Picard's atheism?
- Thread starter killax
- Start date
Quite right, I couldn't have said it better myself. When will NASA learn that you don't need to send rockets up in order to reach space, that all you need to do is send a spaceship over the edge of the Earth? They had better be careful to not hit any of those pillars holding the Earth up though, it would be terrible if the Earth moved as God has firmly established the world and it cannot be moved.
Job 9:6, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19, Daniel 4:11, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5
I still don't understand why they wont teach all this is science classes.
Quite right, I couldn't have said it better myself. When will NASA learn that you don't need to send rockets up in order to reach space, that all you need to do is send a spaceship over the edge of the Earth? They had better be careful to not hit any of those pillars holding the Earth up though, it would be terrible if the Earth moved as God has firmly established the world and it cannot be moved.
Job 9:6, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19, Daniel 4:11, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5
I still don't understand why they wont teach all this is science classes.
Job 9:6? Now, regardless of Picard's belief in God or not, I'm pretty sure he believed in earthquakes. (Since Job 9:5 is about tectonic plates).
Besides, Picard "believed in" Shakespeare too, and Shakespeare mangled history for the sake of his plays all the time! But we still appreciate seeing works like Shakespeare quoted now, and its even cooler to think that those works haven't been forgotten in the future. Some people hate Shakepeare, but even then, its still worthwhile for analysis (or at least, in my case, for easy credit hours...
).
Job 9:6 - "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble."
A common belief at the time was that the Earth was flat and in a glass dome, or firmament. The Earth itself was supposed to be held up by pillars. The bible does not explicitly state this, but in the bible there are individual references to the Earth having an edge or end, there is references to the firmament which covers the Earth and I just quoted a reference to the pillars.
I know many Christians try to reinterpret these references to try and reconcile them with modern science, but those interpretations are not the way in which the text was supposed to be read. It was written that way so that it could be understandable by the people of that time, it was not written to be understandable by people living in the modern world. It has some merit, and there could well be a God and Jesus could be his son, but the bible is not scientifically current and it hasn't been for thousands of years.
^But that too is an interpretation of the scripture.
And as posted above... by iguana I think, people have known the Bible is a sphere for quite some time. I don't think that Job believed the earth was a flat thing sitting on a pillar. And part of the book of Job is supposed to be expressing all that Job didn't know about that natural universe. I doubt he understood that the tectonic shift from the verse before created mountains and was causing entire continents to move away either. But the Bible was right, they happen.
And if you were on the moon looking at the earth, it would appear to have edges, as it would during the sunrise/set.
The Bible said that Rabbits chewed "cud" long before scientists proved it to be so. Saying that the Bible is "not scientifically current and it hasn't been for thousands of years." is a rather sweeping generalization, and a bit unfair given that the fact about the rabbit is way ahead of its time- something only rather recently proved. But the Bible's purpose isn't as a scientific text, its commenting on the natural world. Usually to make a larger point.
But I do agree with you- a lot of whats in the Bible is taken too literally. Imagery is key in the Bible. And Shakespeare too. Sadly it seems lately its an imaginative literary form that is going away.
And both are able to be understood and appreciated by modern minds.
And as posted above... by iguana I think, people have known the Bible is a sphere for quite some time. I don't think that Job believed the earth was a flat thing sitting on a pillar. And part of the book of Job is supposed to be expressing all that Job didn't know about that natural universe. I doubt he understood that the tectonic shift from the verse before created mountains and was causing entire continents to move away either. But the Bible was right, they happen.
And if you were on the moon looking at the earth, it would appear to have edges, as it would during the sunrise/set.
The Bible said that Rabbits chewed "cud" long before scientists proved it to be so. Saying that the Bible is "not scientifically current and it hasn't been for thousands of years." is a rather sweeping generalization, and a bit unfair given that the fact about the rabbit is way ahead of its time- something only rather recently proved. But the Bible's purpose isn't as a scientific text, its commenting on the natural world. Usually to make a larger point.
