(SPlit thread) Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism

[plumjam]

Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism. So the results are no surprise.

[joobz]

Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism. So the results are no surprise.
These are not the myths you're looking for.

[Loss Leader]

Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism.


Sci-fi is no more the mythology of materialism than French is the language of love.

[Correa Neto]

Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism. So the results are no surprise.
Oh, so one can conclude that materialists are pretty aware myths are not litterally true. On the other hand, theists and deists live in incomplatible fantasy worlds populated by a plethora immaginary beings.

[Almo]

Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism. So the results are no surprise.

The difference is, we know it's fiction.

[plumjam]

The difference is, we know it's fiction.

Doesn't look like it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115491

This kind of belief in materialist mythology is quite common here. Another example would be achieving materialist immortality by downloading your brain state to some computer/robot.. or, alternatively, having one's head severed at death and put in the freezer.

Of course, the people who believe in this stuff never see it as mythology.

Fish. Water.

[plumjam]

Oh, so one can conclude that materialists are pretty aware myths are not litterally true. On the other hand, theists and deists live in incomplatible fantasy worlds populated by a plethora immaginary beings.

Some theists go in for non-materialist mythology (believing it to be real).
Some materialists go in for materialist mythology (believing it to be real).

Obviously, neither of the above groups think they're indulging in make believe. Sometimes they point at the other group and ridicule them for their mythological beliefs.
Quite amusing really ;)

[krazyKemist]

Some theists go in for non-materialist mythology (believing it to be real).
Some materialists go in for materialist mythology (believing it to be real).

umm, no. I've never met somebody who is an atheist/"materialist" (and whom is not bats**t crazy) and believes he can use the force for real. Or use magic a la Harry Potter. Or download his/her consciousness in a computer. Or that the worlds described in books are real, for that matter. You can like stories without believing they are real, you know. For me, the mention "inspired from real events" barely makes it to my brain as an incitement to see a movie or read a book. It says nothing on the entertainment value.

There are instances of this, like the church of scientology or a fringe group like the "Jedi" religion, but they are really cases of creation of new religions, not normal people enjoying sci-fi.

Obviously, neither of the above groups think they're indulging in make believe. Sometimes they point at the other group and ridicule them for their mythological beliefs.
Quite amusing really ;)

You see, the difference is that I don't pray to the Jedi, ask them for guidance, rely on them for healing or to understand any modicum of truth. I just enjoy the story. Many "materialists" here will tell you they can enjoy the stories in the bible, or in greek or hindu mythology, in the same way. Just as stories. Art.

For my part, the sci-fi style I like the most is the dystopia. So much for me searching for a happy materialist after-life, hey !:p

[rocketdodger]

Doesn't look like it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115491

This kind of belief in materialist mythology is quite common here. Another example would be achieving materialist immortality by downloading your brain state to some computer/robot.. or, alternatively, having one's head severed at death and put in the freezer.

Of course, the people who believe in this stuff never see it as mythology.

Fish. Water.

You seem to have a different definition of mythology than everyone else. Last time I checked, making predictions about the future based on evidence is not considered mythology in most circles.

See for yourself -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology -- or take a look at any dictionary.

Of course, you already knew this, and are just trying to jam anti-materialist nonsense into every space you can find. It certainly isn't the first time...

[thaiboxerken]

Doesn't look like it.

This kind of belief in materialist mythology is quite common here. Another example would be achieving materialist immortality by downloading your brain state to some computer/robot.. or, alternatively, having one's head severed at death and put in the freezer.

Of course, the people who believe in this stuff never see it as mythology.

Fish. Water.

Imagining possibilities doesn't equate to believing in fantasy.

[plumjam]

umm, no. I've never met somebody who is an atheist/"materialist" (and whom is not bats**t crazy) and believes he can use the force for real. Or use magic a la Harry Potter.
Strawmannery of the purest kind.

Or download his/her consciousness in a computer.
You should read some modern philosophy. These respected materialist fools believe this kind of thing, as do many on this forum.


Or that the worlds described in books are real, for that matter. You can like stories without believing they are real, you know. For me, the mention "inspired from real events" barely makes it to my brain as an incitement to see a movie or read a book. It says nothing on the entertainment value.

