In The 24th Century, How Did They Do It?

[Nightdiamond]

Gotta disagree. I am a hardcore atheist but I fail to see how atheism is supposed to solve any problems. You could even claim that such an attitude would be religious again..

Trek seems to say it was not so much that atheism solved our problems, it's the result of atheistic attitudes that solved the problems.

An atheist won't waste time praying or performing rituals, to create a better future. Instead they use their intelligence, technology, planning and so forth to create a better future.


Take Devil's Due From TNG for example;

PICARD: Did Ardra simply snap her fingers, transforming Ventax Two into paradise?

JARED:The changes occurred gradually,over a long period of time.

PICARD:Did she personally form the government that has peacefully ruled Ventax Two for a millennium?

JARED:No, historical records indicate a council was convened to assessour options. They drew up a new constitution which the populationlater ratified.

PICARD Did Ardra pick up even one piece of trash?

 

[Ian Keldon]

Ah, true. But here is the thing. Trek is saying that humans solved their problems and created Utopia on their own, without the aid of religion.

It doesn't say that at all...it simply says they solved their problems. Religion has always been a force that unites, as well as divides.

We know from Enterprise that religion is alive and well in Archer's time (Phlox went to a Mass once at St Peters), and Earth had already all but solved it's social problems at that point.

There are documented instances in TOS where characters either practice or show respect for religious practice (Balance of Terror, Bread and Circuses chief among them)

If anything Gene almost certainly wanted to project this.

It was done through hard work, reasoning, responsibility, and a desire to eliminate bigotry and class-ism, prejudice, etc.

But I'll bet that once humans realized that they solved their most stubborn problems with their own intellect, a good majority of them held an atheistic attitude.

Many of them seem to, but we don't know that ALL of them do.

Picard seemed to have thought that religion=superstition and dark ages.

And demonstrated no small amount of anti-religious bigotry in the process...so much for "tolerance" (Many non-religious are that way towards the religious in our day as well).

And we all know how the TOS episodes sees it--"what's that behind the veil? That's no god, that's just a computer!"

See above. That is hardly a universal message even in TOS.

 

[Deks]

There's a reason Picard acted so hostile towards imposing religious views (which was an idea from a SF researcher) on the Mintakans.
The Mintakans moved past religious inclinations until SF's research outpost got damaged - and majority of Mintakans actually didn't really seem all that enthusiastic about embracing religious views in the first place... it was just 1 man who was desperate due to personal loss.

The Mintakans moved past religion some time ago before the fiasco and Picard appealed to their sense of reasoning after explaining everything - which actually turned out good.
In a sense, imposing religious views on them WOULD result in regressing them to an earlier point of development as a society.
You've seen how far just 1 man deluded with religious views decided to take things... and Picard had to take a hit in order to demonstrate he is not a superior entity of any kind and bring things back as they were (mostly) by exposing himself and breaking the Prime Directive.
I think in this case it was justified to break it since SF was the one that messed up in the first place.

Even if there are religions in Archer's time, that only means that religion persists in probably much smaller capacity than it did before Humanity shaped up in the 50 years following FC with the Vulcans.

As people who do not conform to religious aspects are in a minority today, in Trek future, it's probably the opposite.

Oh and for what it's worth... DS9 took things too far by saying that humans can easily 'regress'.
That's just moronic.
And besides, it was just 1 man who declared marshal law in the first place.
One man in a position of power that used it on account of personal paranoia - not the majority.
As far as I recall, Sisko and his staff were the voice of reason.
The rest SF officers followed orders.
The General populace got worried a bit because of marshal law being declared in the first place.
So to that end, actions of 1 man are not really representative of how everyone would behave.

 

[horatio83]

An atheist won't waste time praying or performing rituals, to create a better future. Instead they use their intelligence, technology, planning and so forth to create a better future.

Neither would anybody who believes in God. What you describe is Pagan logic, sacrifice a goat to the fertility Goddess to end the dry period and so on.
I think many people forget how important the monotheistic revolution has been in human hsitroy. The holy of the holies is basically empty, God is word for the absolute, for things that we cannot grasp and not a word for an entity we can pray to in order to fulfill our wishes.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

An atheist won't waste time praying or performing rituals, to create a better future. Instead they use their intelligence, technology, planning and so forth to create a better future.

Neither would anybody who believes in God. What you describe is Pagan logic, sacrifice a goat to the fertility Goddess to end the dry period and so on.
I think many people forget how important the monotheistic revolution has been in human hsitroy. The holy of the holies is basically empty, God is word for the absolute, for things that we cannot grasp and not a word for an entity we can pray to in order to fulfill our wishes.

horatio83, history contradicts you - for an easy example, see medieval christianity disregard for everything material. Or islamic, etc.

Religion is NOT conductive to understanding nature and using its laws to better one's life - this was shown time and time again.

 

[Ian Keldon]

There's a reason Picard acted so hostile towards imposing religious views (which was an idea from a SF researcher) on the Mintakans...

