Religion in Science-Fiction?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I do think there's a scintilla of something resembling faith in science too...the conviction that, eventually, sooner or later, we're going to figure everything out. Even though that may not actually be true...

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Why should they be irreconcilable? I've seen lots of beautiful sunsets' date=' but understanding the physical processes which created them didn't diminish their beauty. On the contrary, I could argue knowing more about them enhanced my ability to appreciate their beauty. Ignorance is over-rated.[/quote']

I think what Ragitsu meant was that there are "weak" believers who only say "there must be a god", because "science can't explain X" (yet).

Some people just want to have a reason why the apple falls from the tree. When you explain Gravitiy, they want a Reason for Gravitiy. When you explained the reason behind gravity and every other physical law in the universe, they want you still to explain why we live in a Universe with these physical laws and not in one with different ones. When you explain even this, they find a "Why?" behind that.

Some people just can't cope with the fact that the development of the universe and even ourselfs as a species, was just a act of randomness. It just happened, on this planet, in this way, under these physical laws. No superior, omnipotent being planning any of this. No godly will. No "creation in his likeness".

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Christopher Stasheef writes science fiction (and fantasy) with a strong Christian (Catholic) backround. His "Her Majesty Wizard" series uses midieval Catholic ideas about magic as the basis for how magic works.

[Orion]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Bit of a thread jack here' date=' but how would world buiders handle such inquiries. The simplest, and cheesiest, way is to say that "Nobody knows why, but time travel to the classical era of Earth doesn't work. And no, neither does travelling to the same year on Alpha Centauri then FTL to Earth."[/quote']

 

I could never do it that way. They might find a delusional rabble rouser, a genuinely wise religious person, or nothing at all. If found, very few, if any, people of that time would think he was a deity, and general society would consider all such believers to be nutjobs. I would play the early Christians as they are known to historians, and not as claimed to be by many faithful. In short, time travel always is portrayed historically correct.

 

I also would handle Mohammed, Buddha, Zeus, Thor, and every other deity in the same way. Christianity doesn't get any special consideration in this regard.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I do think there's a scintilla of something resembling faith in science too...the conviction that' date=' eventually, sooner or later, we're going to figure everything out. Even though that may not actually be true...[/quote']

 

The End of Science is SF.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

When you explained the reason behind gravity and every other physical law in the universe' date=' they want you still to explain why we live in a Universe with [i']these[/i] physical laws and not in one with different ones.

 

We live in a universe that sustains life. This is a tautology. As such, it is merely true & the truth of it is unenlightening... and generally people find this fact unsatisfying.

 

But, still... try living in a universe that doesn't support life. Now that would be a real trick.

 

Finding a universe with no life in it is equally impossible for basically the same reason. By definition, you cannot do it. It is ontologically invalid to do so.

 

When you explain even this' date=' they find a "Why?" behind that.[/quote']

 

Why is a tautology a tautology?

 

 

~ Mister E ("Are we there, yet?")

[Starcloud]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I think what Ragitsu meant was that there are "weak" believers who only say "there must be a god", because "science can't explain X" (yet).

Some people just want to have a reason why the apple falls from the tree. When you explain Gravitiy, they want a Reason for Gravitiy. When you explained the reason behind gravity and every other physical law in the universe, they want you still to explain why we live in a Universe with these physical laws and not in one with different ones. When you explain even this, they find a "Why?" behind that.

Some people just can't cope with the fact that the development of the universe and even ourselfs as a species, was just a act of randomness. It just happened, on this planet, in this way, under these physical laws. No superior, omnipotent being planning any of this. No godly will. No "creation in his likeness".

 

Here's the thing, Christopher, and why it's called Faith and not "Provable Fact." You cannot prove beyond a doubt that there is not a creator, a first cause, just as the existence of a creator being cannot be proven TO exist. Science is, of necessity, silent on matters that are unprovable.

 

In the absence of fact, all that remains is faith. Faith that it was all random and just happened to work out this way, or faith that it was a guided design.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

But, still... try living in a universe that doesn't support life. Now that would be a real trick.

