Religion in Science-Fiction?

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Which additional scriptures have these folks added?

 

By and large they've stayed within the realms of heresy, rather than being a new religion.

 

Of course, technically, "Christianity" = one or more of the Orthodox churches, not that schismatic Roman rubbish.... or the Copts, or....

Is this likely to go anywhere useful?

 

All of the above have altered the canon by leaving out Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and Maccabees 1 & 2. The arguement was made at the time that translating the scriptures amounted to adding to them.

 

Cathoilic =/= Roman Catholic, but the Universal Orthodox church. Even so, I believe there are still more Roman Catholics than all other forms of Christian put together.

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

And you've just proven you know nothing about science.

Not what they said when they gave me my degree in biology.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

What exactly do you mean by that?

 

I'm joking.

 

How am I not participating in the conversation?

 

This:

 

(please realize here that I am working off the idea that my religion is the correct one. if you disagree' date=' that's OK, but you're not going to convice me I'm wrong and I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong. so let's not argue.)[/quote']

 

... is solipsistic. Basically this is an admission of incommensurable problems to conversion. One being that nobody can be convinced, which is sheer chaos. Another is that argumentation itself is being argued against.

 

Clearly I am over-analyzing the whole statement in the wrong way. It's just funny to me. I do the same thing all the time (i.e., make deflationary disclaimers).

 

As for the remarks about Nephilim' date=' my understanding has always been that the "Sons of God" mentioned were Angels, making the nephilim half human/half angel.[/quote']

 

That's my take on it, too.

 

It's either that or fragmented ancestral memories of Conan.

 

There is a difference between angels and aliens.

 

Angel autopsy... guardian alien... what's the difference?

 

and between terrestrial aliens nd extraterretrial aliens' date=' which is what the conversation seems to be about. [/quote']

 

True. I feel a certain level of ambiguity and complexity is healthy.

 

And maybe I'm just dense' date=' but how is the quote from Merchant of Venice relevant?[/quote']

 

Imho, the Devil is the original alien.

 

'Demonization'... 'alienation'... 'dehumanization'... these are all related concepts, too.

 

It's not as if I'm quoting Stephen Hawking to try to prove God exists.

 

Why not? That would be fun, too.

[Clonus]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

And you've just proven you know nothing about science.

 

He really hasn't.

 

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm

[Manic Typist]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

And you've just proven you know nothing about science.

 

Talking about yourself in the second person eh?

[dmjalund]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Talking about yourself in the second person eh?

That would be the third person.

if I say "You look great in the mirror this morning" I would be lying to myself in the second person.

[assault]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Is this likely to go anywhere useful?

 

Not really.

 

Even so, I believe there are still more Roman Catholics than all other forms of Christian put together.

 

Something I find interesting is the vast Christian presence that used to exist east of the Roman Empire prior to the rise of Islam. By some estimates these populations were similar in size to the western Christian population - and they weren't Catholic/Orthodox! Most of their sects viewed Jesus as a human prophet, rather than divine - a view that nearly became orthodox in the Orthodox/Catholic church as well.

 

The presence of these populations contributed to the rapid expansion of Islam, since conversion was relatively straightforward.

 

A neat reference.

[wrestlinggeek]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Is it me, or have we gotten off topic in this thread? For which, I admit, I bear a largish measure of responsibility.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

That would be the third person.

if I say "You look great in the mirror this morning" I would be lying to myself in the second person.

 

No, it would definitely be the second person.

"I know nothing about science."

"You (who is really I) know nothing about science."

"This one/He/Name knows nothing about science."

 

See, I was using that quote to show how he must have really been talking about himself since he was so very wrong, and since he used "you" I framed it as the second person.

 

But now any cleverness that MIGHT have existed is definitely dead.

[Clonus]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I just tried to track down 101 Religions. Apparently it's out of print. Too bad.

[ErikModi]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Talking about yourself in the second person eh?

 

Hey, I linked the sources I used to compile my point of view. After dismissing the definitions I was talking about, flying in the face of every scientific principle there is, I saw no need to waste my time.

 

In essence, he is perfectly demonstrating exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about: preaching something as scientific law when it is still undergoing revision and analysis.

 

I'm not debating evolution, I happen to think it is indeed correct, though our current understanding of it still requires tweaking. What I AM against is treating hypotheses and theories as facts, denying even the infintisimal probabilities that even well-tested theories are severely flawed, and claims that your pet theory must be completely and wholly true just because it's the one you like best.

