Religeous conservatives like sci fi and fantasy too

[Swamp]

I have been listening to Escape Pod since Craphound and have found it wonderfully entertaining.  (I have also listened to all of the previous stories.)

I recently re-listened to Tk’tk’tk and the intro about Shelley the Republican.  I agree with Steve that this satire website mocks a group of people that sadly do exist.  I would argue that this group is small and that you could create a satire site that just as easily mocks a group of people on the other end of the spectrum.

But I do want to point out that being conservative or religious (I am both) does not mean someone cannot enjoy speculative fiction.  I love both sf and fantasy.  I avoid stories or books that openly mock religion because I don’t enjoy them, but I don’t try to have them banned or anything.

Like EscapePod.  Think of how many great stories I would miss if I stopped listening because a certain story “offended” me.  I listened to The Burning Bush and saw the clever humor of the writer, but didn’t really care for the story.  Steve does a great job of rating the stories (as well as providing accurate reasons for the ratings) so I could have avoided it altogether if I chose.  Another story, The Capo of Darkness, I stopped listening to just because I didn’t like the tone of the story.  No big deal.  Tune in the next week.  If I stopped listening I would have missed Shoulder of Giants or the next Union Dues.  This week’s story, Blood of Virgins, was a great story.  The title didn’t “scare me off” or anything.  If I didn’t like the story I would have stopped listening, but it was great.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that conservatives and religious people love sf and fantasy too. 

[SFEley]

Thanks, kmmr!  (If you don't mind my calling you that.)

I appreciate the perspective.  I do believe that very few people would like every story on Escape Pod, and it's not my goal.  What I'm hoping instead is to present enough of a diversity that everyone'll find something they find fun.  Glad to hear that part is working out for you.

[Russell Nash]

The way I see it. If I like every story, Steve isn't trying hard enough. Trying to make everyone happy is what network television does, and look at the crap they make.

Steve pushes me this way and that. I hold on and listen. Sometimes I say,"What was that *stuff*", but normally I say, "that was pretty good", and every so often, "*sticking* cool."

[Bdoomed]

kmmr i love ya man! while i dont mind religious conservatives and the like, i dont believe in it m'self (im pretty much the exact opposite of you heh). I believe in god but dont feel i need religion.
Anyways, i dislike the people who are completely against anything that hints at anything they dont believe in (and those people who try to impose their beliefs on others).  The fact that you can accept stuff that you personally do not agree with is great.  If everyone could be like you the world would be so much nicer.

[RichGarner]

Here, here! I am also religious (I love studying the Bible with friends) and conservative (not interested in exposing my children to the television morals of today).

While I love a good debate on such issues, I would never look down on another or even criticize another for their beliefs. If I feel it is important for me to offer an opposing viewpoint, I do. But then whatever they chose to do is up to them. I'm still their friend.

I have many friends who are either agnostic or atheist and who practice activites that I find offensive and disgusting... but I don't judge them for it.

I always try to remember what a friend told me when I first became a Christian... "Hate the sin, but love the people!"

[PHaring]

The way I see it. If I like every story, Steve isn't trying hard enough. Trying to make everyone happy is what network television does, and look at the crap they make.

Steve pushes me this way and that. I hold on and listen. Sometimes I say,"What was that *stuff*", but normally I say, "that was pretty good", and every so often, "*sticking* cool."

I'm right there with you.  The addage "you can't please everyone" is very true when it comes to this kind of work.  I know that I'm not going to love every story ever run.  But sometimes, it's just my turn to be 'not pleased' this week.  And that's okay.  Next week's will be a better one for me and if it's not...oh well!

[Holden]

Nice thread. I'm a Bible-believing, blood-bought Christian and I'm incredibly conservative, but that does not prevent me from enjoying short fiction. I enjoy EP and PP as well. I appreciate Steve's warnings before the stories. When I hear a warning that this week's story includes blasphemy, I know not to listen because I won't enjoy it.

I also appreciate how Steve stays out of religion and politics on his intros and outros. I would have a hard time enjoying a story - even a good story - if the intros and outros were blasphemous or politically charged.

[bamugo]

I'm a Christ Follower, as well, and to be perfectly frank, feel that as a Christ Follower, I should be the very last person on Earth (or elsewhere) to be offended by ANYTHING.

