• 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!

What Do You Think Really Happen with Religions in ST?

No it is not.
So, in other words, you just confirmed exactly what I said in my post, yes?

In case you didn't read the beginning of you own post (#217), enlightenment does have to do with spirituality. You said so yourself.

And where was there any "willful misinterpretation?" Following your post on enlightenment, I stated a verifiable fact, and then a supposition on my part concerning the composition of the Federation.

In the case of enlightened worlds (i.e. Federation members) who still use distinctly religious terminology such as "temple" or "God," these are merely echoes of what used to be religions, and have instead evolved into worship of life and nature and equality in a natural, humanist sense.
Problem with this is we've never seen a single canon case of a tradition religion "evolving" into anything remotely similar to what you've described.

A question. Can you name a single Federation world where canon stipulated that the world had renounce all religion? How many atheist planets are there in canon? (None)

Whenever the matter comes up, and often it doesn't, the Federation world as a whole is non-atheist. There is spirituality or faith in some form.

:)
To avoid further confusion, enlightenment, in all contexts when I choose to say it, has nothing to do with spirituality. That's all I have to say about that.

But of course religion is not "renounced" quite so dramatically (though "Who Watches the Watchers" makes excellent viewing). However, in the future envisioned by Gene Roddenberry, Earth would be one such example. Roddenberry worked hard to subvert censors, the network, and the average viewer into accepting his moralizing episodes and controversial opinions as nothing more than another action adventure.

My explanation for why religious terms and references constantly come up is a rationalization, so that Star Trek is both consistent and enjoyable for me, the viewer. I'm not offering this as proof of anything. The timeline for the death of organized religion as we know it today cannot be predicted, but if we were to assume humanity will always take more steps forwards than it does backwards, religion will fade eventually. In my mind, and Gene Roddenberry's, Star Trek has reached that moment in time.

My tricorder is detecting Bennett Star is FULL OF WIN!!!!!!
 
But of course religion is not "renounced" quite so dramatically (though "Who Watches the Watchers" makes excellent viewing). However, in the future envisioned by Gene Roddenberry, Earth would be one such example.
If Gene Roddenberry was attempting to use the show, to create a show, to indicate an absents of religion in the future, he had a strange way of going about it.

In the twenty-second century (per CF) Both Roman Catholicism and Tibetan Buddhism still exists.

In the twenty-fourth century (per Penumbra) The Sisko wedding was to be performed by a priest. The festival of Diwali is celebrated aboard the Enterprise Dee, so Hinduism still exists, probably Jainism and Sikhism too (DD).

In the twenty-third century (per BOT) Either Presbyterianism or Roman Catholicism still exist. Probably both. During the wedding ceremonial, in the ship's chapel, there is a cross displayed behind Kirk's right shoulder. Hinduism (per TWS) still exists. The end of BAS has a overt Christian reference.

Leonard McCoy on Christianity: "A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood."

... religion will fade eventually. In my mind, and Gene Roddenberry's, Star Trek has reached that moment in time.
Based upon canon, when is this fading going to begin? Sometime after the last episode of Voyager?

:):) :):) :)
 
Hate to tell you this T'Girl but many atheists see their world in Star Trek. There are many examples why Star Trek is seen as Humanist* show. As Bennett Star stated, many of us Humanists can come up with some kind of logical way to explain away certain examples of supposed religion. I would like to add too is once Roddenberry died, many religious examples seem to happen after.

Just pick your examples apart....
-Not sure about the 22nd century as I don't consider Enterprise series to be part of the rest of Star Trek. ENT just sucked but that's for another discussion. And if they did add religion to the mix, I guess that would be another reason why I won't watch it.

-Sisko's wedding was going to be done by a minister. Ministers can be atheists. Michael Newdow,a relatively famous atheist, is a minister. The Humanist Society uses the term celebrant but thinks minister is acceptable.

-People celebrating the old time religious holidays is like me celebrating Christmas with my family. We aren't doing it for Jesus. We are doing it for fun and taking part in a cultural tradition that was started by pagans. So atheists from nations that historically had Hinduism may still celebrate traditional holidays...for fun.

-Chapel can be a place for anyone regardless of historical and present connotations of Christian place of worship. Atheists are trying to gain recognition to be chaplains in the U.S. military at this moment. Harvard has the Humanist* Chaplaincy.

-I am assuming TWS is "That Which Survives" and you are referring to the lady at the helm with the bindi. Yeah, bindi aren't exclusive to Hindus today and definitely not in 23rd century. Its has become a cultural and a fashion statement. My wife used to wear a cross necklace given to her by her grandfather but she isn't religious.

-"Bread and Circuses" seems to be the odd one out when it comes to religion. That line does make McCoy sound like an unflinching Christian without regard to the bloodshed done by the so called believers of love and brotherhood. Then again he is a doctor, not a historian. Besides, it was shitty episode with Roman aliens that speak English and apparently going to have their version of dark ages, you know, the time after the Roman Empire fell, also when coincidentally Christianity spread. No lovely brotherhood existed in any majority Christian population.

