Do you think the 24th century earth has junkies and addicts?

[Arpy]

It's funny that the conversation has turned to faith, from drugs. Faith, at its best, I think is about saving a piece of yourself for the unknown. For the healthy, when we don't always know what's healthy. The problem IMHO is in thinking the metaphors of faith are literal truth and those who don't share your metaphors are unhealthy.

I wonder if a lot of irreligious people in the future aren't junkies (hedonists?) because they have a worldview that, though does not include the metaphysical, would feel somewhat familiar to religious people today.

Though that suggests that contemporary junkies are faithless, Andy don't know how accurate that is, given that I think the opioid epidemic is especially bad in Red States, hit hard by the loss of industries. So it's not people without faith so much as people without purpose.

 

[Voth commando1]

I do not deny Trek is pretty darn anti-religious at points(who watches the watchers, Janeway's attitude in Barge of the Dead, Jake Sisko talking about the Bajorans, etc...) but at the same time-there does seem some subtle inclination however subdued that the physical world is not all there is(Chakotay's whole character, Janeway in Sacred Ground, Picard even-in chain of command, Riker-cosmic plan, Sisko of course, Archer-the Kir'Shara, Bashir at point implies a soul).

I think humanity in the 24th century in the Trekverse is largely agnostic if not atheist at the same time however it seems however subtle religious inclinations and some inkling that a world beyond exists still remains.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The thing is Trek definitely is saying that by the 24th century, humans solved almost all of their problems with improvements in technology, and technology is what prevents people from becoming drug addicts.

Or allows people to experiment with drugs without becoming addicts. Religious faith plays almost no part. It's definitely allowed and there is definitely religious freedom on earth, but it seems to be seen treated as a recreational social activity that some humans (still) do.

 

[Voth commando1]

How did we get from drugs to religion anyway?

 

[Nyotarules]

How did we get from drugs to religion anyway?

Its the opium of the people according to Marx

 

[Voth commando1]

I was waiting for someone to mention that quote.

 

[Tenacity]

The thing is Trek definitely is saying that by the 24th century, humans solved almost all of their problems with improvements in technology ....

Unless you go with the view that what caused the improvement was changes in Human perception of who we were and who we wanted to be. A personal, spiritual and cultural change.

The tech improvement were irreverent to the changes, it was people looking inside themselves.

 

[Spot261]

“For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain. If people need religion, ignore them and maybe they will ignore you, and you can go on with your life. It wasn't until I was beginning to do Star Trek that the subject of religion arose. What brought it up was that people were saying that I would have a chaplain on board the Enterprise. I replied, "No, we don't.”
― Gene Roddenberry

Not even close, ymmv.

No, bang on the money. Faith in the unknown is exactly what religion is. If you aren't required to make a leap of faith you aren't practising a religion. My mileage has nothing to do with it.

In which Angela kneels in prayer and Janice Rand bows her head.

And ?

The one line holds it's meaning, an recognition of the existence of monotheism by Kirk. At least among the group Kirk refers to as "we."

All still irrelevant, I've not claimed there are no religions in the 24th century, you can find examples all day, you'll still be missing the point that trek is highly anti religion in it's message. Having examples of something within a piece of art does not indicate an endorsement of that thing.
There are many examples of racism in the federation, that does not mean trek promotes a pro racism message.

From the Wikipedia entry on Secular humanism; while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition.

Nope, from the wikipedia entry on humanism.

Whilst no philosophical movement is without it's variants, humanism essentially boils down to the belief that human reason should be placed above superstition and blind faith, to the exclusion of religious dogma or morality based on the statements of unseen beings. This is mainstream humanism, this is the humanism GR practised, it is the humanism endorsed by trek.

 

[dswynne1]

The funny thing is that even so-called secular movements can come off as "religious", in that there are prescribed notions of beliefs that are rooted in faith. Example: social justice. On the face of it, this may sound nice, but the end result is the desire for the offender to seek forgiveness in a redemptive manner. In fact, aspects of humanism has religious connotations.

But, with Trek, I seriously do no think treatments of addictions has anything to do with anything, other than how treatments can be applied towards dealing with addictions, from a strictly medical standpoint. Thus, I find it curious that this discussion has veered towards a discussion on humanism v. religion, when it does not need to be. Strange.

 

[Spot261]

The point of divergence was @Nightdiamond's pretty sound observation that technology in the trek universe has been more effective at cleaning up social ills such as drug abuse than religion ever was. Not sure we've really been debating humanism v religion so much as debating trek's stance on the matter, but yes a divergence (although a fairly logical one - if we are discussing the prevalence if a phenomena it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to touch on the reasons).

Still, are there junkies in the 24th century? I'd have to say probably yes. No other form of social problems have been truly eradicated, merely reduced, so it's not hard to extrapolate the pattern.

 

[Tenacity]

you'll still be missing the point that trek is highly anti religion in it's message

I disagree and am going to venture that you're see what isn't there.

Star Trek is a product of various writers, producers and directors. All of whom bring their own viewpoints and prospective to their paid profession.

To say that Star Trek is "highly anti religion" just isn't in evidence. A small number of anti religion stories do exist (Who Watches), but such stories are few and don't compose any kind of on-going general theme running through the 700+ episodes of the multiple series.

The (if you will) pro-religion story lines and mentions hold a strong place within the Star Trek universe. This isn't to say that Star Trek is a religious show, it's a action adventure sci-fi series with the occasion ethical message mixed in with the weapons fire and drama.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I brought up the religious aspect because religion claims to be able to solve some of the same problems that Trek has claimed humanism/technology has solved. In some religious doctrines, they make the same type of claim for the future that Trek does. Everyone gets along, no crime, poverty, racism, psychological problems or war.


