Perhaps it would not need to cover aliens. Human history is probably very different than the histories of other worlds.
Didn't C.S. Lewis write a book or two to this effect?
Religion in Star Trek
- Thread starter JarodRussell
- Start date
Perhaps it would not need to cover aliens. Human history is probably very different than the histories of other worlds.
Didn't C.S. Lewis write a book or two to this effect?
Saquist
Commodore
So too is the fact that a person of religious bent can be an impartial scientist just like anybody else, when it comes to the material world. Mr. Dobzhansky is a perfect case in point.
You know your scientist.
With most people whether God inclined or not there is a bias of belief even in a vaccum. But that's okay we're human we have to fill in the gaps some how.
It's just amazing to me that so many SF aficinados cannot conceive of a world without a God.
There may be one, we don't know, but he's been fairly absent for the last two thousand years, now we have this science thing.
In the ST universe, I would say,people are more rational and basically have an inner sense of morality, that comes from living in a society with a higher standard of living where people are more rational and educated. They may need hope and guidance and relief, form people who have thought about the subject more, but not from people who claim to have a link to another dimension, whom they wold probably be more suspicious of, than we are, and think them to be a bit of an egotist.
There may be one, we don't know, but he's been fairly absent for the last two thousand years, now we have this science thing.
In the ST universe, I would say,people are more rational and basically have an inner sense of morality, that comes from living in a society with a higher standard of living where people are more rational and educated. They may need hope and guidance and relief, form people who have thought about the subject more, but not from people who claim to have a link to another dimension, whom they wold probably be more suspicious of, than we are, and think them to be a bit of an egotist.
I would say,people are more rational
This is a common theme in your posts and I can't help but wonder what exactly you mean by it. Don't get me wrong, I do see the various characters in the depicted Star Trek future as rational, but where are you find this "more." The characters would seem to be, if anything, just as rational as the modern day men and women I find around myself, no more, no less.
a society with a higher standard of living where people are more . . . educated
It possible to conceive of a future society that suppresses concepts of faith through the education and informational systems. Something similar to China, when Google wanted to extend their services into China, the government insisted on censorship. Among other things, they didn't want their citizen having access to works of faith and they vehemently wanted no mention of Tibetan spiritualism. Some fans see the 24th century Federation as a communist state, totalitarian with a thin vernier of democracy (I don't), I think the only way Humanity could get rid of faith in only three hundred years would be through some kind of determined effort, and even then it probably wouldn't work.
and think them to be a bit of an egotist
It's kind of a circular statement but, we all believe in what we believe in or we wouldn't believe in it in the first place. There's nothing egotistical in wanting to share what you think and feel and believe with other people. This is part of the Human experience. I both actively and subconsciously look for event in my everyday world that affirm my own believes. I am sure you do the same.
They may need hope and guidance and relief, form people who have thought about the subject more
If someone seeks council from me, part of what comes back from me will be based on faith, but not all. There will also be my own experiences and wisdom I've gathered from others. You might want to view "us" as narrow minded, but that isn't usually the case.
So too is the fact that a person of religious bent can be an impartial scientist just like anybody else, when it comes to the material world. Mr. Dobzhansky is a perfect case in point.
You know your scientist.
With most people whether God inclined or not there is a bias of belief even in a vaccum. But that's okay we're human we have to fill in the gaps some how.
I found Dobzhansky interesting because I can relate to the way he looks at the world...he's actually the model for a character in one of my AU Cardassia fanfics.
Your particular brand of it has plummeted in Europe over a considerably smaller period of time and it's slowly but steadily slipping here in the U.S.
I agree that religious thought will be with us in some form in 300 years but I think it will be more of a Deist/Pantheist/Unitarian variety.
Numbers do not necessarily indicate something wrong with the core belief.
Rather, I suspect it is an indicator of many factors, which would take me quite a long time to list, ranging from false enmity between science and faith, bad conduct by Christians, even to an assumption from some that if an ancient person wrote it, they must be stupid or gullible.
Rather, I suspect it is an indicator of many factors, which would take me quite a long time to list, ranging from false enmity between science and faith, bad conduct by Christians, even to an assumption from some that if an ancient person wrote it, they must be stupid or gullible.
Numbers do not necessarily indicate something wrong with the core belief.
Rather, I suspect it is an indicator of many factors, which would take me quite a long time to list, ranging from false enmity between science and faith, bad conduct by Christians, even to an assumption from some that if an ancient person wrote it, they must be stupid or gullible.