Nice try I guess. I am not trying to convince you that Star Trek is completely devoid of religion if you choose to see it. Star Trek has been done in such a fashion that leaves everyone happy at the end of the day. I have always noticed the seemingly anti-religious message of Star Trek( I started watching TNG, the best Star Trek EVER!!) and then it turns out Roddenberry was an atheist. There has been many analyses of atheist/religion nature of Star Trek which seem to see the same as I do. So I don't see myself seeing any religions surviving in the Federation and Earth.

*-Humanism is mostly used by the secular brand of Humanists. Most, if not all, Humanist organizations are 'nontheistic' or in other words, the secular brand. Religious humanism is mostly a historical word which has a few different uses but doesn't have any major representation in Humanist groups except possibly in the Unitarian Universalist Church.
 
Based upon canon, when is this fading going to begin? Sometime after the last episode of Voyager?

:):) :):) :)

It began before the first episode of TOS. You don't see it, it's just a fact of Gene Roddenberry's envisioned future.

I already told you my positions on apparent references to religion still existing. I've done a fine job of rationalizing them out of existence if I do say so myself, as most of these lines are purposely vague or obvious attempts (in TOS at least) to steer clear of being called Communist or radical some other horrific insult. He wanted his show to be successful, as he likely realized he could affect a greater number of people with his message, even if that message had to be toned down.

If you're looking for canon evidence, I've already offered up "Who Watches the Watchers." Picard's utter disdain for superstition and religion, equating it to the dark ages, basically sums up the position that Gene Roddenberry's future humans and Federation members have always held. And no one in the entire episode questions the fact that religion is simply bad. The anthropologists wanted to minimized the damage by making it a "good religion," but that was because they already saw the unfortunate formation of a religion as inevitable. There was never any debate over the fact that renouncing religion is both a natural and great step towards cultural progress.

And to me, the core messages of that wonderful episode run much deeper than offhanded religious terminology and purposely vague religious references in a handful of episodes.
 
Hate to tell you this T'Girl but many atheists see their world in Star Trek.
Please do, the only point I'm making here is that there isn't a absents of religion in any of the Star Trek time periods.
Enterprise series ... if they did add religion to the mix I guess that would be another reason why I won't watch it.
Well, not so much added as it's always been there.
Ministers can be atheists.
They can also be government officials too. But the majority of ministers who perform marriages ceremonies are religious officials. So odds are that Kasidy Yates was referring to a religious official
Chapel can be a place for anyone ...
Chapels are denoted as a place of worship and faith based activities, but you are correct that all are welcome.
Atheists are trying to gain recognition to be chaplains in the U.S. military ...
Not working out very well, is it?
Yeah, bindi aren't exclusive to Hindus today and definitely not in 23rd century. Its has become a cultural and a fashion statement.
But, just as with the minister, the majority of the time that they are worn is because of religion, Hinduism. An indication that you're a part of that overall religious culture (there are other religions that wear them too). And would a apparently serious officer like the one shown in the episode be making a "fashion statement" on the bridge?
"Bread and Circuses" seems to be the odd one out when it comes to religion.
No, there were others.
aliens that speak English
This was pretty standard on the show.
That line does make McCoy sound like an unflinching Christian
Yes.
without regard to the bloodshed done by the so called believers of love and brotherhood.
As oppose to the shear amount of incredible bloodshed perpetrated on the world by secularists?
and then it turns out Roddenberry was an atheist.
Would depend on what part of Roddenberry's life you're referring to, it would be more accurate to say Gene Roddenberry was a atheist at times.
So I don't see myself seeing any religions surviving in the Federation and Earth.
Angela Martine, at the beginning of her marriage ceremony, kneels, genuflects and obviously crosses herself, explain that away.
Humanism is mostly used by the secular brand of Humanists.
There is a strong thread of Humanism that runs through Christianity going back to the second century AD. Humanism has many branches, Christian humanism, Jewish humanism, Buddhist humanism are only some of those branches and sub-divisions.
Religious humanism is mostly a historical word
Because basic Humanism is integrated into Christian teachings (from Christian perspective it's a relatively new word) many Christian don't use the term, but the philosophy is there.
Humanism is mostly used by the secular brand of Humanists.
Okay, if from your point of view the vast majority of Humanists are secular humanists, then why is it necessary to place the word secular in conjunction with humanist? Wouldn't simply saying "Humanist" convey the same concept?

Given your position Captain Verata, why do you personally feel the need to add the qualifier "secular?"

it's just a fact of Gene Roddenberry's envisioned future.
Problem there is that while Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry's idea, that idea was assembled into the Star Trek we all know with considerable help from others. Roddenberry actually wrote very few of the scripts, and really the show was as much Gene Coons creation as Roddenberry's. Without Herb Solow's molding of Roddenberry's nebulas ideas, the show wouldn't have even advanced to the pilot stage. Robert Justman also. So it was never "just" Roddenberry's vision of the future on screen at any point.
I've done a fine job of rationalizing them out of existence if I do say so myself
We all get it too, you turn a blind eye to the factual information that exists outside your comfort bubble.
Picard's utter disdain for superstition and religion, equating it to the dark ages,
Which is surprising given his personal position expressed in Where Silence Has Lease. While not an ringing endorsement of organized religion, Picard's little spiritual manifesto does illustrate that he possesses the belief that Humans don't "blinking into nothingness, with all our experiences" upon our deaths. That against all atheistic reason, we continue. Which is a very religious concept. Picard might not be a member of a organized religion, but he does embrace spiritual beliefs.
the position that Gene Roddenberry's future humans and Federation members have always held.
But the future mega-society of the federation would surely (hopefully) be a diverse place, without the narrow atheistic belief system being the sole option.

