Religious views of Science-Fiction writers

[Darkhorse]

Does anyone know the religious views of the major science-fiction writers (Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asimov)? We ALL know about L. Ron Hubbard, but what about the others?

 

[Lycana]

I don't know, but I'm sure most or all of them don't believe in God.

 

[Abbadon]

I don't know, but I'm sure most or all of them don't believe in God.

Because they can come out with something entertaining, unlike Cloud Ten pictures?

An interest in science fiction (or just outright science as has been the case with some of the authors mentioned) does not put a person against God, some just see science as the natural laws that God established, not as a replacement. I see no reason to doubt that they could have believed in God.

------
If Lucas counts as a great sci-fi author, he's Methodist.

Ray Bradbury wrote of suppression of religion as a bad thing, and though uncredited, wrote the narraration of the screenplay to the 1961 version of King of Kings, a definately pro-Jesus movie.

Gene Roddenberry declared himself to be a secular humanist.

Isaac Asimov was born in a Jewish family declared to be a Humanist (in general), and had no problem with religious conviction (though he did have a problem with superstition).

 

[ChristChild]

This site covers many, many of them. Check it out by scrolling down the page:

http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_other.html

Look around other pages as well.

Shane

 

[StromRider]

From the celebrity atheists list: http://www.celebatheists.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page

Douglas Adams
Piers Anthony
Isaac Asimov
Clive Barker
Arthur C Clarke
Harlan Ellison
Robert Heinlein
Larry Niven
Gene Roddenberry

There are many more names of famous people at this site but I just picked the ones that I thought easily fit this thread.

 

[faithseeker]

Philip K. Dick is known to have experienced 'something' that raised his interest in christianism.

His experience is described in a online comic here :

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/weirdo.htm

Some of his books that followed were apparently an attempt to make some sense out of it:
http://www.philipkdick.com/works_novels_valis.html
http://www.philipkdick.com/works_novels_divineinvasion.html
http://www.philipkdick.com/works_novels_transmigration.html

 

[MoonlessNight]

This site covers many, many of them. Check it out by scrolling down the page:

http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_other.html

Look around other pages as well.

Shane

It's always bugged me that HP Lovecraft is listed under pagan because he had a period of infatuation with greek mythology in his youth. He was an atheist for most of his life and said so on several occasions in his letters; I don't know what more you really need.

 

[Lycana]

Because they can come out with something entertaining, unlike Cloud Ten pictures?

An interest in science fiction (or just outright science as has been the case with some of the authors mentioned) does not put a person against God, some just see science as the natural laws that God established, not as a replacement. I see no reason to doubt that they could have believed in God.

Sorry dude! I didn't mean to imply that liking science fiction made a person against God! I love Sci fi myself, and I'm a devoted Christian. It's just that I've read some of these authors and you can just tell in their work that they believe in Evolution instead of Creationism.

 

[Abbadon]

Sorry dude! I didn't mean to imply that liking science fiction made a person against God! I love Sci fi myself, and I'm a devoted Christian. It's just that I've read some of these authors and you can just tell in their work that they believe in Evolution instead of Creationism.

Ever hear of theistic evolution? Belief in God and belief in how God created the world aren't the same thing.

 

[jochanaan]

Well, internal evidence from Heinlein's books suggests he was very anti-Christian. That bias is especially evident in Stranger in a Strange Land, and I have never heard that he came to belief.
On the other hand we have Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.

 

[bvwsmaker]

From the celebrity atheists list: http://www.celebatheists.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page

Douglas Adams
Piers Anthony
Isaac Asimov
Clive Barker
Arthur C Clarke
Harlan Ellison
Robert Heinlein
Larry Niven
Gene Roddenberry

There are many more names of famous people at this site but I just picked the ones that I thought easily fit this thread.

I thought Piers Anthony was more agnostic. At least that's the sense I got from his Incarnations Of Immortality series. (I thought the first five were great, especially how ingenious the schemes of the devil were, the sixth one about the devil was well written but tried to make you feel sorry for "Satan", and the final one about their search for God just made me shake my head. But it's obvious he did have exposure to Christian teachings.)

 

[StromRider]

But it's obvious he did have exposure to Christian teachings.)

What person growing up in a western society hasn't had exposure to christian teachings?

 

[SuperNova]

I don't get offended when I watch a science fiction show or movie which includes evolution. After all it is science fiction

So whenever Commander Data or Captain Picard mention evolution as if it were fact, I just remember these are the same characters that treat warp drive and Klingons as if they really exist.

