Picard Isn't Really An Atheist

[Voth commando1]

I'd say out of all the captains Janeway was probably the most atheistic.

At the same time I always got the impression mysticism and a stubborn persistence of a world beyond the tricorder remained in existence in 24th century humanity. Even among people who were "secular" by today's standards.

Picard might not be a theist but he does place some weight however limited and implied in the metaphysical.

 

[Tosk]

who, while holding a belief in no god(s), do believe there is no god, which is in itself a belief in god

You lost me there.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I'm not sure Janeway more more atheistic than Picard so much as she was put in more situations where she was at odds with it.

I think what Mojochi is implying there is that the belief that there is definitely no God is an exercise of faith in itself because God can neither strictly be proven nor disproven.

I would counter that with the oft-cited and oft-misused by atheists 'burden of proof' argument. Two propositions neither of which have been proven are not inherently equal. Believing an unproven affirmative proposition that is inherently undisproveable is an act of faith, not believing it is an act of rational skepticism.

 

[Mojochi]

You lost me there.

A belief that God unequivocally doesn't exist is just as much a belief of God as someone who believes that God does exist. Neither is provable & thereby taken on faith, & both are beliefs about God, therefore, not in the strictest sense, atheism, which is in its simplest definition a lack of belief in God(s). A - Without, Theism - Belief in God(s), but we have adapted the word now to include people who belief there is no god, with the term Gnostic Atheist

 

[Tosk]

A belief that God unequivocally doesn't exist is just as much a belief of God as someone who believes that God does exist.

Is the belief in Santa the same as the belief that he does not exist?

Anyway, Picard never states that he believes that God exists or that he does not, so what difference does it make? You think atheism is the same as believing in God, I do not...it doesn't really alter the Picard discussion at hand.

 

[Timewalker]

Picard & even Star Trek in general have been reeling from a label of being atheistic ever since that scene.

"Reeling"? Is there something bad about atheism or being "atheistic"?

I guess those who think so must have forgotten the numerous instances in TOS when it was made clear that at least some of the crew are religious. Both McCoy and Uhura, for instance, are Christian. But both of them are also people who don't let it interfere with their duties and ability to understand the importance of science and new discoveries.

That Picard quote implies more that the rejection of belief in favor of scientific reasoning is an objective step forward in cultural development. Arguably that may imply a view that religion is something inherently archaic but you can also argue that he was referring to a specific manifestation of religion which requires human sacrifices and living in fear of divine retaliation.

It's not only that; it's also the tendency for differences in religious beliefs - no matter how minor - to lead to anger, intolerance, injustice, war, and genocide.

The worst religious wars on our planet aren't the "Religion X vs. Atheism". The worst ones are the "Religion A vs. Religion B" when both religions very often are just different varieties of the same religion.

That kind of destruction is something Picard would have wanted the Mintakans to be spared, as it's got the potential to send a civilization right back to the stone age, if not extinction.

Yup, & in my opinion, there really is no sense in advocating for a lack of beliefs in gods, if you don't also advocate for the lack of belief in things just as unproven.

"Advocating"? What do you imagine we do - scamper around the neighborhood at 8 am on Saturday mornings, elbowing aside the JWs and Mormons, to compete for first rights of doorknocking so we can say, "Good morning. I'm here to tell you that if you don't believe in God/Jesus, absolutely nothing bad will happen to you as a consequence of that lack of belief, and you are not an immoral person"?

gnostic atheists, who, while holding a belief in no god(s), do believe there is no god, which is in itself a belief in god

Whut? I don't believe in any gods, I don't believe they exist now or ever did, other than in the imaginations of those who believe(d) in them. So somehow that means that I really do believe in these gods?

WTF???

This conversation is starting to remind me of the really obnoxious interview Oprah Winfrey did with a woman who said she's atheist, and also feels awe at some things. Oprah practically jumped up and down and said, "You ARE SO a Christian, because only religious people are able to feel awe."

