Trek's View of Religion

[iguana_tonante]

What he said, exactly was....

"Millennia ago they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement?! To send them back into the Dark Ages of superstition and ignornace and fear?! NO!"

Sounds like a sweeping generalization to me. Sounds pretty bigoted as well.

Sounds like an opinion to me. Picard is an atheist, or at least a rationalist. You may disagree with his opinion, but why should he keep it to himself, especially in that event, when it agrees with the correct course of action? (correcting the cultural contamination they have done)

I don't think anyone has complained that Roddenberry has ruined their life and persecuted them violently. But I'd say that people have a perfectly legitimate right to criticize a piece of fiction for presenting just one side of the view and ignoring others.

But that's not what happened. Star Trek is not 100% against religion. Picard was probably an atheist (or an agnostic), but Kirk was probably a believer ("we find the one quite sufficient"). Sisko changed his mind from skeptic to believer with regards of the Prophets. Chakotay was certainly a believer. Others were less clear on that point. So you can't really argue that Star Trek was anything other than pluralistic in the way it presented religion.

I think, In my mind, that they should have played with the idea that their might me a possiblity that God does exist. Like here is an idea, Picard gets into a fight and almost dies. As he dies, he sees a bright light and a winged figure. He is in Sick bay and he tries to figure out what he had seen, in terms of Trek Science. Science gets him nowhere until he talks to a crew member who is a member of the minority Christian Group(Considering all humans are atheist at this point) He tell Picard that he might have seen the Archangel Gabriel. Picard argues with him because there is no such thing as a God. Then the crewman asks Picard," Then how do you explain Q?" Which makes sense because a god, by definition, is an all-powerful entity. Q fits that to a T. This makes Picard think. It doesn't prove or disprove the idea that God exists. It just stats that it might be a possibility that there are beings that exist beyond our understanding.

So you want to change the character of Picard from atheist to something different? Why? We have plenty of religious characters in Star Trek and in television: is one atheist character, one that is a positive and heroic example, so hard to bear for the believers?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Morality kis defined only throuigh context. There is no absolute morality. To make that claim you'd have to justify it.

For example stealing might be morally wrong, but there are many times when stealing would be the correct thing to do. Same with killing. Yes, that's the way of it. There is no absolute morality. It is derived from context.

The sorts of examples you gave actually do not forbid the idea of absolute morality. What it DOES make clear is that there is a hierarchy of values from which the response to a situation is derived. Let's say you're stealing to keep your child from starving. This is because the protection of an innocent life--a life that you are responsible for maintaining above that of your own--overrides the duty not to steal. Where this duty or one with similar ability to override the duty not to steal is not present, then it is binding not to steal. The example about killing is similar, though I'm at work and don't quite have the time to work through the entire scenario right now.

It takes judgment to recognize what the highest duty in any situation is, and people get it wrong. Our nature is a virtual guarantee that we will make mistakes and not measure up to the standard. And I fully expect to be corrected on many things I thought were right...but just because my judgment failed does not mean that the standard wasn't out there, only that I either failed to take something into account, or I simply chose to behave wrongly.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Ok.

But to say that there is an absolute morality is a claim that you would need to justify.

And if someone were to say that Christianity has that high moral standard within its teachings, i would beg to differ, unless mere credulity, along with slavery and the silencing of women are at all moral.

 

[T'Girl]

Morality kis defined only throuigh context. There is no absolute morality. To make that claim you'd have to justify it.

For example stealing might be morally wrong, but there are many times when stealing would be the correct thing to do. Same with killing. Yes, that's the way of it. There is no absolute morality. It is derived from context.

Let's say you're stealing to keep your child from starving. This is because the protection of an innocent life--a life that you are responsible for maintaining above that of your own--overrides the duty not to steal.

I'm reminded of a story, after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, people entered stores and took food (and other things too). After everything settled down some people returned to the stores and paid for what they had taken. These people could be called moral. Others did not pay, these people could be called thieves.

 

[Kai Winn]

Those friggin' Trek writers are damn atheists. Man I wish they'd get out of my face. I mean, they are heathens, talking about the scientific method. They even mention the big bang, abiogenesis, and god forbid, the big bang. Oh I mentioned that. What about evolution? There's even a episode with that name. I mean why can't they just talk about about the one believe in a god that we all can agree on, the same one scrawled on our money, the same one that has given mankind the ability to cure deseases, all that??

speak for yourself. god does not exist, and there is no point in religion.a shame star trek started to make concessions in ds9 and voyager. i will admit that ds9's paranormal episodes were sort of pleasantly creepy.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Shame that your sarcasm meter isn't workin.

 

[DevilEyes]

I don't think anyone has complained that Roddenberry has ruined their life and persecuted them violently. But I'd say that people have a perfectly legitimate right to criticize a piece of fiction for presenting just one side of the view and ignoring others.

