Holy question
 

Does Religion clash with Science fiction? Some people have said that Star Trek is anti-religion. Do you think so? What about Shows like Babylon 5, which shows more of religon's in the future?

I don't think so. I'm a science-fiction fan, but also a Roman Catholic, and many sci-fi fans I know are religious. I see no conflict, myself.

I wouldn't have said so, necessarily. Being a fan of SF might imply that you are more open to new ideas, but then again it might not. I don't really think that there's a solid correlation there either way.

In any case, why should someone religious not be open to new ideas?

I think it comes down to how closely you follow Religion. New ideas have always been frowned on by them. Nowadays a Religion, while still might be important in a persons life, isn't usually as dominant as it might have been a number of years ago. There is an interesting link between the popularity of the religion and that generation's attitude towards newer ideas. Women’s rights, different orientations, new technologies were not quite so popular a number of years ago – when religion was dominant.
In any case, a new idea must always be checked against the religions holy laws to make sure it will not clash. And since those laws can never change, they will always be in conflict with society, whose ideas and laws will always be evolving.

Eh. I'm an atheist myself, but I don't see a problem.

Sci-fi deals with issues. When it talks about religion and philosophy, I think there needs to be a "live and let live" attitude. I mean, if you really believe, then they can say whatever the hell they want and give you a small grin, the one I get when I see a movie or show do something I think is wrong.

(For controversy's sake, I'm going to throw in the old tired 'People who shout loudest are trying to convince themselves the most' cliche and see if anyone bites.)

Gatac

Oh, it wasn't science fiction that influenced my backing away from Catholicism. But I suppose for some people it could be a factor.

Re: Holy question
 

It shows them all right, but JMS is very good at undercutting religion while making it look like he respects it. The Minbari faith, for example, is taken very seriously by the characters involved... but the show ends up providing a sci-fi explanation for literally everything in it. Brother Theo and his monks are considered nuts by Ivanova and Garibaldi (who actually questions their ability to watch a bunch of monitors); we also find out the government uses them as a nice wholeseome environment to put brainwashed criminals in, presumably programming in the whole believing-in-God thing. And even then JMS couldn't risk having sympathetic characters who were actual, real-life Christians -- Theo and his order were into religious equivalence, the whole "all religions are actually true from different perspectives" thing. Delenn dragged Sheridan to a Baptist revival when she thought it would be good for him, knowing neither of them believed a word that was said there. This is the sort of condescension I mean.

Of course, I'm not forgetting that Gene Roddenberry was even more anti-religion, and openly used Trek to attack it. He believed religion was a phase humanity would grow out of. It wasn't till DS9 and VOY that religion in Trek was taken seriously, and episodes like "Mortal Coil" and "Destiny" had really interesting takes on the subject.

To actually answer the poll question, I've known sci-fi fans from all sorts of religions -- and I don't know anyone whose faith or lack thereof changed because of their sf habits. So empirically speaking, it looks like the two can coexist just fine.

Um, nope. Religion is central to my life, but I still love sci-fi, and I'm willing to at least listen to new ideas.

There will always be exceptions with some people. Thankfully some seem to be able to find it's true core, i.e just be nice to each other etc, and fit it in to their lives. Sadly, though, the Religon's at the moment seem to be the blocks on any advancement.

The ones that get the most airplay, at least. The progressive churches typically aren't the ones grabbing headlines, waving placards and generally making a stink about how this, that and the other thing is going to turn out children into Satan-worshippers.

The Jesuit order somehow manages to combing faith and the pursuit of knowledge without the universe exploding at the contradiction. It took me a while to realise this, though.

The Jesuits are pretty dang cool, in my opinion. The only downside of attending one of their learning establishments is that every month-or-so you have to attend a mandatory naptime- err, prayer service. Great folks.

Again, nothing is absolute. Some religons are pretty cool. So long as they stick to the nice side of life, promoting peace and thing. Not cursing groups they dislike, and sending everyone to hell.
Sadly the groups and religons that are 'grabbing headlines, waving placards and generally making a stink about how this, that and the other thing is going to turn out children into Satan-worshippers.' seem to get far too many followers.

Like what? Has it ocurred to you that many of science's clashes with religion in the modern world are over expediency for scientists, where often there are non-ethically challenging solutions, but for the sake of getting things done more easily scientists decide on a quicker route.

