Religious systems in Sci-Fi

[Parson]

Then there is religion in the Safehold series by Weber.

But it never addresses the issue of how God allowed aliens to wipe out most of the human race. Is their god more powerful than the humans'?

If I remember the series correctly, the idea of the aliens is not even on the "safeholdians" radar. Their religion is designed to keep them safe by keeping them from technology, and it does this by keeping the people ignorant of what those who design the religion knew. I do wonder if Weber had Scientology in mind when he wrote the religion.

 

[psikeyhackr]

If I remember the series correctly, the idea of the aliens is not even on the "safeholdians" radar. Their religion is designed to keep them safe by keeping them from technology, and it does this by keeping the people ignorant of what those who design the religion know. I do wonder if Weber had Scientology in mind when he wrote the religion.

There is the "inner circle" that works with Merlin and know about the Gaba. They still profess to believe in God though they go through the motions of the popular religion for the masses who are not ready for The Truth.

Thank Langhorn!

 

[psikeyhackr]

Accidental duplication

 

[Parson]

There is the "inner circle" that works with Merlin and know about the Gaba. They still profess to believe in God though they go through the motions of the popular religion for the masses who are not ready for The Truth.

Thank Langhorn!

Yes, Merlin and the "inner circle" know the truth about their religion. I was thinking about the general populace. The inner circle is a more interesting case. I think Weber was insightful to have them mostly keep holding on to a form of their faith. Most people have trouble letting go of at least some form of what they originally believed to be true.

Faith by definition is holding onto something you cannot be entirely certain about. And although Langhorn and his book are known by the inner circle to be an advice book wrapped in the shell of a religion, that fact alone does not lead most of them to doubt the existence of at some kind of deity even if there are unanswered questions.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Faith by definition is holding onto something you cannot be entirely certain about. And although Langhorn and his book are known by the inner circle to be an advice book wrapped in the shell of a religion, that fact alone does not lead most of them to doubt the existence of at some kind of deity even if there are unanswered questions.

But how do they reconcile God with the Gaba.
No one in the inner circle has mentioned that which should be glaringly obvious, so what is Weber playing at. That is one of the problems with fiction. On the one hand some of the characters must be very smart but on the other hand if they are so smart then why don't they...

I started wondering about this when Merlin passed the test with the verifier in the first book. Gotta ignore stuff to enjoy the story sometimes. At what point does it become too difficult to ignore?

 

[Parson]

But how do they reconcile God with the Gaba.

I'm not familiar with any point in the series --- and I've read all the books (the last ones somewhat grumpily) --- where that becomes a topic of conversation. I'd bet Weber would use an idea that he used in the Honor Harrington books, where the Grayson religion is always talking about "the test."

No one in the inner circle has mentioned that which should be glaringly obvious, so what is Weber playing at. That is one of the problems with fiction. On the one hand some of the characters must be very smart but on the other hand if they are so smart then why don't they...

But isn't that life? No one can pursue every problem or dilemma in life. You pick your battles and leave the rest. The Gaba are not presently threatening, but the Safehold church alliance most certainly is. --- And on a differnt level; perhaps Weber didn't want to go down that rabbit hole.

I started wondering about this when Merlin passed the test with the verifier in the first book. Gotta ignore stuff to enjoy the story sometimes. At what point does it become too difficult to ignore?

It's been a while since I've read this, but as I remember it the main problem Merlin had was that s/he did not know if the verfier was set to recognize synths or not. S/he was not asked a question which s/he could not answer truthfully. --- I don't remember if the verifier could tell when more was known of a topic. If that was so, then the questions had to be very specific indeed for Merlin to pass.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I was half-woken up in the middle of last night (it was stormy) and once I had reassured my half-aware self that the roof hadn't come off the house I thought, 'I must mention Bokonism from Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle in that thread on the Chrons...' and went back to sleep.

Brains is weird things.