*snip most of post for space*

Oh and for what it's worth... DS9 took things too far by saying that humans can easily 'regress'.
That's just moronic.
And besides, it was just 1 man who declared marshal law in the first place.
One man in a position of power that used it on account of personal paranoia - not the majority.
As far as I recall, Sisko and his staff were the voice of reason.
The rest SF officers followed orders.
The General populace got worried a bit because of marshal law being declared in the first place.
So to that end, actions of 1 man are not really representative of how everyone would behave.

I literally don't know where to begin. It seems like every line of your post is oozing with anti-religious zealotry. Your implicit (and explicit on occasion) assumption is that religion is "regressive" and that human progress is dependent on "getting past" it. Your inferance that only be shedding religion can man be improved is just breathtakingly bigoted, not to mention wrong.

 

[Ian Keldon]

horatio83, history contradicts you - for an easy example, see medieval christianity disregard for everything material. Or islamic, etc.

At one point some felt that way, true. But it was also the religious who SAVED scientific knowedge and added to it to the advancement of mankind.

Religion is NOT conductive to understanding nature and using its laws to better one's life - this was shown time and time again.

See above.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Star Trek future posits virtually unlimited energy sources (when applied to systems on the scale of human material consumption) and devices that can create any material object almost instantly.

Of course poverty is nonexistent and money is useless. What's remarkable is why anyone presented with these premises imagines that anything we currently understand as economics would apply to such a situation. Arthur C. Clarke certainly knew better, and wrote about such worlds a number of times. This is called "science fiction."

Religion and theology offer nothing real with respect to understanding of the material world.

 

[Ian Keldon]

The Star Trek future posits virtually unlimited energy sources (when applied to systems on the scale of human material consumption) and devices that can create any material object almost instantly.

True enough.

Of course poverty is nonexistent and money is useless. What's remarkable is why anyone presented with these premises imagines that anything we currently understand as economics would apply to such a situation. Arthur C. Clarke certainly knew better, and wrote about such worlds a number of times. This is called "science fiction."

One can see a society that would use such technology only to benefit the elites just as easily as seeing an egalitarian society. Technology is a tool, not a motivator or means of social change.

Religion and theology offer nothing real with respect to understanding of the material world.

Is man and society not part of the "real world" for you? One can criticize Biblical Israel for being "backward" (or any number of other epithets) by modern standards, but for it's day it was a very progressive society. Likewise was early Christianity in turn.

For every witchburning there is an abolition movement, for every attempt to control knowlege there is social enlightenment and a desire for social justice.

As with all things men do, the application of religion to life has it's good and it's not so good aspects.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

horatio83, history contradicts you - for an easy example, see medieval christianity disregard for everything material. Or islamic, etc.

At one point some felt that way, true. But it was also the religious who SAVED scientific knowedge and added to it to the advancement of mankind.

Religious orders saved previously acquired knowledge, yes.
But they rarely, if ever, improved on it - the monks/priests with scientific interests were the very rare exception, not the rule.
They often suppressed the advancement of knowledge.

This is true not only of christianity, but of most, if not any, religions you would care to name.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One can see a society that would use such technology only to benefit the elites just as easily as seeing an egalitarian society. Technology is a tool, not a motivator or means of social change.

Tell that to the folks in the hunter/gatherer societies that predominated prior to agriculture. You simply have no grasp of the scale of this. Sometimes I wonder if many Trek fans think like science fiction fans at all.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One can see a society that would use such technology only to benefit the elites just as easily as seeing an egalitarian society. Technology is a tool, not a motivator or means of social change.

Tell that to the folks in the hunter/gatherer societies that predominated prior to agriculture. You simply have no grasp of the scale of this. Sometimes I wonder if many Trek fans have much in common with science fiction fans.

 

[xortex]

If you only knew the power of the dark side!

 

[Ian Keldon]

horatio83, history contradicts you - for an easy example, see medieval christianity disregard for everything material. Or islamic, etc.

At one point some felt that way, true. But it was also the religious who SAVED scientific knowedge and added to it to the advancement of mankind.

Religious orders saved previously acquired knowledge, yes.

They also brought in new/rediscovered knowledge, such as the revival of Greek and the inclusion of Arabic scientific learning after the fall of Andelusia.

But they rarely, if ever, improved on it - the monks/priests with scientific interests were the very rare exception, not the rule.

Yet those "exceptions" made important advances in scientific knowledge.

They often suppressed the advancement of knowledge.

This is true not only of christianity, but of most, if not any, religions you would care to name.

Men acting in the name of religion did, not religions themselves.

One can see a society that would use such technology only to benefit the elites just as easily as seeing an egalitarian society. Technology is a tool, not a motivator or means of social change.

Tell that to the folks in the hunter/gatherer societies that predominated prior to agriculture.

Conversely, tell your story of technology as social aid to all those put out of work by automation directly, or by advancements in shipping technology that have ended local production in favor of exploitative "globalization".

You simply have no grasp of the scale of this. Sometimes I wonder if many Trek fans think like science fiction fans at all.

Much science-fiction is made about the dangers of technology left unchained.

