Bewitched, Star Trek, and discussion question about Scifi and Fantasy

[goldvermilion87]

So, I was watching an episode of Bewitched where Aunt Clara accidentally brings Ben Franklin into the 20th century.  (called "My Friend Ben.") and  Ben Franklin and Samantha have this little dialogue:

Ben: Is it possible that modern science has advanced so far as to be capable of transporting a man from one century to another?
Samantha:  Yes, you could put it that way.

Well, my first reaction to this was to giggle, because Bewitched ran in tandem with Star Trek, and in "The Naked Time" science does indeed get that capability.  Tiny minds, you know.

Anyway.

It suddenly put me in mind of some thoughts I've had about the differences (or lack thereof) between SciFi and Fantasy.  Its something I've been formulating in my mind recently-ish, and I know that I have friends on lj who are interested in one or the other or both, so I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone who would like to weigh in on the subject.


So, for starters, I was raised in a very conservative Christian atmosphere (and I remain in one at this point of my own free will...or not depending on what you mean by that...okay, not going to geek out right now  :-P)  I had friends who were not allowed to read any fantasy of any kind because of Deuteronomy  18:10-11 and other verses in a similar vein.  I obviously disagree with their application of this passage,  (The Lord of the Rings is my favorite book) but I am not really interested in that right now.  If someone is consistently staying away from all things witch related based on that, I won't argue with them unless they argue with me.

The thing that I have trouble with is the liking The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia but refusing to have anything to do with Harry Potter based on those verses.  (Though I could accept LotR being selectively read over Chronicles, despite the fact that Lewis is more explicitly Christian--he is also more explicitly dealing with Witches and Wizards, some of whom are good.)

I don't even want to get into that debate completely right now, though.  (Though I would...it's an interesting topic.)  That is just a bit of background for how I got here.

What I am interested in discussing, if anyone wants to take me up on it, is an, I believe, invalid, and possibly dangerous distinction between Fantasy and Science fiction.  See, I actually have friends who are obssessed with Star Wars, but will not read Harry Potter.  This is find absolutely mystifying, as at the very least Harry Potter is written from a Judeo-Christian worldview, and Star Wars is written (well...tries to be, but fails, I'd argue...but that is another huge tangent) from an Eastern Mysticism-ish worldview. 

But more than that, I think those who do make that distinction, do so from a dangerous Modern assumption that has so inundated our society for the past 400ish years that we don't even recognize it:  The assumption that Science is the ultimate source of truth. 

Mini, very reductive history lesson.  Before the 16th century science and magic were to all intents and purposes the same thing.  Alchemy was Chemistry.  Astrology was Astronomy.  Etc.  Now, what is the difference between Alchemy and Chemistry now?  Well, we have more knowledge of molecules and protons and electrons and whatever (I like physics, not chem...so I've put most of chemistry out of my mind. hehe), so instead of transmuting dirt to gold through magical concoctions, we create a chemical reaction that moves valence electrons and changes stuff into other elements and stuff like that.  I would argue that the only difference between those two things is the source of power and truth value.  The power of alchemy came from unknown natural forces.  The power of chemistry comes from known scientific facts.  Why are they known?  Why do we trust our observation and believe it will work next time?  Because it's SCIENCE! How did we get to believe the sentence preceding it?  Because in the 16th century and on, men decided that they could figure stuff out by observation and research, and it had truth value.  I'm not disagreeing with that.  But somewhere in the 18th century it became the ultimate truth value.  If a scientist says it, it is far more true than if a philosopher or musician says it just because it's science (no, I'm not a bitter Humanities student.  Why do you ask?)  Like I said that was reductive...and well...not very good, but I could point to better sources that discuss this issue.  (Lewis is a good one, actually.  He worked in the late Medieval/Early Renaissance period, so this is sort of his thing...)

Now we come to scifi and fantasy.  In most fantasy, power comes from natural (sometimes supernatural) but scientifically inexplicable sources.  In SciFi power comes from natural but (pseudo)scientifically explicable sources.  In Harry Potter, certain children are born with at innate ability to "do magic"--for example to "disapparate," that is, to move from one place to another by disappearing and then reappearing.  In Star Trek people in the future are able to scientifically transport from one place to another by having hteir molecules all separated and then reassembled in another place by some scientifica man-made machine.  Both are equally unimaginable now.  But the scifi scenario is "scientific." 

So I guess the first question that I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on is, am I being fair in saying that the difference in scifi and fantasy is purely a scientific truth value issue?

And then, my next point--the reason I think it's worth discussing, rather than just making this a live and let live issue, is that I think it's dangerous for Christians or any Theists to make this distinction.  Why is this?  Because so much of what is anti-God in our culture today is based on the preferment of the "scientific" to the "spiritual."  Why should we buy into that by making the scientific of higher truth value than the scientifically inexplicable "natural" or "spiritual."

Like I said, I'd love to hear the thoughts of anyone else on my f-list who has thought about this issue.  I'm not sure that what I've written has made any sense.  I have trouble getting complex thoughts into a very coherent form before I've moved on to the next step in a complex thought...and this is as far as my mind has made it on this issue...