This month I tackle an old bugaboo – religion and science fiction.
Of late there have been quite a few blog postings on the subject, mostly variations on the following themes: science fiction isn’t necessarily negatively critical of religion – and – science fiction spends an awful lot of time dealing with religion,
My experience is that science fiction is almost always negatively disposed towards religion, and I have difficulty understanding how anyone would think otherwise, let alone why anyone would want it to be otherwise.
Religion, at its core, is a concept antithetical to the core concepts of science fiction.
Science fiction – all of it – is founded on the premise that science (observation, fact, hypothesis and theory) is the fundamental underpinning of all that is and all that ever will be.
Religion on the other hand, putting the best possible face on it, wants us to believe that science has its place (is even useful at times) but is subordinate to some higher power that can flaunt science’s reason and logic whenever and wherever it so chooses, without requiring explanation.
How can these two NOT be at odds within works that begin with the premise that science works?
There’s a fight going on between atheists and religionists these days that is taking place at a level of discourse we’ve never seen before. Some atheists have begun questioning the place of religion within our societies at foundational levels. People like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet ask hard questions, destroy long standing arguments with virtually unassailable logic and make provocative statements (‘religion is child abuse’) that are hard to ignore.
Religionists fight back in their own way, one of which is an attempt to usurp the public spaces (the Creation Museum, Christian science fiction as a subgenre).
With such high-level argumentation almost constant in both print and electronic forms, it’s not surprising to find the discussion creeping into the ‘literature of ideas’, nor is it surprising to find a lot of apologists attempting to identify reconciliation within the pages of a genre that is the perfect (if biased) sandbox.
My take is that you can’t find a religion-positive argument in any work of science fiction, so long as you are being honest with yourself and the work is an honest piece of science fiction.
Take Dune, a major award-winning novel, that centers on at least two different religions, one a stand-in for Islam, (the cult of the Fremen) the other a hodge-podge of mysticism, Judaism, Christianity and others (Bene Geserit and to some extent the other religions implied throughout).
Apologists want to present the inclusion of these religions as evidence that A: science fiction has to resort to religious themes to “make things work” (which then underpins the contention that science is only a piece of the puzzle and not the primary one) and B: since the characters used religion to achieve their goals, religion must be a good thing – or is at least being treated in a positive manner by a science fiction author (which must prove that SF authors – despite declarations of atheism – are really believers).
The problem is - and Dune is a perfect example of this – religion is being done a dirty throughout the entire novel. The author, Frank Herbert, looked for and found the one tool that could manipulate large groups of people into doing crazy, illogical (and often stupid) things.
The entire novel is one long dissertation on the powers of manipulation and on revolution. A revolution not based on logic or reason but on witchcraft, psychological control and lies. One that ultimately brings down an entire galactic civilization.
(Interestingly, the revolution starts when Paul’s mother, Jessica, manipulates religious beliefs held by the Fremen – a downtrodden, persecuted, indigent society that suffers from perpetual dehydration: exactly the kind of weak-willed, mentally unstable people that organized religions are constantly preaching to.)
The real take-away from Dune is that Unreason can be used to manipulate more readily than reason and therefore, the real danger is religion.
Take Clarkes’ The Star as another example. Many present this story as one in which science and religion are presented in a balanced manner; the conclusion of that story is seen as a great question: Which really holds the answer, science – or religion?
But if you dig a little deeper, you’ll find an answer rather than a question. The story goes like this: A priest is a member of an expedition to a star that went supernova in a time and place to be viewed on Earth as the star that shined over Bethlehem, heralding the birth of Jesus. Upon arriving at the star, they discover that there had been an advanced civilization on one of its planets, that civilization being destroyed by the supernova.
The priest then wonders why God would make a searchlight out of an entire planet to announce the birth of his son.
Deep philosophical questions flow forth.
Except. Well, the priest didn’t travel through space on a prayer, he took advantage of science and technology to get there. People are born on Earth every second of every day and no doubt the ‘star of Bethlehem’ heralded the arrival on Earth of several thousand new babies.
That’s a bit of a stretch, admittedly, until you realize that the entire story is a tale about a Jesuit Priest’s crisis of Faith – a battle that the Priest has lost. That battle is foreshadowed early on: -.”…But how you can believe that Something has a special interest in us and our miserable little world—that just beats me.”
The Priest, gazing upon an image of St. Ignatius of Loyala asks this of himself: “The Rubens engraving of Loyola seems to mock me as it hangs there above the spectrophotometer tracings. What would you, Father, have made of this knowledge that has come into my keeping, so far from the little world that was all the Universe you knew? Would your faith have risen to the challenge, as mine has failed to do?”
Loyola himself says this in his principle work: “That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.”
We must accept reality, whether it contradicts religious beliefs or not.
The story isn’t about balance, it’s an indictment, one that uses scientific evidence as proof. The supernova/star of Bethlehem was significant of nothing other than the normal goings on within the universe.
Supporting this contention is the theme of depression that runs throughout the story. The atheist crew becomes depressed upon having learned of the fate of a capable, wise and seemingly benign alien species. The Priest is depressed because it means his life of devotion has been meaningless. The priests depression is a selfish one.
Take Hogan’s Code of the Lifemaker; religion and religious tools are used by scientists to manipulate an ignorant population of self-aware robots, while a ‘mentalist’ charlatan uses science to trick his followers. In the long run, only appeals to reason and a judicious use of technology (the fruits of science) win the day.
