Religion: Roddenberry was right!!

[Vance]

Religion does none of the above, it is holding the human race back whilst science allows us to advance.

Then what about all those religious folks who kept the studies of Rome around during the Dark Ages? Damn scientific religious bastards.

Religion doesn't hold anyone back. It's PEOPLE who do so, and those 'athiests' who worship at the feet of in the infallability of science are just as bad.

 

[blockaderunner]

Such fanatics will use anything as an excuse. If it weren't religion, it would be something else.

Yeah, but last time I checked, no one has strapped a bomb to themselves and shouted "praise be to Shroedinger's Cat" before pushing the button. Nor has anyone been burned at the stake for not believing in Newton's Laws Of Motion. Since the beginning of recorded history, it's always "My invisible god can lick your invisible god!" And the so called "good" Christians or Muslims have done little to discouraged it, making them just as, if not more, responsible.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Religion doesn't hold anyone back. It's PEOPLE who do so, and those 'athiests' who worship at the feet of in the infallability of science are just as bad.

People make a lot of "category mistakes", and I really wish they'd stop.

Religion, a feeling of spirituality or connection with a higher power and/or one's fellow man, is not a problem.

When something is used in place of one's common sense or powers of personal observation, this is a bad thing, whether that something is religion or science.

When someone uses what someone else believes as a means of gaining power over them, that is wrong, whether the belief is in science or religion.

There is nothing wrong with two or more people, regardless of gender, loving one another.

There is nothing wrong with two or more people in a closed system (i.e. fidelity), regardless of gender, having sex with one another.

Two or more people in an open system, regardless of gender, having sex with one another will spread disease.

I hate category mistakes.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Religion does none of the above, it is holding the human race back whilst science allows us to advance.

Then what about all those religious folks who kept the studies of Rome around during the Dark Ages? Damn scientific religious bastards.

Religion doesn't hold anyone back. It's PEOPLE who do so, and those 'athiests' who worship at the feet of in the infallability of science are just as bad.

Who says science is infallible?

 

[Cakes488]

Atheism explains all the mysteries of the universe using science.

OK then, what's the meaning of life? What happens after death? I'm not saying I have the answers but I'm interested to know what they are if they're so evident through science.

For the meaning of life you can ask Brian and What happens after death...I can advise that...NOTHING! You die and decay and that's that. This whole afterlife thing was fabricated because its so very depressing to think you die and that's that. Also the afterlife promise kept you in line while you were alive so that you didn't misbehave.... Bad behavior doesn't get you to see God...Only if you follow all the rules can you get into heaven.

I have less of a problem with people being spiritual with God...it's religion that's the real problem here, and it's a problem we haven't even begun to solve. But more and more people are "seeing the light"...so it's just a matter of time (a long amount of time mind you) that religion and perhaps even god will be EXTINCT...and to that I'll say a hallelujah and I'm even going to throw in a praise be and an Amen for good measure.

 

[Vance]

Who says science is infallible?

Anyone who cites science as seperate than and superior to religion. These guys just know that science is infallable, and that religion is just plain wrong.

And now, to Godwin:
It was science, you know, in an athiestic state, which declared the holocaust neccessary and right.

"Science" is a terrible substitute for morality.

 

[Sagart]

For the meaning of life you can ask Brian and What happens after death...I can advise that...NOTHING! You die and decay and that's that. This whole afterlife thing was fabricated because its so very depressing to think you die and that's that. Also the afterlife promise kept you in line while you were alive so that you didn't misbehave.... Bad behavior doesn't get you to see God...Only if you follow all the rules can you get into heaven.

Many people believe that we have a spiritual aspect, something that exists beyond the corporeal. It has nothing to do with religion or even God, just a sense that there is more to existance than this physical reality we live in at the moment. This belief is not based on morality or a desire to be with God in Heaven but a belief all the same. By the way, this isn't my belief but one I have encountered. Not all spirituality is based on morality, power, control or a hope for a 'get out of jail' card, just a sense that there must be more to life than this. I wonder if Roddenberry believed that all spirituality would be gone by the 23rd century or just organised religion based around a central supreme being.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Who says science is infallible?

