James vs. Daniken

I couldn't help but notice in reading the course material for Monday's class that there seems to be a conflict between Daniken's belief in himself and his peers being "less credulous than our forefathers" and James' assertion that old truth must be married to new truth in order to achieve a balanced perspective. James has a distinct respect and admiration for old truth, Daniken, along with many fellow modernists, seems to see old truth more as a product of ignorance, good for their time but now to be discarded into the dustbin of history. I find it interesting that here in 2010, it seems that James' view is circulating back into mainstream culture whereas modernism seems to be on its way out. As a person who regularly reads Protestant evangelical literature in order to see the how the opinions of the majority of America's population are shifting, I have noticed a renewed interest in subject matter such as the Early Church Fathers, the original interpretations of the Bible, and indeed new meaning rather than strict interpretations of the ancient Jewish stories in the Old Testament. I personally think it's been a long time coming and am glad to see the philosophy of James returning to the post-modern age and beyond. I honestly do not think that history will be very kind to modernist such as Daniken, Roddenberry, and a host of others. Any time that one avenue dominates your perspective you run the risk of missing all the other perspectives, even if that one avenue happens to be named Science and claims to have all the answers.

Astronautical Chariots & the Incomprehensible

It occurs to me that at the time that the Book of Ezekiel was written, perhaps people did not feel the need to completely explain the enigmatic language of prophecy. At least, not to my knowledge. Jewish tradition gives us midrashim, stories written about different passages in the Bible that attempt to give explanation or meaning to mysterious passages (i.e. who were the Nephilim in the story of Noah? Who is the "us" in the creation story? etc.). These stories usually do not attempt scientific explanation, however. Usually, they are rabbinic writings that use the Biblical text as a teaching tool to illustrate a point. Today, whether or not we are less credulous than our forefathers, because of the advent of science, we have been led to believe that everything really is explicable, if only our technology is advanced enough. Erich von Daniken goes along w/ the philosophy that the Book of Ezekiel is explicable "technologically," but he goes about trying to explain it in a literal way, which has its own set of problems apart from spiritual significance. Are we, as a culture, uncomfortable with the inexplicable? Are we threatened by it? There's always the fact that the unknown is scary, and perhaps films and books exist about aliens, phenomena and the end of the world because it is a human attempt to make the unknown less frightening. On the other hand, if the films and literature we have contradict what we know to be true (i.e. that the Bible does not paint a "geologically accurate" portrait of the earth), are they really that useful in making the unknown less scary. After all, we can only be articulate up to a point, and what exists beyond that, beyond our ability to explain or even to formulate thought, is the true country of mystery, of the mystical even. If the events of Sodom and Gomorrah actually happened, more than likely, they did not happen in the literal Biblical context. Even if they were scenarios of alien contact (probably not in the way von Daniken envisions them), I do not know why that would change the story's significance for People of the Book.

Prophecy or Lunacy?

Will there ever be another credible prophecy in this world?

In class the topic of Ezekiel's visions arose. He claimed he saw "wheels within wheels and mysterious creatures". His vision was seen as credible in his times and was even documented in the Bible.

However today such visions are not taken with such ease. With all the new research in the psychiatric field, new mental illnesses are being diagnosed every day and the research is expanding as I write. My question arises from this fact. If a new "prophet" were to claim to have seen a spiritual vision sent down from God, such as Ezekiel did, would Christians be apt to believe? Or would doctors discredit the prophecy and claim a mental disturbance?

Are we in a day and age where science can now dismiss what might have been considered in ancient times a prophecy? And if so, are ancient prophecies now less credible or can they stand the trials of time?

Faith and the Force

During discussion in class on Wednesday one of aspect I kept coming back to me was the very idea of the force and what was. When I watched the original Star Wars movies it seemed to me that the force was a life source that connected everything and everybody. The life source itself was indifferent it could be used for bad or good. The very idea of faith itself seems to me neither bad nor good very much like the force in Star Wars. It how people view and use their faith that it makes it bad or good. For example using faith has reason to start war is not good but when faith is used to reach out to someone when they need help it is good. One of the problems that I think that these churches that complain about Star Wars and whatever else they can use to say is corrupting the youth is that these churches view faith has obligation and less of something that meant to connect to the problems that their community is facing has whole. In my opinion church is not meant to be chore but something that person wants to do. Another aspect of Star Wars that disappointed me was in the Phantom Menace when a test is meant to explain why the force is stronger in some individual compared to others because of molecules. By doing this in my opinion George Lucas is changing his opinion of what the force is and it seem to me he taking the very idea of faith out of the movie and putting science in its place. While this not necessarily a bad thing it just something that does really go with the original Star Wars Universe. If all parts of religion were supposed to be explain by science than it would not be faith.

