altariel: (Default)
[personal profile] altariel
Here's the text of my talk from the "Science fiction and religion" panel at the British Science Festival on Saturday. You can read more about the panel and my excellent co-contributors here. (Make sure you read the comments from the Doctor's parish priest!) It was a very enjoyable session; lots of enthusiasm for Doctor Who, and some great discussion about, for example, how a theologian might approach writing sf, what sociology can bring to the mix, and much more.

Some big images under the cut. I can't work out how to make them the right size and I'm a bit tired right now to try. You get the gist.

Alien conmen and mad computers: Doctor Who, Star Trek – and religion


In the time available, I thought I'd give a whistle-stop tour of how Star Trek and Doctor Who have treated religious practice and religious belief across the years, and that would give us some food for thought and discussion later on.


Now, both shows have been running, on and off, since the 1960s, and between them have racked up hundreds of episodes, but I think we can pull out some general themes. And if I had to sum up how Star Trek and Doctor Who have approached or shown religion over the years, I'd say both shows have had a pretty ambivalent attitude towards religious belief and religious practice. So I thought I'd start out by giving you a glimpse of how both shows historically dealt with religion. I do think that as the shows go on, they start to give much more nuanced reflections on the subject – I'll come back to that nearer the end of my talk. But first of all, let's think about when these shows started, and the context in which their early episodes are being shown.


Star Trek: the Original Series (1966-1968)

Doctor Who (1963-1989)


Well, as I said – both these shows began way back in the 1960s, back when the white heat of technology is firing us all up with enthusiasm about what science can do to transform our lives. Both over in the US – where Star Trek comes from – and here in the UK, there's a great sense of belief in what humanity can achieve if we put our mind to it. It's the period of manned space flight, of course – of voyages to the moon. Exactly like something out of science fiction! – but you're able to watch it happening, there on the television in the corner of the room. And this is the context in which our two TV shows are created.


Star Trek in particular, was deeply rooted in the idea that humanity could progress through its own efforts; that we didn't need gods or religions to make us better, and to make the world better. We just needed to be smart, or hard-working, or willing to work through problems.


The crew of the Enterprise:

Gene Roddenberry's dream of what humanity can achieve through infinite diversity in infinite combinations


The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, who was an atheist and a humanist, specifically wanted to show a future in which a diverse group of human beings – and Vulcans, and whoever – cooperated to solve problems using facts and using reason. Okay, occasionally Captain Kirk has to throw a punch and kiss a woman too.


Now it's not that Gene Roddenberry was hostile to religion or to spirituality, more that he didn't see how it helped us to progress – and in some of episodes of Star Trek, it's true that religion hinders. It gets in the way; it causes problems for people – it stops them making progress. And usually what's going on is some kind of deceit: it turns out that the entity that's being worshipped as a god is actually an alien lifeform, or else a computer with ideas above its station. It's not really a god, and these aren't really supernatural phenomena – there's a perfectly rational explanation for what's going on.


Alien conman…

Apollo, from Who Mourns for Adonais? (1967)

…Mad computer

Vaal, from The Apple (1967)


So, just a couple of examples from a couple of episodes of Star Trek. Here on the left we have a very nattily-dressed alien who turns out once upon a time in Earth history to have been the Greek god Apollo. But he's not a god: he's an alien. And, from a different episode, here's an image of the god Vaal, who turns out to be a supercomputer that has been controlling its worshippers so that they don't have any freedom. So rather than gods, we have aliens that have capabilities far beyond our own, or else computers with technology that looks so much like divine power that people worship them. But when the Enterprise turns up, these frauds or misunderstandings are exposed, and the gods are debunked.


And we see the same kinds of stories in Doctor Who: the same kinds of explanation for these apparently supernatural beings.


Alien conman...

Azal, from The Daemons (1971)

...Mad computer

Xoanon, from The Face of Evil (1977)


So here we have the Daemon Azal, an alien who has been terrorising the people of the village Devil's End, and who looks remarkably like our popular image of Satan (see the horns and hooves). And, from another story, here's the face of Xoanon, a super-computer that has become strangely obsessed with Tom Baker. It happens. Xoanon has developed a split personality and over centuries surrounds himself with a cult known as the Tesh. That word's simply a corruption of Techs – the technicians who work on the computer.


And what all these stories have in common is that the Enterprise or the TARDIS turns up, and Kirk and Spock or else the Doctor and his companion demonstrate that all these apparently supernatural events have a natural basis. If it a looks like a god, these stories seem to say – then it's probably an alien conman, or mad computer.