If something is going to affect me negatively, I avoid it, but so far, nothing I've come across on EP or PP has fallen under that category.

Thanks Escape Artists!

[Leon Kensington]

I'm a conservative and find EP a great place to hear apposing views on issues through fiction.  What better way to learn than through a story!

[DKT]

I'm a conservative and find EP a great place to hear apposing views on issues through fiction.  What better way to learn than through a story!

Well said.  Storytelling worked pretty well for Jesus, too, and I often find fiction has a way of making me think about what I believe more than some sermons do.

[Russell Nash]

I'm a conservative and find EP a great place to hear apposing views on issues through fiction.  What better way to learn than through a story!

Well said.  Storytelling worked pretty well for Jesus, too, and I often find fiction has a way of making me think about what I believe more than some sermons do.

The only problem comes when some people don't know the difference between a metaphor and a description of an actual event.

[Leon Kensington]

So?  Even if they have a diametrically apposed view as seen through the story (note: PP Story Full Moon) it can still be great to learn what the opposing side has to say.  You may not agree with it but, as the proverb goes "Know thy enemy".

[Anarkey]

So?  Even if they have a diametrically apposed view as seen through the story (note: PP Story Full Moon) it can still be great to learn what the opposing side has to say.  You may not agree with it but, as the proverb goes "Know thy enemy".

I would never class a piece of fiction as an enemy.  Nor would I class a person who thinks differently than I do as an enemy, unless the difference were to arise between my idea about my right to live in the world and their direct opposition to that idea.

I would also be wary of drawing conclusions about an author's opinions from their story.  The text usually doesn't support such extrapolations, and they usually say much more about the person doing the extrapolating than the author.  Frex, there's a number of reviews that object to Scalzi's pro-war (or war glorifying) stance.  This position is deduced from an interpretation of the works.  However, when you read his blog, and what he says outside the story, the pro-war stuff just isn't there. 

Another frex, I listened to last year's Hugo nominee "A Clockwork Atom Bomb" very shortly after I had read Gourevitch's excellent book on the Rwandan genocide, and thus sensitized to issues of African politics, found it racist.  I don't think it probably is racist (and I don't think, as a white woman, I'm all that equipped to discern what is racist anyway), I just felt uncomfortably like it might be racist, in connection with some of the other things I was reading at the time.  My discomfort with the story's tone and its portrayal had to do with my feelings about Africa, not with the story itself (which was very fine in other ways).

There's a lot of stuff in a story, and usually if you can unpack in such a way as to directly correlate it to what an author thinks politically, then the story itself isn't much good.  Now if an author stands up and says "My story is a diatribe against meat-eating", then you can be pretty sure that's what they meant to put in as a message.  Course it might not be in there even then, because stories -- good ones anyway -- are multi-faceted and complex things.  You know, Farenheit 451 not so much about the evils of TV as Bradbury thinks it is.  There's a school of lit crit that actually disavows anything an author says about their work, judging them unqualified to comment.  I'm not that extreme, but there's what they wrote and what you read, and those are rarely -- if ever -- the same thing.

[Leon Kensington]

I didn't mean it quite as the peice was the enemy, I ment that the view was opposing to my belief.  It was a kind of metaphor.

[Mr. Tweedy]

and I don't think, as a white woman, I'm all that equipped to discern what is racist anyway

Sure you are!  Don't discount your intellect because of your skin color.  (That would be racist

[Anarkey]

I didn't mean it quite as the peice was the enemy, I ment that the view was opposing to my belief.  It was a kind of metaphor.

Ah, metaphor.  That's alright then.  Perhaps I went overboard into lit crit analysis land, but it does bug me when people draw "obvious" conclusions about the politics of an author from their stories.

and I don't think, as a white woman, I'm all that equipped to discern what is racist anyway

Sure you are!  Don't discount your intellect because of your skin color.  (That would be racist

I'm the least likely person to discount my intellect, as I constantly have it discounted by others.  I do not believe being attuned to racism is a function of intelligence.  I've known some really smart racists, and I'm sure you have too.  Empathy could be a factor that allows one to see racism.  A strong socio-political background might help as well.  Still, the best likely way to recognize racism is to experience it, and although I have experienced plenty of prejudice, and something once that was very close to racism in a very unusual situation, I would by no means qualify myself as an authority, certainly insofar as judging something as abstract as a story racist.  I stand by my disclaimer.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Smart racists?  Hmm...  Can't say I've bumped into any of those.  Or, at least, their minds contain fenced-in areas where rationality is not permitted to enter.

