digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at io9.com

The 7 Deadly Sins Of Religion In Science Fiction

io9.com — Religion is a huge part of science fiction - and it makes the genre better and more fascinating, as Battlestar Galactica proved. But there are seven mistakes SF should avoid in portraying the spiritual realm.

Who dugg this? Made popular Mar 27, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

148 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • amadeus1114, on 03/27/2009, -17/+105Bill Nye the Science Guy > Jesus
  • Paulish, on 03/27/2009, -5/+49Looks like someone was unhappy with the BSG ending...
  • eclectro, on 03/27/2009, -5/+39FTA: "But in some especially cheesy science fiction, every day is Galileo-vs.-the-church day"
    And you forgot here on digg also.
  • cadam, on 03/27/2009, -2/+34Babylon 5 addressed religion in Science Fiction the best. And even the idea of Good vs. Evil really being about perspective, and over time the original ideas behind the arguments long lost (Shadows vs. Vorlons). JMS never used religion as a crutch, and instead really made efforts at respecting it as a powerful force in human, and alien affairs. But what BSG did, was utter crap. I like the idea originally, of the Humans primarily being Polytheistic, while Cylons being Monotheistic, and even with the Centurions being the ones coming up with it... almost like THEY were the original Hebrews escaping the Pharoah's rule (Colonial's Rule). But the BSG crowd really white-washed everything... the only thing they ended up doing half-way decent in the end was making Dean Stockwell the main baddy.

    So yeah, B5 is the only series that really integrated religion with the story. Hell, Star Trek: Next Gen avoided it, and DS9 uses some New Age crap... really not surprising to see how it was used in BSG.

    Farscape used occasional spirituality, but for the most part the main character was busy getting raped by muppets in space. But never got as deep as B5, or like DS9/BSG failed to do.
  • CoreyTamas, on 03/27/2009, -7/+23That is a plain, old-fashioned good article. Refreshing to see a "list" that really gives you something to think about. I particularly like the way the writer highlights the weaknesses in religious vs. scientific plot devices without ruining his logic with a clear bias towards one or the other. Makes it very readable.
  • bob_the_alien, on 03/27/2009, -3/+19no burying from me, completely in agreement. I was so disappointed in the series finale. I was firstly hoping they'd find the earth they were looking for, although the ending did give at least a somewhat decent reason for the earth they did find (although I still didn't like it). And Starbuck, yeah, that just sucked.. And, no one seems to give a ***** that Chief just destroyed the peace, because he couldn't wait 5 minutes to kill the bitch. I mean seriously, he knew what was going on, 2 species survival were depending on him, It was 5 *****' minutes. WTF
  • odigity, on 03/27/2009, -1/+15That's because J.M.S. was a real writer, with an actual plan, based on logical plot and staying true to characters. The BSG crew were just pulling ***** out of their ass. They were just really good at covering it up until season 3. That's when I called the bluff and walked away.

    Such a waste. Great production values - the actors, sets, effects, style - and great premise, and all thrown away because at the end of they day... they're not J.M.S. or Joss Whedon. :)
  • inactive, on 03/27/2009, -23/+36BSG ending was a stinking pile of *****. All BSG writers should be ashamed of themselves for writing such a bad ending to such a good show. There I said it, now get your shovels ready.

  • rz8472, on 03/27/2009, -0/+13I have absolutely no problem with religion used as a plot device on BSG or any other sci-fi show. However, there comes a point where it becomes a cop out for everything and just seems rushed and imposed on the viewers at the last second.
  • Logicexe, on 03/27/2009, -0/+11I think the best analogy for BSG is that it's a finely woven scarf with very intricate and beautiful patterns. The only problem is that the scarf maker didn't know how to tie up the loose threads so he took a strip of duct tape folded it across the ends and declared it finished.

    That said, I still enjoyed the last episode. I was just kind of disappointed that so many of the subplots were just a big "goddidit."
  • Volath, on 03/27/2009, -2/+13I believe I have seen the overseer.