Bokononism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

taggedwiki.zubiaga.org

 

[psikeyhackr]

It's been a while since I've read this, but as I remember it the main problem Merlin had was that s/he did not know if the verfier was set to recognize synths or not. S/he was not asked a question which s/he could not answer truthfully. --- I don't remember if the verifier could tell when more was known of a topic. If that was so, then the questions had to be very specific indeed for Merlin to pass.

He reached out his own hand, and settled it over the verifier. As he did, a small green icon glowed in the corner of his vision, and he drew a deep mental breath at the confirmation that the verifier was fully functional. Its circuitry and programming had detected the fact that he was a PICA operating in autonomous mode. It had no way to realize he was operating under hacked software, nor would it have had any way to report that fact to Wylsynn. But it had been designed to interface with a PICA's molycirc brain, as well as with a human one, and it had dropped automatically into the proper mode.

Electronic books are so cool.

 

[Mark_Harbinger]

A big problem is that a lot of people are drawn to scfi for its rationalism - any whiff of the mystical or spiritual and it's denigrated as "fantasy". Hence the old "Star Wars is fantasy because The Force" chestnut, while Star Trek is considered science fiction in spite of a woeful lack of coherent science of any kind.

Can I try a corollary to this? For my part, I like how there seems to be more gobbledegook double-speak in Sci-Fi than in Fantasy. My theory is that it demonstrates both:
i) our religious belief in technology ("It's better, because...science! I mean, these voting machines are computerized!"); and
ii) our cynically banal use of religion? ("All thanks to God I was able to catch that pass in the end zone!")

So, the entire discussion is off-kilter from the get-go when people use science as religion and vice-versa.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So, the entire discussion is off-kilter from the get-go when people use science as religion and vice-versa.

It is in part a semantic/cultural problem.

Believing, SUSPECTING and Knowing are three different things. But most people do not use the word SUSPECT very much.

We are supposed to believe that there is AGW, Anthropogenic Global Warming. I can't say that I know since I have not been to Hawaii to measure the CO2 or to Antarctica to drill ice cores. So I am dependent upon my ability to judge second hand information from scientists collecting data.

The English needs another word for KNOW, maybe 2 or 3. Reality has gotten too complicated.

 

[tinkerdan]

We are supposed to believe that there is AGW, Anthropogenic Global Warming. I can't say that I know since I have not been to Hawaii to measure the CO2 or to Antarctica to drill ice cores. So I am dependent upon my ability to judge second hand information from scientists collecting data.

I think this leads to something quite simple--we have to have faith that the scientists working on these things are working out of knowledge and not some misinterpretation of physics. So in a large way for some people science to them is a faith centered practice almost like a religion.

In most respects with science--until someone works with the numbers long and hard to a level of comprehension--people who are less scientifically inclined have to trust that those with the higher comprehension are not misleading them because the math and theory involved is often incomprehensible to them.

 

[Mark_Harbinger]

"Write what you suspect" (?)

 

[Mark_Harbinger]

I think this leads to something quite simple--we have to have faith that the scientists working on these things are working out of knowledge and not some misinterpretation of physics. So in a large way for some people science to them is a faith centered practice almost like a religion.

In most respects with science--until someone works with the numbers long and hard to a level of comprehension--people who are less scientifically inclined have to trust that those with the higher comprehension are not misleading them because the math and theory involved is often incomprehensible to them.

I do agree that we fetishize technology as inherently: Progress™. Although "misinterpretation" is probably less of a threat than mercenary/political meddling. I'm willing to bet 10 out of 10 scientists who have been paid to disagree with Global Warming disagree with Global Warming.

The Scientific Method is supposed to provide for self-checks (peer review, etc) that largely remove "belief" from the equation. Of course, there is no way to completely disavow human biases, etc. But, it's still the best method for getting to objective, concrete Truths. Prayer chants didn't eradicate Polio.

OTOH, metaphysical Truth is perhaps best reached by Art, first, and then Spirituality second, and Religion, third (at least, that's how I'd rate their efficacy). Or choose your own hierarchy. The point is—To quote a Pastor associate of mine—"Faith is for when you don't have facts. If you have the facts, what do you need faith for?"

