Trek's View of Religion

[Infinitus]

Is it me or is the idea of Religion in Star Trek kind of doushy and a bit stuck up. Like just because we make contact with aliens we completely discard all forms of worship. I mean, in the TNG episode," Who Watches the Watchers" Picard and the rest of the Enterprise try to prevent an underdeveloped society from entering back to a religious civilization. I mean, I know that Roddenberry was an atheist, but he didn't have to treat the idea of Religion that badly.

I mean hear is an example of how a sci-fi show treats religion and adds in scientific twist to it. In Babylon 5, many of the alien races, including Humans, still believe in their respected religious beliefs. Then it is revealed that all the holy figures in their religions are actually the Vorlons. Does that make them stop believing. NO. It only increases their faith.

So what do you think.

 

[RegFan]

It varies from series to series. Voyager didn't portray religion negatively (Chakotay). There's also the Bajoran religion in DS9. But still, there has never been a religion in Trek that's like a real life religion (meaning there's no scientific proof about whether or not a god exist) aside from the reference to the Hindu Festival of Lights in Data's Day.

 

[RyuRoots]

If memory serves, the Mintakans reverting to their old ways in Who Watches the Watchers entailed sacrificing people, among other things. And the fact of that matter is that it WOULD irrevocably damage their history if Picard let them keep thinking he was a god.

As far as Trek in general, I've always thought that humans have grown up to a point where people can believe what they believe without a need to shove it down everyone else's throat, like quite a few people today. I mean, without people to be attention whores or running around calling other people bad for not believing what they believe, it wouldn't get much exposure since any religion is a pretty personal experience for the one concerned.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Had Picard kept his argument SPECIFICALLY to the Mintakan people, and the fact that they made a choice and the cultural contamination overrode the choice they made of their own free will, I would've agreed. Belief must be by choice, not by coercion. The trouble was when he made the sweeping comment about humanity and all other races, that religion is something all races must evolve past. That was quite bigoted, not to mention hypocritical out of the mouth of Mr. Tolerance and Relativism.

 

[Whoa Nellie]

Although I have always been a huge Star Trek fan, I also enjoy Babylon 5, Stargate SG1, and Firefly. Each show has its own strengths and weaknesses.

The respect and insightful treatment of different religious faiths is one area I feel where Babylon 5 far surpasses Star Trek. Two of my favorite episodes of Babylon 5 are "And the Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place" and "Passing Through Gethsemane." "And the Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place" shows leaders from some of Earth's major religions coming together to help the resistance against the evil President Clark's dictatorship. "Passing Through Gethsemane" is basically a Passion Play put into a science fiction context. Both episodes are brilliantly done.

Warmest Wishes,
Whoa Nellie

 

[RyuRoots]

Had Picard kept his argument SPECIFICALLY to the Mintakan people, and the fact that they made a choice and the cultural contamination overrode the choice they made of their own free will, I would've agreed. Belief must be by choice, not by coercion. The trouble was when he made the sweeping comment about humanity and all other races, that religion is something all races must evolve past. That was quite bigoted, not to mention hypocritical out of the mouth of Mr. Tolerance and Relativism.

As I recall, he said nothing of the sort. He said he would not send them back to a primitive age of fear and was very emphatic about it.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I think the problem is that Trek, at least in TNG and some TOS (not all) at the very least seemed to imply that religion was "bad", and something to be "evolved beyond", if it didn't outright state it. That is a troubling thing to say, because you can't generalize.

You can't generalize because what is right for one person may not be right for another. I myself, for instance, am not religious. I consider myself highly spiritual, but not religious (I am athiest, for example). That is simply me- I know I am not inclined to believe in gods and if I were to take up a faith I'd be living a lie- and being untrue to myself. But that's me. Other people will each be different. In their cases, if they feel called towards a faith or belief in a deity/deities/etc, they would be living a lie and being untrue if they didn't follow that faith. A society forcing religion on its citizens is to be rejected, but so is a society forcing atheism on them. Each individual must aim to understand themselves and think "what am I inclined to believe? Who am I?". If you find within yourself the belief that there is a god/gods, whatever, you must (I think) choose to follow that, and find a path towards your god or gods. If you find there is no god, do not try to find one. If there is, try to find it.