Every time the woman tried to explain why Oprah was wrong, Oprah would just cut her off.

That was Oprah Winfrey, showing her inability to wrap her closed mind around the FACT that a person can be atheist and feel awe at something. It's a feeling I've had when stargazing, it's a feeling I had one night when watching the Northern Lights - that was the first time I really understood how the Native Americans could have believed in sky spirits, and it's a feeling I had when bonding with my first cat and realized that she was a small, furry little individual person.

 

[Mojochi]

Is the belief in Santa the same as the belief that he does not exist?

Only in that either is a belief about him, & in the case of God, we have a word for anyone who has those beliefs & an opposite word for those who don't, but that word has been altered some.

Anyway, Picard never states that he believes that God exists or that he does not, so what difference does it make? You think atheism is the same as believing in God, I do not...it doesn't really alter the Picard discussion at hand.

I'll bring it back into focus, if I can. Because of comments he's made, many people I've seen consider Picard (& by extension Star Trek too) atheistic. It even made internet buzz lately relating to the new show

https://moviepilot.com/p/why-is-god-not-allowed-in-star-trek-discovery/4335389

I disagree, & maintain that one reason to suggest otherwise (besides him never admitting it outright) is that he has expressed holding beliefs in divine things like eternal human soles & afterlife, etc...

The main argument against me on that, is that believing in divine things isn't the same as believing in God, which I kind of think it is, & treat the concept of theism/atheism accordingly, comparing that extension of the definition to how it has been extended already, with the breakdown between gnostic atheists & agnostic atheists, & similarly to the adaptation of a word like asexual, to have two different but related definitions

Whut? I don't believe in any gods, I don't believe they exist now or ever did, other than in the imaginations of those who believe(d) in them. So somehow that means that I really do believe in these gods?

No. Not believing in God(s) becomes a god belief if you extend it to believing there is NO God

 

[Tosk]

he has expressed holding beliefs in divine things like eternal human soles

It'd save me money on shoes, that's for sure.

 

[Timewalker]

No. Not believing in God(s) becomes a god belief if you extend it to believing there is NO God

Since I'm the atheist in this smaller conversation, kindly refrain from the discourtesy of insisting that you know more than I do about what I believe or don't believe.

And if you're going to quote my posts, how about getting my name right?

 

[Mojochi]

It'd save me money on shoes, that's for sure.

Lol oops typoed or autocorrect. I must talk about shoes more that souls. Probably.

Since I'm the atheist in this smaller conversation, kindly refrain from the discourtesy of insisting that you know more than I do about what I believe or don't believe.

I didn't. I defined what a belief in god or the belief in its absolute absense would imply if you did believe. I've no clue what you believe, & as an atheist too, I'm good with that

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Mojochi hasn't responded with a rebuttal to my previous post yet that rejection of a hypothesis that is designed to be impossible to disprove is skepticism rather than faith, so I'll wait on that to elaborate further.

@Timewalker
Don't forget the ones that are Religion 1A vs Religion 1B. Or Religion 1Aa vs Religion 1Ab.

But rather than blame the religion, I tend to blame the people. Most wars waged over religion would be condemned by the very religion they are fighting in the name of. So I would extend that to say, "Wars are fought by power hungry, hateful people who attribute their hateful power hunger to their religion".

 

[Prax]

Wars are waged for power. Hate is useful to rally a nation to fight, but those leading the wars don't really seem to hate their enemies, except maybe Eisenhower.

Or defense, or other practical reasons, not for religion, not for the love of Helen, or any other romanticized/demonized notions.

 

[Mojochi]

Mojochi hasn't responded with a rebuttal to my previous post yet that rejection of a hypothesis that is designed to be impossible to disprove is skepticism rather than faith, so I'll wait on that to elaborate further.

