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

[horatio83]

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).

As I already said, I don't care about this science-religion game as it is a false dichotomy. The two don't have anything to do with each other.
Last time I checked the Gospels contain stories about how a guy helps a guy from an enemy tribe on a friggin' dangerous road and stuff like that, not instructions on how to build a steam machine.
Religious texts, at least the monotheistic ones, are about how we might wanna live together, about the social sphere and not about how the physical world functions.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

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.

The islamic world preserved greek knowledge; it had original thinkers, but they were few.
It didn't even reach the heights attained by the greco-roman antiquity or by the chinese, for example.

And all the above pale by comparison to the renaissance, when the scientific method was invented - all previous versions of the scientific method (if one can call them that) were inferior (for example, the greeks used only logic, no experiments - and made mistakes).
Of course, there were other factors at work which gave birth to the scientific revolution and the enlightenment - but they're beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I find it ironic that people are calling religion intolerant while being intolerant of people who are religious.

I guess a point a once brought up in my Sociology of religion class does ring true

Organizations and groups aren't the problem, intolerant assholes who think their better than you because they believe something that you don't are the problem.

Of course I think South Park also made that point when they did that Buck Rogers parody thing where everyone was atheist and still killing each other over differences like with religions fundies there by saying their fundies really aren't any better.

Maybe mankind will improve when that lesson is learned.

P.S. you can keep going on about how religion will disappear but I don't see it happening if it can survive Heliocentric Theory becoming an accepted fact and (outside of the creationist idiots) the Theory of Evolution I don't see it going anywhere. At the most they'll stop kicking and screaming when scientists make a new discovery and just accept it (which a lot of them are already kind of doing) and likely becoming less likely to kill people over differences.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I find it ironic that people are calling religion intolerant while being intolerant of people who are religious.

Hartzilla, merely stating the truth about what christianity/etc did is NOT equivalent to being intolerant about it.

You equating these notions paints you as the intolerant one, unable to accept historical fact.

 

[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.

The islamic world preserved greek knowledge; it had original thinkers, but they were few.
It didn't even reach the heights attained by the greco-roman antiquity or by the chinese, for example.

And all the above pale by comparison to the renaissance, when the scientific method was invented - all previous versions of the scientific method (if one can call them that) were inferior (for example, the greeks used only logic, no experiments - and made mistakes).
Of course, there were other factors at work which gave birth to the scientific revolution and the enlightenment - but they're beyond the scope of this discussion.

If I remember correctly the algorithm so solve quadratic equations was invented by a fellow who lived during the Golden Age of Islam. I'd say this qualifies as original thinking. It's not like the old Greeks already figured out everything and there is a Western bias that makes us ignore Islamic scholars as we prefer the Eurocentric version of an unbroken thread straight from Ancient Greece to Rome to Europe and the Enlightenment.
Or think about English words. Everybody knows that sympathy has a Greek and compassion a Latin source but that alcohol has an Arabic source is fairly unknown.

You equating these notions paints you as the intolerant one, unable to accept historical fact.

Pure irony. You seem indeed to be unable to accept the fact that science did prosper under one monotheistic religion for a few centuries.
By the way, I would immediately agree with the general notion that religion has in general been harmful for scientific development. I merely cannot stand lies.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

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.

The islamic world preserved greek knowledge; it had original thinkers, but they were few.
It didn't even reach the heights attained by the greco-roman antiquity or by the chinese, for example.

And all the above pale by comparison to the renaissance, when the scientific method was invented - all previous versions of the scientific method (if one can call them that) were inferior (for example, the greeks used only logic, no experiments - and made mistakes).
Of course, there were other factors at work which gave birth to the scientific revolution and the enlightenment - but they're beyond the scope of this discussion.

If I remember correctly the algorithm so solve quadratic equations was invented by a fellow who lived during the Golden Age of Islam. I'd say this qualifies as original thinking. It's not like the old Greeks already figured out everything and there is a Western bias that makes us ignore Islamic scholars as we prefer the Eurocentric version of an unbroken thread straight from Ancient Greece to Rome to Europe and the Enlightenment.
Or think about English words. Everybody knows that sympathy has a Greek and compassion a Latin source but that alcohol has an Arabic source is fairly unknown.

horatio83, do you really want me to enumerate some of the most important renaissance inventions/discoveries and see how they compare (highly favorably, in both importance and number) with what the arabs discovered in hundreds of years (mainly in mathematics and optics)?