There are instances of this, like the church of scientology or a fringe group like the "Jedi" religion, but they are really cases of creation of new religions, not normal people enjoying sci-fi.
Hmm..there are other instances of this. Like respected speculators such as Isaac Asimov (very respected here). They certainly wrote about this kind of mythology like it had a realistic chance, some day, of coming to pass.



You see, the difference is that I don't pray to the Jedi, ask them for guidance, rely on them for healing or to understand any modicum of truth. I just enjoy the story. Many "materialists" here will tell you they can enjoy the stories in the bible, or in greek or hindu mythology, in the same way. Just as stories. Art.
My point is that many take this beyond pure enjoyable fiction. You can see this when the whole thing gets shoved into philosophy of mind.

For my part, the sci-fi style I like the most is the dystopia. So much for me searching for a happy materialist after-life, hey !:p
Fair enough. Seeing as you and I have never conversed I see no reason why you would be bothered about me characterising a good section of sci-fi fans / materialists just as they are.
Perhaps you are not like that. Good luck to you.

[blobru]

The philosophical underpinning of science fiction is science of course: extrapolating from hypotheses ("what if?"). Fantasy draws on pre-science: folklore, alchemy, magic, myth, etc.

It's interesting that the only reps of either genre to raise hard core theist hackles are fantasy: witchcraft seems more a threat to their core beliefs than spacecraft.

umm, no. I've never met somebody who is an atheist/"materialist" (and whom is not bats**t crazy) and believes he can use the force for real. Or use magic a la Harry Potter. Or download his/her consciousness in a computer. Or that the worlds described in books are real, for that matter. You can like stories without believing they are real, you know. For me, the mention "inspired from real events" barely makes it to my brain as an incitement to see a movie or read a book. It says nothing on the entertainment value.

My favorite phrase from fandom is "suspension of disbelief".

There are instances of this, like the church of scientology or a fringe group like the "Jedi" religion, but they are really cases of creation of new religions, not normal people enjoying sci-fi.

Hubbard's "Dianetics" was originally serialized in John W Campbell's Astounding (now Analog), the 'hardest' science fiction magazine that ever was (Campbell had permanently banned his disbelief by that time).

You see, the difference is that I don't pray to the Jedi, ask them for guidance, rely on them for healing or to understand any modicum of truth. I just enjoy the story. Many "materialists" here will tell you they can enjoy the stories in the bible, or in greek or hindu mythology, in the same way. Just as stories. Art.

I call it fifi.

For my part, the sci-fi style I like the most is the dystopia. So much for me searching for a happy materialist after-life, hey !:p

...and they all lived unhappily not ever after. :crc:

[plumjam]

You seem to have a different definition of mythology than everyone else. Last time I checked, making predictions about the future based on evidence is not considered mythology in most circles.

See for yourself -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology -- or take a look at any dictionary.

Of course, you already knew this, and are just trying to jam anti-materialist nonsense into every space you can find. It certainly isn't the first time...

Most traditional mythologies attempt to add to our understanding of Reality and its Meaning by referencing the past. Most of it, whether it is true or not, turns out to be irrefutable (except perhaps by using a combination of your intelligence/intuition/common sense.. after which you may still be wrong, being not omniscient)

Most modern mythologies attempt to add to our understanding of Reality and its Meaning by referencing the future. The advantage of referencing the future is that it is even more irrefutable than the past.
At least with the past some people will agree to some degree on what has / has not happened.
But with the future the whole thing is a completely open book, and no one can (even logically) come in and convincingly refute any claim made.

When creating materialist fantasies about the future it is of course nonsensical to demand evidence for or against, as it has not yet happened.
To this extent, materialist mythology is a lot more irrefutable, and (according to Popper) less scientific, and arguably more irrational than the common or garden traditional religious/spiritual mythology we read in thousand-year-old books.

[rocketdodger]

Most traditional mythologies attempt to add to our understanding of Reality and its Meaning by referencing the past. Most of it, whether it is true or not, turns out to be irrefutable (except perhaps by using a combination of your intelligence/intuition/common sense.. after which you may still be wrong, being not omniscient)

Most modern mythologies attempt to add to our understanding of Reality and its Meaning by referencing the future. The advantage of referencing the future is that it is even more irrefutable than the past.
At least with the past some people will agree to some degree on what has / has not happened.
But with the future the whole thing is a completely open book, and no one can (even logically) come in and convincingly refute any claim made.