 

Claiming something is the way it is when it has not been completely proven is not science; by definition, that is religion. Many "atheist" scientists are actually extremely religious, but only when it comes to science. As an example, when asked if he thought E=MC2 was true, Einstein was known to reply "Of course it is! It's too beautiful not to be true!" That's Faith, not science. Science did eventually prove Einstein's Faith in his equation, but that does not transform his Faith into Science. Science led him to the conclusion, Faith made him believe in it until it was proven by Science.

 

Claiming that, among other things, evolution has been proven is grossly offensive to true science. It has not been "proven" in the true scientific meaning of the term, partly because it is an extremely difficult phenomena to observe, record, and experiment with. Consider string theory. It's a really good theory, very interesting, and indeed explains a whole lot of weird subatomic brujaja. But, it requires a universe of more dimensions then we have observed in our own universe. Does string theory being the best Unification Theory* make it Proven? Hardly. Does string theory Prove the existence of alternate dimensions? Not by a long shot. Would the existence of alternate dimensions Prove string theory? Not even. "Proof," in scientific terms, is an EXTREMELY hard thing to come by, which is something not a lot of people really understand. There are a lot of really good, interesting, compelling ideas in the scientific community at any given time, and only a handful of those will survive the rigorous observation, testing, revision, experimentation, and replication required to Prove them.

 

*That is not to say that string theory is the only, or even the best, Unification Theory available. I'm simply using it as an example. In a way, it goes back to exactly what I was saying earlier. . . scientists who are grand proponents of string theory, research the subject heavily, and believe it to be the one, true unification theory are exhibiting Faith, Faith that their theory is correct, when a lack of evidence, and sometimes even evidence against, tells them otherwise.

 

In the final analysis, science (at least, GOOD science) is a lot more dynamic than many people realize. Even seemingly long-established principles, such as Newtonian Laws, are constantly being revised and revisited as new information comes to light. Describing the behavior of the world around us, which is what Science is made to do, is turning out to be a lot more difficult, and a lot more exciting, than anyone ever imagined.

 

And no matter how well science learns to answer the "how" questions, the "why" questions will always be firmly in the realm of Faith, Philosophy, and Religion. Science may indeed one day be able to tell us, beyond the shadow of a doubt, How we came to be on this planet in the form we are in with the capabilities we have. But even on that day, the question of Why we are here, on this planet, with these capabilities, will remain nebulous.

[Clonus]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Hey, I linked the sources I used to compile my point of view. After dismissing the definitions I was talking about, flying in the face of every scientific principle there is, I saw no need to waste my time.

 

In essence, he is perfectly demonstrating exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about: preaching something as scientific law when it is still undergoing revision and analysis..

 

Everything is always undergoing revision and analysis. And he is right, Newton's "Law" of gravity is the same thing as his theory of gravity. (And his "law" of gravity was shown not to be one about a century ago.)

[Alverant]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

And no matter how well science learns to answer the "how" questions' date=' the "why" questions will always be firmly in the realm of Faith, Philosophy, and Religion. Science may indeed one day be able to tell us, beyond the shadow of a doubt, How we came to be on this planet in the form we are in with the capabilities we have. But even on that day, the question of Why we are here, on this planet, with these capabilities, will remain nebulous.[/quote']

First why are the "why" questions important? Second, why does religion or faith have any credibility in answering that question? You go after science about issues of proof, yet you don't apply those same standards to religion and specifically your religion. If you want the answer to "why we are here", you're just as good as anyone to figure it out for yourself.

[ErikModi]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Exactly.

 

And for the record, I'm not "going after" science. I happen to like science. I'm good at science. But any REAL scientist is capable of admitting that, not only are there things science cannot adequately explain YET, there are likely things science will NEVER adequately be able to explain.

 

Like why people keep arguing instead of having constructive conversations.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Claiming that' date=' among other things, evolution has been proven is grossly offensive to true science. It has not been "proven" in the true scientific meaning of the term, partly because it is an extremely difficult phenomena to observe, record, and experiment with.[/quote']

 

I beg to differ. In addition to experiments specifically designed to test evolution (using short-lived species such as E. Coli), we also have evidence in the form of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and herbicide-resistant weeds.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

As I've noted before, the fact that living organisms evolve over time has been repeatedly noted and observed, but natural selection is a theory advanced to explain this phenomenon. It is possible that natural selection may be invalidated in due course of time, but extremely unlikely that the pattern of evolution will suddenly cease.

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Hey' date=' I linked the sources I used to compile my point of view. After dismissing the definitions I was talking about, flying in the face of every scientific principle there is, I saw no need to waste my time.[/quote']

Your cites were Wikipedia articles, and they were wrong.

