches' as much as the writers themselves wanting to punch above their weight in dealing with these themes. Prometheus is just the latest example here. Also I think that most people, script writers included, just aren't very good at handling this topic.

In the examples you listed, I find Contact a very interesting movie. I've grown to appreciate the movie much more over the years, than when I first saw it. I think it's one of the few movies that actually gives a compelling argument for the other side, when a rational person admits that at some point, her testimony comes down to a matter of faith. It's one of the few movies I've found that actually achieve a sort of parity with either outlook.

This might be okay were it not for Matthew McConaughey's over the top 'man of faith' speeches. The film is not subtle and I never found Jodie Foster's testimony as an act of faith. She isn't relying on faith at the end, even if she thinks so. She actually experienced something and does not have a rational or empirical explanation for that experience that proves that it is wrong. She chose to believe her empirical experience over the testimony of some others. Given the strangeness of the technology, I'm not sure her decision to believe is at all comparable to the decision to have faith in a non-empirical god.

Battlestar Galactica is not something I would have included in your list as worthwhile depictions of religion in sci fi. The religious elements in that show are more a result of lazy writing trying to resolve a "make it up as we go" plot that had gone off the rails, rather than a sober exploration of religion and faith in a science fiction setting. Consider, this was a show that started out with plausible scientific explanations for all of the concepts on the screen, down to the anachronisms like why they were using paper printouts, and human piloted attack craft instead of much more likely AI-driven offensive solutions. It ended up with a plot resolution of "God did it all". At that point, it might as well have been Star Wars.

What I liked about BSG (and LOST for that matter) is that they forced me, a non-believer, to adopt the point of view of a believer. God exists in the BSG universe, we have privileged access to that information but we get to see how others come to accept and reject that belief as a result of desperation and hard to explain co-incidences.

I wish the show had ended, at the latest, at the end of season 4 (4.5 should have never existed). I wish that Starbuck stayed dead too. But Baltar as a jesus figure was actually quite good, who cares if they were making it up as they went along?

[Dead and Messed Up]

Here's the problem: I disagree with you, because I think there is a naturally adversarial spirit between science and religion. Religion started out, in many ways, as a type of science. Explanations for the world and the human condition. Lightning comes from Olympus. Suffering comes from an apple. Existence comes from the navel of Vishnu. Better types of religions have modified their usage to accommodate a greater understanding of global culture and ethics (e.g. Reform Judaism, Episcopalians)...or acted more as life-philosophies from the start (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism). Those less compatible (re: more dependent on the certitude of cosmological claims) have struggled more vociferously and actively fought scientific advancement.

This comes down to the question: what is religion actually about? If, as you hold, it's beyond the scope of science, what are the claims it makes, and what about those claims deserves to be considered? And are they truly beyond the boundaries of science?

Also, I think it's best to figure out what represents religion in these science-fiction universes. When we talk about these stories, we're mostly talking about certain readings of Christianity and broad Abrahamic ideas. Maybe an occasional bone tossed to the East.

[Dead and Messed Up]

I apologize about possibly detouring the thread into a religious argument, but it might be inevitable given the thread topic.

[El Chorizo]

Originally Posted by Dead and Messed Up

Here's the problem: I disagree with you, because I think there is a naturally adversarial spirit between science and religion. Religion started out, in many ways, as a type of science. Explanations for the world and the human condition. Lightning comes from Olympus. Suffering comes from an apple. Existence comes from the navel of Vishnu. Better types of religions have modified their usage to accommodate a greater understanding of global culture and ethics (e.g. Reform Judaism, Episcopalians)...or acted more as life-philosophies from the start (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism). Those less compatible (re: more dependent on the certitude of cosmological claims) have struggled more vociferously and actively fought scientific advancement.

I wasn't claiming that religion was static. By most accounts religion did begin as a way of explaining the unexplainable. I think it's still doing that. There is nothing, so far as I can tell, inherent in Christianity, for example, that should render it anti-science.

Literal (fundamentalist) understandings of Christianity are, of course, incompatible with scientific explanations because they conflate scientific/empirical with religious explanation.

This comes down to the question: what is religion actually about? If, as you hold, it's beyond the scope of science, what are the claims it makes, and what about those claims deserves to be considered? And are they truly beyond the boundaries of science?