When creating materialist fantasies about the future it is of course nonsensical to demand evidence for or against, as it has not yet happened.
To this extent, materialist mythology is a lot more irrefutable, and (according to Popper) less scientific, and arguably more irrational than the common or garden traditional religious/spiritual mythology we read in thousand-year-old books.

According to you, then, everything in the future that has not happened in the past is materialist mythology. Or are you (as usual) making an arbitary distinction to support your argument? Where do you draw your arbitrary line this time?

Is curing cancer materialist mythology?
You are aware, are you not, that we have cured many other ailments?

Is landing on mars materialist mythology?
You are aware, are you not, that we have landed on the moon?

Is a smaller iPhone materialist mythology?
You are aware, are you not, that the iPhone is already pretty small?

What you clearly don't realize is that fans of science fiction don't expect the story to become literally true, which means in fact it is not mythology. Or are you going to say that any fictional story is automatically mythology? Or are you going to draw another arbitrary line in the sand dividing plain fiction from mythological fiction?

[Axiom_Blade]

Most modern mythologies attempt to add to our understanding of Reality and its Meaning by referencing the future. The advantage of referencing the future is that it is even more irrefutable than the past.
At least with the past some people will agree to some degree on what has / has not happened.
But with the future the whole thing is a completely open book, and no one can (even logically) come in and convincingly refute any claim made.


So what? The point of a good myth isn't to be objectively true, but to illustrate a moral argument, or perhaps make some point about the human condition.

Sure, if you look at science fiction, you'll see a lot of corollaries with classic myths. Obvious ones are messiah figures such as the ones in Dune and Stranger in a Strange Land. (Star Wars, of course, is loaded with mythic references... but that was because Lucas is a fan of Joseph Campbell, and deliberately fashioned the tale after a classic myth or fairy tale.)

Why would you expect a myth to be factual in the first place?

[Mashuna]

Most traditional mythologies attempt to add to our understanding of Reality and its Meaning by referencing the past. .

I think you accidentally wrote add, instead of contradict, hold back or deny.

When creating materialist fantasies about the future it is of course nonsensical to demand evidence for or against, as it has not yet happened.

And no-one is claiming that it happened, or will happen. It's fiction.

To this extent, materialist mythology is a lot more irrefutable, and (according to Popper) less scientific, and arguably more irrational than the common or garden traditional religious/spiritual mythology we read in thousand-year-old books.

The main difference, of course, being religious mythology makes a claim for truth. Science Fiction. . .well, I'm sure you can spot the key word.

[westprog]

Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism. So the results are no surprise.

The most highly regarded current SF writer is Gene Wolfe. He's a Catholic, and his beliefs permeate his work. Orson Scott Card is a Mormon. Harry Harrison is an atheist, who believes that SF should exclude religion. There is no SF consensus.

I find that there's an inverse relationship between confident generalisations about SF, and the amount that the person generalising has read.

[Matt the Poet]

As I mentioned over in the other thread, I do think there’s a strong, general connection between Science Fiction and religion. It’s not a question of ‘believing’ in the genre’s constructs, it’s just that they offer a way of exploring ‘the varieties of religious experience’ without the pointless encumbrance of faith.

SF abounds in descriptions of the sort of epiphanic moments previously confined to the overheated memoirs of 11th century abbesses. Take Case’s first re-entry into the matrix in ‘Neuromancer’

And in the bloodlit dark behind his eyes, silver phosphenes boiling in from the edge of space, hypnagogic images jerking past like film compiled from random frames. Symbols, figures, faces, a blurred, fragmented mandala of visual information.
Please, he prayed, _now --_
A gray disk, the color of Chiba sky.
Now --
Disk beginning to rotate, faster, becoming a sphere of paler gray. Expanding --
And flowed, flowered for him, fluid neon origami trick, the unfolding of his distanceless home, his country, transparent 3D chessboard extending to infinity. Inner eye opening to the stepped scarlet pyramid of the Eastern Seaboard Fission Authority burning beyond the green cubes of Mitsubishi Bank of America, and high and very far away he saw the spiral arms of military systems, forever beyond his reach.
Note ‘mandala’, ‘prayed’, ‘inner eye’ - and it's not like the book, or Gibson himself, is particularly concerned with religion.

[Dragoonster]

This kind of belief in materialist mythology is quite common here. Another example would be achieving materialist immortality by downloading your brain state to some computer/robot.. or, alternatively, having one's head severed at death and put in the freezer.

