Christian faith in TrekLit?

[Defcon]

I've provided evidence that insofar as relaunch ST:TNG treklit is concerned, Picard is a believer.

As I mentioned above that's not what's in the text. It only says that Picard can see that faith can serve a purpose, not that Picard is a believer.

 

[Janos]

I've provided evidence that insofar as relaunch ST:TNG treklit is concerned, Picard is a believer.

As I mentioned above that's not what's in the text. It only says that Picard can see that faith can serve a purpose, not that Picard is a believer.

What does "believer" refer to? Is it someone that actively particpates in the religious observtions of their faith?

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think the chain of logic went thusly:

Picard is French.

French people are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Picard is Catholic.

The problem is that there's a lot of missing data from those premises. It's kind of like this old tidbit from logic class:

Lassie is a mammal.

Pigs are mammals.

Lassie is a pig.

Who's to say that France is still overwhelmingly Catholic in the 24th Century? How about those Frenchmen who join Starfleet? How many of them are religious?

 

[Smellincoffee]

And even today, identifying as Catholic doesn't mean being Catholic in any real sense of the word. It's just a cultural association, with no necessarily real meaning. My parents' church used to support a missionary to France, who would talk in shocked tones at how irreligious western Europeans were.

 

[Janos]

The problem is that there's a lot of missing data from those premises...

Who's to say that France is still overwhelmingly Catholic in the 24th Century? How about those Frenchmen who join Starfleet? How many of them are religious?

There is no question that the passage used is not clear.

Folks saying JLP is Christian/Catholic and those saying he's not, have the SAME handicap - it isn't explicit one way or the other in any ST lit.

So, both arguments are equally valid and invalid. You're in the same boat.

 

[Stevil2001]

I think "He had never been a religious man, and while he knew something of Choudhury's beliefs and their historical roots, he couldn't claim to genuinely understand them" is a pretty clear indication that he's not an adherent of any religion, much less Roman Catholicism.

 

[Trilliam]

Then there is the definition of "Catholic". Do you mean "Catholic" as in a "Roman Catholic". Or do you mean "catholic" as in "all-embracing".

And as an aside: I don't really think that 2000+years of Belief System/s (depending on the Belief System) will disappear within the next 200 years unless there is a paradigm shift (in the scientific sense eg such as the shift from Earth-centric Solar System to the Heliocentric system) in our understanding of the "Why" of our existence.

 

[Janos]

And as an aside: I don't really think that 2000+years of Belief System/s (depending on the Belief System) will disappear within the next 200 years unless there is a paradigm shift (in the scientific sense eg such as the shift from Earth-centric Solar System to the Heliocentric system) in our understanding of the "Why" of our existence.

Agreed.

I think "He had never been a religious man, and while he knew something of Choudhury's beliefs and their historical roots, he couldn't claim to genuinely understand them" is a pretty clear indication that he's not an adherent of any religion, much less Roman Catholicism.

You forgot the part that I thank he’s referring to which was “He did, however, understand the importance of faith - it was a lesson that had been driven home for him in that desperate last hour of the Borg assault, by holding on to hope when reason told him that all was hopeless."

It is very clear that no religion is identified, but that JLP understands the importance of spritual faith (which seems reasonable based on the full passage). So the fact is that is that JLP's faith or religion or whathaveyou is not outed.

So, anyone that infers from these 2 passages that JLP is or is not Christian/Catholic/Whatever are matters of interpretation since the passages are not explicit. And, b/c there is not way to prove or disprove either view, both are valid (or invalid).

Can't we all just get along?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Folks saying JLP is Christian/Catholic and those saying he's not, have the SAME handicap - it isn't explicit one way or the other in any ST lit.

So, both arguments are equally valid and invalid. You're in the same boat.

Now, let's not making a salad of logics. My argument is not "Picard is not Catholic", but that the claim "Picard is Catholic" is unsupported by evidences. It's not the same thing.

Personally, and I agree it's personal opinion and not a matter of fact, (even if it is supported by the evidences presented in both the actual series and in TrekLit), I think there isn't the smallest evidence that Picard follows any religion, let alone something very specific as Christian Catholicism. Considering his strongly unfavourable opinion on religion, stated in "Who Watches the Watchers", I would say that he is probably some kind of atheist, or at least agnostic. Even deism seems like a stretch, but who knows. He is however a spiritual man, in which he believes the human spirit (for a lack of a better term) can overcome anything if people will put their differences aside and work together for the sake of peace and prosperity.

It is very clear that no religion is identified, but that JLP understands the importance of spritual faith (which seems reasonable based on the full passage). So the fact is that is that JLP's faith or religion or whathaveyou is not outed.

