Trek's lowest moment

[horatio83]

He refers to the Mintakan abandonment of their faith as an "achievement", as if it is a GOOD thing to abandon religion.

Now that may be entirely consistent with GR's militant atheism, but for a supposedly "tolerant" and "diverse" Federation officer to be so utterly bigoted against religion is a low low mark indeed.

"Tolerance" is not a progressive value. I certainly do not tolerate falsehoods (this is just postmodern relativist bullshit) and this is what Picard spoke out against, the Federation actually allowing this people to believe into a FACTUALLY wrong God (The Mintakans did not abandon their faith, they already did that long ago. It was the errors of the Feds which rekindled this very faith. And please stop the "divine plan" nonsense. With this you can rationalize everything.) like Picard. Same in Devil's Due. This doesn't mean that Picard has issues with people who believe in God.
As Mojochi has pointed out, Picard is anything but a secular fundamentalist à la Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris (the way you use it "militant atheist" is a nonsensical term, these secular fundamentalists are the only folks I know who advocate violence in the name of atheism). In this exchange with the fake Data in 'Where Silence has Lease' he explicitly says that he is agnostic about death which is in itself a semi-religious statement.

But even if Picard actually thought and said that religion is always a bad thing, so what? I personally think that atheism is more enlightened than monotheism and that monotheism is more enlightened than polytheism but I do not proselytize, advocate that more people should become atheists or that religion should cease to exist. You can have a strong opinion about something without any normative implications.

 

[Iamnotspock]

As Mojochi has pointed out, Picard is anything but a secular fundamentalist à la Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris (the way you use it "militant atheist" is a nonsensical term, these secular fundamentalists are the only folks I know who advocate violence in the name of atheism).

Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris advocate(d) violence in the name of atheism?

 

[T'Girl]

If only the Enterprise bumped into the NSEA Protector

Probably a actual "bump."

That was actually a fantastic episode till the rant.

I really like Picard ultimate solution to the whole problem. He simply talked to the man who misunderstood what he saw.

If Picard had thought to do this during act one, there likely would't have been a problem.

Straight forward honesty.

 

[-Brett-]

ETA: Who says that these events are not intended by a divine figure to rekindle the Mintakan faith and draw them back from atheism? That none of the people in that room even ask the question is more bigotry against religion.

So the very existence of people who don't subscribe to your religion is bigotry against your religion.

I really hate Americans sometimes.

 

[martok2112]

This NuTrek....***shudder***

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think it's unfair to call that an anti-religion rant. 2 sentences is hardly a rant. Plus, the comment was about the fact that they had naturally evolved into an atheistic culture, which had now been influenced into belief in a false god, potentially stripping them of what Picard calls an achievement. If anything, this is a pro-atheism comment. Advocating an absence of religion is not the same thing as condemning its presence. Picard has shown on multiple occasions to be tolerant & supportive of all people's beliefs, & in one instance even seems to suggest his own philosophy is not entirely atheist.

The second comment about sending them "back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear" could be relative to the current context, of them falling into the false god belief, which Picard has been advised will likely cause cultural degeneration. Forcing a false god on these people would be inviting a dark age of superstition, ignorance & fear. Whether he is reflecting on our own historical dark ages, or perhaps one that this culture endured, that statement is not in itself an indictment or condemnation of all religion

To see his remark as such is extremist. All he is saying is he wants to do right by these people, as they have been

No, he's saying far far more with the way he says it.

https://youtu.be/n6NPq_kPSUM

It's not just the words, it's the vehemence in the way he spits out words like "superstition" with disgust in his voice.

He refers to the Mintakan abandonment of their faith as an "achievement", as if it is a GOOD thing to abandon religion.

Now that may be entirely consistent with GR's militant atheism, but for a supposedly "tolerant" and "diverse" Federation officer to be so utterly bigoted against religion is a low low mark indeed.

ETA: Who says that these events are not intended by a divine figure to rekindle the Mintakan faith and draw them back from atheism? That none of the people in that room even ask the question is more bigotry against religion.

Why would Picard, a man of science and reason,have anything positive to say about the supernatural, superstition and ignorance? Why would he allow a people, who have risen above such beliefs, regress backwards toward them? Especially if he was the cause of this regression. Pretty much every "God" we meet in Star Trek is an alien, a corrupt AI or a con artist.
Are you pro Ardra as well? Should he have just turned his back and say, "well if that's what you want to believe."

 

[T'Girl]

Why would Picard, a man of science and reason,have anything positive to say about the supernatural, superstition and ignorance? "

Picard: "Mister Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all."

Basically that's why.