Of course, the people who believe in this stuff never see it as mythology.

Fish. Water.

Um...you do realize science is not static in its tenets/explanations and advances/updates far, far, far, far, far, far quicker than any religion or religious offshoots?

And that there's no single scientific text that is incontrovertible?

I think transferring minds to computers is silly, but technology may improve in ways I can't predict and it may be possible. Just what religious verse will improve in ways I can't imagine in the next 50 years making say, "sin" possible? Is the Bible suddenly going to get a divine revision or a new apostle or something? (change "Bible" with whatever religious text a theist holds to).

Science fiction is actually based on real concepts.

Religious fiction is based on well, previous fiction.

[Dragoonster]

Note ‘mandala’, ‘prayed’, ‘inner eye’ - and it's not like the book, or Gibson himself, is particularly concerned with religion.

That may simply be literary technique or metaphor. Or a truly religious notion of sci-fi I guess.

The most highly regarded current SF writer is Gene Wolfe. He's a Catholic, and his beliefs permeate his work.

Hmm, I've read his Urth of the New Sun series and guess I missed the permeation. Plus it seemed futuristic fantasy, not sci-fi.

Not really arguing but I just haven't recognized religious content in his work, or "materialistic" sci-fi (brain transfers, sentient computers, wormholes, dyson spheres and the like).

[technoextreme]

My favorite phrase from fandom is "suspension of disbelief".



Fandom didn't come up with that word. In fact the concept is hundreds of years old.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm no scholar of mythology, but I had thought that mythology focused on some of the following points, among others:

The origin of the universe.

The origin of the society of the myth tellers.

The explanation of natural events.

The ultimate fate of everything.



Sci-fi rarely touches on those points, and never as a serious explanation.

[Correa Neto]

All the stuff you cited, among others may -or not- be included in a myth. Basically myths are one of the ways cultures use to express messages such as behavior codes. They are stories, fictional or semifictional narratives which present these codes in a more palatable way than a book of laws.

Many fictional works (films, books, etc.), I think, quite often can be seen as myths or at least are very similar to myths. No wonder here, since they drink or are derived form them...

[ImaginalDisc]

All the stuff you cited, among others may -or not- be included in a myth. Basically myths are one of the ways cultures use to express messages such as behavior codes. They are stories, fictional or semifictional narratives which present these codes in a more palatable way than a book of laws.

Many fictional works (films, books, etc.), I think, quite often can be seen as myths or at least are very similar to myths. No wonder here, since they drink or are derived form them...

The only way to make sci-fi similar to myths is to use such a broad definition of myths that it applies to all types of story telling, from soap operas to very special episodes od afternoon cartoon shows.

[Rufo]

Actually, I would say the "materialist" equalivent of mythology are the stories commonly referred to as "modern myths" - namely urban legends. These stories carry many of the traits of traditional mythology; they are believed to be true despite a frequent complete lack of evidence, they describe extraordinary and amazing events, and they often carry a moral message. I have seen them retold by all kinds of people, including authority figures such as teachers. They are truly a form of modern mythology.

To be fair, though, although I've witnessed countless atheists who completely believed in these myths, it is far from an exclusively secular phenomenon. In fact, Christians have a whole branch of their own furthering Christian myths and morals. Also, skeptics tend to be less susceptible to them.

[Matt the Poet]

Sci-fi rarely touches on those points, and never as a serious explanation.

At a crude level, I’d agree that SF is not a mythology in the sense that it doesn’t generally aim to create genuine believable tales about the way the universe works

However, I’d argue that it serves some of the important functions of a mythology in providing a place where we can talk in an uninhibited, secular way about

- transcendence and epiphany (e.g. Arthur C Clarke),
- senses of embodiment and disembodiment (cyberspace),
- senses of the ‘uncanny’ and their relation to ‘otherness; (Delaney)
- the mysterious location and construction of the identity (Philip K Dick),
- social inclusion and exclusion (LeGuin, Butler, Piercy)

and many more of the sorts of things that our somewhat instrumentalist culture tends to endure with silent embarrassment.

[plumjam]

Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism. So the results are no surprise.

So I get a warning, and a split thread for this?
How daft.

[Rufo]

So I get a warning, and a split thread for this?
How daft.
I don't understand the warning, but the split thread was sort of necessary.