In response to the question posed at the end of class...

There was a question posed at the very end of last class (and forgive me, I don't know your name) but it was about Christians, the author of the article in particular, who felt that their religion in an organized manner was being threatened by Star Wars. I kept thinking about this after our meeting and came to the conclusion that saying organized religion, mainly Christianity, is threatened by Star Wars is absolutely, one hundred percent mental. While I am not arguing pop culture has no affect on church attendance, I find it remarkably narrow minded to attribute that to any one factor. For several generations now there has been a decline in the number of people practicing organized religion ("Chreasters" included). The church, in a big way, has lost its power in the community. People and communities are no longer organized around the local church but it's not the fault of the Star Wars epic. Business of schedules, pop culture and the media in general, and the attitude of people toward organized religion have all lead to this change. If one feels threatened by Star Wars it stands to reason that the same person would be threatened by stores open on Sunday, the evening news, Vogue, and Lady Gaga to name a few.

Would you forgive Darth Vader?

Based on a discussion point from today's class, I thought that this poll was appropriate. You can only vote once but it is anonymous!

hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

so I've been thinking...
(something you'll learn I probably do to much of)

my favorite science fiction movie is Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I've been wanting to write something cool and profound about it tying it into religion, but alas I have fallen short of some moving idea. turns out good ole Douglas Adams was a "radical atheist." the term radical was used loosely more for emphasis because he never wanted to be asked if he was just agnostic.

in an interview with American Atheist, Douglas Adams says:

"I am fascinated by religion. (That’s a completely different thing from believing in it!) It has had such an incalculably huge effect on human affairs. What is it? What does it represent? Why have we invented it? How does it keep going? What will become of it? I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I’ve thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing."

I personally think that his atheist beliefs did spill over into his writings, especially the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. For example, there is one scene in a "church." Here watch this from 3:30-4:45...



the reason I bring up this scene is because I think Adam's disdain/curiousity for religion is shown here in this made up religion. I think he is showing how silly religious institutions can be...just a thought.

and as a final note I want you to see what the Hitchhiker's Guide has to say about God...


all from the mind of Douglas Adams

Star Wars Documentary

I have never seen a Star Wars movie (I know, I’ve been living under a rock all my life), but after seeing this documentary I really want to watch the series. I can understand why Star Wars is a pop culture phenomenon – it appeals to so many people on so many different levels. One part of Star Wars that really piqued my interest was the religious aspect of Star Wars. According to George Lucas, “faith is the glue that holds our society together.” For instance, he even mentioned that he sculpted certain characters in a religious vein. Lucas mentioned that he wanted the Jedis to be spiritual but he did not elaborate on the extent of their spirituality. Also, Lucas goes on to mention that redemption is a major theme in the Star Wars series.

These might only be funny to cat lovers...but they're sci-fi-related...

Capricology and Exolanguage

Here are two links I came across that might be of interest: The first is about themes (including religion) in the prequel to Battlestar Galactica, Caprica. The second is an article in New Scientist about whether we are likely to be able to communicate with other intelligent life forms in the universe if we encounter them.

Themes in Star Wars

After watching the documentary about Star Wars what fascinated me was some of the themes that were found in the movie were significant themes or lessons brought up in many religions and religious texts. Some that George Lucas mentioned were: issues of friendship, good and evil within us, compassion versus greed, does destiny exist, mentor and apprentice, following inner desires, and much more.
Another topic that also increased my interest was the Buddhist influence in Star Wars. Buddhism to me is a religion whoses practices differ from the three monotheistic religions of the world. So for Buddhism to influence a great epic really means something. Unlike the other faiths Buddhism does not have many epics and stories, but it does have the story of Siddhartha and his journey to find a purpose in life. He leaves his wealthy life as a king of all kings and chooses to be asthetic. Siddhartha's journey for finding himself is similar to Luke's journey.
Finally, I liked how George Lucas did so much research to create such a amazing work of art. I personally have seen only one Star Wars film but this documentary inspired me to watch it and look for the themes that George discussed.

