Gord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josh and John wrote:
> >>I'd suspect it's less intentional than that, though. I, and others whom
I
> >>know are non-religious, spend about 0% of our time worrying about or
> >>participating in any sort of religion. If writing about people living
their
> >>lives in the future, unless I was intentionally making a point,
> >
> >That's the way I see it......
>
> I don't see it that way either, actually, and I'm not religious -- y'all
know
> my misgivings about religion, personally. But religion is and has
historically
> been an important part of life for most of humanity. It currently is still
that
> way for most of humanity. I think that ignoring it in one's depiction of a
> world is probably a flaw in conception, and/or wishful thinking. I think
that
> not dealing with it in *any* fashion (however cursory) is about as
problematic
> as not dealing with, say, issues of politics or, for that matter, just
> inventing new laws of physics.
Y'see, though, you're the english-lit type, and I'm a science geek. You'd
think about motivations for your secondary characters; I'd merely use them
as fodder for talking about a gee-whiz wacky bit of technology and advancing
the plot. I agree, portraying a future world deeply without mentioning
religion at all is a flaw; however, that doesn't detract from my speculation
that it's not intentional. It just means there are lots of flawed stories,
which isn't a big surprise. Many also don't realistically portray politics
or the consequences of new physics.
...
Tangentially, Clarke had a good quote in a recent interview
(http://www.wirednews.com/news/culture/0,1284,40883,00.html):
"One of my objections to religion is that it prevents the search for God, if
there is one," he says. "I have an open mind on the subject, if there's
anything behind the universe. And I'm quite sympathetic with the views that
there could be."
Joshua