[Correa Neto]

Some theists go in for non-materialist mythology (believing it to be real).
Some materialists go in for materialist mythology (believing it to be real).

Obviously, neither of the above groups think they're indulging in make believe. Sometimes they point at the other group and ridicule them for their mythological beliefs.
Quite amusing really ;)
Again, for some reason, you seem to be missing the point that materialists who enjoy sci-fi and fantasy (as well as any work of fiction, I would say) are pretty aware of the fact that these tales are nothing but fiction.

You want to say Star Trek or Star Wars (or a book or movie from another genre) reached mythical status? OK, I have little if any problems with this concept. But I do have problems and I deeply disagree when you say materialists believe in these modern myths or stories. Its a major strawman. I say its a false statement.

You will have a hard time finding a materialist who believes The Force is real. Show me a sci-fi fan who believes the Force is real and I will show you a non-materialist.

On the other hand, non-materialists, especially the religious ones, actually believe in the reality of a given set of myths. They are the ones who tender "mythological beliefs" to use your own words. They believe in the rapture, they belive in the universal flood, they believe in the heavenly virgins, they believe in life after death, they believe in the god, they believe in crystal power, they believe in dowsing, they believe in astrology, they believe in prophecies, they believe in the Holy Trinity, they believe in levitating monks, they believe in chi. Must I go on with the list of beliefs?

[Correa Neto]

The only way to make sci-fi similar to myths is to use such a broad definition of myths that it applies to all types of story telling, from soap operas to very special episodes od afternoon cartoon shows.
I do tend to use a broad definition for a myth.

There are, after all, myths and myths. Not all of them talk about the origin of the universe, some are quite frivolous.

Of course, one can make several interpretations of a myth, and eventually one which I perceive as nothing but a soap opera (with a moral message embedded) whose characters are gods, semi-gods or heroes may be interpreted by others as a deep multi-layered drama where important aspects of the universe are unveiled in subtle ways.

The same is valid for fiction. Some works provide great insights of our humanity, while others are shallow. And again, what I consider as a frivolous work might be a deep masterpiece with important questionings and/or revelations about human nature for someone else.

Mind you, there are works on the philosophy of Harry Potter...:rolleyes:

[Jimbo07]

You want to say Star Trek or Star Wars (or a book or movie from another genre) reached mythical status?

Really.

I've heard it said that Star Wars is Modern Myth. Okay. So?

...

PJ is hijacking the glibly labelled modern myths and calling them "materialist myths." This is in line with his personal philosophy that mind (or consciousness) is primary, a position for which there is little evidentiary support. It's unfortunate that he's taking such a vigorous stance on this, because the practical application of this (the labelling of Star Wars as a myth), is a position on which we agree! :eek:

ETA: PJ, I don't know why you got a warning. I'd probably agree with your point of view about that, but the split thread is fair, no?

[Dancing David]

Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism. So the results are no surprise.

It is in 'Lord of Light' by Zelazny but not "Creatures of Light and Darness' or the Amber series

What about Dune? (Herbert) or

Night Of Light by Farmer

and hundred of others....

[westprog]

Hmm, I've read his Urth of the New Sun series and guess I missed the permeation. Plus it seemed futuristic fantasy, not sci-fi.

Not really arguing but I just haven't recognized religious content in his work, or "materialistic" sci-fi (brain transfers, sentient computers, wormholes, dyson spheres and the like).

Wolfe is a very, very clever writer - so clever, in fact, that it's quite possible to read, enjoy and appear to understand his books without actually getting most of what's going on. I know, because I've done it.

The original New Sun series looks like fantasy - and it is perfectly possible to read it that way. It's only apparent after several re-reads - or cribbing off a review - that all the fantasy tropes are really technology. The catholic stuff that permeates the books sometimes seems like an atheist satire on transubstantiation. It's there all right, but don't expect it to be obvious. Again, I didn't get this stuff the first few times around, so I'm not surprised when other people don't. I'm surprised at what people do get.

The religion in The Wizard Knight is a bit more upfront. He's also written a few very clearly religious short stories.

[rocketdodger]

So I get a warning, and a split thread for this?
How daft.

Because, as usual, you took a thread that had nothing to do with "materialism" and injected another variation of your endless "materialism is bad, mmmkay" nonsense into it.

And you are not the only one that got warned.

[westprog]

Um...you do realize science is not static in its tenets/explanations and advances/updates far, far, far, far, far, far quicker than any religion or religious offshoots?

