Bad Thoughts, please watch your quote tags. You here attribute words to me that were typed by another guy.
I'm sure it wasn't intentional, I'm just sayin'.
--Alex
Religion in Star Trek's future
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
- Status
Bad Thoughts, please watch your quote tags. You here attribute words to me that were typed by another guy.
I'm sure it wasn't intentional, I'm just sayin'.
--Alex
Because of course that's all religion offers.
Religion never does any good period.
It only hurts people.
Religion does good in the hands of good people and evil in the hands of evil people.
Bad Thoughts, please watch your quote tags. You here attribute words to me that were typed by another guy.
I'm sure it wasn't intentional, I'm just sayin'.
--Alex
Sorry. Fixed.
There seems plenty of religion in the Trek 'verse, but its not something trying to assert itself as psuedo-science, or force social control.
The power structures are different. Religion in Trek also presumably doesn't have the enormous burden of charity it has today - there are no atheist soup kitchens that I know of -
The power structures are different. Religion in Trek also presumably doesn't have the enormous burden of charity it has today - there are no atheist soup kitchens that I know of -
Steering clear of the whole loaded issue of whether we approve of religion or not, let it be noted that religious terminology--like "blasphemy"--does tend to creep into secular conversation. Heck, how often have we seen the most recent Trek movies described in terms of "blasphemy" or "abomination" or "sacrilege"? 
I'm about as a secular as they come, but I use plenty of figures of speech with religious roots: leap of faith, fall from grace, Road to Damascus moment, go to hell, "For God's sake!" and so on.
Just because somebody talks about "forbidden fruit" that doesn't mean they must be a creationist!
I'm about as a secular as they come, but I use plenty of figures of speech with religious roots: leap of faith, fall from grace, Road to Damascus moment, go to hell, "For God's sake!" and so on.
Just because somebody talks about "forbidden fruit" that doesn't mean they must be a creationist!
Starborn Dragon
Captain
Meh, never mind.
Last edited:
Steering clear of the whole loaded issue of whether we approve of religion or not, let it be noted that religious terminology--like "blasphemy"--does tend to creep into secular conversation. Heck, how often have we seen the most recent Trek movies described in terms of "blasphemy" or "abomination" or "sacrilege"?
I'm about as a secular as they come, but I use plenty of figures of speech with religious roots: leap of faith, fall from grace, Road to Damascus moment, go to hell, "For God's sake!" and so on.
Just because somebody talks about "forbidden fruit" that doesn't mean they must be a creationist!
Hey, we won't have any of that level headed nonsense here.
Also lots of atheistic people identify with and observe the religious holidays of the religion of their cultural background.
I've met people from all kinds of religious backgrounds who don't believe in God, and mostly only the ones who come from a Christian background identify themselves as atheists rather than the religion of their cultural background.
I've met people from all kinds of religious backgrounds who don't believe in God, and mostly only the ones who come from a Christian background identify themselves as atheists rather than the religion of their cultural background.
Starborn Dragon
Captain
Any strongly held belief that must be imposed on to people is pretty much a kind of a religion.
political, religious, or other.
political, religious, or other.
Seriously? The way science makes progress (or fails to) is not taught in science class? Is there a separate philosophy-of-science or history-of-science class, perhaps?
I'd think the discussion of creationism, phlogiston, ether, classic elements and other false paths would do less good there than right next to the science topic it touches upon, but I'm not a professional educator. There are no doubt practical problems with cramming in everything. But at some point I trust it will become necessary to know how science is done, instead of just what we currently believe in. Otherwise, science class is just religion by another name...
Timo Saloniemi
So, while Star Trek depicts human religion from a cultural standpoint (people celebrating holidays, the Bindi in the navigator's forehead, etc...), does Star Trek ever depict humans (or anyone else) actually practicing a religion?
Phlox did state he attended a Catholic mass.
I'll go one further. I'll challenge anyone to give a single example in any prime Star Trek episode or movie where the supernatural is offered by the storyline as a definite cause for an event.
This does not mean where characters' own beliefs or pursuits in supernaturalism are depicted (ie Bajorans or Klingons). It can be explicit or implicit.
Well, many Trek adversaries are supernatural. Not unreal, but explicitly beyond the experience and understanding of our heroes, easily ranking up among angels and poltergeist in that respect. The heroes don't scooby-doo some "everyday" explanation for the way Q makes time go wonky or Apollo shakes hands with their starship: they accept it as Q magic or divine nastiness, and deal with it the best they can.
Interestingly, with Q, what usually helps is worship and prayer.
Timo Saloniemi
Interestingly, with Q, what usually helps is worship and prayer.
