Going back to the episode, are oyu implying that you would have thought Picard's speech would have worked if some other character presented the opposidte point of view? That's asinine.
Trek's View of Religion
- Thread starter Infinitus
- Start date
- Status
I'm with Gene on this one
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will--and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will--and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."
I don't think she's saying they don't have the right to say what they want. What she IS saying is that we the viewers have the right to call it out if we don't like it. Free speech cuts both ways.
As to Picard's speech, ALL that should have been changed was to make it more situation-specific. Focus it on the Federation accidentally overriding the Mintakans' own choice WITHOUT bringing in some idea that for ANY race "evolving past" religion is the optimal state.
I disagree. That would have, as Herbert Rossut ("FAr Beyong the Stars" DS9) gutted the story. Plus, I'm glad the writers actually made a a real claim as to what humanity was really like in the future.
If religious speech is "banned" or "heavily discouraged", then supression is indeed what is going on.
What would you call such actions?
Not my point.
Indeed. I'm not saying religious speech should be banned, just that those who don't want to hear it don't have to. I would love to be able to put a sign on my door saying "no religious proselytizing" to then be able to open the door to the next Jehovah's witness or LDS who knocks on my door with my cellphone in my hand saying "I'm calling the cops on you if you don't quit knocking on my door," and that they'd get arrested and convicted for disturbing the peace, even if they did nothing more than knock on the door and said they represented such and such a church. That's not to say that they wouldn't be allowed to build temples for interested parties to visit, but that active recruitment would be frowned on.
I'm on all no-call lists I can think of, my cellphone number's ex-directory, there's a notice on my mailbox "no unsolicited advertising", so why shouldn't I be able to stop the religious folks from invading my privacy by knocking on my door. Usually I don't answer the door if someone knocks without calling first, but that's not the point.
I'm on all no-call lists I can think of, my cellphone number's ex-directory, there's a notice on my mailbox "no unsolicited advertising", so why shouldn't I be able to stop the religious folks from invading my privacy by knocking on my door. Usually I don't answer the door if someone knocks without calling first, but that's not the point.
Agreed. And I would add, a version of the 20th century that exist only in their head.
Why do you suppose religious speech was banned? Based on what evidences?
Oh, I understand: since most people did not express religious or spiritual views all the time, it must be because it is banned. No way it could be the normal state of a society, it must be tyranny and oppression!
As long as we get rid of the Televangelists by then. You know, the ones that are on TV at 2:45 AM standing there, looking at you saying "Send money to the starving pigmies of new ginnue" when he's really thinking "send me money so I can buy a new Bugatti Veyron."
I'm not saying all of them are like that, but some of them seem like it.
And beyond that, everyone is welcome to believe what they will. I'll even discuss it with them because I like learning what people believe, and why they believe it.
I'm not saying all of them are like that, but some of them seem like it.
And beyond that, everyone is welcome to believe what they will. I'll even discuss it with them because I like learning what people believe, and why they believe it.
I wish GR had elucidated more on this - maybe he did. It's basically a fancy way of saying "religion is dumb", and for someone so concerned with reason and brain function, I'd have hoped there would be some more thought behind it.
Was GR a genius? Are atheists geniuses then?
I would think it would take something less than a genius to see a difference between those aspects of religions that are what he condemns (and rightly so), and other, positive aspects of religions - the personal journeys that are all about the exploration of our lives, and why we are here.
DS9, post-GR, is a good example (as others have noted in the thread, good posts from you all btw) of showing religion as more a double-edged sword.
But GR, circa this quote, couldn't do that. Maybe he was stewing the pot for his own egotistic reasons, but I don't think he was speaking from a position of genius, if there is such a thing.
Religous, scientific, philosophical - it all overlaps. Pitting them against each other is endless fail. Maybe we need them all.
Considering what a large part of the world's population considers itself religious... if such a huge percentage of the human race has a malfunctioning brain, according to GR, there's no freaking way that this human race could ever evolve on its own in just 400 years into such a perfect, intelligent, rational population that they're supposed to be in the 24th century Trek world, according to GR. It's biologically impossible without extensive, mass-scale genetic engineering.
Which means that GR's philosophy as presented here can't be logically sustained.
^This.
Picard's speech is a condemnation of them abandoning the scientific method in favour of irrational superstition. It is not a condemnation of them having any spiritual beliefs at all.
Considering what a large part of the world's population considers itself religious... if such a huge percentage of the human race has a malfunctioning brain, according to GR, there's no freaking way that this human race could ever evolve on its own in just 400 years into such a perfect, intelligent, rational population that they're supposed to be in the 24th century Trek world, according to GR. It's biologically impossible without extensive, mass-scale genetic engineering.
