science fiction and it's rightful place

[mescalito4]

Does science fiction sell us on a materialist world view that is impossible to reconcile with the true state of reality? Or can it avert humanity from it's self destructive future? What do you think and why???

[blueray]

for me sci-fi has given me the opportunity to learn more things such as science, culture and society. all the good sci-fi shows have great characters, plots and are intelligent enough to keep you engaged and make you think. the genre also has helped me get though some hard times, its provided an escape that was much needed. thanks to sci-fi, i've had adventures in space, on a mysteries island and time travel, etc.

as for material stuff, i've really haven't spent that much. i do own dvds (not even whole box sets) and i've been to two harry potter conventions (which is fanasy, but i'll mention it anyway). and i dream of someday going to comic-con

[mescalito4]

By MATERIALIST I mean; The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. NOT... The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life. Though they may well generate desires for high end technology purchases.

[The Urban Spaceman]

Does science fiction sell us on a materialist world view that is impossible to reconcile with the true state of reality? Or can it avert humanity from it's self destructive future? What do you think and why???

I think your question is ambiguous and loaded. For a start, define "the true state of reality". If you can't, it's because we can only infer the true state of reality based on direct observation and applied physical laws that we currently hold as true. That is not to say that what we now know is everything that can ever be known, because scientific understanding changes with new developments.

In addition, what makes you think that humanity's future is self-destructive? You can't claim that humans are going to destroy themselves because that might never happen. We can predict the quantum state of electron clouds and to some extent quantum indeterminacy can be applied reverse-hermetically -- as above so below, and as below so above -- meaning that all we can do is make estimated guesses based on percentages, but history has shown time and time again that sometimes the actions of a single person can have profound effects across the world. Butterflies and hurricanes.

Also, not all science-fiction programmes are about what we can measure. In Stargate, it's been established that in order to ascend, a human brain needs to be operating at a certain level, which can be measured, but there is also a 'spiritual' aspect, a willingness to dismiss physical laws and open your mind to ideas which may lie beyond what you perceive to be true, which is why not all of the Alterans/Lanteans were able to successfully ascend. In Earth 2, the terrans are an alien ace who display a spiritual, symbiotic relationship with the planet. And there are many instances of sci-fi (or what might more accurately be called sci-fantasy) dealing with the spiritual aspects of humanity. Tad Williams' Otherland series, for example.

[mescalito4]

What I mean by saying “true state of reality” in essence, is that as much as we advance in knowledge/science we are continually met with even larger questions (we learn how much we don’t know). When the chart of the electromagnetic spectrum was discovered we learned that our senses only responded to a negligible fraction of what there actually is to be perceived. Also theories like quantum consciousness put into question, what we can deduce about reality based on the assumptions of our perceptions (the scientific method may be inherently flawed). Also you are quite right in assuming that I cannot define “the true state of reality” this is really the crux the Question I’m asking i.e. do we believe are senses and move forward as best we can or do we accept that we know and can never really know the “true state of reality” and that what we think and discover is really a poor approximation of the truth. Next as for my initial post being ambiguous and loaded, I guess I’m guilty in regard to my word choice but I don’t necessarily believe one way or the other. Some days I whole hearted believe in techno salvation and others I question whether it is a flawed conception that a process (science) whose advances have lead us to the capability to destroy ourselves in a vast number of ways, (i.e. manmade environmental degradations, nuclear weapons, possible mistakes in possible future genetic engineering projects…, these are problems that in their worst case scenarios have no clear solutions), can hope to save us.
At the same time I tend to see science fiction as a sort of possible future history that can express moral/humanistic concerns for ideas and technologies before they exist, as well science fiction is so radical in the concepts that it brings onto the center stage (compared with other TV/movie) that it can broaden perspectives. However it is in that looking to the future that I believe we may lose some objectivity about the present.
You are right to say that all sci-fi doesn’t concern what we can measure but I feel the sci-fi that has the greatest popularity and thus influence is futurist science fiction. SORRY IF THIS DOESN’T RESPOND TO EVERY POINT AND THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING

[Snowman37]

Does science fiction sell us on a materialist world view that is impossible to reconcile with the true state of reality? Or can it avert humanity from it's self destructive future? What do you think and why???