The Picard we see in that one scene is so very different than the Picard shown in the rest of the series, the compassionate, understanding and diplomatic Picard completely disappears for several seconds.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Why would Picard, a man of science and reason,have anything positive to say about the supernatural, superstition and ignorance? Why would he allow a people, who have risen above such beliefs, regress backwards toward them?

Because it is not Picard's place NOT to allow them. What right does he have to tell the Mintakans what to believe? (True, it would be in his best interests to dispel the notion that HE is a supreme being, but that's not the attitude that I get from him in this scene.)

Pretty much every "God" we meet in Star Trek is an alien, a corrupt AI or a con artist.
Are you pro Ardra as well? Should he have just turned his back and say, "well if that's what you want to believe."

No, because beings like Ardra have been demonstratively proven false. God - the God I believe in - cannot be proven false. You can of course choose not to believe, and I wouldn't restrict anyone's right not to. But you cannot PROVE that God does not exist. It has been proven that Ardra, for example, is not God, but that is not the same thing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why would Picard, a man of science and reason,have anything positive to say about the supernatural, superstition and ignorance? "

Picard: "Mister Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all."

Basically that's why.

The Picard we see in that one scene is so very different than the Picard shown in the rest of the series, the compassionate, understanding and diplomatic Picard completely disappears for several seconds.

Respect is different than actively participating in leading people back to a time of belief in the supernatural, superstition and ignorance.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Just out of interest and I really don't mean to diverge the thread but it feels on topic. Why is abandoning religion bad?

 

[Salinga]

The low points in Star Trek are usually reached, when the writers/producers fell back to:
- main characters show contemporary behaviour
- sexism
- technobabble solutions.

 

[BillJ]

The low points in Star Trek are usually reached, when the writers/producers fell back to:
- main characters show contemporary behaviour
- sexism
- technobabble solutions.

So pretty much the entire franchise?

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Ooh did Bill just admit there's technobabble in TOS?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Contemporary behaviour? How else are we supposed to relate to these people?

 

[1001001]

Just out of interest and I really don't mean to diverge the thread but it feels on topic. Why is abandoning religion bad?

Let's not divert that far off course. You can start a thread in Miscellaneous or TNZ for that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Ooh did Bill just admit there's technobabble in TOS?

I was watching "That Which Survives" last night and Scotty reversed the polarity!!!!!!

 

[Nightdiamond]

Just out of interest and I really don't mean to diverge the thread but it feels on topic. Why is abandoning religion bad?

Trek always seemed to imply that the only reason humans and other Federation members reached the success they did was because of hard work, rationality, and technological advancements.

And implying that humans don't take religion as seriously as they once did.

You can see some of Gene's softcore humanism in certain episodes.

The low points in Star Trek are usually reached, when the writers/producers fell back to:
- main characters show contemporary behaviour
- sexism
- technobabble solutions.

So pretty much the entire franchise?

I liked when Trek characters acted contemporary-- OK, not all of it like the sixties stuff or the 80's hair.

But when Trek tried to be too futuristic it came off weird, like everyone only listening to classical music, reciting Shakespeare, and drinking tea most of the time.

Human society actually looked culturally repressed.

The sexism could get pretty bad-- just see certain TOS episodes, some of it was painfully funny.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

Contemporary behaviour? How else are we supposed to relate to these people?

+1

 

[Iamnotspock]

No, because beings like Ardra have been demonstratively proven false. God - the God I believe in - cannot be proven false. You can of course choose not to believe, and I wouldn't restrict anyone's right not to. But you cannot PROVE that God does not exist. It has been proven that Ardra, for example, is not God, but that is not the same thing.

With the greatest respect for your belief, I don't "choose not to believe" in your God any more than I choose not to believe in fairies, whose existence also cannot be disproved; that's not how burden of proof works.

 

[Phantom]

Why would Picard, a man of science and reason,have anything positive to say about the supernatural, superstition and ignorance? Why would he allow a people, who have risen above such beliefs, regress backwards toward them? Especially if he was the cause of this regression. Pretty much every "God" we meet in Star Trek is an alien, a corrupt AI or a con artist.
Are you pro Ardra as well? Should he have just turned his back and say, "well if that's what you want to believe."

Sisko was every bit as much a "man of science and reason" as a Starfleet officer, but (unlike Picard, and many other SF officers) he had no problem making room in his life for both reason and faith.

Your bias is implicit in your choice of words: "superstition and ignorance" "risen above such beliefs" "regress backwards".

Not very reflective of the Federation values you claim are morally superior, is it?

DS9 left open the question of what exactly the Prophets were an let the characters (and viewers) make their own minds up.

That's why it's the best Trek since TOS.