Or Asmiov’s Foundation trilogy. The Mule, the only serious threat to Seldon’s long-term psychohistorical plan (psychohistory is a SCIENCE created out of the study of heretofore seemingly intractable and religious-like – a-logical – societal elements) uses mental manipulation to create a cult of unquestioning and unreasoning soldiers for his attempt at galactic conquest. A deliberately messianic figure, the Mule is eventually brought down by the continued application of the scientific plan.
In David Brin’s Startide Rising, a small band of humans and ‘uplifted’ dolphins succeed against hordes of highly sophisticated aliens bent on their capture or destruction. The aliens primary flaw is obedience to various religious beliefs, while the humans steadfastly employ science and technology to win the day.
Those are admittedly a small sample, but a representative one, I believe.
If you dig deep enough in any work of science fiction that includes religious elements, you will find that where the two interact, religion always comes off second best, and I don’t see how it could be otherwise.
Science fiction is the expression of the triumph of reason, logic and the tenets of the scientific method over a mysterious and little understood universe.
At its core, religion holds the view that there IS an answer to everything (no matter how convoluted or dissatisfying the answer may be ).
Working from a religious viewpoint, there is no room for science fiction. Within the works of science fiction, religion must be displaced and shown to be wanting, otherwise, religious certainty undermines the adventure of a literature that isn’t so much looking for answers as it is inviting us along for the journey of discovery.
Related posts:
- Religion, Science, and Science Fiction
- Night Shade Books and Electric Velocipede, a Match Made in Heaven?
- BSC Review: On Religion and Safehold by David Weber
- Skiffy and Fanty Show 4.0b: Religion in SF and Why Fantasy is More Popular than SF
- A Geographical History of Religion in 90 Seconds
I’ve been an atheist for as long as I can remember (albeit not a hard-core anti-theist one) but I believe the relationship between religion and science fiction depends a lot on what one regards as “Science Fiction” since there’s not just one specific view or definition on SF. Furthermore, it also depends a lot on if religion is being considered as a universal frame of belief or as a social and historical element. In the first case, it is something very personal, subjective and undefined. In the second, it should be taken as an accepted truth both historically and presently.
But maybe I’m over-analysing a bit. I would say that in general terms I agree with your arguments and opinion. I would also expect serious, good or modern Sci-Fi to come in contrast with the system of religious belief and show its incompatibility with not only science but with the modern and futuristic way of life as well.
[...] My (relatively short) discourse on the intersection of science and religion, within the pages of science fiction, is now up on Grasping for the Wind. [...]
The examples you use for SF are deliberately including religion in them. There is a whole lot more SF that ignores religion entirely, just as sometimes religion tries to ignore science.
In my view, religious folk shouldn’t argue with science (although they do) because to do so is to conclude that God couldn’t have created the science for human (and/or alien) use to discover their world and beyond. Do they believe God was incapable of creating the complexity we discover daily using scientific method?
That’s when (some) religion goes wrong: Trying to toss out the scientifically discoverable in favor of a mythology of tales told to explain those things that seemed not to have any answers. God did it. End of story. Thus, the bible (the only religious work of which I’m familiar) never mentions microscopic life because the writers didn’t have the ability to find it. The myths are made to explain the unexplainable, and the simplest explanation is “God did it.” The scientists ask “why?”
[...] Steve Davidson weighs in on the relationship between religion and sci-fi: My experience is that science fiction is almost always negatively disposed towards religion, and I have difficulty understanding how anyone would think otherwise, let alone why anyone would want it to be otherwise. [...]
I have no issue with atheism, or atheists, but this is an extremely poorly written article by any standards. The writer obviously has a bit of an axe to grind against religion, which is fair enough as religion can be rather painful, but it is really just doing all the things people take religious folk to task for.
Just a sample of some of the things that are downright wrong in this article, rather than just a matter of opinion.
The problem is – and Dune is a perfect example of this – religion is being done a dirty throughout the entire novel. The author, Frank Herbert, looked for and found the one tool that could manipulate large groups of people into doing crazy, illogical (and often stupid) things.
The one thing? The author obviously has a tenuous grasp of history. I can think of two political movements in the past century that managed to manipulate large groups of people into doing some very crazy things on a scale previously unknown in the human experience.
Yes, religion has been used to manipulate people, but it is hardly unique in that.
Science fiction is the expression of the triumph of reason, logic and the tenets of the scientific method over a mysterious and little understood universe.
At its core, religion holds the view that there IS an answer to everything (no matter how convoluted or dissatisfying the answer may be ).
Working from a religious viewpoint, there is no room for science fiction. Within the works of science fiction, religion must be displaced and shown to be wanting, otherwise, religious certainty undermines the adventure of a literature that isn’t so much looking for answers as it is inviting us along for the journey of discovery.
I think the majority of scientists and lovers of science would be rather surprised to hear that science doesn’t believe that there is an “answer to everything”.
The whole point of science and the pursuit of knowledge is that we believe that the Universe can be understood, and that there is a point to asking questions.
There is a very important discussion to be had about the intersection of science fiction and religion to be had, and many of the great stories have been born from this tension -whether they are pro or anti religion. But articles like this don’t serve any meaningful purpose, they just promote self congratulation over self examination.
It sets up various straw men, like the “certainty of religion” and “apologists” who claim things that conveniently bolster his argument. It’s the same thing I see from religious people trying to prove their faith is “correct”.
I generally find the articles on this site informative and engaging, even when I don’t agree with them, but this an exception.
Atheism is as much a religion to some of the people mentioned in this article, as Christianity is to the Pope.
“Atheism is as much a religion to some of the people mentioned in this article, as Christianity is to the Pope.”
That old chestnut again. Care to defend the claim with, I don’t know, an actual argument?
