Religion is to God as Sci-Fi is to Science

[Donn]

Limbo, is there anything that you cannot see religion in?

 

[Myriad]

Limbo, you appear to be claiming that any attention paid to narrative is equivalent to practice of religion. What is your basis for such a claim? What is your definition of religion, and how does that definition encompass reading science fiction?

If someone studies the Bible as history and literature, reading it several times in the course of such study, without ever entertaining the hypothesis that the Bible is of divine origin or that its narratives are revealed truth, who or what is that person worshipping? Is Bible scholarship in and of itself a religion?

I recently wrote a science fiction story about people in a post-industrial setting attempting, using only low technology (horses, ropes, farm carts, etc), to meet a challenge of traveling a mile at at least 60 mph. Who or what was I worshipping by writing that story?

 

[Donn]

Clearly, Myriad, you were worshipping the fourth instar of the Shamanic nega head composed of dung and sinew. A primal stream, so to speak.

 

[tsig]

@Loss Leader, the transformation of comic book characters, such as Superman from a golem to the modern alien we all know and love, reflects the general transformation of world religion and myth through time but on a different, accelerated, space-age scale.

Sorry, a comic book is just a comic book and holds no cosmic significance but I guess woo is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[tsig]

Any position one may take on any topic supports Limbo. If one disputes that, it's because one lacks Limbo's enlightenment.

Clearly you only said that because he hit your god-nerve.

 

[PixyMisa]

An NPR interview reported that actress Lili Taylor (photo) “is particularly influenced by the work of Carl Jung. A founding father of modern psychology, Jung developed the theory of the collective unconscious, and proposed the existence of archetypal patterns that help shape personality.

Still doesn't exist. And thus any hypothesis depending on it is automatically wrong.

 

[tsig]

Sure you have, you just don't recognize them because your concept of religion is so narrow. The church of sci-fi* is the movie theatre, the comic book store, the Star Trek convention, the MarsCon, the Star Wars isle at the toy store.

Truly whenever two or more are gathered in *it's name there is Truth^TM.

 

[PixyMisa]

Also, if you claim to be talking about science fiction and end up talking instead about comic books, then you clearly know nothing of either field.

 

[sackett]

Sci fi is to literature as diapers are to toilet training.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The BSG-Mormon connection is irrelevant.

No, it's not. You said that you could see the religious parallels with sci-fi, yet missed an incredibly blatant one.

It's only skin deep.

Von Daniken is what you said was skin deep.

Under the surface is where the action is, is where the archetypes are.

And you got those wrong.

Do you understand that? The issue isn't that you missed the connection to Mormonism, it's that where you identified archetypes, you identified them incorrectly.

 

[I Ratant]

"To a ten-year-old boy with a hammer everything looks like a nail".

"Sometimes a cigar is just a good smoke."

.
It is illuminating to read scholarly tomes on popular icons...
'The Pooh Perplex" by Crew goes into the hidden meanings and dirty parts that were glossed over by Sister Agnes Caligula when she read us the stories.
.
Myron Masterson examines "When We Were Very Young"
.
"And there I saw a white swan make
Another white swan in the lake."
.
"God bless Mummy. I know that's right,
Wasn't it fun in the bath tonight?"
.
Filth like that, masquerading as a children's story..
.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's the religion of no-religion. Through sci-fi and comics people can and do worship without worshipping. It's just so radically different than the picture of traditional worship that people don't recognize it. And when they are confronted with their worship, they are repelled because they have developed such strong hate of traditional religion that they can't think straight.

Superman as Christ-Figure: The American Pop Culture Movie Messiah

Abstract

Holy subtexts abound within the popular cinema. Superman: The Movie (1978) and Superman II (1981) were examined as a protracted secular analogue of the Jesus story. The literature was reviewed and twenty Superman-Jesus parallels plus eight Christic personalistic traits were explicated. It was concluded that Superman is not only a legitimate Christ-figure, but the American pop culture movie Messiah.

If you think it's some kind of revelation that Superman can be read as a Jesus figure, then you'd be blown away by the Zac Snyder film.

 

[John Jones]

Clearly you only said that because he hit your god-nerve.

