Some of my friends really like science fiction. They read it the way my wife reads murder mysteries, one after another, like a chain smoker. I've never cared for science fiction, although I too have read a number of murder mysteries, so it's not that I don't like to read fiction. I read a lot of fiction and have made numerous references to various authors on this blog (Ian McEwan, David Lodge, John Mortimer, John Le Carre, Philip Roth, and others).
Lately I've been wondering why I don't like science fiction. I think the reason is that real science (that is, the fact of science) is more interesting than fictional science ever could be. I don't think, though, that "mainstream" fiction is similarly less interesting than the real life on which it is based. Real life, though I enjoy it and think I have a handle on it, just doesn't hold together or coherently signify the way life can as presented by a competent fiction writer. A good novel or short story can reveal truths that we haven't discovered from actual experience. And the plots of our actual lives are just not as compelling as the plots on which most novels are built.
Religious fiction isn't a recognized category the way science fiction is, even if a writer named
Tim LaHaye has published quite a few "Left Behind" novels in what might be described as the religious fantasy (or apocalyptic) genre. The very idea is revolting to me, but apparently LaHaye has millions of readers, who I suppose come mainly from the ranks of the religious. I'm not sure who readers of science fiction are, for the little science fiction I've read would seem to appeal more to people who like to fantasize than to people interested in actual science.
Anyway, it seems to me that "religious fiction" is redundant, for by being religious you're already involved in fiction, if not in outright fantasy, notwithstanding that the Bible and the Koran do contain a few factual statements. LaHaye has a huge potential readership already conditioned to fantasy of the religious variety.