True enough, though they do point to a perception of there being something wrong. Enmity between science and faith is definitely part of the issue. As long as fundamentalists remain the voice of your particular faith, that will probably continue. But maybe a bigger problem is the fundamentalist insistence that there is ONE WAY and anyone not following that WAY is damned. In an increasingly diverse and connected world, that just isn't going to fly.
I think has a point though about people not being able to conceive of a world without God. I was religious when I was younger and I gotta tell you, it took a long time after I got to it rationally to be able to see the world clearly without my Christian lenses.
At the same time, "God" isn't evil. Belief in God isn't the most accurate way to view the world IMO, and many use God to justify odious actions, but there's much good and much insight into the human condition available through God. (Many) religions have developed over thousands of years, and for them to have stuck around and prospered, without force, generation after inquisitive and rebellious generation means there's more to them than pomp and circumstance. I think religion may need as much study as psychology for anyone curious in understanding the human condition.
Side-note: I think kids need to study more psychology, civics, and economics in school. I took 3 yrs of algebra, geometry, trigonometry and analytical geometry in high school and have used so little of any of it in the last ten I've been out of school. I studied history in college. What was the point beyond having it on my transcripts applying for college?
At the same time, "God" isn't evil. Belief in God isn't the most accurate way to view the world IMO, and many use God to justify odious actions, but there's much good and much insight into the human condition available through God. (Many) religions have developed over thousands of years, and for them to have stuck around and prospered, without force, generation after inquisitive and rebellious generation means there's more to them than pomp and circumstance. I think religion may need as much study as psychology for anyone curious in understanding the human condition.
Side-note: I think kids need to study more psychology, civics, and economics in school. I took 3 yrs of algebra, geometry, trigonometry and analytical geometry in high school and have used so little of any of it in the last ten I've been out of school. I studied history in college. What was the point beyond having it on my transcripts applying for college?
There is no question that there is a divide here between people who have their brains wired differently. It's not a question of intelligence because there is no shortage of smart people on both sides. It's not a question of general rationality either because the average person of religious faith is going to exercise just as much critical thinking when they deal with that used-car salesman as the average atheist. It's just this one subject where we differ.
I believe we religious skeptics have the advantage because we can accept a universe with any god at all. We might not like it but we will not deny it - you just have to prove it with facts - or at least, very strong circumstantial evidence. But people of faith are not swayable by anything external to that faith. We have the more defensible position.
The important thing is not whether or not religions should be studied (I hope they would all be studied with the same detachment we study any dead religions, because the stories are fictitious and demonstrably untrue) but what really matters is truth.
Numbers do not necessarily indicate something wrong with the core belief.
Rather, I suspect it is an indicator of many factors, which would take me quite a long time to list, ranging from false enmity between science and faith, bad conduct by Christians, even to an assumption from some that if an ancient person wrote it, they must be stupid or gullible.
True enough, though they do point to a perception of there being something wrong. Enmity between science and faith is definitely part of the issue. As long as fundamentalists remain the voice of your particular faith, that will probably continue. But maybe a bigger problem is the fundamentalist insistence that there is ONE WAY and anyone not following that WAY is damned. In an increasingly diverse and connected world, that just isn't going to fly.
A BIG dose of humility would solve a lot of those problems, in my personal opinion. As soon as we place ourselves in the judgment seat and act like we can look at someone and know their eternal fate, then we are heading down a spiritually toxic path. I do believe salvation comes through Jesus. I also believe that I cannot know ALL that God is doing in the world and in each person's life. Given this, it would be a tremendous act of presumption to pass a judgment upon someone as though I know their ultimate destination. (Now, I can point out an evil act...but that's different from condemning the person and a LOT of people forget the distinction.
I AM glad to hear you say (downthread) that you don't assume a lower level of intelligence or logical processes in someone who believes. I'm not averse to the idea that certain brain configurations may make processing of spiritual experiences easier for some people. However, one must be careful not to ever take that and decide that religion is a physical disease to be cured. That could lead to some truly severe human rights violations if someone got a mind to put that into actions.
I think that it's pretty fair to say that the various creation stories found in different religions are probably not interpreted literally, but I see no particular reason that believers would react to news of a common ancestral "seeding" species by abandoning belief in divinity. They'd probably just conclude that the ancient progenitors were simply the mechanism used by whatever god or gods they may believe in to create sentient life.
