If I'm commenting first, I'm up too early!

Great stuff about your visit to LosCon, both here and at Whatever ('Fluffy' will endure - I expect to see short sketches with multiple bacon cats at this year's Worldcon...)

Anyway. I think the most interesting aspect of 'religion and science fiction in film' is how little has actually appeared on screen versus the vast amount that can be found in print - from Del Reys The 11th Commandment (Church dominated world suffering under overpopulation) to Miller's A Canticle for Liebowitz, just about any set of middle chapters from half of Heinlein and more.

And when they do tackle the issue, film usually waters it down. Compare the closing of Sagan's Contact, the book, with the ending of the film version: the book, in my opinion, leaves one with a feeling of the ascendancy of science, while the film gives science and religion parity.

SF is famous for creating religions (perhaps because it is a powerful force that requires no logic) and for (usually) presenting it in a bad light.

To answer the question directly, I don't think religion in SF films is nearly as 'dismissive' as it is in print.

It just depends... Day is allegorical as you say... or you can have something a little more heavy-handed like The Matrix: Neo is "The One" who can heal with his touch.... and I don't know if you missed it or not, but when he sacrifices himself in The Matrix Revolutions, a glowing cross appears in his chest.

Now, I'm not here to bash on the Matrix movies, there's plenty of that on the internets... I liked them, they were great action flicks and I didn't exactly go into them expecting much more than that. But still. They kinda hit you over the head with the religion. I think that religious themes are more powerful when they are subtle. But maybe that's just me.

But for the most part, I think scifi ignores religion. I'm not sure if the assumption is that in the future, we'll have shed the trappings of religion, that our brave new world will have no need of it, or what. But I think that a "realistic" scifi movie would have to include some degree of religion if it is going to accurately depict humans in the future. Because I don't think it is going away, no matter how high-tech we become.

Science Fiction movies are an awful lot gentler on God than the books are, aren't they? I couldn't see Heinlein's Revolt in 2100 being made directly into a film, and taking the current bookstore trend of stocking SF and Fantasy together, the "His Dark Materials" got a firm theologectomy before making it to the silver screen.

Another interesting on that tangent is "Doom". Okay, so the film has little to merit it, but I find it intriguing that the whole core premise of the games - gateway to Hell, loads of demons, Satan himself turning into BFG-Fodder - was tossed out of the proverbial airlock. The replacement? Genetic tinkering, tinged with a faint stem-celly hint of scientific hubris.

When religion's portrayed in anything like a negative light, the sad fact is that the antagonist is portrayed as such a charicature of a person that it just can't be taken seriously. Witness Boyle's "Sunshine" as a case in point: Yes, the antagonist (who turns up with no explanation halfway through) is suffused with the Knowledge That God Told Them To Do It, but in such a hollow and depthless manner as to defy any analasys: The guy is just a crazy person, as all crazy people who think God's Commanding Them Must Be.

Contact comes as close as anything to treating the tensions between religion and science with fairness, but overall, I think SF movies treat religion more with caution than anything else. Not in it's portrayal of religion - but in their avoidance of the subject.

The only Sci-Fi movie that readily springs to mind that treats religion in what I'd call a semi-realistic way is Serenity. And even then, you really need to watch Firefly to get the reasons behind the religious tension on the ship.

I agree with MarkHB that there is a general avoidance of religion in SF unless it is mystical "force" stuff. That goes for the mysticism in the "Dune" books/movies as well.

Contact is one of my favorite movie adaptations of a SF novel and I was pleased to see that the religious aspects from the novel were not diluted.

Some Sf authors (Bujold comes to mind) give nods to religion and even a variety of religious beliefs in their novels.

There are so many religious beliefs in this world that I find it difficult to accept that in the future there will be no religions.

The best example I can think of with a positive spin on faith is The Fountain. The church, resurrection, the Tree of Life and more all figure into a 1000-year story of a man and a woman in love.

Beatiful, mystifying and positive on faith (if perhaps not the church).

On TV, there was at least one ep of the 1980's Twilight Zone that dealt with faith on a positive view. Babylon 5 also dealt with issues of faith on a regular basis. Movies, it's a little harder to find religion that doesn't involve a crazy zealot.

The only thing that bothers me is that religion is nearly always portryed as the worst of the christian world. Not all christians are loud-mouthed creationist televangelists, raising millions to stop the horrors of evolution, abortion and gay rights. There are a large number of large and small churches who are much more concerned with the good they can do, for their members and for others, than with raising money. I would like those folks to show up now and then.

Perhaps it's worth asking a broader question: How well-represented is religion in any film?

Orson Scott Card has certain, er, nontraditional religious perspectives, but I do think his repeated harping on the near-total absence of religion in entertainment media is valid. Religion is a significant part of the lives of many, many people...and yet we almost never see it portrayed in popular entertainment except as a punchline, or worse.

So yes, that's one of the things I think Contact did so well, and no, I can't think of any other sf film that even comes close to approaching the subject with the same maturity and honesty.

Should we start wondering about Keanu Reeves' god-complex? Neo and now Klaatu -- two Christ-like figures; Siddhartha in Little Buddha; and Constantine was somewhat of an anti-Christ.

