Atheism, and "Bread and Circuses"

[Doomsday]

That's rather offensive, Dennis. It's pretty damned sad when Christians are all lumped together with the extremists in what is a very large diverse group.

To me, as a Christian, being called a "Bible thumper" is a pejorative, along the lines of calling a Moslem the "R" word or a Jew the "K" word.

None of these designations should be acceptable, even if the three groups involved have elements in them that are undesirable at times to others (and even to those in said groups, if truth be told).

Even if one disagrees with another person's religious leanings (or lack thereof), it's only common decency to avoid stereotyping.

Thank you, T'Bonz. I was beginning to think I was the only Christian on this forum.

No, you are definitely not the only Christian on this forum.

One of the wonderful things about Trek is how broad and deep it's attraction can be. And often we see in it what we want to see in it.

Clearly, many atheists/humanists/ etc find great comfort in many of Trek's more humanistic stories and characters, and they are certainly there to see.

But interestingly, Trek has always appealed to Christians as well. Most of the fellow Christians I have known since the 80's are also big Star Trek fans, or at least viewers and appreciators of the show.

In fact, I once had an Assistant Pastor who used Trek episodes as parables to illuminate Biblical principles they sometimes reflected. (and this was a very conservative fundamentalist Baptist church, mind you).

I am part of a small home-church group, and our entire group went togehter to see STID.

The Trek universe is broad enough to make room for those who believe and for those who don't.

I think it's arrogant for any of us (Christian or atheist) to think we can possibly know it all. There are too many unknowables.

That is part of the basic Trek philosphy as I see it, tolerance for all kinds of beliefs. I am always saddened and dissappointed when I hear/read Trekkers being intolerant toward those they disagree with, particulary about matters of faith.

I think true wisdom is not in what you know, but that you are aware of and acknowledge that wich you do NOT know.

 

[mb22]

THIS. Everybody knows that Roddenberry was against religion; that's part of his script for the aborted Star Trek movie The God Thing (which later became the basis for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.) When did he say that he was for it, or that Braga was wrong?

What bothers some people is Braga's sweeping statement about Trek in general, particularly TOS. While Kirk certainly did his share of god-zapping, beginning with Gary Mitchell, there is no evidence from that show itself that GR was as totally hostile to to all manifestations of religious belief in the 1960s as he later became.

 

[Ovation]

Yes, but what is more believable? Braga taking Roddenberry at face value when he expressed his anti-religious stance and just assuming it was a long-held view OR Braga having some nefarious anti-religious agenda and shamelessly co-opting Roddenberry for that agenda?

 

[Gov Kodos]

I would amend my question, by instead asking:

Seeing as we both agree that the positive content of atheism is a belief system, would you also agree that those who share your beliefs should accord respect to those with differing beliefs?

Atheism, or more accurately perhaps, viewing life through a materialistic and empirical framework is only a belief system in an extremely narrow solipsistic sense sense that one can only know what you directly experience with your senses. However, that is physical and independently verifiable by others. It is in no way a belief system like any religious sense which posits a metaphysical reality. There is no way to verify any metaphysical reality. That is completely a belief of faith, which has no way to be assayed, described, or tested independently or observed and verified by any means. Any metaphysical reality is as right and wrong as any other. God has no more claim to reality than Batman and Wonder Woman. To claim 'belief in the physical world is equally a position of belief/faith as 'belief in the metaphysical' is patent foolishness. That is the claim that too many entertain as a valid argument allowing Creationism in the classroom. It's absurd.

I'm glad you made the distinction, but it bears emphasis that it is not necessary to view life through a materialistic and empirical framework, in order to have no belief in a deity. One need not be a philosopher to be an atheist.

As it happens, most of the high-profile atheists, the ones who engage in public debate about it, are philosophers, or fancy themselves to be, but some of them are jack-asses.

In theory, someone could believe in non-empirical things, such as in aliens from other dimensions that regularly abduct people, yet still be an atheist. I don't know how many, but I'm sure there are people out there like that.

When unqualified, atheism is something very specific: an absence of a particular kind of belief, period.

Atheism is not a belief system. Any positive belief that an atheist has has another source.