My federation has room for you, why can't your federation have room for me?

:)
 
Last edited:
Please do, the only point I'm making here is that there isn't a absents of religion in any of the Star Trek time periods.

Of course, logically there is some religion, somewhere. The point is that the (vast) majority of the Federation would be secular humanists.

They can also be government officials too. But the majority of ministers who perform marriages ceremonies are religious officials. So odds are that Kasidy Yates was referring to a religious official
Chapels are denoted as a place of worship and faith based activities, but you are correct that all are welcome.
Not working out very well, is it?

The majority of people are religious. But Star Trek’s time, that is not so. The fact that nonreligious ministers exist today, a time when we seem far from seeing Star Trek culture’s progressive view on religion, makes it entirely plausible that the term is no longer religious. Same with the idea of chapels, since the seeds are in place to make secular use of the term today, that seed could very well have sprouted into an aged tree by now.

But, just as with the minister, the majority of the time that they are worn is because of religion, Hinduism. An indication that you're a part of that overall religious culture (there are other religions that wear them too). And would a apparently serious officer like the one shown in the episode be making a "fashion statement" on the bridge?

And just as I’ve said before, the majority of the Federation is secular humanists, so Captain Verata’s explanation is entirely plausible and in keeping with Star Trek’s depiction of the future.
As oppose to the shear amount of incredible bloodshed perpetrated on the world by secularists?

The amount of bloodshed perpetrated in the name of religion, versus the amount of bloodshed perpetrated in the name of “desiring a separation of church and state” would be quite telling, to say the least. And on that note, you may wish to drop the term “secularist” from your lingo, since there are plenty of Christian secularists in this country alone. If you mean to say atheist, say atheist. If you mean to say secular humanist, say that. Because I tend not to know who you’re talking about when you use a term that basically just means you believe in the separation of church and state. Maybe Sean Hannity uses a different definition, but I’m not sure he entirely grasps the English language.
Angela Martine, at the beginning of her marriage ceremony, kneels, genuflects and obviously crosses herself, explain that away.
She’s a conservative hold out? Hah. Or perhaps, as I’ve stated before, it falls under misdirection on the part of Gene Roddenberry, or an ancient ritual that is not tied to religious faith but is still traditionally practiced by some individuals.
There is a strong thread of Humanism that runs through Christianity going back to the second century AD. Humanism has many branches, Christian humanism, Jewish humanism, Buddhist humanism are only some of those branches and sub-divisions.
Because basic Humanism is integrated into Christian teachings (from Christian perspective it's a relatively new word) many Christian don't use the term, but the philosophy is there.
Okay, if from your point of view the vast majority of Humanists are secular humanists, then why is it necessary to place the word secular in conjunction with humanist? Wouldn't simply saying "Humanist" convey the same concept?
Given your position Captain Verata, why do you personally feel the need to add the qualifier "secular?"

Verata hardly ever bothers to say “secular humanist.” In that post alone, he only puts the two words together for his disclaimer, for you. You may have had better luck directing that question at me. And I say it for the same reason, so I don’t need a disclaimer, for you, or anyone else who may believe I could be a religious humanist. I’d prefer to just say humanist, but I’m trying to save myself keystrokes on making a disclaimer in every post, since you already made it quite clear in the thread about humanism that you, personally… the person I am discussing this with… don’t make the connection between humanism and nontheism.

Problem there is that while Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry's idea, that idea was assembled into the Star Trek we all know with considerable help from others. Roddenberry actually wrote very few of the scripts, and really the show was as much Gene Coons creation as Roddenberry's. Without Herb Solow's molding of Roddenberry's nebulas ideas, the show wouldn't have even advanced to the pilot stage. Robert Justman also. So it was never "just" Roddenberry's vision of the future on screen at any point.

Of course it was not “just” Gene Roddenberry involved. Hey, now it’s J.J. Abrams “vision” too. Forgive me if I choose to subscribe to Gene Roddenberry’s inputs into what Star Trek’s future are like over others, when they conflict.
We all get it too, you turn a blind eye to the factual information that exists outside your comfort bubble.

So, I was looking to see if you’d give a response like this. This is a fictional world, that purposely allows for multiple interpretations. This is all by design. The facts are simply not there to support the position that religion and spirituality play an important role in the average Federation citizen’s life. The facts are equally not there to say that religion has all but died out. That’s why we can have this discussion at all. It’s more a battle of interpretation, colored by our own perceptions and mixed with our own conjecture. I’ve said it many times now: my rationalizations are not evidence, but a way to keep the universe consistent and enjoyable. It’s a matter of necessity for fictional universes this large, in order to keep believing each episode is part of the same continuum. It’s just that this particular issue converges with so many real world personal beliefs that it gets heated a lot more easily.