Somewhat related to the topic, the Star Trek franchise has always been somewhat hostile towards religion. From the very beginning, any god-like character tended to be brutish and repressive. Even when trying to be sympathetic towards religion the script would tend to portray the religious characters as ignorant simpletons.

Then there's the almost-SF, made-for-TV adaptation of The Stand -- man-made apocalypse leading to a showdown between good and evil. Gotta' love Stephen King.

Now this is (mostly) television, but I'm particularly fond of the interplay between Book and Mel in Firefly, and especially the episode where River decides to "fix" his bible.

I think removing religion from SF is the equivalent of state sponsored atheism (a la USSR.) It totally ignores the cultural and historical context of our world. And I'm an agnostic who thinks religion is responsible for a great many evils in the world. But, just as Greek and Roman mythology provide thematic depth to fiction, so do all the other mythologies currently practiced as religions.

They permeate who we are and who we will be.

I think there is more of a tendency to try to avoid offending the religious in SF films than in print (but not as much as many here seem to think---in both I see a wide variety of perspectives on religion, but then I read a very wide variety of types of SF). Not surprising given the difference in cost between making a film and a novel---the film industry has a lot more money invested and is, therefore, more conservative.

That's, I think, what accounts for the difference between the novel CONTACT and its film adaptation. Those of us who are a lot like Arroway in our views and background know she never would have been surprised or flummoxed by that question comparing belief in God to love. We encounter it far too often. Still, it was a very good adaption, on the whole, and I wasn't much bothered by that sort of thing.

I recently had a long discussion on the blogs THE WORLD IN THE SATIN BAG and SPECULATIVE FAITH on a very similar topic. SM Duke wrote a blog essay which made the claim that genuinely supernatural things cannot appear in SF---if they do, its fantasy. I argued that this was mistaken---pointing out that it unnecessarily privileges a naturalistic worldview and, as much as I may share that worldview, I think its perfectly legitimate to call works like CS Lewis's OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET science fiction. For any who haven't read it, in the novel the protagonist journeys on a spaceship to Mars and finds a world where the Fall believed in by christians never occurred and eventually meets an angel in person. Lewis wrote the book specifically to meet the challenge of writing a work of science fiction that embraces the truth of christianity because he perceived most science fiction as being biased toward a naturalistic worldview.

So, obviously, this is a perrenial debate within the world of SF.

Anyone who wants to participate in the discussion on whether something can be called science fiction and also depict supernatural entities, especially those believed in by living religions, as real can go here:

http://wisb.blogspot.com/2008/11/werewolves-and-misconceptions-about.html

and here:

http://specfaith.ritersbloc.com/2008/11/22/christian-fantasy-on-the-march.aspx

Scalzi, you finally went and did it. Posted a topic that I didn't just want to reply to, but wanted to reply to enough to go through the whole registration process.

I find this whole topic fascinating. Yes, there are many ways of portraying religion in the context of SF, and few of them seem to have made it as far as film. My particular favourite -- one I'm writing a series of novels to explore -- is to show that religion is neither intrinsically good, nor intrinsically bad, but depending on the people involved in it can be either good or bad. Have a church organised by the right people with good enough intentions, and it'll achieve good things and make the world a better place. Have a church organised by the wrong people who intend only to improve their own position in the world, however, and you end up with a nightmare.

So: set up a world with two opposing churches, one good and one bad. To avoid letting people get too comfortable with this good/bad dichotomy, put some bad people in the good church and some good people in the bad church. Oh, and make the good church practice a religion that the majority of the readers won't be familiar with (I went with a polytheistic religion in which the major figure is a fertility/mother/harvest goddess) and the bad church something more familiar (an offshoot of Christianity). That'll prevent the readers from knowing exactly which side they're supposed to sympathise with. Then, let them fight it out.

Don't know whether it would translate to film very well, but I see no real reason it couldn't.

I'm a huge fan of mixing science and religion. (Possibly because I'm a deeply religious physics major.)
I'm a fan of Stargate SG-1, a show whose whole premise is stopping people on other planets from worshipping false gods and saving the people from unjust rule by said "gods". And yet, in one episode, when all seems lost, Sam says she hopes that "somewhere out there, [one of those gods] is real."
I'm also a fan of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. (Don't scoff: A&D is actually good. Bestseller or not, it's a well-written, well-researched novel!) I know it isn't Sci-Fi, but I really enjoy the way Brown chose to mix his science and religion in that book. I'm especially happy with the characters Leonardo and Vittoria Vetra, who see God in their science.

One of the reasons I've always liked Stargate SG-1 is that it presents, throughout the series, the idea that the cherished religious beliefs in which one is raised should be subjected to critical scrutiny. Sure, its the Jaffa, mostly, being asked to question their belief and we know the "gods" they worship are false gods---but it a subversive idea for people raised, as many, including myself, were, to accept unquestioningly the articles of faith of the religion we grew up with.

If there's anything I'm fed up with in film its the plethora of "chosen ones". No more sci-fi and fantasy messiahs, Hollywood. Please.