But I do agree with you- a lot of whats in the Bible is taken too literally. Imagery is key in the Bible. And Shakespeare too. Sadly it seems lately its an imaginative literary form that is going away.
And both are able to be understood and appreciated by modern minds.Ugh, this is a terrible analogy. Shakespeare is commonly known as fiction, while the Bible is believed to be non-fiction. You can't compare the two. Besides, we know that the Bible itself is still around in the 24th century according to DS9, but it's probably largely thought of as fiction with morals.
And it's obvious it isn't meant to be treated as a text book or scientific source, but being that it's supposed to be infallible, it wouldn't hurt if there weren't any contradictions between it and science. There are, though, most notably in the early chapters like Genesis.
Not all Shakespeare is all fiction, but he was very loose with his history, a lot is based on history, or at least people- sometimes all he did is use there names, or their actions and change their names (wasn't there huge issue with that?) But I do recommend reading at least some of them... at least you'll be able to be buried alive in a flood of references in popular culture. But still, mostly I'm pulling on his use of words, and the fact that Picard quoted him.
Science and the Bible may be at odds for some creationists, but I don't personally believe that the Bible, including Genesis, is at odds with the science of the universe. Though I really can see why a lot of people might.
But comments that try to simply state things as if that are set in stone for all don't work, because to millions they aren't true. Though saying that an individual believes something and why for all sides is another language entirely. And since this is a Star Trek forum, we've learned nothing from these shows if not to try and show a way for anyone to get along with anyone.
Picard didn't want to be deified by a people, but can anyone ever picture Picard voicing a dismissive attitude towards beliefs? At the very least, Picard would be intrigued as an archeologist's for any ancient text, especially one thousands of years old that at times attempts have been made to eradicate. And given his reaction to Bajor, and his desire for them to enter the Federation, I doubt the Frederation lacks religion, or desires its elimination, even if GR's vision didn't have a place for it.
The only times I can recall Sisko at odds with anyone's belief system is in the case of the Tosk (bloodsport/murder on his station) and Kurn (murder/assisted suicide by an officer). Acceptance can't have exceptions, otherwise it is not realistic to think that humans will ever be doing things like Star Trek, alien diplomacy, or anything else. Some may feel that the Vulcan expression of emotion is not a good idea to follow either...
Science and the Bible may be at odds for some creationists, but I don't personally believe that the Bible, including Genesis, is at odds with the science of the universe. Though I really can see why a lot of people might.
But comments that try to simply state things as if that are set in stone for all don't work, because to millions they aren't true. Though saying that an individual believes something and why for all sides is another language entirely. And since this is a Star Trek forum, we've learned nothing from these shows if not to try and show a way for anyone to get along with anyone.
Picard didn't want to be deified by a people, but can anyone ever picture Picard voicing a dismissive attitude towards beliefs? At the very least, Picard would be intrigued as an archeologist's for any ancient text, especially one thousands of years old that at times attempts have been made to eradicate. And given his reaction to Bajor, and his desire for them to enter the Federation, I doubt the Frederation lacks religion, or desires its elimination, even if GR's vision didn't have a place for it.
The only times I can recall Sisko at odds with anyone's belief system is in the case of the Tosk (bloodsport/murder on his station) and Kurn (murder/assisted suicide by an officer). Acceptance can't have exceptions, otherwise it is not realistic to think that humans will ever be doing things like Star Trek, alien diplomacy, or anything else. Some may feel that the Vulcan expression of emotion is not a good idea to follow either...
Oh there is no doubt that there are species in the Federation that have their own religion.
Thing is that humans (as per GR) were envisioned in the future not resorting to any kinds of 'beliefs' or religions in order to live their lives regardless of circumstances.
But we also have to take into consideration the fact that the show was made in US for US audience in the late 20th century.
In the producers/writers perspectives, they thought that retaining certain aspects from contemporary times is necessary for the audience to relate to the characters on screen.
In my opinion that was a mistake.
The point was to portray the kind of people who were completely different in their mindset compared to us.
True, they did it at first to a good degree (not entirely though) ... but later on, they started implementing swears and various other aspects from contemporary times (which increasingly became annoying).