So both Star Trek and Doctor Who in their early days are really quite brisk about religious belief. But as the years go by, and the shows extend into different series or go off our screens and then come back again, I think we start to see more nuanced reflections about religious belief and, particularly, religious practice.


Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999)

Doctor Who (2005-date)


Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Star Trek spin-off series Deep Space Nine, which has a very long story arc about a holy war. The Federation and Starfleet – our humanist heroes – come under threat of total annihilation from a species called the Founders, who are worshipped as gods by their genetically-engineered servants. And our heroes are assisted in this battle by another alien species, the Prophets. The Prophets don't exist in linear time like we do, living one day after another. They live at all times, all at once. That means they're able to make accurate prophecies, hence the name. Deep Space Nine – which ran for seven years during the 1990s – has nearly two hundred episodes, and one of its major themes, and major sources of stories, is exploring the different belief systems of the many different alien species that appear in the show.


The Founders

Shape-shifters and creators of a species of genetically-engineered super-soldiers

The Prophets

Aliens existing throughout time that make true prophecies


So here on the left are the Founders. These are shape-shifting aliens that have genetically-engineered a species of super-soldiers to worship them as gods. The Founders really did create these soldiers: they genetically engineered them, they cloned them. They brought them into existence.


And here on the right we have a character being given a revelation by the Prophets. These are the aliens that exist at all times simultaneously, and can therefore make accurate predictions about the future. You just have to know how to interpret these revelations: they can be a bit obscure.


So we get lots of gods in Deep Space Nine; lots of religious belief, and lots of religious practice. But what Deep Space Nine doesn't do is imply that these gods are anything other than natural phenomena – it's quite careful about this. The Founders and the Prophets are almost always described by our Starfleet heroes as aliens – even while other people in the room might be calling them gods. So they're not supernatural: a natural explanation is always given for them. However, what DS9 does do is take very seriously the professed faith of characters in their gods. And that's a difference from the past, I think, when more often the Enterprise would leave a planet with its gods debunked. Some of the gods in Deep Space Nine are real trouble – like the Founders, causing the war that drives the story – but other gods, like the Prophets, are shown to be sources of strength, and inspiration, and consolation. And the show strongly suggests that this is a good and a valid experience for believers.


And I think we've seen the same kind of shift in Doctor Who in recent years. Much more use of religious imagery, and much more willingness to explore what religion might mean to people who practice. And I think this is even more interesting in that the man who brought back Doctor Who, and was until recently one of the producers, Russell T Davies, is an atheist who, in some of his other TV drama, has been quite scathing about religion. Yet, when writing Doctor Who, Davies seems to be willing to say, "Well, let's look at the power of religious belief in people's lives – not just for ill, but for good too." So although the programme remains committed to natural rather than supernatural explanations, it seems to be willing to assume that people have a good reason for religious practice.


So I'm going to finish up by showing you a little clip from Doctor Who, and this is from a story called 'Gridlock', written by Russell T Davies. In this story, the Doctor, played by the ever-watchable David Tennant, and his companion Martha, find themselves stuck in traffic on the Motorway. Something we can all relate to. However, this being Doctor Who, the Motorway is the size of a planet, and people have been stuck on it their entire lives. Many of them feel very lost, and very lonely, and so every day, they stop and hold what they call the Daily Contemplation. They stop and sing a hymn together.


I think this is a really beautiful moment (though I am very easily moved) as all these lost people find consolation singing their hymn together. Watch out for Martha, the Doctor's companion, who's also very moved by what's happening, and ends up joining in.


But most of all, what I'd like you to watch for is the Doctor's expression – because he's really alarmed by what he's seeing and hearing, and he thinks that all this hymn-singing is distracting people from their dreadful plight and stopping them doing something about it.



Well, what happens after this of course is that the Doctor leaps into action as only the Doctor can do; he discovers that the Motorway is operating automatically, he reboots the system, and everybody goes free.


But while the Doctor is very worried watching all these people singing this hymn, I think this story is again quite a bit different from those old stories where the Doctor or the crew of the Enterprise would turn up and expose an alien or a computer passing itself off as a god. The Doctor does get to the bottom of what's been happening on the Motorway, and he helps people escape – but there aren't any false gods, or evil villains imprisoning people and making them sing these songs – it's just what people have been doing to help themselves get by every day.