Oops, sorry. Missed it, earlier

I would counter that with the oft-cited and oft-misused by atheists 'burden of proof' argument. Two propositions neither of which have been proven are not inherently equal. Believing an unproven affirmative proposition that is inherently undisproveable is an act of faith, not believing it is an act of rational skepticism.

Opting to not believe an unproven affirmative proposition is skepticism, agreed, but believing it unequivocally is not, is still a matter of faith. It's a fair point, but I think in this case they are equal. To believe there is no god is not just a rejection of the belief that there is one. It is its own leap, beyond simply abstaining from belief that one exists

 

[JirinPanthosa]

That argument asserts that all propositions are equally reasonable, though, whether or not you have any convincing evidence to support it. I would argue that believing something not proven but supported by evidence and disprovable is a more 'neutral' position than believing something not supported by evidence and not disprovable. Just like believing in dark matter is less 'faithful' than believing the missing mass is hidden by alien cloaking devices.

 

[Tosk]

but believing it unequivocally is not, is still a matter of faith.

Faith is a belief IN something, not the absence of belief. Faith and unbelief are antonyms. Atheism is an unbelief in God/s. Why do you keep trying to push the "atheism means you state for a fact that God doesn't exist" angle?

 

[Amaris]

Faith is a belief IN something, not the absence of belief. Faith and unbelief are antonyms. Atheism is an unbelief in God/s. Why do you keep trying to push the "atheism means you state for a fact that God doesn't exist" angle?

So far, the simple definition of atheism has been repeatedly strained beyond recognition in this thread. I'm not sure what else you can say that will change that. I posted the actual definition, and from multiple authoritative sources, and that was given the run around, too.

 

[Tosk]

And even if that were the definition (proclaiming without doubt that God does not exist) that still doesn't mean Picard isn't an atheist. We didn't see him all the time, who knows what stuff he said off screen? After all the absence of proof is the same as proof, isn't it?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Who Watches the Watchers. I copied and pasted my own comment. The one where I explained where I heard about it.

EDIT: Here's the interview for any concerned
http://www.missionlogpodcast.com/the-one-with-richard-arnold/

Thanks for that interview. The relevant part is around 45 minutes in, give or take.

Unfortunately, I don't find Richard Arnold's recollection to be credible in this interview, at least without further corroboration. There are numerous reasons why, including:

1. In this interview, Arnold implies that Roddenberry did rewrites on "Family" in season four, something that's directly contradicted by Moore in this interview with Ronald D. Moore and Ira Steven Behr.

2. Arnold doesn't even say what Roddenberry supposedly did to the script of "Watchers." So, there's nothing really to address there, besides the vague claim that Roddenberry did something to it.

3. However, Arnold does imply that Roddenberry is specifically responsible for removing the sexual encounter between Data and Ard'rian in "The Ensigns of Command." However, according to Memory Alpha, this is contracted by a recollection by the episode's director Cliff Bole given in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion 2nd ed on page 101, where Bole says that the reason that the sexual encounter was removed from the episode was because the budget for the episode was cut at the last minute [http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Ensigns_of_Command_(episode)].

4. The idea that Roddenberry would have a problem per se with Data being sexual in "Ensigns," which without any nuance is how Arnold recollects the situation, is hard to believe, given not only Data's behavior with Yar in "The Naked Now" but also the fact that Data's line about being fully functional was lifted out of Roddenberry's own The Questor Tapes.

5. Roddenberry already had a history of mis-characterizing how other writers portrayed principal characters in the context of creative conflicts. The most famous is his version of his objection to an early draft of "The City on the Edge of Forever" when Roddenberry stated incorrectly that Harlan Ellison had Scotty dealing drugs. This is a problem if Arnold is basing what he understands to have happened on what Roddenberry told him, and that issue would potentially apply to every episode discussed in the interview here.