 

[xortex]

Men with no religion keep knowledge away from other people too. Women too. 'I can never understand a Woman's inability to answer a direct yes or no question.' - Spock

 

[Knight Templar]

I know it has probably been said, but losing 600 million people in a war would change Earth beyond all imagining.

If you figure on 10 billion people on Earth before the war, then that amounts to fully 6% of the population. And when you start giving death tolls in percentage of the population then its a huge deal.

Imagine how modern U.S.A. would change if we lost 18 million people in a war?

 

[horatio83]

An atheist won't waste time praying or performing rituals, to create a better future. Instead they use their intelligence, technology, planning and so forth to create a better future.

Neither would anybody who believes in God. What you describe is Pagan logic, sacrifice a goat to the fertility Goddess to end the dry period and so on.
I think many people forget how important the monotheistic revolution has been in human hsitroy. The holy of the holies is basically empty, God is word for the absolute, for things that we cannot grasp and not a word for an entity we can pray to in order to fulfill our wishes.

horatio83, history contradicts you - for an easy example, see medieval christianity disregard for everything material. Or islamic, etc.

Religion is NOT conductive to understanding nature and using its laws to better one's life - this was shown time and time again.

I never claimed that religion is useful to understand nature. Obviously we have science for this.

Sure, in primitive Pagan religions it works like that, some stupid God explains a part of reality you don't understand and some stupid Christian fundamentalists have a similar picture of God.
But let's ignore the fundamentalist nonsense and focus on the essential Pagan-monotheistic split: the pagan dude sacrifices a goat to amend the bad weather whereas the Jewish dude cannot play any magic tricks to prevent the Shoah. Or take Christianity where God basically dies. There is no God that explains anything to be found anymore after the monotheistic revolution, afterwards God seems to rather stand for far more abstract notions like e.g. the absolute in Judaism or the holy spirit / community of believers in Christianity.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

At one point some felt that way, true. But it was also the religious who SAVED scientific knowedge and added to it to the advancement of mankind.

Religious orders saved previously acquired knowledge, yes.

They also brought in new/rediscovered knowledge, such as the revival of Greek and the inclusion of Arabic scientific learning after the fall of Andelusia.

About the preservation of roman books - the church did that, yes, but not because it had a plan to revive the ancient material sciences; the church viewed all such earthly matters as irrelevant. The books just happened to be in their libraries.

Greek knowledge was reacquired via arab translations, not due to the church - at most, you can argue that a few of many translators were monks.

Yet those "exceptions" made important advances in scientific knowledge.

Minor advances by comparison to scientists who were persecuted by the church for their work; the church was firmly against the advancement of science during the renaissance because science meant actually abandoning the religious surrender to misticism.

They often suppressed the advancement of knowledge.

This is true not only of christianity, but of most, if not any, religions you would care to name.

Men acting in the name of religion did, not religions themselves.

So - when it comes to pluses, religion did it, not the exception individuals who actually advanced knowledge.
But when it comes to minuses, it was men, not religion? Really?

Ian Keldon, suppression of the advancement of science was a constant policy for christianity, islamism, etc.
And encouragement of scientific advancement was utterly lacking in any religion.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Neither would anybody who believes in God. What you describe is Pagan logic, sacrifice a goat to the fertility Goddess to end the dry period and so on.
I think many people forget how important the monotheistic revolution has been in human hsitroy. The holy of the holies is basically empty, God is word for the absolute, for things that we cannot grasp and not a word for an entity we can pray to in order to fulfill our wishes.

horatio83, history contradicts you - for an easy example, see medieval christianity disregard for everything material. Or islamic, etc.

Religion is NOT conductive to understanding nature and using its laws to better one's life - this was shown time and time again.

I never claimed that religion is useful to understand nature. Obviously we have science for this.

Sure, in primitive Pagan religions it works like that, some stupid God explains a part of reality you don't understand and some stupid Christian fundamentalists have a similar picture of God.
But let's ignore the fundamentalist nonsense and focus on the essential Pagan-monotheistic split: the pagan dude sacrifices a goat to amend the bad weather whereas the Jewish dude cannot play any magic tricks to prevent the Shoah. Or take Christianity where God basically dies. There is no God that explains anything to be found anymore after the monotheistic revolution, afterwards God seems to rather stand for far more abstract notions like e.g. the absolute in Judaism or the holy spirit / community of believers in Christianity.

horatio83, by your definition, the monotheistic christian church was for most of its existence fundamentalist. It most definitely believed that God explained reality and everything contradicting the Bible was heresy/false.
And, of course, the same can be said about other monotheistic religions.

The abstract notion idea is new; it appeared due to the fact that science is so good at actually explaining the physical world and proving it by coming up with inventions that actually WORK (a problem all religions have - none seem able to affect the physical world, save in tales set in a nebulos past).

 

[horatio83]

Ian Keldon, suppression of the advancement of science was a constant policy for christianity, islamism, etc.
And encouragement of scientific advancement was utterly lacking in any religion.

This generalization is factually wrong. While Christianity prevented scientific advances during the Middle Ages science flourished in the Islamic world around 1000.
I don't wanna imply anything by the way as the religion-science debates don't interest me, I merely wanna correct the facts.