Today I had to take a day off from class in attempt to throw off a cold I seem to be plagued with. I decided that a blog would suffice for missing class, because hopefully someone can answer the questions that arose last Friday in class.

The one topic I wish to explore more is Rodenberry constantly placing science above religion. This theme could be seen in two separate Star Trek clips. The first clip was during the ship crew's encounter with the Greek god Apollo. One character claims that the humans thought Apollo was a god, because Apollo's species are really aliens that have super powers that can transform them into other beings. The humans simply mistook these powers for a god. In the other clip Worf meets some of his species that have not been exposed to their traditional myths of creation. He attempts to tell these tales, but they refuse to believe the myths, because they are firmly based in the realities of life instead of the supposed supernatural tales that Worf is reciting.

This is where some questions arise. Rodenberry consistently has this theme of science overcoming the supernatural in many episodes. However why does he make his characters religious? If he consistently pins science against religion, why does religion always seem to triumph, such as in Worf's beliefs of his heritage?

My answer to these questions is only speculative. Perhaps Rodenberry wants to believe in religion, but his logical thought process does not allow him to be strung along by faith alone. I believe that Rodenberry wants proof of religion, that something exists in this universe besides life here on planet Earth. But until this proof can be shown, Rodenberry will hold science above religion.

Battlestar

While I usually watch shows in the Star Trek genre my boyfriend has always been into shows like Battlestar Galatica and Stargate. He owns the first season of Battlestar Galactica so I suggested we watch some, in the interest of better educating me for this class. We ended up watching the first episode which was really a 4 hr miniseries, and wow, it was great. For most of it I wasn't really thinking about religion. The super short version of the plot for those who don't know is that 40yrs ago the people of the 12 colonies ended a war with the Cylons which were a race of artifically intelligent beings created by humans who then turned against us. No one has even heard from them since the end of the war until they launch an attack and essentally destroy the planets. The story follows survivors on board a small caravan of space ships. However at the end of the episode it gives a tantalizing hint of thier religion. A priestess is holding a ceremony for all of the dead and we learn that they believe in 12 gods which lead them to the 12 colonies. There is also a myth that there was a 13th colony called Earth. I plan on watching the rest of the second season in the next week or so but this first episode really peaked my interest. I was almost suprised when it suddenly got all religious at the end because there was no sign that they held any sort of religious beliefs before the last few scenes. The fact that their religion was polythestic suprised me. I think that we often think that the most sofisticated religions are monothestic and that having multiple gods is somehow primative. So my question to you all is this; do you think that it is possible or probale that a polythestic religion will gain overwhelming popularity either in the near or distant future?

The Meaning of Life

This question was brought up in class. However, I did not want to impede some good student discussion so I kept quiet.

One person implied that science has nothing to say about the meaning of life. My response is to paraphrase something I'm fairly certain that Bertrand Russell once said: "What do you mean by the meaning of life?"

1. Does my life have meaning?
OR
2. Where did all "this" come from, why are we here, etc.

If it's the first question the certain branches of the social sciences definitely have something to say. If your meaning is number two, then many branches of the natural sciences and biology all have something to offer as well.

My point is that many non-religious types find beauty in the natural world, joy from watching their children grow up, are law abiding and do good in the community. They also explore that big question -- where did all this come from? --they just do so through different means than most religious persons. Side note: It gets really fascinating when you find a religious scientist that blends their faith with their religion! (sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a very muddled way)

Those interested in reading one view might want to skim this article. While I don't agree with everything Cline says, he still makes some good points.

"If someone brings it up, it is because their belief in a god is, at least in part, predicated upon the idea that their god provides meaning and purpose to their lives. This is not a bad thing — the problem lies in the fact that they cannot imagine that anyone's life can have meaning and purpose unless it happens on the same terms as their life."

Perhaps science fiction is a safe place to bridge the gap between science and religion? An example might be the original humanist Star Trek vs. the more religious Star Trek: The Next Generation. Examples like that are perfect for some constructive and educational discussions.

One last note: in a previous class it was suggested that atheism is a religion. I would gently point out that most atheists do not agree with that idea.

"Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. My disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a philosophy of life - is it for anyone else? Furthermore, a philosophy of life is not necessarily a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in the person with the philosophy."

There are, however, many atheists who do adhere to some sort of non-religious philosophy.

Whatever you do think, I can say that I've followed both sides of this topic long enough to personally think classes like this one are more of what is needed. All too often people never sit down to discuss these things. At the end of the day the regligious, non-religious, and science fiction fan all have much in common.