 

In essence' date=' he is perfectly demonstrating exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about: preaching something as scientific law when it is still undergoing revision and analysis.[/quote']

There is no hard and fast dividing line beteen scientific theory and scientific law. This is one of the tings your source got wrong.

 

You claim I'm wrong? Post a non-wiki cite showing that, and who has the authority to decide if a theory has been proven well enough to become a law.

 

There is no such authority, and astronomy is one of the few disciplines having anything close to that.

 

I'm not debating evolution, I happen to think it is indeed correct, though our current understanding of it still requires tweaking. What I AM against is treating hypotheses and theories as facts, denying even the infintisimal probabilities that even well-tested theories are severely flawed, and claims that your pet theory must be completely and wholly true just because it's the one you like best.

 

Claiming something is the way it is when it has not been completely proven is not science; by definition, that is religion. Many "atheist" scientists are actually extremely religious, but only when it comes to science. As an example, when asked if he thought E=MC2 was true, Einstein was known to reply "Of course it is! It's too beautiful not to be true!" That's Faith, not science. Science did eventually prove Einstein's Faith in his equation, but that does not transform his Faith into Science. Science led him to the conclusion, Faith made him believe in it until it was proven by Science.

 

Claiming that, among other things, evolution has been proven is grossly offensive to true science.

No, it is not, because evolution has been observed. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You may question what the observations mean, not the observations themselves.

 

It has not been "proven" in the true scientific meaning of the term' date=' partly because it is an extremely difficult phenomena to observe, record, and experiment with. [/quote']

No, it is not.

 

dictionary.com

3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

 

Get a few Petri dishes with agar. Start a bacteria culture in one. Add an antibiotic. Did most of the bacteria die? If so, culture some survivors into a new dish. Add antibiotic again. Did most of this new culture live? Viola! Evolution. Allele frequency shifted between your two populations as a result of an enviromental stress. Again, any schoolchild can do this.

 

Consider string theory. It's a really good theory, very interesting, and indeed explains a whole lot of weird subatomic brujaja. But, it requires a universe of more dimensions then we have observed in our own universe. Does string theory being the best Unification Theory* make it Proven? Hardly. Does string theory Prove the existence of alternate dimensions? Not by a long shot. Would the existence of alternate dimensions Prove string theory? Not even. "Proof," in scientific terms, is an EXTREMELY hard thing to come by, which is something not a lot of people really understand. There are a lot of really good, interesting, compelling ideas in the scientific community at any given time, and only a handful of those will survive the rigorous observation, testing, revision, experimentation, and replication required to Prove them.

 

*That is not to say that string theory is the only, or even the best, Unification Theory available. I'm simply using it as an example. In a way, it goes back to exactly what I was saying earlier. . . scientists who are grand proponents of string theory, research the subject heavily, and believe it to be the one, true unification theory are exhibiting Faith, Faith that their theory is correct, when a lack of evidence, and sometimes even evidence against, tells them otherwise.

What makes string theory a "good" theory? It is totally evidence-free, expains nothing, and makes no testible predictions. It is interesting, in the way Sudoku puzzles facinate some people. But there are some 8 billion Sudoku arrangements (allowing for reflection, rotation as trivial differences from otherwise unique arrangements). Our current state of string theory is roughly equlivent to having a computer print out the possible Sudoku arrangements, and trying to solve the puzzle by comparing them to the puzzle one by one. (Someone please let me know if I am wrong about this, physics is not my field, and I may be out of date, but my understaning is that it had hit a dead end with no way to cut down the near-infinite way the extra dimensions might be arranged to a manageable number?)

 

In the final analysis' date=' science (at least, GOOD science) is a lot more dynamic than many people realize. Even seemingly long-established principles, such as Newtonian Laws, are constantly being revised and revisited as new information comes to light. Describing the behavior of the world around us, which is what Science is made to do, is turning out to be a lot more difficult, and a lot more exciting, than anyone ever imagined.[/quote']

I think you're making a correct point there, could be phrased better. Avoid the absolutes.

 

And no matter how well science learns to answer the "how" questions' date=' the "why" questions will always be firmly in the realm of Faith, Philosophy, and Religion. [/quote']

Nonsense. Quite a few things in the past four hundred years have been moved from "philosophy" to "science."

 

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet wasn't calling Horaito dumb, he was commenting on the then-current state of knowledge. But since then science has put philosophy into smaller and smaller boxes.

 

Science may indeed one day be able to tell us' date=' beyond the shadow of a doubt, How we came to be on this planet in the form we are in with the capabilities we have. But even on that day, the question of Why we are here, on this planet, with these capabilities, will remain nebulous.[/quote']

And that is a statement of faith.