Which is surprising given his personal position expressed in Where Silence Has Lease. While not an ringing endorsement of organized religion, Picard's little spiritual manifesto does illustrate that he possesses the belief that Humans don't "blinking into nothingness, with all our experiences" upon our deaths. That against all atheistic reason, we continue. Which is a very religious concept. Picard might not be a member of a organized religion, but he does embrace spiritual beliefs.

Picard’s “manifesto” demonstrates that he has no idea what happens when you die. He’d like to think, and certainly cannot be disputed, that there is a possibility that something other than blinking into nothingness occurs. That is an entirely legitimate, atheistic, kid-tested, science-approved belief. A scientist is open to all possibilities, and given the sheer lack of data available on what happens after death, on account of all potential researchers of the topic being dead, one should believe that all possibilities exist. One should not, therefore, dogmatically believe anything about what happens after death, because those beliefs are entirely unfounded. The more specific your belief, the more dangerous those unfounded stubborn beliefs are to the advancement of real science, and when we are talking about death, the more dangerous it could be to people seeking “a better place” on the other side. Furthermore, “Who Watches the Watchers” may contain some of the best dialogue by Picard, but NO ONE in the episode rejects Picard’s opinion of religion, and every character works towards saving the Mintakans from the terrible fate of being plagued by superstitious belief.
But the future mega-society of the federation would surely (hopefully) be a diverse place, without the narrow atheistic belief system being the sole option.

My federation has room for you, why can't your federation have room for me?

:)

Infinite diversity, in infinite combinations, to be sure. As I’ve said, it’s only the majority that is secular humanist. Religious and spiritual humanists will be around as well. No one is saying you have to pick your philosophy from a short list of “options.” But as a matter of natural progress, organized religion will die out.

And, there is nothing narrow about humanism. It is pretty well encompassing, even allows room for spirituality, in certain subsets, as you should very well know.
 
In the twenty-fourth century (per Penumbra) The Sisko wedding was to be performed by a priest.

Well, no. Sisko suggested having Admiral Ross perform their marriage, and Kassidy remarked that her mother would have preferred a minister, but a Starfleet Admiral would be acceptable.

So there's a strong implication here that not only has Christianity survived, but that specifically some brand of Protestantism has survived.

Excellent list of indications that present-day Human religious traditions have survived into the Federation era, though!

Just pick your examples apart....
-Not sure about the 22nd century as I don't consider Enterprise series to be part of the rest of Star Trek.

Then you are cherry-picking which pieces of evidence you'll accept, which is a very unscientific way of going about supporting your thesis. The difference between science and religion is that science fits its hypothesis to support the evidence, not the evidence to fit the hypothesis.

-Sisko's wedding was going to be done by a minister. Ministers can be atheists. Michael Newdow,a relatively famous atheist, is a minister. The Humanist Society uses the term celebrant but thinks minister is acceptable.

Sure, but Atheist ministers are fairly rare. And earlier in that post, you all but dismissed the idea of religious Humanists by noting that they're fairly rare. So you're going to dismiss one relatively uncommon group but not another? Ocom's razor says it's more likely she was referring to a Protestant minister than an Atheist one.

-Chapel can be a place for anyone regardless of historical and present connotations of Christian place of worship.

Sure, but it's improbable there'd be a cross there if there were no religions left.

-"Bread and Circuses" seems to be the odd one out when it comes to religion. That line does make McCoy sound like an unflinching Christian without regard to the bloodshed done by the so called believers of love and brotherhood.

Presumably because McCoy is aware that an organization can hold a belief and fail to live up to it, and that the behavior of an organization's members does not automatically invalidate everything about their beliefs.

The United States government has killed many thousands of people for no reason -- Indian removal in the 19th Century, for instance, and the victims of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars in modern times. Yet no rational person would argue that its founding ethos -- an Enlightenment-originated belief in individual rights and liberty, including the Bill of Rights -- is invalidated because its members have violated them. People are, at the end of the day, flawed political actors, and organizations can never be any more morally pure than a person can. Institutions can be perverted by immoral political actors; that's true of the state, that's true of commerce, and that's true of religion. It's true of all aspects of life, and it doesn't render any particular kind of institution any more or less valid.

Then again he is a doctor, not a historian. Besides, it was shitty episode with Roman aliens that speak English and apparently going to have their version of dark ages, you know, the time after the Roman Empire fell, also when coincidentally Christianity spread.

No, Christianity spread for hundreds of years prior to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Christianity did not cause the Dark Ages, the tremendous social upheaval resulting from the fall of the Empire and the rise of Germanic powers did.

No lovely brotherhood existed in any majority Christian population.

No lovely brotherhood has ever existed in any majority-anything population, because populations aren't good at lovely brotherhood, irrelevant of what their beliefs are. Lovely brotherhood does not prevail because people are bad at it, not because Christians or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists or Zoroastrians or Muslims or Wiccans or whatever are bad at it.

Based upon canon, when is this fading going to begin? Sometime after the last episode of Voyager?

:):) :):) :)

It began before the first episode of TOS. You don't see it, it's just a fact of Gene Roddenberry's envisioned future.

