Rod of Alexandria on Religion and Science Fiction

Rod has finished blogging through Religion and Science Fiction over at Political Jesus. I must say that I am rather disappointed with how his series ended – with Rod asserting more than once that everything is allegory, and allegory everything. One of the points the book illustrates throughout, and the final chapter emphasized only to apparently have it ignored by Rod, is that the search for allegories in sci-fi (and other literature and films), looking for Christ figures for instance, is the most superficial sort of exploration of the intersection of religion and science fiction. And so when Rod says he doesn’t have a method for exploring religion and science fiction, that very assertion suggests that he needs one.

I appreciate Rod’s series, but I think it important to point out that it seems at times to give a treatment that is only superficial and singular – which is ironic, given the book’s aim of illustrating the range of ways that religion and sci-fi can intersect, and the variety of approaches that can be used to explore the points of intersection.

99 LuftBeowulfs

YouTube Preview Image

Via my sister on Facebook.

Academic Job?

We’ve been talking about the Book of Job and more generally about the problem of evil in my freshman course on Faith, Doubt and Reason. It struck me that one can make a point relevant to academic assignment writing from the Book of Job (although I wonder how appropriate it is to do so). One of the main reasons that Job’s friends are criticized at the end of the book is presumably that they simply defended their existing belief, without allowing room for new evidence, and cutting short or not taking completely seriously objections that could be or were being voiced.

When it comes to the academic study of religion, many fall back on the views that they have inherited when confronted with challenging perspectives – such as those offered in J. L. Mackie’s classic article on the problem of evil, or the objections raised by Ivan Karamazov in the excerpt from Dostoyevsky’s novel, both of which we’ve read this semester along with the Book of Job and much else.

Presumably, lest a professor give the impression that they are deifying themselves, it might be best not to put it this way: just as God was not pleased with Job’s friends for simply defending their traditional view (and God!) and cutting short discussion of other views and possible objections, so too professors will not be pleased when students do much the same thing when addressing challenging religious topics in their academic assignments.

What do others think? Is the analogy with Job’s friends a useful one when it comes to academic assignment?

Doctor Who and Mrs…Who?

The upcoming episode of Doctor Who, “The Wedding of River Song,” will be the season finale. The biggest question that people are asking is “Who will she marry?” and “Will it be the Doctor?

Someone on Reddit noticed some similarities between a scene in “The Impossible Astronaut” and a wedding:

Invitations were sent out, and the Doctor and River Song, dressed in white, stand on a beach while their friends look on, and her “veil” is lifted back…

Of course, this is Doctor Who, and so to the extent that this resembles a wedding (with the suit-wearing Silence as groomsmen?) it a very weird one indeed.

A lot of pointers suggest that the Doctor and River do indeed marry at some point. When he asked her if she was married, her answer seemed to indicate as much. And when she said she dreamed of marrying him one day, he later told her that he would indeed do just that.

This could create a problem for any future attempts to bring the Doctor into contact with his earlier regenerations, in view of the fact that the Doctor doesn’t seem to have known her before the first encounter in the David Tennant era. Then again, up until now the fact that they may be married doesn’t seem to have resulted in them doing anything more than meeting up from time to time.

As for who I would have hoped would get an invitation to the wedding, and who deserved to, it would definitely be this person more than anyone else:

But I’d settle for a story line in which Susan turns out to be the grandchild of the Doctor and River Song, and that she is eventually sent back in time to be raised by the Doctor’s earlier self, whether intentionally in order to protect her from some danger, or by accident.

Then again, the show has recently been emphasizing the possibility of time being rewritten, and so the possibility that what has happened on the show up until now will turn out not to have happened at all, or will have happened differently, is always an option. And if nothing else, talking about such transformations gives me the excuse to share this picture…

What do you think will happen in “The Wedding of River Song”?

Evolution and Creationism around the Blogosphere

Several posts related to the bogus claims of proponents of young earth creationism and intelligent design have appeared in the blogosphere over the past 24 hours or so…

Karl Giberson asked why Evangelicals prefer to get their information from the discredited Ken Ham rather than an actual Evangelical scientist like Francis Collins. Darrell Falk responded to Ken Ham’s video.

Questioning Answers in Genesis addressed faith-science conflicts.

Dennis Vennema offered insight into human speciation.

The British Center for Science Education shared this video about alleged irreducible complexity, highlighting the dishonesty of the Discovery Institute.

YouTube Preview Image

Rise of the Orthodox Jedi

HT Chris Brady (original source unknown)

Torchwood: Small Worlds, Medium-Sized Gods

The Torchwood episode “Small Worlds” focuses on “fairies” – which are viewed not as alien entities but as ones that are native to our world and have been around for as long as or longer than humans have. Indeed, they once were human children, but have been transformed into immortal beings who can flit in and out of and backwards and forwards in time. Some think of them as lovely and benevolent, but a close look reveals that they are capricious and do not care about harm done to others.

Even Jack, who has encountered them before, has no way of dealing with them. He emphasizes that it isn’t a matter of police work or science, and one might add that there is no Doctor to come up with some clever solution.

These “fairies” are powerful beings who treat everything as a game, live forever, and are unstoppable. The only thing one can do, Jack concludes, is give them what they want and hope that they will reciprocate by leaving you alone.

It struck me hard as I thought about the episode that this is exactly how gods were understood, and what religion meant, throughout most of human history.

And so I strongly recommend “Small Worlds” as a discussion-starter on religion and science fiction. It also provides a good starting point for discussion of religion and science. The progress of our scientific knowledge has eliminated the mythological element to forces of nature. That makes them intelligible, and slightly more predictable, but not necessarily less terrifying, since there is no personal entity behind them that we can appease to keep them at bay. But presumably just understanding that offering sacrifices will not keep tornados at bay is progress, and reality is preferable to comforting falsehoods.

There is a lot of updating that any viable religious viewpoint must engage in if it is to seem plausible to present and future generations. As Carl Sagan wrote, “In fact a general problem with much of Western theology in my view is that the god portrayed is too small. It is a god of a tiny world and not a God of the galaxy, much less of a universe… I don’t propose that is a virtue to revel in our limitations. But it’s important to understand how much we do not know. There is an enormous amount we do not know; there is a tiny amount that we do. But what we do understand brings us face to face with an awesome Cosmos that is simply different from the Cosmos of our pious ancestors.”

Our cosmos is bigger than many ancients realized, and more rational and intelligible too, and less full of capricious spirits. And so the really interesting theological questions are not about the attempts of fundamentalists to maintain the same ideas of God today. Rather, the crucial debate is about whether our progress in understanding the world leads to a bigger God, or none at all.