Religion in Star Trek

[T'Girl]

I've read that one of the reasons that the visitation of extra-terrestrials to Earth has been covered up, is that it would smash most Earth religions, as they mostly human-centric.

Well if you think about it, religion is more God-centric, than Human-centric

The way I see it is, the existence of alien life would be a GOOD thing. It just shows another part of the infinite universe that God created.

The Bible had Giants, which may has been visitors from Mister Holm's home world. There were also
the Seraphims who possessed six wings and would have required special Starfleet uniforms.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

. . . I've read the Bible, and nowhere in it does it say that aliens don't exist.

In fact, a lot of people think Ezekiel witnessed the landing of an alien spacecraft.

If Galactica 1980 had lasted much longer, he sure would have...

Spoiler: G1980

Cylons, specifically. Yeah, you read that right.

 

[STR]

Anyone think hardcore Christians will go out and try to evangelize alien tribes?

Problem is, all world religions are so horribly Earth centric. They hardly include the universe, and alien life is not ever mentioned AT ALL. So should we ever make contact with Aliens, who, of course, will have their own religions, it would be interesting to see that clash.

The question is, whether or not major religions are geocentric because they are incapable of moving beyond homo sapiens, or because there's absolutely no reason a preacher of any faith or rank would craft a message meant to incorporate extraterrestrials at this time.

Put another way, say I just bought a new car. Do you expect me to A) talk about the car's features that compelled me to buy it in the first place or B) the arm rest that could mount a cup holder that I don't own. And I'm only going to dwell briefly on the armrest, my main point is a dissertation on cup-holders. Oh yeah, I'll never ever actually buy a cup-holder, and I know (hypothetically) that you won't either.

Aliens are the cup-holders. Yeah, you can stick one in there easily enough. Yes, some people think you shouldn't have cup-holders, but #### them. No, it won't change how the engine runs. Point is, several modern religions have survived from the early bronze age to the space age. Some people here haven't survived puberty yet. How about a little perspective from the people so willing to look at humanity like a Marxist mass of peons that have succumbed to an evil manipulative proletariat.

 

[Cheapjack]

They're living in a paradise, aren't they, in the 24thC?

Why would they need an afterlife?

They're all working for the common good.

Why would they need a punishing, allseeing, allknowing, god figure?

They know of the existence of other dimensions, why would they be bothered about heaven?

 

[T'Girl]

Anyone think hardcore Christians will go out and try to evangelize alien tribes?

Not all faiths feel this overwhelming need to proselytize. That said, yes there most likely would be an effort to spread the word of God to whom ever we meet among the stars. Everything from a quiet conversation comparing of our two religions to bible-screamers standing on alien street corners.

I'd love to sit across from Kira and have her tell me all about her faith and what it means to her.

Problem is, all world religions are so horribly Earth centric. They hardly include the universe, and alien life is not ever mentioned AT ALL. So should we ever make contact with Aliens, who, of course, will have their own religions, it would be interesting to see that clash.

Earth-centric? That's like saying that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are "mideast"- centric, simply because (truthfully) that's where they all came from. Or you can't embrace Buddhism unless you're from India. The majority of the people who practice these faiths are located outside the specific areas where they originated. In the 21th century, Arabs are actual a minority of the adherents who submit to Islam, by the 24th century the majority of Muslims might be non-Human.

several modern religions have survived from the early bronze age to the space age

Faith is a matter of spirituality, not technological surroundings, a spacecraft is outside of us, faith is an inside thing.

How about a little perspective from the people so willing to look at humanity like a Marxist mass of peons that have succumbed to an evil manipulative proletariat.

which natural leads us to ...

They're living in a paradise, aren't they, in the 24thC?
Why would they need an afterlife?
They're all working for the common good.
Why would they need a punishing, allseeing, allknowing, god figure?
They know of the existence of other dimensions, why would they be bothered about heaven?

Taking these slightly out of order.
Bothered about heaven? Common misconception on the part of some, is that people live a life of faith solely so they can receive a reward at the end of that life.
They're all working for the common good. Just as now, the people of the future will not be one people but many, there will be disagreement over exactly constitutes "the common good." The whole Christian "live a life of meaning and purpose" thing, is how one group will achieve their vision of the common good. I will live my life within these "parameters" and that will benefit the whole. Kind of like the butterfly effect.
They need an afterlife? As a enticement? In the fullness of diversity some probably do, just as there will be people who'll reach the end of their lives, satisfied in their works, expecting only oblivion.
They're living in a paradise? This is kind of the big one, isn't it? Some of the depictions of the 24th century put forward by posters here make it seem like a aimless place (except for a few) without purpose, meaningless, where you drift through your life eating free food, living in free mansions, once in a while making some "art." Hopefully in reality it is much different, because that isn't my "paradise." One (of many) reason I like watching life aboard Starships is those people are living a form of paradise that I can recognize. In spite of that paradise they will still need faith to fill that part of them.

