Fascinating discussion. I always saw TOS as completely Secular Humanist, as I understand Gene was.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Gene might have been Secular Humanist, his staff might not have been.
I wonder, what happened o Flint after Dr. McCoy diagnosed him.
Flint had the option to go back to Earth, right?
I know the last that we saw of him was in that episode in TOS.
He was, but also influenced by a variety of spiritual traditions. As well as the fact that he had several writers who would bring in their own ideas. Which is more interesting to me.
As a DS9 fan and a TNG fan I think TNG wasn't as all perfect as that and their strictly fans would say. I think their characters had their quirks, and they would even argue. That's what I stand by.
"Broken Bow(ENT)" was the best Trek between FC and "New Eden(DSC)."
Another data point is "Who Mourns for Adonais?" [http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/33.htm]:
APOLLO: But you're of the same nature. I could sweep you out of existence with a wave of my hand and bring you back again. I can give life or death. What else does mankind demand of its gods?
KIRK: Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate.
KIRK: Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate.
It just wouldn't have done, for Kirk to say that they did not need Apollo, because mankind no longer had use for any gods at all. Kirk basically says that mankind needs no other gods such as Apollo, because mankind has already found its god. That was the minimum bar that they had to clear so as not to offend the average viewer.
What I find interesting about Kirk's line is that the choice of the word "adequate" implicitly opens the possibility of further cultural development, as if Kirk is also saying that theological questions are still considered open (cf [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adequate]: "of a quality that is acceptable but not better than acceptable // Her first performance was merely adequate").
That or as often happens in Star Trek, it was just a clumsy use of the word "adequate".
"Quite adequate" is an odd combination like "exceptionally average" for example.
I never got the impression she was supposed to be God, any more than the Q, Organians, Metron, etc.
Ah yes, the line that taught young me the meaning of studio interference.
Considering that a Jesus appearing on every planet with intelligent life would lend great evidence to the existence of a God, where would that leave a religion based on faith in the unseen?
Perhaps unseen to mean not everyone has the same experience, i.e. not witnessing that with their own eyes. Certainly I would imagine that many people would find such an occurrence to be more in line with Arda than divine intervention. I love the idea of a Jesus appearing on every planet, but I doubt it would unfold the same way as on Earth.
Religion is a weird thing, on one hand, they don't want to hear any counter-argument and talk about faith and things like that but on the other hand, they keep trying to prove their case all the time. I mean there was this guy on another forum who would get into heated arguments all the time but as soon as counter-arguments to which he didn't have a satisfactory answer were objected. He'd say stuff like I don' care I have my faith or we'll see who's right at the moment of death or whatever... Or some weak variation of Pascal's wager... Anyway, after a while, people just ignored his threads and they kept disappearing in the list of threads so he would post a small remark to push them back up. until the mods got fed up and locked them up.
Every time I run against a counter argument I go and do more research. My faith always ends up stronger as a result. I don't need Pascal's wager (though I like it), or whatnot. Ultimately, I think it is up to each person to read, to ask questions, and explore. Which is why I never found Trek at odds with my personal beliefs and spiritual faith; I'm exploring something.
Ditto.
I honestly didn't remember that bit about "the one"! I need to do a TOS rewatch.
When I've talked with friends of various faiths, we've all agreed that a faith that cannot stand up to thinking and discussion is no faith at all. As @fireproof78 said above, we're exploring.
And while we may have differences on various terms and specific points, the big Values and Ethics and suchlike we tend to agree on. The more I study, the less I worry about the specifics and see that the basic foundations are the same. Same mountain, different paths.
TNG "Pen Pals" shows that theological questions are still open in the 24th century [http://www.chakoteya.net/NextGen/141.htm]:
I think that this conversation is a bright spot in pre-S3 TNG.
PICARD: It is no longer a matter of how wrong Data was, or why he did it. The dilemma exists. We have to discuss the options. And please talk freely.
WORF: There are no options. The Prime Directive is not a matter of degrees. It is an absolute.
PULASKI: I have a problem with that kind of rigidity. It seems callous and even a little cowardly.
PICARD: Doctor, I'm sure that is not what the Lieutenant meant, but in a situation like this, we have to be cautious. What we do today may profoundly affect upon the future. If we could see every possible outcome
RIKER: We'd be gods, which we're not. If there is a cosmic plan, is it not the height of hubris to think that we can, or should, interfere?
LAFORGE: So what are you saying? That the Dremans are fated to die?
RIKER: I think that's an option we should be considering.
LAFORGE: Consider it considered, and rejected.
TROI: If there is a cosmic plan, are we not a part of it? Our presence at this place at this moment in time could be a part of that fate.
LAFORGE: Right, and it could be part of that plan that we interfere.
[etc.]
WORF: There are no options. The Prime Directive is not a matter of degrees. It is an absolute.
PULASKI: I have a problem with that kind of rigidity. It seems callous and even a little cowardly.
PICARD: Doctor, I'm sure that is not what the Lieutenant meant, but in a situation like this, we have to be cautious. What we do today may profoundly affect upon the future. If we could see every possible outcome
RIKER: We'd be gods, which we're not. If there is a cosmic plan, is it not the height of hubris to think that we can, or should, interfere?
LAFORGE: So what are you saying? That the Dremans are fated to die?
RIKER: I think that's an option we should be considering.
LAFORGE: Consider it considered, and rejected.
TROI: If there is a cosmic plan, are we not a part of it? Our presence at this place at this moment in time could be a part of that fate.
LAFORGE: Right, and it could be part of that plan that we interfere.
[etc.]
I think that this conversation is a bright spot in pre-S3 TNG.
"cosmic plan" is not a neutral expression. It's extremely biased and anti-scientific. Most Christians I know don't even believe in such a thing. Riker is such an ass in that episode. I guess someone had to be and he was elected. The "cosmic plan" remark is incredibly stupid and could be used to do nothing... ever. I mean you see your neighbor drop on the floor. Hey, maybe there's a cosmic plan there. Don't interfere. Leave it alone. See what I mean?
That whole episode, among others, put me off the TNG crew for so long. Riker is insufferable.
No, I don't see what you mean at all. I hear "It's God's plan" and the like invoked IRL all the time. "Cosmic plan," "God's plan," same difference. The chain of reasoning whereby Troi concludes that they are free to make their own choices without interfering in any hypothetical cosmic plan is the opposite of incredibly stupid. Without the discussion, they couldn't have gotten there.
<Kirk>Eh… what does god need with Star Trek? </Kirk>
Considering that they haven't even solved 'basic' questions pushed right in front of their nose by that time (is Data sentient or conscious? Should he be allowed full individual's rights?), why should they be expected to have solved much more theoretical and 'distant' questions by that time?
Also, even if it were supposedly 'settled' by that time, there probably always would be individuals that thought differently, perhaps in secret (much like it was pretty much settled Christianity was the truth in middle ages in Europe).
Similar threads
- Locked