Take the meaning of human life. Science can answer the origin of human life, sociology can address how we have historically related to one another, psychology and neuroscience can model our emotional and moral judgments. But some want more than that.

Some philosophers, to give a quick answer, go on to give secular theories of morality that are explicitly non-reductive, they cannot be reduced to biological or physical facts. The purpose is to give a satisfactory answer to the question of the ultimate ground of human morality that does not result in some kind of relativism.

Some religions have god(s) do something similar.

I'm a relativist so I clearly think some views are right and others wrong but that doesn't mean that I dismiss the rationale or purpose behind those views I disagree with. I think too often science is presented as if it will provide all of these answers at the expense of religion. I don't see why it does it. Frankly, if it did that then science would have us undo a great deal of philosophy as well.

]quote]Also, I think it's best to figure out what represents religion in these science-fiction universes. When we talk about these stories, we're mostly talking about certain readings of Christianity and broad Abrahamic ideas. Maybe an occasional bone tossed to the East.[/QUOTE]

True, most Hollywood films either deal explicitly with Christianity or watered down Buddhism.

[MaxRenn]

You could interpret Star Trek: The Motion Picture as having religious undertones. V'Ger is essentially a God in that it knows all that is knowable and that it can indoctrinate others (like it did with Ilia) to tell others of its power and serve its goals. Since V'Ger is the peak of the universe's technology and the culmination of its knowledge, it could be a statement that an all-powerful, omnipotent being is our end instead of our beginning. Take how Ilia and Deckard serving as a sort of a machine-created Adam and Eve.

[Space for Rent]

Originally Posted by El Chorizo

I'm not sure what the ratio of antagonist to neutral to faith-endorsing novels would be in sci-fi. I'm sure you're right that what attracts many atheists to science fiction is the tacit endorsement of atheism or at least scientism that exists in some of the novels. I'm fairly certain that many science fiction novels are open to faith-based interpretations and many are invested in retaining (instead of explaining away) the mystical or religious.

In terms science fiction literature, it would be easier to list the few works that portray religion in a non-cynical fashion. Generally speaking, genuine science fiction is about using plausible concepts with roots in contemporary scientific understanding, to explore interesting questions. Faith based religion is antithetical to that notion, as much as it might be somewhat politic to suggest otherwise. At best, it's either explored clinically, as an irrational human behavioral characteristic...a revering of the extraordinary but explainable, or at worst, as a manipulation of ignorance.

You're always going to have science fiction writers with their own religions beliefs, like Orson Scott Card, or Gene Wolfe, who work in their own religious ideas or imagery into their work like Tolkien and C.s. Lewis, but you'll always find sci fi purists that question whether what they're actually writing is actually science fiction, and not fantasy.

Sci Fi movies have been far easier on the subject. When you suggest it's not about pulling punches, I'm afraid I'm too cynical too agree. Science Fiction movies are typically expensive to produce, and they can't go out of their way to alienate wider audiences.

Originally Posted by El Chorizo

This might be okay were it not for Matthew McConaughey's over the top 'man of faith' speeches. The film is not subtle and I never found Jodie Foster's testimony as an act of faith. She isn't relying on faith at the end, even if she thinks so. She actually experienced something and does not have a rational or empirical explanation for that experience that proves that it is wrong. She chose to believe her empirical experience over the testimony of some others. Given the strangeness of the technology, I'm not sure her decision to believe is at all comparable to the decision to have faith in a non-empirical god.

*Shrugs*. Franky, I found McConaughey's character one of the more positive examples of faith based characters in science fiction. The arguments he presented were reasonable in a philosophical sense (again, as opposed to my Red Planet example), and they softened the character by making him a sexual being. He was a guy you could go out and have a beer and talk about spirituality with.

Unfortunately, I recognize the character as a construct specifically contrived to appeal to my liberal sensibilities, and I don't find him very recognizable as a religious political figure from the reality that I know. In other words, McConaughey's character *was* science fiction.

Originally Posted by El Chorizo

What I liked about BSG (and LOST for that matter) is that they forced me, a non-believer, to adopt the point of view of a believer.[...] But Baltar as a jesus figure was actually quite good, who cares if they were making it up as they went along?

