Is Science Fiction Hostile to Christianity?

[Radrook]

There is no one today that even comes close to fitting things as well as a couple of the Caesars or Hitler.

I don't get your meaning.

 

[Blackmarch]

I started reading science fiction way back when I was in the university. I started by reading SF novels, then I added SF magazines (Asimov's, Analog, SF & Fantasy Mag and later, Interzone). When I discovered Gardner Dozois' annual anthologies, The Year's Best SF, I was totally hooked. But as the years went by, I found that more and more SF showed contempt toward people of faith, especially Christians. As an example, Dozois' anthologies would typically contain two stories that were overtly offensive to followers of Christ but by the time I read my last one, the 27th Annual Collection, I had counted six such stories in that volume alone. I became so sick of it all, I decided to drop SF altogether and changed to Victorian novels, Shakespeare and 19th Century French and Russian novels (Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are particularly good).

I recently came across some old unread issues Asimov's (2013) and started reading them. I enjoy most of the stories immensely and am surprised that not a single story is offensive in the least.

I would like to know from all you SF fans (the ones who read, not watch) if you have shared my experience. Do any of you like Gardner's anthologies? Have you read any issues after No. 27? Has there been a reversal in the hostility trend? Have SF writers decided that it is unprofitable to offend their fans? Is it safe to go back to SF? I have been debating if I should get an online subscription to Asimov's or perhaps it makes better sense to just buy single copies and test the waters.

depends on the author but for most of my experience it is mostly neutral to slightly supportive.

 

[conceptualweapon]

That is a good point and I appreciate that you point it out. It certainly is a conclusion that some who consider science fiction might reach. Nevertheless, it is definitely a Godless world that is being portrayed and very often abiogenesis with its atheistic evolution is at the core of the themes. Take for example the 2001 A Space Odyssey series. It goes completely contrary to what Genesis tells us by depicting the first humans as apes. It then introduces the notion that unless aliens intervened mankind would have never emerged.

Then you have the TV series Star Trek and Star Trek the New Generation. It portrays a universe where humans have gone far beyond what we presently view the time of the end of this world. All biblical prophecies have failed to occurred. No kingdom of God took control of the universe aw was prophesied. The only almighty being which contacts mankind in the series is a peevish whimsical entity called Q who is more a buffoon than a God. Other godlike entities are always portrayed as either dangerous to mankind. Q himself is portrayed as subject other almighties of his kind.

It all goes completely contrary to the Christian concept of only one almighty God who is in control of the universe. So it attacks Christian doctrine on those two levels as well as glorifying technology as the ONLY solution to mankind's problems because in the far future, God has obviously failed to keep his promises..

It also portrays religion as being a childish infancy stage for mankind and one which mankind has finally outgrown. In fact, a whole episode is dedicated to that concept.

Post apocalyptic scenarios depict an Earth ruined by nuclear holocaust and not one of Paradise restored as the prophecies in revelation indicate will occur and those in the OT clearly foretold.

The heavens are portrayed as they are no far into the future when the Bible tells us that God will create a new heavens and a new Earth.

So it all goes completely contrary to the Bible prophecies and in that way insinuates that those prophecies were bogus or outright lies.