@David_E: That's possibly one of the biggest reasons why I love SG-1 so much. I was taught (by my Sunday School teachers!) to question my religion as soon as I was old enough to understand it. So I love that this show encourages viewers to question their religions. I doubt that many people had similar Sunday School experiences!!!

Depends. I grew up being taught to read the bible for myself and question the interpretations give by preachers and others. But they certainly didn't mean for me to question the very truth of the bible itself (or religion in general) and were pretty appalled when that's what ended up happening.

I agree with the comments on Contact, Babylon 5 and Firefly - I think these were some of the best filmed treatments of sf and religion.

I loved the way different religions wove through Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow and Children of God. Both contained people (and others) with extremely different belief systems, sometimes working well together, and sometimes out to kill one another. But the core of The Sparrow was a huge misunderstanding over the meaning of music.

I feel like organized religion in SF films gets a bad rap but an individual's faith is often praised. There's a host of characters from Keith David's Imam in Pitch Black. McConaghey's priest in Contact. But compare that to the Clerics in Equilibrium. The invisble fanatics in Strange Days. Any villain from any Kevin Costner SF movie. That said, there rarely seems to be a clash between an individual's belief and the organized religion, which is a shame. It's typically science vs. faith. All or nothing. I don't understand why you can't have both.

This is one of the reasons I enjoyed the X-Files so much (more the show than the films).

Totally off my point, I remember one part from Enemy Mine where Dennis Quaid and Louis Gosset, Jr. are swapping their culture's alien religious stories and finding some surprising similarities. I always liked that scene.

Of the works of SF that I've read in the past several years dealing with religion the one that stands out to me as most evenhanded in its treatment of both religious people and nonbelievers was EIFELHEIM by Michael Flynn. There were atheists and christians with prominent roles in the novel and both were treated sympathetically with well-rounded, fully developed characterization.

On completing the book I wouldn't have been able to guess what Flynn's personal views on religion, christianity, an afterlife or the supernatural are. That's all too rare in any work of fiction dealing with religion---be it SF or any other genre.

Not that I think its not perfectly legimate for an author to defend his own position on religion (or politics or anything else) in his fiction. I just hate it when they demonize the opposing view or present a strawman version of their opinions to do it.

And, yes, I'm looking at you, John Ringo (in this case over political ideology rather than religion).

Hmm, I have the opposite experience many here seem to have had. I was raised by people who were alienated from the religions they were raised in, and my dad was pretty bitter and cynical about religion in general. I've always been a profoundly spiritual person, so I went looking for a religion as soon as I could. I was rationalist enough not to want one that required, as I bluntly put it at the time, "believing anything stupid." (I later modified that to "believing anything I know isn't true.")

I found Wicca, where you only believe things that aren't true temporarily, and changing your beliefs is one of the things you do every time you enter or leave ritual (at least in my coven).

I'm fond of Stargate SG-1, but its take on religion pissed me off. It didn't help that I've worshipped Ra, Anubis, and Osiris for decades. I mean the real ones, not the snakehead fakes. They always denounced "false gods," and never encountered a real god. How about one of the ones whose names the Goa'uld usurped, for example?

They also never portrayed as a Goa'uld the most vicious, vindictive, petty god ever to be worshipped in human history: the Old Testament YHVH (not, most people much to the contrary, the same as Elohim, a comparatively benign deity form or forms). It's perfectly obvious why; it's just inexcusable. They were perfectly willing to offend legions of Hindus and Shinto (not to mention us neo-Pagans, who no one cares about offending) with their portrayals of their gods.

The main spiritual message of SG-1 is not so much "question religion" IMO as it is "polytheism is wrong, and all polytheistic gods are false gods." Mind you, I liked the show anyway, and despite their complete lack of math, let alone physics. The replicators nearly got me to stop watching though: every episode with them got to be the same old thing very quickly.

Battlestar Galactica (the new one, not the trashy 80s one), on the other hand, was very promising. For once the polytheists were the good guys and the monotheists were the bad guys! (You have no idea how hard I had to fight not to put "just like in real life" after that.) I'm guessing they're going to end with the idea that the humans were sinful for worshipping multiple gods and kill all but Baltar's h/a/r/e/m/ followers, but I don't know yet and if you do please don't tell me!

But then BSG is good in so many ways it's hard to comprehend them all.

It's odd that you don't think that avowed atheists have problems with Contact. I'm one and it's my favorite Sci-Fi movie ever.

And here's to the possibility of Childhood's End by Clarke being adapted into a movie.

Another example of religion portrayed as the stereotypical "bad" comes from the original "Planet of the Apes" (the film; I've not read the book). Even down to the rejection of evolution and trying to sabotage the archaeological record to do so.

Oh, and Xopher...you briefly mentioned the original "Battlestar Galactica"...that was permeated with Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) theology that wasn't even disguised very well.

They also never portrayed as a Goa'uld the most vicious, vindictive, petty god ever to be worshipped in human history: the Old Testament YHVH.....

I'm sure the writers of the show would have loved to. But it could have lost them a lot of viewers and the producers of TV shows aren't going to take that risk.

They were perfectly willing to offend legions of Hindus and Shinto (not to mention us neo-Pagans, who no one cares about offending) with their portrayals of their gods.

