The Worst TNG Moment

[Mr_Homn]

You have no idea what the Mintakan's old religion was. Picard was not denouncing all religion, he was talking about not wanting to send them back to the dark ages of superstition.

The mintakan's old beliefs could have been anything. They could have believed that pillows are gods. If picard says it was the dark ages of superstition for the mintakins, then it was.

 

[Paper Moon]

As I said (emphasis added):

The episode itself is good, and, in-universe, it's not too overt. (Although Picard's speech equating belief in a higher power with the supernatural and dark ages of superstition and fear pushes it. It also seems out of character for him.)

But in an out-of-universe/real-world context, the episode is very anti-religious belief, which is surprising and disappointing, imho, for a franchise that usually makes such strong statements about infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

"WWTW" uses the tried and true technique of in-universe allegory to make an real-world point. The downside of the use of allegory, of course, is that it's imprecise. And I argue that its use here was ill-chosen for such a complex topic.

 

[Ian Keldon]

As a believer in freedom of speech, I loved "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" (I know the title was in english - but it should've been in latin); challenging christian censorship in one of its biggest strongholds (Hollywood) demands respect.

HAH!

Hollywood is the biggest anti-Christian institutions in the US.

 

[Paper Moon]

As a believer in freedom of speech, I loved "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" (I know the title was in english - but it should've been in latin); challenging christian censorship in one of its biggest strongholds (Hollywood) demands respect.

HAH!

Hollywood is the biggest anti-Christian institutions in the US.

Now, perhaps, but then? (Not a loaded question, I really don't know, other than that mainstream America is not non-religious.)

 

[tafkats]

As a believer in freedom of speech, I loved "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" (I know the title was in english - but it should've been in latin); challenging christian censorship in one of its biggest strongholds (Hollywood) demands respect.

HAH!

Hollywood is the biggest anti-Christian institutions in the US.

Now, perhaps, but then? (Not a loaded question, I really don't know, other than that mainstream America is not non-religious.)

Hollywood is ultimately about being blandly inoffensive to as large an audience as possible, which means that while you won't see highly religious protagonists very often, you won't see strong atheists very often either.

 

[davejames]

The logic of the episode is that a rekindling of Mintakan theistic religion would send them back into "the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear." That is a simplistic view of religion that does a disservice to the discourse on the role of religion in a progressive society.

Maybe it wouldn't send them back into the "dark ages", but it would still be a potentially limiting and unhealthy change for their society-- as we see in our own country, with half the U.S. being scientifically illiterate, and political leaders making important decisions based off of hazy interpretations of an ancient 2000 year old religious text.

I mean, yikes.

 

[Gotham Central]

As for other contenders for Worst TNG Moment, just gonna throw this out there... the blatant anti-religion message of "Who Watches the Watchers?". The episode itself is good, and, in-universe, it's not too overt. (Although Picard's speech equating belief in a higher power with the supernatural and dark ages of superstition and fear pushes it. It also seems out of character for him.)

But in an out-of-universe/real-world context, the episode is very anti-religious belief, which is surprising and disappointing, imho, for a franchise that usually makes such strong statements about infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

Well naturally, as an athiest, I thought Picard was dead on in his points, and I couldn't help but admire the bravery of the writers taking on the subject. The episode does a great job showing just how easily people can get sucked into believing in the supernatural (or higher power, same diff ), and how hard it is to get them to stop once they've begun.

I DO agree the execution could have been a bit less preachy and heavy-handed though, and Picard probably got a little more angry and judgmental than he should have.

You both make very good points about challenging the establishment in Hollywood; I hadn't thought of it like that before. Still, davejames, your point about the execution serves my point as well: I don't think it does anyone any good to be preaching squarely on either side of the issue. The issue of religious belief (which is really what the episode was about, not religious institutions) is simply more complicated than that.



You give no evidence beyond your own take on religion (which isn't evidence, but interpretation) to support this claim. Unless I'm misunderstanding the term "furphy"?

My own take is religion is by definition supernatural and at its worst excesses unapologetically so. And you can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue religious dogma in the face of overwhelming evidence and reason across the whole gamut of science and social issues and then cry foul when you’re labelled superstitious.

Not to be unkind, but you don't know what you're talking about here. Religion ≠ religious dogma ≠ religious institutions ≠ religious belief.

