God and BSG - an atheist rant

Television, Movies Games and Books BSG-2003
#61

I agree. Regardless of one’s religious views in the “real world” sense, that should by no means have any bearing on whether or not you can get any enjoyment out of a story with religious overtones. If religious story lines bothered you that much you would have stopped watching long ago.

Here’s where I have a problem (which incidentally is my only problem) with the finale. The 150,000 year flash-forward. Now the writers have taken something that was (is) a story, and applied it to our “real world”. Yes, we all accept that it’s obviously still fiction, but it’s natural that our minds are going to try to rationalize the two parts: the past and the present; fiction and real human history. It’s hard not to think in those terms, at least it is for me and by the looks of things, for many others as well.

This IMO is an almost inexcusable problem with the finale. I feel the jump to present-day Earth was totally unnecessary. The finale was (for me) very satisfying up until that point. God’s plan was realized, we got answers to Starbuck, Head Six, Hera (kinda), etc. It was also made clear to us by showing us the planet and the maps that this was “our” Earth, and no more explanation was necessary. The “one true God” or whatever you’d like to call the higher power that was at work in bringing the Cylons and Colonials together and ultimately to Earth was still an idea that was part of the story, that stayed in the BSG world.

Missmuffet asked “why we have to project our own personal world view into fiction”. I say we didn’t, the last five minutes took the fiction and inserted it into the real world for us. I think it’s just how our brains work.

I’m sure the reasoning behind the flash-forward was just to show us how the cycle could be in danger of beginning again, but I would have preferred to have had that left to our imaginations. Instead we’re talking about how the Colonials/Cylons did or did not evolve, how does that explain future (past) events, etc, etc…

I’ll admit that I could be way off here,… the ending has certainly sparked some great conversation. I do however, doubt that this was the kind of conversation that the writers intended…

#62

I like the jump to the future. I thought it connected the ideas of the show to our present day which makes the viewer think of how history connects to the show. I’m not a very scientific minded person. So I don’t really have much to add to the evolution debate. There may be some way an all knowing Omnipotent God could give free will to his/her/it’s people. He/she/it may know the whole story but if he does not act unless the people ask for help then is he really in control ? Creating something is nesscary controlling something.

It may not make complete sense but it just something I wanted to throw out there.

Of course it may be evidence based but you still have to have confidence( a form of belief I guess) in the evidence. I don’t think it is a polar opposite of a belief system. I’m just saying it is a little closer than you are saying.

#63

The difference I see between scientific beliefs and supernatural beliefs is that with a good scientific theory you can use the theory to make predictions about the future. If those predictions fail you have to rework the theory. With faith any prediction you make about the future is subject to immediate revision by the will of God. Its why the Jehovas witnesses are still among us. That whole end of the world timetable keeps slipping.

Science is answers to questions.
Religion is answers that are not to be questioned.

#64

There is an assumption that our perception of reality is much less limited and myopic than it truly is. I don’t have a problem with RDM’s approach regarding things we cannot understand because there will always be more to learn and comprehend, and the idea that the show must conform to a given worldview, or that its approach isn’t realistic, seems awful small-minded when your take is solely predicated on your own reality.

#65

No, it’s not, regardless of any semantic tomfoolery that you try to introduce into the discussion.

#66

I do not know the religious beliefs/non-beliefs of everyone in this thread, but there is something I’d like to point out.

Evolution is a fact.

HOWEVER, just because evolution is a fact, does not mean there is no God.

Too many people believe that evolution disproves the possibility of a God, which is what it seems a certain poster seems to be so up in arms about. Maybe it’s something else, but that is what it looks like.

On another note, just because Head 6 and Baltar are walking down the street 150k years in the future, and just because Starbuck the White disappeared into thin air doesn’t mean they are Angels of God. I have absolutely no explanation for Starbuck, but 6 and Baltar could easily be some kind of non-corporeal lifeforms that aren’t omnipotent.

As for the whole God being omnipotent thing, I have made that argument before but I don’t see how it applies to this. It sounds more like you are ranting about the idea of a God and religion than how the God character in BSG was referred to and ‘acted’ (no pun intended).

#67

“Evolution vs. creationism,” however…

HOWEVER, just because evolution is a fact, does not mean there is no God.

I don’t think anyone’s said that.

#68

Interesting point re: free will still remaining with an Ominpotent god.

Good point.

I was surprised at first to see that the first post of the thread entitled “God and BSG…” didn’t mention or imply a BSG relation at all.