[ClintMemo]

Smart racists?  Hmm...  Can't say I've bumped into any of those.  Or, at least, their minds contain fenced-in areas where rationality is not permitted to enter.

Not to pick on you, but I could easily substitute several groups into that phrase and be just as correct - from a point of view that opposes said group (and this is not in any way an endorsement of racism) and where I can define what that fenced in area is.

Examples:
"Smart socialists? Hmm...  Can't say I've bumped into any of those.  Or, at least, their minds contain fenced-in areas where rationality is not permitted to enter - like allowing people to maximize their own benefit from what they earn."

vs

"Smart capitalists? Hmm...  Can't say I've bumped into any of those.  Or, at least, their minds contain fenced-in areas where rationality is not permitted to enter - like guaranteeing a minimally decent standard of living for everyone."


I've known lots of people who seemed incredibly smart in some areas, but incredibly foolish/ignorant/just plain dumb in others.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Um, I think that both capitalism and socialism have a whole lot more intellectual depth than racism.  That's, like, apple and pineapples.

You can make logical arguments for both sides of many issues, but there isn't any logical argument that demonstrates that blue people are better than or deserve to rule over green people.  Racism doesn't hold an ounce of water unless reason and logical are wholly excluded.  It's indefensible.

[Anarkey]

Smart racists?  Hmm...  Can't say I've bumped into any of those.  Or, at least, their minds contain fenced-in areas where rationality is not permitted to enter.

Really?  You must lead a very sheltered life.  I don't even have to leave my family to find one: my grandmother (may she rest in peace, and excuse my speaking ill of the dead) was really smart and really racist. 

[Mr. Tweedy]

Smart racists?  Hmm...  Can't say I've bumped into any of those.  Or, at least, their minds contain fenced-in areas where rationality is not permitted to enter.

Really?  You must lead a very sheltered life.  I don't even have to leave my family to find one: my grandmother (may she rest in peace, and excuse my speaking ill of the dead) was really smart and really racist. 

My grandpa is something of a racist.  He's plenty smart otherwise, but when it comes to people of African decent, the logic shuts off.  He doesn't have any good reason to dislike individuals with dark skin, and he can't give you any, and if you press it, he gets mad and says you don't understand because you're too young and haven't been through what he's been through.  So yeah, he's smart, but, it that one area, he elects to not use the 'ol gray cells and instead opts for irrational prejudice.  I assume the same was true of your grandmother.

Let me amend my statement: Not all racists are unreasonable or ignorant in a general sense, but racism itself can only persist through unreason and ignorance.  Hence, anyone with racist opinions must necessarily have a piece of mental landscape with a sturdy fence around it, even if reason has free reign over the rest.

[ClintMemo]

Um, I think that both capitalism and socialism have a whole lot more intellectual depth than racism.  That's, like, apple and pineapples.

You can make logical arguments for both sides of many issues, but there isn't any logical argument that demonstrates that blue people are better than or deserve to rule over green people.  Racism doesn't hold an ounce of water unless reason and logical are wholly excluded.  It's indefensible.

As I said, it's from the other sides POV, which you don't share, so it's natural that you would see it as an apples to pineapples comparison.

[ClintMemo]

Let me amend my statement: Not all racists are unreasonable or ignorant in a general sense, but racism itself can only persist through unreason and ignorance. 

I absolutely agree.

Hence, anyone with racist opinions must necessarily have a piece of mental landscape with a sturdy fence around it, even if reason has free reign over the rest.

Again, you could make the same statement about a whole host of issues.  In fact, I submit that EVERYONE has at least one piece of their mental landscape with sturdy fence around it to keep reason out.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Hence, anyone with racist opinions must necessarily have a piece of mental landscape with a sturdy fence around it, even if reason has free reign over the rest.

Again, you could make the same statement about a whole host of issues.  In fact, I submit that EVERYONE has at least one piece of their mental landscape with sturdy fence around it to keep reason out.

If so, I would say that everyone has a moral responsibility to tear the fences down.