Yes and yes. Science-fiction sells us on a materialist world, because it often drives home that reality is nothing more than a physical world. Science-fiction often ignores or insults the notion of God and the spiritual world. As for averting humanity from self destruction, a lot of science-fiction stories try to warn us of our own nature. These stories, I love.

What I want to see is science-fiction embracing God and spirituality and trying to reconcile God and science as coexisting without contradiction.

Something to consider... God created man, man created the scientific method, science says man evolved from primordial slime and that God can't be proven. Well, if God created man, then shouldn't God supersede science as something that man invented and is inherently flawed? I'm not saying science should be tossed out the window. However, I do think humanity worships science as if it were a god in and of itself. That's kind of creepy, no?

[The Urban Spaceman]

However, I do think humanity worships science as if it were a god in and of itself. That's kind of creepy, no?

Not if you don't believe in god, no.

Edit: I don't think people worship science. They look to it for answers and rightfully so. Obeying commandments or pillars can give you a sense of spiritual satisfaction and can also improve community spirit but worshipping God, Allah, or other deities can't cure you of disease or explain nuclear fusion. Deistic worship involves obedience to a higher power -- science questions whether a higher power actually exists. For some people, the answer is yes, and for some is no.

I personally take the spiritual view. People who put all of their faith in science amuse me as much as people who put all of their faith in god(s). There are some things that neither god nor science can explain, and it's better to reflect on these things and come up with your own conclusion than be told what to think by a measuring system or a giant sky man. IMO anyway.

Edit #2:

Science-fiction often ignores or insults the notion of God and the spiritual world.

What I want to see is science-fiction embracing God and spirituality and trying to reconcile God and science as coexisting without contradiction.

I would disagree with your assessment here, and merely the fact that you class God and spirituality as the same thing. Many people can be spiritual without being worshipping a god, and there are millions and millions of pagans, wiccans, taoists, buddhists, confuscianists and various native groups who accept that there are forces beyond our control, and whether they call these things spirits, ancestors, elements, tao or karma, it amounts to the same; spiritualism without a deity.

I have seen many science fiction programs and read many science fiction books that foray into spiritualism. Stargate itself does so in the form of buddhist-like meditation which can be used to achieve ascension by opening the mind to what lies beyond the realms of science. Most science-fiction will tend dabble in spirituality but avoid god because it makes religious people angry.

[LT. COL. John Sheppard]

Not if you don't believe in god, no.

i don't even understand what he's on about

[The Urban Spaceman]

i don't even understand what he's on about

The gist, science bad, god good.

You are right to say that all sci-fi doesn’t concern what we can measure but I feel the sci-fi that has the greatest popularity and thus influence is futurist science fiction. SORRY IF THIS DOESN’T RESPOND TO EVERY POINT AND THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING

I do agree to some extent that advancement in technology is making people lazy and decadent. Nobody wants to go to a library and do research when they can use google or wikipedia instead, and nowadays kids want to play on their PS3 rather than read (generalisation, I know). But are things worse now that technology has improved? A hundred years ago poverty was more widespread in many western countries, social deprivation was much worse, children went without education and life expentency was much shorter as diseases ran rife. We have improvement now, but whether the cost is worth it is something you have to weigh up for yourself.

I wouldn't say that science fiction is popular, though. Some of it, sure, but try being a science fiction author and you'll be lucky to find a publisher who'll touch you. It's still mostly considered genre fiction, and a market only marginally less difficult to crack than fantasy.

One thing I believe some sci-fi can do though is increase tolerance. When you spend a long time watching shows like Star Trek, you come to see the alien and the different as the familiar. Compared to Klingons, the slightly differently coloured chap living down the road doesn't seem quite so different after all.

[LT. COL. John Sheppard]

The gist, science bad, god good.

in school i was pro at science but in this context i've gotta agree with you

[Goose]

What, that science is bad?

[Ukko]

What, that science is bad?

Science is the devil.

