Spoilers Do you think the original main arc was scrapped once Berg/Harberts left?

[Jayson1]

I wish we had a, maybe option in the poll. I think it was altered but I do think it has been handled better than changes you saw in season 1 from concept to series like people have already mentioned. I do still feel kind of let down though that it ends up being all about Burnham though in the end. I guess if I liked the character better that would be different.

I was hoping for a more philosophical look at the faith vs science debate. Not to mention it has kind of rendered Pike as useless because his faith I suspect was going to play apart in the story and now he is basically just General Hammond. Guy in charge technically but always defering to Burnham because she is the lead. Which ironically also takes away from Saru who was made captain and nothing has been done with that so even he doesn't get to be General Hammond.

I was also hoping to see some cool future stuff and maybe a few nods to the older Trek shows. Picard would be the dream but I could see Daniels being a red angel if you had a Section 31 connection maybe Sloan.


Jason

 

[Gonzo]

How exactly do DNA and genetics disprove God? They are complex, elegant, full of function and design. They do not attest to randomness and chaos. Some of the world's leading geneticists believe in God.

They are certainly all that you say they are but that has nothing really to do with God at all, the goalposts are constantly being moved every time something new about the archeological record is found.

Like I said, most people are in one camp or the other, which is fine.

Scientists have to sort it out in their own heads, same goes for Archeologists, belief versus what they feel they can prove, which then feeds back to what @BillJ said in the above post about the stories we tell ourselves.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

They are certainly all that you say they are but that has nothing really to do with God at all, the goalposts are constantly being moved every time something new about the archeological record is found.

Like I said, most people are in one camp or the other, which is fine.

Scientists have to sort it out in their own heads, same goes for Archeologists, belief versus what they feel they can prove, which then feeds back to what @BillJ said in the above post about the stories we tell ourselves.

I know what you're talking about, but these things are not opposed to one another. Those geneticists who believe in God aren't in any internal conflict. There have been some superb books written by them regarding faith & science. I see God as the ultimate Scientist, and science was His idea.

 

[Mudd]

Negative proof is just about impossible. 8 can believe in something idiotic like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you can't disprove it.

We know that Roddenberry was an atheist and so have been quite a few Trek writers. There'sxa clue for you about the likely existence of God in the Trek Universe.

 

[Gonzo]

I know what you're talking about, but these things are not opposed to one another. Those geneticists who believe in God aren't in any internal conflict. There have been some superb books written by them regarding faith & science. I see God as the ultimate Scientist, and science was His idea.

Everyone will have their own take on it but in the end the truth may not be what anyone expects.

As a consequence of Darwin's work, Genetics and Archeology the idea of what God actually is or may be has gradually changed, when the Theory of Evolution was published the Church had kittens over it for obvious reasons, it didn't reach Spanish Inquisition levels of course but it took the Church a while to work out how it could change the narrative to avoid being seen in direct opposition to Science and the fossil record.

Each to their own of course but to me it looks like they are making it up as they go along.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I doubt much changed. I suspect all their "science vs faith" talk in interviews was just the usual Hollywood hot air (such a shame we never got to see Pike go full Fundamentalist Space Christian though)

 

[fireproof78]

I doubt much changed. I suspect all their "science vs faith" talk in interviews was just the usual Hollywood hot air (such a shame we never got to see Pike go full Fundamentalist Space Christian though)

Hollywood does not handle Christians well. I'm glad we dodged that bullet.

 

[Jayson1]

Why does it matter if God is real or religion is good or bad? All that matters is it exists in society and has a major impact on society therefore it's something worth exploring in fiction. I do agree that Hollywood often does a terrible job when dealing with religion. They tend to think everyone in religion is either a overt bigot or super noble if they have faith. In reality I think it's just something people incorporate in their life and then do the same stuff other people do like watch tv,spin time on the internet and work etc. Not people sitting around reading Bible passages and all that stuff.

I would hope the show might try and do a good take on the issue. The fact they were going to use Pike I think to represent Faith is a sign they might at least try and take a more honest view of it. The Red Angels I also think working better as a religious component than just Burnham's mom traveling around trying to save her which is something I don't understand. Are they saying that Burnham was suppose to die but she has altered the timeline to save her? Which means we are no longer in the prime timeline or maybe the prime timeline was always a changed timeline from a one were Burnham died a earlier death in that timeline.

Jason

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Negative proof is just about impossible. 8 can believe in something idiotic like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you can't disprove it.