Thing is that humans (as per GR) were envisioned in the future not resorting to any kinds of 'beliefs' or religions in order to live their lives regardless of circumstances.
But we also have to take into consideration the fact that the show was made in US for US audience in the late 20th century.
In the producers/writers perspectives, they thought that retaining certain aspects from contemporary times is necessary for the audience to relate to the characters on screen.
In my opinion that was a mistake.
The point was to portray the kind of people who were completely different in their mindset compared to us.
True, they did it at first to a good degree (not entirely though) ... but later on, they started implementing swears and various other aspects from contemporary times (which increasingly became annoying).
Wow I totaly forgot about this. Great piece of dialogue and I appreciate
Picard even more. Thanks for the post.
But nobody makes the claim that Shakespeare's plays are completely historical. There was a man called Julius Caesar, and he was killed by a conspiracy involving his friend Brutus. There is no evidence for a soothsayer and there was no way of telling if Cassius had to convince Brutus to join the conspiracy, or vice versa. Macbeth was a king in Scotland who was overthrown by an army led by Macduff. Macbeth was not controlled by three witches and, unlike the play, Macbeth's rule was actually a time of great prosperity in Scotland.
I have no problem with these plays being taught in English class, although I do think that there are plays that would be of more interest to today's youth. If they tried to teach these events in history class, I would be outraged.
You can enjoy the Bible and take heed of its meaning without having to accept that the entire thing is absolutely true, and to claim that it is scientifically consistent or current is just plain wrong. The Earth being placed on pillars is nothing like how plate tectonics works. The claim in the Bible is that the Earth shook because the pillars underneath it shook, plate tectonics says that it happens because there are two different sections of the Earth's crust which are being pulled in different directions by magma currents until they eventually snap. They are not comparable, and how an otherwise intelligent person could believe that they are shows the danger of religion which Picard was talking about.
The only way the Bible can be viewed as being completely accurate is if you read it already believing that it is.
I don't see a problem with the image pillar. If something soft is moving, the pillars will move, the roof will shake. The magma shifts, the plates move, they bump = earth quakes, the spread further apart, one sometimes goes under or over another creating mountains. I think its a great image, when a pedestal shakes, whats on it does too. I don't see why it has to mean the earth is flat and is sitting on a pillar any more than its sitting on 4 elephants and a turtle. To say the Bible is completely wrong is to say there aren't seasons and it doesn't rain.
Its extremely unfair (and frankly offensive) to say that all religion is dangerous. I won't deny that some of it is. Reason, and thinking are the important things. Just because I read the Bible does not mean that I've quit learning about science. The Bible even says that even if we lived forever, we'd never know everything about the universe. I don't need the Bible to say that the tectonic plates are grinding together causing an earthquake to get what it means. If I understand the image, if I appreciate what the Bible wants to say, and if I don't feel that the Bible isn't current or consistent, that doesn't make my decision stupid. I know that there are tectonic plates, I know the earth isn't flat on a pillar. I'm seeing things in a different light, one trying to talking about things to people who didn't have the science and technology we do. A secular person isn't necessarily going to get agricultural imagery either.
But the idea that everyone must believe something is wrong when they don't, and the idea that everyone has to change their beliefs, who they are, or die so that religion goes away because they think that may make the world a better place, as I've heard, only shows how the world won't be a better place if that happens. That will never fly.
I do believe the Bible is accurate, and I believe that science has proved it. And that doesn't make me, or any religious person dangerous, or less intelligent. But its hard to prove that when someone goes into something believing that its wrong. I can't see Picard ever believing that religion by itself, or the Bible is dangerous. Whether he chose to believe in God, or believe that he interfered in the universe, he'd never go that far. His vision was people bettering themselves, so I can't see part of that saying religion was dangerous and those who can see the meaning behind imagery lacked intelligence.
