[Gunnair]

$1:

You can't be on Twitter these days without being bombarded with atheistic smugness. You know what I mean. People who can't just profess that they don't believe in God — they have to taunt religious people for believing in "fairy tales." Or the Tooth Fairy. Most of the time, these are geeks who have immense respect for science... and yet, they won't recognize a situation where they simply have no data, one way or the other.

After a while, I can't help wishing that these people would read some more science fiction, which above all is the genre of amazement and limitless possibility.
Top image: Rendezvous With Rama, artwork by Jim Burns

Of course, science fiction is also the genre of skepticism, and there are numerous examples of fake gods cropping up in SF books and other media. But there's also a long tradition in science fiction of transcendence, and encounters with something huge and unknowable. A lot of the best science fiction also features the realization that for all our knowledge, there are still things in the universe we don't yet fully understand.

We talked to a bunch of theologians recently to find out what religious topics they'd like to see science fiction cover — and one thing became clear: science fiction already deals with religious issues a lot. From Carl Sagan's take on the relationship between science and religion in Contact to all of the stories that explore the nature of humanity and the future, science fiction is frequently stepping into theological grounds. And that's leaving aside all of the stories about humans meeting entities in space that are beyond our comprehension and apparently all-powerful.

Yep, I'm talking about Sense of Wonder.

A sense of wonder includes humility
A lot of the best science fiction includes a sense of wonder at the hugeness of the cosmos — and the flipside of that is a sense of our own smallness. And the humility that goes along with that. If you want to feel a real sense of quasi-religious awe, don't think of the world as being 6,000 years old — think of its actual age, measured in billions of years, and the huge timescales of the universe before and after our world. And think of the vastness of the cosmos, whose mysteries we've only just begun to glimpse in the past century.

A lot of the best science fiction is intensely "cosmic," conveying just how huge and unknowable the universe is, and how little we still understand it. In a sense, the huge cosmic imagery of science fiction resembles some of the best religious paintings — like the artworks of William Turner, who depicts light bursting out of the frame in a way that's often almost too dazzling to take in. Or Pieter Bruegel the Elder, whose angels are like explosions of light and energy.

Contemplating space and time in all of their massive strangeness is much like gazing into the naked face of God is supposed to be — apt to drive you mad, or at the very least to make you recognize how tiny and ignorant you are. And science fiction is full of people who see further than others — and are called mad because of it.

Someone else's subjective experience is as valid as yours
There's a common plot in science fiction — particularly media SF — where someone is "seeing things" or having experiences that can't be easily verified or quantified using technology. Like a sense of "deja vu," or hearing voices, or seeing the missing-presumed-dead Captain Kirk floating around. And a huge problem in these stories is that nobody can really know what another person is experiencing, or whether it has any validity or is just a hallucination.

Thus it is with religious experiences — other people can speak about their profound experiences of the divine, which seem immensely real to them, but may sound like a crazy delusion to the rest of us. People experience raptures and witness miracles, which can't be documented. And there are plenty of people who've had out of body experiences or near death experiences, which may or may not have a neurological explanation. One of science fiction's all-time great writers, Philip K. Dick, had a religious experience where he felt as though he saw God in 1974 — and this experience informed his increasingly weird writing for the last eight years of his life.

And science fiction is full of characters who experience visions that are outside of linear time, or beyond cause and effect. In Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness, the Foretellers of Gethen go into a "kind of trance" that involves "self-loss" and allows them to see something of the future through extreme sensual awareness. In Frank Herbert's Dune, Paul has visions that are as much mystical as scientific — though they involve "a kind of Heisenberg indeterminacy," where Paul's seeing affects what he sees. Science fiction also has its fair share of psychics and visionaries, who are viewed as lunatics, but who see a deeper reality than the rest of us can perceive.

And in Olaf Stapledon's First and Last Men, this sort of cosmic vision eventually leads to humanity awakening into a kind of "cosmic spirit" which encompasses all living things. There's also tons of science fiction which deals with humanity reaching the next stage of evolution — which frequently has some quasi-religious overtones, as in some of Arthur C. Clarke's work.

In any case, plenty of people have personal experiences, which could be immensely meaningful or could just be their own faulty perceptions. They can't say which is which, with an absolute certainty, and neither can any of us, from the outside. Once you've read enough science fiction, you start to allow for at least the possibility that other people might be seeing stuff that you can't see but which still affects you in some massive, important way.

You don't know any more than the rest of us
Carl Sagan is frequently described as an atheist — but there's also a quote commonly ascribed to him where he rejects that label, saying: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

Actually, atheism is at least as valid a position as religious belief — and atheism has a huge advantage over Young Earth Creationism, in that it hasn't actually been disproved. At the same time, Sagan was an agnostic, because there was no proof either way.

Still, it's great to be atheist — and I strongly support arguing publicly and loudly in favor of atheism as a point of view. Just, you know, don't be smug about it. You don't actually know any more than the rest of us, and the universe is a much stranger, more bewildering place than any of us can really begin to grasp, and the only thing that would be surprising is if we stop being constantly surprised. If you don't believe me, just read some science fiction.