    He is called....the Picard.
  • feliks2, on 03/27/2009, -3/+14America is a pretty ***** place often, but a swastika there, really?
  • Volath, on 03/27/2009, -0/+10I watched all of Star Trek tNG over just a couple of weeks last summer which made it easy to see some recurring themes in the series. One of which was that they had a good number of episodes dealing with religion. The reason why you probably think they avoided it was because it never came up as a problem with any of the main characters (except for Warf). The reason for this was they were all blatantly strongly agnostic or possibly atheist.

    The reason for this is probably because Roddenberry's vision and theme for Star Trek in general was that everyone was united around a common goal to better society and yourself by finding the truths of the universe. They believe everything can potentially be explained through science and from all the Star Trek I've seen they always have. And I'm pretty sure Gene Roddenberry was an atheist but don't quote me on that.
  • GalacticXenu, on 03/27/2009, -2/+12Because postulating divine, creative, disembodied immaterial intelligences is compatible with the scientific method.

    What most people in the "real world" seem to think, is that science is a bunch of facts figured out by people smarter than them, and they don't know WHY scientists do not postulate gods and ghosts. Scientists cannot postulate gods and ghosts because there is no good grounding to do so. To pretend science is just some arbitrary system and that religion is just another system and the two can exist alongside each other is like saying you can have some slavery in a free society. No, you can't, the two are antithetical to each other. The second you start bringing in the paranormal is the second you bring in pseudoscientific or nonscientific nonsense explanations.
  • jakeshdaddy, on 03/27/2009, -3/+13Oh great, now this religion non-sense is seeping into science fiction as well. Where the hell is freaking Richard Dawkins when you need him!
  • DiscoUnderpants, on 03/27/2009, -0/+9Thats was a good article but I take exceptino to the first point. Cargo Cults are not made up or some kind of fantasy. They are a real phenomina that occurs still in the South Pacific. Weather you think this somehow invalidates religion or not Cargo Cults are a real part of human behaviour and do have some interesting things to say about our religious behaviour.
  • AshamedAmerican, on 03/27/2009, -7/+16Dear Sir,

    I regret to inform you that I am only able to digg you up once.

    Regards,
    -AshamedAmerican
  • svendm, on 03/27/2009, -0/+8> Deus ex machina is a ridiculous way to resolve a story line.

    If you read past the lead, it's blatantly obvious that the author of the article thinks that as well.

  • DivisibleByZero, on 03/27/2009, -0/+8Any other SG-1 fans wish they would have shown Jesus as a Tok'ra, if only just for a cameo? I'm sure some people would have gotten pretty whiny over it, but it would only be natural for that show.
  • CoreyTamas, on 03/27/2009, -1/+8I'm gonna risk an avalanche of down-digging to say "Damn, you sure got that right". Cause you deserve it.
  • TrevorBradley, on 03/27/2009, -1/+8All things considered, considering how much BSG appeared to be cobbled together at the last second, I'm amazed the story came across as well as it did.

    Without a defined story, you're going to end up with a deus ex machina ending. (And Oh the irony of having actual machines in a deus ex machina ending....)
  • svendm, on 03/27/2009, -0/+7What does God need with a starship?
  • Dinner, on 03/27/2009, -0/+6Yeah, exactly. The religious stuff easily provides an *atmosphere* of epic-ness...but if that never gets backed up with some convincing rationale, you just end up rolling your eyes at the cheapness. ...Or, in the case of Evangelion, going "What the *****!?" through the entire latter part of the series.
  • apothekari, on 03/27/2009, -1/+7One of my biggest problems with religion in these sci fi stories.
    There are religions OTHER than Christianity. Yet 90% of the time that's what is referenced.
    Religion was done well in Dune, a very un-christ-like messiah.
    And was also handled well in Pitch Black. {the Muslim passengers}
  • youannoyme, on 03/27/2009, -1/+7Corey