I don't recall any Gua'ld taking the role of a hindu god. Which doesn't mean there wasn't one. I missed a whole season or two of the show and haven't caught up on all the episodes I missed yet. I do recall one who seemed vaguely confucian but I don't remember his name.

The main spiritual message of SG-1 is not so much "question religion" IMO as it is "polytheism is wrong, and all polytheistic gods are false gods."

I disagree. An american show just isn't able to be so directly critical of the religion of probably 75% or more of its audience. It probably would get on the air if it tried. The criticism seemed pretty clear in the subtext though---much the same as in PLANET OF THE APES.

The big problem I've had with the Stargate series is the infuriating fact that on practically every planet they go to there are no language barriers. Everybody speaks english. They don't even try to BS their way out of it like in Star Trek with a universal translator impossibly fast at processing the languages of newly discovered cultures.

Its just stupid. If I didn't enjoy the show in almost every other respect that alone would have probably made me stop watching.

Probably WOULDN'T get on the air I meant to say.

I'd say that the great majority of science fiction that has been written since 1950 has been highly, highly critical of religion.

No shocker, considering the fact that this genre -- more than any other genre -- is dominated by the materialist rationalist mindset. Religion, and the faith component that goes with it, is opposite to the "provability complex" of the rationalists, and therefore you won't find many religion fans among the largely post-religious SF writing body.

As for how religion is portrayed in SF on-screen, I tend to agree that religion gets handled much more gently. But that's a bit like saying punching a person in the face is more gentle than bludgeoning them with a jackhammer. Seldom in our popular visual media are the "establishment" religions -- especially American Christian sects -- shown in a positive light. Church leaders are portrayed as bunglers, doofuses, miscreant money schemers, child molesters, or worse. Parishoners get it easier, being relegated to the role of Honest-But-Clueless Victims of the establishment. But the overall message is clear: establishment religion is BAD BAD BAD BAD!

Which, if you're a rationalist materialist who considers him or herself to be a "recovered (insert religious denomination here)", makes perfect sense. Because from that POV the establishment churches *ARE* pure "badness" in its most badly bad form.

Only in fantasy fiction do you ever see anything like regular respect given to the human religious impulse. Though again, not always to "establishment" churches. Here too the "establishment" religions get beat up pretty bad, but at least the authors show a certain amount of respect for the common human need for the Divine, the Other Worldly, the Spiritual. At least in terms of there being forces, powers, and life dimensions that extend beyond the data of the rationalist materialist.

One of the reasons I think Star Wars often "wins" out over my beloved Star Trek, is that Star Trek totally rejected religion as a primitive artifiact, whereas Star Wars (the first three films, anyway) portrayed religion as essential. In Star Trek, humanity shed religion en route to a star-faring eutopia. In Star Wars, it was the destruction of the warrior-priest class that lead to the "less civilized age" of the Empire, wherein common knowledge of the Force seems to have all but passed into oblivion.

SF fans, even the materialist (small-m) ones, still feel that innate human longing for the More that extends above and beyond our perceptible, every-day lives. The Force, and the Jedi, tap into that longing for this More, while the overall high-tech, star-faring civilization of the Star Wars Galaxy ("Far, far away...") satisfies the natural SF desire for technology, gizmos, and the products of rationalist materialist science.

Star Trek, meanwhile, pursued the religion-as-artifact stance, through several series and a flotilla of films, only beginning to show some respect with the deep exploration of the Bajoran religion in Deep Space Nine. But even the gods of the Bajoran experience are "explained" as simply other, science-accessible beings who, while living on a higher plain of a potentially different reality, were no more supernatural than the Bajoran priest class that worshipped them.

And while I think this religion-as-artifact position is replete within the SF field, I think it also hurts SF's potential appeal to a wider audience. Because the fact is that most people in the world are religious on some level -- yes, even the big bad old "establishment" churches -- and fiction which displays open, sneering hostility towards religion and religious belief, is not likely to appeal to an overly broad audience that is not already tuned greatly to the materialist mindset that dominates the SF field today.

Yes there are some SF writers -- like Orson Scott Card -- who understand the human need for religion in a way the hostile anti-religion SF writers do not. And I think people like Card benefit greatly, because their work gets read more widely and by many people who would never pick up an SF book because they know they're going to be demeaned, ignored, or insulted inside those pages. But Card is in the distinct minority, and if ever SF wants to get out of the "ghetto" (or is it an exclusive club, as Larry Niven once quipped?) I think more SF writers (and film-makers) are going to have show a deeper, more honest appreciation of religion, the religious, and the role of both in our overall, evolving society.

Clearly, the advent of science and technology has not "solved" our human need for churches, rites, religion, etc. Some might even argue that all our vast knowledge and the great debunking of all the old religious concepts, has created a gaping wound in the human psyche, into which modern people pour all kinds of "do it yourself" religion, such as Wicca, New Age-ism, Scientology, etc.