 

Finding a universe with no life in it is equally impossible for basically the same reason. By definition, you cannot do it. It is ontologically invalid to do so.

It does not needs much alteration on the physical laws to make life impossible. For example just a tiny modification to one of the stellar constants (like the bindign forces between atoms) and all the suns would explode.

 

So you just would need a probe designed to survive this different universe and that than calls home: "There are really no stars here" or it would just make the same test we used to determine the constants of our univers are and sees how they come up differently over there. The universe we are testing should not be too different (metal should still behave like metal, if it ever had a chance to form over there) for this to work, of course.

 

@Starcloud:

I think people choose the unprooveable to believe in. You will not find one Religion that says "once we can peak in dimension X", we will see god there. They define a god that is neither proof nor unprooveable.

My "belief" as you say it, is only based on the facts that are prooven. Among other things I see it prooven that most humans need a god/higher force to believe in. Creating a god/pantheon is just a logical consequence of how Intelligent Life works/developed on this planet. And I asume that we will be able to proof it that there is no god or proove that threre is one. And I won't have a problem accepting the facts.

 

The problem is thath the believers are always inventing a new mystery "science can't solve", whever their previous mystery get's solved by science. It's like parcitipating in Pole Vaulting, when somebody increase the pole whenever I am just high enough to get over it. So by definition I can not win this Pole Vaulting Tournament, the same way that one cannot disproove god.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

--some guy in 1941, Albert Something, I think.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Why should they be irreconcilable? I've seen lots of beautiful sunsets' date=' but understanding the physical processes which created them didn't diminish their beauty. On the contrary, I could argue knowing more about them enhanced my ability to appreciate their beauty. Ignorance is over-rated.[/quote']

 

That could be the case for you, but i'm going to be a bit pessimistic here and say most people likely aren't actively thinking about the "why" during the observation, in much the same way they don't realize love is another a chemical reaction....which could steal some of the magic away. Yeah, ignorance is over-rated, but there's also such a thing as "too much knowledge" (or perhaps some people handle/compartmentalize it better?).

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

How do we know the chemical reaction isn't the physical manifestation of an unmeasurable and as-yet-undetectable metaphysical process? It's wise indeed to reject magical explanations for easily explainable things, but sometimes the meaning of things transcends their physical manifestation(e.g., the meaning of a work of art or literature transcends the physical manifestation of the words or pictures themselves, and the meaning of love clearly transcends the associated chemical reaction).

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

How do we know the chemical reaction isn't the physical manifestation of an unmeasurable and as-yet-undetectable metaphysical process?

Whe this is prooven, I will accept it.

Until then it is just a very nice theory. Most likely even a "not disproveable" Theory, so it is belief and nothing else.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

but sometimes the meaning of things transcends their physical manifestation(e.g.' date=' the meaning of a work of art or literature transcends the physical manifestation of the words or pictures themselves, and the meaning of love clearly transcends the associated chemical reaction).[/quote']

 

Because of an innate quality independent of us, or because we think it does?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Some people just can't cope with the fact that the development of the universe and even ourselfs as a species' date=' was just a act of randomness. It just happened, on this planet, in this way, under these physical laws. No superior, omnipotent being planning any of this. No godly will. No "creation in his likeness".[/quote']

 

Emphasis mine.

 

With respect, Christopher, that's an opinion, not a fact. It can't be verified by direct observation. A reasonable and widely-held opinion, but still just an opinion.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Why should they be irreconcilable? I've seen lots of beautiful sunsets' date=' but understanding the physical processes which created them didn't diminish their beauty. On the contrary, I could argue knowing more about them enhanced my ability to appreciate their beauty. Ignorance is over-rated.[/quote']

 

For my part, I don't believe the concepts are irreconcilable. I believe the expressed points of view are irreconcilable. As witness the preceding posts on this thread.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Emphasis mine.