Yes. It has. But many religons are based on Thousand year old laws and beliefs. Things that are done nowadays, were unthinkable back then. Only 15 years ago did the Catholic Church admit that Galileo Galilei was right, and they were probley wrong for their opposition. I wouldn't say Scientst's take quicker routes or do things just to annoy religons. Religon, I think is scared of science - always has been. It worries that certain things will be answered. Things, they don't want answered.

This is not going to end well...

Stand by for incoming fire...or at least flames...

Then I guess it's time for, 'Shield's to Maximum'.

But really, joking aside. I'm not here to annoy or piss people off at random. It's just....there are things about Religon's that...disturb me greatly. And I think it's good to discuss these things.

Any organized religion will by it's very nature be resistant to change. Nowadays that means social rather than scientific (for the most part) issues. They'll catch up eventually, as they usually do (though sometimes not), but what's not acceptable is when that resistance to change has a directly negative impact on people's health and wellbeing.

Suffice it to say, I'm not a tremendous fan of organized religion for pretty much that reason alone.

I agree with Burt that it’s a good thing to discuss religious matters. As long as we stay on a friendly level, discussions of this nature can help us to come to a better understanding of other points of view, and hopefully point us to the truth of the issues. I have some opinions myself, and I’ll try to address some of the points Jedi made in his latest post.

(By the way, I hope no one will object to me focussing my discussion on Christianity. I realize that there are other beliefs and organized religions involved in the world today, but Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with; not to mention being the faith I believe is true. Unless otherwise stated, whenever I mention ‘religion’ in this post, I will be referring to Christianity—both the organized Church and the universal body of believers.)

I think this may be a misunderstanding. While there are many instances of religion resisting change, it can also be an agent of change. Christianity derives its values from the Bible, which we believe is the inspired world of God. These values include moral standards and guidelines, in addition to historical, philosophical, theological, and scientific beliefs. If Christians realize that their society is not following these values, they will try to change their society.

This is, in part, the motive behind the American abolition movement (if God made all men in His image, it is wrong to degrade that image by subjecting some men to slavery), orphanages (God commands us to take care of fatherless children, rather than leave them to starve on the streets), and the American education system (it is important for everyone to be able to read, so they can understand the Bible for themselves).

When society begins to change on its own, and to reject biblical values (or what the Church assumes to be biblical values), Christianity does tend to resist. But the point of religion is not to resist change and remain in the past, but, rather, to adhere to its own standards. If society does not conform to these standards, religion will be in favor of change, but if society changes without regard for the standards, religion will resist the change.

I agree with this. Even though I believe Christians have a legitimate reason to act when society turns away from biblical values, we must take care how we act. We should follow the example of Jesus, speaking the truth with love. Though we shouldn’t compromise our beliefs, neither should we resort to unkind language. We should be careful not to condemn those who disagree with us, knowing that we have no righteousness of our own—nothing we have done makes us any better than anyone else.

Above all, Christians should not resort to violence to get our point across. Anyone who does so demonstrates a lack of faith in God; they feel that God doesn’t know when to act and that they have to take matters into their own hands. I’m not saying that no one who uses violent force is ever justified—certainly force can be used in national defense, for instance. But I don’t believe that Christians should use any violence in order to win converts or frighten unbelievers; such violence would be opposed to the teachings of Christ.

In conclusion, I do not believe that religion is always opposed to change. Religion holds to its own principles, and will promote or resist change depending on how the change lines up with those principles. And while I believe that religion is justified in resisting many types of change (including current social changes) I also believe that religious people should take care how we resist. We should remain civil and promote our values in a manner in keeping with the political and social frameworks we find ourselves in. There’s more I’d like to say, but I think I’ll leave it at that. I've probably bored everyone enough by now. :)

I hope that this debate will help us to be understanding of other opinions, and I hope it will help us to know the truth.

P. S. Lest this thread stray too far from the original topic, let me make a comment on the opening question. I think that sci-fi is a neutral medium. While it is easy for science fiction to reject spiritual things, it is also possible for sci-fi to promote a Christian viewpoint (The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis and The Firebird trilogy by Kathy Tyers are excellent examples of this). Sci-fi may turn someone away from religion, or it could turn someone to religion; it depends on both the sci-fi and the person. But I don’t think there is a fundamental conflict between the two.