Well, we're off topic now, but in a purely narrative sense, If they don't have a resolution that fits in with the premise and tone established for the series, then I care. Religious imagery is one thing. Lazy plot resolution and dei ex machina are hack writing.

[Dead and Messed Up]

Originally Posted by El Chorizo

I wasn't claiming that religion was static. By most accounts religion did begin as a way of explaining the unexplainable. I think it's still doing that. There is nothing, so far as I can tell, inherent in Christianity, for example, that should render it anti-science.

Except that it requires a suspension of the skeptical scientific mind in order to embrace the idea of a God-man who descended to Earth and sacrificed himself as a way to erase the lingering effect of a couple eating a forbidden fruit. Maybe not anti-science (as in "Fuck you science") so much as anti-scientific.

And remember that this is not some ridiculous fundamentalist thesis. This is what Jesus himself believed to be his mission.

Historically, Christianity might not be anti-science insofar as the science is useful to Christians without offending the faith (Mendel gets a pass while Galileo gets locked up), but it's certainly in opposition to the scientific manner of thinking. Scientific inquiry requires skepticism, and faith is skepticism's enemy.

I'm a relativist so I clearly think some views are right and others wrong but that doesn't mean that I dismiss the rationale or purpose behind those views I disagree with. I think too often science is presented as if it will provide all of these answers at the expense of religion. I don't see why it does it. Frankly, if it did that then science would have us undo a great deal of philosophy as well.

I hope I'm not dismissing the rationale or purpose behind religious views. That's not my intent. I have sympathy for the religious, and most I know hold reasonable views of their faiths (and often a likable sense of humor about the whole thing). I don't expect science to ever solve every answer, and, to get back to your original thread topic, science is just as driven by mystery as religion.

Which might be a simpler way of explaining why the two so frequently collide in sci-fi stories. If they're both driven by similar impulses, it's easy to make that binary and watch the two collide and call it drama.

For what it's worth, I really dug how Prometheus was fundamentally about the idea of infinite regress. If you begat me, who begat you? And so on. There are a lot of other ideas in the flick, but that one holds the most water and is most intertwined with both faith and reason. Either way, we seeks causes to the effects.

Sidenote: one of my favorite recent reads is Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, and while I initially rolled my eyes at the Jesus parallels, I was cheering by the end. No idea what that means.

[Spatafore]

BSG played the religion angle brilliantly because it operated like humans have throughout history: we started off with multiple Gods and eventually came to settle on one. It works completely, including the fate of Starbuck, because the philosophy was present since the miniseries. Hell, her fate was foreshadowed in Razor.

[Dead and Messed Up]

Originally Posted by MaxRenn

You could interpret Star Trek: The Motion Picture as having religious undertones. V'Ger is essentially a God in that it knows all that is knowable and that it can indoctrinate others (like it did with Ilia) to tell others of its power and serve its goals. Since V'Ger is the peak of the universe's technology and the culmination of its knowledge, it could be a statement that an all-powerful, omnipotent being is our end instead of our beginning. Take how Ilia and Deckard serving as a sort of a machine-created Adam and Eve.

I watched all the Trek movies in a marathon last year, and I discovered that every other movie is about religion.

The Motion Picture is as you describe it. The Search for Spock is about resurrection and ends with a sacramental ceremony. The Final Frontier answers the profound question of what God needs with a starship (answer: less than you might suspect). Generations is about the lure of Heaven. Insurrection is about the complications of immortality.

Some better explored than others, but you know.

Anyway.

[Atomic Cow]

Originally Posted by Phell

Battlestar Galactica, on the other hand, is not something I would have included in your list as worthwhile depictions of religion in sci fi. The religious elements in that show are more a result of lazy writing trying to resolve a "make it up as we go" plot that had gone off the rails, rather than a sober exploration of religion and faith in a science fiction setting. Consider, this was a show that started out with plausible scientific explanations for all of the concepts on the screen, down to the anachronisms like why they were using paper printouts, and human piloted attack craft instead of much more likely AI-driven offensive solutions. It ended up with a plot resolution of "God did it all". At that point, it might as well have been Star Wars.