I would like to see SF writers and film-makers explore this psychic void more fully. And in fact, to throw out more kudos to Battlestar Galactica, I think Ron Moore's take on the BSG franchise has been splendid, in that it hasn't relegated religion to the sidelines. Religion is central to the BSG plot arc, and the way in which the polytheism of the Colonials and the monotheism of the Cylons play against one another is very deep; and the way in which the different characters display their need (or disregard) for religion, is similarly deep. I have greatly enjoyed this aspect of BSG, and would like to see other such explorations of religion in high-tech and space-faring societies, as portrayed on film.

OK, I've gone on long enough. So much to say, so little time. Great topic, JS.

Wow, I also registered just to comment here. :)

Note as well Gene Roddenberry's general distaste for organized religion, which is reflected throughout the Star Trek serieses at least until the time of his death. It was a perpetual theme: God turns out to be a disembodied alien with delusions of omnipotence/an evil computer/a corrupt man behind the curtain/etc., and must be destroyed by our wise, forward-thinking men of science. Meanwhile, everyone who professes a religious belief is a) a bigoted, fundamentalist zealot bound to destroy and/or convert everyone he meets, b) a flaming hypocrite or c) a hopelessly naive doormat blindly following orders.

It was overdone throughout the original series, popped in from time to time in the later serieses and was the primary plot (if there was one) of STAR TREK V. It wasn't until DEEP SPACE NINE, really, that the Trek world was permitted to have a religion that worked in a positive way with its society, and even then it delved far more deeply into the theocratic politics of the Bajorans - and of course their religion was really just worshipping wormhole space aliens, not really God, because we can't have God in our science fiction. Picard let himself get shot to keep an entire planet from developing religion, because it's such an oh-so-terrible thing. Eyeroll.

I remember thinking, as I watched these serieses and before I gave up on it (about halfway through VOYAGER), that it makes no logical sense. Christianity alone has survived more than 2000 years, Judaism at least 5000, Buddha's been out since 544 BC and still people practice these faiths. Why would they all vanish in the next 300 years? I found it to be a fundamental flaw in Roddenberry's vision of the future.

I'd say that the great majority of science fiction that has been written since 1950 has been highly, highly critical of religion.

There is a strong vein of such criticism in SF (and its not just since the 50's; as I said before OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET, published in the 30's, was written largely in response to CS Lewis' perception that the major SF writers were, if not actively hostile to religion, at least nonbelievers in it).

There's a tremendous amount of SF written from every conceivable perspective on religion.

Though, its true, many of the best and most renowned SF authors have been skeptical of religion---more, I suspect, than in almost any other genre of fiction. Perhaps its worth discussing why that might be the case (and whether its the case---you may not agree with that assessment).

Some might even argue that all our vast knowledge and the great debunking of all the old religious concepts, has created a gaping wound in the human psyche, into which modern people pour all kinds of "do it yourself" religion, such as Wicca, New Age-ism, Scientology, etc.

Why so dismissive of Wicca and Scientology? Are only long established faiths worthy of the "deeper, more honest appreciation of religion" you say you'd like to see in SF?

@Sub-Odeon Clearly, the advent of science and technology has not "solved" our human need for churches, rites, religion, etc.

That's a pretty big "etc". And to me, at least--an atheist who has apparently never felt this universal human need--it's not clear that there exists a fundamental human need for "churches, rites, religion, etc". Churches exist because we like having impressive buildings to represent whatever we stand for; people whose lives revolve around business or entertainment have impressive buildings too. Rites exist because things are easier to organize if we have established ways of doing things; people who are really into contemporary art might make a ritual of going to Burning Man every year.

So: You've written a long essay about a purportedly universal human need, and I don't know what it is. Could you please tell me what it is? If not, I might assume that you're conflating a set of behaviors and misconstruing them as representing a single fundamental need - when the simpler explanation is that, when people try to solve their particular problems, they typically go about it in the way that has the most precedent.

Agreed, despite having been raised in a religious environment I haven't, once I came to believe religious claims implausible nearly 20 years ago, felt any sense of a void in my life at the lack of religion.

I like being irreligeous, but I find Mal's quandary in Serenity/Firefly quite poignant. I went through it myself after (meh) a thing, but sans a Shepard Book, I'm quite happy being godless.

I enjoy seeing how people deal with their faith quandaries though, and would like to see them portrayed more effectively. It's rarely done.

As it goes, though - I'm happy with my Sci-Fi never going near any God. I don't have a problem with anyone's invisible friend, but the organisations that grow around them really can become pretty toxic.

Ferro, do you copy?

I had always thought that George Lucas' "The Force" wasn't related to any religion (actual or imagined), but rather was a ripoff of James H. Schmitz' "klatha" from The Witches of Karres.

Obviously there is a certain percentage of the human populatuon which is perfectly happy with the rationalist materialist paradigm. But statistics appear to indicate that, for most people, rationalist materialism is not enough. They seek something more -- be it simply a deeper connection to the natural world, as evidenced by certain Wiccan practices and other New Age-esque rites and practices that are Earth or Gaia-centered -- or the more traditional "brick and mortar" religions that dominate much of U.S. religion.

There was a time in my life when I felt very comfortable scuttling my religious upbringing. However, I had some remarkably spiritual experiences that made me re-think rationalist materialism, and I wound up with a foot in both worlds: a church-attender with an undying affection for science, the scientific method, and the products of same.

