But aren't the great majority of religious people in Star Trek non-humans?
Other than the few references in the original series, it's Vulcans, Klingons, Bajorans, Telaxaians and whatever aliens of the week.
Also Roddenberry and the movies after TMP didn't really mix. His word was given and usually ignored apparently.
Roddenberry's later stance was that HUMANS moved on from religion. Not Picard. Unless I missed some episodes in other series. I guess Chakotay had some spirit animal.
I guess some of the characters didn't get the memo. Regardless of Kirk's line about finding just the one god to be sufficient, both McCoy and Uhura say things that give the impression that they're believers.
You know, you're right, I really misremembered Picard's stance and can't find where I got that from. So, I withdraw my statement. Sorry.
I also forgot Picard included Christmas in his Nexus fantasy, so there goes that.
Having said that, it is interesting that the majority of religions shown on Star Trek are demonstrated by the aliens and that more often references to human religion are made in the context of the original series and their films.
As time goes on, I think most audiences would prefer not to have preaching included in their entertainment (that's what RL church and the religious channels are for). But religion is still a basic part of human society in many ways, so it provides a source for stories. As with other issues, it's easier to accept an examination of religion/faith issues when they're presented from a non-human pov, or at least one that isn't current.
It's easier to make up details of an alien religion than to get the details right about real religions, because there'll always be someone who disputes any claims that might be made about a real religion, or find the portrayal inaccurate, biased, or inauthentic.
Yep. I'm writing a story (absolutely nothing Star Trek-related) that's based in the 11th century. I decided I did not want to fret about getting the religion/faith details right/wrong for that time, so it's an alternate universe and I made up the religion(s) the characters follow. And at least in my story, nobody is trying to kill anyone else over which god(s) they worship. They have other reasons.
So it's possible to explore some religious themes, but from a different perspective.
Plus, religions that believe in an "end of days" might struggle to reconcile far future/fantasy fictional happenings with the events depicted in their prophecies.
Not to say that it can't be done, however. I've read Christian sci-fi and fantasy that either avoids the question (by depicting characters who focus more on developing Christ-like character and faith than how their world lines up with apocalypse prophecies) or uses allegory of fictional lands to promote Christian concepts instead of having the Bible as written exist in the story.
Somewhere in my book collection I have an anthology of short stories from a religion/faith theme. One of the stories is about a war on another planet, and the characters are a young girl and a soldier, from opposite sides of the conflict. It's heartbreaking in a way. And there's a novel called Noah II about a futuristic "Noah" who is directed to build a spaceship to save some of the people and animals from Earth being destroyed.
Imagining how the Bible might prophesy first contact, Starfleet, etc, or introducing an imaginary third testament that speaks of such things might pose a challenge.
The longer time goes on without some of this stuff happening that's been prophesized, the more the likelihood that someone will decide a third testament would be needed to explain why the prophecies haven't come true.
And Pike once spoke of his experiences attending church.
Did he speak of them as recent or long ago? There are many people who attended church as children or young adults who later opt not to continue.
This touches on comments made here (AND in TNZ I think) in regards the Bible as literature.
Spock is basically resurrected with his spirit or consciousness being restored into his physical body. McCoy is the person who carried that consciousness and, thus, facilitated that restoration. McCoy identifies himself as "Son of David".
In the Bible Jesus is the resurrection and the life. He is the one that facilitates a dead individual's consciousness being restored in their physical body. In the scriptures Jesus is referred to as the "Son of David".
McCoy's father's name is David. It's got nothing to do with Old Testament David.
Was that in "New Eden"? Not finding a reference to it in the transcript. He identifies a building as a church, though. I assume his father might have taken him to churches and other places of worship.
You don't have to go to church to know a building is a church. Most of them are pretty obvious.
Deforest Kelley wanted McCoy's father to be David, to honor his own father. I think that from a writing standpoint, a casual, low-brow sounding name, like Son of Frank or Son of Ralph, would have made a better contrast with all that Vulcan profundity. McCoy was supposed to be a fish out of water, not a fellow high-brow with a "son of king" sounding name.
I never made any connection with biblical David when I saw this (this is one I saw in the theatre). I just assumed McCoy's father's name was David. Should the writers have said no to Kelley's request and scoured the history books to make sure they didn't choose a name of someone who had been a king?
I think "Son of Ralph" would probably have set off laughter in the theatre - not the ideal reaction for such a solemn moment in the movie.
Yeah, and how about McCoy's dad having the same first name as Kirk's son?
So? One year when I was working in musical theatre, there were FIVE people with the same name (me, the stage manager, one of the stage hands, and two dancers). I have a very common first name, at least for my generation and the one following.