That's why DS9 got it best; it showed how religion fits each person. Religion itself is neither good or bad- it depends on how true a person is to themselves. Kira Nerys draws her strength and sense of duty to her people from her faith- but so does Weyoun. One is a hero, the other a villain. Religion itself has nothing to do with it objectively- only subjectively. It is how they use it. Kira uses it to push herself to be the best she can, and to expand her horizons, to find the path that best serves Bajor, herself, etc. Weyoun uses it as both a leash to keep him thinking for himself and as an excuse for the atrocities he helps commit. DS9 had the most sensible view of religion- all that matters is what that religion does for you. If you are a true believer, and thus true to yourself- like Kira, Bareil, Opaka, Worf, even Quark- religious faith is a "good" thing. If you are using religion to hide from yourself and your true responsibilities- e.g. Winn, Weyoun- it is "bad".

 

[Penta]

It's good to see I'm not the only one who thinks about this.

My views are well known, I suppose: Sci-fi *typically* handles religion and spirituality badly, with a tin ear in all but rare cases. Trek is just especially bad at it.

For what its worth, my gut instinct has always been that Starfleet has a chaplaincy corps we never hear about - ships smaller than a Galaxy might be handled by lay leaders for each faith (like aboard US nuclear subs IRL), with actual chaplains holding that as an aux duty while working as medics or sciences or counselors aboard Galaxy-class ships (where it seems to make sense you'd want them, esp with families aboard) and Starbases (where the point goes double, since I gather that'd be where Fleeters families usually are). Like RL chaplains, their duties would be towards everyone, not just those of their own faith, and they'd keep civilian clergy of other faiths on "speed-dial" where possible, to provide for the rituals of faiths not their own.

Of course, that's just me.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Those friggin' Trek writers are damn atheists. Man I wish they'd get out of my face. I mean, they are heathens, talking about the scientific method. They even mention the big bang, abiogenesis, and god forbid, the big bang. Oh I mentioned that. What about evolution? There's even a episode with that name. I mean why can't they just talk about about the one believe in a god that we all can agree on, the same one scrawled on our money, the same one that has given mankind the ability to cure deseases, all that??

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Those friggin' Trek writers are damn atheists. Man I wish they'd get out of my face. I mean, they are heathens, talking about the scientific method. They even mention the big bang, abiogenesis, and god forbid, the big bang. Oh I mentioned that. What about evolution? There's even a episode with that name. I mean why can't they just talk about about the one believe in a god that we all can agree on, the same one scrawled on our money, the same one that has given mankind the ability to cure deseases, all that??

Well, Trek rarely gets evolution right, does it? "Genesis", or Dawkins forbid, "Threshold" .

And plenty of believers in god/gods etc also believe in the scientific method, the big bang, evolution, etc.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

We've all been over this SO many times..."science vs. religion" is a completely false dichotomy. (As very credible scientists like Dobzhansky, the source of your first quote, make clear...he is no less credible in his faith because of his science, or in his science because of his faith.)

The problem is the idea that it's all right to belittle those who believe as though they are backwards and less evolved: the unwarranted generalization DN so eloquently described.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Oh of course they don't get evolution right. But man I'm really pissed off everytime I hear an explosion in space.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It's good to see I'm not the only one who thinks about this.

My views are well known, I suppose: Sci-fi *typically* handles religion and spirituality badly, with a tin ear in all but rare cases. Trek is just especially bad at it.