David – thanks for the critique. Going with your own process, I think you have an axe to grind with anyone who is critical of religion. That kind of makes us even.
I suppose your vague reference is to Stalin and Hitler. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your position by considering that both countries substituted a state religion for a church-based one and come to realize that the exact same mechanisms were in place.
And on a few other things: First of all “science” doesn’t believe anything. It’s a concept, a definition and some words.
Scientists (the good ones) are on a mission to explore and understand. Religion(s) suggest there is nothing new to learn as all answers are found in their god(s). You can misconstrue what I said, but I suspect that most people reading will understand the distinction being made here.
Finally, I notice that you only chose one of the examples and stayed entirely away from the Loyola/Clarke references, which I believe makes a very strong case for my argument: that those who want to find good things about religion in science fiction haven’t dug deep enough into the story. The Priest in The Star indicts the entire concept of religion in his thoughts – by quoting a religious icon. Not only is that science fiction at its best, it’s Clarke at his sharpest and subtlest!
Steve,
I don’t have an axe to grind with people who are critical of religion, in a lot of cases it deserves it! I would be just as critical of a post from a religious POV (ie an anti Harry Potter rant) that made the same mistakes.
I suppose your vague reference is to Stalin and Hitler. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your position by considering that both countries substituted a state religion for a church-based one and come to realize that the exact same mechanisms were in place.
If your definition of religion is that broad then there is no point having a discussion because you can then blame religion for “everything”, and consider almost everything a type of “religion”!
The Nazis used religious trappings as a way of making it more palatable, certainly, but I wasn’t aware that Stalin did the same thing (though they did allow a state controlled orthodox church). Either way, I would argue that both of those systems were fundamentally political not religious.
My point is that it doesn’t require religion for people to do terrible things to one another, or to act in absolutely illogical ways, or manipulate others. The common denominator in all humanity’s travails is not religion, it is humanity.
And on a few other things: First of all “science” doesn’t believe anything. It’s a concept, a definition and some words.
Scientists (the good ones) are on a mission to explore and understand. Religion(s) suggest there is nothing new to learn as all answers are found in their god(s). You can misconstrue what I said, but I suspect that most people reading will understand the distinction being made here.
I don’t think I miscontrued what you said as it was actuallty written, but perhaps you weren’t actually expressing your point that well.
I would argue that most people who identify themselves as scientists do “believe” that there are answers to everything, and nothing is ultimately beyond our understanding – the driving force behind science is that “mission to explore and understand”.
I guess you could say that in science, too, there is nothing “new” to learn, it is all already there waiting to be found as we learn more about the universe. It’s a bizarre position though.
Finally, I notice that you only chose one of the examples and stayed entirely away from the Loyola/Clarke references, which I believe makes a very strong case for my argument: that those who want to find good things about religion in science fiction haven’t dug deep enough into the story. The Priest in The Star indicts the entire concept of religion in his thoughts – by quoting a religious icon. Not only is that science fiction at its best, it’s Clarke at his sharpest and subtlest!
My response would be that someone who can’t find any stories about religion that treat it as a positive force in the entire canon of science fiction needs to read more.
I could list examples, but your interpretation of Canticle tells me that you would be somehow able to put a negative spin on *any* treatment of religion I listed, a sure sign of bias.
As for Clarke, great author, but appeals to authority are not a very powerful tool for convicning people of your argument.
Look, as I think I said I can understand people not liking religion. I just don’t get the point of an article that seems determined to exclude various world views from an enjoyment of the genre. One of the things I love about sci fi is that I don’t think any other genre has the capability to explore the human condition so thoroughly, and from so many points of view, and I don’t understand why a site like this would promote limiting that.
An addition:
After reading through your responses to some of the other comments that came after mine, it strikes me that you are picking and choosing to suit your argument.
For a start, as I noted above, you are using your personal definition of what “religion” means, and you then try and limit what can be considered to to come under the umbrella of science fiction to works that support your argument (though I still think you could find things within that with religion positive themes).
But, when one side is attempting to control the debate so extensively it is hard to have a meaningful discussion. Nor is lumping people with some sort of religious belief into one category helpful, even within Christianity there is a huge spectrum (the Creation musuem represents a vocal minority, thanks very much), let alone branching out into other belief systems (someone mentioned Taoism for example.). If I used that broad a brush to stereotype any other group people would be horrifed, and rightly so. Nor do I consider that all atheists hold the same opinions, or the same intellect.
So, I really should take a step back and say that is a subjective article about your feelings on the matter it isn’t that bad an article, it’s just as an objective analysis that it falls down. And, I don’t really hold much hope of changing your subjective point of view on the matter, people always cling to their biases with a great deal of vigour…even when they aren’t religious.
Dave E – yes. It seems that there aren’t too many people who can wrap their heads around the difference. In many important ways, it comes down to a mature ability to accept reality: that we don’t know everything, are trying our damndest to learn more and won’t get anywhere with the process if we keep on substituting fantasy for question marks.
Another way of looking at is – fear of the unknown. If you don’t fear the unknown, you’re in a better position to understand it – or at least observe it. If you are afraid, you’re driven to make things up, to “make it go away” – head in the sand or under the covers, your choice.
Antonin,
I did include a qualification on the kind/type of SF I was referring to in an exclusionary manner: I’m not referencing super hero mashups, watered down (or octaned up) “science fantasy”, nor even necessarily new wave or its descendants (though there are a couple of high profile stories from the new wave that support my case – Moorecock’s Behold the Man and Disch’s Camp Concentration); I suppose in general you could stick the definition of just about anything from the mid 80s and earlier, when Analog still reigned supreme, most writers were influenced by Campbellian tenets and the vast majority of the authors actually had a scientific or engineering background of some kind or another.
