Trek's View of Religion

[Nerys Ghemor]

Exactly. Plus, how to explain the persecution of the faithful in Romanian prisons under Ceaucescu (sp?)? What about the believers thrown into the gulags because they acknowledged a higher power than the Soviet state? What about the Chinese who continue to be imprisoned to this day unless they give up their Falun Gong beliefs, or if they dare to be Christian outside of the official "church" that the state controls and keeps tabs on? Yes, they WERE put in prison because they believed. That atheism was part and parcel with the concept of being a good citizen in those countries in part because it was the philosophy of the revolutionaries, who refused to admit dissent, and in part because it means acknowledging something other than the earthly leaders in power and this is inherently defined as treason under such a system. This cannot be denied, any more than the pogroms, the Crusades, or jihad can be denied.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Atheism in and of itself has no dogma. Sure those people and those systems were wrong. But it still doens't change the fact that atheism itself has no dogma and that none of those acts were committed for the cause of atheism (they might have been committed by people who thought they were acting for the cause of atheism. But in that case, only the people committing them could be blamed, not atheism itself.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

GR seemed to think that Religion was primitive and irrational and not compatible with the rational and advanced future society he envisioned. It's his playground and he wasn't obligated to present an opposing view.

 

[Xerxes1979]

It is much more satisfying writing the supernatural as a scam or conspiracy. TV is a visual medium not a telepathic one.

Pointless exposition and scenes of Bajorian prayer rituals is never going to be as rewarding as exposing a cult or showing a "god" to be a computer.

The former is very undramatic while the later satisfies our action and detective appetites.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Atheism in and of itself has no dogma. Sure those people and those systems were wrong. But it still doens't change the fact that atheism itself has no dogma and that none of those acts were committed for the cause of atheism (they might have been committed by people who thought they were acting for the cause of atheism. But in that case, only the people committing them could be blamed, not atheism itself.)

Which of course is the same argument when it comes to those who claim to commit atrocities "in the name of God." People bend doctrine to their aims, but they are the ones at fault for doing so and must be held individually responsible (and yes, there may be large numbers in some cases), not all believers. They may claim the name of God, but they are in fact NOT approved or sanctioned for what they are doing. (In fact, I consider such actions--perverting Scripture or religion for one's own aims--to be the real meaning of blasphemy, not just being rude or derisive towards the faith, though that too is not a good act. To claim the name of God for one's own hateful acts is the ultimate slander, in my opinion.)

 

[Admiral Shran]

Wow! There's so much here I want to comment on, so please bear with me....

If memory serves, the Mintakans reverting to their old ways in Who Watches the Watchers entailed sacrificing people, among other things.

I've just re-watched Who Watches the Watchers. That pained me, since it's one of my least favorite episodes of the entire franchise. The Mintakans don't revert to sacrificing people. It is suggested by certain Mintakans, but ultimately rejected by the rest.

As far as Trek in general, I've always thought that humans have grown up to a point where people can believe what they believe without a need to shove it down everyone else's throat, like quite a few people today. I mean, without people to be attention whores or running around calling other people bad for not believing what they believe, it wouldn't get much exposure since any religion is a pretty personal experience for the one concerned.

That doesn't seem to be the prevailing attitude on DS9, at least for some. The episode The Reckoning shows how some 24th century people still try to shove their beliefs down people's throats. Sisko, by this point, is a firm believer in the Prophets and is willing to do what he does in the episode based on his faith. At several points, Dax flat out ridicules him about his faith and for not believing there is a scientific answer to what's going on. At another point, Bashir laughs about how the prophecy could even be considered to be anything more than a fairy tale.

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.

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.

They did mention Chistianity as still going on in "Cold Front"

Which is the it should be, IMO. Phlox states that he attended a mass at St. Peter's in Rome in order to familiarize himself with Earth's various religions. It's there, it's stated that religion still exists, but it isn't dwelt upon, pro or con.

So maybe if Darwin was a priest or soemthing as well, religious people might give him more credit, I guess.

I'm a fairly religious person, and I give Darwin credit. Evolution, and science in general, is not incompatible with religion.

It all comes back to the same old fallacy, that the person is just as or even more important than the words they say. I don't care who said the quote in my signature so much as the truth of the quote itself. It doesn't matter that either Plato or Socrates might be a fictional creation of the other, the words still hold true. Jesus, however is different. Who he claims to be is not separable form his words.

So, are you saying you can't believe in words like "Love your enemy," "Turn the other cheek," "Do unto others as you would have done onto you," ""He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone," or "Blessed are the peacemakers" because you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus?

But those atheists (because they have no dogma) are not doing it for the cause of atheism. The same cannot be said for those that perform crimes on behalf of religion.