[Russell Nash]

Hence, anyone with racist opinions must necessarily have a piece of mental landscape with a sturdy fence around it, even if reason has free reign over the rest.

Again, you could make the same statement about a whole host of issues.  In fact, I submit that EVERYONE has at least one piece of their mental landscape with sturdy fence around it to keep reason out.

If so, I would say that everyone has a moral responsibility to tear the fences down.

Does that include the fences around religious belief??

[ClintMemo]

If so, I would say that everyone has a moral responsibility to tear the fences down.

But only if they tear their own down first, if not, then people would just be trying to push the content of their fenced in areas onto other people, unaware where their own fences are.

[Anarkey]

Let me amend my statement: Not all racists are unreasonable or ignorant in a general sense, but racism itself can only persist through unreason and ignorance.  Hence, anyone with racist opinions must necessarily have a piece of mental landscape with a sturdy fence around it, even if reason has free reign over the rest.

I appreciate you revising your statement, but I still don't buy it.  I just don't believe that if we were all Mr. Spock, in control of our emotions and ruled by logic, that we would suddenly be good people without prejudices or blindspots.  As I said before, rational thinking does not automatically lead to empathy or attunement with others and their plights.  This stubborn adherence to the supremacy of rational thinking is a concept I encounter over and over again in sf circles and it always perplexes me.  To those of us who don't just blindly accept that everything can be fixed by thinking about it, it comes across as a quirky obsession.  I sometimes wonder if this logic worship isn't a reformulation of that old Natur/Geist dichotomy, with the ideal being cerebral instead of spiritual.  Wherever it comes from, philosophically, it is not something I am willing to take for granted as a given, and I've been offered no evidence that more rational beings are happier, more successful, better people, sexier, less racist, or whatever. 

I also don't believe that thinking about one's own prejudices magically makes them vanish simply because they might be, under rigorous analysis, non-rational.    Rational thinking is just as useful for rationalization as it is for self-analysis, and it's extremely difficult for the person doing the thinking to tell which one they are indulging in if they themselves are the subject (hello, observer bias!).  I could probably go on, but I've already tackled this once, on the thread about rational thinking a few months ago.  I didn't convince anyone that enshrining rational thought was perhaps a flawed approach to better understanding ourselves then, either.

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

[Mr. Tweedy]

Does that include the fences around religious belief??

Absolutely.

If so, I would say that everyone has a moral responsibility to tear the fences down.

But only if they tear their own down first, if not, then people would just be trying to push the content of their fenced in areas onto other people, unaware where their own fences are.

I was referring only to one's own internal fences.  A person does not have the ability to tear down a fence in someone else's mind.  (You can beat someone else into submission, but that is not at all the same as changing their mind.)

[Mr. Tweedy]

I just don't believe that if we were all Mr. Spock, in control of our emotions and ruled by logic, that we would suddenly be good people without prejudices or blindspots.

I don't believe that either.  I didn't say that a Pure Reason Revolution (good band) would lead to utopia, I just said that racism is irrational, and that's all I meant.

[Russell Nash]

Does that include the fences around religious belief??

Absolutely.

I don't buy that one bit.  Belief by definition has no factual grounding.  Yet you can never convince anyone that their belief is flawed unless they were already doubting it on their own.  It's worse they trying to tell a smoker that he would be better off if he quit.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I'm confused.  Are you questioning my sincerity or saying that you think religious belief is inherently irrational?

Belief (Oxford American Dictionary): "The acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

Confused again: How does that definition exclude factual grounding?

[ClintMemo]

I just don't believe that if we were all Mr. Spock, in control of our emotions and ruled by logic, that we would suddenly be good people without prejudices or blindspots. 

I think it's more basic than that - without emotion, a lot of "good" and "evil" have no meaning.  And some decisions can't be based on logic (is it logical to be in love?).

People need to be more logical, but not totally logical and emotionless.

[Russell Nash]

I'm confused.  Are you questioning my sincerity or saying that you think religious belief is inherently irrational?

Belief (Oxford American Dictionary): "The acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

Confused again: How does that definition exclude factual grounding?