A brief rundown:
-Religion is the general term that encompasses a whole range of different systems of beliefs and morals/ethics. "Religion" covers everything from fundamentalist Protestantism to various schools of Buddhist thought, from Unitarian Universalists to Sunni Islam, from paganism to Hinduism to Taoism to Rastafarianism. If you're going to make assertions about "religion," you'd better have a lot of evidence to back it up, because there is a whole hell of a lot that falls under the term "religion."
-Religious institutions are bodies that claim to represent their faith's organization on Earth. Some institutions are basically in-line with what most of their parishioners believe (many Protestant denominations are like this; if a parishioner doesn't agree with the theology, they leave and join another denomination). Other institutions are not (for example, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forbids the use of birth control, but there are plenty of practicing Catholics who go ahead and use it anyway). Some religions have rigid, be-all-end-all institutions (again, the RCC), while others have less powerful institutions (again, many Protestant denominations). Most faiths have some organization, even if it is very loosely organized and/or not necessarily representative of its members.
-Religious dogma, or often, doctrine, refers to a faith's teachings. The ability of a faith's followers to dispute doctrine has been the crux of many, many disagreements over the millenia. (For example, there was a little thing called the Protestant Reformation a few hundred years ago.) More rigid religious institutions tend to declare doctrine the way governments declare laws: no wiggle room. But many religious institutions articulate doctrines and then discuss them and allow them to evolve as time goes on. Doctrines include the Ten Commandments and various iterations of the Golden Rule, but also include things like Kosher dietary laws, none of which actually rely on a belief in the supernatural. (Caveat: I'm a little rusty on my Kosher laws, but regardless of whether or not they are framed in some supernatural context, you can follow the doctrine of Kosher without believing in anything supernatural.)
-Religious belief reflects an individual's choice of which doctrines to follow, as well as whatever they conclude on their own.

And just to inject some perspective into the discussion, some of our greatest leaders, reformers and minds have believed in a higher power (even if they weren't associated with, or even in fact vocally disagreed with a particular religious institution):
-Ben Franklin
-Albert Einstein
-Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-Mohandas Gandhi
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu

According to Memory Alpha, Picard says:

Millennia ago, they [the Mintakans] abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear [by telling them that I am their God]? No!

The logic of the episode is that a rekindling of Mintakan theistic religion would send them back into "the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear." That is a simplistic view of religion that does a disservice to the discourse on the role of religion in a progressive society.

The episode does, of course, make very good points about those who use faith as an excuse to abandon all reason and act irrationally. But there are many, many, many religious folks out there who do not behave this way. The episode doesn't allow for a reasonable coexistence of faith and rationality (which you clearly see in Franklin, Einstein and Dr. King, among many others).

Tulaberry whine, I'm sorry to be jumping down your throat, but I just don't think you can be so dismissive of "religion"; the fact is that there are way more religious people than non-religious people, and if you go and make statements like you did in your last post, you're just gonna alienate the people on the other side more. And that can't be a good thing.

I apologize for derailing the thread, everyone.

Moving on, I second the nomination of "Sub Rosa," but particularly when Crusher's grandmother pops out of the coffin. That was the first episode of TNG my (very young at the time) sister ever saw, and it suffices to say that it took her years to recover from it and actually like a TNG episode!

Religion, or more precisely spiritual belief, is by definition irrational. It defies logic. There is nothing to say that otherwise reasonable people cannot hold irrational/illogical beliefs.

At its core, religion is about faith and not facts. Taking a society that had otherwise elevated itself past superstitious beliefs and the need for fake deities in order to embrace reason and science IS progress.

 

[T'Girl]

Religion, or more precisely spiritual belief, is by definition irrational.

Given that many people consider atheism to be itself a form of religious belief system (admittedly godless). And that legally this is the position of the secular United States Supreme Court, aren't you basically stabbing yourself in the foot with your statement?

Atheists do spend a lot of time proselytizing.

 

[Marlonius]

Given that many people consider atheism to be itself a form of religious belief system (admittedly godless). And that legally this is the position of the secular United States Supreme Court, aren't you basically stabbing yourself in the foot with your statement?

Atheists do spend a lot of time proselytizing.

I take it you're not an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Huge difference.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Given that many people consider atheism to be itself a form of religious belief system (admittedly godless). And that legally this is the position of the secular United States Supreme Court, aren't you basically stabbing yourself in the foot with your statement?

Atheists do spend a lot of time proselytizing.

I take it you're not an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Huge difference.

Sorry, but a belief that there is no God is still a belief. There is no proof that there is no God, just as there is no proof that there is a God.

 

[T'Girl]

I take it you're not an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Huge difference.

No I'm not, and this gives me the vantage point to see your faith from the outside. You do possess a belief in your own position, atheism is a non-theistic religion.

Atheism has a structure system of beliefs that are prevalent within the atheist community. You see the world as being a certain way, and (as others do too) insist that yours is the correct one, you possess "faith" in your own worldview. As I mention before, atheist do proselytize their belief system. Religion is a philosophy of life and existence, which you have through your atheism.