[ErikModi]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Your cites were Wikipedia articles' date=' and they were wrong.[/quote']

 

I hate to bring it to this level but. . .

 

No, you're wrong. Your continued statements fly in the face of every established scientific definition system I'm aware of.

 

But whatever.

 

I refuse to get drawn into further off-topic debate on this subject. You've stated your position, I've stated mine, we've both supplied our evidence. Anyone else can draw whatever conclusions they want from the available data, or go find their own data and draw conclusions from that.

 

Now, I would suggest that we all agree to disagree about real-world stuff, and return the thread to the discussion of fiction, or else just let it die. This back-and-forth of horsehockey serves no constructive purpose.

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I hate to bring it to this level but. . .

 

No, you're wrong. Your continued statements fly in the face of every established scientific definition system I'm aware of.

 

But whatever.

 

I refuse to get drawn into further off-topic debate on this subject. You've stated your position, I've stated mine, we've both supplied our evidence. Anyone else can draw whatever conclusions they want from the available data, or go find their own data and draw conclusions from that.

 

Now, I would suggest that we all agree to disagree about real-world stuff, and return the thread to the discussion of fiction, or else just let it die. This back-and-forth of horsehockey serves no constructive purpose.

No, you do not get to fire a final shot then declare a cease fire.

 

You say I'm wrong, provide the cites.

 

I hate to bring it to this level but how old are you? I have a degree in Biology. Are you out of high school?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

What about a species which thinks of themselves as gods? Perhaps they're immortal, or nearly so. Perhaps their technology has developed to the point that they themselves consider it miraculous. Maybe they even expect more "primitive" species to worship them.

What about a species which knows exactly what happens to them after their corporeal demise?

[Dreamstreamer]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

What about a species which thinks of themselves as gods? Perhaps they're immortal, or nearly so. Perhaps their technology has developed to the point that they themselves consider it miraculous. Maybe they even expect more "primitive" species to worship them.

What about a species which knows exactly what happens to them after their corporeal demise?

 

An interesting idea! Let's take it further. They're immortal and invulnerable. At first, this kind of character sounds rather boring. They can't be physically hurt and they'll never die. What happens to their minds over time? Can they reproduce? If so, will their takeover of the universe be inevitable? What happens to such a character in a black hole? Considering invulnerability, can their muscles atrophy/grow? As they cannot die, would they consider themselves gods, despite not sensing everything in the universe at once? Could they, given enough time, know all things about all things? What happens when there is a disagreement between two of them? Will they fight for eternity because they can?

[ErikModi]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

No, you do not get to fire a final shot then declare a cease fire.

 

You say I'm wrong, provide the cites.

 

I hate to bring it to this level but how old are you? I have a degree in Biology. Are you out of high school?

 

I refuse to get drawn into further off-topic debate on this subject.

 

I provided links, you refuse to accept them. Not my problem.

 

I'm 31.

[Zane_Marlowe]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

So, 25 pages into this thread, can someone point me to the interesting or productive part of the discussion? It's hard to find amid the snark.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

So' date=' 25 pages into this thread, can someone point me to the interesting or productive part of the discussion? It's hard to find amid the snark.[/quote']

 

I blame thread drift.

[ErikModi]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

An interesting idea! Let's take it further. They're immortal and invulnerable. At first' date=' this kind of character sounds rather boring. They can't be physically hurt and they'll never die. What happens to their minds over time? Can they reproduce? If so, will their takeover of the universe be inevitable? What happens to such a character in a black hole? Considering invulnerability, can their muscles atrophy/grow? As they cannot die, would they consider themselves gods, despite not sensing everything in the universe at once? Could they, given enough time, know all things about all things? What happens when there is a disagreement between two of them? Will they fight for eternity because they can?[/quote']

 

In a way, that's a pretty common staple of science fiction, the "god-like" alien. Star Trek did it a few times, most notably with the Q. Babylon 5 had the Vorlons. Even the original Battlestar Galactica introduced god-like aliens (which is when the series jumped the shark in a lot of ways.) 2001/2010/et al is pretty much built around the concept of god-like aliens.

