Considering the state of mathematics at that time, I don't know how we could reasonably expect calculations. Imagery is about all that I think we could possibly expect.
Picard's atheism?
- Thread starter killax
- Start date
Considering the state of mathematics at that time, I don't know how we could reasonably expect calculations. Imagery is about all that I think we could possibly expect.
Yeah that's pretty much it.
Hopefully nobody takes serious offense to this post:
I can't think of a particular occasion that would hallmark Picard's atheism, but I'd hope that by Star Trek's time given all that they've achieved they'd have grown out of the need for religion and all of the differences and problems it causes. I think that this would have been much more evident in Trek if it wasn't such a prude show; that meaning because it's on Network TV they really can't do very much without getting called out for it, and this is really even worse in the later shows.
Now I don't think there aren't religious characters in Trek as I don't think religion will ever COMPLETELY go away, but I think Picard is easily one of the characters who would be highly skeptical of the idea, just as he is of any 'higher being' or power in TNG itself.
I can't think of a particular occasion that would hallmark Picard's atheism, but I'd hope that by Star Trek's time given all that they've achieved they'd have grown out of the need for religion and all of the differences and problems it causes. I think that this would have been much more evident in Trek if it wasn't such a prude show; that meaning because it's on Network TV they really can't do very much without getting called out for it, and this is really even worse in the later shows.
Now I don't think there aren't religious characters in Trek as I don't think religion will ever COMPLETELY go away, but I think Picard is easily one of the characters who would be highly skeptical of the idea, just as he is of any 'higher being' or power in TNG itself.
Sorry, I only included the verse with the line I was referring to in it... vs 21, 22 and 26-28 follow that theme. But the universe is a "tent" over the earth, its all around it, and you can't really only stretch part of it in that contest.
Wiki says both what you say about the ancient people knowing that the earth was a sphere and that its a modern thing that we believe Christians thought the earth was flat "Myth of the Flat Earth", but then it also says:
"Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus."
But I think I'm mixing up the "discovery" of the earth being round with the discovery that the sun didn't orbit the earth because you know that if we aren't the centre of the universe... thats just... terrible...
Excuse me? What was that?
^Where did my part go...? Maybe the post was too long... anyway, you've never heard about that? In the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar is said to have gone insane for several years, then returned. His insanity was a punishment for giving himself credit for things attributed to God if memory serves. And historians thought that the idea of an Emperor going insane for several years and then getting his position back for any reason was absurd. But then they found a... column? One of those little stone things with text, but I think it was like a cylinder in the picture... anyway, it indicated that he did that it did happen- he did go away, and that his son ruled in his absence.
Wiki mentions it:
Lightinspire
Lieutenant Commander
Well, this is 2009 and there are all kinds of religions so I doubt it if they will all go away in a few hundred more. I could deal with atheism more than I could the other and you all know what I'm referring to so I won't state it here.
Well, the only way you can see the heaven as a "tent" is from an earth-bound point of view: you stand on the ground and see the sky above your head like a enormous tent (an image common between nomadic people), kept open (stretched) by a gigantic god. Nothing about that need any additional explanation. That's quite different from the expansion of space itself like it's inferred by observation in the known universe. But I'm afraid we are drifting very off topic, PM me if you want to know more about modern cosmology.
I don't find it odd that the Bible recounts with some accuracy historical events that happened at the time of its writing. Nothing strange about that. I've said it's not perfect, not that it's completely wrong in every respect.
Anything that is written in retrospect is going to lose accuracy with the time between the event and the writing. Added to this the authors are writing about miracles, so the link to reality becomes even more tenuous. What fascinates me about religious texts is that they obviously started out as speculation which coalesced into religion with time.
But enough of that. Picard was written to be true to GR's vision of the future, without religion. If subsequent writers occasionally goofed it isn't really that important.
But enough of that. Picard was written to be true to GR's vision of the future, without religion. If subsequent writers occasionally goofed it isn't really that important.
Umm, I'd say those threads stand proud proof of the fact that we can make anything slip through scrutiny, with suitable reinterpretation...
And really, Picard in "Who Watches" objected to loss of rationality in the Mintakan culture, whereas in the later cases he approved of the spirituality of cultures for which that was characteristic. That is Picard's religion: he swears in the name of the Prime Directive, and would obviously despair at the sight of SF/UFP influence corrupting a rational culture into a spiritual one.
Odds are, he'd feel similar disgust if SF/UFP corrupted a spiritual culture into a rational one... It's not the content he objects to, but the process.
Timo Saloniemi
And really, Picard in "Who Watches" objected to loss of rationality in the Mintakan culture, whereas in the later cases he approved of the spirituality of cultures for which that was characteristic. That is Picard's religion: he swears in the name of the Prime Directive, and would obviously despair at the sight of SF/UFP influence corrupting a rational culture into a spiritual one.
Odds are, he'd feel similar disgust if SF/UFP corrupted a spiritual culture into a rational one... It's not the content he objects to, but the process.