See here's the funny thing.  Your definition is from a site I don't subscribe to, and none of the definitons from Dictionary.com say that belief is acceptance of something that is true.  It says belief is confidence in something being true, but it isn't neccesarily true.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) 
be·lief  –noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

American Heritage Dictionary
be·lief  n.  
1    The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2    Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3    Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

WordNet
belief - noun
1. any cognitive content held as true 
2. a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary 
beˈlief1 [-f] noun
 faith or trust
Example: I have no belief in his ability.
beˈlief2 [-f] noun
 (often in plural) something believed
Example: Christian beliefs.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: be·lief
Function: noun
: a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence

The last definition gets close, but all the others say you can hold a belief that the earth is flat and there are no facts backing that up.

As far as your personal beliefs… Having read what you write in these forums, I believe that your belief is firmly behind the fence.

Before you scream at me I have one question.  Did you totally discount the gospel of Judas before or after you read it?

[Mr. Tweedy]

As far as I can see, all those definitions are pretty much the same, and pretty much the same as the one I gave.  Belief is accepting that something is true or real.

What you said, and what I disagree with, is that "belief by definition has no factual grounding."  That is not true according to any of the definitions you provided.  Belief might have factual grounding or it might not.  You might hold the erroneous belief the Earth is flat, or you might hold the accurate belief that the Earth is round.  In either case, you are believing something.

As far as your personal beliefs… Having read what you write in these forums, I believe that your belief is firmly behind the fence.

I'm sorry I've come across that way to you, but that accusation is really too vague for me to offer a defense.

Before you scream at me I have one question.  Did you totally discount the gospel of Judas before or after you read it?

I haven't read it and I'm not going to.  Do you have any idea how many heretical "gospels" there are out there?  It would take a year to read them all, and I don't feel motived to start reading them just because The Da Vinci Code has made them cool all of a sudden.  Have you read every book that you discount?  Has anyone?

I don't scream at people.  You can't believe as I do without developing a thick skin.   

[Russell Nash]

As far as I can see, all those definitions are pretty much the same, and pretty much the same as the one I gave.  Belief is accepting that something is true or real.

Accepting that something is true means it's true and you say, "ok, I guess it's true."  The other definitions say, "I think it's true whether it is or isn't."

[eytanz]

As far as I can see, all those definitions are pretty much the same, and pretty much the same as the one I gave.  Belief is accepting that something is true or real.

Accepting that something is true means it's true and you say, "ok, I guess it's true."  The other definitions say, "I think it's true whether it is or isn't."

Russel - you seem to be conflating - "I think something is true even though I don't have independent evidence for it" with "I think something is true regardless of whether it is true or not". Those are very different positions.

[Swamp]

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

[Anarkey]

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

Here's my cute puppies offering, hopefully marginally on topic:  a book that I think political conservatives and/or religious people might enjoy is A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr.  If you've read it and are religious and/or conservative, share your opinion.  If you have other books that might fit that category, share them now.  If it works, we might even end up on topic again.

I've never read the sequel, but I hear it's not as good.

[Russell Nash]

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

This is not where I was trying to go, but having reread it, I realize I shouldn't go banging away at stuff like this late on a friday night.(I'm 6 hours ahead of the East Coast) 

Please indulge me while I back up.  Mr Tweedy had said No one should have any fences around ideas in their heads.  I find this idea to be absolutly preposterous.  I therefore did the quick (and I admit nasty) attack.  I hit right at his fenced area.  It was the easy attack, but I made a sloppy job of it.

I'll try something else. 

I don't think it is possible to not hold on to some thoughts.  I have some I don't even try to hide.  When I see someone who dresses and acts like they're dangerous, (Mostly types trying to act like rap "singers" who claim they were violent criminals) I treat them like a clear and present danger.  Given where I live they are almost never black.  They are white or Turk.  This is "attitude/clothes" racism.  It lives inside of a fenced area in my head and I gladly give it the funding for better security.

I think everyone has something like this.  The question is more a one of how ready they are to admit it.

[Mr. Tweedy]

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

In my defense:

I essentially made two statements: 1.) Racism is irrational and 2.) we should all try to be as rational as possible.  For some reason, I've taken heat for those statements.  This seems bizarre to me.  I was not trying to start any debate and wasn't expecting any: Those seem like statements everyone would agree with.

[Swamp]

P.S.  I apologize for the thread drift, kmmrlatham. 