I'm actually shocked at your ultimate assessment of Battlestar Galactica. For my money it was the best series or even film to discuss different aspects of religion from varied angles. It was very brave in that respect as almost every other show avoids confronting such topics because its pretty hard to do. But used that these were like us but not us to ask questions and comment on the miraculous to prophecy to outright fraud. I don't think summing up with God did it all at the journeys end does anything close to doing justice to the accomplishments of Battlestar Galactica in taking on these topics. I think your commentary is lazy and glib sounding a lot like the plug and play sort of final commentary given to LOST.

[Spatafore]

It was obvious from the onset that religion would play a huge part in BSG. I mean, for God's sake, religious texts were used to find the location of earth.

[Space for Rent]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

I'm actually shocked at your ultimate assessment of Battlestar Galactica. For my money it was the best series or even film to discuss different aspects of religion from varied angles. It was very brave in that respect as almost every other show avoids confronting such topics because its pretty hard to do. But used that these were like us but not us to ask questions and comment on the miraculous to prophecy to outright fraud. I don't think summing up with God did it all at the journeys end does anything close to doing justice to the accomplishments of Battlestar Galactica in taking on these topics. I think your commentary is lazy and glib sounding a lot like the plug and play sort of final commentary given to LOST.

*Vague BSG spoilers follow.*


BSG started out as a show that was interested in being science fiction. It was replete with technological anachronisms, like paper printouts in a universe with faster than light technology, and human piloted attack ships in a universe where human level artificial AI existed. But it offered plausible explanations for all of these things, to try and explain how, and for what reason they existed. They couldn't use networked AI, because the Cylons were AI themselves, and could compromise anything with too much automation. The Cylons had compromised their advanced ships, so they had to use the more primitive models. They existed in a world where FTL technology had been stumbled upon early on, and then war was forced upon them, so while that aspect of society was developed, they were still using anachronistic technology like telephone handsets and paper printouts.

That was the pilot, and the first season, used to sell people on the show.


By the final season, the explanations, or lack thereof, had become lazy, not in keeping with the original spirit of the show, and implausible religious/spiritual elements were used to explain away increasingly implausible "mindfuck" cliffhangers and plot twists, that stopped even trying to fit into the realm of plausibility. By the series finale, it was clear they had no real idea of how everything fit together, and were just pulling shit out of their ass as they went.

It would be one thing if they *started* the show with that philosophy. But they didn't. They betrayed what the show was originally portrayed as being. In this sense, they were even inferior to the original series they claimed to improve upon. While campy, that show had explanations into the nature of their godlike beings. No explanation was offered for BSG, other than "God did it", literally. That was the literal explanation for the plot in the show.

So you went from explaining, "This is why we use paper printouts" in a futuristic setting, to "God did it" as the explanation for every single improbable event that happened on the show that served to advance the plot, without any explanation into the nature of God, or its motivations. That is a literal Deus ex Machnica, as near as I can tell, which is universally considered lazy writing.

The show was an engaging study of interesting characters, decent drama, and worth watching on that basis, but it was a truckload of horseshit as far as being good science fiction.

[Spatafore]

PS Millions of religious animals today are of the mind that "God did it" when something can't be explained. I always saw the series' closing as being like that.

You know what? I don't care. I watched it for the character studies and the various themes and social commentary brought forth throughout the years. I did not care about finding earth. I did not care that things were not resolved. I had more fun discussing the mutiny in season four than ranting and raving about the disappointing series finale and the "God did it" aspect. I had more fun discussing the utilitarian ethics involved in "A Measure of Salvation" I enjoyed discussing Baltar's trial and the verdict. Those mattered more to me than anything else in the series, especial the "hard sci-fi" aspect that you seem to lament in its passing.

[Atomic Cow]

You could be right about the last season. I honestly cant remember all the details. Overall though I could not help but notice the remarkable courage of the show to take on the topics it took on. I did not mention LOST by accident. While there are people who mock one of the messages of the finale where the journey and being together was as important as the destination. I feel that was certainly the case with BSG. Whether things resolved how someone would have liked does not change the impact of the shows in the earlier seasons at the time they were being watched. I know I wasn't really wasn't horribly bothered by much as the show came to its final episodes. Even the ending which wasn't tip top was more or less what I expected they would have to do. I knew from the second season actually arriving 'home' could never live up to the journey and anticipation of getting there.

