A Bit Of A Ramble On Sci-Fi, Spirituality, Atheists, Space Stations, and Firefly

There’s been an interesting debate/discussion on one of the forums I frequent. The debate was essentially about whether or not science fiction could ever be spiritual (specifically science fiction cinema). The point was made that so much of sci-fi denies the existence of God, either because it simply doesn’t include God or denies Him outright (perhaps by embracing a humanist mindset a la Star Trek).

All in all, it’s been a very interesting and rewarding discussion to follow and take part in, eventually moving beyond just sci-fi, and on to asking questions about just what kinds of art a Christian can/should deem spiritual.

Is it possible to find great worth and spiritual meaning, perhaps even “Christian” spiritual meaning, in a work by an agnostic, or perhaps more important, an atheist?  That’s a thing that many Christians seem to stumble over and wrestle with, and for obvious reasons. What good does it do to ingest the works by someone who has outright denied the existence of God?  Is there any possible merit to be found in them?  How do we do “Christian” readings of such materials, or is it even worth the effort to do so?

My own personal opinion is that all truth is God’s truth and that non-believers, even those who completely deny the existence of God and rage against the faith, are still human beings made in the image of God. As such, they’re still imbued with His creative spirit—their lack of faith doesn’t diminish it one bit—and as such, anything they create is valid, praiseworthy, and deserving of respect, criticism, and consideration.

And because they’re still human beings, they’re still completely capable of asking the “important” questions about existence, human nature, our place in the world, etc. Indeed, it seems like they often ask them better than Christians do, simply because they’re not loaded down with all of the religious and cultural baggage that we Christians so like to carry.

When I look at the great sci-fi films—Blade Runner, 2001, Solaris, Stalker—I see films that ask those “important” questions, that wrestle with man’s place in the cosmos, with what it means to be human. Even pop sci-fi, such as Star Wars and The Matrix ask these questions, albeit in a slightly glossier manner, and can cause us to think of reality in grander, more mythic terms.

Films such as Ghost In The Shell and even The Terminator raise questions about our responsibilities our creation (in this case, technology), and posits what happens if we start over-stepping our bounds and begin “playing God”. Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind also raises questions about human nature, as well as of love and forgiveness.

Granted, sci-fi, along with horror and fantasy, lends itself quite well to senseless and base spectacle, where the quality of the CG explosions is more important than the quality of the plot, and the skimpy outfit of the female lead is given more credence than the questions the film is supposedly trying to raise.

But sci-fi, along with horror and fantasy, has great power to take us outside of ourselves, to raise questions using allegory and metaphor, which is sometimes more effective than just coming right out and making an obvious statement. They can awaken our sense of awe, inspire us to dream much bigger dreams than we could have before, and introduce us to new mysteries and wonders in ways that, say, a romantic comedy just can’t.

Going back to one of the original questions—is it possible for Christians to find spiritual meaning and truth in works by non-Christians—there are two examples that immediately come to mind that answer that questions once and for all.

For the past few months, some co-workers and I get together once a week to watch Babylon 5 during lunch. I caught a good portion of the show when it originally aired back in the late 1990s, but back then, I was still very much of a Trekkie, so it sort of played second fiddle.

Watching it now, it’s obvious the show hasn’t aged too well in some areas—the costumes, sets, and whatnot all stand out as products of the late 1990s—but I have come away with a greater appreciation for the plot, the character developments, and its “messy”, more complex view of humanity (which stands in stark and blessed contrast to Star Trek neat and tidy view of enlightened humanity). The most recent episode we watched, “Passing Through Gethsemane”, deals with a priest (religion is still present in Babylon 5‘s vision of the future, and portrayed as an important part of characters’ lives, another difference with Star Trek) who begins to suspect some terrible things about his past.