It's almost a mirror image of Trek, except of how it says it comes about. With some good people, supernatural powers and a little force ( depending on the religious sect you're looking at).

And ironically, at times I've heard religious or at least conservative thinking people claim that in the past people were more moral and things were better than the present, and the future is going to hell.

I think it should get a fair mention, but realistically, right or wrong, Trek in general simply says they were solved by human effort and technological advances that solve problems. There is no crime because technology produces things easily and possibly for free. Doctors can root out the causes of mental illness, and dangerous behavior because of technology, and so on.

The easiest answer we're going to get is there are no addictions because technology either prevents it, or cures it completely. I guess that is what we're hoping for? For scientists to find a way to manipulate or alter brain chemistry to cure drug addiction. Tech is our best hope. It's a nasty, sad disease.

Religious faith has helped people stay off drugs and addictions, I've seen it--but it's not a foolproof cure.

 

[Arpy]

Why should technology help anyone who can't afford it? Why not do as the Enarans did in VOY's "Remember" with their 'Regressives,' or Khan did in the Eugenics Wars and let technology get rid of the problem by getting rid of the people? The Romulans have similar technology to the Federation; why aren't they a utopia? The Ferengi enslave their women and let their illiterate children die in the streets if they can't make a buck. Whither thy saving grace, technology?

Today we have levels of technology that, compared to our past, should make the world a utopia, yet, despite making great progress in civil, sexual, children's, workers', etc, rights, many of us are ignorant of the past and would prefer a Ferengi the-market-will-sort-it-out approach to social-engineering -- to virtue, period.

TOS warned of an elitist future in "Plato's Stepchildren," where, what, forty people were left on a decadent world that had selfishly devolved for the 'haves' alone.

Money gets you freedom from distractions of material wont alone. Logical, moral, spiritual achievement lies elsewhere.

 

[dswynne1]

The point of divergence was @Nightdiamond's pretty sound observation that technology in the trek universe has been more effective at cleaning up social ills such as drug abuse than religion ever was. Not sure we've really been debating humanism v religion so much as debating trek's stance on the matter, but yes a divergence (although a fairly logical one - if we are discussing the prevalence if a phenomena it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to touch on the reasons).

Still, are there junkies in the 24th century? I'd have to say probably yes. No other form of social problems have been truly eradicated, merely reduced, so it's not hard to extrapolate the pattern.

But interjecting 21st century notions of morality and ethics ignores the events that led up to the 24th utopianism. You say that technology solved Earth's problems, but you forget that there was a Eugenics War, the Bell Riots and World War 3, not to mention the intervention by the Vuland and, dare I say it, 24th century humans. Technology solved NOTHING; it just made things easier to do. Humanity had to be literally be deconstructed before it could receptive to outside interference. Even then, humanity did not give up its religiosity in whole (see: TOS).

All I am saying is that interjecting "religion" in these types of discussion is unnecessary, especially, as indicated by the response of another poster, when the discussion veers off course into politics.

 

[Spot261]

I disagree and am going to venture that you're see what isn't there.

Given that the show has become a cultural touchstone for secularism, an awful lot of people seem to have seen the same non existent thing, including the show's creator.

 

[WARLOCK1965]

Ummm... you've seen what the holodeck can do, right? If I lived in that century, you can bet I'd be experimenting with that thing for as many time slots as I could get! Imagine being able to act out ANY life scenario you wish (real or imagined) and have absolutely no repercussions. Unbelievable.

Not everyone can be happy some people can only be happy when others are bad off but that how some minds work

 

[Gary7]

Maybe it's better said that Star Trek was not pushing any religion, instead of being anti-religion. We see Starfleet and the Federation respect highly religious people. And there was no indication that Starfleet worked actively to suppress religious expression. Well, with the exception of the Bajorans in uniform (the wearing of their earring thingie). Star Trek seemed to leave wide open the possibility that there may be a God. Or Gods. But what I found particularly odd is that nobody asked "Q" about this.

 

[Stoo]

Given that the show has become a cultural touchstone for secularism, an awful lot of people seem to have seen the same non existent thing, including the show's creator.

A universe created by so many writers is never going to stick to the same message 100%. But Trek quite clearly shows a broadly secular future for most humans. I recall comments by Ron Moore along the lines of, he and other writers didn't really buy into the idea of humanity leaving religion behind. But he also thought it wasn't his place to tamper with Roddenberry's vision of the future.

 

[Jayson1]

We know religion must exist for some humans in Trek because Kassidy Yates mentions how she, or maybe it was her familiy, who wanted the wedding at a church. It makes sense to me that religion is something, like money that used by humans who don't live on earth. Just like how you still need money to deal with alien cultures maybe some religions have survived on various colonies.

Jason

 

[Spot261]

My point isn't that there is no religion in the 24th century, we know there is. My point is that thematically trek has always tended to be secular in the message it delivers.

Having portrayals of characters as being religious does not in and of itself mean anything in this respect and rarely (outside of DS9) has it been of any great consequence to the story. The show does this in many ways, the classic example being the way it reduces "gods" to being humanity's equal or even inferior, showing them to be false, stupid or petty, frequently within the means of our heroes to defeat once they apply their intellect to seeing past the charade.

The message is clear, but there are other ways the show has done this, not the least by showing humanity as having advanced by means other than religion, by having moved forward in leaps and bounds by facing the challenges of warfare, bigotry, prejudice and savagery using their minds, their rationality and succeeding where millennia of religious dogma had failed. Yes religion still exists in the future, but as a hangover from a more ignorant age, an anachronism humanity has developed in spite of.