You think the Pope still exists in the 23rd and 24th century?
I'm sure she's conducting masses once a week, yes.
Why not? All of those religions originated during an age in Human history where contact with foreign cultures that were commonly believed to be non-human was a reasonably common phenomenon.
Um, no, there's not. There is no evidence for OR against the existence of divinity, because it is by definition a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
Now, I'm an atheist. I see no evidence that God exists, and as such I suspect there is no such thing as divinity. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
But that doesn't change a basic fact of life: People want religion. Different people want religion for different reasons -- some because they're, as some rather intolerant atheists claim, too emotionally immature to behave without a divine parent figure threatening punishment. Others will believe for far more abstract reasons -- their own sense that there is a divinity, their own experience of one-ness and transcendence with some sort of higher intelligence. Others will believe for social reasons. Etc. The reasons people have for belief now, and will have for belief later on, are infinite and variable.
But there will always be believers, just like there will always be atheists and agnostics. We may just have to learn to respect one-another instead of trying to claim that anyone who comes to a different conclusion than we do is clearly mentally inferior in some way.
From what I can work out, a lot of clever people who believe in God, do so because they have been brainwashed as children and there will be less of that, in the 24thC. Either that, or they are afraid and need succour.
Surely, the most important thing is to get required behaviour, behaviour which is, to use an unfashionable word; 'good', which benefits, and I'll use another unfashionable word;'society'? People will have more of a sense of society, in the 24thC
People are scared, I can see that. Life terrifies them. It terrifies me, sometimes. But, if a society of fellow intelligences survives and genes are passed on, surely that is better than letting someone play on your fears and make a few bucks out of it?
I think we need another reality check, here. No-one has ever come back from other side, buddhist or Christian, or any other faith, and told us what is there. There may be an afterlife, we don't know.
But this, science thing seems to be a good idea. It has improved our standard of living, and coupled with independent thought, based on rationality and not superstition, has improved our standard of living. The idea of ST is that there is more of it in the future and that improves their standard of living.
I don't think anyone here is saying that religion will be suppressed, its just that people are more educated and have more of a sense of society then we do. In fact, their sense of society will be innate, and not just a suspicion, as it is now, or soemthing to be derided as laughable.
Surely, the most important thing is to get required behaviour, behaviour which is, to use an unfashionable word; 'good', which benefits, and I'll use another unfashionable word;'society'? People will have more of a sense of society, in the 24thC
People are scared, I can see that. Life terrifies them. It terrifies me, sometimes. But, if a society of fellow intelligences survives and genes are passed on, surely that is better than letting someone play on your fears and make a few bucks out of it?
I think we need another reality check, here. No-one has ever come back from other side, buddhist or Christian, or any other faith, and told us what is there. There may be an afterlife, we don't know.
But this, science thing seems to be a good idea. It has improved our standard of living, and coupled with independent thought, based on rationality and not superstition, has improved our standard of living. The idea of ST is that there is more of it in the future and that improves their standard of living.
I don't think anyone here is saying that religion will be suppressed, its just that people are more educated and have more of a sense of society then we do. In fact, their sense of society will be innate, and not just a suspicion, as it is now, or soemthing to be derided as laughable.
Last edited:
The thing I don't want to see happen is for a sense of society to turn into collectivism or groupthink. Those are neither healthy nor productive for a society, because once you lose creative opposition, then you've lost a lot of very important cognitive diversity.
Furthermore...as I've said before, science does not negate faith in any way--only if some people of faith decide it does, and as far as I am concerned there is no reason to act as though it does.
Furthermore...as I've said before, science does not negate faith in any way--only if some people of faith decide it does, and as far as I am concerned there is no reason to act as though it does.
That seems to be a fear of a lot of people who don't like the idea of a sense of society - they think it means communism, I guess.
I agree with you that people should be able to come up with different ideas, though, and pool them. Thats part of society.
I think that people in the 24thC will generally agree that science and technology are good things and that intelligence is a good thing and democracy is a good thing.
Much the same that we know, that there is this general attititude, that smallpox and cowpox and women dying in childbirth and gibbets and torturing people with red hot pokers and medievalism, is a bad thing.
It has been said in ST that our time is regarded as being medieval, in comparison to theirs, though they can cope with it, cos they've travelled to it and come back again!