If I seem "down" on Wicca or Scientology, I apologize. I cited them because they are modern examples of humans synthesizing a religious belief that gives them added structure and depth to their lives, without necessarily adopting the typical monotheistic models and restrictions that come with joining a Christian church, Judaism, Islam, etc.

Wicca especiially seems like "hodge podge" religion, borrowing whatever it wants from whichever traditions it chooses, such that it's like a religious tinker-toy set: constantly being modified to suit the needs and uses of a variety of different adherents.

had always thought that George Lucas' "The Force" wasn't related to any religion (actual or imagined), but rather was a ripoff of James H. Schmitz' "klatha" from The Witches of Karres.

I've always taken it to be derived from eastern mysticism (the force=the tao) by way of Kung Fu movies.

Jedi Knight are just a futuristic equivalent of Shaolin Monks. Star Wars is, in essence, sci-fi kung fu.

I'm not entirely fond of the assumption that there is an opposition between "religion" and "science". In point of fact, most religious people are perfectly willing to accept the observations of the sciences. It is, for the most part, only a small, but very vocal, minority of a particular religion which has strong objections to those observations, just as only a small, but very vocal, minority of rational-materialists have a problem with religion in general.

That said, it is true that few sf movies deal with the topic of religion well, but that is true of movies in general after, say, 1965. Star Wars, Contact, and Serenity alone probably make the percentage better among sf films than non-sf films, in fact.

That said, someone noted that Contact as a movie deals with religion more softly than the book (at least at the end), and I would argue that this is a good thing. One of Sagan's few weaknesses was his acceptance of the us/them dichotomy between "religion" and "science". He tried, I think, to overcome this, but it seems as though he never really managed to understand the religious impulse as it was expressed among those outside the rational-materialist community (though at least he did seem to understand the common ground of a religious impulse in general - he spoke and wrote several times about those feelings as he experienced them in his study of the Universe). Given that singular failing, it seems to me as though the very slight softening of tone in the film was ultimately to the benefit of the story.

The problem with leaving religion completely out of Science Fiction is that you miss a hugely important part of the human psyche.

The fact is that many humans have faith in something beyond nature. Weather that's caused by some gene or whatever is irrelevant. It significantly alters the way people act and interact, and it isn't going to go away any time soon, if ever. Leaving it out of a story is like leaving out the idea that humans breathe air - if you're going to do it, you'd better explain it.

But statistics appear to indicate that, for most people, rationalist materialism is not enough. They seek something more -- be it simply a deeper connection to the natural world, as evidenced by certain Wiccan practices and other New Age-esque rites and practices that are Earth or Gaia-centered .......

And how is a deeper connection to the natural world contrary to the rationalistic naturalistic worldview?

Quite a few of us follow what can be called "spiritual" practices---so long as the term is understood broadly---as referring to the deepening of one's inner life in general rather than being limited to those ways of doing so that involve belief in the supernatural.

Wicca especiially seems like "hodge podge" religion, borrowing whatever it wants from whichever traditions it chooses, such that it's like a religious tinker-toy set: constantly being modified to suit the needs and uses of a variety of different adherents.

Interesting observation. One could say the same of 1st-5th century Christianity. In addition, one could say the same of any number of "traditional" religions, such as Shinto or Voudoun. In fact, this very fluidity would seem to be a feature, not a bug or "hodge podge", allowing the adherents to approach new data and incorporate it. Since one of the arguments against "religion" by the New Atheists is that it is incapable of adaptation, this phenomenon would seem to deflate their case at least a little, or at least highlight the fact that their arguments are actually against a very small subset of religions.

The fact is that many humans have faith in something beyond nature. Weather that's caused by some gene or whatever is irrelevant. It significantly alters the way people act and interact, and it isn't going to go away any time soon, if ever. Leaving it out of a story is like leaving out the idea that humans breathe air - if you're going to do it, you'd better explain it.

I don't really think its that implausible that religion might become a rare oddity rather than the norm in the future. I don't think its the most likely scenario. But neither do I think it a terribly surprising one. Even now there are nations where religion has lost much of its hold and atheism is commonplace.

It seems that religion is strongest in places where a sense of security is weakest. Those nations with the strongest social safety net tend to be the one's where religion is losing its hold. The exception in the developed world, the USA, is also the one with no universal health care and other factors reducing the sense of security among much of the public. I could be wrong but I don't think this is a coincidence.

In a Star Trek sort of future with the virtual elimination of poverty, war, with vastly improved medical knowledge and altogether better lives for the whole of humanity I wouldn't be at all surprised if religiosity became more an oddity than the norm.

I'm not claiming this would necessarily be the case but I think its plausible and not a science fictional scenario in need of special explanation to account for it.

And in a post-singularity, post-human civilization, of course, all bets are off. Who can begin to guess what wouldn't be plausible?

Since one of the arguments against "religion" by the New Atheists .....

There's no such thing as the New Atheists. There are some atheists whose books have been bestsellers in recent years---something that wouldn't have happened had the same books been published 15 or 20 years ago.

Its the public that's changed, at least somewhat, not the atheist authors.