Anyone who cites science as seperate than and superior to religion. These guys just know that science is infallable, and that religion is just plain wrong.

And now, to Godwin:
It was science, you know, in an athiestic state, which declared the holocaust neccessary and right.

"Science" is a terrible substitute for morality.

This "morality" thing is the only defence of religion that I give any true weight, and even that is pretty weak. How do people know what God wants if he's so powerful. Religion might talk a lot about morals, but the actions of millions of followers dictate toehrwise. It's been argued that it's a good teaching tool for ids, providing a morality compasss for youngsters that reinforces what parents are teaching them, while offering a sense of authority that goes well beyond what oparents can provide, but I am still on the fence about how true this is. I don't think religion is essential in teaching kids that they shouldn't steal or kill and that they should help tehir neighbors.

I wish people would start thinking forthemselves, and start being responsible for their own actions and what kind of example they are placing on thos around tehm both children and adults, I believe that filtering all of these essential behaviours through religion distills it all so much, it's like "what's the point?"

 

[Misfit Toy]

Who says science is infallible?

Anyone who cites science as seperate than and superior to religion. These guys just know that science is infallable, and that religion is just plain wrong.

And now, to Godwin:
It was science, you know, in an athiestic state, which declared the holocaust neccessary and right.

"Science" is a terrible substitute for morality.

Part of what makes science "science" is that it changes as new information is discovered. All you're doing here is making that case.

 

[3D Master]

Who says science is infallible?

Anyone who cites science as seperate than and superior to religion. These guys just know that science is infallable, and that religion is just plain wrong.

Eh, wrong. The reason science is superior to religion, is not that science is infallible, quite the contrary. Science is quite fallible. However, science claims it IS fallible, it tells you quite outright. And when it's got it wrong, they will say so, when they find evidence that contradicts their previous theory, they will says so. And then they'll come up with a new better theory that fits the facts and new evidence better. THAT is why it is superior to religion. Religion is rigid and unable to change without bloodshed. It'll claim it is right, will always be right, even when new evidence outright shows it is wrong.

And now, to Godwin:
It was science, you know, in an athiestic state, which declared the holocaust neccessary and right.

"Science" is a terrible substitute for morality.

Science has never made any claim toward any murder let alone holocaust.

No science, or Atheistic state have ever declared the holocaust necessary or right.

 

[Sci]

Remember, according to science, it is impossible to break the sound barrier.

According to science, there are four elements.

According to science, there are eight planets, except when they're not.

According to science, England is currently underwater.

According to science, a single hydrogen bomb will destroy the entire atmosphere.

Horry for Science!

Scientists have never claimed to be infallible. It's an important part of the scientific process that hypotheses be testable and falsifiable, and it's an equally important part of the scientific process that scientists acknowledge that new data can change their understands and lead to newer and more accurate theories.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Actually, a pretty simple and servicable morality can be derived from simple scientific principles:

1. I have no rational reason to believe that anyone else's essential needs as they relate to other people differ significantly from my own. I want other people to help fulfill my needs, therefore I should try to help fulfill theirs.

2. The universe is a closed, finite system, which means that the things that I do, "good" or "bad", will ultimately cycle back around to me. Therefore, I should do things that I perceive as "good", and encourage the same behavior from others.

and 3. I have no rational reason to believe that any other plane of existence exists. Therefore, I should endevour to optimize existence in this plane for myself and others, and encourage the same behavior from others. Also, any matters of redemption or justice for transgressions against fellow living beings must be dealt with personally and responsibly, without expectation of intercession from an unproven and scientifically unlikely deity.

But for all that, Jesus still has His place. When all else fails in a situation and there's literally nothing anyone can do, a prayer may make one feel a little better - which is enough of a reason to do it, whether Anyone is really listening or not.

My father was a devout athiest - and he still prayed when I was very sick as a child. There's some truth to that bit about "no athiests in foxholes".