 

[Lycana]

Good point! Your Mona Lisa avatar is hilarious by the way

 

[Jmdenn]

I don't get offended when I watch a science fiction show or movie which includes evolution. After all it is science fiction

Well as a scientist in training I can tell you that evolution and religion are sort of seperate and not at all viewed as mutually exculsive. It's all viewed like this we attempt to find out how things work,as scientists who forms the situation is unimportant, in the other parts of her life it is.besides belief in god is a matter of faith and isn't supposed to be proven that's what faith is. Scientists only deal in what we can prove.

 

[SuperNova]

I don't get offended when I watch a science fiction show or movie which includes evolution. After all it is science fiction

Well as a scientist in training I can tell you that evolution and religion are sort of seperate and not at all viewed as mutually exculsive. It's all viewed like this we attempt to find out how things work,as scientists who forms the situation is unimportant, in the other parts of her life it is.besides belief in god is a matter of faith and isn't supposed to be proven that's what faith is. Scientists only deal in what we can prove.

Then that excludes evolution. It is unproved and unprovable. It can not be tested with the scientific method to be proven true or false. It is a religion. If you accept it you accept it by faith.
Dr. Thomas Kindel can say it alot better than I can:
http://www.nwcreation.net/media/thermodynamic_arguments.wmv

But, As I said before, It makes for great science fiction

 

[Abbadon]

I don't get offended when I watch a science fiction show or movie which includes evolution. After all it is science fiction



Then that excludes evolution. It is unproved and unprovable. It can not be tested with the scientific method to be proven true or false. It is a religion. If you accept it you accept it by faith.
Dr. Thomas Kindel can say it alot better than I can:
http://www.nwcreation.net/media/thermodynamic_arguments.wmv

But, As I said before, It makes for great science fiction

Just because something isn't unprovable doesn't make it religion. Opinions would be religion, then. "Cheese is tasty" would be a separate religion from Christianity, if what is unprovable (opinions) were religion.

 

[Jmdenn]

i've got to disagree on the untestable thing natural solection has been tested again and agian in various different microbes and observed in larger organisms (and again i'am not saying god doesn't inffluance it, that's once again not a matter for science to determine)

i also wasn't defining what was in the realm of religion as being unprovable. I was just saying that faith is defined as believing despite clear absolute evidence one way or the other. I was just trying to say that science is bound to what can be tested (also one tenant of science is that there are no "facts" nothing can be measured to the point of absolute certainty. this allows room for human error) i'am just trying to say that the two (evolution and religion) are not exclusive and can coexist. Each just answers different questions religion (who, why) and science (where, and how) I personaly view it all as gods big domino game, he set it up and he started it out knowing what the end result would be. (us)

sorry if i offend anyone i'am really not trying to

 

[SuperNova]

Evolution can not be tested. It is a religion not just because it is unproved. It is a religion because it is a set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Whether or not someone prefers cheese does not fit that definition. It is unproved and accepted by it's believers as fact by faith.

Also, natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. Natural selection is simply the fact that the strongest survives. Evolution is the belief that simple organisms can become more complex over time through mutations. This is unproved, unprovable and unlikely giving known scientific laws. I'd suggest actually watching Dr. Kindel's video that I linked to. He explains it much better than I since he's got a PhD and all. I don't have one of those.

I'm not offended but I just see to many Christians today thinking they can reconcile evolution with Genesis. Genesis is the foundation on which everything we believe is built. No scientific law in existence conflicts with Genesis. There are theories and philosophies that do but no scientific facts whatsoever.

In addition to watching Dr. Kindel's video I'd say spend some time with answers in genesis.
www.answersingenesis.org
It's a non-profit organization of PhD holding scientists. There is plenty of evidence for creation.

And to keep it on topic, evolution makes great science fiction

 

[Jmdenn]

natural selection is the fundimental base of the theory of evolution.

i watched the video, however i have discusions and debates with several phd's every day the video was less the fully factual not to mention the ad homonim attacks

we have obsevred the differenciation of short generational animals

and by the way the laws of theromodynamics are made useless by quantum pyhsics (which by the way screws with every one) also he seemsto gounder the opinion that most proponents of evolutionary theory are athiests. which is a flat out lie and an insult

one other small point that people always seem to get confused evolution is not about the origin of life itself. it is the action by which life adjusts to it's enivorment to function in the most efficent manner (metabolic cost vs. benefit) possible