Its extremely unfair (and frankly offensive) to say that all religion is dangerous. I won't deny that some of it is. Reason, and thinking are the important things. Just because I read the Bible does not mean that I've quit learning about science. The Bible even says that even if we lived forever, we'd never know everything about the universe. I don't need the Bible to say that the tectonic plates are grinding together causing an earthquake to get what it means. If I understand the image, if I appreciate what the Bible wants to say, and if I don't feel that the Bible isn't current or consistent, that doesn't make my decision stupid. I know that there are tectonic plates, I know the earth isn't flat on a pillar. I'm seeing things in a different light, one trying to talking about things to people who didn't have the science and technology we do. A secular person isn't necessarily going to get agricultural imagery either.
But the idea that everyone must believe something is wrong when they don't, and the idea that everyone has to change their beliefs, who they are, or die so that religion goes away because they think that may make the world a better place, as I've heard, only shows how the world won't be a better place if that happens. That will never fly.
I do believe the Bible is accurate, and I believe that science has proved it. And that doesn't make me, or any religious person dangerous, or less intelligent. But its hard to prove that when someone goes into something believing that its wrong. I can't see Picard ever believing that religion by itself, or the Bible is dangerous. Whether he chose to believe in God, or believe that he interfered in the universe, he'd never go that far. His vision was people bettering themselves, so I can't see part of that saying religion was dangerous and those who can see the meaning behind imagery lacked intelligence.
But it was not written as imagery, some people actually used to believe that the Earth was flat and held up on pillars. The pillars were not supposed to be an allusion to plate tectonics and magma currents, they were a direct reference to the pillars which were supposedly under the Earth.
That's my point, it we had found out that the Earth really was flat and on the backs of giant elephants then the pillars would have been reinterpreted as elephants. If it was found out that the continents were all floating on a giant flat ocean then the pillars would have been reinterpreted as water. If we found out that the Earth is on the very bottom of the universe and there is nothing below it, then the pillars would have been reinterpreted as a giant void.
The pillars did not predict plate tectonics, and the reference can be so vague as to mean anything. That is not scientific. The most likely reason for a reference to pillars below the Earth is that fact that this is what people actually believed at the time.
I never said the Bible was completely wrong, I said it was not completely accurate.
Once again, I never said that all religion was dangerous, I said that this particular aspect of religion is dangerous. If the Bible stated that 2 + 2 = 5 then there will be some people who will try to justify that as somehow being accurate. And if the Bible stated that the Earth shook because God reached down his hands, grabbed it by the edge and shook it about, then some people would try to equate that to plate tectonics too.
Christianity is about God and Christ, it should not be about the divinity of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of books put together so that you can get an impression of who God is and what he has done. It is not, and never shall be, a book about about science and the natural world. A reference to pillars holding up the Earth does not take away from the moral message it is trying to teach.
That is the danger of religion which Picard was against, when people become so caught up in dogma that they forget the message. If the Mintakans listened to Picard's moral message and took after him, then that would be a pretty great world where I would want to live. But I don't think any religion has ever managed to do that because they get so caught up with how to practice the religion that they forget about the person they are supposedly worshipping. That is the reason wars broke out in Europe after the Reformation, that is the reason why Catholics were treated like second-class citizens in Northern Ireland back in the 60s.
I'm just going to throw this in here, but maybe there is no religion in the 24th century due to time travel? In Assignment: Earth, Kirk and the Enterprise go back in time on a historical research mission, so what if a different ship was sent back to see if the stories about Jesus were true? Maybe they found out that the miracles were exaggerations and that he didn't rise from the dead, so Christianity fizzled out. Maybe similar things happened to other religions.
Just something to think about.
It's not just the creation story, but also Noah's story which really defies science, and more importantly common sense. The Bible is not a model for science, and it wasn't meant to be.
So you never ever say that sun is going down or comming up, right?
Commander Rabbit
Commander
Courtesy of Merriam-Webster...
Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Gnostic: an adherent of gnosticism
Gnosticism: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis
Gnosis: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
To go back to the original topic, I would say that Picard was most likely agnostic, but there's nothing definitive.
Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Gnostic: an adherent of gnosticism
Gnosticism: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis
Gnosis: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
To go back to the original topic, I would say that Picard was most likely agnostic, but there's nothing definitive.