6. There are other, differing accounts circulating the web about the development of "Ensigns," including why Snodgrass used a pseudonym on a draft. These accounts have nothing to with contributions from Roddenberry. People can find them just as easily as I did, but I won't repeat them here, since I cannot corroborate them.​

This doesn't mean that Arnold is wrong about "Watchers," but without corroboration his claim that Roddenberry made any contribution to the script is not something that can be credibly accepted just because Arnold said so in this interview.

It's also worth mentioning that what Moore said in the interview I mentioned in point #1 is consistent with the idea that Roddenberry made changes to episodes before "Family," but that remark isn't specific enough to glean anything about "Ensigns" or "Watchers."

 

[Tosk]

Am I remembering right that Richard Arnold generally is...how should I put this? Someone you need to check sources on before accepting his word on something?

 

[Prax]

Thanks for that interview. The relevant part is around 45 minutes in, give or take.

Unfortunately, I don't find Richard Arnold's recollection to be credible in this interview, at least without further corroboration. There are numerous reasons why, including:

1. In this interview, Arnold implies that Roddenberry did rewrites on "Family" in season four, something that's directly contradicted by Moore in this interview with Ronald D. Moore and Ira Steven Behr.

2. Arnold doesn't even say what Roddenberry supposedly did to the script of "Watchers." So, there's nothing really to address there, besides the vague claim that Roddenberry did something to it.

3. However, Arnold does imply that Roddenberry is specifically responsible for removing the sexual encounter between Data and Ard'rian in "The Ensigns of Command." However, according to Memory Alpha, this is contracted by a recollection by the episode's director Cliff Bole given in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion 2nd ed on page 101, where Bole says that the reason that the sexual encounter was removed from the episode was because the budget for the episode was cut at the last minute [http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Ensigns_of_Command_(episode)].

4. The idea that Roddenberry would have a problem per se with Data being sexual in "Ensigns," which without any nuance is how Arnold recollects the situation, is hard to believe, given not only Data's behavior with Yar in "The Naked Now" but also the fact that Data's line about being fully functional was lifted out of Roddenberry's own The Questor Tapes.

5. Roddenberry already had a history of mis-characterizing how other writers portrayed principal characters in the context of creative conflicts. The most famous is his version of his objection to an early draft of "The City on the Edge of Forever" when Roddenberry stated incorrectly that Harlan Ellison had Scotty dealing drugs. This is a problem if Arnold is basing what he understands to have happened on what Roddenberry told him, and that issue would potentially apply to every episode discussed in the interview here.

6. There are other, differing accounts circulating the web about the development of "Ensigns," including why Snodgrass used a pseudonym on a draft. These accounts have nothing to with contributions from Roddenberry. People can find them just as easily as I did, but I won't repeat them here, since I cannot corroborate them.​

This doesn't mean that Arnold is wrong about "Watchers," but without corroboration his claim that Roddenberry made any contribution to the script is not something that can be credibly accepted just because Arnold said so in this interview.

It's also worth mentioning that what Moore said in the interview I mentioned in point #1 is consistent with the idea that Roddenberry made changes to episodes before "Family," but that remark isn't specific enough to glean anything about "Ensigns" or "Watchers."

I've heard many people say that Picard is unusually harsh towards "religion" in "Who Watches..." The point was raised here, and having heard that interview, offered it up as a possible explanation, considering Roddenberry is always described as a more vocal atheist. The contention was raised that Roddenberry was too sickly to be writing on scripts in season 3, so I named my source. That's all. Even if I take Arnold's claim with a "grain of salt" (which is fine, as nothing changes), I would find it hard to believe that Datalore was the last script he made any changes to. That's quite early. Even Moore's story that you mention shows that Roddenberry was still in the habit of approving scripts in season 4. The guy still had an office, and still went to work everyday until the end.

Am I remembering right that Richard Arnold generally is...how should I put this? Someone you need to check sources on before accepting his word on something?

I dunno, are you? Perhaps he's a bald faced liar. Does that leave us in a different position than before?