Sources:
Worlds Enough and Time: Explorations of Time in Science Fiction and Fantasy, edited by Gary Westfahl et al.
A Companion to Science Fiction, edited by David Seed

http://io9.com/5963475/why-smug-atheists-should-read-more-science-fiction

[kilroy]

Good post, humility and a sense of awe, yessiree been there done that, I'm Zaphod Beeblebrox don't you know.

[Public_Domain]

[jambo101]

Being a life long avid Sci-Fi reader i can well recommend the Genre and wonder why more people arent into it..
Rendez-Vous with Rama is a great example of Sci-Fi and should be compulsory reading at some point in school.
As for atheists i'm not really being subjected to any anti religious inconveniences from them as most atheists i know dont discuss or care about religion,its just a non issue

[CanadianJeff]

Maybe the reason Atheists are so vocal is because religious institutions never seem to be happy unless they are trying to force the rest of us to live by their dogma.

I find it very odd and highly stupid that it's suggested we learn "the scene of wonder". May I suggest the next time someone suggests that "God did it" when we don't know how something works is the one without any sense of wonder or humility.

Science fiction is an absolutely wonderful and amazing genre and I have always enjoyed it immensely but I think one of the most important lessons it teaches is the importance of not simply saying "God did it" as some form of acceptable answer and instead having the courage to be ok with a lack of having any form of real answer.

[ShepherdsDog]

Actually the vocal ones on both sides of the issue piss off the majority of us who don't give a shit one way or the other. You're just as annoying as the guy who is always asking everyone if they've found his lost Mexican gardener.

[Unsound]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Actually the vocal ones on both sides of the issue piss off the majority of us who don't give a shit one way or the other. You're just as annoying as the guy who is always asking everyone if they've found his lost Mexican gardener.

Telling people they're stupid or naive because of their faith is just as obnoxious as telling people they're going to hell because they don't believe what you believe.

An intellectual respectfull debate about religion between people who acknowledge that the chances of changing any minds are minimal and who are in it just because arguing can be mentally stimulating is totally cool, but people thinking that the person the talking to is just one clever argument away from converting need to stop and think a bit.

[Thanos]

SF might be no different than religion anyway. If miracles that are attributable to God aren't real then neither is most of what SF has been telling us. Realistically, with what we know now about physics, there will never be faster than light travel. Or useful teleportation. Or artificial gravity plating. Or a reliable method of suspended animation/stasis that would allow for the hundreds of years travel to even the closest star systems to Earth.

Is religion all lies? Maybe but then so is almost all of what SF says will inevitably happen. It might take a thousand years to even colonize a moon of Jupiter or Saturn. All the rest of SF's "promises" will likely never happen for any generation of humanity. At that stage we're probably better off just waiting for Jesus to return because it ain't gonna get any better than this.

[Gunnair]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Maybe the reason Atheists are so vocal is because religious institutions never seem to be happy unless they are trying to force the rest of us to live by their dogma.

None here do that from the 'those of faith side'. Can't say so from the other though.

[BartSimpson]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Maybe the reason Atheists are so vocal is because religious institutions never seem to be happy unless they are trying to force the rest of us to live by their dogma.

Then by your own standard many atheists demonstrate atheism to be a religious institution given their desire to impose their beliefs on others. Look at Mr. Canada's post in this thread for an example of that phenomenon.

He claims to be an atheist yet he wants to 'dethrone god'. How exactly does one propose to take an action against a being whose existence he purportedly denies? In this singular act of hypocrisy I often find it ironic that many atheists by their actions demonstrate a greater faith in the existence of deity than do most people who profess such a faith.

Truly, I know of more atheists who are possessed of a certainty that they are oppressed by God than I know Christians who express a certainty that they are loved by Him.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Then by your own standard many atheists demonstrate atheism to be a religious institution given their desire to impose their beliefs on others. Look at Mr. Canada's post in this thread for an example of that phenomenon.

He claims to be an atheist yet he wants to 'dethrone god'. How exactly does one propose to take an action against a being whose existence he purportedly denies? In this singular act of hypocrisy I often find it ironic that many atheists by their actions demonstrate a greater faith in the existence of deity than do most people who profess such a faith.

Truly, I know of more atheists who are possessed of a certainty that they are oppressed by God than I know Christians who express a certainty that they are loved by Him.

Mr Canada likely meant his statement in the way Nietzsche meant "God is dead" - ie not that there ever was a God.

I agree about atheists who claim certainty there is no transcendent element to existence. (That's what the examples given of sf stories show - not that there's a creator God, just that there is awareness beyond our ken.) Or even atheists who claim there is no God. Other side of the coin from theists who claim there is one. Carl Sagan said he didn't know enough to be an atheist, so he's an agnostic.

But Mr Canada also doesn't feel oppressed by God, I'll wager, but by Christians. Tho who knows, maybe he's just pissed off at God. I know I am.