 

[kissthestar]

Such fanatics will use anything as an excuse. If it weren't religion, it would be something else.

Yeah, but last time I checked, no one has strapped a bomb to themselves and shouted "praise be to Shroedinger's Cat" before pushing the button. Nor has anyone been burned at the stake for not believing in Newton's Laws Of Motion. Since the beginning of recorded history, it's always "My invisible god can lick your invisible god!" And the so called "good" Christians or Muslims have done little to discouraged it, making them just as, if not more, responsible.

Destructive science ( i.e. the bomb) is more likely to be a tool than an excuse, that's true.

 

[Praetor]

When it comes to religion, though, does it really matter?

I'm not talking about personal biases or anything like that, and I'm not arguing that religion is a basis for denying science; I think the two should ideally be kept separate due to specifically the reasons above, as should religion and fair government.

The only reason they should be kept separate is because science/government/law/etc seem to rely on facts, while some religions boast faith that is mutually exclusive with fact. Sure, some of them try to rationalize their religion by saying it fits with science (much like a Star Trek fan will try to fix continuity errors). In theory though, a perfect religion could be in inarguable, complete harmony with science. That religion just isn't any of the ones that stemmed from Judaism.

Meh. Faith is faith, and science is science. Faith is IMO about the inherently unknowable. Facts are derived from observation and interpolation. I'd argue that it's not that religions decry facts, nor is it a thing exclusive to those descending to Judaism, but that instead governments derive their power from social contracts, and it's remarkably difficult to achieve a social contract that reconciles varying religious beliefs, or a lack thereof, and therefore it should be expressly left out of it. Morality derived from religion as the basis for the social contract, is I think a separate thing but you can't very well say 'x' should be illegal just because the Quran says so' or 'y' should be illegal just because the Bible says so. That's how holy () wars start.

Regardless of what you personally think of these beliefs, and as long as they don't extend to involve harming others, what does it really matter?

It doesn't. But it depends on how you define harm. Willful ignorance can be harmful to a developing society. Sometimes faith is substituted for knowledge or worse yet is proclaimed as fact. That's only harmful if it becomes the norm.

That's true, and people should be well-informed enough to recognize the differences between religion and science and not substitute one for the other.

Actually, a pretty simple and servicable morality can be derived from simple scientific principles:

1. I have no rational reason to believe that anyone else's essential needs as they relate to other people differ significantly from my own. I want other people to help fulfill my needs, therefore I should try to help fulfill theirs.

2. The universe is a closed, finite system, which means that the things that I do, "good" or "bad", will ultimately cycle back around to me. Therefore, I should do things that I perceive as "good", and encourage the same behavior from others.

and 3. I have no rational reason to believe that any other plane of existence exists. Therefore, I should endevour to optimize existence in this plane for myself and others, and encourage the same behavior from others. Also, any matters of redemption or justice for transgressions against fellow living beings must be dealt with personally and responsibly, without expectation of intercession from an unproven and scientifically unlikely deity.

But for all that, Jesus still has His place. When all else fails in a situation and there's literally nothing anyone can do, a prayer may make one feel a little better - which is enough of a reason to do it, whether Anyone is really listening or not.

My father was a devout athiest - and he still prayed when I was very sick as a child. There's some truth to that bit about "no athiests in foxholes".

I really like that, Triumphant.

 

[Dark Gilligan]

Religion... is holding the human race back whilst science allows us to advance.

Religion nourishes the soul, something science cannot do. Unless of course one's soul is simply a fanciful fabrication that has no place or meaning in the real world.

 

[Praetor]

Even if there isn't really such a literal thing as a soul, I'd argue that most people have an inherent need for spiritual expression and satisfaction that religion often satisfies.

 

[3D Master]

Religion... is holding the human race back whilst science allows us to advance.

Religion nourishes the soul, something science cannot do. Unless of course one's soul is simply a fanciful fabrication that has no place or meaning in the real world.