[Girlbot]

Personally, Science Fiction was an escape from the realities of childhood. Give me and alien and a spaceship and I was happy. Didn't matter if the science was real or not,... still doesn't matter.

[maneth]

What I want to see is science-fiction embracing God and spirituality and trying to reconcile God and science as coexisting without contradiction.

Babylon 5 does a pretty good job at this, IMO, even if the only religions given any weight in the show are alien ones, probably to avoid angering viewers. Sleeping in Light is positively messianic in tone. Yet it doesn't ridicule either religion or religious people, and states pretty clearly that science may advance to heights we can only dream of today, but spirituality is going nowhere. Yet those advances wouldn't be possible without scientists and engineers.

[Snowman37]

Not if you don't believe in god, no.

Irrelevant, something can be revered as godlike regardless of whether one believes in God. It's called idolizing.

Edit: I don't think people worship science. They look to it for answers and rightfully so. Obeying commandments or pillars can give you a sense of spiritual satisfaction and can also improve community spirit but worshipping God, Allah, or other deities can't cure you of disease or explain nuclear fusion. Deistic worship involves obedience to a higher power -- science questions whether a higher power actually exists. For some people, the answer is yes, and for some is no.

People look to God for answers. People look to science for answers. What's the difference? Also, you don't seem to know much about spirituality. Believing in and worshiping God is not about spiritual satisfaction. It's not about making man feel good nor about what he can gain. It's about a relationship with God, the creator of everything and everyone. There are stories of people having been cured from disease, injury, and disability through divine intervention. People have had scientific epiphanies which can come from God. What you call deistic worship and obedience to a higher power, I call having a relationship with God. How could I know put the creator of the universe above all else? Why wouldn't I obey or try to obey the one who created everything?! I mean, what more is there than God himself? He's it! Granted, this comes from a believer and not a skeptic, but isn't that what a message board is for? An exchange of ideas?

I personally take the spiritual view. People who put all of their faith in science amuse me as much as people who put all of their faith in god(s). There are some things that neither god nor science can explain, and it's better to reflect on these things and come up with your own conclusion than be told what to think by a measuring system or a giant sky man. IMO anyway.

You say your spiritual, but you indicate that you don't believe in God. You call him a "giant sky man." God isn't a giant sky man, he is someone whom the human mind is simply incapable of fully understanding. Try to understand everything in the both known and unknown universe, and that will pale in comparison to God. I believe that science cannot explain everything, but it can explain a lot. The problem is, people have to accept that science can and will be flawed. Why does everyone put such stock in carbon dating? What if it's inaccurate? What if dinosaurs didn't exist billions of years ago? What if they co-existed with man? Sacrilege! People will think you're an idiot. They will not listen to the argument. Why? Science is their religion. As for God telling people, God doesn't tell people what to think. Rather, he simply has rules for how to live happily. All he really asks of us is that we don't indulge in sin, AKA rebel against God.

I would disagree with your assessment here, and merely the fact that you class God and spirituality as the same thing. Many people can be spiritual without being worshipping a god, and there are millions and millions of pagans, wiccans, taoists, buddhists, confuscianists and various native groups who accept that there are forces beyond our control, and whether they call these things spirits, ancestors, elements, tao or karma, it amounts to the same; spiritualism without a deity.

Fair enough. You could argue that being spiritual does not necessarily necessitate believing in God. For me, I am a Christian. I believe God is real and that Christ died on the cross so that my sins could be washed away, allowing me eternal life with God. Would you call me spiritual? Just curious.

I have seen many science fiction programs and read many science fiction books that foray into spiritualism. Stargate itself does so in the form of buddhist-like meditation which can be used to achieve ascension by opening the mind to what lies beyond the realms of science. Most science-fiction will tend dabble in spirituality but avoid god because it makes religious people angry.

Though I really like Stargate and the whole ascension thing, I didn't like how pagan the show got at times. It never acknowledged God and Christ, even through one character simply believing. It would have been nice of at least one random guy in the background on SG-whatever had been a Christian. Then there was the whole Ori saga, a little bit offensive. Personally, I saw it as an attack on Catholicism and Islam than anything else.