It’s one of my favorite episodes, and it raises all manner of questions. What is forgiveness?  Can we be forgiven for crimes we don’t even know we committed?  How far should society go to punish those who commit terrible crimes?  How do we find redemption?  It’s interesting to note that the episode deals heavily in Christian imagery, and in quite a thoughtful and respectable manner, and yet the creator of Babylon 5, J. Michael Straczynski, is an atheist. When asked about the ideas behind the episode, and the message he was trying to convey, Straczynski has this to say:

...I have lost people. Too many people. Lost them to chance, violence, brutality beyond belief; I’ve seen all the senseless, ignoble acts of “god’s noblest creature.” And I am incapable of forgiving. My feelings are with G’Kar, hand sliced open, saying of the drops of blood flowing from that open wound, “How do you apologize to them?” “I can’t.” “Then I cannot forgive.”

As an atheist, I believe that all life is unspeakably precious, because it’s only here for a brief moment, a flare against the dark, and then it’s gone forever. No afterlives, no second chances, no backsies. So there can be nothing crueler than the abuse, destruction or wanton taking of a life. It is a crime no less than burning the Mona Lisa, for there is always just one of each.

So I cannot forgive. Which makes the notion of writing a character who CAN forgive momentarily attractive… because it allows me to explore in great detail something of which I am utterly incapable. I cannot fly, so I would write of birds and starships and kites; I cannot play an instrument, so I would write of composers and dancers; and I cannot forgive, so I would write of priests and monks…

The second example comes from Firefly, another sterling work of sci-fi created by an atheist, Joss Whedon. One of the series’ main characters is a priest who has left his monastery to travel for a bit and try and do some good. He becomes a real, vital moral compass for the rest of the characters, has intelligent and thoughtful religious debates, commits acts of mercy and justice, and befriends those who are despised and disliked by the others. In fact, he’s probably one of the best “Christian” characters I’ve seen on any show in recent memory.

As I think on these two examples, I find myself asking a very different question. Not “Can Christians find value in the works of non-Christians, even atheists?” but rather, “Would a Christian be just as willing to include characters in their show/movie/book whose beliefs are completely antithetical to their own, and portray them as thoughtful, intelligent, considerate human beings rather than as caricatures or infidels who simply need to be converted?”

12 Comments

Comment #1

True atheists can not but realise that religion is a part of nature, is a creation of nature, and as such is worth looking in to, understanding, and accepting in one way or another.

However, true or untrue christians don’t have this leisure due to the existence of the devil. Without the existence devil atheism could from a christian point of view be seen and understood much like religion is from an atheist one, but with the addition of the devil it becomes easily dismissive as another blasphemous abomination of the unholy one.

Comment #2

My personal view on interpretation of and finding value withing creative works, is that it lies entirely with the audience. Regardless of what the author intended, the audience will have it’s own interpretation.

So, I beleive it is perfectly possible to find Christian values or at least ideas valuable to a Christian within works created by athiests.

As for your closing question; I’m not the best person to awnser given that I am an athiest, but I do think it’s possible. I’m sure that it has happened many times before (scratching my head for examples :). I think real point here is whether folk are using films or books to entertain and enlighten, to communicate honestly about life, or simply using them as a means to expound their ideology.

One means embracing ambiguity and contradiction, the other denying it.

So yeh it’s possible, but some folk might have a hard time of it.

From the previous comment:
“True atheists can not but realise that religion is a part of nature”

Can’t remember the last time I stumbled into Religion and got wet. Ultimately whatever you believe, relegion itself is an abstraction, even if you believe it a framework for understanding greater truths. So, sorry, religion is not self-evident like rocks or water, but is a thing that needs to be justified viz. greater truths.

Comment #3

Thanks for your gracious comments, Mr. Eel.

However, regarding your last paragraph, how would you respond to people who say that religion can be explained as self-evident due to the existence of a natural law, to the fact that almost everyone, regardless of culture or background or religion, has some moral concept of right and wrong?

You can go to almost anyone, and no matter what culture or religion they belong to, they’ll agree that you shouldn’t murder, that you should care for your family, that you shouldn’t steal, that you should be a good neighbor, etc.  Can this moral universality not be taken as a sign that some greater Truth (or, “religion”, if you want to call it that) is there?