...would they need ... god ...? Yes.

 

[STR]

Faith is a matter of spirituality, not technological surroundings, a spacecraft is outside of us, faith is an inside thing.

While the exact wording was a setup to the crack in the next sentence, you're close to what I was getting at. My actual point is that people expecting science to somehow obsolete religion is bad expectation based on a fundamental misunderstanding of science. You don't put "faith" in science. That's asinine. It's like putting faith in cynicism. It really is, as the two words are one and the same.

There are 3 possible outcomes of scientific research in the creation of existence. 1) An infinite regression of ever smaller components. 2) Research will get so basic that there is no way to actually measure whether it's true or not. No proof=end of the line. You'll theorize, but ultimately be stuck in an area many physicists would call philosophy. 3) Research will get us back to the point of the big bang. Then what? Again it's all theory as to what, if anything, existed before, or even if there was a before. Again, leading to philosophy (it was inevitable that we exist, because otherwise I wouldn't be here to ask the question in the first place).

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

What one has to put faith in, to accept science, is simple...they must reject the solipsistic philosophy, for which there is no proof.

But once you accept physical reality, then the techniques used to measure that part of reality must come into play too and be accepted. That's how I see it, anyway. Either you trust your senses or you don't.

And conversely--either you trust your feelings and accept them, or you reject their reality. Both require faith. But both once accepted entail certain things with them.

 

[Chrisisall]

people expecting science to somehow obsolete religion is bad expectation

LOL! Is "obsolete" now a verb, like "Photoshop?"

"You're allowed on my ship; God ain't."

 

[scotpens]

people expecting science to somehow obsolete religion is bad expectation

LOL! Is “obsolete” now a verb, like “Photoshop?”

Apparently some folks think it is, just like “reference,” “transition,” and “chair” (as in “to chair a committee”). But that's for another thread.

 

[Chrisisall]

just like “reference,” “transition,” and “chair” (as in “to chair a committee”). But that's for another thread.

Time for me to Apollo from this thread.

 

[Cheapjack]

I think that 23rd and 24thc humans are more rational than us in their understanding of the universe, though they do have room for the irrational, if they choose to.

 

[BK613]

people expecting science to somehow obsolete religion is bad expectation

LOL! Is “obsolete” now a verb, like “Photoshop?”

Apparently some folks think it is, just like “reference,” “transition,” and “chair” (as in “to chair a committee”). But that's for another thread.

A few centuries too late in complaining about it. From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: obsolete
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): obsolet·ed; obsolet·ing
Date: 1640
: to make obsolete

Which is really strange, because I just looked this word up on Sunday because MS Word was complaining about my use of it in a technology proposal (the sentence being, "Cisco obsoleted the 2500 series router in 2003.")

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

would they need ... god ...? Yes.

Gods are made in the image of humans and not vice versa. They are certainly not necessary.

Name one tangible, positive benefit that can be attributed to religion or having a God that could not have been obtained through secular means.. and by this I'm talking about the result, not the method to get there.

When mankind was figuring things out, they had a God for everything. One to pull the sun across the sky, one to create lightning, but since then, once science started explaining stuff, there wasn't anywhere for these gods to go, so the monotheistic gods that were left inhabited more nebulous, less-defined spaces, which is why I fear they will never go away.

 

[T'Girl]

would they need ... god ...? Yes.

Gods are made in the image of humans and not vice versa. They are certainly not necessary.

Name one tangible, positive benefit that can be attributed to religion or having a God that could not have been obtained through secular means.. and by this I'm talking about the result, not the method to get there.

Sure, right after you reel off a list of pure secular benefits that could not possibly be obtained by a person of faith.

Drug and alcohol recovery programs with a spiritual component have a higher success rate over time than similar programs without the spirituality. Islam has the highest. The court system and the insurance companies will push you towards a spiritual AA first because of the success rate. And no it isn't 100 percent.
After the earthquake in Haiti many charities came to help (some secular), the Salvation Army had been there since the year 1950. Now a private secular charity could have been there the same period of time, point is they weren't.
People of faith do more charity work in general, I'm not talking about just donating money (which is important), I mean hands on, getting dirty charity work. I've volunteered in a hospital, mission soup kitchens and most recently senior meals on wheel. I did encounter good secular people of non-faith volunteering in the hospital, but not too many.
Once as a child I assisted with my church with a rice harvest in Japan, it as near our Airbase.
There are anecdotal stories from doctors and nurses I've spoke to that people of faith do slightly better in the emergency room. Anecdotal.
While people of faith do get divorces, the number are lower than with people without faith.

once science started explaining stuff

Okay, where did the matter and energy for the Big Bang originally come from?