Ummm.... yes they were. They forced people to be atheists because it's what they, the powers that be, wanted them, the people, to be. It's the exact same thing as a religious dictator forcing all the citizens of a certain country to be Chrisitians, or Muslims, or Hindus, or whatever.

Atheism in and of itself has no dogma. Sure those people and those systems were wrong. But it still doens't change the fact that atheism itself has no dogma and that none of those acts were committed for the cause of atheism (they might have been committed by people who thought they were acting for the cause of atheism. But in that case, only the people committing them could be blamed, not atheism itself.)

Then why should religion, in general, be blamed when someone distorts it to serve their own goals?



I'll end with a favorite quotation of mine....

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Why? Well that is the point, isn't it? It is because of of dogma and indoctrination, the message being drilled in. Atheism has no message, no book, no myths, no dogma. There is nothing about atheism that singles out those who aren't atheists. But many Christians believe that those who aren't Christians are going to hell (a rather excessive punishment) and there are many Christians who try to teach their values in school, usualy in deceitful ways. (Intelligent Design is, for all intents and purposes, is creationism, and the idea of teaching creationism is just a way of teaching religion in schools, but they've simply changed the names.)

The atheists that you referred to to that you say forced otehrs to be atheists were wrong. Just as religious poeple who try get others to be religious are wrong as well. The difference is that spreading the religion to others (or trying to "save" them) is part of the mandate of most religions. Christianity is only legitimate because it has billions of followers, and there isn 't a shred of evidence to back up their claims, let allowed peer-reviewed papers that can be read, with experiements that can be reproduced. So yes, religion itself should share the blame, because it is a virus of indoctrinations, in which a thousand year old text is often the substitute for real thinking.

 

[scotpens]

People bend doctrine to their aims, but they are the ones at fault for doing so and must be held individually responsible (and yes, there may be large numbers in some cases), not all believers. They may claim the name of God, but they are in fact NOT approved or sanctioned for what they are doing. (In fact, I consider such actions--perverting Scripture or religion for one's own aims--to be the real meaning of blasphemy, not just being rude or derisive towards the faith, though that too is not a good act. To claim the name of God for one's own hateful acts is the ultimate slander, in my opinion.)

Blasphemy and heresy are like treason -- their meaning depends entirely on who holds the power.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Why? Well that is the point, isn't it? It is because of of dogma and indoctrination, the message being drilled in. Atheism has no message, no book, no myths, no dogma. There is nothing about atheism that singles out those who aren't atheists.

Then what's with the whole Brights movement, and others like that? What's the implication of that--that a believer is a dim-bulb?? This isn't exactly lack of a doctrine. And it's some pretty serious lack of respect for others, too.

There are also those who have made the attempt to claim in a very literal sense that those who are religious are not as intelligent as atheists. It's not much of a leap from there to using whatever figures are arrived at (by defining the terms according to whatever definition is convenient to get the results one wants) as an excuse to look down upon those who are believers.

And that, of course, isn't even addressing the points about atheistic regimes that have oppressed believers, that have already been raised. That's a whole other can of worms that has already been opened in this thread.

But many Christians believe that those who aren't Christians are going to hell (a rather excessive punishment)

Interestingly, the Catholic Church doesn't necessarily believe that all non-Christians will go to Hell. I believe Orthodoxy works the same way. Some Protestants also see why they ought to reserve judgment...not only is it presumptuous to assume they know all of what God does behind the scenes (and my inclination is that there IS more than what we see, given God's nature is inherently fair and we already have to allow for salvation of those born before the time of Christ), but the attitude it creates in oneself is, shall we say, NOT a fruit of the Spirit.

and there are many Christians who try to teach their values in school, usualy in deceitful ways. (Intelligent Design is, for all intents and purposes, is creationism, and the idea of teaching creationism is just a way of teaching religion in schools, but they've simply changed the names.)

You and I actually agree about what passes itself by the name "Intelligent Design" these days, if you're talking about what the Behe crew is up to. That relies on a distortion of science that ruins a perfectly good theory and embarrasses a perfectly good religion, in my book. Theistic evolution (which some have even called Christian Darwinism) makes much more sense, and under THAT theory, as long as the public schools aren't saying "there is no Creator," then what they teach should NEVER be seen as being at odds with faith.

The atheists that you referred to to that you say forced otehrs to be atheists were wrong. Just as religious poeple who try get others to be religious are wrong as well. The difference is that spreading the religion to others (or trying to "save" them) is part of the mandate of most religions. Christianity is only legitimate because it has billions of followers, and there isn 't a shred of evidence to back up their claims, let allowed peer-reviewed papers that can be read, with experiements that can be reproduced. So yes, religion itself should share the blame, because it is a virus of indoctrinations, in which a thousand year old text is often the substitute for real thinking.