Timo Saloniemi
Yes but it is natural vs supernatural, as philosophical concepts. While I may have superior abilities to a beetle, and be able to affect its destiny in ways and dimensions it couldn't comprehend (say pick it up and place it 5km away using a car) , doesn't make me supernatural or prove the existence of the concept. It is still happening in the natural world using measurable, natural laws of matter, energy, momentum etc
The same goes with the Q, Prophets and other life forms who exhibit abilities out of the realm of our understanding.
The existence of such a thing as the supernatural (and its supposed primacy) has been a hot topic of philosophical discourse and debate for millennia.
Last edited:
Our heroes have no knowledge and no conviction that Q's antics would be taking place in the natural world. Or those of the Prophets, or for that matter those of certain more solidly physical entities that can shed their "mortal coil" whenever they wish.
Conversely, many believing in the supernatural today still believe they can meaningfully interact with it, through prayer and the like.
I don't see a major difference there, then. Except perhaps in the sense that the Trek heroes seem to believe they will eventually be able to go past every horizon of the natural into the previously supernatural, whereas some today insist that some of those horizons will remain unreachable forever.
Timo Saloniemi
Conversely, many believing in the supernatural today still believe they can meaningfully interact with it, through prayer and the like.
I don't see a major difference there, then. Except perhaps in the sense that the Trek heroes seem to believe they will eventually be able to go past every horizon of the natural into the previously supernatural, whereas some today insist that some of those horizons will remain unreachable forever.
Timo Saloniemi
Kasidy Yates once made a reference to her Christian mother who would have preferred Kasidy be married by a minister rather than a Starfleet admiral.
Looking at the casts of the Trek series as a whole, there doesn't seem to be very many religious characters.
In TOS there's no real indication any of the main characters are religious, although the presence of a chapel on board the Enterprise would indicate religious practice of some sort is still common in the Federation. Also, as I mention earlier Spock seems to have an interest in Christianity, though I'm not sure there's any indication he actually believes in it.
In TNG Worf clearly follows the Klingon religion of believing in an afterlife, Sto-vo-kor for honourable Klingons, Gre'thor for the dishonourable. In Rightful Heir he even spends time at a Klingon monastery. As for everyone, although none are ever said to have any religious beliefs, Picard is the only one who outright states he doesn't.
In DS9 Kira is a devout follower of the Bajoran faith and we see Quark has some belief in the Ferengi afterlife, and again Worf believes in the Klingon religion so much it bothered him that Jadzia didn't have an honourable death to the point he had to go on a dangerous mission to send her to Sto-vo-kor.
In Voyager Chakotay practices Native American spiritual beliefs, Tuvok has belief in some sort of Vulcan religion. Neelix had a belief in a Talaxian afterlife, though those beliefs were questioned after his near death experience in Mortal Coil.
In Enterprise aside from Phlox having an interest in the religions of various cultures no one else seemed to be religious. Although, when they hold a funeral for Trip's clone Sim, Amazing Grace is played.
Whether or not the characters know the exact means and science of Q's antics is irrelevant to the debate of natural vs supernatural. Q's antics (for some part at least) are an observable, measurable and experienceable phenomenon.
I did a quick google search and found this to give an idea what 'supernatural' actually means: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/naturalism_vs._supernaturalism_framing_the_debate/
Last edited:
The difference between science and philosophy is that before any science is accepted it has to be proven in a controlled experiment in a reproducible way.
Also, if a scientist finds out he was wrong, he celebrates. If a spiritualist finds out he's wrong, he gets angry.
I do think there's a place in social studies classes, not science classes, for religion to be taught in an objective way. Like "This is what people who practice this religion believe" as opposed to "This religious belief is equally factual as science". American kids could sure as hell use to know more about religions that aren't mainstream in America.
I would agree, I guess, that sometimes scientific theories are mistaken for scientific fact, and in that case you could compare it to religious belief. It's amazing how often some scientist comes up with a new mathematical model which could possibly explain how the universe was created, then journalists remove all the qualifiers from the statement and the headline reads "SCIENTISTS SAY THIS IS HOW UNIVERSE WAS CREATED."
But that doesn't mean we should teach religion alongside science, it means we should teach kids better critical thinking skills.
But so are God's miracles. That is, those who experience them do experience them, observe them and, to their best ability, measure them (for example, one could no doubt eyeball just how wide the chasm was that God made in the waters of the Red Sea).
We have no reason to think that Q's miracles would qualitatively differ. Picard sees them happen, because Q likes to have Picard witness them. But whether recording devices can tell something happened (much less what happened) is undecided; whether anybody would have any objective reason to believe Picard's word is debatable.
Doesn't say a word about it. The rant about naturalism is pretty comprehensive, though.
Timo Saloniemi
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