I think, also, that the future T'Girl saw, a few threads back, where people live basically a sort of 20thC existence, working a little less than they do today and 'worshipping their god', is a little unimaginative. I think, if there are any at all that do worship a god, in the 24thC, they will only spend about five minutes a day doing it.
The other thousand or so will be spent improving the human condition, which is what their god would have wanted, I thought?
I agree with you that people should be able to come up with different ideas, though, and pool them. Thats part of society.
I think that people in the 24thC will generally agree that science and technology are good things and that intelligence is a good thing and democracy is a good thing.
Much the same that we know, that there is this general attititude, that smallpox and cowpox and women dying in childbirth and gibbets and torturing people with red hot pokers and medievalism, is a bad thing.
It has been said in ST that our time is regarded as being medieval, in comparison to theirs, though they can cope with it, cos they've travelled to it and come back again!
I think, also, that the future T'Girl saw, a few threads back, where people live basically a sort of 20thC existence, working a little less than they do today and 'worshipping their god', is a little unimaginative. I think, if there are any at all that do worship a god, in the 24thC, they will only spend about five minutes a day doing it.
The other thousand or so will be spent improving the human condition, which is what their god would have wanted, I thought?
Last edited:
The doctrine of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of "science" is Karl Popper's way of ensuring that science dare not criticize reactionary ideologies for factuality or logic. Parsimony in hypotheses is good science, no matter what he says. Following this principle rules out "God" as an unnecessary hypothesis, as well as inconsistent with the way in which nature has been shown to work in centuries of experience and experiment. Experience of centuries has showed that taking "God" seriously makes you ignorant and gullible.
Getting back to Star Trek briefly, Voyager was not truly tolerant of religion in the way that DS9 was. Voyager equated religion with art, both forms that could provide moral inspiration despite being untrue. See Prime Factor in season one or Muse in season six, for example. DS9 liked to think of Bajoran religion as somehow true, rationalizable, which is BS. DS9 did In the Hands of the Prophets, while Voyager did Distant Origin. The first is dishonest and apologetic, and the second isn't. (Anyone foolish enough to think In the Hands of the Prophets was remotely honest about popular anger about antireligious teaching is invited to study the Kanawha County, West Virginia, textbook "controversy.")
Getting back off topic, but back into the thread: Technically, "God" can be dispensed with, as in some forms of Hinduism or Buddhism. But note that the supernatural is still the predominant part of those religions. The nice, refined Vedanta or Yoga types of Hinduism are far outnumbered by miracle working gurus and pilgrims bathing in the Ganges. The BJP shows the Hindu believers have the same kind of politics as the Christian believers. Every indication is that religion and racism are closely related institutions. One nation, one people, one God.
It is not politically correct to remark on the revival of Shinto in Japan but there it is. Theravadin Buddhism certainly is implicated in the Sinhala war agains the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Of course, Mahayana Buddhism gives us such things as the Dalai Lama, a human being who somehow gets good press for claiming divinity!
Most Muslims reject the specific theologies and politics of the jihadis, but it is their refusal to reject religion as such that leaves them disarmed against the principles of their coreligionists, no matter how vile they are in practice. Before we feel too superior, consider how the US anti-abortion movement, which includes terrorist wing, gets a free ride.
Worst for us in the US, it is the Christian hatred for Mulsims that permits seemingly endless attacks against Mulsim nations to go by without even bothering to notice. The bigotry against Islam is so deep that it is accepted without question, for instance, that the Phillipine, Indonesian and Ethiopian governments should attack Muslims without being questioned, much less criticized. Don't deceive yourselves about the attitudes of Christian supporters of Israel: Many of them consciously look forward to all the Jews going away, back "home" to the Holy Land, where all but 144 000 who convert to Christianity will die horrible deaths.
Those Christians who have managed to privately rewrite their religion so that it neither defies science nor countenances inhumanity are personally nice, but they are a mere handful. They are "liberal" Christians but good Christians hate liberals. There is no dividing line between religious and racial bigotry. Those who will not condemn religious bigotry will end up condoning racial bigotry in disguise. That's why people can't be agnostics or crusade against the atheist intolerance of religion without joining the bigots they profess to reject.
If the future contains these kind of people, it will be backward and bestial. Or possibly a war ravaged wasteland.