 

[Myasishchev]

Why is a higher divorce rate considered a negative? The process sucks, but so does the process of staying with someone simply because the cost to leave has been increased.

 

[JarodRussell]

Drug and alcohol recovery programs with a spiritual component have a higher success rate over time than similar programs without the spirituality. Islam has the highest. The court system and the insurance companies will push you towards a spiritual AA first because of the success rate. And no it isn't 100 percent.

That's because religion has the same function as a drug. You avoid confronting your problems by either believing in a higher cause or by drinking it away. Now I am a Capitalist at heart, but Karl Marx' statement "religion is the opiate of the people" has still a lot of truth in it.

People of faith do more charity work in general, I'm not talking about just donating money (which is important), I mean hands on, getting dirty charity work. I've volunteered in a hospital, mission soup kitchens and most recently senior meals on wheel. I did encounter good secular people of non-faith volunteering in the hospital, but not too many.

That is a misleading statistic. You can also say that a very large percentage of child abuse is committed by people of faith. And I think the amount of wars fought for religious reasons is higher than the amount of wars fought for other reasons.

Okay, where did the matter and energy for the Big Bang originally come from?

By asking this question you made clear that you do not understand at all what the purpose of science (in this case physics) is.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

All of those things listed could be done through purely secular means, and I mean all of them.

And, sure we might not know where the stuff for the big bang came from. However, that's no justification for making up the answer.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Drug and alcohol recovery programs with a spiritual component have a higher success rate over time than similar programs without the spirituality. Islam has the highest. The court system and the insurance companies will push you towards a spiritual AA first because of the success rate. And no it isn't 100 percent.
After the earthquake in Haiti many charities came to help (some secular), the Salvation Army had been there since the year 1950. Now a private secular charity could have been there the same period of time, point is they weren't.
People of faith do more charity work in general, I'm not talking about just donating money (which is important), I mean hands on, getting dirty charity work. I've volunteered in a hospital, mission soup kitchens and most recently senior meals on wheel. I did encounter good secular people of non-faith volunteering in the hospital, but not too many.
Once as a child I assisted with my church with a rice harvest in Japan, it as near our Airbase.
There are anecdotal stories from doctors and nurses I've spoke to that people of faith do slightly better in the emergency room. Anecdotal.
While people of faith do get divorces, the number are lower than with people without faith.

Remember, I talked about the result, not the method to get there.

 

[T'Girl]

Remember, I talked about the result, not the method to get there.

The method is the pathway to the result. The result of having people of faith in existence in the world is a better world.

All of those things listed could be done through purely secular means, and I mean all of them.

So why weren't they? My point is that they don't happen as often through the actions of secular people, not that they couldn't, or not that secular people never do any of the things I've listed. A religious person, because of their faith, is more likely to step forward. Possessing faith makes it easier to get through difficult times too, for instantances drug and alcohol treatment.

You avoid confronting your problems by either believing in a higher cause or by drinking it away.

Part of having a religion is you have community, the social environment of the church is one of secondary benefits of faith that many people like the most. Having God in your life and hundreds and some time thousands of people praying and pulling for you does help you get thorugh your problems. Not everyone in your church is going to be your instant best friend, but they are your extended family.

And I think the amount of wars fought for religious reasons is higher than the amount of wars fought for other reasons.

And how many of those wars would not have been fought any way, how many were more about territory or secular political power or responding to an invasion by a foreign power than religion. (Please bring up the crusades)

Considering the mass death of the purely secular wars, I think you got us religious folks beat in that catagory.

Name one tangible, positive benefit that can be attributed to religion or having a God that could not have been obtained through secular means ...

Sure, right after you reel off a list of pure secular benefits that could not possibly be obtained by a person of faith.

Still waiting.

 

[StarryEyed]

I think that 23rd and 24thc humans are more rational than us in their understanding of the universe, though they do have room for the irrational, if they choose to.

Non-rational would have been a better word than irrational.

Faith in the existence of some type of spiritual realm is non-rational. It cannot be inferred by any logical process but but it does not contradict known reality either.

Rejection of evolution is irrational because it is denial of established reality.

I can see there being a place for non-rational beliefs but irrational beliefs are simply dysfunctional. There is no justification for an irrational belief.