That was mixing atheism up with particular philosophical views, thanks. I would argue with the alien point that the aliens are non-existent or non-empirical, rather currently undetectable. (Likely lunacy, but that's something else.) The folks in question are not purposing anything metaphysical. They do have a bad understanding of physics and probably like to throw around terms from quantum mechanics and other branches of physics, but they likely try to stay in a physical framework of the universe for their delusions.

It is the sort of poor thinking that Creationists utilize to claim their beliefs should be accounted equal to the beliefs of science, though. However, science doesn't work on belief as faith. The beliefs of science are knowledge of facts and knowledge of tested, verifiable, and replicable results. There is no issue of faith what so ever. Similarly, asserting Atheism is a belief as faith is simply wrong. It no more works from a position of faith than does science.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

No, there is a reason there is aMericus on the platform watching the games. (Yes, that is a typographical assist, not a typo.) Formally, the climax is when aMericus sees the light and denies the temptations of empire, even at the cost of his own life. And the jokes about television are a humorous way of identifying their world and the contemporary US. I'm pretty sure everyone making Star Trek identified the guy threatening a special (live torture) if the ratings went down with someone they dealt with in mundane life!

THIS. Tragically, what the Magna Romans will get won't be as good as they think that it will be (eventually) with Christianity.

Christianity in Bread and Circuses is presented almost purely as pacifist, with one stray comment about freedom and brotherhood. None of this is historically accurate. Gibbon popularized the thesis that Christian pacifism undermined the imperial will of the Romans but it doesn't really hold up. A secondary theme, the burdens on the state of Christian episcopacy and privileges (free mail service sticks in my mind for some odd reason?) is a little stronger. In the Sixties everyone was well aware that true Christianity was not pacifist and only cultists like the Quakers or Mennonites held to it.

Plus, most of the mainstream Christian churches were for the Vietnam War, including the Catholic Church (Cardinal Francis Spellman was a backer along with William Douglass of the American Friends Of Vietnam, which was an organization that supported the South Vietnamese government of Ngo Dinh Diem simply because Diem was Catholic and had almost become a Catholic priest as a young man, although he took a vow of chastity and never got married.) When the American Friends of Vietnam realized that Diem was an autocratic ruler and was treating Buddhists badly, it faded away, but the Church never really said anything about how bad the Vietnam War was, or even bothered to join in any condemnation of it (except for a certain Afro-American Southern Baptist minister who did condemn it in 1967.)

I don't see the culture of the Empire depicted in the episode as representing the culture of the American viewing audience, despite the inclusion of automobiles and "smog." The dissidents opposing the Empire, people seeking their freedom and the growth of the "Son of God" Religion, would more likely be the culture that was to have been representing America.

See the epistle to Philemon. See the church names of the time, such as Southern Baptist Convention or Southern Methodist Church and reflect on their origins. The historical claim that Christianity is about freedom comes from a time when "Christianity" was defined in opposition to Roman Catholicism, the Antichrist. Star Trek wasn't interested enough in religion to tackle the issue of Roman Christianity. If that seems atheistical, so be it.

THIS, again. Plus, the opposite is true; it was secular groups and the Quakers that were the ones most like Septimus and Flavius Maximus in our world during the '60s (and now in the 2010s opposing the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts) in opposing the Vietnam War, plus the certain Afro-American minister I've mentioned above.

....Kirk is in fact a Christian, who embraces that growth comes no other way but through "The Struggle."

Maybe he is, but it may be through something else that he is.

Hardship is normal for the Christian life, it's how we improve ourselves.

For most Christians, maybe. For some in the hierarchy of this religion, not so much.

 

[Shawnster]

Atheism is not a belief system. Any positive belief that an atheist has has another source.

Actually, I've grown to see that Atheism is a belief system. One of the people to influence my viewpoint was atheist Penn Jillette, from the Penn & Teller duo.

Penn was interviewed for NPR's series "This I Believe" in 2005.

His opening statement:
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

Penn goes on. I'm a Christian and yet I found the whole interview quite powerful and insightful.

Now, granted, Penn starts off saying he's BEYOND atheism and that atheism is not believing in God. I did like his statement "I believe there is no God." It may be a grammar thing, but that statement is more positive and direct than "I don't believe in God." Tell me what you believe, not what you don't.

Then, later, I found images like this image:

For something that ISN'T a belief system, looks like they sure are trying hard to proselytize. Now, granted, this group does not represent every atheist.