[mescalito4]

"Why does everyone put such stock in carbon dating? What if it's inaccurate? What if dinosaurs didn't exist billions of years ago? What if they co-existed with man? Sacrilege!"Quote

What if it's not even about the technologies accuracy as much as it is about the basic way we view reality (the assumptions that are in play). Amitt Goswami (Quantum Consciousness founding scientist) has introduced to the world of physics ideas that put into question our most basic assumptions i.e. retroactive causation- if true would prove that time does not have a linear flow(the chicken before the egg),
I'm surprised so many of you are pro god anti science- not what I expected

[magictrick]

You say your spiritual, but you indicate that you don't believe in God. You call him a "giant sky man." God isn't a giant sky man, he is someone whom the human mind is simply incapable of fully understanding. Try to understand everything in the both known and unknown universe, and that will pale in comparison to God. I believe that science cannot explain everything, but it can explain a lot. The problem is, people have to accept that science can and will be flawed. Why does everyone put such stock in carbon dating? What if it's inaccurate? What if dinosaurs didn't exist billions of years ago? What if they co-existed with man? Sacrilege! People will think you're an idiot. They will not listen to the argument. Why? Science is their religion. As for God telling people, God doesn't tell people what to think. Rather, he simply has rules for how to live happily. All he really asks of us is that we don't indulge in sin, AKA rebel against God.

Through this line of reasoning you could put into question everything that has been discovered due to science. Why is it called gravity? What if it doesn't work that way? What if E=mc^2 isn't accurate? What if Newton's 3 laws aren't true?

People won't think you're an idiot if you have proof to contradict any of the above. They might however label you one if you just disagree with them for the sake of disagreement.

The most interesting aspect about science is the fact that its constantly evolving and new things are being discovered. What we think is true now might not be so two centuries from now. The fact that we could be wrong shouldn't dissuade us from continuing to expand our knowledge. Hey, remember when everyone thought the Earth was flat and thinking otherwise made you an idiot?

[mescalito4]

it made you a heretic. I don't think it's enough to just believe in god either it seems to me to be a far more active process fraught with far more peril and doubt than most "religious" people would like to acknowledge (more than most religions would acknowledge). Science is purifying in that sense it freed western civilization up to find out for itself what reality is all about. Maybe its God maybe its not science opened the door for me to make that statement.

[Snowman37]

I'm surprised so many of you are pro god anti science- not what I expected

I'm not anti-science. Man is flawed, man created the scientific method, so naturally... science will be flawed. I am not against science, I just ask that people recognize that it can be inherently flawed from time to time.

Through this line of reasoning you could put into question everything that has been discovered due to science. Why is it called gravity? What if it doesn't work that way? What if E=mc^2 isn't accurate? What if Newton's 3 laws aren't true?

Why not put into question everything that has been discovered via science? I'm not saying it's wrong, but rather... there is no harm re-evaluating man's discoveries. Aren't scientific discoveries often proven wrong? I don't care what gravity is called; but to my knowledge, the greater the mass, the greater gravity is. Well, what if there were other methods to generate gravity? Oh wait, centrifugal force! Anyway, I think you get my point. Science isn't bad, it just needs to be re-evaluated from time to time.

People won't think you're an idiot if you have proof to contradict any of the above. They might however label you one if you just disagree with them for the sake of disagreement.

What if you could disprove carbon dating accuracy beyond a few thousand years into the past, mathematically adjust the carbon dating numbers, and consequently fit prehistorical dates into a Biblical timeline by reusing the same mathematical formula over and over. I wonder, what would that mean to people? Presuming it could be proven.

The most interesting aspect about science is the fact that its constantly evolving and new things are being discovered. What we think is true now might not be so two centuries from now.

Bingo, the entire point of my argument.

The fact that we could be wrong shouldn't dissuade us from continuing to expand our knowledge. Hey, remember when everyone thought the Earth was flat and thinking otherwise made you an idiot?

Well said. The pursuit of scientific understanding in and of itself is not flawed, people just have to accept that our current understanding may be. 8)

[LT. COL. John Sheppard]

What, that science is bad?

in the way of saying that science is 'the grand creator' then it's as Ukko said, The Devil