Faith pays off (with a little intervention from the Doctor)
Doctor Who, "Gridlock" (BBC One, 14 April 2007)


And the episode ends with this beautiful and quite mystical image of all the little cars escaping the Motorway and rising up into the light. If I played you a clip here, you'd also hear that people were singing 'Abide With Me'. The Doctor has arrived and released people from bondage, but he hasn't taken away their faith or their belief – in fact, he may even have reinforced it.


So what I love about this story is that it shows how simple religious practice – singing hymns – has brought consolation to the people trapped for years on the Motorway. Yet at the same time it gently asks us to think that perhaps we don't have to be satisfied just with being consoled. Instead, we can remember that there's a wide world out there to be explored, and we can go and explore it. We're asked to keep on challenging our beliefs and our assumptions, but we're reminded that a really curious mind – like the Doctor's – will always want to understand, even if doesn't always agree.


So I think both Star Trek and Doctor Who have come a long way from those old days of exposing alien frauds and mad computers. And I think that in accepting the possibility that there may be more in this universe than we have dreamt of, both shows start to ask better questions about the nature of faith and the experience of the numinous, whilst still being confident that there will always be a rational explanation. We just have to set our minds to finding out what it is.


Date: 2011-09-12 07:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] katlinel.livejournal.com
I thoroughly enjoyed reading that, and I hope that the discussion following was an enjoyable one.

I also liked the comments from the parish priest at the link, and especially the PS on the first one.

Hope you can get some rest.

Date: 2011-09-13 07:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Glad you enjoyed it, k. The parish priest was an audience member, and contributed wonderfully.

Busy week ahead, then teaching starts. Eek!

Date: 2011-09-12 08:10 pm (UTC)
julesjones: (Default)
From: [personal profile] julesjones
Thoroughly enjoyed that, thanks -- and the comments from the parish priest at the link. :-)

Date: 2011-09-13 07:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Glad you enjoyed! :-)

Date: 2011-09-12 08:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jhall1.livejournal.com
I enjoyed reading your piece. But it seems to include a typo: "I think we start to see more nuanced reflections about religious practice and, particularly, religious practice."

I think that at least one theologian has written some SF: CS Lewis. I read one of his science fiction novels (as opposed to his fantasy novels) when I was in my teens, and was rather saddened to discover that he seemed to regard science as evil and scientists as villains.

Date: 2011-09-13 06:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Well spotted: changed now.

Lewis came up in the discussion for exactly that reason. He certainly does divide people very radically, and I know of several people who experienced profound disillusionment when they realised that he was proselytising.

Date: 2011-09-14 05:15 am (UTC)
kerravonsen: Susan aiming bow and arrows: "Sharp Mind" (Susan)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
I know of several people who experienced profound disillusionment when they realised that he was proselytising.

I feel as if that's an unfair assertion about Lewis. Now, people have proselytised using Lewis, but that's not the same thing.

One thing I hate is when people run around telling other people what Lewis is supposed to mean, before the other people have actually read the text. I hate it not because the first lot are necessarily wrong about what it means, but because it deprives the second lot of the opportunity to derive their own meaning from the text.

Date: 2011-09-14 06:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
OK, I'll rephrase that, since it was intended as a comment about readers of Lewis rather than about Lewis himself: I know of several people who experience profound disillusionment on reading Lewis and coming to believe that they were being preached at.

Date: 2011-09-12 09:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] curiouswombat.livejournal.com
Thank you so much for posting this. And I, too, love the note from The Doctor's parish priest - especially the request to confirm the theories in his thesis!
Edited Date: 2011-09-12 09:08 pm (UTC)

Date: 2011-09-13 06:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
He was an audience member and a lovely contributor.

Date: 2011-09-12 09:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sensiblecat.livejournal.com
A nice talk, Una - it was good to see Gridlock again. It's intriguing, isn't it, that almost against his will the experience in the city seems to get the Doctor to open up in quite a unique way (I still think that's the most moving scene of the whole RTD era for me, and that includes Doomsday). For me that final shot represents not just the freedom and hope of the city's future, but the importance of the act of memory. Re-membering means, literally, reassembling the limbs of a body to make flesh what had been lost. And that is precisely what Ten finds himself doing when he tells Martha what Gallifrey was like.

I wish, so much, that Martha had been able to continue to offer him that profound healing, and that RTD hadn't been derailed by the romantic love business. Although I think he does see something beautiful in romantic love, recognising it as a kind of worship. It fascinates him, even though he can't resist the urge to deconstruct it. The low point of Martha's servitude to the Doctor is the moment when she receives the TARDIS key, a humble acolyte. Everything that follows tells the narrative of Martha's growing independence, making her strong enough to leave the Doctor behind. A very typically RTD conclusion.