I have been an avid fan of Sci-Fi since the early 60's. It has certainly changed just as our culture has become more multicultural, politically correct and antagonistic towards religion, Christianity in particular. I don't mind some of the portrayals of religion that I see today in SF (pantheism, mysticism, dualism, etc). Why? Because they are man's idea of truth, or religion that is. In fact, I would much rather that they keep portrayals of religion to a minimum. Not that it wouldn't be great to actually portray the truth or true religion. But that just won't happen. You see, I'm a Baptist pastor who has been in the ministry for 27 years and I can tell you with some validity that what you see in most movies (not just sci-fi), is far, far away from true religion. True religion is not about legalism, syncretism, pantheism, dualism, or some other system, but a relationship, and that relationship is with Jesus Christ. It's not a matter of how intellectual you may be or how high your IQ is, or your emotions for that matter, it's about the will. I would just say, enjoy your entertainment, because that's exactly what it is, but if you really want to know the truth, go to the One who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). I know that this is like throwing cold water on someone, but that's exactly the effect it would probably have if you came into contact with it in an entertainment environment. The two just don't mix. So, I'm entertained by what some think is "religion" and I can even filter out the evolutionary madness (I figure God will straighten all of this out in due time). I'm sure there have been attempts to portray some truth, but I can guarantee you that it is not even close to the absolute truth, that is, the truth that is found in the Holy Scriptures. My greatest fear is that Sci-Fi in itself has become a religion for some, at least an obsession. I think for me it is a form of escapism, a holdover from my earlier days. With that said, I will not bother you any longer with my musings, but leave you with your thoughts.

In fact, I would much rather that they keep portrayals of religion to a minimum. Not that it wouldn't be great to actually portray the truth or true religion......True religion is not about legalism, syncretism, pantheism, dualism, or some other system, but a relationship, and that relationship is with Jesus Christ. It's not a matter of how intellectual you may be or how high your IQ is, or your emotions for that matter, it's about the will. I would just say, enjoy your entertainment, because that's exactly what it is, but if you really want to know the truth, go to the One who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"

Ah, the "one true faith".

One of humanities least noble.....and most blood-soaked concepts.

Star Wars is, in essence, sci-fi kung fu

Maybe they should get Hayden Christensen to play Hong Kong Phooey rather than Jackie Chan...

One SF movie that incorporates religion is "Deja Vu", with Denzel Washington and Val Kilmer. It's not so much a plot point as it is a significant component of characters' lives (just like in real life).

The female lead offers prayer (something that almost never happens in current movies, but happened regularly 50-60 years ago), and Denzel's character struggles with fate, what his role in God's world is, predestination, and other spiritual concepts. A very thoughtful movie from the guy who made "Days of Thunder".

And here's one out of left field (you may argue whether this is SF or not. . . ): "It's a Wonderful Life".

"It's a Wonderful Life" is fantasy, not SF.

Sub-Odeon December 4, 2008 4:05 PM: Some might even argue that all our vast knowledge and the great debunking of all the old religious concepts, has created a gaping wound in the human psyche, into which modern people pour all kinds of "do it yourself" religion, such as Wicca, New Age-ism, Scientology, etc.

I assume your "etc." includes the really stupid crap like Mormonism, which was made up by a racist conman so he could have power over other people and have sex with lots more women than he could otherwise get away with?

Why, yes, I'm a Wiccan, and I really don't like having my religion a) lumped with Scientology (another total con religion in my opinion) or b) called "do it yourself" religion. Just because YOU slavishly follow the dictates of some stupid jackhole in Salt Lake City, Sub-O, doesn't make you better than people who work hard to develop a spiritual and religious system that works for them and doesn't involve abandoning their ethics.

Oh, even better, at 9:31 PM Wicca especially seems like "hodge podge" religion, borrowing whatever it wants from whichever traditions it chooses, such that it's like a religious tinker-toy set: constantly being modified to suit the needs and uses of a variety of different adherents.

This is one of its many virtues. And of course it's not nearly as arbitrary as you make it sound. I don't speak for Wiccans other than myself, but I believe that each human soul is unique, and has unique spiritual needs; therefore any religion that makes large numbers of people worship in a single, uniform way is doing spiritual harm to some or perhaps most of them. We take what works for us and leave the rest.

David_E on December 4, 2008 9:39 PM and C. on December 4, 2008 9:44 PM: Just so. And thank you.

Somewhat related to the topic, the Star Trek franchise has always been somewhat hostile towards religion. From the very beginning, any god-like character tended to be brutish and repressive. Even when trying to be sympathetic towards religion the script would tend to portray the religious characters as ignorant simpletons.

I don't think you could say that about Deep Space Nine -- and whatever you'd say about Kira Nerys, "ignorant simpleton" is not really among them. Now, you could come back at me with Kai Wynn whose own pride, ambition and flat out arrogance is wrapped up in pretty toxic levels of pious religiosity. But that doesn't strike me as "hostility towards religion" as "hostility towards hypocrisy, fanaticism and faith being (ab)used as a political tool" -- which this devout Catholic is totally down with.

Xopher, Sub-Odeon:

Be polite in your opinions here or the AMC minions will be unleashed. That is all.