Unfortunately there is a lot of misunderstanding as to how evangelism really ought to be, at least in the Christian faith, due to failure of some people to read what the Bible actually has to say about the subject. The rules of proper conduct are actually quite demanding and if correctly followed, would immediately nix the obnoxious, rude, and coercive behavior. It is one thing to inform and answer questions. It's a whole other thing to threaten, belittle, or coerce. Even being disdainful, snippy, or impatient is specifically forbidden to evangelists...yet people don't pay attention to this very obvious wisdom found right in the Bible.

People bend doctrine to their aims, but they are the ones at fault for doing so and must be held individually responsible (and yes, there may be large numbers in some cases), not all believers. They may claim the name of God, but they are in fact NOT approved or sanctioned for what they are doing. (In fact, I consider such actions--perverting Scripture or religion for one's own aims--to be the real meaning of blasphemy, not just being rude or derisive towards the faith, though that too is not a good act. To claim the name of God for one's own hateful acts is the ultimate slander, in my opinion.)

Blasphemy and heresy are like treason -- their meaning depends entirely on who holds the power.

I actually said that quote, not FSM.

And what you say there is the reason why laws of the state do not define blasphemy and heresy--given their nature, official state penalties should not be in play. Churches should have the right to define these and if they see fit, to eject people from their membership, but that is the only justifiable response in this day and age.

 

[lawman]

Much of this discussion seems to have degenerated (predictably) into "people did X in the name of religion/people did Y in the name of atheism," as if that had any relevance whatsoever to what's worth believing. That's all cultural politics, nothing more nor less. What's worth believing is what can be shown to be true.

GR seemed to think that Religion was primitive and irrational and not compatible with the rational and advanced future society he envisioned. It's his playground and he wasn't obligated to present an opposing view.

I'm inclined to agree with him: religion is primitive and irrational and not necessarily compatible with an advanced future society. There's a reason why, even in our (far from "rational and advanced") modern world, religion has become an option for people, rather than an intrinsic (and usually mandated) part of how we understand the world.

However, be that as it may, that doesn't necessarily mean that showing culture to have "evolved" beyond religion is a recipe for good drama (or is realistic, for that matter). The fact is, people are often primitive and irrational. IMHO, somewhere between TOS and TNG, Roddenberry forgot that and tried to turn his characters (and Starfleet) into plaster saints (pardon the ironic metaphor). Some of his successors have perhaps pulled too far back in the opposite direction, but I think there's a balance to be struck: one can imagine an idealized, optimistic future that's rational, advanced, and still interesting.

Sticking strictly on topic: everyone, of course, has a right to believe whatever he or she wishes. That's not equivalent, however, to saying one has a reason to believe that thing.

 

[maneth]

Indeed. But the point is, a church can only judge the conduct of its members, not the general public who may disagree with its doctrines and definitions of blasphemy. That's not to say that the state should ignore hate crimes, like burning churches and synagogues or smearing graffiti on mosques.

I haven't found Trek very anti-religion, it's more like Trek tends to ignore religions, at least human religions. Bajoran faith plays quite a big part in DS9, and Klingon beliefs, particularly those concerning death, do show up in almost every show where Klingons appear.

 

[iguana_tonante]

In reality, there were quite a few countries where, until just a couple of decades ago, the chances of being given any kind of public office, political or managerial position unless you were an atheist (or pretended to be one) were literally nil. Not to mention more severe violence in certain periods of time, and at least one country (Enver Hoxha's Albania) where religion was officially banned. So it's not like people have never been persecuted in the name of atheism.

Of course, but the point is that those countries were dictatorial police state, where thought crime were . They were no better than middle-ages kingdoms. I don't hold modern Christians responsible for Crusades, nor I hold contemporary atheist responsible for pogroms. But discrimination against atheists happens here, now, in modern and freedom-loving America. Yet some people whine about Picard commenting that in his opinion religion is a wee bit silly.

Well, I think both sides have very legitimate greviences.

Nobody deny that. My point was the comparison between the vague and often disregarded irreligious tendencies of Star Trek (which were actually spelled out only during the first seasons of TNG) and the large corpus of entertainment that holds religion to be the one and true way. So the complaints sound kinda silly to me.

 

[Deckerd]

But discrimination against atheists happens here, now, in modern and freedom-loving America. Yet some people whine about Picard commenting that in his opinion religion is a wee bit silly.

Well said. It's hardly surprising though, is it? If the zeitgeist of the beginning of this millennium is that anyone in the USA who professes not to believe is practically branded unAmerican, then that tendency will be reflected here too, won't it?