About the bias vs western civilisation:
The most important historical development of the last 500 years was the rise of western civilisation - in wealth and power, scientific acumen and liberty, beyond any other civilisation before it.
You can call it bias all you want - that's a clear historical fact, despite the politically correct trend these days to belittle these achievements of western civilisation - achievements which spilled over much of the rest of the world.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

You equating these notions paints you as the intolerant one, unable to accept historical fact.

Pure irony. You seem indeed to be unable to accept the fact that science did prosper under one monotheistic religion for a few centuries.
By the way, I would immediately agree with the general notion that religion has in general been harmful for scientific development. I merely cannot stand lies.

The irony is on you - You seem unable to accept that that level of 'development' of science (attained by a few civilisations, not just islam) was left in the dust by the renaissance.

BTW, ever wondered why the Ottoman empire became so backwards in its later years?

 

[horatio83]

Yep, you'd have to list them to convince me that the Arabs achieved nothing. You'd also have to point out in what way the Arab rediscovering of Antiquity is inferior to the Christian rediscovering of it, usually labelled Renaissance. You'd also have to explain to me why we use words like algebra and algorithm.
And above all you would have to stop pretending that you are a victim of political correctness whenever somebody dares to point out to you that Europe has never been a fortress. Seriously, we talk about what how we could hypothetically make it from here towards the fictional future of Trek and you come with all this tribal BS.

Strange how the nasty, Christian, Western civilization achieved all these glorious things in the last centuries, isn't it? I am not a properly trained Hegelian and I'd probably have to read quite a lot of stuff about it to make an informed statement but my intuition is that there isn't a pure Enlightenment which has been prevented by Christianity but that it could only emerge in Christianity and in opposition to it.
Before Nietzsche wrote that God is dead God already died in a story written nearly 2000 years before. Atheism is somehow already included in monotheism (Job is the Jewish equivalent to Jesus dieing on the cross, basically a fairly atheist story).
Or in other words, atheism is not just a negative, the absence of God but can only emerge in a dialectical process in and with religion in which God is destroyed.
You see it very clearly when you analyze guys like Dawkins, Hitchens and so on. They are not really afraid of anything as science is their substitute God whereas e.g. a Jew who has survived the Shoah has really experienced the absence of God, the existential horror. There is a difference between saying that God is dead (God has never existed) and God has died. Only the latter is consequential and you can only reach this radical conclusion through monotheism.

Note that my basic argument is not that monotheistic religions are great but that they are a necessary chapter in our history which you cannot short-circuit. Well, you can but then you end up with some kind of half-a*sed atheism like the aforementioned thinkers that prevents you from thinking in any categories besides religion vs. science.

 

[Arpy]

Religion means many things to many people. But throwing out the stories and ceremonies we've been raised on alone will not make us better people. I've known truly accepting religious people and utterly selfish atheistic ones as well as the opposite. I think we need to recognize religion for its limits, but remember that what made us good Christians and Buddhists and Atheists, and what would ultimately create a better future, is compassion, forgiveness, love, play, and all the things that we think would be in abundance in a better future.

Also, for my fellow atheists, this is nuanced and brilliant step forward.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I find it ironic that people are calling religion intolerant while being intolerant of people who are religious.

This is also true. There's an interesting episode on DS9 about this. The one where Kieko is teaching a mixed class, and she uses scientific terms to describe the wormhole and the Prophets.

Ki Winn takes offence that she won't use religious titles, and Kieko refuses to budge. Then there's a big controversy over it.

KEIKO Because it was artificially constructed. Commander Sisko encountered the entities who created the wormhole when he..

WINN Excuse me, by the "entities," do you not mean "the prophets"... ?

KEIKO No, I don't teach Bajoran spiritual beliefs. That's your job. Mine is to open the children's minds... to history... to literature... to mathematics... to science...

But for the most part, 24th century humans don't seem to be impressed by religious ideas; Even their teenagers;

JAKE But they weren't prophets. They were just some aliens that you found in the wormhole.

SISKO To those aliens, the future is no more difficult to see than the past. So why shouldn't they be considered prophets?

JAKE Are you serious?

SISKO My point is it's a matter of interpretation. It may not be what you believe, but that doesn't make it wrong. If you start to think that way, you'll be acting just like Vedek Winn. Only from the other side.

So are they teaching their young this?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Or in other words, atheism is not just a negative, the absence of God but can only emerge in a dialectical process in and with religion in which God is destroyed.

You presuppose the necessity of a belief in "God," which was not even shared as such by all early cultures.

Absence of a specific belief is not a "negative;" it's simply absence.

 

[horatio83]

I am not aware of any early civilization which did not feature gods but of course I could be wrong. Would you mind to point out the civilizations which did not feature gods?