H/e/ /s/t/a/r/t/e/d/

B/u/t/ /I/ /w/a/s/ /j/u/s/t/

W/e/l/l/,/ /I/

Sorry. Will do.

I agree with Craig (mark your calendars). Also, if I met beings like the Prophets, worshipping them as gods wouldn't be much of a stretch!

"It's a Wonderful Life" is fantasy, not SF.

Nah, that "angel" was a member of the Asgard species in disguise.

:)

I don't think you could say that about Deep Space Nine -- and whatever you'd say about Kira Nerys, "ignorant simpleton" is not really among them.

Yes, one of the things I notice most about many of the comments in this discussion is a tendency to oversimplify.

As to Star Trek, its been informed by the humanist philosophy of Roddenberry from the start but has allowed for a wide range of attitudes regarding religion to be expressed over the course of several decades of programming in the Star Trek universe.

Thanks for raising this issue, one infrequently considered in most discussions of sci fi, not to mention horror or fantasy. I agree that traditional religious expressions are usually used as negative foils in sci fi, but this merely mirrors a late modern culture. Even so, we have much to learn in a consideration of how religion is treated in not only sci fi, but horror as well, a topic treated frequently at my TheoFantastique website (www.theofantastique.com) and the subject of Douglas Cowan's new book Sacred Terror: Religion and Horror on the Silver Screen (Baylor University Press, 2008). Cowan is now working on a follow up volume that explores this topic in sci fi films.

Thanks again for broaching this subject.

I notice that most of the people who think SF tends to portray religion negatively seem to consider this a bad thing.

I disagree with them that SF mostly takes a negative view of religion. The field seems to have a fairly even distribution of attitudes toward religion to me.

But there's certainly a strand of criticism of religion from a rationalistic/naturalistic perspective within SF.

And I happen to think its a perfectly reasonable and healthy thing. There's no reason religion should be exempt from criticism---even very stern criticism. So far as I can see such criticism is, for the most part, well earned.

I wrote a longish response to Scalzi's essay here, if anybody's interested:

http://sfgospel.typepad.com/sf_gospel/2008/12/why-john-scalzi-is-wrong-about-sf-and-religion-.html

I've got a couple quick comments on comments too, though:

@crotchetyoldfan: I disagree with you about the ending of Contact. I was pretty surprised to see Carl Sagan, hardly an avant-le-mot proponent of intelligent design, presenting (fictional) proof of an intelligent creator in the digits of pi...

@MarkHB: People talk a lot about Sunshine's religious bad guy, but there's also Searle: the antithesis of the villain, a mystic as opposed to a zealot. Sunshine's screenwriter is an atheist, but Danny Boyle is a bit more spiritual, and the film presents both sides. [I think my feelings about Sunshine are a bit like Scalzi's feelings on Contact-- no amount of eye-rolling will change the fact that I love it.]

I disagree with them that SF mostly takes a negative view of religion. The field seems to have a fairly even distribution of attitudes toward religion to me.

I agree. I've seen the whole range. Actually, if there's a generalization to be made it's that more often than positive or negative portrayals, the attitude seems to be more neutral.

And I really don't understand those who have commented about religion being "left out" of sci-fi. Have they not read any? I encounter religion all the time in science fiction. Maybe not as the central plot element, but it's frequently there in some form or other.

Thanks, John, for this essay. It's a relief to know others like Contact; all I ever get is eye-rolling, even when I explain it's the religion vs. science theme that I like so much (that and Jodi Foster).

I'm reminded of the scene in Babylon 5 when Sinclair introduces the ambassadors to the "religion of Earth" and has an endless line of various religious folks - Priests, rabbis, wiccans, Native Americans. I'm not at all religious, and that scene almost makes me cry.

Many say that a lot of the best science fiction being produced these days is in the video game industry. Without debating that point, I wonder if an article on religion in the games would be interesting?

To me that scene just demonstrates how poor the worldbuilding is in much of science fiction. One religion per alien species, for the most part? That's just laziness on the part of the show's creators. Though its not limited to Babylon 5. Most shows do exactly the same thing.

I think that most of the comments are looking at the issue from the wrong direction. I grew up in the American South, the so-called "Bible Belt", as did a number of my favorite Science Fiction authors, and organized religeon authorities tended to be rather heavy-handed in their condemnation of Sci-Fi and anything not overtly pro-Christian. The narrow minded viewpoint of these figures tends to color your viewpoint about (and tolerance for) religeons, given their hostile view of your chosen literary genre. In this case, the authors who portray religeous figures as either megalomaniacs or power-hungry authority figures are a natural result of their environment. The current narrow-minded viewpoints of groups like Focus on the Family, where any viewpoint that is not supportive of their aims is at best suspect and more likely to be out-and-out evil, are a case in point. When you have been condemned as either fallen or evil, the mirror you hold up to religeous figures of those viewpoints will not be flattering.

I agree with David_E about the laziness in religion (one per planet). That's usually because the religion is a plot device and to have more variations would muddle things later.

I love the portrayal in BSG current. The Cylons as the believers in a single God versus the human belief in multiple Gods presents a new concept for the mind to grasp. That's what good SF should do, make you think of other possibiities.