I disagree on all of those things and more. Most troubles are inherently caused by humans and so called demons come from humanity too. There is no such thing as black and white morality, because you have to believe that there are perfect solutions to problems. Say some evil demagogue like the Joker forces you to choose between saving the little kids or an even larger group of pregnant woman. There is no such thing as a 'perfect scenario' in reality. If you think so say THAT to those little kids around you. There are only somewhat satisfactory results to whatever you do. Look at ISIS! Religious terrorists that want to revive the good old Golden Age of Islam. Do you think the Crusaders were all that different from them? Undoubtedly the Crusaders killed, maimed, tortured, and raped people just like any other invader. The thing is religion is undoubtedly institutionalized. 99 percent of all societies in human history are inward looking, because of a fundamental reason. Humans tend to be one sidedly influenced by our conditions. No one defies this, because that's the equivalent of remembering old timelines. Said conditions can change whenever people's lives change. Science fiction in general attempts to depict a reality an alternate timeline if you will in which these conditions are different. They also by default involve technology from basic tools to Jules Vernes's thousand leagues under the sea nuclear submarine to unimaginable spaceships.
DON'T laugh timelines are called timelines for a reason. There is no reason why you couldn't tightrope back and forth, and jump to other lines. Say the Women's Rights Movement never happened or Hitler succeeded in killing off the Jews. Do you think anyone would have those ideals in such a timeline. Of course not! Please do not say anything is somehow intrinsic to humanity. Do you think transgenders are works of the devil or spaceships? Again I emphasize that we as humans should not for the sake of the progress our ancestors made and any future descendants, give up on the future. Past 12th century values have no place in the present except as things in museums. Advancing is the only option and if that involves acknowledging that the Universe is just part of a Multiverse or crystalline lifeforms exist or things unimaginable to humans exist then so be it.

 

[conceptualweapon]

And these Borg originated where? They look like descendants of another Adam gone wrong and unconcernedly allowed to go berserk to the extent of endangering mankind along with other sentient creatures made in God's image.

Where did the crystalline entity come from? Of course from some layer of minerals on some relatively calm planet. The Borg are rubber forehead aliens instead of the more likely starfish aliens. Rubber-Forehead Aliens - TV Tropes
Starfish Aliens - TV Tropes
If God were truly encompassing oneness then He would create an abundance of lifeforms some of which would obviously not Fall in any way humanity could understand. They would have lives and troubles of their own to deal with. Our Universe is a hostile place and hell we know Earth is. Climate change, asteroid impacts, nuclear wars, and a conundrum of other threats make our entire existence precarious. You wouldn't doubt that we should treasure our very lives and civilization in general would you? Meeting an 'Other' would do us some good I suppose by humbling us. Humanism and human superiority groups would deny any potential First Contact. All of the universal religions would have to live up to the term universal and go through this Outside Context Problem.
Outside-Context Problem - TV Tropes
This would be like Christopher Columbus meeting the Indians all over again...we all should hope this time it would turn out differently than that particular event. Another example would be Zheng He's expedition several hundred years before Vasco de Gama or Columbus. He met Africans and even brought home a giraffe which eventually faded into mythology. The civilizations they belonged to were not innocent by any standards. Imperialist Europe or Confucian China were generally inward looking and believed everything would be the same as always, but Objective reality would force the uncomeatable reality of the existence of the Western Hemisphere down their throats. There is no reason to suppose this won't happen again. Radrook which side do you want to be on the alt-right, right, left, or do you want to have your own unique opinion?

 

[dms1972]

I started reading science fiction way back when I was in the university. I started by reading SF novels, then I added SF magazines (Asimov's, Analog, SF & Fantasy Mag and later, Interzone). When I discovered Gardner Dozois' annual anthologies, The Year's Best SF, I was totally hooked. But as the years went by, I found that more and more SF showed contempt toward people of faith, especially Christians. As an example, Dozois' anthologies would typically contain two stories that were overtly offensive to followers of Christ but by the time I read my last one, the 27th Annual Collection, I had counted six such stories in that volume alone. I became so sick of it all, I decided to drop SF altogether and changed to Victorian novels, Shakespeare and 19th Century French and Russian novels (Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are particularly good).

I recently came across some old unread issues Asimov's (2013) and started reading them. I enjoy most of the stories immensely and am surprised that not a single story is offensive in the least.

I would like to know from all you SF fans (the ones who read, not watch) if you have shared my experience. Do any of you like Gardner's anthologies? Have you read any issues after No. 27? Has there been a reversal in the hostility trend? Have SF writers decided that it is unprofitable to offend their fans? Is it safe to go back to SF? I have been debating if I should get an online subscription to Asimov's or perhaps it makes better sense to just buy single copies and test the waters.

