How will you react if the Klingon War Arc isn't wrapped up?
- Thread starter Mark 2000
- Start date
Not necessarily, sometimes politics and tribalism is the justification. However it takes scientists to make nuclear bombs for example, and in terms of Star Trek, Discovery is a science vessel, the greatest weapon in Starfleet's service.
True, but that illustrates my point. In war, everything is abused, science and religion included. It's a rare day when war truly shows us much that is good about human nature, it happens but is about bucking the trend, about the exceptions rather than the norm. It is about the lone stories of selflessness lost amongst the carnage and hate.
In my view in that scenario all philosophical standpoints become reduced tribalism, whether they are religious, territorial, political. Human nature predates them all supersedes them with our base tendency to form groups, to fear and dehumanise the outsider. That has an evolutionary basis, it stems from natural selection and is an anachronism in the modern world where it is more destructive than selective. Nonetheless it informs a great deal of human behaviour and the way in which we justify those behaviours does not always explain them. Religion rarely causes wars really, it is misused as a tool to justify them much as science is misused as a weapon to fight them.
To the original question: I'm fine with that. The more we get from the Klingons, the better. It took Trek 50 years to give them a truly alien feeling and I wouldn't want to lose that after only one season.
To the science vs. faith debate: Science wins. All the time, every time. That's not even debatable for me. I'm dogmatic that way
To the science vs. faith debate: Science wins. All the time, every time. That's not even debatable for me. I'm dogmatic that way
I'm afraid I have to agree. At this point I have almost no confidence that they'll be able to tackle this subject with the adequate tact and intelligence. Looking at season one it will more likely be a superficial hodgepodge of hamfisted speechifying and cheap plot twists, all while the writers congratulate themselves in interviews for how brave, progressive, topical and current their writing is.
Don't know if it “always worked”. What was bad then is bad now.
Nice post. The binary, narrow-minded approach on either side of the topic is generally what has me checking out of any debate on the subject. The thought that the two are exclusive is as narrow an argument as we see.
"If you love science then God hates you and you are a bad person"
Vs
"If you love God you're an idiot who believes in an imaginary friend"
Or, as I like to frame it, "narrow-minded disrespectful asshole vs. narrow-minded disrespectful asshole."
I would hope DSC does a far better job than "Who Watches the Watchers" for example. Sagan's "Contact" is a much more effective and better example to follow.
Science vs. Faith? That's it, Discovery will go to war against the Greek Gods (minus Apollo) and win.
The problem isn't really "Science vs Religion". Dawkins, Sam Harris and the rest of their Nu-Atheist ilk (and the Nu-Atheist movement at large) all circlejerk over essentially Logical Positivism which is an extremely "into the trash it goes" field of Philosophy. It's STEMlord Scientism at it's absolute worst and this is why Dawkins and such not only attack Religion, but Philosophy and Sociology at large as well.
If you want to take down religion and religious dogma, really what you need is Philosophy, not science, because Religion at it's core is a philosophical and political ideology. Too bad Nu-Athiesm movement at large also rejects philosophy as well.
I will bet it's going to be a extremely cringe inducing liberal hand wringing over the more... "problematic" elements of Islam.
If you want to take down religion and religious dogma, really what you need is Philosophy, not science, because Religion at it's core is a philosophical and political ideology. Too bad Nu-Athiesm movement at large also rejects philosophy as well.
I will bet it's going to be a extremely cringe inducing liberal hand wringing over the more... "problematic" elements of Islam.
I can live with being that as long as I know facts back me up
And what I’m saying is that you can’t reconcile faith and science without giving up parts of faith or science. Whether you are cherry picking or going all in , one or the other has to be tossed out to make the other work. That’s the definition of mutually exclusive.
You’re still trying to misrepresent science as an entity and not a tool. People misuse science, but religion’s problems are written on the page.
These are two contradictory sentences. Science is not incompatible with faith, but god is conveniently outside of science’s reach. That, again, is the definition of mutually exclusive. Compatibility is working together. Where does god work in science? By your own words it doesn’t. Scientists can believe in god, but science works without the assumption or consideration of god. Humans can force faith and science to work together in their minds through compromise of each one’s concepts and values, but that’s not compatibility.
Why? Nothing in the definition of either requires exclusivity.