Self-definitionally – the kind of SF I like, point my finger at when defining and the kind that can’t really be placed into a modern-day sub-genre. The kind with Saturn and a rocketship on the spine.
On your definition of religion(s). I think it’s pretty fair to make a couple of assumptions about ALL religions, chief among them being a propensity of asking for faith while not providing any substance.
On the ‘subjective and personal’ side – if you are just going to church to get along, or self-identify as a member without belief – that’s an entirely different discussion.
Just out of interest, what about works like The Mote in God’s Eye which presents, through Dr. Hardy, a very faith-positive view infused with a Catholic sensibility? Or A Canticle for Liebowitz, a Catholic apologetic to a greater or lesser extent?
Clarke and Asimov were both avowed atheists; to be surprised their SF included critiques of religion is unsurprising. However, that we also see religion-positive SF is undeniable, if you take a slightly wider view of the subject than the works of the classic canon written by atheists, no?
Daniel – here’s my take on Canticle (a book I happen to like very much):
the entire novel is circular – beginning at a monastery that is “preserving” culture following a nuclear armageddon.
We follow the rise of civilization and end with another nuclear armageddon.
The one constant is – religion.
On the surface, organized religion appears to be the salvation of civilization, the font of inquiry and discovery (arc lamps) & etc.
But the real message is that one constant. The one thing that hasn’t changed is the one thing that leads inevitably to armagedon. Religion.
Until the (false) teachings of religion are abandoned, the cycle is doomed to endlessly repeating itself.
As far as Mote goes – I’ll need to get back to you on that one. It’s been a while since I’ve read it. I do have vague memories of the moties and the cadets(?) discussing religion (I think ‘crazy eddie’ was perceived as a kind of religion by the humans), and I think I remember Bury, a devout muslim, was always excusing his extra-legal activities under the ‘god willing’ rubric, but I don’t remember anything substantial about the character Dr. Hardy. I also do seem to have a vague memory of Sally(? – Blaine’s fiancee?) discussing the uses to which religion can be put in terms of controlling populations.
I think that, for the era in question (roughly 20′s thru mid 80s), it will be difficult, if not impossible, to find a faith/religion-positive work of SF that wasn’t deliberately written as such.
The writers of SF (during the period) were, as a body, questioners, skeptics and seekers-after-truth (not to mention simple pulp hacks) and I find it hard to imagine that those qualities didn’t seep into their works – even if it wasn’t deliberate on their part. If you are in the business of asking questions, it’s hard not to put them to the concepts of religion, faith and gods and, given the fact that those things are based on fantasy (or, to be a bit kinder, unfounded, ill-logical and untestable beliefs) it is difficult for a writer who is being honest with themselves not to find the answers wanting. The results seem to creep into their works, deliberately or otherwise.
Fantasy has its own method of dealing with the subject – by making the unreal ‘real’ (within the pages of a work). Spells work, praying works, actual gods walk among the lesser peoples.
Because of this direct substitution, fantasy doesn’t have to wrestle with the science-vs-religion divide if it doesn’t want to, and the different “mainstream” reactions to these genres reflect that fact: fantasy gets accused of offering false gods, being in league with the devil, promoting ‘wrong’ religious beliefs (D&D & Harry Potter come to mind in this regard) while SF is accused of being godless, denigrating religion & etc.
I’ll page through Mote as soon as I get a chance.
With all due respect, that seems like a very strange reading of “Canticle”. While “religion” (which is too vague, we should really say “Catholicism” if we’re talking about this book because it’s the only religion discussed) is certainly a constant, no causal relationship between it and either nuclear disaster is ever implied. Both nuclear wars are pretty clearly caused by political actions that the Church doesn’t really have any say in. In fact the organized church is pretty consistently at odds with the government, especially in the third part with the opposition to Green Star and the plan to leave Earth (clearly without the cooperation or possibly knowledge of the government).
Perhaps also consider Le Guin? “Religious” isn’t synonymous with “Christian”, and a lot of the “science” of other planetary systems in the Hainish cycle has a pretty strong Taoist influence.
David hits a lot of nails on the head. And Sally is right that you have a… unique… interpretation of Canticle.
Thing is, you don’t seem to be wrong in your OP, more overstating your case, using absolutes where innappropriate (“the only thing…”) and either cherry picking your references to support your hypothesis, or picking from a limited reading list.
I agree finally with David though, this doesn’t seem to be an objective article with which we can dispute facts or arguments, but more a personal article on your feelings on the matter, which is obviously not something you can logically disagree with, though specific factual errors can be pointed out, but why bother, it won’t change your feelings.
Steve,
Sorry for the late response to this article. I’ve just got back from a fortnight touring East Anglia in a campervan (which should tell you roughly where I live).
Sorry as well to be a bit negative, but I honestly think you have overstated your case.
Firstly you seem to be working from two assumptions I do not think are valid.
1, That Science and Religion are inbuilt enemies.
That may well be true of some religious worldviews (and some worldviews which claim to be scientifically based). How far it is true of American Christians I’m obviously not qualified to say.
But it is demonstrably untrue for some of the founders of Western Science. They justified their quest for scientific laws as searching for knowledge of how God had made the world, because their view of God was that he would create the universe according to discoverable laws. not merely a series of arbitrary miraculous fiats. You may disagree with their analysis, but it is wrong to put forward an argument which ignores their existence, or the existence of significant numbers of scientists who share similar opinions.