Far be it for me to be skeptical of the Great Prophet Gene's Holy Vision, but bullshit.

Gene didn't have a fully-formed, worked-out "vision of the future." He had some basic Liberal/Progressive political beliefs that he used TOS to advance a bit (i.e., racial equality... as long as it was an Asian man driving and a black woman answering the space telephone), and then, later on, during the TOS-TNG interregnum, he started claiming that TOS was about showing a liberal utopia (clearly a revisionist nonsense claim) and used early TNG to get on a soapbox about various topics. But he never had any sort of fully worked-out Vision of the Future, and it certainly didn't exist at the beginning of TOS.

* * *

The idea that religion is inherently "bad" is bigoted nonsense. Religion is not inherently "bad." Irrational, yes -- it is, after all, based upon the presumption that the supernatural exists even when there is no evidence that it does. But not inherently bad, any more than any other kind of ideology is inherently bad. Religion is simply a belief system about the supernatural which prescribes a moral system for its adherents, which those adherents may then follow or not follow while still claiming allegiance to that religion. It is, in other words, just another institution, no different in moral character than the state, or the academy, or whatever.

If the world of Star Trek is one in which we accept the idea of real diversity, of real equality, then we inherently must accept that there are going to be huge numbers of religious people. That's just life. These belief systems have been around thousands of years and they're not going away any time soon.

I'm sure that in the Federation, Judaism has survived, and Islam has survived, and Hinduism has survived, and Buddhism has survived, and Bahá'í has survived, and Jainism has survived, and Christianity has survived, and Sikhism has survived, and Wicca has survived, and... etc., etc., etc. And I'm sure that, unlike today, they all accept one-another as equals and recognize that no faith has a monopoly on morality over the others -- and I'm sure that's true of Atheists towards Theists, too.
 
What we do know of the ST future is that poverty and scarcity have been dealt with.
At this point it is useful to draw a clear line between religion and fundamentalism. The latter I think is almost entirely gone in ST Earth, largely due to the elimination of poverty. Religion can then continue, and evolve.
 
>The point is that the (vast) majority of the Federation would be secular humanists.
>The majority of people are religious. But Star Trek’s time, that is not so.
>And just as I’ve said before, the majority of the Federation is secular humanists
>As I’ve said, it’s only the majority that is secular humanist.
Perhaps the difficulty is that you're not being clear on how you're arriving at the word "majority? That a portion of the Federation's Humanist population is then part of the sub-group secular humanists sure. But where on the show, in the canon, are you finding a majority? I've stated the source for my position, what is your source?

Or is it something that you are rationalizing ~slash~ making up out of thin air?
there are plenty of Christian secularists
Secularism specifically rejects religious teaching and knowledge of the scriptures as the basis of personal moral and ethical decision making. The term Christian secularist is a oxymoron. There are in fact not plenty.
... a term that basically just means you believe in the separation of church and state.
Basically no, that's not primarily what it means. Certainly not how it's defined.
Verata hardly ever bothers to say “secular humanist.”
By my memory Captain Verata has put secular or secular brand in conjunction with humanist six times.
Angela Martine, at the beginning of her marriage ceremony, kneels, genuflects and obviously crosses herself, explain that away.
... it falls under misdirection on the part of Gene Roddenberry
Regardless of why Roddenberry placed it in the episode, the character's actions are matter of canon now, aren't they?
We all get it too, you turn a blind eye to the factual information that exists outside your comfort bubble
I was looking to see if you’d give a response like this.
Glad I could accommodate you.

:)
 
Perhaps the difficulty is that you're not being clear on how you're arriving at the word "majority? That a portion of the Federation's Humanist population is then part of the sub-group secular humanists sure. But where on the show, in the canon, are you finding a majority? I've stated the source for my position, what is your source?

It is my belief that the majority of Federation citizens are secular humanists, based on the inevitable decline of organized religion in a positive future, which Star Trek clearly represents. In keeping with the creator of the universe's belief that Earth itself is nearly entirely atheist, Federation members would likely be held to the same standard of cultural maturity. Also, as I've provided, "Who Watches the Watchers" pretty well sums up the views of TNG on religion. But I've said all this before...


Basically no, that's not primarily what it means. Certainly not how it's defined.

Try looking it up again. Secularism is not a rejection of religion at all, except perhaps when Sean Hannity uses the term. It is merely the concept that religion should not control or dictate civil matters. But if you wish to persist in using confusing language, I'll try to translate.

By my memory Captain Verata has put secular or secular brand in conjunction with humanist six times.

You were counting? :confused:

Even still, how does that change the substance of what I said, that a ) it's to avoid confusion with the very person we are trying to communicate with and b ) he doesn't bother saying secular humanist most of the time. Trust me, my memory is longer than yours on this.

Regardless of why Roddenberry placed it in the episode, the character's actions are matter of canon now, aren't they?

Did you not see the other secular explanations I posted?
 
Then you are cherry-picking which pieces of evidence you'll accept, which is a very unscientific way of going about supporting your thesis. The difference between science and religion is that science fits its hypothesis to support the evidence, not the evidence to fit the hypothesis.