Date: 2011-09-14 05:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Glad you enjoyed it! That's a great point about memory. And the return of memory so demolishing of self for both John Smith and Professor Yana. This season really is absolutely brilliant, and "Gridlock" is the highlight for me. Could be my favourite episode of the RTD era ("The Girl in the Fireplace" and "Love and Monsters" also spring to mind).

I think it was [livejournal.com profile] deborah_judge who once suggested to me that Martha's unrequited love doesn't go to waste, since it's transformed into her 'witnessing' during the last episode that's so important to inspiring the trust/faith of others. But it's a tricky narrative sell on the back of such a lengthy story about romantic love between the Doctor and Rose, and - if I'm being honest - I don't think the nuances of Martha's story line are served by the actor.

Date: 2011-09-13 12:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] communicator.livejournal.com
It's a sensitive and generous piece. I am not sure whether the dominant emotional driver behind religious practice is consolation. Or is it rather fear?

'Twas Grace that taught my soul to fear/ And Grace that fear relieved'

Does religion function by bringing fear, or by bringing relief from fear? Or by bringing both pain and analgesic in the same package?

Date: 2011-09-13 07:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Interesting one. Ooh, I don't know! Yes, I think you're right, in certain circumstances. I guess I'd have to say that it probably differs from person to person, based on individual psychology*. But I guess to some extent we're all trying to find a way of dealing with the fact of our own ultimate extinction. So perhaps sometimes the fear is already there?

Hope I'm making sense, it's very early in the morning.

* aggregating into social practices, she adds, covering herself.

Date: 2011-09-14 05:43 am (UTC)
kerravonsen: from "The Passion", Christ's head with crown of thorns: "Love" (Christ)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
The difficulty I find with the assertion by non-religious folk that religion is a way of dealing with the fear of one's own death... is that when I, a religious person, consider my own death, and consider my own death in terms of what it would be if I were mistaken about the existance of God... I'm still not afraid of it. Because, logically, if there is no afterlife, why, I won't be around to worry about it, will I?

I think one of the huge problems in the discussion of religion is when Party A attributes motivations to Party B that Party B doesn't actually have, and then uses these assumed motivations to debunk Party B's point of view. (sigh)

Fear or consolation? I cannot speak for others, but I am neither running from fear or running to consolation; I am seeking the truth.

Date: 2011-09-14 06:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
I think one of the huge problems in the discussion of religion is when Party A attributes motivations to Party B that Party B doesn't actually have, and then uses these assumed motivations to debunk Party B's point of view. (sigh)

It's my unlucky habit to try to examine human behaviour in terms of psychological motivation. I don't believe that either debunks these motivations, or pathologises them. Saying that I'm interested in understanding the psychological reasons for an individual's religious belief says nothing about the truth or otherwise of these beliefs, about which I'm qualified to say nothing.

ETA: If anything, it's me trying to say: I want to understand this person better, and translate what they're saying into terms that I can understand. But I imagine it can be irritating.
Edited Date: 2011-09-14 06:34 am (UTC)

Date: 2011-09-14 08:44 am (UTC)
kerravonsen: triangle inside circle (Trinity)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
Oh my dear, I wasn't intending to criticise you for wanting to fathom motivations. More reacting to those who have been hostile, those who don't want to think, the ones who say "Religion is a crutch" and worse.

But also saying... if one asks "is it fear or consolation that motivates them?" then perhaps one is asking the wrong question, one which is too limited.

Date: 2011-09-14 05:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
I think we're singing from the same song sheet :-)

Date: 2011-09-13 08:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gair.livejournal.com
I am not sure whether the dominant emotional driver behind religious practice is consolation. Or is it rather fear?

Isn't the trajectory [livejournal.com profile] altariel traces here from the 60s to the 00s more-or-less one which moves from seeing religion as based on fear to seeing it as based on consolation?

Date: 2011-09-13 09:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] communicator.livejournal.com
It's a fair point, because I disconnected myself from religion in the early 1970s, and it my well be the case that mainstream Christianity has changed a great deal since then (in England at least). We see a lot of fear-based rhetoric coming out of the States, though.
(deleted comment)

Date: 2011-09-13 12:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] communicator.livejournal.com
I think a feeling of reconciliation with the Universe is something I experienced as a child in opposition to religious teachings. I suppose like Wordsworth I fell that one's natural state as a child is 'I am good enough, and it will be OK' and the teaching of religion denies that comfort: 'You are not good enough, and the spiritual consolation you feel is false'.