2, That Science fiction is founded on the premise that “science …is founded on the premise that science is the fundamental underpinning of all that is and all that ever will be”.
For much hard sci-fi, that is true, given the odd spacewarp and time machine. But are you really claiming that to be true for EE Smith’s spaceopera. Science fiction is big, please don’t generalise.
Secondly you say “People like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet ask hard questions, destroy long standing arguments with virtually unassailable logic and make provocative statements (‘religion is child abuse’) that are hard to ignore.”
But Dawkins has been criticised, and by embarrassed atheists who feel he is simply going over the top. If God did not exist, one feels Mr Dawkins would have to invent him, if only to deny him.
Or to put it another way, I consider evolution to be probably true because it seems to fit the evidence. It seems to me Dawkins is one of those who insists it has to be true because he thinks it disproves God – which is not that far from those Christians who insist it has to be false for exactly the same reason (but turned upside down).
Your final conclusion is that “Science fiction is the expression of the triumph of reason, logic and the tenets of the scientific method over a mysterious and little understood universe. At its core, religion holds the view that there IS an answer to everything (no matter how convoluted or dissatisfying the answer may be ).”
Sorry, but from my point of view, a mildly conservative British Christian, I can’t see the difference.
My understanding of God’s nature leads me to believe in the “triumph of reason, logic and the tenets of the scientific method over a mysterious and little understood universe”, because there is an answer to everything, but warns me not to be too cocky or presumptive in assuming I know the ultimate answer.
If you do want three good religious Sci-Fi stories I’d choose:
1, The Star, by Clarke (atheist)
You misread this story, driven perhaps by your own prejudices. He’s not being antireligious, he’s doing what all good writers do, setting up a situation to lead us to feel sympathy for a man in a moral dilemma. In the same way Clarke did not write The 9 Billion Names of God because he believed that the delivery of a Computer to a Tibetan Monastery could cause God to roll up the universe, it’s mission accomplished. He wrote it as a good story.
2, The Caves of Steel, by Asimov
An atheist Jew builds the whole climax to the story round a story from the New Testament. I know he didn’t believe Jesus to be the Messiah, he didn’t believe in any Messiah. But he told a cracking good story.
3, Case of Conscience, by Blish
I’m not a Roman Catholic, I don’t believe in such exorcism, and I don’t even know if Blish was a Roman Catholic. But who cares, it’s a good story.
Malcolm, I’ll only address one thing you mentioned:
My understanding of God’s nature leads me to believe in the “triumph of reason, logic and the tenets of the scientific method over a mysterious and little understood universe”, because there is an answer to everything, but warns me not to be too cocky or presumptive in assuming I know the ultimate answer.
The problem with that statement is that you have posited the “ultimate answer” by injecting the concept of god into it.
God did it is the ultimate answer to everything, and substitutes for “we don’t know”. If you are adhering to scientific tenets, you can not make presumptions, and a belief in a god-creator is presumptive.
Just to be clear about what you mean:
are you saying that professional scientists who happen to be atheists do not share my belief that there is an answer to everything?
(Except of course that they believe there to be no personality behind those reasons.)
[...] Grasping for the Wind examines the troublesome intersection of religion and science fiction. [...]
Comment battle about the overall value of religion aside, your argument as stated in the article is patently absurd.
“Working from a religious viewpoint, there is no room for science fiction.”
Tell that to these folks:
http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_other.html
If don’t feel up to reading that list of hundreds and hundreds of science fiction’s greatest contributors, I’ll pick out a small sampling for you, in no particular order:
C.S. Lewis, Gene Wolfe, Orson Scott Card, R. A. Lafferty, Cordwainer Smith, Michael Flynn, Aldous Huxley, Jules Vern, Tim Powers, Stephen King, Connie Willis and Phillip K. Dick (who practiced enough religions for about three dozen people over his life).
Yep. None of them had “room for science fiction.” The fact that they participated in some kind of religious belief is definitely the reason they never wrote any science fiction and changed the world with it.
For a guy who’s as into science and logic as you claim to be, you’re pretty quick to belt out provably fallacious nonsense phrases.
This post stands as another monument to the fact that those who worship the intellect seem never to use it.
Any writer who makes his fiction too didactic commits bad fiction. It does not matter whether it is tendentious for or against religion (or socialism or environmentalism or evolutionism or any other heart-felt belief system). If the reader can see the hand working the sock puppet, it is bad art.
A note on the use of Clarke’s “The Star,” a venerable old wheeze. To suppose that a made-up situation deliberately intended is somehow an “argument” against religion confuses fiction with polemic. The obvious answer to what placed the priest in question in such dire straits of doubt is…. not religion, but Clarke.
Much of the rest of it can be explained by the hypothesis proposed by Paul Simon: “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. La-la-la-lala-la-la-la-lala-la-la-la.” That’s OK. The reader is part of the dialogue; but we mustn’t confuse the voices in our heads for the laws of the universe.
YOS: If I had a medal to give you for that first paragraph, I’d strike up the band.
Science Fiction is a story, and as a Christian and author, I refuse to write “Christian SF.” I’m a Christian who writes genre literature and my mission is to tell a good story that can be enjoyed regardless of the reader’s worldview. Admittedly, my own personal worldview leaks into my stories, but that happens to every author because every writer writes what s/he likes to read.
Good post. Thanks.
[...] http://www.graspingforthewind.com/2011/08/21/science-fiction-and-religion-a-marriage-not-made-in-hea… [...]
I would say that if you strip the religious elements out of Clarke’s “The Star”, then you make the whole story pointless.
To take your point: “The supernova/star of Bethlehem was significant of nothing other than the normal goings on within the universe.”