You're damn right, he's cherry picking. I'd rather not eat any dish created by cherries picked from Enterprise. I'd probably die of food poisoning. In short, Enterprise is horrible. And this isn't a debate in the traditional sense. The creativity you put into making a fictional universe something you can get into is a huge part of their success, their appeal, and their growth. We're not arguing history here, we're comparing interpretations of the same piece of art. A highly personal thing.

Sure, but Atheist ministers are fairly rare. And earlier in that post, you all but dismissed the idea of religious Humanists by noting that they're fairly rare. So you're going to dismiss one relatively uncommon group but not another? Ocom's razor says it's more likely she was referring to a Protestant minister than an Atheist one.

Occom's razor says that in a society where the majority of its inhabitants are secular humanists, it would be atheist.



Sure, but it's improbable there'd be a cross there if there were no religions left.

Even though organized religion has faded? Symbols do not always disappear with the organization. And the cross is perhaps one of the simplest, most basic symbols one can create. I highly doubt it will simply vanish once Christianity goes the way of Greek mythology.


Presumably because McCoy is aware that an organization can hold a belief and fail to live up to it, and that the behavior of an organization's members does not automatically invalidate everything about their beliefs.

That seems reasonable enough, but the teachings of Christianity itself, through its own holy unchangeable texts, invalidates itself.



Gene didn't have a fully-formed, worked-out "vision of the future." He had some basic Liberal/Progressive political beliefs that he used TOS to advance a bit (i.e., racial equality... as long as it was an Asian man driving and a black woman answering the space telephone), and then, later on, during the TOS-TNG interregnum, he started claiming that TOS was about showing a liberal utopia (clearly a revisionist nonsense claim) and used early TNG to get on a soapbox about various topics. But he never had any sort of fully worked-out Vision of the Future, and it certainly didn't exist at the beginning of TOS.

I think you missed my point. In portion you quoted of me, I wasn't saying, "Gene Roddenberry decided day one that everything would be just like this." Rather, I was saying, that in the Star Trek universe's chronology, religion has already faded into insignificance on Earth.


The idea that religion is inherently "bad" is bigoted nonsense. Religion is not inherently "bad." Irrational, yes -- it is, after all, based upon the presumption that the supernatural exists even when there is no evidence that it does. But not inherently bad, any more than any other kind of ideology is inherently bad. Religion is simply a belief system about the supernatural which prescribes a moral system for its adherents, which those adherents may then follow or not follow while still claiming allegiance to that religion. It is, in other words, just another institution, no different in moral character than the state, or the academy, or whatever.

Irrationality is bad. A belief system which hinges its moral teachings on dogma and irrationality is inherently bad.
 
You make it seem like if you reject all religious teachings and become an atheist you will succeed in life far beyond anyone's wild dream. You talk as if atheists it's a guarantee to a better future. I've seen a lot of successful religious people. One that I know of got scholarship and became the Air Force captain at the age of 21... He just turned to 21. He could have gone to any school he wanted. Like I said earlier. Nobody fits into a nice neat category. the real world isn't as simple as you think like you see on ST. I know that nobody is immune to having problems in their lives and I know from personal experience it isn't easy to deal with every problem; otherwise, I would have dealt with all of them a long time ago. It seems like in a blink of an eye the human civilizations change overnight into this Utopia in ST. It's hard to understand why the hell I have problem to begin with let alone solving every problem that everyone have.
 
Then you are cherry-picking which pieces of evidence you'll accept, which is a very unscientific way of going about supporting your thesis. The difference between science and religion is that science fits its hypothesis to support the evidence, not the evidence to fit the hypothesis.

You're damn right, he's cherry picking. I'd rather not eat any dish created by cherries picked from Enterprise. I'd probably die of food poisoning. In short, Enterprise is horrible. And this isn't a debate in the traditional sense. The creativity you put into making a fictional universe something you can get into is a huge part of their success, their appeal, and their growth. We're not arguing history here, we're comparing interpretations of the same piece of art.

There is a huge difference between interpreting a work of art and actively disregarding part of that work of art in order to make it fit into your preconceived notions of what it ought to be. You're not interpreting Hamlet if you decide to disregard Act III, you're altering it. You're not interpreting Star Trek if you decided to disregard Enterprise, you're changing it to fit your preconceived notions of what Star Trek ought to be.

You'd really be better off creating your own original work of art at that point, or at the very least labeling your alteration as a new version of the original. As it stands, your argument makes about as much sense as trying to make an argument about the motives of Lancelot in Le Mort d'Arthur on the basis of his actions in The Once and Future King.

Sure, but Atheist ministers are fairly rare. And earlier in that post, you all but dismissed the idea of religious Humanists by noting that they're fairly rare. So you're going to dismiss one relatively uncommon group but not another? Ocom's razor says it's more likely she was referring to a Protestant minister than an Atheist one.
Occom's razor says that in a society where the majority of its inhabitants are secular humanists, it would be atheist.