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think this leads to something quite simple--we have to have faith that the scientists working on these things are working out of knowledge and not some misinterpretation of physics. So in a large way for some people science to them is a faith centered practice almost like a religion.

My mother sent me to a Catholic elementary school but I started reading SF in 4th grade. I decided that I was an agnostic in 7th grade.

I went to college for Electrical Engineering. This global warming business reminds me of what is called thermal runaway in transistors. A transistor behaves somewhat differently at different temperatures. It gets hotter and conducts more current which makes it hotter which makes it conduct more current which makes it hotter, etc., etc. I have seen transistors explode and the results of explosions even more often.

I do not expect the planet to explode but the ultimate results could be pretty bad. What kind of wars could we have if men KNOW that their country is so hot that they cannot survive there so they might as well die trying to steal someone else's?

People who think science is faith are absurd.

Arthur C Clarke wrote about infrared in A Fall of Moondust. I read it in 7th grade. He also described Lagrange points which I find somewhat amusing since the James Webb Space Telescope is going to be at the Earth/Sun L2 point.

Some people simply have not been taught enough basic science to recognize if the science that they don't understand makes any sense, so it is all religion to them.

 

[psikeyhackr]

"Write what you suspect" (?)

Of course! To beat a horse that won't die, in A Fall of Moondust Clarke wrote about moondust that behaved like water and a lunar tourbus sank into it.

This was 1961 and the lunar surface was unknown. I don't think Clarke believed it but it was a possibility that could make a good story. But moondust is weird and causes problems for entirely different reasons. It is very fine like Clarke envisioned but extremely jagged. It won't flow but will destroy equipment and lungs.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Some people simply have not been taught enough basic science to recognize if the science that they don't understand makes any sense, so it is all religion to them.

I would go further and say that a lot of people haven't even been taught the basics of scientific method and confuse technology with science. Hence idiotic phrases like 'believe in science', and 'believing the facts' coming from people who would never think of saying, 'believe in mathematics', or 'believe in cooking'.

 

[Parson]

So is it possible to write a story where a religious system and scientific research support one another?

>I would say that Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon" comes fairly close to doing that when one of the findings is "We are more than just our genes."

 

[psikeyhackr]

'believe in cooking'.

I believe in not cooking. I would starve without a microwave. Science to the rescue.

Oh yeah, technology to the rescue. Sorry!

 

[psikeyhackr]

So is it possible to write a story where a religious system and scientific research support one another?

>I would say that Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon" comes fairly close to doing that when one of the findings is "We are more than just our genes."

LOL

Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?

Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?

If you’re anything like me, with eyes that roll over to the back of your head whenever you hear words like “reincarnation” or “parapsychology,” if you suffer great paroxysms of despair for human intelligence whenever you catch a glimpse of that dandelion-colored cover of Heaven Is For Real or...

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[Justin Swanton]

So is it possible to write a story where a religious system and scientific research support one another?

>I would say that Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon" comes fairly close to doing that when one of the findings is "We are more than just our genes."

The interesting thing is that science and religion don't exclude each other at all. The scientific method is predicated upon empiricism, which means establishing the link between scientifically observable effects and scientifically observable causes. Since experimentation is part of the process, the scientist has to be able to control and observe the cause as well as the effect. This means that the scientific method deals only with effects having scientifically measurable causes. Which means only causes that are part of the physical universe and subject to its physical laws. Science refuses to consider any causes outside of the physical realm.

The leaves religion free to examine non-physical causes for effects that clearly cannot be assigned to physical causes (and there are plenty of those), with the kind of rigorous methodology used in a court of law. No conflict at all.

The conflict of course arises from the assumption that since the scientific method does not consider non-physical causes therefore there are no such things as non-physical causes. This however is a decision, not a deduction.

I wonder if this balanced rapport between religion and science appears in any SF fiction. Not that I'm aware of.