Then the depression of the crew is pointless. So a benign and advanced civilisation was wiped out by a supernova? Happens all the time. Has happened before, will happen again, probably will happen to Earth as well. Why start crying over spilt milk?
The entire point of the story is that this is the Star of Bethlehem. For the purposes of the story, there has to be someone on board who is familiar with the reference, even if that person was not a priest but a historian or an engineer with a hobby in mythology or the captain who studied sociology or someone.
Otherwise, you have a nice rational crew investigating a supernova that wiped out a nice rational civilisation and the big reveal is “Oh, hey, this supernova would have been visible to those on Earth a couple of millenia ago!” “What, like the six other supernovae we have pre-Enlightenment records of?” “Yes, exactly!”
My, there’s a twist ending!
Clark could have written a story about a scientific expedition to a destroyed civilisation without a word about any kind of religion. He didn’t. Obviously, he felt some artistic effect could be achieved by the use of a belief system he didn’t share. If you want to purge SF of all references to any kinds of religion, be they real-world examples or invented for the purposes of the story, I think you’re removing one tool from the toolbox available to writers.
I trust your point is not that SF has no place for writers who hold some form of a religion in their personal lives (whether or not they introduce it into their works)? Otherwise, we may as well move Jules Verne to a new position on the bookshelves alongside Austen and Dickens and Tolstoy.
martha, I’m using your comment to address several others here – nothing personal about that.
I’m not responding to a lot of comments, some of which I think are making good points, not because I have no response, but because I have very little time to address this stuff in a considered manner.
To take your commentary Martha (which I only skimmed, so forgive that as well, please) I personally think that holding religious views is at best a waste of time and at worst an excuse for all kinds of wrong, bad, wasteful things – but that’s an opinion of the viewpoint, not necessarily of the person holding it.
Without religion, why was the crew depressed? Come on – doesn’t mass death of only a few hundred depress you? How about a whole world?
To address an early response to my short explanation of Canticle: circles. Our friend brother whoever (name escapes me right now) is out doing penance for continually making the same mistakes. This foreshadows the entire concept of the book – doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity. The ‘termater woman’ is another example – constantly asking to be shriven – to no good result. And finally, so far as Canticle is concerned, one need really look no further than the fact that a shopping list has become a venerated religious artifact to know that religion – particularly formulaic religion, is being hoisted in that novel.
Verne? Verne didn’t write science fiction, he wrote precursor ‘scientific romances’.
To others writing elsewhere – yes, I did limit my scope and excluded most of what you guys were referring to by putting my cut off before the genre went to metaphorical hell. And besides that, most of the works you hint at as refuting my position are fantasy works, not science fiction.
Seriously. Apologists are constantly trying to make room for the coexistence of religion and science, but it doesn’t fly. There is no room for treating a system based on logic equally with one based on fantasy and unfounded belief. (You’ll note that on every major clash between the two, religion has had to retreat, at least so far as secular society is concerned). And I think that the two don’t reconcile in SF (of the period concerned here) either; you either end up with religion getting the bad end of the stick, or a story based on bad science. That story may be enjoyable, but in the true sense of what science fiction is, it fails the definition at that point.
Part of the problem here with those who are bothered by the conclusion in this piece is that many are simply not used to religion being subjected to such questions; until very recently (at least in western society) ‘questioning’ the concept of religion was a verboten subject. One of the few areas of literature where that could take place was within the pages of SF works. Now this subject has been opened up for debate, criticism even, in a wider reveal, and , well, it’s not surprising that folks get a bit upset.
“Verne? Verne didn’t write science fiction, he wrote precursor ‘scientific romances’.”
Then by the same measure, Kim Stanley Robinson in his “Mars” trilogy didn’t write science fiction, he wrote a scientific romance.
As Verne said of Wells’ fiction (excuse me for not having the exact quote to hand) “I sent Barbicane to the moon using gun-cotton, but where is Mr. Wells’ anti-gravity metal? Let him show me this cavorite!” Who was the person using hard science and who was inventing unobtainum there – the Roman Catholic or the atheist writer?
Look, if your taste is for atheist SF or SF by atheists, that’s fine and dandy. Chacun a son gout and all that. I love Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles even though we all know the Mars depicted there is fantasy not realistic or even within the ‘realism’ of hard SF. But going from there to say that unless it ain’t got none of that old-time religion (or even that new-time religion), it ain’t proper SF – that’s like saying all SF has to be of the mundane school or else it isn’t proper SF.
Which would leave a heap of authors both past and present needing a new job description, from Asimov’s Psychohistory Empire on downwards. (Because psycho-history doesn’t actually exist, you know).
a shopping list has become a venerated religious artifact
Actually, it had not. Leibowitz was venerated (and later canonized) but for his charitable works during the catastrophe. The shopping list was known to have been written by him and was regarded therefore as importantly as we might regard a letter written by Abraham Lincoln. The problem was that the meanings of the terms had been lost over the centuries and so, from time to time monks in the order he founded would puzzle on it.
As for the supposition that religion and science are in opposition, that is easily falsified by empirical facts, as from a study of history. This is not to say that there were never religious people who disregarded or even disparaged science. (I have heard liberals do that, even at science fiction conventions! So it is not even a peculiar quality of religion.) For that matter, there may well be those who oppose science for cultural or political reasons who use religion cynically. Feminists and Greens are examples who do not, so again, it is not always religion that is so used. The long war between Newtonians and Cartesians was largely an epiphenomenon of English and French nationalism, although granted this was a conflict within science itself.