Timo Saloniemi
IIRC, McCoy's comment comes when he is in the presence of a being he believes could possibly be God. This could easily cause him to re-evaluate his beliefs. Add in the fact that he has recently been psychologically affected by Sybok, and given the (in my opinion, though YMMV) slightly flippant nature of his tone, then we can't say for certain that this has any bearing on his prior views.
His use of the term 'the Almighty' is intriguing, and strongly suggests that he was raised with an awareness of Christianity. But like his use of 'sweet Jesus' as an epithet, it may only indicate religious knowledge as opposed to actual belief.
Ah, back to "Who Watches the Watchers" again. What I find funny is that people speak of several ancient religions as nonsense (and usually in favor of the one they champion), but when Picard says something similar, it automatically makes him an atheist. He may have spoken too broadly in a moment of frustration, but what he was essentially getting at was that there's a pattern of difficulty that religion has caused on Earth, and he didn't want to be a party to it on Mintaka. That says nothing of his own personal beliefs any more than me saying that Zeus is a crock.
Also, while religion and science don't have to be mutually exclusive, they often are. There is plenty in the Bible that if taken literally, defies science as we currently understand it. I know a lot of Christians will try and bend and twist what they know to make their precious stories fit, but at a certain point it just becomes a stretch or far too complex a solution for such a simple problem. It's best to just not take things literally, but just to take in the moral. However, there are even questionable morals in the Bible as well, so it all becomes a pick-and-choose situation for most people. That lack of definition makes the Bible itself too shaky of a concept when a book that is supposed to be the word of an omnipotent God should be infallible.
Also, while religion and science don't have to be mutually exclusive, they often are. There is plenty in the Bible that if taken literally, defies science as we currently understand it. I know a lot of Christians will try and bend and twist what they know to make their precious stories fit, but at a certain point it just becomes a stretch or far too complex a solution for such a simple problem. It's best to just not take things literally, but just to take in the moral. However, there are even questionable morals in the Bible as well, so it all becomes a pick-and-choose situation for most people. That lack of definition makes the Bible itself too shaky of a concept when a book that is supposed to be the word of an omnipotent God should be infallible.
Ward:
When I first saw this question about Picard, I immediately thought of this passage you cited. Based on this statement, I would say that at best, Picard is an open-minded agnostic.
Red Ranger
Lightinspire
Lieutenant Commander
Well, the only way you can see the heaven as a "tent" is from an earth-bound point of view: you stand on the ground and see the sky above your head like a enormous tent (an image common between nomadic people), kept open (stretched) by a gigantic god. Nothing about that need any additional explanation. That's quite different from the expansion of space itself like it's inferred by observation in the known universe. But I'm afraid we are drifting very off topic, PM me if you want to know more about modern cosmology.
I don't find it odd that the Bible recounts with some accuracy historical events that happened at the time of its writing. Nothing strange about that. I've said it's not perfect, not that it's completely wrong in every respect.
What about the prophecies of the bible that was written long ago and are coming true in our generation. The bible is as current in every respect. Jesus predicted the overtaking of Jerusalem more than 40 years before it happened. But of course He had a better perspective on things.
Wut?
Even Atheists celebrate Christmas. Nowadays it is as much a cultural thing as a religious one, in some parts of the world at least. So Picard celebrating Christmas may have nothing to do with faith.
Certainly some religions exist in TNG time. I recall one episode (possibly 'Data's Day', but I can't be sure) referring to the Hindu Festival of Lights. So Earth itself is not totally secular. But we still don't have enough information, IMHO, to say whether or not any particular character (except Chakotay) had religious belief.
Certainly some religions exist in TNG time. I recall one episode (possibly 'Data's Day', but I can't be sure) referring to the Hindu Festival of Lights. So Earth itself is not totally secular. But we still don't have enough information, IMHO, to say whether or not any particular character (except Chakotay) had religious belief.
Actually, one could argue that Christmas lost its true meaning when the Christians began celebrating it in honor of the birth of Jesus...
Yule, the festival of death and rebirth, is the ultimate in cyclic worldview - quite a bit more concrete than festivals of summer solistice or the equinoxes which don't have the death-of-nature aspect, and painfully obvious in its symbolism even to the nonbeliever. Yet here comes a religion to which cyclicity is anathema, and puts the occasion to inappropriate use by applying an unlikely interpretation of its own holy writings...
At least we here in Finland hold fast. No Christmas here: it's Yule and stays Yule, even if the toys with a child in a manger sell almost equally well to the ones with a fat man in a red suit.
Timo Saloniemi
Yule, the festival of death and rebirth, is the ultimate in cyclic worldview - quite a bit more concrete than festivals of summer solistice or the equinoxes which don't have the death-of-nature aspect, and painfully obvious in its symbolism even to the nonbeliever. Yet here comes a religion to which cyclicity is anathema, and puts the occasion to inappropriate use by applying an unlikely interpretation of its own holy writings...
At least we here in Finland hold fast. No Christmas here: it's Yule and stays Yule, even if the toys with a child in a manger sell almost equally well to the ones with a fat man in a red suit.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
- Poll