Brad Matthies

How is religion looked at by Roddenberry

In the episode “Who Watches the Watcher” in Star Treck Next Generation one of the main common themes of how religion is looked at in Star Treck is played out to its usual end. In this particular episode anthropologists are studying a supposed primitive but advancing civilization. When Picard beams down to the planet in front of the natives they identify him has a god. Towards the end of this episode anthropologists want Picard to pretend he is god in order not to disrupt the people who live there. However Picard belief of not interfering leads him to different definition “send the Mintakands back into dark ages of superstition, ignorance of fear” is what he believes will happened if he pretends to be their God (22). There are few things that I find wrong with this episode that everyone might not agree with it. First of all has someone studying anthropology I can tell others that watching people in a study that might take place for months or years without their knowledge is frowned upon in the anthropological world. In this case Mintakands’ belief in God was disappearing before they noticed that people were watching them. In this particular case of Star Treck I understand why they might be leaded to the conclusion that they should tell the Mintakands that they are not gods because they were coming to this conclusion on their own. Another aspect that I find disappointing in this episode is the word primitive to describe these people. The word primitive in my mind in applies that one group of people is better than the other. By the anthropologists describing this group has primitive it limits their ability to get a clear picture of these people while the Mintakands might not be has technological advance it does not mean that they are inferior to the people studying them.

In some cases of encounter with alien races that believed in god or gods the Star Treck crew in my opinion acts like god or gods to these people. For example in the episode “Apple” the Star Treck crew decides to free the people of the machine that is controlling their lives (19). Kirk later goes on to say “ Listen to me, all of you. From this day on, you will not depend on Vaal. You are your own masters” (19). By deciding what best for these people in my opinion is very god like. The crew decides that they must push their own beliefs on to these people and that whatever the newly free people choose to believe in it should not involve gods because they do not exist according to the crew of the Enterprise. By not showing any civilization at least in my opinion that has a health relationship with god in the first Star Treck series it shows a lack of acceptances of religious tolerance which in my opinion is backwards instead of forwards.

Mintakans, Klingons and Gods

I have never seen the Rightful Heir episode of TNG in its entirety, but it seems to me to be almost a refutation of Picard’s actions in Who Watches the Watchers, according to Chptr. 2 of Star Trek & Sacred Ground. It is suggested to Picard that he, in some sense, accept his role as the Overseer by the Mintakans and give them guidelines by which to live as though he were a god. This would seem to be the equivalent of Bones’s suggestion in Bread & Circuses in TOS—beaming down to a planet and pretending to be the angel Gabriel in all his glory. Picard does what I presume to be the honorable thing, though, and convinces the Mintakans of his mortality (and that of his crew) instead.

By contrast, though, in Rightful Heir, Worf loses his faith in Kahless, the ancestral hero of his people, yet suggests that the clone of Kahless be sent back to the Klingons to restore order. According to him, Klingons “need something to believe in, just as I did, something larger than themselves, something that will give their lives meaning” (23). Worf is endorsing the continuation of a lie among his people. No matter Kahless’s identity, Worf does not believe in him, and so from his own perspective he is lying. On the other hand, this brings up an interesting side inquiry about clones. Kahless is not professed to be divine, it seems, since he has DNA by which Worf confirms his identity. Kahless is simply the Romulus of Klingon civilization. However, Worf loses his faith in him as a spiritual figure because he is a clone and not the original.

Granted, Picard’s motivation for not interfering in the Mintakans’ society is due to the Prime Directive and Worf, by contrast is a member of Klingon society and therefore can participate in its traditions, but there still seems to be contradiction here. I suppose, ultimately, what Worf discovers is that the hope that Kahless inspires in his people is more important than who Kahless actually is. But does Worf’s behavior not go back on Gene Roddenberry’s humanist outlook?

Science Education vs. Belief in God

via SMBC

Deep Space Shows Deeply Seeded Wishes for the Future

Jon Wagoner's and Jan Ludeen's article "Deep Space and Sacred Time" uncovers some of the most basic desires for the future of the human race. Wagoner and Ludeen use the popular, $2Billion cult series Star Trek to bring to front the desires for the future.