Science nourishes the soul constantly, and to far greater extent than any religion could ever hope to. Whenever you look at the majesty that is the universe, whenever you unravel another of its mysteries, and whenever it gets proven you were wrong and the mystery is even greater than you thought; there is no greater nourishment.

 

[MyCylon]

And now, to Godwin:
It was science, you know, in an athiestic state, which declared the holocaust neccessary and right.

"Science" is a terrible substitute for morality.

No, it was an ideology that declared the holocause necessary and right. It dictated the results studies and research had to come up with meaning it wasn't science. The name and meaning of science was abused just as the Nazis abused just about everything to justify their cause, including, for example, the press.

One of the things I never quite get is why people think we need religion to be nice to one another. A scientific approach (if not science itself) makes this very easy to understand, really:

If I smack someone in the face, it's likely he'll smack me back. Getting smacked in the face is an unpleasant experience, hence the reaction. So it's best not to smack other people in the face if you don't want a smack in the face yourself.

All you need to do is expand that approach, and you've got a reasonable basis for living together with other people in a society.

USS_Triumphant's illustrated this even better and more thoroughly.

I think it's that kind of an approach Roddenberry was going for.

Also my impression with Trek has always been that they approached everything in a very scientific way. If they encountered a God-like being, they would use what they had to analyze it and try to determine its nature.

They were also well aware of their own limits in being able to do this. This meant things they didn't understand were not automatically shifted to the realm of superstition but rather seen as something they might be able to understand later on as science progressed.

 

[KirksFlyingFist]

I've been stewing on this for a while now but I believe that Gene Roddenberrys vision that by the 23rd century mankind would have moved passed the need for religion is absolutely spot-on correct.

Man would have long-ago realised that it was a complete waste of time devoting time and bizarre religous practises to a divine being that plainly doesn't exist.

Where is the evidence? There is none. (That is just my opinion and for those that disagree fair play to you and your delusions)

People tell me that no evidence is needed to believe in God and that its all based on faith.
How can I have faith in a cruel God that lets children suffer? --- what sins have they committed? NONE

Anyway rant over. I now I may be opening a sensitive can of worms here but what do people think of Roddeberrys notion that religion on Earth will be redundant in the future?

I agree with the following:

In such a type of future, mankind's need for religion would be irrelevant. Hell, in today's date and time religion is irrelevant for a great many of people.

HOWEVER: Saying it's not needed is one thing. People actually giving it up is entirley another: and very unlikely to happen any time soon. In Trek's world, with a post WWIII future? Either everyone religious was wiped out or just exhausted from praying, or such an event would only INCREASE the amount of religion in peoples lives (desperation for hope, etc.)

The point is though, once something like religion is established in a society, it grows like weeds. People HATE change. That's human nature. Just look at all the conflict caused throughout history and in today's world due to religious belief - even where it's just plain silly.

So I don't know if its realistic to think religion will just POOF away like that, but I do agree that religion isn't a necesseity of any kind in a propsering society (Unless you want to argue that people need it to rid themselves of the fear of death.)

 

[Ryan8bit]

Meh. Faith is faith, and science is science. Faith is IMO about the inherently unknowable.

At least until more becomes knowable. Faith used to involve thinking that the story of Adam and Eve was a literal account (sadly for some it still does), but with advances in science, we know the Earth isn't just 6,000 years old or that there weren't global floods. That doesn't stop us from having faith now in the present, but I think a better approach to the unknown is through science, logic, and reason, not just sticking one's finger in the air or being purposely ignorant of the unknown.

And faith isn't strictly limited to the unknown for many. Some might define unknown as not in front of their face. They might have a belief that does contradict actual fact (not this "fact" claimed by fervent atheists in this thread), and they're certainly entitled to have that belief, but in some ways that just doesn't help society. Like, if I believe in God, but it doesn't profoundly affect the way I live my life, then it's certainly not a problem. If I were to deny the holocaust happened though, that's a different story.

people should be well-informed enough to recognize the differences between religion and science and not substitute one for the other.

Indeed. I just wish it weren't easier said than done.