For what its worth, my gut instinct has always been that Starfleet has a chaplaincy corps we never hear about - ships smaller than a Galaxy might be handled by lay leaders for each faith (like aboard US nuclear subs IRL), with actual chaplains holding that as an aux duty while working as medics or sciences or counselors aboard Galaxy-class ships (where it seems to make sense you'd want them, esp with families aboard) and Starbases (where the point goes double, since I gather that'd be where Fleeters families usually are). Like RL chaplains, their duties would be towards everyone, not just those of their own faith, and they'd keep civilian clergy of other faiths on "speed-dial" where possible, to provide for the rituals of faiths not their own.

Of course, that's just me.

Hmmm, well it did mention in TNG: Data's Day that there was a celebration of "the Hindu Festival of Lights" that day.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

They did mention Chistianity as still going on in "Cold Front"

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

(As very credible scientists like Dobzhansky, the source of your first quote, make clear...he is no less credible in his faith because of his science, or in his science because of his faith.)

So maybe if Darwin was a priest or soemthing as well, religious people might give him more credit, I guess.

It all comes back to the same old fallacy, that the person is just as or even more important than the words they say. I don't care who said the quote in my signature so much as the truth of the quote itself. It doesn't matter that either Plato or Socrates might be a fictional creation of the other, the words still hold true. Jesus, however is different. Who he claims to be is not separable form his words.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The problem is the idea that it's all right to belittle those who believe as though they are backwards and less evolved: the unwarranted generalization DN so eloquently described.

Same as the idea that it's all right to accuse those who don't believe of being immoral, dangerous or just oddballs. Star Trek has (very) vague atheistic tendencies, and even those are very bland and often unattended. On the other hand, there is plenty of movies, series, and books based on the very premise that religion is right and shining and atheism is wrong and dangerous. Not to mention, you know, reality, where the chance of an atheist being elected to a public office are almost nil, and atheism in a capital offence in more than one country. So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by the persecutions you are suffering at the hands of Star Trek.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

The problem is the idea that it's all right to belittle those who believe as though they are backwards and less evolved.

....there are plenty of movies, series, and books based on the very premise that religion is right and shining and atheism is wrong and dangerous. Not to mention, you know, reality, where the chance of an atheist being elected to a public office are almost nil, and atheism in a capital offence in more than one country.

Well, I think both sides have very legitimate greviences. I think both the faithful and the athiests suffer greatly- there are plenty of religious folks who won't tolerate atheism and want to impose religious laws, and there are a great many atheists who think religious people are all deluded morons. But let's remember, religious extremists and fanatics are just as likely to abuse other peoples of faith- including their own religion- as they are athiests. A religious fanatic is just as likely in many cases to spit on a believer for kneeling in the wrong place or believing in the wrong interpretation of a text or divine figure as they are a non-believer for not worshipping at all. Indeed, I think those nations where athiesm is a capital offense are often rabidly intolerant of at least half their own faith's offshoots, branches and sects. So I don't think either side has it worse, to be honest. I think they're both treated poorly by the intolerant- and the intolerant can be anyone.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

And remember that atheists, too, have been guilty of serious crimes against humanity just as some people have done while using the excuse of religion.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

But those atheists (because they have no dogma) are not doing it for the cause of atheism. The same cannot be said for those that perform crimes on behalf of religion.

 

[DevilEyes]

Not to mention, you know, reality, where the chance of an atheist being elected to a public office are almost nil, and atheism in a capital offence in more than one country. So forgive me if I'm unimpressed by the persecutions you are suffering at the hands of Star Trek.

In reality, there were quite a few countries where, until just a couple of decades ago, the chances of being given any kind of public office, political or managerial position unless you were an atheist (or pretended to be one) were literally nil. Not to mention more severe violence in certain periods of time, and at least one country (Enver Hoxha's Albania) where religion was officially banned. So it's not like people have never been persecuted in the name of atheism.

But those atheists (because they have no dogma) are not doing it for the cause of atheism. The same cannot be said for those that perform crimes on behalf of religion.

But atheism was an integral part of communism, which was very much a dogma in whose name crimes were commited, and therefore religion was treated as, at best, something backward and undesirable to be mocked (das Opium des Volkes), if not an enemy to be fought against.