To claim 'belief in the physical world is equally a position of belief/faith as 'belief in the metaphysical' is patent foolishness. That is the claim that too many entertain as a valid argument allowing Creationism in the classroom. It's absurd.

It is the sort of poor thinking that Creationists utilize to claim their beliefs should be accounted equal to the beliefs of science, though. However, science doesn't work on belief as faith. The beliefs of science are knowledge of facts and knowledge of tested, verifiable, and replicable results. There is no issue of faith what so ever. Similarly, asserting Atheism is a belief as faith is simply wrong. It no more works from a position of faith than does science.

Just for the record, there are millions of Christians that believe in creation, yet reject Creationism. Please do not confuse their misrepresentation of facts with our sound beliefs.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Now, granted, Penn starts off saying he's BEYOND atheism and that atheism is not believing in God.

So, there you go.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Then, later, I found images like this image:

For something that ISN'T a belief system, looks like they sure are trying hard to proselytize. Now, granted, this group does not represent every atheist.

One problem in our modern culture is that the word "myth" is widely believed to mean "lie." A myth is a system of shared sentiments, a truth (the opposite of a lie) which can be communicated no other way. Calling someone's belief a myth is not, in many cases, supposed to be an attack on those beliefs.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

American Atheists doesn't speak for all atheists (not even in the US), just as Bible fundamentalists don't speak for all Christians.

 

[Ovation]

Fair enough. But myths are not factual and therein lies much of the confusion in terms of responding to them. Greek mythology offered many truths but they did not represent a factual account of reality. It is the assertion that "there is a higher power" as a factual statement that sets off alarm bells. Such an assertion has no factual basis and thus no material basis. Hence, for some, a lie.

 

[1001001]

Fair enough. But myths are not factual and therein lies much of the confusion in terms of responding to them. Greek mythology offered many truths but they did not represent a factual account of reality. It is the assertion that "there is a higher power" as a factual statement that sets off alarm bells. Such an assertion has no factual basis and thus no material basis. Hence, for some, a lie.

My first day of college, Fr. Nolan came into our Theology class and without saying a word, wrote on the board in big letters: THE BIBLE IS A MYTH.

He went on to say that if that bothers you, you don't understand your own faith. He said that myths reveal underlying truths, not facts.

He then gave the following example, which is probably not PC, but there you go:

A Catholic and a Fundamentalist read Aesop's fable about the Lion and the Mouse. A good Catholic reflects on the underlying truths: kindness begets kindness, size doesn't always indicate value, a "gentle answer turneth away wrath", and so forth.

The Fundamentalist starts worshipping the mouse.



I've always liked that. Even though I don't believe most dogma, I like the idea that there are things to uncover with reflection and examination, rather than just taking the face value.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Now, granted, Penn starts off saying he's BEYOND atheism and that atheism is not believing in God.

So, there you go.

Yeah, pretty much.

Tell me what you believe, not what you don't.

Why?

 

[Hober Mallow]

Fair enough. But myths are not factual and therein lies much of the confusion in terms of responding to them. Greek mythology offered many truths but they did not represent a factual account of reality. It is the assertion that "there is a higher power" as a factual statement that sets off alarm bells. Such an assertion has no factual basis and thus no material basis. Hence, for some, a lie.

And therein lies the problems.

Religious texts aren't supposed to be regarded as historical or scientific. When one does so, one no longer has religion, but ideology. Most Christian believers in the U.S. believe the Bible is a book of historical and scientific facts. Atheists believe the Bible is not a book of historical and scientific facts. Neither side gets it.

When I talk to someone in my family who takes the Bible as literal and historical, I point out that if one takes Jesus' parables literally, one misses the point entirely.

Joseph Campbell pointed out there is no conflict at all between religion and science. The conflict is between the science of today and the science of three thousand years ago.

 

[Lance]

Not addressing anybodies specific point other than the general one about atheism. Gene Roddenberry, writing in 'The Making of Star Trek' (page 40):

Intolerance in the 23rd century? Improbable! If man survives that long, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear. It's a manifestation of the greatness that God, or whatever it is, gave us. The infinite variation and delight, this is part of the optimism that we built into Star Trek.

