@BillJ
I really don't want to get into this, as I can see where it's going; a thread full of back and forth quotations that take the other out of context and simplify their opinions. But you must realize that you are reading what you want into the show, right? So Picard is critical of some claims of religion - being critical is equivalent to a discriminatory attack now is it? Do you think a man who demonstrated his respect for the rights of all sentient life numerous times, would reject a transfer because someone was part of the last 3% of humans to follow a traditional revealed religion? Are you simplifying atheism to the degree that you basically see it entirely as a slippery slope to Stalinism? That is exactly the kind of shift in narrative that fundamentalists have always wanted in our society, and in recent years it has been achieved - being forthright, calm and peaceful in your appraisal of what is rational, based on the
objective truth, that all scholars recognize as the foundation of learning, is itself considered potential hostility, but being equivocal about a clearly spurious claim is 'respect for religion'. Being forthright in your criticism of an irrational assumption, should not be controversial, and if it is, you need to ask yourself why.
Example: I can, with perfect honesty, predict that barring earlier destruction, the Kaaba in Mecca, will one day, in millions of years, be pushed under the nearest tectonic plate, melted to slag, circulated in the Earth's mantle, and distributed by volcanoes as igneous rock, millions of years after that, it will then be eroded into sediment. Thus I know that praying toward it is a prayer toward a location that is at most, symbolically non-moving, but in reality, a non-fixed point. I know that it lies on a planet, that is one of trillions, some of which by the law of averages, should have intelligent life, and would see life here as being incidental to their existence. Should I be equivocal when someone, such as my Muslim friend, tells me he believes his religion, clearly one more religion among thousands, born in the last 0.1% of humanity's 200,000 year history, in an Arab-centric-culture, is the most culturally appropriate, most perfect, final revelation, better than all other belief systems (none of which he has bothered to read about, to make the claim), and not politely point out that from the perspective of cosmic time, the claim becomes dubious, even conceited or self-obsessed considering the antiquity and achievements of Greece, India, China, etc, and the vastness of the cosmos? Just as germ theory replaced the theory of bad humors, and torture was outlawed universally, both through discussion and the spreading of critical counter-examples, an idea like this should be open to challenge.
I find plenty of wisdom and good philosophy in religions, much of which I agree with (not surprising considering every last iota of it can also be found in secular philosophy too, and is never unique or original to that belief system). Islam, Judaism and Christianity themselves were influenced by Greek Platonism, including the concept of the Tripartite Soul, before which people in the region may have believed a soul died with the body (among other things known in academic circles, that would cast serious doubt on the isolated originality of these doctrines). I'm also under no illusion that atheists can be violent, and religious people can be peaceful. I have no problem finding common ground at all with people who are peaceful and religious. So my issue has nothing to do with a belief that humanity will necessarily achieve some post-religious utopia if only religion were gone. The problem is one of being able to think freely. To self-censor your theories to spare the feelings of people who can't justify theirs, is nothing but self-slavery. Star Trek does not believe in the validity of culturally contextual parochial beliefs being better than objective reality. Why should it equivocate, if a writer postulates that religion will be almost gone by the 23rd century? We already have countries that are largely irreligious now. I find it quite easy to enjoy a religious film like Ben Hur, so, why, I ask, does Star Trek now suddenly need to ameliorate it's thesis by contrast with the assumption that Christ can heal lepers and is your saviour deity? Do we censor Ben Hur to include a few Greek atheists with a plant-derived leprosy cure, just to respect diversity, then? Or do we let Star Trek be what it is, and let them both exist?
That isn't respect or tolerance, that is the death of freedom of thought and speech. Someone said a couple of pages ago that as an atheist, he couldn't see the difference between a Christian claiming his belief was the final truth, and a humanist saying religion would be surpassed - that's an atheist saying that - that's the degree to which post-modern solipsism has clouded people's ability to think rationally and choose their individual beliefs with courage and self-respect - to the extent that the objective truth, which frankly, we all know is the only system of metaphysics that is actually verifiable or falsifiable, is controversial. I would point out to this person that if you spend your life bending over backwards to satisfy others, you will only end up depressed, as you need to have confidence in your own conclusions - a happy individual makes the people around them happier.
If a person's faith can't stand up to a little honesty, what use is it, other than as a prideful marker of elitist group identity?
Indeed. Britain, France, Japan, etc, are all already well on the way - I didn't see any major civil war, or discriminatory policies - Anglicanism is the state religion of the UK - hardly a position of weakness.
Remember what I just said about surviving "Who Watches the Watchers"...people of faith will survive this too.