Not to be picky here, because I agree that evolution is based on scientific, empirical data. But it can be argued that scientists have “faith” in knowable truths that they seek.

I’m not trying to be mean, but a substantial proportion of people who’ve argued against man-made climate change over the last few decades really have been working for big oil, or invested in them, or in a political group that’s invested in them, or some such partisan nonsense. It’s not that anyone who disagrees is a fool, but we’ve been lied to for so long by people who stood to gain from the lies that it can be hard to swallow after so much has become apparent.

I agree.

I see what you’re getting at. Even if this hasn’t been directly stated, the implication is always floating around in thi type of discussion. Besides, what would an atheist rant be without an argument about the existence of God?

#69

I prefer the big picture view not limited to the imperical or imagined or assumed details of how evolution works. Some people are still born with tails and others with aberrations such as twelve fingers.

Most to the point; this is a TV show and regardless of my feelings or beliefs I take all literary/media/cinematic ENTERTAINMENT at face value and refuse to throw my personal beliefs into what someone else created. Would you criticize Michaelangelos David because of its religious connotations, or would you rather enjoy its beauty and incomporable creativity.

When I read Graham Greene I always consume his words including;
“You cannot conceive, nor can I, the apalling strangeness that is the mercy of god.” Those words, even though I am agnostic fill me with awe and not because they involve the word god, but because it is some of the most beautiful prose I’ve ever read. I can’t imagine a world where I can’t find beauty even in something I find untrue.

#70

I’d modify that (disagreeing with your estimation of religion) as Religion answers some questions and suggests avenues for answering others. But I’m also a liberal Episcopalian of a protestant bent, I’m pretty sure that religious people of certain persuasions would indeed fit their view of religion into what you describe.

Yes!

#71

I just want to poke in to say that I am always amazed by the level of quality discussions in here.

sits in a corner

Continue, please! :slight_smile:

#72

Most to the point; this is a TV show and regardless of my feelings or beliefs I take all literary/media/cinematic ENTERTAINMENT at face value and refuse to throw my personal beliefs into what someone else created. Would you criticize Michaelangelos David because of its religious connotations, or would you rather enjoy its beauty and incomporable creativity.

Well, you can do that, but there are some that would argue that you’re not getting the FULL impact of a work of art if you don’t investigate all of the various elements around its meaning and creation. Do Michelangelo’s homosexuality, his relationship to the church, his antagonism towards the Sistine Chapel project affect any individual’s enjoyment of the work itself? Absolutely not. Is the work made more profound by knowing that Michelangelo resented the pope for making him, a sculptor, paint such an ambitious project to the point that he put most of his papal patrons in hell in the painting of the final judgment? Absolutely.

(I think I just agreed with you, didn’t I?)

#73

Yes. No. Dogma is answers that are not to be questioned.

#74

True, but the implication you’re (unintentionally) making is that there are no dogmas in science.

#75

There are absolutely Dogma’s in science. There are plenty of theories that people just accept without question even though there isn’t even enough evidence to prove them - Evolution for example.

#76

Heh. Of course, there’s plenty of disagreement about which things are dogmatic and which are not.

#77

Just to be nitpicky, theories aren’t proven in science they are only disproven. A theory is viewed as supported until facts come to light that are not compatible with it, at which point the theory is modified or scrapped all together. Evolution by natural selection is a theory that has withstood 150 years (being the sesquicentennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species) of testing and new data, and yet has managed to remain largely unchanged in that time. In fact it has only been expanded to help explain new processes and phenomena (genetics for example) that were not known to Darwin at the time.

Interesting that natural selection so often gets cited as an example of a theory that lacks in supporting evidence, while the theory(ies) explaining what underlies the force of gravity is no where near as well supported as that of natural selection. And yet every skydiver intent on surviving the act still wears a parachute…

#78

Sure, individual scientists might have their own biases, a factor which peer review is designed to minimize (if not eliminate). However, the biases of individuals do not make evolution a belief system. It is a scientific theory, supported by numerous converging lines of evidence. Any confidence scientists have regarding evolution is a result of the enormous amount of evidence supporting it, and should never be conflated with religious faith.

Let me put it this way: Do we think of the germ theory of disease as a belief system? Is there an ideology surrounding it? Of course not, no one in their right mind would say so.

I hope you don’t think I’m trying to talk down to you here, because I think your heart is in the right place.

#79

#80

I love this comment. Thanks Phil! You articulated well what I was thinking but couldn’t get out.