No visible display or explanation of what God is will ever be satisfying. I have yet to see heaven or hell depicted on screen without being disappointed. Its pretty fascinating that the Cylon's were as passionate about their God and were actually trying to proselytize and teach about God to unbelieving humans. This was serious religion dealing with the topic exactly as we deal with it in the real world. Not just some comic book explanation of ancient astronauts building the Egyptian pyramids and planting humans in the galaxy. There is usually this lingering question about whether god did something or the people that believed it were just deluded. To me that is mature confrontation of the topic. Or someone like the president leading people as a messiah and believing in herself as someone prophesied and chosen through time and then later also doubting. Amazing stuff I think. To me its the ultimate if not the only show to really try something challenging on this and prejudice and even taking on using religion to justify race hatred.

[Dead and Messed Up]

The trick in making a show like BSG or Lost is to find a way to discuss religious ideas without using religious concepts to solve otherwise intractable story problems. Which both of these shows do with increasing frequency as the story goes on. Stuff like the side-flashes and the re-appearance of Kara Thrace have little to say, at the end of the day. This is the overwhelming tendency of most current speculative fiction. To throw a bunch of ideas at the audience and calling it depth. Name-checking instead of offering anything resembling an actual perspective.

Anyway, BSG is best viewed as a show about racism instead of a show about God.

Ironically, a show like Carnivale, which starts out as a preposterous fantasy with heavy religious elements (it opens with a monologue on that very subject), manages to make its story developments feel much more logical. Not just because of its grounded, deliberate style, and not just because the show had its shit figured out beforehand. Most importantly, the supernatural side was limited to events we saw and understood. Higher powers and supernal planes were summarily ignored - the show focused on the here-and-now of the show's characters. Which made things feel consequential, and made the characters feel like they mattered.

[Space for Rent]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

You could be right about the last season. I honestly cant remember all the details. Overall though I could not help but notice the remarkable courage of the show to take on the topics it took on. I did not mention LOST by accident. [snippage] .

Cow, I stopped watching LOST after the first season, so I cant comment on comparisons. I also dont require you to share my opinion of BSG, which, if you'll notice, I mentioned was worth watching on a dramatic and character basis, and I still enjoy on that front (although less than I originally did, when I thought the show had higher aspirations in terms of plot)

It would be cool, though, if you could reconsider your accusation of my opinion being glib and lazy. That's all I was after with my elaboration, to show my reasoning for it.


Either way, no biggie.

[Atomic Cow]

Originally Posted by Phell

Cow, I stopped watching LOST after the first season, so I cant comment on comparisons. I also dont require you to share my opinion of BSG, which, if you'll notice, I mentioned was worth watching on a dramatic and character basis, and I still enjoy on that front (although less than I originally did, when I thought the show had higher aspirations in terms of plot)

It would be cool, though, if you could reconsider your accusation of my opinion being glib and lazy. That's all I was after with my elaboration, to show my reasoning for it.


Either way, no biggie.

I withdraw. Flip that to lib and glazy.

[Space for Rent]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

I withdraw. Flip that to lib and glazy.

I find myself increasingly glazy these days. I maintain a constant sheen at all times, like fresh cut glistening morning grass, or Meatloaf Aday.

[Janson Jinnistan]

Choosing between religion and science, for me, is like choosing between poetry and journalism.

Even Einstein seemed to understand the bottomlessness of discovery. Science doesn't so much provide answers as it spurs better questions. I think the 'faith' that sometimes infects some scientists is hubris, or the faith that there is THE answer that will touch bottom and finally unlock all of the mystery of the universe. I think it's noble enough to look for it, but if I have a faith in the matter, it's that the answer found will have spores of questions underneath it. I think if either are utilized properly, the best result is cultivating an awe of the unknown. The inherent unknown shouldn't discourage the search, just as a doctor shouldn't be discouraged knowing sickness will never be entirely cured.