But that's not what happened. Star Trek is not 100% against religion. Picard was probably an atheist (or an agnostic), but Kirk was probably a believer ("we find the one quite sufficient"). Sisko changed his mind from skeptic to believer with regards of the Prophets. Chakotay was certainly a believer. Others were less clear on that point. So you can't really argue that Star Trek was anything other than pluralistic in the way it presented religion.

I was talking about Who Watches the Watchers, not about Star Trek in general.

Star Trek in general was certainly not against religion - actually, it included a bunch of very different attitudes and treatments of religion, and not just alien ones. (Does everyone forget about the ending of Bread and Circuses, which is practically an ode to how beneficial religion, or more specifically Christianity, can have a positive role in a society?) The title and premise of this thread are wrong. There's a lot more I've been meaning to write about that, but it's very late, so I'll leave that for later...

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

My feeling is that Roddenberry wanted it to be completely non religious (both the show and the universe) but of course, other people worked on teh show, and there's just indoctrination of all people, even Gene, and and anyone else who worked on the show, that even for people that didn't think it was nec essary to mention Chrsitiaanity at all found they had to awknowledge it in "Breads and Circuses." That's indoctrination for you.

 

[iguana_tonante]

But that's not what happened. Star Trek is not 100% against religion. Picard was probably an atheist (or an agnostic), but Kirk was probably a believer ("we find the one quite sufficient"). Sisko changed his mind from skeptic to believer with regards of the Prophets. Chakotay was certainly a believer. Others were less clear on that point. So you can't really argue that Star Trek was anything other than pluralistic in the way it presented religion.

I was talking about Who Watches the Watchers, not about Star Trek in general.

Fair enough, then. I agree that particular episode presents just one view about religion, that of Picard (and obviously some writers on the show).

 

[Anwar]

Picard himself isn't atheistic either. In "Tapestry", he says "I refuse to believe that the afterlife is run by you, the universe is not so badly designed!" both of which imply that he believed in the afterlife and a deity of some sort (someone had to "design" the universe, after all).

 

[iguana_tonante]

Picard himself isn't atheistic either. In "Tapestry", he says "I refuse to believe that the afterlife is run by you, the universe is not so badly designed!" both of which imply that he believed in the afterlife and a deity of some sort (someone had to "design" the universe, after all).

Good point, I forgot about that. Given his other comments about religion, that could point to some kind of deist belief.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Had Picard kept his argument SPECIFICALLY to the Mintakan people, and the fact that they made a choice and the cultural contamination overrode the choice they made of their own free will, I would've agreed. Belief must be by choice, not by coercion. The trouble was when he made the sweeping comment about humanity and all other races, that religion is something all races must evolve past. That was quite bigoted, not to mention hypocritical out of the mouth of Mr. Tolerance and Relativism.

As I recall, he said nothing of the sort. He said he would not send them back to a primitive age of fear and was very emphatic about it.

I'll have to review that episode. I don't remember it as being anti-religious specifically.

My feeling is that Roddenberry wanted it to be completely non religious (both the show and the universe) but of course, other people worked on teh show, and there's just indoctrination of all people, even Gene, and and anyone else who worked on the show, that even for people that didn't think it was nec essary to mention Chrsitiaanity at all found they had to awknowledge it in "Breads and Circuses." That's indoctrination for you.

GR talked a lot about his Trekverse, as opposed to the one that collectively manifested. (It's interesting, the differences in vision and manifestation between GR and George Lucas...) So there is probably quotes from him on this topic.
I dimly recall an interview with him speaking more to the openess of worship in his future vision. I don't think he needed Trek to be non-religious. The religions can still exist, but those aspects of religions that conflict with GR's humanist views were those that were seen as being "evolved" beyond.
We also have to remember the time TOS was made - we had a lot more of those "backward" beliefs more heavily attached to religions, and we still do. It was, and remains, a fine line to walk, but I think that line is valid and important. To separate the "backward" elements of world religions from their core messages, which are very similar.
So it is not religion itself that humanity needs to evolve beyond, but some aspects of humanity's relationship to its religions that needs improvement -

 

[Kelthaz]

Picard himself isn't atheistic either. In "Tapestry", he says "I refuse to believe that the afterlife is run by you, the universe is not so badly designed!" both of which imply that he believed in the afterlife and a deity of some sort (someone had to "design" the universe, after all).

I always took that line to be nothing more than an insult towards Q.

 

[Xerxes1979]

Picard himself isn't atheistic either. In "Tapestry", he says "I refuse to believe that the afterlife is run by you, the universe is not so badly designed!" both of which imply that he believed in the afterlife and a deity of some sort (someone had to "design" the universe, after all).

Good point, I forgot about that. Given his other comments about religion, that could point to some kind of deist belief.

I would welcome deism as a carrot thrown to religionists to calm them down since without dogma or a church such topics would never arrise duing the 42 minutes with any plot related conversations. If I met Jefferson I would much rather talk about federalism or agriculture than some random theological debate.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

 

[Penta]

See, this is where I think, with all due respect, you may be missing the mark, Xerxes.