It's not outed, I agree. Still, your argument is a non sequitur. In fact, I understand the importance of spiritual faith, and as I said, I am an atheist. So it doesn't prove anything about his personal beliefs.

Can't we all just get along?

But we are getting along, just disagreeing about a small issue. Trust me, if we weren't getting along, you would know it.

 

[Janos]

Now, let's not making a salad of logics. My argument is not "Picard is not Catholic", but that the claim "Picard is Catholic" is unsupported by evidences. It's not the same thing.

The logic salad is tasty and sound (mixing metaphors).

FACT (pretty much a safe bet b/c they don't want to alienate fans) - S&S / Paramount will never out a main character's like JLP's religion/faith/whatever.

FICTION - JLP is Catholic/Christian/Whatever. This is not confirmed anywhere in ST lit. Neither is what religion/faith he leans toward.

FICTION - JLP is atheist/humanist/whatever. This is not confirmed anywhere in ST lit.

FACT - JLP understands the importance of faith and believing in something greater than himself. This was due to his Borg experience (from the passage). This shows his spritual side (not any religious affiliation).

 

[iguana_tonante]

^ We pretty much agree about that.

 

[Janos]

It is very clear that no religion is identified, but that JLP understands the importance of spritual faith (which seems reasonable based on the full passage). So the fact is that is that JLP's faith or religion or whathaveyou is not outed.

It's not outed, I agree. Still, your argument is a non sequitur. In fact, I understand the importance of spiritual faith, and as I said, I am an atheist. So it doesn't prove anything about his personal beliefs.

However, what we know is that JLP is spritual. We don't know if he's an atheist.

non se·qui·tur

–noun 1. ogic . an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

Based on that definition, I see no non sequitar with my arguments.

In fact, assuming that b/c you read in the passage and know that JLP is spritual, and b/c you are spiritual and an atheist, thus JLP is an atheist is a non sequitar.

^ We pretty much agree about that.

to your agreement on my quick facts/fiction post.

But, can you also agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Most novels on these kinds of issues with these kinds of characters are nuanced. So, each reader, for parts of novels, make their own assumptions based on what they are reading where there is flexibility to interpret. It goes back to things like which Saavik actress do you see in your minds' eye when you read Saavik ST lit. Same goes for this. JLP is spiritual. Whether he is Christian or an Atheist is not relevant to understand his spirituality or spiritual awareness, but b/c our world views are shaped by our own personal experiences, if you see a leg to stand on in your mind's eye that he's Catholic or Atheist, I don't see that as a big deal.

I just generally find on the internet, the anti-religion faction comes out quite hard against anyone that mentions organized religion. "Faith" is not as dicey a topic.

 

[iguana_tonante]

non se·qui·tur

–noun 1. ogic . an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

Based on that definition, I see no non sequitar with my arguments.

Well, for sure your copy&paste of the dictionary definition of "non sequitur" would had worked better if you didn't spell it consistently wrong. You are right about something, tho: the non sequitur was in LaBarre's arguments, not your own. Your mistake was to ignore the difference between making a claim (which needs both logical necessity and actual evidences to be supported), and disproving it (which only needs one counter-example to be valid).

In fact, assuming that b/c you read in the passage and know that JLP is spritual, and b/c you are spiritual and an atheist, thus JLP is an atheist is a non sequitar.

Again, no. That's not my argument. I don't know why it is so difficult. The claim made upthread was that, since Picard recognized the importance of faith, he must be a believer. I offered a counter-example, saying that I agree about the importance of faith, and yet I'm still an atheist. So the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, i.e. a non sequitur. Full stop.

Then, I shared my opinion about Picard's religiosity, but I granted it was my interpretation, not a matter of fact. Yet, I still hold that my opinion is better supported by the evidences than the opposite claim.

But, can you also agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Sure, but I thought we were discussing the logic of claiming that Picard was a follower of a specific religion.

Whether he is Christian or an Atheist is not relevant to understand his spirituality or spiritual awareness, but b/c our world views are shaped by our own personal experiences, if you see a leg to stand on in your mind's eye that he's Catholic or Atheist, I don't see that as a big deal.

I don't see the big deal either. I just can't stand illogical reasoning.

I just generally find on the internet, the anti-religion faction comes out quite hard against anyone that mentions organized religion. "Faith" is not as dicey a topic.

Heh. I only object to unsupported claims. I would have equally disagreed if someone had said something equally unsupported by evidences as "Picard is not really French but actually Belgian".

 

[Captain Robert April]

Let's not forget this little exchange from "Where Silence Has Lease":

DATA: I have a question, sir.

PICARD: Yes, Data. What is it?

DATA: What is death?