 

With respect, Christopher, that's an opinion, not a fact. It can't be verified by direct observation. A reasonable and widely-held opinion, but still just an opinion.

The one mayor difference is, that my opinion can be disprooven. So with all our current knowledge this is a fact, until prooven wrong.

Believe cannot be disproven.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Something is a "fact" because it can be disproved, but hasn't been yet?

 

Someone needs to pass that on to Mirriam Webster's.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

"Why is there no life in the Universe?" ~NOBODY

[Steve]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

It was once said that faith is the evidence of things unseen.

 

A spiritual experience can be direct and observable by an individual, and it does not necessarily make the experience invalid because language is inadequate to describe it to another.

 

Language can't even be used to tell another person what salt tastes like, so it's even more inadequate to try and explain spiritual things with it.

[Gary Miles]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

What kind of religions might exist?

 

In my version of the Terran Empire, there is a small but faithful cult called The Church of Blue Suede Deliverance. They believe that music is the greatest sacrament, and that if they spread music far and wide enough, eventually their prophet will bring them home to the afterlife, called Grace's Land.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Because of an innate quality independent of us' date=' or because we think it does?[/quote']

 

How would we determine that empirically? How does the fact we can conceive of impossible things, unprovable things, unknowable things, intangible things, etc. affect the meaning of a series of neurochemical events? Is there some significance, outside of ourselves, to the ability of thinking beings to conceive of things beyond the realm of the observable and knowable? What if there's a trillion sapient species in the universe, and they all not only have this capability, but all believe there's a significance to it? From a scientific standpoint, the fact that this capability is seemingly universal to sapients/sentients would suggest further inquiry into possible external significance is warranted, wouldn't it?

[Zeropoint]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Why should they be irreconcilable? I've seen lots of beautiful sunsets, but understanding the physical processes which created them didn't diminish their beauty. On the contrary, I could argue knowing more about them enhanced my ability to appreciate their beauty. Ignorance is over-rated.

 

Indeed. I fail to see how someone can appreciate something MORE by knowing LESS about it.

[Lucius]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Something is a "fact" because it can be disproved, but hasn't been yet?

 

Someone needs to pass that on to Mirriam Webster's.

 

I think Mirriam Webster may already have a grasp of basic science.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

someone tell Godel about the palindromedary

[Ragitsu]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I fail to see how someone can appreciate something MORE by knowing LESS about it.

 

This is easy to answer: children. There are many things we are in awe of as children that we find mundane or not-so-awesome as adults, because we learned about them. The mystery went away.

 

Many, not all.

 

Now...even if we learn something, we don't always necessarily have it at the forefront of our minds. This is fairly natural.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Something is a "fact" because it can be disproved, but hasn't been yet?

 

Someone needs to pass that on to Mirriam Webster's.

It is a fact, until disprooven.

Or it is believe, wich cannot be disprooven.

So simple is the difference between Religion and Science for me.

 

If you don't think so, proove to me that a god exists. When you manage to do this, I will accept that fact (the same way I accept the fact that I cannot breath in Vacuum or that I cannot fly without aid in a gravity well).

I on the other hand have no way to ever disproove your believe, since it is designed to be neither proove- nor unprooveable.

 

For our discussion this means:

No matter how advanced the understanding of the universe gets, there will always be Religion. Believers will always find something unprooveable and undisprooveable.

Unless of course our need for Religion is only an personality bug, that can be overcome like agression (se below).

 

About apreciating things more through Believe than Knowledge:

There are certain studies showing that people who believe in god/higher beings live longer than people who don't. There are some suggestion that this comes from being able to avoid stress with just believing. That it is easier to have something to believe in, than to face reality in all it's might (and lack of higher purpose).

This is why I think there is a impulse to believe in something, the same way there is a impulse to eat or reproduce. Believe could be just a side effect of a specific phase in the evolution of sentient life.

This could either mean that our drive/need to beleive in something ceases the further we develop. Or that it is evolutionary advantageous that it increases as we develop (evolution is the survival of the fittest for a given situation, wich may mean the most willing to believe).