I've got a bunch of touchy nerves. They're mostly in my extremities due to diabetes. I'm reasonably certain you weren't referring to them.

I can't remember a single god-nerve ache since I learned some critical thinking skills.

 

[Loss Leader]

It's the religion of no-religion. Through sci-fi and comics people can and do worship without worshipping. It's just so radically different than the picture of traditional worship that people don't recognize it. And when they are confronted with their worship, they are repelled because they have developed such strong hate of traditional religion that they can't think straight.

Oh, so you mean nonsense. You should have just said so from the start.

 

[Limbo]

Limbo, you appear to be claiming that any attention paid to narrative is equivalent to practice of religion. What is your basis for such a claim? What is your definition of religion, and how does that definition encompass reading science fiction?

Religion is, among other things, a misinterpretation of mythology. That misinterpretation can go in two directions. If you read it and take it literally, factually, and historically, you are misinterpreting it and in so doing practicing religion.

If you read it and think it is merely a story for entertainment, then you are also misinterpreting it and in so doing practicing religion. Or perhaps, anti-religion.

Most sci-fi/comic-book fans don't know how to read their modern myths. They misinterpret it, mistreat it but in the opposite way that a fundamentalist mistreats their myth. The truth is inbetween those extremes.

If someone studies the Bible as history and literature, reading it several times in the course of such study, without ever entertaining the hypothesis that the Bible is of divine origin or that its narratives are revealed truth, who or what is that person worshipping? Is Bible scholarship in and of itself a religion?

If someone studies the Bible as mere history and literature, then they are doing it wrong.

"The origins of the discipline of religious studies in nineteenth-century Europe are not primary mystical or even religious. A highly developed secular sense is a sine qua non of the discipline and its social sustainability anywhere on the planet (hence its virtual absense outside the Western academy). I would like, though, to make a restricted and heterodox case that regarding the discipline as a modern mystical tradition could be useful in approaching the constructive tasks being explored in these reflections. In this, I am not suggesting that the discipline must or even should be read in this way.

Rather, I wish only to make the much more restricted, but no less unorthodox, case that some of the discipline's practices and practitioners (that is, those capable of forging a tensive mystical-critical practice out of the discipline's dual Romantic/Enlightenment heritage) can be read in such a way, and that, moreover, such a mystical-critical rereading of the discipline might be useful for the constructive tasks under discussion here, namely, the cross-cultural influence of religious systems toward a safer, more humane, and more religiously satisfying world.

Scholars of religion, it turns out, often have profound religious experiences reading and interpreting the texts they critically study, and these events have consequences for the methods and models they develop, the conclusions they come to, and even for the traditions they study." -Jeffrey Kripal

I recently wrote a science fiction story about people in a post-industrial setting attempting, using only low technology (horses, ropes, farm carts, etc), to meet a challenge of traveling a mile at at least 60 mph. Who or what was I worshipping by writing that story?

What happened to the industrial setting? WWIII?

 

[Limbo]

No, it's not. You said that you could see the religious parallels with sci-fi, yet missed an incredibly blatant one.



Von Daniken is what you said was skin deep.



And you got those wrong.

Do you understand that? The issue isn't that you missed the connection to Mormonism, it's that where you identified archetypes, you identified them incorrectly.

My good sir. Decontructing sci-fi is not about tying it to a particular religion of a particular time and place, because then all you've done is pass the buck, in a way. It's about exposing the elements that are in ALL religions but in different costumes, different symbolic forms: the archetypes of the collective unconscious.

The costumes have changed. Our gods wear spandex and capes now.

 

[Myriad]

Religion is, among other things, a misinterpretation of mythology. That misinterpretation can go in two directions. If you read it and take it literally, factually, and historically, you are misinterpreting it and in so doing practicing religion.

If you read it and think it is merely a story for entertainment, then you are also misinterpreting it and in so doing practicing religion. Or perhaps, anti-religion.

Most sci-fi/comic-book fans don't know how to read their modern myths. They misinterpret it, mistreat it but in the opposite way that a fundamentalist mistreats their myth. The truth is inbetween those extremes.