This was the Roddenberry of the 1960s. It sounds to me like what he advocates isn't that humanity don't believe in God(s), but that nobody actually cares about other people's belief systems anymore. Humanity has moved beyond the point where they start conflicts based on one faith or another, and they all respect each others right to have whatever beliefs they want. Some of them probably don't believe in God, while others probably still do. But they aren't hung up on the emotional ramifications of it. They accept and respect each other.

I do think by the TNG era Roddenberry had definitely developed a much more staunch opinion that religion would not survive in the humanity of the future that he had envisioned, and occasionally TNG/DS9/VOY reflects on that. But it sounds to me like he wasn't actually dismissing religions in the above quote... he was just saying that the people on the original Enterprise feel comfortable enough with who they are that believing in one faith or another, or indeed not believing in a God at all, means nothing to them as people.

 

[prizzm]

Fair enough. But myths are not factual and therein lies much of the confusion in terms of responding to them. Greek mythology offered many truths but they did not represent a factual account of reality. It is the assertion that "there is a higher power" as a factual statement that sets off alarm bells. Such an assertion has no factual basis and thus no material basis. Hence, for some, a lie.

Myths may be unproved. They may be unprovable. But why assume that they are not factual, or at least have some factual basis? One example: In the dim past people of several cultures believed that gods, or some supernormal people, mated with humans. Were these ancient people simpletons? Or could they have observed something, some fact, which motivated such belief? I don't know, but I'm not going to call them liars.

I listen to way too much Coast to Coast.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Fair enough. But myths are not factual and therein lies much of the confusion in terms of responding to them. Greek mythology offered many truths but they did not represent a factual account of reality. It is the assertion that "there is a higher power" as a factual statement that sets off alarm bells. Such an assertion has no factual basis and thus no material basis. Hence, for some, a lie.

Myths may be unproved. They may be unprovable. But why assume that they are not factual, or at least have some factual basis? One example: In the dim past people of several cultures believed that gods, or some supernormal people, mated with humans. Were these ancient people simpletons? Or could they have observed something, some fact, which motivated such belief? I don't know, but I'm not going to call them liars.

I listen to way too much Coast to Coast.

I think I know what you mean.
I would agree that many myths resulted from observations that might have seemed superimpressiv and the human desire to explain them.
Think volcano, lightning, rainbows, shooting stars... The list is endless.
So religion was the next best thing to science, but only because they did Not have the means yet to investigate proper.
Today we know exactly how those things I listed came about and they seem still impressiv and spark the Imagination, but none of us would call those phenomenons magic or devine.

 

[suarezguy]

It's interesting to consider if atheism at least verges on religion when the "adherents" actively, let alone aggressively, try to proselytize (not collecting stamps isn't a hobby but actively bashing stamp-collecting, the Star Wars prequels (let alone a weekly show) or Nascar seem to at least be hobbies) or when they feel that atheism does demand or necessarily call for alternative ethical codes, most notably secular humanism.
From the General Trek thread on United Earth, stj seems to think that democracy (the will of the greatest majority of people) is not merely the best form of government but should be maximized and trump all other considerations. I myself valorize human rights; I admit that they can come into conflict with themselves and there can be disagreements about what to do when they do (let alone in how to best secure them) but some religious people could admit and uneasily accept that their religion's ethical prescripts or even descriptions of the nature of God can conflict.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, I've grown to see that Atheism is a belief system. One of the people to influence my viewpoint was atheist Penn Jillette, from the Penn & Teller duo.

.
.
.
Now, granted, Penn starts off saying he's BEYOND atheism and that atheism is not believing in God.

So because Penn contradicted your incorrect notion that atheism is a belief system, you decided that atheism is indeed a belief system.

You're mistaken.

 

[Ovation]

It's interesting to consider if atheism at least verges on religion when the "adherents" actively, let alone aggressively, try to proselytize (not collecting stamps isn't a hobby but actively bashing stamp-collecting, the Star Wars prequels (let alone a weekly show) or Nascar seem to at least be hobbies) or when they feel that atheism does demand or necessarily call for alternative ethical codes, most notably secular humanism.

Then any and all ideological movements would have to be classified as a religion. So no.

 

[suarezguy]

If you truly think a person or commandment trumps all other considerations (indeed, all alternatives are invalid) and people must live their lives around it, aren't they essentially "deifying" it (feeling and acting towards it as people traditionally have towards god)? It is more obvious when the object of devotion is a particular person.