Religion in a sci-fi when you don't feel comfortable making one up?

Here's the deal.

I'm world-building. There are no humans in the story at all. There are several nations with their own cultures.

But the problem is, I'm a devout Christian, and I just don't feel comfortable making up religions. And if I can't even write a story without feeling like throwing up, then what's the point of writing at all?

The path I'm currently taking is just not to mention it, because if I don't mention it, it could be anything. But will the absence everywhere be too conspicuous and shatter Willing Suspension of Disbelief? That's what I'm worried about.

(Any posts to the effect of "you're dumb for worrying about this" will be reported on sight.)

edited 2nd Mar '14 1:16:53 PM by BaffleBlend

You could probably just get away with mentioning temples in passing as part of the description - just one or two times should do - and then ignore the matter entirely.

Yes, they have religions, no it's not relevant to the story, let's get on with the events, eh?

Readers will automatically make the relevant assumption - that character's actions are in keeping with their natures, and that includes their religion and how well they personally adhere to it - and not worry about it too much.

You're dumb for worrying about thisI think your approach is perfectly fine. Plenty of fantasy doesn't deal with religion in any meaningful way, or at all, and it doesn't take away from it. A Wizard of Earthsea is very highly regarded and (IIRC, it's been a while since I read it) doesn't mention religion (some of the sequels do deal with it, though). Although its backstory is essentially a mix between Catholicism and Norse mythology, I don't recall Lord of the Rings even mentioning religion explicitly.

If you're talking about sci-fi, that's even less of an issue. While there are works of sci-fi that deal with religion (Dune, the later works of Philip K. Dick), the vast majority doesn't even touch on it.

I'm largely in agreement with the previous two posters, I believe: if it doesn't touch on the story, and you're not touching on elements that one would expect to include it, then I doubt that a lack of mention would likely be terribly jarring.

If you do find that starts to impinge on the story, you could perhaps stick with being vague (as Madrugada suggested): a character might talk about going to pray without your mentioning to whom they pray, for example.

Thanks for the advice. And especially thanks for not attacking me while giving it like most people do. I'll admit I was more than a little nervous to ask...

Baffle, you're in TV Tropes. We play nice here.

If the the alien's religion doesnt directly affect the plot, character development, or the atmosphere of the story in any way- then dont mention it at all. If its isnt serving some useful purpose, you dont need it.

But if it does serve some useful purpose- then perhaps as an author this is an area that you need to explore- esp. if it makes you uncomfortable. Those can be the type of stories that really teach you something about yourself. BTW- I'm a practicing Christian myself, so I understand your dilemma. I shouldnt worry that you are going to weaken your faith simply by writing about a fictional religion. Remember that is more or less what C.S. Lewis did for the Chronicles of Narnia.

Inventing a religion can be fun. Start with some aspect of the alien's nature that is different from human beings, and let that help determine what they believe. For example, a race with almost perfect empathy might worship a God who is the embodiment of passionate emotion. Have fun with it, and I think it will work out better than you expect.

edited 2nd Mar '14 3:02:58 PM by DeMarquis

...well... Alright. Thank you. I'll definitely keep all of your suggestions in mind if I need it for setting description or character motivation. There's still a lot that's undecided.

Creating a religion only becomes necessary when your story has deities or starts exploring what happens after death. It also depends on whether you define "religion" as the existence of deities or the worship of them. Tolkien had a full-blown pantheon play major parts in his stories, yet never mentioned the worship of said deities.

It might also be worth mentioning that his pantheon wasn't entirely divorced from his own (Christian, I believe) faith, as I recall: the "gods" were working beneath a single, greater deity; there's even a devil-analogue in Melkor.

edited 3rd Mar '14 7:27:40 PM by ArsThaumaturgis

Actually, the Devil analogue was Sauron, not Melkor. Sauron was a lesser deity who relied on manipulation more than raw power, just like Satan. Melkor was more like an Archangel Michael turned evil.

Tolkien's pantheon is essentially an Abrahamic-styled Top God and Messianic Archetypes with a lower Indo-European pantheon of nature and Anthropomorphic Personification deities.

edited 3rd Mar '14 7:50:44 PM by shiro_okami

I kinda ran into the same problem:

• Creating alien religions (that aren't insulting Real Life ones), having aliens who follow Earth religious (and showing my work).