If we turn to history, we find:
For he gave me sound knowledge of what exists, that I might know the structure of the universe and the force of its elements,
The beginning and the end/and the midpoint of times,
the changes in the sun’s course/and the variations of the seasons,
Cycles of years,/positions of stars,
natures of living things,/tempers of beasts,
Powers of the winds/and thoughts of human beings,
uses of plants/and virtues of roots
Whatever is hidden or plain I learned, for Wisdom, the artisan of all, taught me.
– Wisdom 7:17-22
In the Gospel we do not read that the Lord said: ‘I send you the Holy Spirit so that He might teach you all about the course of the sun and the moon.’ The Lord wanted to make Christians, not astronomers. You learn at school all the useful things you need to know about nature.
– St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, Contra Faustum manichaeum
[They say] “We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.” You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.
– William of Conches, Dragmatikon
In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power; we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass.
– St. Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus et plantis
Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move towards a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.
– St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Physics II.8, lect. 14, no. 268
I propose here… to show the causes of some effects which seem to be marvels and to show that the effects occur naturally… There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens [astrology], the last refuge of the weak, or to demons, or to our glorious God, as if he would produce these effects directly…
Nicole d’Oresme, De causa mirabilium
The whole notion that the causes of natural things were to be sought in the natures of things was a medieval notion fostered by an overtly religious civilization. Of those mentioned above, three were saints and one [Oresme] a bishop. Others included Theodoric of Fribourg, who conducted experiments to explain [correctly] the rainbow; Robert Grosseteste, who devised compositio et reductio – the ancestor to Galileo’s demonstrative regress and what we now call the scientific method; Jean Buridan de Bethune, who formulated Newton’s first law in the 14th cent.; Roger Bacon, Peter Peregrinus and the laws of magnetism; Thomas Bradwardine, William of Heytesbury, and numerous others. Oresme determined that one could not decide by empirical means whether the earth rotated or the heavens revolved; he also started analytical geometry and his proof of the Mean Speed Theorem was used unchanged [and without attribution] by Galileo.
None of these found any contradiction because they all held the old religion and believed that God had endowed material bodies with natures capable of acting directly upon one another. This doctrine of secondary causation, illustrated by Aquinas, above, was in marked contrast to the occasionalism of al-Ghazali and the Ashar’i aqida which closed the gates of ijtihad in the House of Submission. Hence, while both Islam and Christendom had access to Aristotle, modern science was born in Christendom, while in Islam the faylasuf were regarded as heretics and to this day one can be questioned for having copies of al-Kindi or ibn Rushd in one’s home.
Hope this helps.
Religion and science fiction are mortal enemies? Why didn’t someone tell me this before I published “The Chaplain’s Assistant” in Analog Science Fiction & Fact magazine — the english language’s oldest and ‘hardest’ venue for short SF? How about Eric James Stone’s Nebula-winner, “That Leviathan, Whom Thou Hast Made,” also appearing in Analog? Both are ostensibly church stories, and both are not of the anti stripe.
I don’t think that’s putting the best possible face on it. I think that’s putting one, very particular face on something which is multifaceted and cannot be summed up in a single, one-size-fits-all paragraph. The ‘face’ above seems to more or less fit the ‘creationist evangelical Christian’ sector, but the creationist evangelical Christians are not even the largest sect of Christianity, though they may appear to be the loudest based on the average American experience with same.
Let’s also please differentiate ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ from science. These are mental tools for interpreting the world, and one man’s logic or reason won’t always square with another man’s logic or reason. Scientifically-replicatable facts are the same regardless of who might be on the receiving end, as anyone who has fallen down a flight of stairs can attest.
There is nothing inately anti-religious about science, no matter how loudly and obnoxiously Dawkins complains otherwise. Because religion deals with concepts and questions that are simply beyond the scope of what can be discerned via materialist means. And while many humans may be able to subsist on an agnostic or atheist doctrine, the majority cannot. And this is okay. Indeed, it would be surprising to find otherwise.
Because religion and faith are integral to the human experience. Even when we cast down and throw out the old belief systems, we invariably find ways to erect new ones in their place, even if we wouldn’t necessarily call them ‘churches’ as most understand the term. Environmentalism is rapidly emerging as a secular ‘faith’ replete with shibboleths, thou-shalt-nots, saints, sinners, angels, demons, and clergy to teach and enforce the doctrine.
Therefore religion ought to be integral to science fiction, since the best science fiction isn’t about ‘the triumph of science’ as much as it’s about the ramifications of science — used for good, or for ill — on human society, the human heart, and (dare I say it?) the human soul.
I predict (with a high degree of confidence, given that this is a blog) that the author will not shame-facedly retract his unreasonable premise, even though commenters have named lots of religious science fiction writers – and even though at least one Catholic sci-fi author of note has teased the author about it on his own blog!
Will the atheist nerd give in to peer pressure and disown this asinine article?
Only time will tell.
A reinterpretation of several well known works , using the Steve Davidson method-
Brideshead Revisited. A heart breaking tragedy, in which a free spirited intellectual is seduced by the illogical insanity of a decadent Roman Catholic Family, and eventually succumbs to their poison.
Lord of the Rings. The Fellowship strive to destroy the Ring, which represents the never ending cycle of religious control and oppression. Sauron, the All Seeing Eye, represents the tyrannical God-figure, who must be destroyed to liberate a maturing species.
The Book of the New Sun. Severian wishes to reignite the Sun (which represents the fires of rationality, burning away the dregs of religious behaviour from the Urth) and build a strictly logical future.