They are two separate concepts with separate remits and purposes. Failing to understand that leads to the common fallacy they are in conflict or opposition because sometimes even the most educated people fail to grasp the inherent limitations of each. On the subject of God the scientific method is silent and can only ever be so, by definition it cannot comment on that which occurs outside of the system it is a part of. If you understand the scientific method you realise this is implicit in it's role and use.
Personally I am an atheist, but I understand the limitations of science to realise this is every bit as much a faith as any other. God, or the lack thereof cannot be empirically demonstrated and the efficacy of the scientific method stops at the point an hypothesis becomes untestable. I believe there is no God, but that belief has no more basis in science than any other belief.
Equally I understand that faith could never explain the workings of our universe, that is an objective process of eliminating hypotheses which draws us closer to a complete picture we will never reach. Faith can prove nothing nor can it reasonably dispute objective evidence, although ultimately that evidence is always itself open to doubt. That doubt is an essential part of the process of science and the very reason in it's pure form can also prove nothing, merely accept that a thing has not yet been disproven.
The idea that science can and will eventually explain everything, that understanding the universe in it's entirety is simply a case of doing sufficient empirical research is commonplace in the broader population and pretty forgivable, that so many in the scientific community seem to forget why this isn't true is sometimes lamentable. Likewise the narrow mindedness of many within various religious communities hardly bears reiterating.
Last edited:
Good for you.
extremely good for me, yes
Again, your definitions are off. Atheism is a lack of something, not an active process. I don’t think about god unless someone forces me to. I don’t believe in god in the same way I don’t believe in invisible pink kangaroos running through the street. One specific random incarnation of an unprovable assertion is as silly as any other. You can vague it down to whatever formless spirituality you want, it’s still pink kangaroos.
That was Battlestar Galactica. People lost their shit at the end when it turned out God was real and affecting events.
My definition is not off, this is basic understanding of the scientific method and it's limitations which any undergrad would be expected to grasp. People entering into scientific careers are taught this as fundamental to the career they are pursuing. Sadly many forget it or it's importance along the way. Ironically Richard Dawkins is not actually one of them, he understands the concept perfectly well but is simply by virtue of his own personality loath to lose face in the public arena. In that he is periodically every bit as irrational as the religious fundamentalists he detests.
Science can comment only on that which it can test, Gods existence cannot be tested, therefore science cannot comment. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, therefore any assertion about the existence of such a being (arguably other than agnosticism) is based on faith.
Much as the scientific method is part of the universe it operates within, so are it's axioms, including (crucially to your pink kangaroo example) occam's razor. It doesn't matter that "God does not exist" is a simpler, more streamlined hypothesis than "God does exist" as the principle which values those simpler hypotheses only applies within the system science sets out to describe. Those axioms cannot apply to questions outside of that system and therefore have nothing to say about it.
This isn't really open for debate, they are fundamental principles of the scientific method and all who use it within formal circles are expected to understand them and how they limit it's use.
That you are an atheist is not a conclusion you can come to scientifically or by using the principles of science, it is a personal choice about your own beliefs (one I share).
Last edited:
Gods existence can’t be tested because it is an artificial construct that denies examination. You’ve defined it as something that can’t be examined so it can’t be. What you’re basically saying is any fantastic assertion than can’t be tested is valid. That’s just nonsense. God is not a perceivable Force in the observable universe. It is not a scienticfic consideration. And five paragraphs of pointlessly flowery language and personal definitions of terms doesn’t change that. This is the same thing as when you started the conversation about violence in Discovery and then strawmanned the discussion into what you wanted It to be.
Last edited:
Then you are showing a lack of grounding in the scientific technique.
I said nothing to suggest "any fantastic assertion is valid" I merely said science cannot comment on the existence of God. I was right.
I said science is value free. It is.
I said religion is about God and values, it has nothing to say on that which is objective. This is true.
Ergo religion and science comment on different aspects of the world and if their underlying premises are followed correctly should not come into conflict because they address different questions. Your pink kangaroo example fails on the basis of operating within a universe to which the scientific method applies. God, however, would by definition exist outside that system. Our logical paradigms need not apply, hence my mentioning the fact that occam's razor in particular is meaningless here
Last edited:
