gods in Trek

[StarryEyed]

^ Well that applies to all the series. The entire Star Trek saga is rosy with optimism.

 

[A beaker full of death]

TOS's attitude toward dieties sprang from the humanist philosophy that permeated science fiction in the middle of the 20th century.

Did it? I know the Great Bird was definitely a Secular Humanist but I never associated that with other sci-fi of the era. Admittedly, you said "humanist" with a small "h" with isn't the same as Secular Humanism but all Trek series and movies are Secular Humanism heaven. Secular Humanists tend to be rosy optimists (at least when considering the big picture) but most sci-fi before Star Trek (or since for that matter) is anything but optimistic.

I am thinking specifically of Asimov, and somewhat of Heinlein and Clarke. A basic tenet of their writing is that man has supplanted God as creator of life and architect of his own destiny/damnation.
Roddenberry turned this into a pillar of Star Trek.
Hubbard took it and made it a religion.
Both threw in space aliens.

 

[Arpy]

If Kevin Uxbridge defined the entire Husnock race as enemy combatants and then dealt with them like one does with enemy combatants, who're we to argue?

Who are we NOT to argue? Just because he's stronger doesn't make him right. He himself regretted it shortly thereafter as well.

He probably has a point even from the human POV: if he fought back a subset of Husnock, a greater set of Husnock would attempt to retaliate, and eventually the entire Husnock species would be caught up in the conflict with Kevin Uxbridge... Down to the last baby, cripple and cute space spaniel.

"Sophistry!" to quote The Picard. We don't know what the Husnock would have done, and not just because they're aliens. Who knows if they'd even know what happened? Heck, if Uxbridge were thinking a tiny bit more clearly he could have altered them all to become entirely peaceful, being "godlike" and all.

 

[tau136]

Oddly although ST isn't godly in general it is solidly religious. The Klingons and Bajorans (to name two) both have strong a well defined belief systems that feed into plots. Unlike other SF where religion is either tacitly ignored out of existence or just used as local decoration.

 

[Cheapjack]

TOS's attitude toward dieties sprang from the humanist philosophy that permeated science fiction in the middle of the 20th century.

What a pity it isn't as strong, now.

Before long, we may be burning Stephen Hawkings as a witch!

 

[ProtoAvatar]

If Kevin Uxbridge defined the entire Husnock race as enemy combatants and then dealt with them like one does with enemy combatants, who're we to argue?

Who are we NOT to argue? Just because he's stronger doesn't make him right. He himself regretted it shortly thereafter as well.

That's the thing with gods: They are beyond humans.

The simple fact is, the douwd - Uxbridge - is incomparably more powerful than humans.

Humans could not enforce any law/morals of their making on the douwd, meaning human laws/morals are inapplicaple to Uxbridge - unless he complied of his own will, meaning the morals were his own, not human.
If his people's laws punished his actions, well - that's another matter.

 

[T'Girl]

I know the Great Bird was definitely a Secular Humanist

But was he one when he created Star Trek? Roddenberry was a great one for re-inventing himself and Star Trek too. His secular humanism might have been something that came upon him during the 1970's and Roddenberry simply "ret-con"ed himself.

Who are we NOT to argue? Just because he's stronger doesn't make him right. He himself regretted it shortly thereafter as well.

But his strenght meant that while Picard's society could condemn the Douwd, the society was not in any way qualified to judge him or capable of punish him. Oh, they could make a prison cell available to him, for as long as he freely choose too occupy it. But they would not be putting him in one.

Captain Picard is depicted as French, the (modern) French culture more that other cultures in the Human West embraces the concept of the crime of passion. Even just a few years ago a French man could catch his wife in bed with another man, murder them both on the spot and not be convicted of murder because it was a "crime of passion," Picard knew that the Douwd's crime wasn't a premeditated one and his personal judgment of the Douwd might have been taking that into account.

The exact definition of the word Genocide is slightly different depending on where you look, but consistently you'll find the phrase "the deliberate destruction," but how deliberate were the Douwd's actions? They certainly were not considered and if the actions were a instinctual reflex, the result of his instant of grief, did he in fact legally commit genocide?

 

[A beaker full of death]

I know the Great Bird was definitely a Secular Humanist

But was he one when he created Star Trek? Roddenberry was a great one for re-inventing himself and Star Trek too. His secular humanism might have been something that came upon him during the 1970's and Roddenberry simply "ret-con"ed himself.

Look at TOS. It permeates the show.

 

[StarryEyed]

I know the Great Bird was definitely a Secular Humanist

But was he one when he created Star Trek? Roddenberry was a great one for re-inventing himself and Star Trek too. His secular humanism might have been something that came upon him during the 1970's and Roddenberry simply "ret-con"ed himself

I can't answer you for certain off the top of my head but as pointed out above, TOS was awash in the tennents of Secular Humanism - you could practically use the show as an official handbook of the philosophy. It doesn't really matter if Roddenberry was or wasn't at the time but it sure appears he was.

 

[T'Girl]

I know the Great Bird was definitely a Secular Humanist

But was he one when he created Star Trek?

TOS was awash in the tennents of Secular Humanism - you could practically use the show as an official handbook of the philosophy.

I would agree that there is a great deal of Humanism in Star Trek, all the main characters advanced it. But not so much specifically Secular Humanism, you can point to it in some episodes, not the series in general. Certainly the way that Kirk treats wounded and defeated opponents show more Christian Humanism than Secular. McCoy I would describe as definitely a Liberal Humanist, again not a Secular.


Secular Humanism sets itself apart from other forms of Humanism in the specific area of religion and it's rejection. In most episodes it simply did not come up. But Humanism in general did.


.

 

[indolover]

lol.. So, say if the Federation sent a ship to capture the Douwd, what is stopping him from killing all humans (nay all Federation species) like he did the Husnock? Picard was right to suggest that he is left alone. Why mess around and vexate a being that could annihilate you in an instant?

At the most, the Federation could punish him by saying the genocide was committed within Federation space. But the practicality does not make sense.

Besides, what if the Founders demand that Section 31 members are tried by the Federation, for attempting genocide against them? Section 31 members are still Federation citizens, and are still then under the care and jurisdiction of the Federation government. I bet the Founders would probably silence Odo in the Great Link, get the Vorta to invent transwarp, send a fleet of hundreds of Jem'Hadar to the Federation and avenge their attempted genocide.

In truth, there is nothing to stop the Dominion from doing this. Ok, there is a treaty, but so what? How did Starfleet know how trustworthy the Founders are, or if they ever will get over their hatred of the solids? In that sense, it's just a piece of paper. The fact that the Federation (or at least some Federation citizens, who are solids) wanted to kill them all would only prove their prejudices.

 

[StarryEyed]

But was he one when he created Star Trek?

TOS was awash in the tennents of Secular Humanism - you could practically use the show as an official handbook of the philosophy.

I would agree that there is a great deal of Humanism in Star Trek, all the main characters advanced it. But not so much specifically Secular Humanism, you can point to it in some episodes, not the series in general. Certainly the way that Kirk treats wounded and defeated opponents show more Christian Humanism than Secular.

Oh, no you don't! Mercy is a part of any enlightened worldview. Don't go implying Christianity has a monopoly on morals or that secular philosophies lack them.

Secular Humanism sets itself apart from other forms of Humanism in the specific area of religion and it's rejection. In most episodes it simply did not come up. But Humanism in general did.

The core belief of Secular Humanism is that Humans have inherent goodness and a limitless capacity for growth and self-improvement. No assistance from a hypothetical higher power is required.

That is largely what we see on TOS. While specific rejection of religion rarely came up, how often do you see a character turning to religion in response to a moral dilemma? How many characters do we see praying when they think they are going to die? How often does a character seek comfort in religion after a loss?

 

[T'Girl]

Oh, no you don't! Mercy is a part of any enlightened worldview. Don't go implying Christianity has a monopoly on morals or that secular philosophies lack them.

Actual oh yes I do. Mercy and compassionate behaviour are characterizing attributes of Christian Humanists. It not just a buried in the greater mix "part" of their worldview, but an up front tenet. Not a monopoly no, but something that specifically defines them yes.

The core belief of Secular Humanism is that Humans have inherent goodness and a limitless capacity for growth and self-improvement.

Okay, that would be your plain and basic "Humanism."

No assistance from a hypothetical higher power is required.

And that would be a subset of Humanism call "Secular Humanism."

 

[StarryEyed]

Oh, no you don't! Mercy is a part of any enlightened worldview. Don't go implying Christianity has a monopoly on morals or that secular philosophies lack them.

Actual oh yes I do. Mercy and compassionate behaviour are characterizing attributes of Christian Humanists. It not just a buried in the greater mix "part" of their worldview, but an up front tenet. Not a monopoly no, but something that specifically defines them yes.

Well going by that warped line of reasoning, I guess it's perfectly okay to say that rational thought is more of a Secular Humanist thing than a Christian Humanist thing, being that rational thought is a "characterizing aspect" of us.