Not familiar with Dozois, but i would say its those particular writers mainly, rather than the sci-fi genre itself. I mean it doesn't have to be hostile to christianity, but it does lend itself to be a vehicle for scientism, more than other genres, unsurprisingly. CS Lewis alluded to the early sci-fi that his protagonist Ransom in Out of the Silent Planet had read and how in the story he initially was expecting to encounter something horrible on Mars. The whole story is worth reading for its twist on early sci-fi.

It depends what kind of view you take on literary images and their impact on one's worldview, or lifeview. Some would see things like bleak alien landscapes and slavering, horrorific creatures as dishonouring to a creator God.

I have read some Arthur C Clarke, in fact 3001 but not the earlier parts of that series (i have seen two films). I wasn't sure about some parts of that, and what was meant, its been a while, but it wasn't a very great read anyway in my honest opinion. Clarke's work is known for having ideas that have actually come to be invented.

That actually seems to be a hallmark for some readers, if it doesn't seem realistic enough invention wise it is deemed inferior. CS Lewis would not be science-fiction (except perhaps That Hideous Strength) to such readers, but then on their criterion they should probably exclude Jules Verne, and H.G. Well's too.

Lewis was fond (with some minor criticism) of Clarke's Childhood's End, and also Ray Bradbury's The Silver Locusts.

I can see why Lewis liked Bradbury as there is something about man as exploiting versus indiginous lifeforms, confusing their intentions, in his Mars tales, not unlike Lewis, the tragic element I suppose it might be called.

I'd say you are going to find at least two things in Sci-Fi cropping to some extent.

1. Scientism
2. Gnosticism

Such is going to be at odds with a christian worldview. Probably dystopian novels are less of an issue, as christians pretty much agree that man left to himself will make a mess of things.

 

[conceptualweapon]

Mankind has never had the ability to ruin the Earth as it has now.
Nation rising against Nation never involved the Whole Earth as it did during WWI and WWII.
Signs in the Heavens have never been detected to the degree as they are today.
These and many other signs enumerated by Jesus have never before been as clear as they are today.
So I guess we disagree on that.

If you mean that the heavens are more accessible to humanity then yes. But then again you can't really argue that God doesn't really rest in outer space any more than Earth doesn't exist in the Universe. The "signs of heaven" meaning foreshadowing of doom have always existed. List every single last disaster that threatens human existence and you start to see that the number isn't exactly small. For example, there are plenty of asteroids and comets out there. NASA's chart of all these little objects fully supports the notion that Earth is like a target amid a shooting gallery. There is even empirical data from earlier impacts. The Tunguska Event probably hits the closest to home though, when it flattened trees within 32 miles of its location. Imagine that happening in a city and suddenly you get why some people want a solid space industry. Every 50 years a supernova explodes out in the Milky Way somewhere. Any life within a 30 light year sphere would get toasted. Go to Google and perform a simple two step equation. You'll see that theoretically if exactly one good sized star conveniently goes supernova every 30 light year bubble every 50 years or so, it'll take just 166667 years to sterilize the Galaxy of life. Now take that fact that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old and compare these two numbers. Not exactly a refreshing conclusion, right? The thing is disaster is more a rule than an exception and suddenly the Fermi Paradox doesn't seem so paradoxical.

 

[conceptualweapon]

I'm not unaware of "the message." I'm aware that there is an implicitly transmitted "message" of the creator's universe-view in every created work (even Psalm 19 tells us that).

Often, not. Most SF can be read in the simple light of "...if the Lord tarries." If Edgar Alan Poe (the inventor of both modern SF and the police procedural) had written a straightforward episode of "CSI:Miami," that would have been "science fiction" in his time and yet nothing more than a matter of "...if the Lord tarries..."--which He did, and this is what we've come to since Poe's time. No denial of God there, it's just not a story about God. Might as well be an episode of "CSI: Miami" in that respect.

And sometimes it's not so implicit, in some SF it's necessary that there be no God (at least no God as proposed by much of Christendom) for the plot to work.

But then, you missed my point. When I noted that much SF can't even exist in the same universe as other SF (and Keith99 noted that many times the writings of even a single author can't exist in the same universe), clearly that denotes that I'm aware they are presenting different universe-views.