This is circular logic. You're beginning with the presumption that Humans are predominantly Secular Humanists, someone else is pointing out evidence that most probably contradicts that a priori assumption, and instead of adjusting your assumption to fit the evidence, you are appealing again to the a priori assumption. It's the equivalent of saying that there is a God, someone else saying that if there's a God how come the Bible has errors, and then saying that there can't be any errors in the Bible because God wrote it.

Sure, but it's improbable there'd be a cross there if there were no religions left.

Even though organized religion has faded?

It would especially be improbable that such an image irrevocably infused with religious meaning would survive the death of organized religion.

Captain Verata said:
-"Bread and Circuses" seems to be the odd one out when it comes to religion. That line does make McCoy sound like an unflinching Christian without regard to the bloodshed done by the so called believers of love and brotherhood.

Presumably because McCoy is aware that an organization can hold a belief and fail to live up to it, and that the behavior of an organization's members does not automatically invalidate everything about their beliefs.

That seems reasonable enough, but the teachings of Christianity itself, through its own holy unchangeable texts, invalidates itself.

The logical consistency of Christian theology is an entirely separate issue from whether or not it Christianity as an institution is any more or less predisposed towards violence and oppression than other institutions.

BennettStar said:
It began before the first episode of TOS. You don't see it, it's just a fact of Gene Roddenberry's envisioned future.

Gene didn't have a fully-formed, worked-out "vision of the future." He had some basic Liberal/Progressive political beliefs that he used TOS to advance a bit (i.e., racial equality... as long as it was an Asian man driving and a black woman answering the space telephone), and then, later on, during the TOS-TNG interregnum, he started claiming that TOS was about showing a liberal utopia (clearly a revisionist nonsense claim) and used early TNG to get on a soapbox about various topics. But he never had any sort of fully worked-out Vision of the Future, and it certainly didn't exist at the beginning of TOS.

I think you missed my point. In portion you quoted of me, I wasn't saying, "Gene Roddenberry decided day one that everything would be just like this."

If that was not your intent, it was what you seemed to be saying. "It began before the first episode of TOS."

Rather, I was saying, that in the Star Trek universe's chronology, religion has already faded into insignificance on Earth.

That is an inaccurate claim. It would be more accurate to say that the Star Trek canon has presented seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence about the role of religion in the future as a result of the creative motives of the various creators, particularly Gene Roddenberry, changing over the periods of time in which canonical installments were produced.

The idea that religion is inherently "bad" is bigoted nonsense. Religion is not inherently "bad." Irrational, yes -- it is, after all, based upon the presumption that the supernatural exists even when there is no evidence that it does. But not inherently bad, any more than any other kind of ideology is inherently bad. Religion is simply a belief system about the supernatural which prescribes a moral system for its adherents, which those adherents may then follow or not follow while still claiming allegiance to that religion. It is, in other words, just another institution, no different in moral character than the state, or the academy, or whatever.
Irrationality is bad. A belief system which hinges its moral teachings on dogma and irrationality is inherently bad.

This is ridiculously simplistic and quite bigoted.

Irrationality is not inherently bad. Why does one love one's spouse especially above all others? As Tim Minchin once pointed out, "If I didn't have you, someone else would do." And yet any reasonable person would argue that it is not at all bad to love one's spouse and to love them more than other persons, irrational though it may be.

And anyone who's ever seen the compassion and genuine love and forgiveness many religious persons find themselves motivated to experience as a result of their faith's teachings cannot help but acknowledge a simple fact that, because of religion's unique power to appeal to primal human emotions, it can be a potent force for positive social change. It's no coincidence that Martin Luther King was a minister; his beliefs gave him the emotional fortitude he and his followers needed to withstand the brutal oppression of the Jim Crow regime of the mid-20th Century American South. Anyone who's ever seen the way a new faith can provide a recovering alcoholic with the strength and motivation to change his life, embrace sobriety, and avoid anti-social behavior, knows full well that religion can be a force for good -- just like any institution, it can be used for good or abused for ill.

Irrationality is not inherently a bad thing. The bad comes when we try to impose our irrationalities onto others -- when we adopted ideological paradigms that are too weak to allow for difference, when we cannot accept that others just disagree with us without that being a bad thing. When we decide that everyone must accept that they are "under God" in compulsory pledges of allegiance; when we decide that our religion's refusal to accept the legitimacy of homosexuality gives us a reason to use the power of the state to prevent people from marrying; when we decide that our One True Religion gives us an excuse to injure or kill those who do not share our beliefs (be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Hindu); or when we decide that any belief system with which we disagree is inherently bad.

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in the existence of the supernatural. I say this not because I think myself especially smarter than others, or because I think irrationality a bad thing, but simply because I think that a reasonable interpretation of the available evidence is that the supernatural does not exist. That's all.

But, I gotta say, the only thing that makes me as angry as a Christian trying to telling others to bow down to their god is an Atheist condemning those Christians for bowing down themselves.
 
There is a huge difference between interpreting a work of art and actively disregarding part of that work of art in order to make it fit into your preconceived notions of what it ought to be. You're not interpreting Hamlet if you decide to disregard Act III, you're altering it. You're not interpreting Star Trek if you decided to disregard Enterprise, you're changing it to fit your preconceived notions of what Star Trek ought to be.