Obviously, I know how a Christian would respond.  They’d say “Well of course such a thing exists, because God exists, God is moral, and so He’s written that morality into the hearts of men, women, and children?  Oh, and while you’re at it, if the beauty and grandeur of nature doesn’t point towards an artistic creator, I don’t know what does.”  Okay, so maybe not quite so cheeky, but you get the idea. :)

However, how would an atheist such as yourself respond to such a query?

Comment #4

“Can’t remember the last time I stumbled into Religion and got wet.”

Did you ever stumble in to people? From an atheist point of view religion is a creation of man, and man is a creation of nature and nature it self, there for religion is a creation of nature.

Though it deserves noting that i tie atheism closely with existentialism and materialism. You however give out an impression of a more esotheric speculative atheist, unity of universe, astral projection, worlds inside conscious atoms and such, making your views fitting.

“You can go to almost anyone, and no matter what culture or religion they belong to, they’ll agree that you shouldn’t murder, that you should care for your family ... Can this moral universality not be taken as a sign that some greater Truth (or, “religion”, if you want to call it that) is there?”

As an atheist and a materialist to boot, i think not. It can be taken a result of man’s common desires and fears. Which is no more a sign of the divine as the mutual properties of matter and energy.

Of course, i apologize for answering a question not actually directed at me.

Comment #5

No, not at all.  Thanks for replying.

Of course, my response to your response would be that the reason those common desires and fears *are* “common” is because they’ve been placed there by God, as way to cause us to ask questions and—hopefully—be eventually drawn back to Him.

Comment #6

He likes to complicate.

Comment #7

Hi Jason. An interesting question.

Firstly, I don’t agree that such a thing is self-evident. Using that form of logic I could argue for a great many things without any evidence for them. I could for example posit that the sea is made from whale tears since it’s salty (silly example I know).

As for moral university; this is something that I’ve put some thought into — in my random round-about way.

My personal view of morality is that in some respects it is selfish. I know that idea seems strange since the language of morality is often about other people — don’t murder or harm others etc.

I act in a moral way in the hope that others do the same. I don’t want to be murdered or harmed, so I enter into this vast contract with other people, where we all agree to a basic set of rules. In this context there is no need to have a higher power handing down rules, since we’re saying “Look, let’s just agree to do this, since it’s good for us all”.

In that sense, morality is like other abstractions, like money or nationalities. We all find some benefit in believing in these things — usually anyhow.

Stlotto:
“Did you ever stumble in to people?”

Firstly, I admit I was being cheeky. My apologies :) You make a good point though. I can’t disagree with you after thinking about it. I guess mine was a knee jerk reaction to the idea that I need to accept a thing because it is ‘from nature’.

I would describe myself as a hard athiest, so I don’t beleive in concepts like unity of universe etc. I may have given a different impression because of the language I used — greater truth etc.

Comment #8

stlotto olth: Yes, He does at that. :)

Mr eel: I’ll confess, I have struggled with trying to reconcile the morality of deeds with the fact that even the most selfless act is, deep down inside, driven by at least some iota of selfishness.  For example, even though I may sacrifice my life for someone I love, there would probably still be a part of me that would hope that people would remember and honor me.

However, the fact that we’re even aware of this discrepancy is, in some way, could be seen as an indicator that, at least on some level, we are aware of what true goodness is - because we see the way that even our best and noblest efforts fall short.  And where does that idea come from, that idea that this is “good for us all”.

I’m not sure how a naturalistic view of things might take that into consideration.  However, if you have a Christian mindset, you’ll obviously see this as proof that there is a Source (i.e. God) for the standard, and that, as His creation, He’s given us that standard as yet another way to try and draw us to Himself.  That’s why we know it’s “good for us all”.

Comment #9

A very good point! This is actually something I was thinking about today.

A more cynical person might see this compact as undermining love and sacrifice, after all it seems pointless if it’s not buying you anything.

But I think that love and compassion has as much to do with it as anything else, i.e. it’s not in spite of a base (self serving) moral framework, but rather a part of it.

The difference is if you think it’s there because of chance of because of God.

Either way I’m glad.

Comment #10

Correction:

that should read “The difference is if you think it’s there because of chance or because of God.”

Doh :)

Comments are no longer accepted for this entry.