It started out OK, but now we have Mr. Tweedy and Russell Nash battling over the validity of belief/religion AGAIN.  Why don't we throw in a debate about whether this thread involves science fiction or not while we are at it.  This topic has become an infestation of the forums.  This dicussion grows more and more tedious and is far from the original intent of this thread.  Come on guys.  If it doesn't stop, I'll just lock the thread.

In my defense:

I essentially made two statements: 1.) Racism is irrational and 2.) we should all try to be as rational as possible.  For some reason, I've taken heat for those statements.  This seems bizarre to me.  I was not trying to start any debate and wasn't expecting any: Those seem like statements everyone would agree with.

Mr. Tweedy and Russell --

My above comments were not necessarily aimed at you personally (even though I used your names).  I'm just tired of the same debate that seems to show up in every thread.  Tweedy, you've become a magnet for criticism.  Some of it you've brought on yourself (especially early on) and some of it is just residual since you speak up to defend your beliefs (which I admire).  In either case, we don't need to discuss it on this thread any further.

Anarkey --

I appreciate your efforts to bring the discussion back on topic.  It's interesting that you bring up A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr.  It is about the third reference I've heard about it recently.  I am going to have to look that up and read it.  What is the general premise?

[eytanz]

I appreciate your efforts to bring the discussion back on topic.  It's interesting that you bring up A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr.  It is about the third reference I've heard about it recently.  I am going to have to look that up and read it.  What is the general premise?

Very briefly? It is a story in three parts, examining the evolution of faith in a post-apocalyptic future.

[DKT]

Wow, that was a great elevator pitch.  I might have to pick that up, too!

[Holden]

"The greatest science fiction novel of all time is A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller, Jr. C.S. Lewis highly recommends it in his Letters. It has been in print every year since it came out in the 1960s, selling millions of copies, yet is not well known or publicized in the literary or science fiction establishments. Why? Because it is a very Catholic book. The hero and protagonist is the Church herself. It is also a profoundly pro-life book."

-Peter Kreeft, author and C.S. Lewis scholar


I've read it. The book is divided into three loosely connected parts, each of which could be a stand alone story. Part one was an entertaining story with fun characters and an interesting plot. Part two left me a bit flat, but part of the reason for that may have been my disappointment in the realization that part two was not a direct continuation of one, and the subplots in one had ended completely. Part three was disturbing, yet entrancing. Reading part three was like having your eyes locked on a grotesque figure, horrified, but unable to look away.

I would describe it a pro-life book, a Catholic book, but not necessarily a Christian book. Catholics are Christians to be sure, but this book embraced Catholicism at the expense of ‘mere’ Christianity.

[Anarkey]

Very briefly? It is a story in three parts, examining the evolution of faith in a post-apocalyptic future.

That was succinct and exact; I'm not going to be able to better than that, even with an extra two dozen words.  If you want a more rambling, less eloquent description, kmmrlatham, ask me again.

I do encourage you to read it, though.  It's an excellent book. 

[Swamp]

I will definately be adding that to my "Need to Read" list.  I typically don't seek out sf books or stories specifically for religious content, but I do enjoy when an sf book or story treats the subject of religion respectfully or at least without contempt. 

For instance, I have never had a desire to read the Left Behind series.  It just seemed like a pretentious premise and I wasn't interested in fictional speculation about the Book of Revelations with action hereos.  Now I know I may be off base, but I'm just not interested in reading it.

On the other hand, there was a story in the Writers of the Future anthology a couple years back.  (I can't remember the title and I'm away from home) about a Catholic preist who is also an accomplished scientist who attends the unveiling of a supper collider that may cause the next big bang.  He is warned of this by Muslim scientists, and after reviewing their data, tries to stop the exhibition.  In the end, he resorts to sincere prayer.  I really enjoyed his inner struggle to come to terms with his interests and devotion to religion and science.  It was very interesting and well done.  It didn't just bring out the stock Catholic preist character with oppresive motives that I am used to reading about in sf and fantasy.  (However why does it always have to be a Catholic preist or a televangelist.  There are various other religions out there) 

Like I was saying, I didn't seek after this story, but I enjoyed it and appreciated how it was written. 

