And anyone else out there who's a sci-fi fan will recognize this: the moment a character starts to claim absolute knowledge, is the moment they start kicking their own ass.
No, really, I know what's best for their species. Why won't they just trust me?!
Sci-fi as a genre has always had a subversive edge to it, a fascination with post-apocalyptic universes, what-if questions, and a willingness to gamble with cultural mores. Sci-fi likes to challenge the established and the comfortable, and one of its biggest draws is how it creates techno-worlds full of elaborate metaphors for human psychology. And challenging omniscience is one of sci-fi's biggest themes.
Philosophical considerations are not the only reasons to watch sci-fi, of course.
And you just know the omniscient will fail. Smith in the Matrix with his smug smirks, IT's horrific control over everything on Camazotz, Darth Vader's chokehold on the Galactic Empire--they're all doomed. There's some kind of argument being made in a lot of classic sci-fi stories that revolves around the ultimate triumph of the questioners of norms, the challengers of tradition, and the chaotic and vulnerable worth of throwing one's lot in with the less powerful, possibly illogical, but more beautiful side of things.
This came to mind because I've been thinking lately about the uber-religious. The quest for absolute certainty, and absolute control. Because try as I may to dismiss rabid creationists as lunatics and Bible-thumpers as idiots, the truth is that there is so much to be learnt about human psychology from lunacy. We want to control, we want to have certainty, we are so desperate for this security that we are willing to subjugate everyone around us rather than bear the disturbing thought that things are not so certain after all.
First Church of Borg attempts to enlighten the poor, ignorant heathens.
And so the uber-religious turn themselves into Terminators, into computer viruses, into giant oozing brains with massive telepathic control, into a million and one fantasies from playful sci-fi worlds. But as silly as these metaphors may be, they're ultimately not that playful. They're challenges to the idea that we should sit comfortably with dogma, with people who believe that their actions will be rewarded in another, intangible, far-off world. People who can't see past their own certainty to the plight and suffering and unhappiness of others, because they're more concerned with preserving their static, institutionalized conception of reality.
Because the scariest thing isn't massive weapons and undeniable strength--the scariest thing is being absolutely certain that You Have The Truth. That never ends well for the people around you.
This post is absurd and ironic. You've now dismissed a vaguely defined group of people (how religious is "uber-religious," anyway?) as lunatics and use vague sci-fi metaphors to make equally vague and meaningless assertions that are nothing more than fantasy.
ReplyDeleteaww, no sense of humor in your world. eh? How sad for you! *huuuuuuuugzzz*!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. I have a sense of humor, but it seems to have malfunctioned somehow. Hardly gives me a reason to be hassling you about it, regardless of what was meant. Apologies.
ReplyDeletehaha no probz; it's only the internet! Your manners are very commendable.
ReplyDelete(Ronald Willis form Facebook)
ReplyDeleteYou do have a valid point to an extent, but remember, by illustrating one extreme you have illustrated another. (Your own) by contending with an ideology with absolute certainty in your own beliefs is a fallacy. You have acknowledged that they have an altered concept of reality, who is to say your concept of reality is any more true? Creationism, atheism, both uniserval in one belief, but wrong in another. It is hypocritical to add such tension when you speak of uber-religious individuals when you add such finesse and finality to he opposite side.
Maybe the truth is a conscious being of pure energy had a hand in creation. Maybe this celestial being altered the DNA and genetic structure of the animal deemed to be the most promising as a highly intelligent life form and gave a piece of his own being to add a consciousness to this new form of life. That is the scientifically religious belief. Does that seem more plausible than blind faith? There are many variables on either side that can be categorized as valid points, but neither side is absolute do to our limited knowledge and understanding of our being.
These are very interesting and valid thoughts and I appreciate your sharing them! I think you're right on a lot of these accounts--although I would still contend that a lack of belief in god is more reasonable than belief in him, and that human history shows belief in god to be far more destructive than atheism.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, my aim on this blog is to be rather outrageous, preposterous, and a little bit silly. It's more about satire than actual revelations. In light of that, and the fact that I just use it to vent, I caricature my own beliefs as well as those of others!
Ah, okay, my apologies. The name of the blog just drew me in. I Thought maybe you were incredibly arrogant and I love to toss sticks In spokes. ;D
ReplyDeleteWe will have to agree to disagree on the reasonableness of these separate beliefs. I agree that pure atheism is less violent in the past, but eugenics from prominent atheists sort of defaults your claim for the future if they have their way. Is it more reasonable to kill someone who disagrees with your God over sterilization of people who are veiwed to be genetically inferior? They are both equally unreasonable. Just because one version is older doesn't make it worse.
As for being reasonable towards a belief in a higher being, believing in a conscious being of pure energy that can manipulate matter (since matter is energy, all you need is a by product) and arrange atoms to make life is just as unreasonable as believing that their was a massive ball of matter that just happened to blow up and here we are. There is so much we don't understand and we can't know what happened, so both are reasonable if you constantly look for the answers and continuously question your own beliefs.
I know I'm being very critical, but I like your blog, so I figured I'd throw out a little constructive criticism. Don't take it personally. :)