The type of people who follow a religion and watch Star Trek, I doubt would be concerned if Picard were an atheist. Without speaking for anyone else, certainly I wouldn't care.

What bothers people (at least, from my point of view) is the contempt TOS and TNG exuded towards religion. It may have been well-hidden, but it was there. Indeed, this thread seems to have veered perilously close (without going off the cliff, I note happily and thank all involved) to the same idea: "Religion is evil and ought be suppressed. By force if need be. Certainly mankind will give it up, like children give up their stuffed animals."

That's just...insulting to hear. No other way to put it, it's insulting.

Which is, to me, a shame. Because I don't think anyone expects human religion to ever play a major part in a sci-fi series, especially one aimed at the masses like Trek is. Too touchy.

But the acceptance that religion exists, that human religion can actually be a force for good...Would be nice. (At the very least, look at it this way. The same faith that created the inquisition also led to the first proposal of the Big Bang theory.)

Even if you can't go that far...At least treat the topic with respect. It's as much a mistake to paint all human religion as evil as it is to paint atheism as evil.

(My personal ideal? A sci-fi series that admits exactly like most people do: I have no clue whether or not there is a God, ergo I pick a way to believe that sounds most likely.)

 

[Nightdiamond]

When asked, Sisko and Picard always seemed vague about religion, but the feeling I often get from Trek is that many federation citizens are not believers at all.

And they seem to take it really serious.

Keiko refuses to teach the Bajoran view about the Prophets..she won't even comprise with Vedek Winn.

memoryalpha;

Tension continues to mount between the Starfleet and Bajoran personnel about the station.

Kira supports Vedek Winn's program for teaching Bajoran beliefs to the Bajoran children, and suggests creating two schools, one for Starfleet children and one for Bajorans. Sisko and Keiko reject the idea.

At times they can outright blunt about it like the way Picard has been famously shown.

I remember O'brien once said bluntly, 'I don't believe in the Prophets' but he said in such a way that seemed almost...rude.

Dax and Jake would make comments about their disbelief in the
wormhole aliens but it would be in a dismissing manner..

By the way, wouldn't the school thing be close to violating the Prime Directive?

 

[Anwar]

No one was forcing those kids to go to Keikio's school, they were free to leave and go to a Bajoran school on Bajor if they wanted.

 

[Deks]

The fact is that Sisko became more lenient towards Bajoran perception of the wormhole aliens.
In reality, they are just wormhole aliens with abilities that exceed what the Federation can do at the present time.

I found it extremely annoying that Sisko of all people would suddenly start calling the wormhole aliens as 'prophets' and conform to Bajoran religious view points.

Picard never struck me as someone who 'believed' in a deity of any kind.
Then again the writers contradicted themselves on more than one occasion because most of them were likely religious, or wanted to make the show appealing to the general public that was religious.

I would have preferred if Trek was completely void of religion altogether as Gene wanted it.
Or at the very least to firmly establish that humanity moved WAY past that particular notion.

 

[DevilEyes]

By the way, wouldn't the school thing be close to violating the Prime Directive?

No, because Bajor is not a pre-warp civilization, which renders this a moot point. Not to mention that Keiko is a civilian, not a Starfleet member. She is not obliged to "not interfere" with the Bajoran kids education any more than a Federation trader is obliged to "not interfere" with Ferengi economy.

Seriously, the way some people interpret the PD is just ridiculous, it makes it sound like total isolationism.

 

[DevilEyes]

The fact is that Sisko became more lenient towards Bajoran perception of the wormhole aliens.
In reality, they are just wormhole aliens with abilities that exceed what the Federation can do at the present time.

I found it extremely annoying that Sisko of all people would suddenly start calling the wormhole aliens as 'prophets' and conform to Bajoran religious view points.

So? They're aliens who live in a wormhole and who, due to existing in non-linear time, have knowledge of what is going to happen in the future of Bajorans, Humans and all the other linear beings... and what is the name for such people who supposedly know the future? Oh yes - prophets!

The reason he "conforms" to Bajoran religious point of view that they are prophets is - surprise, surprise - because those views have actually been proven true. The wormhole aliens who know the future = Prophets. How you call them is entirely a matter of semantics, and nothing else. Whether one thinks they're good or bad, or whether they're worthy of worship or not, is a different matter. (Personally, I think they're assholes.) But nobody in their right mind could deny their existence, or their non-linearity i.e. their "prophetic" nature. Your stance strikes me as particularly absurd, as you are basically asking why Sisko didn't outright deny the facts, just because the facts happened to match an existing religion.

I would have preferred if Trek was completely void of religion altogether as Gene wanted it.
Or at the very least to firmly establish that humanity moved WAY past that particular notion.

How fortunate that you didn't get to decide this.