And that there's no single scientific text that is incontrovertible?

I think transferring minds to computers is silly, but technology may improve in ways I can't predict and it may be possible. Just what religious verse will improve in ways I can't imagine in the next 50 years making say, "sin" possible? Is the Bible suddenly going to get a divine revision or a new apostle or something? (change "Bible" with whatever religious text a theist holds to).

Science fiction is actually based on real concepts.

Religious fiction is based on well, previous fiction.

Ken McCloud has written about downloadable personalities. He's freely admitted that he has no idea if it's possible or not, and that he's writing fiction. He's interested in the ideas, but he doesn't necessarily subscribe to them.

[Robin]

Sci-fi is the mythology of materialism. So the results are no surprise.
Hmmm.

Out of the Silent Planet?
Voyage to Venus?
That Hideous Strength?

[D'rok]

Forgive me for butting in.

You should read some modern philosophy. These respected materialist fools believe this kind of thing...

If this is your main point, it is valid. But writers like Kurzweil are not science fiction writers are they? Kurzweil et al are "doing" philosophy, not writing sci-fi tales. Herein lies your fallacy.

Also, sci-fi is sometimes labelled "speculative fiction". This is the most descrpitive label, IMO.

Hmm..there are other instances of this. Like respected speculators such as Isaac Asimov (very respected here). They certainly wrote about this kind of mythology like it had a realistic chance, some day, of coming to pass.

See. You even used the word "speculators" here. Asimov enjoyed speculating; we enjoy reading his speculations. He was a smart cookie and a good writer. But...he never crossed into Kurzweil territory - i.e. speculations presented as quasi-prophecy. The difference is clear and we are all aware of it. So, I suspect, are you.

Also, you may have noticed how a certain sci-fi author turned prophet (L.Ron) gets very short shrift here.

My point is that many take this beyond pure enjoyable fiction. You can see this when the whole thing gets shoved into philosophy of mind.

You are off target by attacking sci-fi. Stay...on...target...stay...on...target...;)

[krazyKemist]

Strawmannery of the purest kind.

How so ? You compare an attraction to a type of story to a religion. In a religion, you believe in something/body beyond the material world, and you believe that this something/body has an influence on the material world. Is that right ? Therefore, for a Sci-Fi/fantasy to fill up the same role as the bible, quran or baghavad ghita fills for a believer, I would have to believe its contents, at least in part, are true, is it not ?

You should read some modern philosophy. These respected materialist fools believe this kind of thing, as do many on this forum.

I'm afraid I have to call strawman on that one. Reflecting on the possibility of something, and on the consequences it would have on our society is not on par with mythology or religion.

Hmm..there are other instances of this. Like respected speculators such as Isaac Asimov (very respected here). They certainly wrote about this kind of mythology like it had a realistic chance, some day, of coming to pass.

I think they're just thinking about the future. Anyone can think and speculate about the future or on some possible or impossible events. Take the left behind series for example. They're a speculation on an event (which I think exists only in the imagination of some people). Does that make them mythology ? Are they religious scripture ? Or just entertainment based on reflection on what would happen if said event happened ?

My point is that many take this beyond pure enjoyable fiction. You can see this when the whole thing gets shoved into philosophy of mind.

It is possible to think on the complex nature of the mind without appealing to mythology/religion. I think you are reading a little too much into those talks. Wishing it were possible, wondering if it might be possible and thinking of the consequences if it were possible are not the same thing as building your life, or giving a sense to your life based on an idea. Again, some new religions or cults may base their faith around a technological gizmo like, for example, the raelians do with ETs and cloning, but this is beyond mere philosophical discussion and becomes a religion.

A sci-fi story is a wonderful medium to explore ideas, whether they are politic, scientific of philosophical. Dystopias are particularly good to do this, which is why I enjoy them. As it were, Richard Morgan's novels, which build a story around downloadable minds, are a dystopia of a corporate-controlled world.

Fair enough. Seeing as you and I have never conversed I see no reason why you would be bothered about me characterising a good section of sci-fi fans / materialists just as they are.
Perhaps you are not like that. Good luck to you.

Sci-fi is often belittled as being "not litterature", good enough only for adolescent and such. With a good dose of condescending "Sci-fi fans are immature" (and a vision of a bunch of geeks attending a Star Trek convention :D) thrown in, which I dislike. What most people don't realize is that Sci-fi is not limited to Star Trek and Star Wars, and that it can treat of very serious and important issues. Good Sci-fi is a kind of thought experiment.