 

[Wicca who Wonta]

I'm not a religious person and, as some people who has posted before me, I think that some religious people perform terrible acts in the name of god. But, then again, that is true for anyone who gets too extreme in their beliefs - no matter if it's because of religion or something else they dedicate their lives to.

But speaking of religion and Trek, I agree that Trek generally treats religion as something that usually, can be explained by science. But DS9 brought up religion in a way that actually made me respect religion more than I did previously. Religion was an important part of the storyline throughout the years. And the VOY episode Sacred Ground also brought up religion in a nice way. Even Janeway started to question the science in what she had been through in that episode. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they did see religion as something backwards, but sometimes they'd throw something in the mix that put in some reasonable doubt. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[DevilEyes]

My point was the comparison between the vague and often disregarded irreligious tendencies of Star Trek (which were actually spelled out only during the first seasons of TNG) and the large corpus of entertainment that holds religion to be the one and true way. So the complaints sound kinda silly to me.

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. It's not silly at all, IMO, to say that, you know, the entertainment that holds the religion as the one and true way and attempts to push that belief onto the reader/viewer tends to suck... and that entertainment that states that religion is 100% wrong and tries to push that onto the reader/viewer tends to suck, too. If people want to state their views like that, they can always write a non-fictional book, an essay, a letter to the magazine, a blog, whatever. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with people inserting their beliefs and views in their fictional work, as long as this is done in a subtle, intelligent way that doesn't hurt the artistic value of the work. But when people make the fictional work all about their views and the best way to push it onto the reader/viewer, while completely ignoring the legitimacy of any other point of view, the work ends up one-sided, didactic and preachy.

And ironically, preachy is a word very often associated with TNG, because of the episodes like Who Watches the Watchers.

 

[Deckerd]

Oh no, someone's going to drag out that awful 'm' word into it now.

 

[Infinitus]

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.

If Roddenberry did that in TOS, he probably make God look like Zordon from Power Rangers.

Also, I think Q is actually Loki, Norse God of Mischief.

 

[lawman]

But speaking of religion and Trek, I agree that Trek generally treats religion as something that usually, can be explained by science. But DS9 brought up religion in a way that actually made me respect religion more than I did previously. Religion was an important part of the storyline throughout the years. And the VOY episode Sacred Ground also brought up religion in a nice way. Even Janeway started to question the science in what she had been through in that episode. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they did see religion as something backwards, but sometimes they'd throw something in the mix that put in some reasonable doubt....

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... It just stats that it might be a possibility that there are beings that exist beyond our understanding.

No, see, this is all wrong. Frankly, this kind of wishy-washy "spiritual" story (an all-too-common approach in some media) really bugs me.

There's nothing wrong with showing that faith can be a psychologically important influence in people's lives. We can observe that in the world. That's quite a different matter, though, from suggesting there's credibility to the truth claims of supernatural beliefs. Trying to throw "reasonable doubt" on a naturalistic universe or suggesting that some things are just "beyond our understanding"... that's just fundamentally at odds with the humanistic, scientific sensibility that has characterized Star Trek from the start, and a great deal of other SF as well.

Arthur Conan Doyle became a big believer in "spiritualism" and life-after-death in his later years. He knew better, however, than ever to insert that sort of thing into his stories about the rigorously empirical Sherlock Holmes.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I think what I would rather have seen would be--if you were going to show him having a near-death experience--for it to be accepted with equanimity...i.e. people NOT making a big fuss out of it. Let him come to his conclusion peacefully.

At least for myself, as a person of faith, I do not see my faith as putting the brakes on my need to understand. I will always keep pushing to understand more and more, even though my nature means I can't understand everything now. Some things I'll understand now, others in the next life, but how will I truly know which is which unless I am relentless in trying to improve my understanding? In a lot of ways, I think this draws upon what is best in the scientific...even "humanist"...way of thinking, but without forgoing the idea that there IS always more out there, something beyond us, and that there is purpose and there is objective right and wrong.

If I had to pick a motto for this philosophy, it would be C.S. Lewis' description of the afterlife in The Last Battle: "Further up and further in!" That's actually my perspective as a Christian on getting to know this world, too...there's always more to explore.

If you approach things that way, it really isn't at odds at all with the scientific philosophy. For me, what I see in this world, what we find from a material/empirical standpoint only reinforces my faith, rather than destroying it. Science can reveal those things that my senses perceive. But it is my spirit that perceives the beauty and the meaning that science cannot in and of itself dictate. Science refines our perceptions of the world, and shows us the possibilities of what we can do in our time here. Science does not speak to meaning and purpose, or to ethics/morals, and cannot by its very nature. That, to my mind, is for the spiritual.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

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.