    So if you stand where you are, hold a rock in your hand, and release it, you know its going to fall to the ground, right? Now what would you do if someone tried to convince you it wont? If you cared for one reason or another, you might try to convince them they were wrong, but is there a chance in hell you are going to let them sway you? Now of course, its easy enough to win that argument; just pick up a damn rock and drop if in front of them. So now what about in a hypothetical situation where you live in space with a being that has never been appreciably under the influence of a gravitating object. They point to a planet and try to convince you that if you stand on the surface and release a rock, it will just float there. You've got no way to demonstrate your side, without going through the huge (or impossible) effort of getting them planet side so that they can live through a demonstration. But you've witnessed it time and time again; are you ever going to let them convince you otherwise?

    Science (I'm only going to talk about first principle sciences now, through this is largely applicable to all of them) is based on two things. Observations (I've taken my rocks and dropped them a million times. They have always fallen), and extrapolations (I know that 1+1=2, from that you can work out addition tables, multiplication tables, move on through algebra, calculus and beyond. It's all very sound and rigorous, but the end results are incomprehensible if you've not traversed the things in the middle) If you take any of the end results of science, and hand them to a lay person, it looks all very arbitrary and even magical. Very much on par with many of the claims made by religion. But it is a false equivalence. The claims of science are designed to be repeatable, testable, provable. But that requires work to understand, and most people are not going to bother; they don't need to.

    Now don't get me wrong. Science is not perfect. It is flawed. It is incomplete. (And thank god, else I'd be out of a job. P.S. to Astark, I don't "think I'm a scientist", I'm bona fide ;) The fringe claims are still needing to be more rigorously observed and tested, and the core claims are always up for revisions that will allow them to be applied in more diverse circumstances. Yet the core claims are very solid in the areas they claim to be solid. So if you've gone through your proofs, collected your data, and seen your rock fall a million an one times... well, you might drop the rock more times to see if you can find new nuances in behavior that science needs to incorporate, but you know the damn rock is going to drop. So if someone tries to "debate" with you on that topic, you might try and educate them, if you care, but you sure as hell are not going to be convinced...

    So yes, be a technical definition, that is being close minded. But it's hardly wrong.
  • Remelox, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5I didn't say I was an atheist at 16 to strike out against Christianity, I said it because I was asked and chose not to lie. I have always been an atheist and realized the danger by the time I was ten. By the time I was 16, I decided to stop dodging the question and be honest. Sometimes I think I was more stupid than brave but the end result was the same.

    I became the center of some Christians' attention who felt they could convert me. They would hound me at lunch, during class, between class, at games, on the weekend. Some were nice about it, some were brutal, I had one girl (that I later learned had a huge crush on me) shouting in my face that I was going to Hell. Oh, and she did this with a major dose of profanity mixed in.

    When I joined the Air Force, I had to make the decision again. Instead of going to Church during basic training, I was forced to clean the barracks. I was tricked to go to prayer meeting by a well meaning co-worker. (When he left the Air Force, he became a roadie for a Christian metal band.) I don't try to convert people to atheism but I try to convince them about the truth of science. I see them as two different issues.

    That being said, I write fiction and I include religion because it is part of being human. While my primary characters are never Christian (at least not yet), secondary characters are not put into a poor light if they are. If there plenty of jerks to go around my books in any faith. There are plenty of nice people in any faith, as well. (Oh, and I make up quite a few faiths because one of my worlds is not Earth and the others are not the Earth you know).

    I find your dismisal of my beliefs disrepectful and I would not do the same to you. Okay, yeah, I would, if I knew what they were.
  • Jareth86, on 03/27/2009, -1/+6One word: Evangelion.
  • kurfu, on 03/27/2009, -3/+8He's not the only one unhappy with the craptastic cop-out that the finale of BSG turned out to be.
  • eadnams, on 03/27/2009, -1/+6BSG is about the characters, and the finale served that.
  • AReallyGoodName, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5They have to tell you it's planned out rather than made up as they go along or you'll stop watching it.