These kinds of statements are counterproductive. If you can't distinguish clearly between a thing and its opposite, then you're being too vague. It's all well and good to point out a dualism and the frequent similarities between polar extremes (especially when advocating a third path), but if in so doing you ignore the differences, it's going to come across as your own misunderstanding instead of as a clarifying or enlightening point.

"If you sit on the couch all day instead of engaging in physical activity, you are misrepresenting health and in so doing practicing exercise. Or perhaps, anti-exercise." See?

If someone studies the Bible as mere history and literature, then they are doing it wrong.

"The origins of the discipline of religious studies in nineteenth-century Europe are not primary mystical or even religious. A highly developed secular sense is a sine qua non of the discipline and its social sustainability anywhere on the planet (hence its virtual absense outside the Western academy). I would like, though, to make a restricted and heterodox case that regarding the discipline as a modern mystical tradition could be useful in approaching the constructive tasks being explored in these reflections. In this, I am not suggesting that the discipline must or even should be read in this way.

Rather, I wish only to make the much more restricted, but no less unorthodox, case that some of the discipline's practices and practitioners (that is, those capable of forging a tensive mystical-critical practice out of the discipline's dual Romantic/Enlightenment heritage) can be read in such a way, and that, moreover, such a mystical-critical rereading of the discipline might be useful for the constructive tasks under discussion here, namely, the cross-cultural influence of religious systems toward a safer, more humane, and more religiously satisfying world.

Scholars of religion, it turns out, often have profound religious experiences reading and interpreting the texts they critically study, and these events have consequences for the methods and models they develop, the conclusions they come to, and even for the traditions they study." -Jeffrey Kripal

That's not what I asked. Who or what is being worshipped by the practice of of "doing it wrong" in that particular way?

Also, why do you disagree with Mr. Kripal whom you quoted? He very clearly says that he is not suggesting that Bible scholarship must or even should be regarded as a modern mystical tradition. You, by contrast, claim that not doing so is "doing it wrong," contradicting Kripal's claim.

Why should I not conclude from this that you are simply wrong in claiming that any particular practice is "doing it wrong?"

What happened to the industrial setting? WWIII?

It stopped being industrial at some point in the past. Hence the modifier "post-".

 

[Limbo]

These kinds of statements are counterproductive. If you can't distinguish clearly between a thing and its opposite, then you're being too vague. It's all well and good to point out a dualism and the frequent similarities between polar extremes (especially when advocating a third path), but if in so doing you ignore the differences, it's going to come across as your own misunderstanding instead of as a clarifying or enlightening point.

"If you sit on the couch all day instead of engaging in physical activity, you are misrepresenting health and in so doing practicing exercise. Or perhaps, anti-exercise." See?

If you sit on a couch all day, what is it your mind is doing? Reading? Watching TV? Listening to music? Surfing the web? SOMETHING is getting some sort of exercise. Even if it's your mind. There is some level of meditation going on.

That's not what I asked. Who or what is being worshipped by the practice of of "doing it wrong" in that particular way?

Probably the ego-self, and its illusion of separation and control. The 'Clark Kent' aspect of us.

Also, why do you disagree with Mr. Kripal whom you quoted? He very clearly says that he is not suggesting that Bible scholarship must or even should be regarded as a modern mystical tradition. You, by contrast, claim that not doing so is "doing it wrong," contradicting Kripal's claim.

I do disagree with him about that point. I think that myth should be read mystically, and I think people should be taught how to do that. It's clear that he believes it can be read that way, I think it can and should be.

Why should I not conclude from this that you are simply wrong in claiming that any particular practice is "doing it wrong?"

Do you expect people to agree with scholars and scientists about EVERYTHING they say?

It stopped being industrial at some point in the past. Hence the modifier "post-".

Yes, I realize that. I am asking about the circumstances that took the society to "post" so that I have some basis for answering your question.

 

[Darat]

Sci fi is to literature as diapers are to toilet training.

Why would you expect different genres to value the same things?

 

[MG1962]

You seem to have one foot in the old, one foot in the new.

Science Fiction has been around for close on 150 years, so I am not all that sure about the "new" label