Many people have heard of the classic series Star Trek, whether they are faithful followers or even if they have never seen an episode. Wagoner and Ludeen believe that the series has been able to gain a large following due to the optimistic undertones of the series. In Star Trek there are no prejudices, a passionate sense of humanism, and an extreme sense of loyalty and belonging that sometimes seem to be non-existent in modern society. Watchers of Star Trek subconsciously pick up on these themes and adopt them. Becoming comfortable with the series and with the hope that one day these themes of compassion and belonging will apply to the real world in the same way Star Trek employs.

Star Trek is able to cross the boundaries of society due to these factors, because every human being desires to belong. Every human being desires a bright future in which there is unity. Although in the real world there are many perceptions and different approaches to achieve this unity, in the series of Star Trek the unity is achieved. Sometimes there are battles to get this unity, but in conclusion of an episode all the edges are wrapped up neatly and peace (for the time being) is achieved.

I myself am not an avid follower of Star Trek. However after reading Wagoner's and Ludeen's article I can begin to see how Star Trek themes correlate with modern society. Due to the correlation with modern society, the series has been able to become deeply ingrained into society.

Sci Fi must haves

I am very interested in this course but I feel lacking in Sci-Fi knowdledge. I love Sci-Fi movies, TV shows, and novels, however, I think I need to have a brush-up on the "classics." I think a list of movies and books considered helpful in this course would be very beneficial to those of us that are not extremely comfortable with the Science Fiction aspect. The idea of a few movie nights has been brought up in class, however, if a posted recommended list were available it could be an individual effort or a group effort to become more knowledgable in the Science Fiction foundation.

Avatar is a must!

First post...yay! Get excited!

I don't know much about science-fiction to be honest, but I sure do know a lot about religion. I'm hoping to discover a new perspective of religion from an area that I know little about. I also am looking forward to being introduced to new media that hold religious themes behind the sci-fi. I really simply enjoy all things religious.

I would paticularly really like to delve into the movie Avatar. I caught many religious themes throughout the movie, some of which I personally greatly relate to. I'm very excited to discuss Avatar further and see if perhaps the religious undertones aren't a reason for its huge success. Just a thought but I'm curious as to the effects of religious undertones in science-fiction movies on the general population. Did most people catch all the religious mumbo-jumbo? or were most just enjoying a good flick? Just some randomness.

peace everyone

Two shows of interest

Those in class might want to check out Caprica and Spartacus. Both premier later this week. The Religion Beat has a synopsis of both.

-Brad

Myth, Mysticism & Dogma

Even though there were Greeks and Romans who did not take their myths for literal truth, the existence of those myths defined societies and civilizations, binding people into communities that shared a culture. So, too, I think, does Star Trek create communities by virtue of its “humanist mythos” (13, 3). Being centered in humanist mythology rather than a specific, earthly religious mythology gives greater appeal to this saga, I think, because it is all-inclusive. Nearly anyone can reconcile personal feelings about the sacred and the profane with a storyline that deals only with fictional religions and fictional characters. The love of a series like Star Trek transcends some of the deepest dividing lines in American society—politics, and, dare I say it, religion.

I am fascinated by Gene Rodenberry’s apparent deftness with myth, however. I feel like the term “myth” carries with it a certain element of mysticism. As the article says, after all, “insofar as myths seek meaning, they seek a different kind of meaning from that codified in doctrines, theologies, and catechisms” (4). Myth is a separate thing from dogma, in other words. Myth connotes spirituality, tradition, ritual; these are things associated with mysticism, I think. Star Trek has so many cultures and beings, some more religious than others, and yet, because of the humanist element to the show, orthopraxy seems a lot more important than orthodoxy. On the other hand, would anyone want to watch a show about people arguing about the doctrinal truths upholding the universe? There probably wouldn’t be enough fiction in that. Therefore, it seems quite sensible that mysticism should be more important dogma in Star Trek, but can the d-word be completely avoided? Like myth, it orders a “chaotic universe” (6). I haven’t watched enough Star Trek to be able to theorize any more beyond that.

Religions Invented for Science Fiction

There's an article that just appeared over at IO9 about the religions invented for various science fiction stories. IO9, if you're not familiar with it, is a sci-fi news and opinion site, and this is not the first time they've touched on the intersection of religion and science fiction.

Why I'm visiting

I missed visiting class today because I'm at a conference. I'm visiting the course this semester because I have an interest in religion, the lack thereof, and science fiction. A bonus is that I also have a strong interest in blogging - though I have yet to fully explore it's application to an academic setting or my profession.