About my point, looks like I did not express it clearly enough. Once the concept of God or Gods exist and is widespread you can either claim that this is just an illusion which is what I would agree with or you can kill off this God inside the system. This happens in Job and the Passion. In Job God basically says that everything is a mess and out of his control whereas in the Passion God even dies at the cross. My point is that the latter, doing it from inside the system, is more effective and consequential.
If you do it from the outside you risk creating an Ersatz God. The Soviets destroyed the Tzar and the church but Stalin became the new Red God. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. battle religion but make science a bit of a substitute God.

I have only found this radical split, the notion that we are totally on our own, in Christianity (and I am not a Christian) whereas from the perspective of an ordinary liberal, atheist attitude you have not reached the bottom yet. God has to die, to declare him dead or inexistent doesn't do the trick.

 

[xortex]

You're wrong about that last part.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I am not aware of any early civilization which did not feature gods but of course I could be wrong. Would you mind to point out the civilizations which did not feature gods?

The correct word would have been "cultures" rather than "civilizations," of course. I've edited it.

And you just went from "God" to "gods," there. Goalpost, moved.

Animism, among other things, predates any kind of belief in God and exists where the latter does not. Zen isn't big on him/her, either, and can't be fairly characterized as a reaction to or against theism.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I find it ironic that people are calling religion intolerant while being intolerant of people who are religious.

Hartzilla, merely stating the truth about what christianity/etc did is NOT equivalent to being intolerant about it.

You equating these notions paints you as the intolerant one, unable to accept historical fact.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter if a person is religious or not an asshole is still an asshole, and thats the real problem that needs to be solved not focusing on just changing who a person is an asshole to, becuase getting rid of religon isn't going to change anything if people are still assholes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

After having burned the Library of Alexandria to the ground a few centuries earlier, though.

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

Yes, in SPITE of their religious inclinations, not because of them. Isaac Newton is remembered now for his laws of motion and gravitation, but most of us forget that he spent MOST of his time studying alchemy and occultism.

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".

Same problem for the hunter-gatherers: when someone invents the plow and everyone in the village retools for an agrarian existence, this kind of sucks for the guy who's primary skill set involves hunting and trapping. If you neglect the old skill set instead of finding a new niche for it, this creates problems of its own.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I find it ironic that people are calling religion intolerant while being intolerant of people who are religious.

Hartzilla, merely stating the truth about what christianity/etc did is NOT equivalent to being intolerant about it.

You equating these notions paints you as the intolerant one, unable to accept historical fact.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter if a person is religious or not an asshole is still an asshole, and thats the real problem that needs to be solved not focusing on just changing who a person is an asshole to, becuase getting rid of religon isn't going to change anything if people are still assholes.

You're dangerously close to referring to other posters as "assholes". Take it to TNZ if you want to go there, otherwise dial down the antagonism.


To Everyone:
There is truly good discussion going on in this thread, but PLEASE keep it Trek-centered and don't drift off into non Trek political or religious territory.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Hartzilla, merely stating the truth about what christianity/etc did is NOT equivalent to being intolerant about it.

You equating these notions paints you as the intolerant one, unable to accept historical fact.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter if a person is religious or not an asshole is still an asshole, and thats the real problem that needs to be solved not focusing on just changing who a person is an asshole to, becuase getting rid of religon isn't going to change anything if people are still assholes.

You're dangerously close to referring to other posters as "assholes". Take it to TNZ if you want to go there, otherwise dial down the antagonism.


To Everyone:
There is truly good discussion going on in this thread, but PLEASE keep it Trek-centered and don't drift off into non Trek political or religious territory.

Message recieved sorry.

Now back on to topic

I don't really by the TNG utopia thing, but thats probably because TOS allways showed that utopias are the result of some dark and terrible secret that ultimatly made it not worth it.

 

[T'Girl]

"Things are pretty good," does not equate to "utopia."

 

[7thsealord]

By most lights, "Utopia" = "Perfection".

I do not argue that the UFP is a utopia, simply because it certainly isn't perfect. Not everybody in it is perfectly happy or fully suited to whatever hand Luck has dealt them. Seem to recall a TOS episode or three where various folks achieve .... "Perfection" - and it never works out well. But there seems to be a fair bit of scope for most UFP citizens to pursue the lives they want, and that has to be something

On a larger level, the Federation (or the people running portions thereof) sometimes has had to make tough choices, and sometimes has made decisions that turned out very badly or were just plain wrong. Imperfect. Still, Humanity has made a great deal of progress from "Now" and they keep trying. That is what is important, IMO.

Might add, one very frequent message in Trek is that people who think they ARE perfect (individually or collectively - no pun intended) are often the ones that you have to be the most wary of.