Getting back to Star Trek briefly, Voyager was not truly tolerant of religion in the way that DS9 was. Voyager equated religion with art, both forms that could provide moral inspiration despite being untrue. See Prime Factor in season one or Muse in season six, for example. DS9 liked to think of Bajoran religion as somehow true, rationalizable, which is BS. DS9 did In the Hands of the Prophets, while Voyager did Distant Origin. The first is dishonest and apologetic, and the second isn't. (Anyone foolish enough to think In the Hands of the Prophets was remotely honest about popular anger about antireligious teaching is invited to study the Kanawha County, West Virginia, textbook "controversy.")
Getting back off topic, but back into the thread: Technically, "God" can be dispensed with, as in some forms of Hinduism or Buddhism. But note that the supernatural is still the predominant part of those religions. The nice, refined Vedanta or Yoga types of Hinduism are far outnumbered by miracle working gurus and pilgrims bathing in the Ganges. The BJP shows the Hindu believers have the same kind of politics as the Christian believers. Every indication is that religion and racism are closely related institutions. One nation, one people, one God.
It is not politically correct to remark on the revival of Shinto in Japan but there it is. Theravadin Buddhism certainly is implicated in the Sinhala war agains the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Of course, Mahayana Buddhism gives us such things as the Dalai Lama, a human being who somehow gets good press for claiming divinity!
Most Muslims reject the specific theologies and politics of the jihadis, but it is their refusal to reject religion as such that leaves them disarmed against the principles of their coreligionists, no matter how vile they are in practice. Before we feel too superior, consider how the US anti-abortion movement, which includes terrorist wing, gets a free ride. Worst for us in the US, it is the Christian hatred for Mulsims that permits seemingly endless attacks against Mulsim nations to go by without even bothering to notice. The bigotry against Islam is so deep that it is accepted without question, for instance, that the Phillipine, Indonesian and Ethiopian governments should attack Muslims without being questioned, much less criticized. Don't deceive yourselves about the attitudes of Christian supporters of Israel: Many of them consciously look forward to all the Jews going away, back "home" to the Holy Land, where all but 144 000 who convert to Christianity will die horrible deaths.
Those Christians who have managed to privately rewrite their religion so that it neither defies science nor countenances inhumanity are personally nice, but they are a mere handful. They are "liberal" Christians but good Christians hate liberals. There is no dividing line between religious and racial bigotry. Those who will not condemn religious bigotry will end up condoning racial bigotry in disguise. That's why people can't be agnostics or crusade against the atheist intolerance of religion without joining the bigots they profess to reject.
If the future contains these kind of people, it will be backward and bestial. Or possibly a war ravaged wasteland.
Collectivism is not necessarily communism, though I think it would be a major risk. I still think it's not a good idea, because there are ways that do not involve legal punishment to discourage free thought. There's actually a very good example of that in Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed...the Odonian "utopia" as it turns out is just as subject to the usual social crap as the capitalist world portrayed in the story. It just cloaks itself under different terminology. And that is part of the problem I have...human nature itself will not change, no matter how science and technology change. We'll still be our same crass, ornery selves. We may find ways to sublimate our dark urges to make them less immediately obvious, but they WILL still be there and still influence us. We'll just be better at gaming the system (until someone figures out what's being done and we shift to another way of manipulating things).
I'm thinking there would be collective ideas, at least on Christianity. Think about it: In a world where time travel exists, anybody could go back and see if Jesus really came out of the tomb or if any of the story is really true. If it's true, then it may require more study (to ensure Jesus himself wasn't a time traveler, alien, or Q with great powers). If it's false, then it is easily dismissed. There wouldn't need to be any faith because the gaps would close on that matter.
The same would apply to several other religions, but not to spirituality as a whole. Time travel isn't the ultimate in providing all answers of the universe. So while the gaps would shrink, many gaps would still remain open, and I would theorize that those gaps may never be fully closed. This would always leave room for speculation or faith.
The same would apply to several other religions, but not to spirituality as a whole. Time travel isn't the ultimate in providing all answers of the universe. So while the gaps would shrink, many gaps would still remain open, and I would theorize that those gaps may never be fully closed. This would always leave room for speculation or faith.
That is not necessarily so. There may in fact be a "God gene" that is discovered as we further unravel the human genome. The human race does not require synister or conscious effort to alter itself. The prevalence of red hair for instance may decrease as the demographics of Europeans change. It would be a interesting to settle Mars intitally with only scientists and engineers and compare the two respective populations in a thousand years or so.
Similar threads
