• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Religion in Star Trek

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.
Don't you love the smell of imagined persecutions in the morning? Picard voices an opinion (presumably, his own), and immediately some people are jumping at the thought that somehow, in the super-tolerant Federation, human religions are suppressed, oppressed and harrassed. Because you know, being persecuted makes them special.

The ransom Jesus provides only covers humanity, it doesn't cover aliens.
And you know this... how?
 
The ransom Jesus provides only covers humanity, it doesn't cover aliens.

I guess God didn't create aliens then, and/or aliens don't have a soul and go straight to hell?

Nonsense. Alien races have their own Jesus or equivalent ;)

That kind of sounds like what Diane Duane did in the Young Wizards series (and implied in The Wounded Sky). Her implication was also that each species made its own choice and were not tied to each other (though at one point I did see some comments that made me think she intended to portray Earth as having had special circumstances).
 
That kind of sounds like what Diane Duane did in the Young Wizards series (and implied in The Wounded Sky). Her implication was also that each species made its own choice and were not tied to each other (though at one point I did see some comments that made me think she intended to portray Earth as having had special circumstances).

Interesting, I have never read any of the above. My original remark was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but that said, I really don't see any conceptual problem off hand with the idea that a transcendant deity would provide every sentient race with an incarnated redeemer, wherever life evolved, or that a particularly gifted/blessed individual would assume that role, thanks to an especially deep insight into the nature of reality (just for the sake of argument).

I expect it would be necessary given that, however many times sentient life evolves in a universe such as our own, I really doubt that temporal and spatial proximity, not to mention limitations on faster than light travel (is it even possible?), allow for sentient species to be practically tripping over one another once they get off planet, like they are in Trek.

With only one Jesus per universe, it seems likely that some sentient races might never get the good news, which hardly seems fair. One Jesus per race or per planet seems more appropriate.
 
Last edited:
I never agreed with the concept of sin and redemption, nor do I understand why humans would be so ... to believe in it, so I don't see a need for a Jesus in alien cultures, and I also hope they are more intelligent than shaping their entire society around some weird things a sect leader did and said. ;)
 
With only one Jesus per universe, it seems likely that some sentient races might never get the good news, which hardly seems fair. One Jesus per race or per planet seems more appropriate.

What color lanterns do they get?
 
What color lanterns do they get?

Their lanterns are the metaphorical kind, and thus lacking in visible color.

I like where you're going with your colored lantern idea, though, you should really try to flesh that out a bit and see where it leads ;)
 
The ransom Jesus provides only covers humanity, it doesn't cover aliens.
And you know this... how?
I figure Blue_Trek's remark was meant tongue-in-cheek, since a believing Christian wouldn't characterize salvation through Jesus as a “ransom.”
If aliens had landed thousands of years ago, THEY would have been worshipped.
How do we know they didn't -- and weren't?

WhoMournsforAdonais.jpg
 
Last edited:
What color lanterns do they get?

Their lanterns are the metaphorical kind, and thus lacking in visible color.

Hell, why Geoff Johns thought it made sense for all seven (eight, nine) of them to somehow conform to a trichromatic, human, even specifically Western conception of color is the first question I want to ask Space Jesus when he shows up...

I like where you're going with your colored lantern idea, though, you should really try to flesh that out a bit and see where it leads ;)
It's actually pretty great. I call it... "Lensman."
 
You'd have to ask Blue_Trek about the “ransom” aspect of things ;)
Oops. As you can see, I've edited my post. Must be getting senile or something.
Hell, why Geoff Johns thought it made sense for all seven (eight, nine) of them to somehow conform to a trichromatic, human, even specifically Western conception of color is the first question I want to ask Space Jesus when he shows up...
A “Western conception of color”? Is there such a thing? I mean, regardless of culture or geography, human beings all see the same visible light spectrum, right?
 
Don't get me wrong. TOS and TNG are both greath shows. But let's face it, they're really one-dimensional when it comes to the depiction of religion. Judgmental, preachy, and not in a very subtle way either. Picard comes off as a pompous ass when he gives a speech about how humanity has moved beyond the need for religion in the future. The one-dimensional "science = good, religion = bad" message of TNG really seems to come from a liberalist and/or science mindset gone wrong. In this way those two shows have much in common with intolerant preachers like Richard Dawkins who likes nothing better than to take a dump on the beliefs of hundreds of millions of people.

Fortunately, the later trek shows, like DS9 and to a lesser extent VOY and ENT, are a lot more sophisticated and nuanced in their depiction of religion.


And it wasn't necessarily a negative depiction either.
There really is no need to crucify religion in sci fi. I figure if this is supposed to be an enlightened time then all things must learn to really coexist...not just people but philosophies aswell.
 
Don't get me wrong. TOS and TNG are both greath shows. But let's face it, they're really one-dimensional when it comes to the depiction of religion. Judgmental, preachy, and not in a very subtle way either. Picard comes off as a pompous ass when he gives a speech about how humanity has moved beyond the need for religion in the future. The one-dimensional "science = good, religion = bad" message of TNG really seems to come from a liberalist and/or science mindset gone wrong. In this way those two shows have much in common with intolerant preachers like Richard Dawkins who likes nothing better than to take a dump on the beliefs of hundreds of millions of people.

Let's be clear here. We are talking science fiction, not fantasy. On that note, science, as opposed to any faith view or religious view, is the most consistentyl reliable way to assss reality. That much is a fact. Indisputeable.
 
So too is the fact that a person of religious bent can be an impartial scientist just like anybody else, when it comes to the material world. Mr. Dobzhansky is a perfect case in point. ;)
 
scotpens said:
Hell, why Geoff Johns thought it made sense for all seven (eight, nine) of them to somehow conform to a trichromatic, human, even specifically Western conception of color is the first question I want to ask Space Jesus when he shows up...
A “Western conception of color”? Is there such a thing? I mean, regardless of culture or geography, human beings all see the same visible light spectrum, right?
Sure, generally speaking, we all see the same color, but it's possible to interpret it within a different paradigm than the Western one; not all languages impose the ROY G. BIV structure (or, its more interesting converse scheme, Virgins In Bed, Get Your Organs Ready). This is the structure that Geoff Johns unaccountably decided to use for the 99.9999% alien members of the seven "rainbow" Lantern Corps, assuming even all humans conceive that rainbow the same way. For example, green is often considered a shade of blue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing_blue_from_green_in_language

Were it not for Newton, Opticks, and a predilection for the number seven, I suspect we would not sharply distinguish between violet and indigo (and in many situations we often don't, subsuming both as shades of purple). It's conceivable we might not count orange as a "separate" color either. If we spoke Japanese, the Lanterns of Oa (Ao? :p ) could be either blue or green (aoi), or else need to be referred to by a loan word as the Midori Lanterns.

But although it would be a lot clearer, I suppose 510 Nanometer Lanterns doesn't have the same ring to it!

The point is, where are the Infared Lanterns? The X-Ray Lanterns? Why are there White Lanterns, when the stimulus for white would likely be different between two species, let alone hundreds? Beyond that, why are most aliens in science fiction implied or at least assumed to have trichromatic RGB optical pickups, like humans, but not--for example--like most species of birds?

I'll grant Star Trek at least occasionally implies some pretty radically different optical traits to some of its species. I mean, have you seen what the Ferengi wear?
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top