I tend not to discuss the sun that much so I'm not really sure, but I would assume that I use those phrases from time to time. However, I have never referred to the Earth having pillars or an edge. I stopped saying that the world is a circle when I was seven and learned about spheres. I don't believe I ever claimed that the Earth is unmovable. I am 100% certain that I never claimed that the atmosphere or the Van Allen belts are "firmament".
But most importantly, I have never, ever claimed divine inspiration for my words, and nobody has ever claimed that everything I have said is 100% scientifically verifiable.
But by making the arguments you have your claiming something similar. My question about the sun was to point out how true/literal a statement can be without being technically correct.
If you read a biography about someone and they use similar imagery in the prose will you disregard the entire thing as false because of it?
That is my point. Not once did I say to disregard the entire Bible, I am encouraging Christians to read it, learn its moral message and not treat it as a literal account. I took objection to a claim that the Bible is completely accurate and scientifically current, and that is the point which I am arguing.
In fact, this is proving the exact danger of religion which I was trying to get across earlier; I am criticising one area of the Bible and now people are accusing me of criticising the whole thing. For some reason my attack on the scientific accuracy of a part of the Bible which has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or his teachings is being perceived by some people as an attack on the religion as a whole.
That is what I find to be dangerous about religion, and that is what I believe Picard was trying to get at in Who Watches the Watchers.
Problem with your view is that the Bible refers to itself and God's message to us and for a Christian if any part is false that puts the whole thing into question. Most of the "incorrect, statements claimed over the years are just like this one. You purposefully use the imagery like our sun setting statements to show a falshood that does not exist. If you question one part then how do you know Jesus or His teachings are correctly reported?
Genesis 1: 6-7
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.
Apparently rain comes from opening a window in that firmament. This whole condensation and cloud malarkey clearly isn't true.
I Chronicles 3:22
The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six.
Admittedly I am not a mathematician, but I counted five, not six.
I Chronicles 16:30
Yea, the world stands firm never to be moved.
Wrong. The Earth rotates, it revolves around the sun, it revolves around the galaxy, and the galaxy itself is moving.
Psalms 93:1 & Psalms 96:10
Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved.
As above, so below.
Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Ai'jalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.
This is the one that the Catholic church used to lock up Galileo in his house.
Joshua 15:33-36
And in the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah, Zanoah, Engannim, Tappuah, Enam, Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, Shaaraim, Adithaim, Gederah, Gederothaim: fourteen cities with their villages.
One again, I am not a mathematician, but I did count 15. I counted again just to make sure, and I still got 15.
Matthew 13:31-32 NRSV
He [Jesus] put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in the field; it is the smallest of all seeds..."
Jesus is God, right? God is omnipotent, right? God knows that mustard seeds aren't the smallest of all seeds, right? Apparently not.
I Kings 7:23
Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.
According to the Bible, pi is equal to 3. Well that would have made my math classes in school far easier.
It took me ten minutes to find these eight examples, I'm sure I could have found many more. They are not scientific, they are not logical, and some of the guys who wrote the book couldn't even count properly. Is this proof that God and Jesus do not exist? Of course not, and there never can be evidence for that. Onto my next point. . .
It's a little something called faith, it is pretty much all you've got anyway. It is far more sensible to believe that parts of the Bible are true and just admit that the parts of the Bible which are wrong are wrong. Believing that the things in the Bible which are wrong are actually true is what gives religion such a bad name among certain atheists.
Did Jesus believe that mustard seeds are the smallest of them all? Not if he was God. In that case, is it not more likely that the person who wrote that part of Bible thought that, so he added that in there when he wrote it decades later? The Bible was written by fallible humans who didn't understand the universe around them like we do today, so they got a few things wrong. Why should that matter so much? Why is the faith in your god so caught up in the accuracy of this book? If you have faith then you have faith, you don't need some stupid book to back up that faith.
Believe in your God, believe in your messiah, but stop worshipping a god-damned book!
Similar threads
- Poll