Enterprise is not the Third Act. It's not art. It's not Star Trek. But that's another debate entirely.


This is circular logic. You're beginning with the presumption that Humans are predominantly Secular Humanists, someone else is pointing out evidence that most probably contradicts that a priori assumption, and instead of adjusting your assumption to fit the evidence, you are appealing again to the a priori assumption. It's the equivalent of saying that there is a God, someone else saying that if there's a God how come the Bible has errors, and then saying that there can't be any errors in the Bible because God wrote it.

Of course that is my assumption. That's what I've been saying all along. Star Trek offers multiple interpretations of the religious issue, leaving it up to the viewer to determine which version of canon he wishes to subscribe to. I've only offered rationalizations for the seemingly conflicting religious references. I'll say this for the fourth of fifth time now, my rationalizations are not evidence of anything, they are explanations of how the Federation can be seen as mostly secular humanist, even with these apparent contradictions. I'm not debating my claim that the message of Star Trek is one of secular humanism, because that is what Star Trek's message has been to me, and it is undebatable. I'm simply outlining how I deal with supposed discrepancies to my belief.




The logical consistency of Christian theology is an entirely separate issue from whether or not it Christianity as an institution is any more or less predisposed towards violence and oppression than other institutions.

You were saying that McCoy could tell the difference between teachings and failing to live up to said teachings. I am saying that it is inaccurate to claim Christian teachings are "nothing but love and brotherhood." Very inaccurate.


If that was not your intent, it was what you seemed to be saying. "It began before the first episode of TOS."

I'm sorry it was interpreted that way. I hope my clarification helped.


That is an inaccurate claim. It would be more accurate to say that the Star Trek canon has presented seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence about the role of religion in the future as a result of the creative motives of the various creators, particularly Gene Roddenberry, changing over the periods of time in which canonical installments were produced.

Okay. My claim about secular humanism being the dominate belief in the Federation is a personal one as much as it is tied to what is shown in canon. It is never definitively shown in canon what the majority of Federation's opinion on religion is, or even on just Earth, and numerous sources offering conflicting evidence. So, you can create multiple interpretations and use various rationalizations to explain away the contradictory evidence. That is what I have done.

This is ridiculously simplistic and quite bigoted.

Irrationality is not inherently bad. Why does one love one's spouse especially above all others? As Tim Minchin once pointed out, "If I didn't have you, someone else would do." And yet any reasonable person would argue that it is not at all bad to love one's spouse and to love them more than other persons, irrational though it may be.

And anyone who's ever seen the compassion and genuine love and forgiveness many religious persons find themselves motivated to experience as a result of their faith's teachings cannot help but acknowledge a simple fact that, because of religion's unique power to appeal to primal human emotions, it can be a potent force for positive social change. It's no coincidence that Martin Luther King was a minister; his beliefs gave him the emotional fortitude he and his followers needed to withstand the brutal oppression of the Jim Crow regime of the mid-20th Century American South. Anyone who's ever seen the way a new faith can provide a recovering alcoholic with the strength and motivation to change his life, embrace sobriety, and avoid anti-social behavior, knows full well that religion can be a force for good -- just like any institution, it can be used for good or abused for ill.

Irrationality is not inherently a bad thing. The bad comes when we try to impose our irrationalities onto others -- when we adopted ideological paradigms that are too weak to allow for difference, when we cannot accept that others just disagree with us without that being a bad thing. When we decide that everyone must accept that they are "under God" in compulsory pledges of allegiance; when we decide that our religion's refusal to accept the legitimacy of homosexuality gives us a reason to use the power of the state to prevent people from marrying; when we decide that our One True Religion gives us an excuse to injure or kill those who do not share our beliefs (be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Hindu); or when we decide that any belief system with which we disagree is inherently bad.

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in the existence of the supernatural. I say this not because I think myself especially smarter than others, or because I think irrationality a bad thing, but simply because I think that a reasonable interpretation of the available evidence is that the supernatural does not exist. That's all.

But, I gotta say, the only thing that makes me as angry as a Christian trying to telling others to bow down to their god is an Atheist condemning those Christians for bowing down themselves.

Perhaps what you're claiming is irrational, such as love of a single person over many others, is not as irrational as you claim? I think Data is an excellent character, for showing how a being that runs on pure logic can still create attachments to his friends the way us irrational humans do. Perhaps the personal relationships we have with one another are only irrational if it could be possible to carry out desired relationships with every human on the planet in a single lifetime. More likely, physical proximity, time constraints, and a desire for companionship drive our pursuits for friendship and love, and choosing a single partner for life is not an act made out of irrationality, but for comfort, security, and because the bond you formed with that person was only possible because of the fact of you meeting and choosing to pursue the relationship. So, no, "someone else" will not do, unless you had an infinite number of lifetimes to travel the world and meet every person and "test run" a relationship with each of them before choosing your partner.

In any event, there is nothing bigoted about what I said. There is nothing bigoted about saying "atheism is bad." In fact, I welcome anyone to say that, because it can spark some very interesting debates. Now, if you say "All atheists are evil," that is bigoted and obviously untrue. However, I neither believe nor have ever said any such statement about people of religious faith.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top