I don't know how common this feeling is.

Date: 2011-09-13 06:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
I struggled to feel that while I was still a Catholic, and it never happened (although I could see that it happened to other people around me). It was only when I abandoned Catholicism and began to find my own way that that sense of the fundamental interconnectedness of all things happened to me.

Date: 2011-09-13 05:45 am (UTC)
ext_3954: (nature)
From: [identity profile] alicambs.livejournal.com
I have to admit that as an atheist nothing gets me out of a narrative faster than people banging on about religion, particularly if it one of the patriarchal, proselyting religions, so I thought I ought to give your piece a read. :-)

It's an interesting piece, but like the commentator above I'm not too sure what I should be taking away from it. I've always seen religion as a focus of control and way of ensuring that people conform. In a sense your piece supports that, although you can say it also offers comfort and peace but I'd say that peace comes only by accepting the control exerted by the particular belief / religion. In Gridlock the hymn offer comfort but also stops people from looking beyond and asking why their life is as it is.

Anyway, as I said, very interesting.

Date: 2011-09-13 07:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
I think I'm simply saying that I've met many people of intelligence, reason, good character, etc. who have firmly held religious beliefs, and I'm prepared to believe that they genuinely believe them - even if I don't. Sometimes I'm very impatient about that, sometimes I'm glad that there's diversity of opinion in the world.

I have regular and intense experiences of (for want of a better word) the numinous - I call them peak experiences, borrowing from the psychologist Abraham Maslow - but I don't feel the need to explain them in supernatural terms: it's simply part of the range of human experience to me. It is a profoundly positive experience, and I wonder whether this is what people experience as the presence of God in the universe.

I entirely agree that organised religion, like any form of social organisation, can be used for coercive purposes, and I entirely agree that this is a Bad Thing. I think a distinction has to be made between organised religion and individual religious belief, however. But I have the luxury of living in one of the most secular and liberal societies in the world (for all that there's an established church).

I think "Gridlock" is a very subtle piece by writer (and atheist) working at the top of his imaginative powers. I don't think it endorses the belief system of the people on the Motorway, but it does examine its power on them - for good and ill - in terms of consolation. The whole of this season carefully works through the Doctor-as-Messiah theme, and I think acts as a claim by RTD to the power of stories of redemption and salvation without any accompanying supernatural belief system. These stories happen, he seems to say, to people, all the time, and don't require a religious gloss.

Date: 2011-09-13 08:49 am (UTC)
ext_3954: (chocolate)
From: [identity profile] alicambs.livejournal.com
Yeah I get that and I'm in total agreement. Belief on any kind can be a very powerful force and motivator for good and bad.

Date: 2011-09-14 02:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] toft-froggy.livejournal.com
I really enjoyed this, thanks - I've been thinking for a while about the way religious imagery, and particularly Christian imagery, is used in sci-fi and fantasy shows. I admit that my main fascination has been with Supernatural, but I can't bring myself to watch it to find out more. This was very enjoyable and interesting. What about the doctor's god complex, though?

Love the comments from the parish priest.

Date: 2011-09-14 06:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
My god, the god complex. I think, as I said somewhere upthread or downthread, that that's Russell T Davies staking a claim to Christian narratives. That he likes these stories of redemption, salvation, etc., and wants to claim them by using them.

Date: 2011-09-14 08:50 am (UTC)
kerravonsen: from "The Passion", Christ's head with crown of thorns: "Love" (Christ)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
The thing that frustrates me about Russell T Davies and his Doctor-as-Messiah motifs is that... when those motifs are most overt, that is when the Doctor is behaving least like Christ. I don't mean the Doctor's self-sacrifice, I agree that that's Christlike, but when you have the snapping fingers and being carried by angels, being all floaty and glowing... (shakes head)...
Christ resisted the temptation to be carried by angels, so being carried by angels is hardly Christ-like.

(growls at RTD)

Date: 2011-09-14 04:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Part of me assumes that RTD is intending us to criticise the Doctor's self-aggrandisement at moments like these... part of me wonders whether RTD's become overly entranced by the narrative of Doctor-as-Messiah.

Date: 2011-09-14 08:52 am (UTC)
kerravonsen: Ninth Doctor holding out his hand: "Come with me if you want to Live" (Doc9-come-with-me)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
When I think of the Doctor being Christlike, do you know what imagery springs to my mind? (points to icon). That.