We know that Roddenberry was an atheist and so have been quite a few Trek writers. There'sxa clue for you about the likely existence of God in the Trek Universe.

Yet Star Trek still explored the question over the years, whether the showrunners were personally atheists or not.

A person does not need to hold a personal belief in a subject to engage in a philosophical exploration of that subject.

 

[plynch]

Except that the Church continues to state that the Bible is historical fact which directly opposes Scientific/Historical fact.

There is no one "the church." Even within Catholicism there is a strong liberal-to-radical segment in Europe. Famous such Cardinal in Belgium just died if you're interested. Many varieties of many faiths take things more metaphorical or mythic.

 

[Gonzo]

There is no one "the church." Even within Catholicism there is a strong liberal-to-radical segment in Europe. Famous such Cardinal in Belgium just died if you're interested. Many varieties of many faiths take things more metaphorical or mythic.

Religion would have probably been a better term.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Negative proof is just about impossible. 8 can believe in something idiotic like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you can't disprove it.

We know that Roddenberry was an atheist and so have been quite a few Trek writers. There'sxa clue for you about the likely existence of God in the Trek Universe.

"God" exists in the Trek universe. It's always an alien being or computer disguised as "god", and it may or may not require a starship.

 

[fireproof78]

Religion would have probably been a better term.

But, even within religion, there is interpretation. No matter what, it is not nearly as unified as often portrayed in Hollywood.

 

[cultcross]

It's a shame for me that the only question that we think can be explored in the theme of science and faith is "is God real?"
I would have liked to see a Star Trek story which dealt with the subject of faith and spirituality on a more grown up and less binary level. DS9 tried, but mostly abandoned it by half way through and went with Good Gods vs Evil Gods.
Whether DSC was ever actually going to do that, I don't know. New Eden was heavy on the religious messages but I can't say it was much more nuanced than Trek has done before, with Burnham in the role of Picard. If we were just going to do "is the Red Angel supernatural" then I'm glad it was ditched.

 

[cultcross]

Except that the Church continues to state that the Bible is historical fact which directly opposes Scientific/Historical fact.

The evangelical churches of the American South contend that, certainly. It is hardly the final or even majority word on the subject in Christendom as a whole.

 

[Gonzo]

It's a shame for me that the only question that we think can be explored in the theme of science and faith is "is God real?"
I would have liked to see a Star Trek story which dealt with the subject of faith and spirituality on a more grown up and less binary level. DS9 tried, but mostly abandoned it by half way through and went with Good Gods vs Evil Gods.
Whether DSC was ever actually going to do that, I don't know. New Eden was heavy on the religious messages but I can't say it was much more nuanced than Trek has done before, with Burnham in the role of Picard. If we were just going to do "is the Red Angel supernatural" then I'm glad it was ditched.

I think I understand why the writers didn't to be honest, it's a minefield and only ends up offending someone.

It's even worse now online than it was in the late 90's.

 

[BillJ]

All I know, is that the universe is freaking huge. Then you add on the idea of other universes, multi-verses, other dimensions and so on and I think there's a chance there may be more to us than meets the eye. I think things like that are right in sci-fi's wheelhouse.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Regarding the thread title question: I don't know. But what I do know is that their last episode was hands down the WORST freaking episode of Star Trek *ever*. And I'm including "Spock's Brain" (which was meant to be funny), "Threshold" (which was just super lazy), "Code of Honor" (which was racist, but let's face it, sometimes things really happen that make it seem like racists *might* have a point, or they'd never gain new adherents to their ignorant racist ideas, and they sadly do, so...), "These Are The Voyages" (SUCKED, but in their defense, let's see you wrap up a show at the end of 4th season when you thought 7 was a given), or "Shades of Grey" (seasons with that many episodes were just too long).

The whole episode was S T U P I D, but in a richly thought-out way that almost felt like it was not only stupid but that a great deal of effort had gone into making it so. I wanted Culber back, but they could have gone with less deus ex machina, or, if they were going that way, they could have gone full tilt that way and at least given us the wicked cool visual of Culber coming back from the Upside-Down all "Take On Me" style.

And beginning almost immediately after, we have some of what I consider the best Trek, period. So if that's the result of them being out, good for it.

 

[fireproof78]

Regarding the thread title question: I don't know. But what I do know is that their last episode was hands down the WORST freaking episode of Star Trek *ever*.

Yeah, I can't take seriously after the list you made.

 

[cultcross]

hands down the WORST freaking episode of Star Trek *ever*

Allamaraine, count to four, allamaraine, it really wasn't.