 

[Paper Moon]

Religion, or more precisely spiritual belief, is by definition irrational. It defies logic. There is nothing to say that otherwise reasonable people cannot hold irrational/illogical beliefs.

At its core, religion is about faith and not facts. Taking a society that had otherwise elevated itself past superstitious beliefs and the need for fake deities in order to embrace reason and science IS progress.

See, but you haven't proven that reasonable people holding certain beliefs not based in empirical evidence is an impediment to progress. Again, I point to the examples of Franklin, Einstein and King, who all had faith in something beyond the empirical, and who all rank among the highest echelons of history's "progress makers."

Given that many people consider atheism to be itself a form of religious belief system (admittedly godless). And that legally this is the position of the secular United States Supreme Court, aren't you basically stabbing yourself in the foot with your statement?

Atheists do spend a lot of time proselytizing.

I take it you're not an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Huge difference.

As Tora Ziyal pithily put it, a belief that there is/are no God/god/gods is still a belief. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and a firm conclusion in the absence of evidence seems an awful lot like a belief to me.

If I may shift the discussion slightly, I said in my original post that I thought Picard's vehemence was out of character. Picard's statement and how he delivers it suggests very strong, if not total atheism on his part. But in the preceding season, in "Where Silence Has Lease," Picard says this (thank you again, Memory Alpha):

Considering the marvelous complexity of the 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 [either going to Paradise or blinking into nothingness]. That what we are goes beyond Euclidean or other "practical" measuring systems, and that our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.

It's that kind of nuance that I feel was lacking from "WWTW," in a story that really needed more nuance. The literal point that they made in the episode (abandoning all reason leads to bad consequences) is an excellent one, but, as I've said, what I believe (no pun intended) were TPTB's intentions with the episode are disappointing.

 

[Marlonius]

I take it you're not an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Huge difference.

No I'm not, and this gives me the vantage point to see your faith from the outside. You do possess a belief in your own position, atheism is a non-theistic religion.

Atheism has a structure system of beliefs that are prevalent within the atheist community. You see the world as being a certain way, and (as others do too) insist that yours is the correct one, you possess "faith" in your own worldview. As I mention before, atheist do proselytize their belief system. Religion is a philosophy of life and existence, which you have through your atheism.

There is no athiest community, just as there is no "we don't ski" club.

You entirely missed my point, but that's okay, I'm quite used to it, which is why I seldom engage in this type of conversation.

You may carry on thinking you know what I believe or don't believe. I shall say no more on the subject.

 

[BillJ]

Considering the marvelous complexity of the 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 [either going to Paradise or blinking into nothingness]. That what we are goes beyond Euclidean or other "practical" measuring systems, and that our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.

It's that kind of nuance that I feel was lacking from "WWTW," in a story that really needed more nuance. The literal point that they made in the episode (abandoning all reason leads to bad consequences) is an excellent one, but, as I've said, what I believe (no pun intended) were TPTB's intentions with the episode are disappointing.

This is why Who Watches the Watchers fails. There is no subtlety to Picard's position, it is just as bad as Let This Be Your Last Battlefield in the sledgehammer message department.

 

[horatio83]

I take it you're not an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Huge difference.

No I'm not, and this gives me the vantage point to see your faith from the outside. You do possess a belief in your own position, atheism is a non-theistic religion.

Atheism has a structure system of beliefs that are prevalent within the atheist community. You see the world as being a certain way, and (as others do too) insist that yours is the correct one, you possess "faith" in your own worldview. As I mention before, atheist do proselytize their belief system. Religion is a philosophy of life and existence, which you have through your atheism.

I think it is a bit more complicated.
I'd say that there are three forms of atheism. The fairly aggressive form of anti-theism which is engaged in trying to convinces people that there are no gods (I think this is what you are talking about), the fairly sane atheism which is basically agnostic but also realizes that agnosticism is just evading the question so it dares to give an answer to the question of God (probably encompassing the majority of atheists) and what I would label Christian atheism, i.e. a perspective that faces the pure horror of God having died (of course not literally but as humankind has always believed in God it is necessary to kill him off in your story) and we being on our own.
I like the third one as it is most radical. Many other forms of atheism basically create an Ersatzgod, be it the Bolshevik one that lead to Stalin being a substitute tzar or the one of guys like Dawkins in which science becomes a kind of god.

 

[horatio83]

It's that kind of nuance that I feel was lacking from "WWTW," in a story that really needed more nuance. The literal point that they made in the episode (abandoning all reason leads to bad consequences) is an excellent one, but, as I've said, what I believe (no pun intended) were TPTB's intentions with the episode are disappointing.

To me it sounded like esoteric bullshit and not something Picard would actually say. Life and consciousness is a great, unexplainable thing but you do not need to become metaphysical to deal with that.