"Come with me if you want to live."

Date: 2011-09-14 05:08 am (UTC)
kerravonsen: triangle inside circle (Trinity)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
Good overview of the attitude towards religion in DW and ST.
As I said before, I wish I could have been there.
(now to dive into the comments)

Date: 2011-09-14 06:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Glad you enjoyed. Wish you could have been there too.

Date: 2011-09-14 05:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fallingtowers.livejournal.com
I'm glad you had a great time at that conference - nd thank you for sharing your contribution with us. I didn't like much of RTD's use of religious imagery - since "subtle" is not his middle name and Tinkerbell!Jesus!Doctor comes to mind - but I did appreciate Gridlock for exactly the reasons you point out so beautifully in your interpretation above: because here, it is not whether about faith is wrong or right; it is all about whether it matters and why.

Date: 2011-09-14 06:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
I could do without those excesses too. But he definitely gets it bang on with "Gridlock".

(here via munditia)

Date: 2011-09-15 10:47 am (UTC)
tree_and_leaf: Watercolour of barn owl perched on post. (Default)
From: [personal profile] tree_and_leaf
Very interesting presentation! I agree that Gridlock is one of the (in my opinion very few) moments where RTD-era Who got the religious imagery right - often it just feels over-cooked. The other moment I found really successful is Tim's speech in "Family of Blood" - the "he's ancient and forever... and he's wonderful", which didn't explicitly compare the Doctor to Jesus at all, but had certain clear resonances with the religious experience. Of course, that was Paul Cornell, who doesn't have the same baggage as RTD (I believe he's moved from being pagan to being more-or-less Anglican; his wife's a priest).

Coincidentally I was watching DS9 "The Reckoning" last night; the Pah Wraith/ Prophet battle is exceptionally cheesy, but one thing that episode does beautifully is to capture the different ways people react to their friends or relative's faith, from massive discomfort (Dax) to simple worry for the other's well-being (Jake) to Odo's willingness to be supportive and affirming even though he doesn't understand. And then there's Kai Winn's jealousy of Ben, not just for his status, but of his religious experiences, which she's never had.

Re: (here via munditia)

Date: 2011-09-15 10:48 am (UTC)
tree_and_leaf: Tardis silhoutted agains night sky, with blinking light. (Tardis)
From: [personal profile] tree_and_leaf
PS: thanks for linking to the other report. I love Fr Leyshon's comments, though I'm sure that the Doctor is far too English to be anything other than C of E (regardless of what he actually believes...)

Re: (here via munditia)

Date: 2011-09-16 08:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Perhaps he is very High Church :-)

Re: (here via munditia)

Date: 2011-10-04 03:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Gosh, I'm so far behind on LJ comments: my apologies. Start of term struck. Very glad you enjoyed the presentation! I do think "Gridlock" is one of RTD's best: not only a well-controlled narrative (which he doesn't always manage!), but it feels infused with all that's best of his generosity. I also find the remembrance service at the very end of "Family of Blood" extremely moving.

DS9 is so thoughtful about all this! Again and again, in so many small ways, the characters each try to understand what their friends and colleagues think and believe, and try to understand why, even if they know they'll never feel the same way, or believe in the same way. Wonderful show.

Date: 2011-09-15 11:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wormwood-7.livejournal.com
A very interesting article. Thanks for sharing it :)

Religion is a tricky subject, and tends to stoke intolerance among fervent believers and fervent non-believers alike.
I am not religious in the usual sense of the word, but reading some of the comments above, I think I know what you mean about "peak experiences". I don't really care all that much if such experiences are supernatural or not. They may be, or they may not.

Eliot sometimes expresses something I "recognise" in a strange kind of way, if that makes sense...

Date: 2011-09-16 10:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] altariel.livejournal.com
Maslow has a short book that you might find interesting: Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences. It's fairly easy to get hold of.

Eliot sometimes expresses something I "recognise" in a strange kind of way, if that makes sense...

Boy does that make sense! (Don't know if I've ever expressed the sheer delight and affinity I felt when I first saw your Eliot-infused Tolkien-inspired writing.)

Date: 2011-09-16 05:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wormwood-7.livejournal.com
Thanks for the book recommendation. I will look it up.

I am thrilled to hear it made sense - and likewise! Your writing inspired me to try out some Tolkien-inspired writing on my own. I don't think I would have started without it.

Profile

altariel: (Default)
altariel

September 2018

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 24th, 2025 12:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios