Religion in Star Trek

[Ralphis]

I've always kind of felt that though there is religion, there's also a sense of unity among the faiths. An "All paths lead to God" mentality. (Yes, I realize not ALL religions worship a deity. I'm just sayin' ). There's still religion because religion is tradition, and not everyone is willing to break from tradition.

 

[Myasishchev]

Marriage does provides a stabilizing effect on the overall society, divorce negates that stability. While there is a time and place for divorce, what is good for the individual isn't always good for the group.

Stabilizing effect? How so? Single people are a danger to society?

Potentially. French author Michel Houllebecq makes a typically misanthropic case.

In paraphrase, marriage is, fundamentally, a tool for creating a fairer mating market. Resurgence of the ordinary primate mating behaviors--a free mating market--in humanity is at least cause for concern, because free markets always have losers. Extension du domaine de la lutte, indeed.

I don't know how much I agree with this, and although there's an element of truth to it, it characteristically ignores the infinite variations of human motivation, taste, and personality.

 

[Cheapjack]

Maybe it IS technology that has got us into this mess.

Cheepjack, I don't reject technology, but while I enjoy and make use of technology I try never to be too impressed by it. Essentially it nothing but a tool. People are what matter. Social, family, faith, culture. Star Trek isn't solely a technological demonstrator (although that's part of what brought me initially to the show), it about the Human experience, curiosity, interactions. One of the most common complaints about the various series is that many of the character don't "grow." Part of religion is to be more than you are, that you grow by possessing spirituality, having a state of grace make you more.

One of the on going disagreements between peoples of faith and anti-faith is that faith holds the Human Beings are more that just animals with big brains.

ST is about rationalism ... and they all just about agree on that

Data is likely the single most rational being ever to be on Star Trek, his stated goal in his existence is to be more Human than he was. Why? He was already a rational, logical, intellectually being, what more is there? What Data wants is what he doesn't have. Data wishes to transcend the rational, to possess something that logically doesn't existent. Even after Data was equipped with the emotion chip he told the Borg Queen that he aspired to be Human. Which means the emotion chip hadn't provided him with what he needed. Data wanted something that intellectually he shouldn't have wanted.

Data wanted a soul.

T'Girl,

You one said, in another thread, that if you lived in the 24thC, you wold go off-planet and start up a religious colony, living a 18thC sort of existence, that you would reject the 24thC!

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I can't speak for T'Girl, but I think I would prefer being away from the Federation coreworlds myself. I don't know that I'd want to do away with technology, but I would want to be where I was freer to express myself without the constant social pressure to withhold a key part of myself. One of the out-of-Federation human colonies, one that has been settled for long enough to be reasonably safe would be a good choice for me.

 

[StarryEyed]

I can't speak for T'Girl, but I think I would prefer being away from the Federation coreworlds myself. I don't know that I'd want to do away with technology, but I would want to be where I was freer to express myself without the constant social pressure to withhold a key part of myself.

C'mon! Where do we see social pressure in Star Trek to suppress religious thought? There may be social pressure regarding beliefs which are out-right contradictions of reality but not untestable, religious thought. Chakotay wasn't suppressed. Worf wasn't suppressed. The only thing we saw which may have reeked of suppression was the Mintakans and their belief in "The Picard." As we know, that was an undeniably false belief and was the result of people witnessing something which was completely incomprehensible within their framework of understanding of the universe.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Yet Picard did not keep his comments focused on the situation. Had he done that it would've made perfect sense, but instead he chose to make a blanket statement about all races in all situations, and no one objected. As to Worf, or the Bajorans, frankly I think their nonhuman status shielded them. Regarding Chakotay--it was good to see that he was allowed to practice without harassment, but I have to wonder what would've happened if a member of any of the Abrahamic faiths spoke openly, one that does not so easily mesh with the relativistic philosophy Picard and other Trek humans espoused.

 

[StarryEyed]

Yet Picard did not keep his comments focused on the situation. Had he done that it would've made perfect sense, but instead he chose to make a blanket statement about all races in all situations, and no one objected. As to Worf, or the Bajorans, frankly I think their nonhuman status shielded them. Regarding Chakotay--it was good to see that he was allowed to practice without harassment, but I have to wonder what would've happened if a member of any of the Abrahamic faiths spoke openly, one that does not so easily mesh with the relativistic philosophy Picard and other Trek humans espoused.

Picard did speak in general terms regarding superstition and fear but again, I think he was speaking of religion borne of bogus origins.

I don't know where you get the idea that alien religions are tolerated while human ones are not. Once again, I think it would come down to beliefs which are non-rational (those which have no rational justification but are not incompatible with known reality) vs. irrational beliefs (those which are in outright contradiction with known reality). The Abrahamic beliefs are in the latter category if you take their respective holy books as literal but not necessarily so if you take them as metaphor.

Obviously, a person who believes in a literal creation as outlined in the book of Genesis is not going to be a candidate for science officer on a starship. Similarly, a person believing in an absolute right and wrong based on a 2000-year old book under the unsupported belief that it is at the least, the inspired word of God is not going to be a desirable choice to represent humanity to alien races. How could it be otherwise?

 

[Cheapjack]

I can't speak for T'Girl, but I think I would prefer being away from the Federation coreworlds myself. I don't know that I'd want to do away with technology, but I would want to be where I was freer to express myself without the constant social pressure to withhold a key part of myself. One of the out-of-Federation human colonies, one that has been settled for long enough to be reasonably safe would be a good choice for me.

It's just that religion isn't as powerful thing as it is now. It's waning now, people are more rational now, so it makes sense to see that in another 400 years time, it will have decreased. It will be more of a private thing, too, not soemthing you go round imposing on other people and I hope that religious leaders don't have as much say in political things as they do today. The world will be a better place. Morality will come from within and from study. There may be pagans in the 24thC, they may even be people that believe in fairies!

 

[DevilEyes]

Marriage does provides a stabilizing effect on the overall society, divorce negates that stability. While there is a time and place for divorce, what is good for the individual isn't always good for the group.

Stabilizing effect? How so? Single people are a danger to society?

Potentially. French author Michel Houllebecq makes a typically misanthropic case.

In paraphrase, marriage is, fundamentally, a tool for creating a fairer mating market. Resurgence of the ordinary primate mating behaviors--a free mating market--in humanity is at least cause for concern, because free markets always have losers. Extension du domaine de la lutte, indeed.

I don't know how much I agree with this, and although there's an element of truth to it, it characteristically ignores the infinite variations of human motivation, taste, and personality.

I am not familiar with that hypothesis, but if you've represent it correctly and I've understood it correctly, it's total bullshit. It is based on a number of generalizations about the human race that are simply not true:
1) that marriage is an assurance of 'mating' - no, it is not. One or both partners might be either uninterested, unwilling, or physically or psychologically incapable to have sex. (Or to have an emotional relationship, for that matter.) If one partner wants sex with the other and the other does not want it, well, tough luck, but the former will have to deal with it, and can't force the other partner - fortunately, rape in marriage is recognized in many legal systems today.
2) that marriage is an assurance that neither of the partners will 'mate' with other people - c'mon, we all know that's not true.
3) that everyone is monogamous, and that everyone wants to be married in the first place. Not true. Some people prefer casual relationships, some people will have relationships with multiple partners, some people regard themselves asexual, some people can't stand or aren't able to have relationships at all...
4) that people just care about 'mating' about ANYONE, rather than WHO they will 'mate' with. Not true. Maybe there are people who just want to be with anyone - actually, I am sure there are, there are lots of people who'll have sex, date, or even marry anyone, so they wouldn't be alone - but lots of other people are selective and if they are just not into someone, they'll rather masturbate and fantasize until someone they actually like comes along.

In short, human 'mating' is not nearly as simple as that hypothesis assumes, and the hypothesis would work only if all the above were the case... but none of it is, which means that the existence of marriage in itself doesn't solve anything, and married people aren't automatically more successful or satisfied in their private life, or in any way superior to single or divorced people.

It's just that religion isn't as powerful thing as it is now. It's waning now, people are more rational now, so it makes sense to see that in another 400 years time, it will have decreased.

It's waning? Are you serious? Have you ever watched the news?

 

[neozeks]

It's waning? Are you serious? Have you ever watched the news?

I guess it depends on which part of the world we're talking about. I'd also say it's not so much religion that's 'growing' but radical, fundamentalistic religion, unfortunately.

 

[JarodRussell]

It's waning? Are you serious? Have you ever watched the news?

I guess it depends on which part of the world we're talking about. I'd also say it's not so much religion that's 'growing' but radical, fundamentalistic religion, unfortunately.

*points at various areas of a globe*
Right now we have religious people blowing themselves up here, religious people being massacred by other religious people here, and religious people having an influence on the education system of the most powerful country of the world here, and religious people raping little children here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here and here and here.

 

[-Brett-]

^ Well, if they keep killing each other and blowing themselves up, eventually there won't be any left.

 

[stj]

Potentially. French author Michel Houllebecq makes a typically misanthropic case.

In paraphrase, marriage is, fundamentally, a tool for creating a fairer mating market. Resurgence of the ordinary primate mating behaviors--a free mating market--in humanity is at least cause for concern, because free markets always have losers. Extension du domaine de la lutte, indeed.

I don't know how much I agree with this, and although there's an element of truth to it, it characteristically ignores the infinite variations of human motivation, taste, and personality.

This is not making any sense. What could "ordinary primate mating behaviors" mean? At a guess, he's horrified at the idea of group sex with a woman in heat. Since women don't go into heat, this is a weird sexual phobia of no interest to normal people. Unlike chimpanzees, human females have concealed ovulation. If he's thinking of gorillas, the marked sexual dimorphism between male and female is the inevitable result of competition for the harem. Humans have only a mild sexual dimorphism.

Also, it is polygynous marriage, a common social institution historically, that enforces an unfair mating market that reserves females to an older, more powerful male. In the inner cities, where economic deprivation has brought about a kind of polyandry where women share sexual favors with a number of men, this country's monogamous marriage laws leave the women, men and children without legal protections or obligations because in principle, the woman just has the one husband. Except in practice she couldn't, because any more lots of inner city men can't afford to support a family on their own.

And, generally, the notion that the untamed male consumed with fantasies of rape and uncivilized by the finer sensibilities of Womanhood, is bigoted BS. It's on a par with notions that letting the unpropertied masses vote will lead to tyranny.

 

[T'Girl]

Unlike chimpanzees, human females have concealed ovulation.

Depend on what you mean by "concealed." Most women figure out (sometimes in their teens) that guys are a lot more interested in us when we're at the fertile portion of our cycle. I've seen this on campus and in clubs too, with young men who, obviously, do want to be father's just yet. I think it goes beyond just scent and include some subconscious body language too.

With all the perfume, cologne, sweat and other smells in the clubs, it can't be only a scent.

 

[JarodRussell]

Unlike chimpanzees, human females have concealed ovulation.

Depend on what you mean by "concealed." Most women figure out (sometimes in their teens) that guys are a lot more interested in us when we're at the fertile portion of our cycle. I've seen this on campus and in clubs too, with young men who, obviously, do want to be father's just yet. I think it goes beyond just scent and include some subconscious body language too.

With all the perfume, cologne, sweat and other smells in the clubs, it can't be only a scent.

It's called pheromones. No perfume or body spray can overlay that, despite what the ads are telling us.

 

[DevilEyes]

Unlike chimpanzees, human females have concealed ovulation.

Depend on what you mean by "concealed." Most women figure out (sometimes in their teens) that guys are a lot more interested in us when we're at the fertile portion of our cycle. I've seen this on campus and in clubs too, with young men who, obviously, do want to be father's just yet. I think it goes beyond just scent and include some subconscious body language too.

With all the perfume, cologne, sweat and other smells in the clubs, it can't be only a scent.

Well if that happens, I've never noticed it. I am certainly at my hormonally horniest not during ovulation, but during PMS and menstruation - something that, from what I've read, is actually common with women (only less publicized because it so thoroughly screws up the "sex is for reproduction" theories that some people love so much).

 

[Myasishchev]

I am not familiar with that hypothesis, but if you've represent it correctly and I've understood it correctly, it's total bullshit. It is based on a number of generalizations about the human race that are simply not true:
1) that marriage is an assurance of 'mating' - no, it is not. One or both partners might be either uninterested, unwilling, or physically or psychologically incapable to have sex. (Or to have an emotional relationship, for that matter.) If one partner wants sex with the other and the other does not want it, well, tough luck, but the former will have to deal with it, and can't force the other partner - fortunately, rape in marriage is recognized in many legal systems today.
2) that marriage is an assurance that neither of the partners will 'mate' with other people - c'mon, we all know that's not true.
3) that everyone is monogamous, and that everyone wants to be married in the first place. Not true. Some people prefer casual relationships, some people will have relationships with multiple partners, some people regard themselves asexual, some people can't stand or aren't able to have relationships at all...
4) that people just care about 'mating' about ANYONE, rather than WHO they will 'mate' with. Not true. Maybe there are people who just want to be with anyone - actually, I am sure there are, there are lots of people who'll have sex, date, or even marry anyone, so they wouldn't be alone - but lots of other people are selective and if they are just not into someone, they'll rather masturbate and fantasize until someone they actually like comes along.

I think there's an element of truth to it. Marriage is an excellent way of regulating the mating market. It's not perfect--for the reasons you specify--but with a sociolegal structure in place that punishes infractions, it does serve to more-or-less ensure that everyone at least has a nominal mate. Houllebecq's works tend to dwell on the disintegration of that sociolegal structure.

In short, human 'mating' is not nearly as simple as that hypothesis assumes, and the hypothesis would work only if all the above were the case... but none of it is, which means that the existence of marriage in itself doesn't solve anything, and married people aren't automatically more successful or satisfied in their private life, or in any way superior to single or divorced people.

Well, Michel Houllebecq could be described as a nihilist, so this isn't his thesis. He presents both situations as general unpleasantness punctuated with delusions of happiness, which either end in death and decay.

This is not making any sense. What could "ordinary primate mating behaviors" mean? At a guess, he's horrified at the idea of group sex with a woman in heat.

I didn't say his science was accurate. In the future chapters of The Possibility of an Island, he's imagined the oceans of Earth drying up. Which makes for some excellent imagery, and lets Daniel24 walk toward Lanzarote, but is--geologically speaking--extraordinarily retarded.

On the other hand, "primate mating behavior" might have been my mistake. The general gist is that a free sexual market produces significant numbers of lonely people who can't or rarely get laid and/or form relationships. Further, the acceptance by the individual of this kind of free market system erodes relationships that do exist, because eventually sexual boredom or the aging process sets in. These are, I think, defensible propositions.

So, basically, my bad, I was speaking over-colloquially and without solid reference. I probably was thinking of gorillas. I don't know if a reference to primates ever occurs in the books.

Well if that happens, I've never noticed it. I am certainly at my hormonally horniest not during ovulation, but during PMS and menstruation - something that, from what I've read, is actually common with women (only less publicized because it so thoroughly screws up the "sex is for reproduction" theories that some people love so much).

Well, anyone who holds to that is silly.

 

[Cheapjack]

It's waning? Are you serious? Have you ever watched the news?

I guess it depends on which part of the world we're talking about. I'd also say it's not so much religion that's 'growing' but radical, fundamentalistic religion, unfortunately.

*points at various areas of a globe*
Right now we have religious people blowing themselves up here, religious people being massacred by other religious people here, and religious people having an influence on the education system of the most powerful country of the world here, and religious people raping little children here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here and here and here.

Yes, but they're loonies. there will be less loonies in the 24thC.

 

[Blue_Trek]

The ransom Jesus provides only covers humanity, it doesn't cover aliens.

 

[Kira Nerys]

I thought the no religion in TNG was silly ,it is absurd to think that humans in the 24 century would give up a religious/faith .The only trek that any religious at all was Ds9.