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Innocent children are abused by a religious figure- they are brainwashed into keeping Narnia from growing out of it’s infant stage by slaying it’s foremost advocate of reason, the White Witch.
The fiction of Flannery O’Connor. A dispassionate look at the horrific effect religion has on the South.
Read Richard Dawkins (who invented Atheism™, and is in fact responsible for overcoming any and all religionist arguments) for further breathtaking insights into reality.
Hysterical, Harry. I suppose you could also do Lord of the Rings the reverse way, like this guy:
http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/02/15/last_ringbearer
[...] worth waiting for. His latest post Science Fiction and Religion is a case in point. Over at Grasping for the Wind, Steve Davidson, who may or may not be my evil twin (or maybe I’m his evil twin, bwahaha) [...]
“Verne? Verne didn’t write science fiction, he wrote precursor ‘scientific romances’. ”
My set of THE PROPAGANDA GAME identifies this as the fallacy of “Victory by Definition”; popularly labeled “the No True Scotsman fallacy”. “Science fiction” is defined to only include what meets your approval. So if you dislike it, it’s not science fiction!
I think if you check, you’ll discover that “science fiction” didn’t exist until 1926.
‘ “science fiction” didn’t exist until 1926.’
That’s confusing the thing with the terminology used to describe it.
In that case since an elected Parliament is a prerequisite for a democracy, the USA is obviously not a democracy, because they don’t have an elected Parliament, just a Congress full of Senators and Representatives.
The facts are that there’s a gradual development from about 1800 onwards of a new type of story, set in some future time, or based on some pretended scientific discovery.
Some of these stories are by mainstream writers, others specialize in this new genre. So a new word is required for it, and as usual various terms appear, scientific romance, scientifiction (see Lewis, The Great Divorce), and no doubt lots more I don’t happen to have met. Eventually one variant is accepted, science fiction – and even that has variants.
But that’s a matter of terminology.
By your definition “War of the Worlds” and “The Time Machine” are not science fiction. Having read both. that does not seem a reasonable definition to me.
My goodness! That means there were no scientists until 1834! So much for Newton and Lavoisier…
And there was no racism until the 1930s! (http://www.answers.com/topic/racism) And no anti-semitism until Marr invented it circa 1870! And no “sexism” until, oh, 1970.
And no DNA before 1869! And no atoms before aristotle! And we have no hope of ever inventing anything new ever again, because we don’t know the names for those new things!
You’re being silly. Answer one of the arguments that’s already been put forward, don’t start newer and less sensical ones.
Or, better yet, stop arguing and admit that, occasionally, people who are different from you can be something other than worthless. I’m not asking you to come to church with me, or anything. I’m just asking you to take a deep breath and admit that Gene Wolf exists.
admit that Gene Wolf exists
Do you have any proofs for the existence of Gene Wolfe?
atoms
Democritos, not Aristotle. Aristotle disproved atoms, and history has vindicated him. Dalton’s atoms turned out not to be “unbreakables” (atomos) but more like Aristotelian minima. This is the opposite of “scientific romance”->”scientifiction”->”science fiction.” where the term changed by the substance remained constant. In the case of “atoms,” the word remained unchanged while the substance mutated.
+ + +
The Greeks had no word for “velocity” or “acceleration,” so clearly they could not have studied motion.
It appears that Gene Wolfe does not exist.
Objection 1: There are divers works of literature, whose superscriptions proclaim them to have been penned by Gene Wolfe.
Objection 2: Credible witnesses claim to have met and spoken with Gene Wolfe in the course of “cons”.
To clarify, my last grumpy comment was directed at Mr. Davidson. I apologize for any confusion, and for the grumpiness. And the being wrong about Atoms, while I’m at it.
As for the existence of Gene Wolfe, I have in the past suspected that he doesn’t exist, and that “Gene Wolfe” is actually the pen name for a large group of brilliant writers working in collaboration, because no one man could possibly contain all that strangeness and wonderfulness.
The only SF Giant I have had personal contact with is Frederik Pohl, who, as far as I can tell, is atheist. If, as my experience suggests, Fred Pohl is the only science fiction author who actually exists, and is therefore secretly the author of every novel of imagination, I may have to concede Mr. Davidson’s point that Athiests write the best SF, since this one wrote all of it.
Oh, and I also met John Rhys Davies once. He definitely existed, and spoke fondly of the Christian tradition. He’s not an author, but he was on Sliders. So Christians can play large bearded men in science fiction-y tv programs, at least. Also, they get to hang out with Viggo Mortensen and Indiana Jones!
You know, I’m thinking a much more useful debate at this point is “How do I get to hang out with Viggo Mortensen and Indiana Jones?”
And the English language has no equivalent for the Welsh “hiraeth”.
So obviously English and Americans never have a nostalgic longing for home.
On the good side however they also presumably never suffer from Schadenfreude, at least not unless they are foolish enough to learn German.
Und was ist los mit Schadenfreude?
Also in German, “manliness” is a feminine noun. Just saying. For those who thing grammar constructs thought.
Schadenfreude: The joy of watching someone else trying to put the verb in the right place. And getting it wrong.
And little girls are neuter (das Mädchen)
[...] and science fiction – particularly the contention that I laid out on my monthly piece at Grasping for the Wind, in which I stated that the two can’t really be [...]
[...] Eifelheim is out for delivery).Long story short, Steve Davidson of Grasping for the Wind wrote a post explaining why he thinks that “Religion, at its core, is a concept antithetical to the core [...]
[...] tradition).The distinction that comes back a little closer to what Steve Davidson was talking about in his original post. Science fiction protagonists are more likely to be free of supernatural constraints. They’re not [...]