• Several characters aren't human (aliens, cyborgs, Half Human Hybrids and Transhumans) who are pagan, christian et al.

I think the key is respect. Futurama is an Affectionate Parody of religion and has "robot Jesus".

I've read fanfics, stories and even (gasp!) porn where the author has an obvious axe to grind. It's both jarring and insulting. But then again most are hack writers (Star Trek Voyager I'm looking at you, Berman & Bragga, -_- ).

There are many works that follow a "christian theme" only because it's one of the major religious that has good vs. evil, delivers an aesop regularly and has an "end of the world". Neon Genesis Evangelion is the Ur-Example (it can be off-putting to some, Jesu Otaku is one big name detractor). But it has been done. Look at Narnia (C.S. Lewis was trying to invoke christian imagery) and even Tron Legacy (for a softer take).

So don't stress, hey, if people in the comments section call you out, you can say Write What You Know.

Have fun and happy writing!

(My apologies for the delay in response. ^^;; )

I'm inclined to argue that both Sauron and Melkor have elements of a "Devil" figure: Sauron, as you pointed out, is the manipulator and tempter; on the other hand, Melkor is the figure responsible for the presence of evil in the world, is the one sealed away until a final battle, and has a story that seems to parallel the classical fall from grace—having started off as one of the greatest (I think), and falling as a result of pride.

True on all except the last point. Melkor truly was the mightiest of the Valar (until he squandered his power), but Satan was nothing more than a random angel, while Archangel Michael is the greatest angel (that's why I call Melkor an Archangel Michael gone bad).

I'm pretty tired, and so may very well be forgetting or missing something, and may well be forgetful on this point on top of that, but I do think that I've seen representations of the Devil as being either the most powerful or one of the most powerful of angels before falling; while perhaps not Biblical in origin, I'm not sure that the famous "war in Heaven" story is either.

I'll also note that, as I recall, Sauron fell for reasons rather different to those that I recall seeing given for the Devil: Sauron originally wanted order in the world, and genuinely believed that Melkor had the power to effect a neat, orderly world. Over time, however, the goal-list of "gain power in order to impose order" was eroded down to "gain power"...

I am speaking of The Bible's description of Satan and nothing else. Portrayals of the Devil as the strongest angel are completely Word of Dante. You might be thinking of "Lucifer", which comes from a misinterpretation of a passage in Isaiah. The "war in heaven" bit is in The Bible, and it ends with Satan defeated by Archangel Michael, who actually is the strongest angel.

Also, Melkor also fell for different reasons from Satan. While both could be attributed to pride and envy, Satan wanted the worship of and rulership over humanity, while Melkor fell because he wanted have the same power as Eru and create his own beings. Satan wanted Yahweh's sovereignty, while Melkor wanted Eru's creative power.

Fair enough; I'll confess that I'm not feeling up to researching the "war in Heaven" bit at the moment, so I'll leave that for the moment, if I may.

That said, I'm inclined to disagree with entirely disregarding Word of Dante in considering whether a character is a "Devil" figure: after all, Word of Dante affects how people see the elements that it affects. If I recall correctly, the depiction of faeries as winged started (or at least became popular) in Victorian times; that doesn't mean that a modern winged, pointy-eared character isn't a faerie-figure, because the Victorian image has become part of the pool from which depictions of faeries are drawn.

Similarly, I'm inclined to argue that a character not being a perfect analogue doesn't disqualify him/her/etc. from being an analogue.

It also seems reasonable to suggest that the different works have different "Devil-analogues", with Melkor taking the role in the Silmarillion as the "bringer of evil and tainter of the world", and Sauron, starting in the Silmarillion and taking over more-or-less completely in The Lord of the Rings takes the role as the "tempter and manipulator"; both take the role of "adversary of good".

Finally, it may simply be that Tolkien simply wasn't aiming for a full counterpart to Christianity in his cosmology—after all, the Valar, who I seem to recall have roles in the processes of the world much like polytheistic gods, probably wouldn't fit very well.