    It's something TV producers caught onto a long time ago.
    Have weird set of circumstances, claim they're part of a big plan but never reveal to the audience what that plan is and then have each episode end on a cliffhanger.

    Daytime soaps, Battlestar, Heros and Lost all do it. And it works. It gets the audiences in.
    The only problem is the writers often back themselves into a corner where there simply isn't a reasonable explanation of what has happened.
  • Bologner, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5Picard 3:16 : Engage.
  • CoreyTamas, on 03/27/2009, -1/+6Yeah, but I loved how they blew the whole season's CGI budget on the first half of the show. Watching Adama shove the Galactica up the Colony's ass was epic.
  • spookyttws, on 03/27/2009, -4/+9I pretty much enjoyed the Battlestar ending (though I wish it could have been different, and that the Hendrix version of All Along the Watchtower would have been used in a better montage than showing us a bunch of cheesy robots) , but I have to admit, a lot of it felt like a cop out. I really hope Lost doesn't do the same thing. I'm in for the whole time travel idea, and obviously the island and Jacob are supernatural, but it better not come down to some God solution.
  • christianboutin, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4The Lost Tales doesn't exist. It was never made. It's not part of the arc. It wasn't made by Straczyski. I don't care what you all said. It doesn't exist. La la la la I can't hear you la la la.
  • designerutah, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4Funny you should say that. My experience is that religion is often used in real life as a cop out for anything that the believer wants to excuse... and that is then mirrored in entertainment, not just sci-fi.
  • twertyto, on 03/27/2009, -1/+5"now this religion non-sense is seeping into science fiction"

    I gather from your comment that you haven't read/seen much science fiction. It's not just "now seeping in". Religious elements in science fiction are relatively common and has always been. What do you think "The Force" and "Jedi Knights" were all about?
  • Nicoon, on 03/27/2009, -1/+5no, just fiction.
  • ManUnitdFan, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4^ Thanks, Galileo.
  • ZeaLitY, on 03/27/2009, -4/+8Religion does not make science fiction "better" or "more fascinating." A world without religion is fascinating enough as-is. One of DS9's big steps off the wrong foot was the entire Bajoran religion issue. Of course the Bajorans are so persecuted, ignorant, downtrodden, disagreeable, and prone to infighting. They're religious nutters.
  • Falldog, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4All the religious stuff in Eva was thrown in because it looks cools.
  • odigity, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4Forget the straight-to-dvd movies.
  • Remelox, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4Actually, I rather that they not answer questions than use the Battlestar cop out. Lost would be able to stand with some unanswered mysteries. The nature of the power centers (forgot exactly what they are called) is mysterious and beyond the understand of man at this time. Why should a bunch of people with only one scientist and no truly religious people ever understand what is going on. I half expect in the end, Jack will explain things from the rational side and Locke from the spiritual with people still not fully understanding what happened.
  • youannoyme, on 03/27/2009, -1/+5Closed mindedness has a connotation that implies someone will not let go of what they believe and see the truth. You implied that both sides suffer from this. "There are so many closed minds on both sides of the issue" If that is not what you are going for then my bad, but that is the misconception I was fighting against (for one side of the trenches anyway), and is a misconception I figure many will read from your comment whether you meant it or no.
  • KevinRosa, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3Are they talking about syfy?
  • EchoMike, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3I, too, have a sneaking suspicion we'll see a lot of "Moore ex Machina"-type resolution crop up in Lost here soon.
  • jcsoc, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3The Picard is all powerful!
  • Fitzwarren, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3I would still have prefered that!
  • styx31989, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3somebody got their feeling hurt :'(
  • JoeParanoid, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3The best-ever treatment of religion in SF was Phil Dick's "Faith of our Fathers" from the original Dangerous Visions. Dick was exceptionally knowledgeable when it came to spiritual matters.
  • Remelox, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3Strongly agnostic, possibly atheist, or just deist. While Picard claims humans had no need for superstition, he makes it clear a few times he believes in a high power (not Q). His view is very similar to that of the founding fathers. God made the universe and then just kicked back.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.