[FieryVulpine]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

He claims to be an atheist yet he wants to 'dethrone god'. How exactly does one propose to take an action against a being whose existence he purportedly denies? In this singular act of hypocrisy I often find it ironic that many atheists by their actions demonstrate a greater faith in the existence of deity than do most people who profess such a faith.

Well, to play Devil's Advocate here (*rimshot*) I believe that Mr. Canada wants to "dethrone" the concept of a deity but I only see folly in this. You can refute ideas but you cannot dethrone or kill them. The Allies defeated Nazism and Fascism almost seventy years ago but there are people who still embrace those ideals. Communism collapsed twenty years ago but there are still people who claim it is still viable despite all evidence to the contrary. Hell, did the Soviet Union no attempt to snuff out the Russian Orthodox church? It is still standing to this day? I doubt he and his ilk will ever succeed in "dethroning" God because the concept is too strong in so many minds and ideas multiply like rabbits and maybe, just maybe, religion fills a need that materialist philosophies/ideologies like Communism or Secular Humanism simply cannot fulfill in most humans.

There is a reason why I have a great deal of admiration for Carl Sagan and his protege, Neil deGrasse Tyson. They did/do not outright reject the idea of a god but see no compelling evidence for one and do not want to waste time and energy debating with zealots on both sides. That being said...

[PluggyRug]

Those that say there is no God cannot prove it, and vice versa.

I read a large amount of science fiction, some of which is now science fact.

After saying that I wouldn't call myself an atheist. Live and let live.

I do take umbrage at people knocking at my door and making futile attempts to convert me into their religious beliefs.

[sandorski]

I fail to see the connection here, other than to invoke Incredulity. So instead of having our mind blown by religious writings, we should do it with Sci-Fi and that somehow puts the Religious and non-Religious on some kind of equal footing?

The problem here is that the "Fi" in Sci-Fi = Fiction. If Sci-Fi produces similar response in its' readers as holy books, what does that say about holy books?

I will admit that Sci-Fi is often Thought Provoking and even, in some sense, Prophetic, but there is another big difference between holy books and Sci-Fi. That is how the readers of the 2 different genres respond to them. All too often holy book readers accept the writings as some kind of ultimate Truth and, given the content therein, they fashion their lives along the usually included Morals and Social rules.

Sci-Fi readers respond very differently, with some exceptions like hardcore Trekkies and the like, their curiosity is piqued causing them to find out more, do Research into the subject, weigh the truth of it based upon Scientific principles and findings, perhaps even become Scientists. They don't proclaim it to be Truth, just Thought Provoking and discussion worthy.

To me this article is just a weak argument to tolerate unsubstantiated claims which time and again inspire people to go from the Benign: "Love Everyone"; to the Dictatorial: "Control Everyone"; and the worst Judge: "Kill Everyone". When do we finally recognize this madness for what it is? Is there even 1 Religion in existence that doesn't need to Ignore, Deny, or even Lie about some Common Knowledge in order to preserve its' legitimacy? Is there any value in a Religion, or segment therein, that has to resort to 1 or more of those 3 things? I say "No", it does not only Falsify that Religion, the mere fact that people are willing to reject established Fact(s) makes them potentially dangerous to everyone, that kind of behaviour should not be encouraged.

[OnTheIce]

sandorski sandorski:

I fail to see the connection here, other than to invoke Incredulity. So instead of having our mind blown by religious writings, we should do it with Sci-Fi and that somehow puts the Religious and non-Religious on some kind of equal footing?

The problem here is that the "Fi" in Sci-Fi = Fiction. If Sci-Fi produces similar response in its' readers as holy books, what does that say about holy books?

I will admit that Sci-Fi is often Thought Provoking and even, in some sense, Prophetic, but there is another big difference between holy books and Sci-Fi. That is how the readers of the 2 different genres respond to them. All too often holy book readers accept the writings as some kind of ultimate Truth and, given the content therein, they fashion their lives along the usually included Morals and Social rules.

Sci-Fi readers respond very differently, with some exceptions like hardcore Trekkies and the like, their curiosity is piqued causing them to find out more, do Research into the subject, weigh the truth of it based upon Scientific principles and findings, perhaps even become Scientists. They don't proclaim it to be Truth, just Thought Provoking and discussion worthy.

To me this article is just a weak argument to tolerate unsubstantiated claims which time and again inspire people to go from the Benign: "Love Everyone"; to the Dictatorial: "Control Everyone"; and the worst Judge: "Kill Everyone". When do we finally recognize this madness for what it is? Is there even 1 Religion in existence that doesn't need to Ignore, Deny, or even Lie about some Common Knowledge in order to preserve its' legitimacy? Is there any value in a Religion, or segment therein, that has to resort to 1 or more of those 3 things? I say "No", it does not only Falsify that Religion, the mere fact that people are willing to reject established Fact(s) makes them potentially dangerous to everyone, that kind of behaviour should not be encouraged.