Everywhere in life the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A proton weighs more than the sum of its quarks, chemical elements become something totally new once you add stuff, life is more than a bunch of organic elements, consciousness is more than the neurological stuff in the brain and human society and culture is more than the sum of a bunch of individuals. But once you take the parts away this magical and unexplainable extra, the difference between the whole and the sum of its parts, vanished.

So yeah, you can tackle seemingly metaphysical questions like life and death while being a hardcore materialist as long you acknowledge that reality itself has gaps that allow such "extra" to come into play.

 

[Tiberius]

I take it you're not an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Huge difference.

No I'm not, and this gives me the vantage point to see your faith from the outside. You do possess a belief in your own position, atheism is a non-theistic religion.

Atheism has a structure system of beliefs that are prevalent within the atheist community. You see the world as being a certain way, and (as others do too) insist that yours is the correct one, you possess "faith" in your own worldview. As I mention before, atheist do proselytize their belief system. Religion is a philosophy of life and existence, which you have through your atheism.

Atheism is not a religion. You say that there are many things that atheists share, but honestly, the only thing we share is a lack of belief in a god. There are some atheists who go for the mystical side, and some who don't.

Your definition of "religion" seems to be so vague in order to incorporate atheism that it would also appear to incorporate being a Star trek fan as a religion too!

 

[sonak]

I take it you're not an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Huge difference.

No I'm not, and this gives me the vantage point to see your faith from the outside. You do possess a belief in your own position, atheism is a non-theistic religion.

Atheism has a structure system of beliefs that are prevalent within the atheist community. You see the world as being a certain way, and (as others do too) insist that yours is the correct one, you possess "faith" in your own worldview. As I mention before, atheist do proselytize their belief system. Religion is a philosophy of life and existence, which you have through your atheism.

just as you have a "I don't believe in the tooth fairy" belief system, right?

because, by your logic, that's what you're saying.

 

[davejames]

Atheism has a structure system of beliefs that are prevalent within the atheist community. You see the world as being a certain way, and (as others do too) insist that yours is the correct one, you possess "faith" in your own worldview. As I mention before, atheist do proselytize their belief system. Religion is a philosophy of life and existence, which you have through your atheism.

The difference being that our so-called "faith" is supported by a metric ton of evidence based on the study of the real, physical world we live in. Evidence which not only explains the world better than religion ever has, but explains why our brains even developed such superstitious beliefs in the FIRST place.

Your side's faith is based on nothing but... ancient texts, cultural traditions, and wishful thinking.

Personally, I'd rather go with the belief system that has at least SOME kind of solid foundation under it.

 

[Paper Moon]

It's that kind of nuance that I feel was lacking from "WWTW," in a story that really needed more nuance. The literal point that they made in the episode (abandoning all reason leads to bad consequences) is an excellent one, but, as I've said, what I believe (no pun intended) were TPTB's intentions with the episode are disappointing.

To me it sounded like esoteric bullshit and not something Picard would actually say. Life and consciousness is a great, unexplainable thing but you do not need to become metaphysical to deal with that.

I disagree with you about Picard not actually being likely to say something like that in "WSHL"; however, seeing as Picard's vehemence in "WWTW" was always a minor point in my critique of the episode, I'm not going to argue that point right now.

So yeah, you can tackle seemingly metaphysical questions like life and death while being a hardcore materialist as long you acknowledge that reality itself has gaps that allow such "extra" to come into play.

Right, and some religious folk view that "extra" as something divine. I once heard it said that "Music is the space between the notes." Well, some religious people believe that God is the space within those gaps that you described, those unexplainable bits.

Not that that is necessarily what I personally believe, but it doesn't seem to me that a rational person like Picard could not hold such views himself, nor does it seem to me that holding such views precludes one from rational thought.

And Tiberius, I think your point about Star Trek as a religion indirectly supports my point about "WWTW" dismissing religion too easily. People dismiss Star Trek all the time. (Think SNL.) But as the very existence of the TrekBBS shows, there is a helluva lot of Star Trek, and a helluva lot to discuss about it. The exact same can be said of religion (like it or not), and to dismiss it the way the writers/producers of "WWTW" certainly appear to have intended to is folly.

(Because I know someone will argue that the horrors caused by religion permit us to summarily dismiss it by ridicule, again, I point to the examples of Dr. King, Archbishop Tutu and Mohandas Gandhi, all religious folks whose religious beliefs led them to do great good in the world. You can't just dismiss all of that, too.)

And BillJ, you hit it on the head with the sledgehammer analogy. While I do think that "Let That Be..." used the sledgehammer more appropriately (though it's still a preachy episode that overdoes it), "WWTW" does not, and that's why it's on my list for "Worst Moments of TNG" (though certainly not the worst).