Brad

Religious Aspects of Science Fiction

So,

I am pretty interested in this course. As a religion major, I'm curious as to the theological implications of science fictiony type things in a world such as ours. On another front, I am also interested in delving deep into the religious subjects addressed in the science ficiton works we will be discussing.

May the Force Be With You,

Josh B.

Religion and Science Fiction

This is a test post for Religion and Science-Fiction at Butler University. I am interested in taking a look at Lost and movies such as Star Wars, the Matrix, and Avatar to see how religion intersects with these movies and shows. I definitely feel that I have a greater understanding of religions as opposed to Science-Fiction, it will be interesting to see how this works out in the course as so far it seems a bit heavier on the science fiction side. I will be interested to see what the rest of the semester has in store.

How I am enjoying the course...

I'm excited that the course is covering all ends of the SciFi spectrum, and I look forward to finding more about areas I don't know much about, in addition to talking about the topics I know and love.

Why I am in this class

Religion and Science Fiction are two topics that I rarely think are related. But that is why I am in this class. To learn more about religion and science fiction. Though I am not that familiar with science fiction works this topic truely fascinates me.

All Star Trek All The Time

This class is pretty interesting, I can't wait for an excuse to watch obscene amounts of Star Trek. It also provides an excuse to start watching shows like Stargate and Battlestar which I have been puttinging off in order to avoid all my time being consumed with space shows.

Enyoment of the course...

So far, I presume the course will be enjoyable, a bit abstract, a bit nebulous, but enjoyable non the less...

The future of this class

I think it going to be interesting class. The only problem is I really do not know that much about religion. Hopefully has the class goes on I will be able to pick up on how religion might be to connect better to science fiction. I am interested in reading some of the works through out the class.

Class Perspective

This class has surprised me in many ways.

The first being the amount of religious symbols used in popular culture. I now look at movies and see all the symbolism used that I just overlooked. The class has shown me to look beneath the entertainment value of films and literature and look for a deeper meaning; to look for the director's message.

The second being my lack of knowledge in the sci-fi arena. I have never realized the broad definition of sci-fi. I have always considered Star Trek and bad 70's horror films to be classified under sci-fi. But really the sci-fi genre reaches series such as Lost and Stephen King movies, such as The Mist.

Test posting

This is the third class session. We've mainly dealt with preliminaries, e.g., what is science fiction, what is religion, what, for that matter is science? All necessary of course, but the next session is when we finally have some reading to talk about. It's never boring (to a geek like me, anyway).

And On Day Three...

Today is my third day in this ST 390/RL 375 course. Coming into the course, I really had no idea what to expect. I just decided to take this course because it would help me fulfill an elective for my Science, Technology, and Society major.

When choosing books to read for personal pleasure or shows to watch, I would never pick science fiction. Interestingly enough, these past three days have shown me a different side of science fiction. I would have never guessed that there was such a strong correlation between religion and science fiction. I think this correlation is very interesting and I'm excited to continue learning more about it.

Thoughts on Religion and Science Fiction Course

Today more than at any other time during any class I've taken at Butler, a novel idea was presented to me in such a way that it not only gave me one of those common "lightbulb moment" feelings, but it also sparked my imagination. Now I think I know what I will write my short fiction story on, and I'll be quite enthusiastic about it because it feels quite original to me. The idea came while we were discussing the idea of alien beings and how they are presented in literature. For some reason the first thing that came to my mind was the original use of alien perspective in the movie "Destrict 9". Alien perspective has always been interesting to me in the sense that I think we spend too much time wondering what aliens might be like or look like, so now I must wonder what they would think of us? What would they think of our tendencies? I want to explore this.

Ben Goshorn-Maroney

Cats & Aliens

I enjoy this class. I am really excited about what we might read and discussions we might have about those articles and short stories forthwith. I am looking forward to being introduced to new films, TV series and science fiction authors, as well as revisiting old ones I have enjoyed in the past. That said, my interest is really peaked about this 1st Enoch thing. My dad once told me that aliens couldn't exist b/c they weren't mentioned in the Bible. That, of course, is rubbish, b/c cats aren't mentioned in the Bible either. I am particularly interested in the intersection of religion and extraterrestrial life. Looking forward to a fun semester w/ everyone!

Class on Religion and Science Fiction

This coming Monday my class on Religion and Science Fiction will meet for the first time. This blog will see increased activity in the months that follow!