PICARD: Oh, is that all? Well, Data, you're asking probably the most difficult of all questions. Some see it as a changing into an indestructible form, forever unchanging. They believe that the purpose of the entire universe is to then maintain that form in an Earth-like garden which will give delight and pleasure through all eternity. On the other hand, there are those who hold to the idea of our blinking into nothingness, with all our experiences, hopes and dreams merely a delusion.

DATA: Which do you believe, sir?

PICARD: Considering the marvelous complexity of our universe, its clockwork perfection, its balances of this against that, matter, energy, gravitation, time, dimension, I believe that our existence must be more than either of these philosophies. That what we are goes beyond Euclidean and other practical measuring systems and that our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.

 

[Sci]

"Picard considered Choudhury a moment longer, wondering just how skeptical he should be about that claim. He had never been a religious man, and while he knew something of Choudhury's beliefs and their historical roots, he couldn't claim to genuinely understand them. He did, however, understand the importance of faith - it was a lesson that had been driven home for him in that desperate last hour of the Borg assault, by holding on to hope when reason told him that all was hopeless."

William Leisner, Losing the Peace, p156

This is the best rendering of the ongoing (uncredited) relevance of the Christian faith in ST that I've seen recently.

Note that Leisner's Picard does not in the slightest denigrate Choudhury's Hindu faith (let's put aside the odd californication of same), nor the bhuddist influences upon it (ditto).

At the same time, although the author stresses that Picard has never been a religious man, he still makes Picard take a critical decision fully in line with modern mainstream Christian belief.

Could Picard have made it anyway? Sure. Is this what the author intended? Based on what he wrote, I'm in the dunno group.

...which is where I always thought that Picard was, an agnostic.

Yet now in TrekLit the fact is that Leisner determined that the "faith" Picard might have once held as a child has now become a lesson "driven home" to the man. It's a faith reinforced in Leisner's recognition of the post Typhon Pact world, where Picard at some critical point determines to "hold...on to hope when reason told him that all was hopeless."

What that tells us is that in TrekLit there actually is recognition of "the importance of faith" and as far as we can determine - based on all that's been written to date - that makes Picard a Catholic christian.

I can live with that. If it's a choice between believer and non-believer, I'm goin' with the first.

Your hypothesis is not inconsistent with the established facts, but neither is it supported by the established facts.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

"Picard considered Choudhury a moment longer, wondering just how skeptical he should be about that claim. He had never been a religious man, and while he knew something of Choudhury's beliefs and their historical roots, he couldn't claim to genuinely understand them. He did, however, understand the importance of faith - it was a lesson that had been driven home for him in that desperate last hour of the Borg assault, by holding on to hope when reason told him that all was hopeless."

This passage I would take as a former atheist perhaps becoming agnostic. Or at the least developing a respect for people of faith that, based on certain TNG episodes, was not previously there. But I don't think I could go much further than that.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Hmm. As I recall, there's a starship construction scene in (I think) the prologue portion of Star Trek Log 7, that has a Muslim ship construction worker doing Salah in freefall.

 

[Destructor]

Let's not forget this little exchange from "Where Silence Has Lease":

DATA: I have a question, sir.

PICARD: Yes, Data. What is it?

DATA: What is death?

PICARD: Oh, is that all? Well, Data, you're asking probably the most difficult of all questions. Some see it as a changing into an indestructible form, forever unchanging. They believe that the purpose of the entire universe is to then maintain that form in an Earth-like garden which will give delight and pleasure through all eternity. On the other hand, there are those who hold to the idea of our blinking into nothingness, with all our experiences, hopes and dreams merely a delusion.

DATA: Which do you believe, sir?

PICARD: Considering the marvelous complexity of our universe, its clockwork perfection, its balances of this against that, matter, energy, gravitation, time, dimension, I believe that our existence must be more than either of these philosophies. That what we are goes beyond Euclidean and other practical measuring systems and that our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.

I think that's one of the most important quotes in all of Star Trek, because it points to how one can have spirituality without organized religion.

 

[Janos]

I think that's one of the most important quotes in all of Star Trek, because it points to how one can have spirituality without organized religion.

While I do find the exchange illuminating, to say it deals with religion or even faith/spirituality writ large is misleading. The exhange is about death/afterlife. That area is is only one aspect of faith or religion. Its the difference between talking about DS9 vs. Star Trek. One is narrow, the other broad.

 

[Steve Roby]

It's interesting that people see "faith" as being the same as religion or spirituality. It can be a component of those things, but it can suggest other things, too. You don't have to believe in a big imaginary friend to have faith in your friends, your colleagues, or your society. You can have faith that things will get better without giving the credit to any deity or spiritual factor. That seems more likely to be Picard's perspective than some of the ludicrous claims made here.