My point is that being exposed to Asimov's view of a universe devoid of aliens does not interfere with my enjoyment of Clarke's "Rendezvous with Rama." They are different universes from each other and different universes from mine...which I realize.

What you're really getting down to is the issue of "meat sacrificed to idols." That's all this thread has been about.

Yes, these stories may implicitly transmit the author's Godless bias, just as pagans uttered pagan prayers over the animals they slaughtered. But I know their gods do not exist, thus they're prayers are feckless. The meat is just meat...because I know this.

The thing I have to disagree on is that science fiction and reality as we know it doesn't require a God. Of course I am not a creationist nor do I believe in the supernatural. My view of God isn't a white elderly person in the sky. It's more like the Prime Cause in Arthur C. Clarke's book 3001. There is no specific reason why we exist, because God isn't supposed to be personalist. Move just a bit beyond human level and things start getting weird. On a quantum level virtual particles disappear and reappear all the time. Go near absolute zero and you can make hover. Singularities exist where the laws of physics don't work as they normally do. I think the main thing about science fiction particularly speculative fiction is that it ultimately forces us to contend with reality and realize our place in the Universe. That sounds an awful lot like what religion is supposed to do, but when you look at the news it's used to justify things. It's not the religion itself at fault but rather the humans that make up it. The Crusades were started for things like conquering foreign barbarians and the like. The Church condemned Galileo not because of violating scripture, but because he destroyed the illusion that Earth is the center of the Universe. It's a nice although limiting illusion that made people feel safe, but the Church didn't want to burst their own bubble. Now why did they maintain that illusion in the first place? The fundamental reason for religion and science is to explain the world. Also take in the fact that humans don't want their worldview challenged. Science generally does better at it than religion does because religions rely on assumptions that so easily change according to their own desires rather than unshakable universal constants. At no time does the Bible make angels out to have wings yet the obvious reason they do is that humans decided to tack that detail into doctrine. Essentially religion itself is like a failed science except for the God part. Of course if you consider God the Prime Cause for our existence there is nothing wrong with that. But once you start getting into absolute morals and universal constants I think every religion has that a bit backwards, because morals change according to humans and not God. I would have no problems with a 'purified' Christianity and all other religions that denounced all their assumptions and biases.

 

[RDKirk]

The Church condemned Galileo not because of violating scripture, but because he destroyed the illusion that Earth is the center of the Universe.

Actually, the Pope condemned Galileo because Galileo personally insulted the Pope. The Church could have--and did--accept a heliocentric solar system, and could have accepted it then (except the most acclaimed scientific minds of the day denied a heliocentric solar system just as they deny cold fusion today), just as the Church had already long accepted that the earth was spheroidal.

 

[Radrook]

If you mean that the heavens are more accessible to humanity then yes. But then again you can't really argue that God doesn't really rest in outer space any more than Earth doesn't exist in the Universe. The "signs of heaven" meaning foreshadowing of doom have always existed. List every single last disaster that threatens human existence and you start to see that the number isn't exactly small. For example, there are plenty of asteroids and comets out there. NASA's chart of all these little objects fully supports the notion that Earth is like a target amid a shooting gallery. There is even empirical data from earlier impacts. The Tunguska Event probably hits the closest to home though, when it flattened trees within 32 miles of its location. Imagine that happening in a city and suddenly you get why some people want a solid space industry. Every 50 years a supernova explodes out in the Milky Way somewhere. Any life within a 30 light year sphere would get toasted. Go to Google and perform a simple two step equation. You'll see that theoretically if exactly one good sized star conveniently goes supernova every 30 light year bubble every 50 years or so, it'll take just 166667 years to sterilize the Galaxy of life. Now take that fact that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old and compare these two numbers. Not exactly a refreshing conclusion, right? The thing is disaster is more a rule than an exception and suddenly the Fermi Paradox doesn't seem so paradoxical.

Then there should not exist any life on Earth because our Galaxy should have been sterilized eons ago according to that calculation.