[Swamp]

Another example of a fun story with religous content was Last Respects featured on Psuedopod and written by the forum's own DKT.  It is about church going vampires who take communion literally and look forward to the ressurection.  I said the following in the episode comments:

Regarding religion, like I said, you were very creative.  I had never thought of how vampires might interpret communion to be a celebration of their blood sucking practices.  I suppose a religious person could be unsettled if they took the story very seriously, but I mean, come on, we are talking vampires here.  And honestly, you showed religion in a positive light in the meaning, direction, and comfort it brought to the characters.  The sunrise funeral was a cool idea, and I liked that ressurrection had meaning for vampires, too.

[DKT]

Dude, your check's in the mail 

[Russell Nash]

Dude, your check's in the mail 

What are your rates?  I can start pimping too.

[DKT]

I work to a strict model: Pimp first, pay later.  (*You* pimp first, *I* pay later...just in case you were wondering.)

[Russell Nash]

I work to a strict model: Pimp first, pay later.  (*You* pimp first, *I* pay later...just in case you were wondering.)

If I'm gonna pimp, I want to know the pay schedule first.

[Lostsocks]

I think the sad truth is, it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between conservative and liberals!

This from a hardcore atheist conservative

[Leon Kensington]

I think the sad truth is, it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between conservative and liberals!

This from a hardcore atheist conservative

Well, sort of.  I don't think anyone is completely conservative or completly liberal.  Just look at almost everyone who has posted on this thread.  Conservative, but has a great appreciation for tech and I am sure some are liberal in more technolegy based issues.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I don't think the conservative/liberal paradigm is adequate to describe most things.  The continuum needs more than one axis.

What do you call someone who is a sold-out Christian who leans toward anarchism, deplores all censorship, is happy to see mixed-race marriages, believes in heterosexual monogamy, listens to rap and thinks it's a good idea to study Evolution?  Is there for a place for that on a linear, 1 to 10 scale?

[Holden]

The Pew Research Center agrees with you, Mr. Tweedy. They divided the population into nine sections. Take this quiz to find out what section you belong in:

http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

All tests of this type are imperfect, but can be interesting and even useful to a degree. In order to be truly accurate, you would need hundreds of sections to divide the population into.

[Mr. Tweedy]

It says I'm an "Enterpriser."  Yeah.  I'm an Enterpriser.

[Holden]

That's the same result it gave me. One flaw in the test is it seems to assume religious/conservative = pro-war. That is not necessarily the case.

[Lostsocks]

I got Enterpriser also

[Holden]

Lostsocks - You say you are strongly atheist/conservative. I'm guessing you generally vote Libertarian?

[Lostsocks]

Well, to be completely honest, I have noticed I don't really follow any party line anymore. But the increasing fundamentalist Christian creeping even into liberal politicians disturbs me and is shaping my voting habits,

[Swamp]

fundamentalist Christian creeping even into liberal politicians disturbs me and is shaping my voting habits,

Remember it's a campaign year...those liberal politians probably aren't as fundamentalist as they would have you believe.

Anyway, back on topic, how does being a religious person or a conservative effect your reading choices?  Or does it?  How about if you are non-religious or liberal?  Do you tend to see a book/story differently because of your world view?

[Lostsocks]

I don't really can't say if my religious or political views effect my reading choices. My choices are erratic  and I have no clue as to a cause or reason!

[Chodon]

... how does being a religious person or a conservative effect your reading choices?  Or does it?  How about if you are non-religious or liberal?  Do you tend to see a book/story differently because of your world view?

I think it changes how much I "buy into" a story.  For example, if the crux of a story involved a fully functional communist or state run nation I wouldn't buy it.  I keep going back to it, but that was one of my big hang ups with ST:TNG.  Nobody got paid in that show!  I mean, replicators can't be cheap to operate.  They must use huge amounts of energy, and some kid could be making all the Legos he wanted when they need that energy to go to warp to get away from .... whatever.  You get the point.  I don't think Utopian societies work long term, so I don't buy into stories that need them to further the plot.  I suppose that's more of a political belief than religious though.  Religion doesn't really factor into Sci-Fi.  It's Science Fiction, not Jesus Fiction.

[Leon Kensington]

Enterpriser.  Someone needs to make a thread with this quiz.

[Zathras]

Upbeat.  Even though I was negative on religious questions.  I was pro-business and military, though.  Interesting quiz.