[DeusPhasmatis]

That plumjam treats "suspension of disbelief" as a synonym for "belief" speaks much of his argument. Either he is ignorant, or malicious. Either way, his points are invalid.

[blobru]

Fandom didn't come up with that word. In fact the concept is hundreds of years old.


Good call, tech. I had always thought it was fans quoting Gernsback or someone-such (C S Lewis uses the phrase in defence of Out of the Silent Planet). But wiki dates it to S T Coleridge writing about phantasies like his own "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" in 1817 -- see "willing suspension of disbelief".

Any fiction requires a bit of wsod from the reader, but sf moreso, concerned as it is with imagining not just characters and situations but whole worlds and futures.

[rocketdodger]

Either he is ignorant, or malicious.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

[DeusPhasmatis]

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Specifically for refuting his argument, yes. As character traits, no.

[Dancing David]

More willfully ignorant of others beliefs

[joobz]

Actually, I would say the "materialist" equalivent of mythology are the stories commonly referred to as "modern myths" - namely urban legends. These stories carry many of the traits of traditional mythology; they are believed to be true despite a frequent complete lack of evidence, they describe extraordinary and amazing events, and they often carry a moral message. I have seen them retold by all kinds of people, including authority figures such as teachers. They are truly a form of modern mythology.

To be fair, though, although I've witnessed countless atheists who completely believed in these myths, it is far from an exclusively secular phenomenon. In fact, Christians have a whole branch of their own furthering Christian myths and morals. Also, skeptics tend to be less susceptible to them.
Just wanted to quote this so it wasn't lost in this thread. I think Rufo is exactly right. The materialist myths are the modern urban legends. Sci-fi could be considered more like the materialist's love poems. :D

[Darat]

I've looked up many different definitions over the years for materialism and yet not one of them has ever mentioned about the philosophy of materialism having any kind of mythology... strange.... it's almost as if the opening post author is using the word materialism with a different meaning to anyone else in the world.

[rocketdodger]

I've looked up many different definitions over the years for materialism and yet not one of them has ever mentioned about the philosophy of materialism having any kind of mythology... strange.... it's almost as if the opening post author is using the word materialism with a different meaning to anyone else in the world.

That is a hard argument to make, Darat, because nobody has been able to get plumjam to actually define what he means by materialism other than that he thinks the boogyman is a materialist.

[DeusPhasmatis]

That is a hard argument to make, Darat, because nobody has been able to get plumjam to actually define what he means by materialism other than that he thinks the boogyman is a materialist.

Nonono, you have that backwards. All materialists are bogeymen!

[Mister Agenda]

You should read some modern philosophy. These respected materialist fools believe this kind of thing, as do many on this forum. SNIP


Do you disrespect these materialists as fools because they believe it is inevitable or just because they believe it may be possible? Do you regard it as foolish due to your considerable understanding of the technological and biological issues involved or because as a dualist you presuppose that consciousness is not technologically transferable? If you were to live long enough to see such a thing achieved, assuming it's possible, what would be your response? Would you become a materialist? Deny that consciousness was actually transferred regardless of evidence to the contrary?

That last bit is not as contrarian as it sounds, how do you prove that you're conscious, and how do you prove your consciousness is the same consciousness that was supposedly transferred? If you admit to the consciousness but deny the transfer, where did the new consciousness come from?

[Darat]

I think some of the best science fiction is better at exploring what some ideas in philosophy really mean then what most philosophers write!

An excellent example of a good romping read that also explores philosophical concepts of what it means to be "I" and the nature of consciousness is David Brin's Kiln People.

[Silentknight]

Regardless, anyone who focuses on the literal details of any story while ignoring the moral/philosophical message, be it science fiction, fantasy, or mythology, is missing the point. Remember when Christian groups got up in arms about Harry Potter because they believed it would teach children to practice witchcraft? The real message of the stories had to do with friendship, courage, and facing the tragedy of death, NOT that wizards exist or that you could do magic for real. Similarly, the real message of the biblical story of Noah's Ark was that by perserverance, hard work, and believing in yourself, you can survive and overcome seemingly impossible odds. It did NOT mean that there was really a global flood that God used to punish people for being inherently evil.