But to the issue of hubris, one film that's been on my mind in the last couple of years of reading the futurist theories of Ray Kurzweil is Godard's Alphaville. The "religious" aspects are actually more humanistic, or a faith in the value of the human spirit vs. faith in the technological efficiency of automation. Humans are obviously far from perfect, which makes it a perverse proposition that we're capable of creating perfect machines, or programs. As we incorporate "smart" A.I. in everything from criminal profiling (essentially doing the pre-cog work) to up to 70% of global financial trading ("smart" trading was the cause of the 'flash-crash'), the usual justification is that humans simply aren't smart enough to make such complex computations in real time. That may be true, but it does take a sufficient amount of faith in the machine not to have a human hand on the brake, so to speak. When IBM runs commercials about making a "smarter" world, they're not talking about investing in education. Maybe it's worth considering the implication in that priority.

But I'm hardly a Luddite. I have no problem with better, sharper tools. I think the most profound question is the degree to which we surrender our basic responsibilities to these programs so that people don't have to be as accountable for decision-making. In the world of Alphaville, the Alpha 60 computer has become both a god and despot, and in the dogma of human inadequecy, those special human qualities that aren't quantifiably reproducable by an A.I. (love, art, conscience) become seen as aberrations to be removed.

Unfortunately, this increasingly sophisticated technology is seen as the face of "science" in general. Some people see an increasingly calculated destiny as detrimental to the spontaneity of inspiration and a denial, rather than a solution, of the remaining mysteries of the natural universe. Cyber-space is an artificial universe, and an increasingly attractive alternative to the "meat-space" without. But as one of the running themes in Prometheus makes clear, should we exercise these capabilities "because we can", without regarding the potential cost? Even non-religious people sometimes see the emerging cyber-state as just another form of arrogantly imposed control rather than evolution. Part of this suspicion may lie in the subtle ways in which people are casually encouraged to become dependant on the technology in increasingly infantile ways (ie the Siri-Zooey Deschanel commercials where activities like looking out a window and heating tomato soup are presented as burdens needing alleviating; the Xfinity commercial showing police enjoying a comedy on a laptop at work, etc). Teletubbies, care-free post-lingual corn syruped shaped ids in snuggies being perpetually baby-sat by their "smart" world and auto-roomba, just might be a technological inevitability as long as convenience remains the primary motivation of innovation.

Or as Obama said (and was chastised by Microsoft-Rockefeller employee Chris Matthews) at the commencement speech at Hampton University in 2010, technology (science) can be a form of distraction or it can be a form of empowerment and emancipation. The problem seems to be that the former is the far more encouraged application by the tech companies themselves. If IBM was truly interested in a smarter world, they would want to invest in education to improve media literacy, critical and analytic thinking, and digital research skills. Instead, we get the "no brainer" of Bing commited to do as much of our decision-making for us, presumbably so we can have more time to waste on Facebook.

As far as religion is concerned, it goes without saying, after several centuries of precedent after all, that it's obviously used as an instrument of social and intellectual control. It might come as a surprise to most people, to the religious as much as non-believers, that religion, especially comparative religious study, contains certain devices for liberation. There's a reason for "liberation theology", a branch of Christianity among African American and Native American people. For people with a history of physical subjugation and oppression, it resonates with them that there is an esoteric self, a "spirit", that cannot be chained or beaten or starved. One reason why some of these believers distrust some of the genetic or neurochemical advances is that they see it as a scientific way of finally putting a pharmaco-shackle on this spirit. This is probably why they tend to be as adverse to medicine and vaccines as Scientologists. However, if more people realized their spiritual self-sufficiency, there would be no need for churches either, and so churches and governments have long been in a mutually reassuring state of co-operation.

To end this already longer than I had planned examination of the fears and comforts of these two rival siblings, I'll just reiterate that, at their best and finest application, both religion and science should inform us about our relationship with the universe. One is more poetic, one is more precise, and together they can be wisdom.

[Gut Check Trainwreck]

I recently re-watched "The Martian Chronicles."

I remember loving it as a young boy(and reading the book once with a short attention span),but not really getting the message of spirituality and the irony of it.

I want to go back and revisit that novel.

[Maximal Van Maximus]

Faith isn't homogenous. Sometimes it conflicts with science, sometimes it doesn't. It all depends on the tenets of the particular faith.

[The Mighty Dingus]

...