 

Treatments of such elements differs depending on what you want the god-like aliens to mean. In an original series Star Trek episode, the crew meets (I think) Apollo, who by the end of the episode reveals that the Olympian deities were in fact "just" Sufficiently Advanced Aliens (with a really keen sense of fashion.) Sometimes the aliens are used to promote an atheist view, that there is no "higher power," just more evolved alien beings. Other times, it is simply used to make the audience think, or to cast the sufficiently advanced aliens in a new light. For instance, the great mystery through the first two seasons of Babylon 5 is what does a Vorlon look like under its encounter suit? This mystery is sort of revealed at the end of Season 2, where Kosh leaves his encounter suit to save Sheridan's life, appearing as an angelic being complete with glowing whit robes and wings, appearing as whatever race the viewer sees (so humans see an angelic human, Narns see an angelic Narn, Drazi see an angelic Drazi, etc.) However, it is revealed near the start of Season 4 that this is only a disguise, a telepathic shroud the Vorlons wear over their true form. They choose to appear this way to younger races to inspire exactly feelings of religious awe and reverence, essentially manipulating younger races into viewing them as gods, or at the very least, beings of divinity, so that these races will be more disposed to obey them. It's a gigantic propaganda campaign reinforced by telepathic control and undermining of the very virtue of faith, which viewed in a certain light, makes the Vorlons far bigger cloacas than the chaos-loving, destructive, borderline-genocidal Shadows. Sure, the Shadows want to cause massive death, chaos, and destruction, but at least they're honest about it.

 

I bring up the example of the Vorlons specifically because of its implications and how religion is treated in Babylon 5. The default assumption of the Babylon 5 universe seems to be that there IS some kind of higher power, some sort of divinity or "Creator" behind the existence of everything. There are issues of Soul Hunters, deathbed scans, "reflected gods" in a lovely speech by Dr. Stephen Franklin, and many other instances where is it seems that at least the core belief of all religion, "there is a God," seems to be at least circumstantially proven. The Vorlons angelic appearance is a great big honking fly in that ointment, seeming to indicated that religion was invented by them as a means of control over the younger races, and their natural appearance has been adapted into the appearances of gods, angels, etc. By revealing that this is in effect a massive con-job perpetrated by the Vorlons thousands of years ago, it implies that religion is created/discovered by everyone naturally, but that the Vorlons subvert it for their own ends, working themselves into it where the can and using telepathy to alter their appearance to appeal to it. This preserves the fundamental core that religion is true, while making one wonder what specifics may be Vorlon artifact, what may be just musings/ramblings of ordinary people, and what may be "written under the divine inspiration of the Universe," as one of G'Kar's followers put it.

 

In one of the Mongoose Publishing books about the Vorlons and Shadows, they have a section wherein, deep in the Vorlon's history, they mathematically prove the existence of the soul, as well as an afterlife. It is this discovery that allows them to evolve past the need for physical bodies, turning them into beings of thought and energy. This sort of discovery could push an alien race (or even a sufficiently advanced humanity) into evolving into a new form, leaving behind physical bodies to live exclusively as immortal souls. It could create a new thirst for religion, as having a soul proven now means that the soul must be cared for in some way.

 

Handling a pure energy being is difficult. How vulnerable or invulnerable are they? Is the energy truly immortal and indestructible, or can it be dissipated/dispersed/destroyed? Is this energy even beholden to the laws of physics as we understand them? Does this energy even exist in our series of physical dimensions, or does it exist in a parallel dimension/s, a nonphysical plane of existence?

 

(Remember that dimensions are "planes," length/width/height. It is commonly accepted that there are three physical dimensions, through which we can move in any direction, forward/backward, up/down, side/side, and a fourth dimension of time, through which we can currently only move forward. Parallel dimensions such as hyperspace, subspace, etc. are hypothesized/speculated, but so far have no real evidence behind them one way or the other. There may be a parallel dimension wherein exists the energy of the soul, and where beings that have "ascended" beyond the physical reside. This, of course, is sheer speculation.)

 

The Babylon 5 movie Thirdspace also demonstrates what happens when godlike aliens start believing their own hype. As a result of their immense power, their mathematical proof of the existence of the soul, the Vorlons began presenting themselves to the younger races, and were viewed as gods (whether they actively encouraged this at this point in their history or not is open to debate.) They began to actually believe that they were gods, or at least that they should be. And so, they built a gateway to the dimension where they believed the soul resides, where divinity existed. They missed. Instead, they opened up a new dimension filled with Lovecraftian horrors piloting spaceships so advanced even the Vorlons were largely helpless against them. To my mind, that's a great example of how true Divinity educates those who've gotten a little too self-important. Godlike Aliens may be able to be kept in check by even more powerful Godlike Aliens, or have learned in the past that "there's always a bigger fish" and so wrap humility around themselves as a cloak of protection. Of course, there's something appealing about the idea of the supposedly perfect Godlike Alien exhibiting the classic flaw of overconfidence, overlooking a few small tiny details that ultimately lead to their total downfall.