Which means that GR's philosophy as presented here can't be logically sustained.
That assumes that by 'malfunctioning brain' GR was referring to a physical, biological problem. It could be he meant a psychological or philosophical one. In that case education and an understanding of critical thinking techniques could do the trick.
Wouldn't a simple "Private Property--No Trespassing" sign cover ANY visitors you don't give permission to come on your property?
And I completely agree on DS9--it was very realistic when it came to religion, as you got to see the full spectrum of believers, both good and bad. Which is MUCH truer to real life.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
The time when we get rid of our superstitions couldn't come fast enough, that's what I believe. It only leads to bigotry, death, pain, wars and destruction.
The faster it's gone, the better off we'll be.
And it's one of the WORST episodes EVER, exactly because of this.
Romans were tolerant, they didn't care which gods you worshiped, as long as you didn't constantly disavow their own gods, and spend your time undermining them, and occasionally threw a coin in the Roman god's temples' sacrifice booth. They did not spend their time hunting down those who believed in this god or that god, or had those spiritual beliefs or these, or knew medicinal uses for certain plants and then burned you alive once they found you.
Followers of the "son" did and will. Followers of the "son" are intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise.
Further, the disdain the idiotic Enterprise crew show those who believe in the "sun", until they figure out it's the "son" is just nuts. If you have to believe in something, believing in something you can actually see with your very own and point at, is a whole hell of a lot more rational and not primitive, than believing in some imaginary figure some guy once sucked out of his thumb. Add to that, that the sun actually IS the source of all life on a planet, and life lives and dies (even the planet completely) entirely dependent on the sun, if one thing comes close to being as a god, the sun is it.
Deriding one religion over another is utterly stupid. But to promote the intolerant, murdering, persecuting one that believes in an imaginary being as great, while the people who believe in something they can see with their very own eyes as primitive and irrational, is just sick.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, your own post demonstrates just as much ignorance and intolerance as you ascribe to Christianity and exemplifies the sort of attitude that, if one is not careful, can lead to the exact same sorts of atrocities in the name of atheism. Note that this does NOT mean I believe you personally would run a gulag. It means that those who do could potentially use the same line of reasoning. Yet you wouldn't be pleased if I painted all atheists with the same brush, would you?
Those who committed atrocities of that sort "in the name of God" are, as I have stated earlier in this thread, the worst sort of blasphemers in word and action. People will use ANY excuse they can get hold of to excuse their own selfish actions--and unfortunately, some people choose religion because they believe it protects their actions from scrutiny. But just because they used it as their excuse does not mean that the faith is inherently evil--only that it has had some really frakked-up followers. I make zero excuses for Christians who think they can be unkind, intolerant, or cruel "in God's name." They have no right to do it. But you, conversely, have no justification for engaging in broadbrushing and discrimination in the opposite direction.
Just as there have been some really frakked-up atheists--and I can name any number of regimes operating under atheistic philosophies that committed horrible atrocities.
Your picture of the Roman Empire is also far more idyllic than reality. You are speaking of a state where those who followed a different religion still did not have the same rights as others--no free speech, no freedom on where to spend their money, and harsh penalties if they disobeyed. They were second-class citizens. But if they refused to pay for a religion they did not support, they were indeed persecuted. How would you feel if an atheist was forced to contribute to a religious organization and then killed for non-compliance? When this has happened in history, you rightly object and condemn those who carried out those acts. Yet you present Christians' being in the same situation as this paradisical situation because you happen not to agree with Christianity. That is hypocritical, I'm afraid.
Those who committed atrocities of that sort "in the name of God" are, as I have stated earlier in this thread, the worst sort of blasphemers in word and action. People will use ANY excuse they can get hold of to excuse their own selfish actions--and unfortunately, some people choose religion because they believe it protects their actions from scrutiny. But just because they used it as their excuse does not mean that the faith is inherently evil--only that it has had some really frakked-up followers. I make zero excuses for Christians who think they can be unkind, intolerant, or cruel "in God's name." They have no right to do it. But you, conversely, have no justification for engaging in broadbrushing and discrimination in the opposite direction.
Just as there have been some really frakked-up atheists--and I can name any number of regimes operating under atheistic philosophies that committed horrible atrocities.
Your picture of the Roman Empire is also far more idyllic than reality. You are speaking of a state where those who followed a different religion still did not have the same rights as others--no free speech, no freedom on where to spend their money, and harsh penalties if they disobeyed. They were second-class citizens. But if they refused to pay for a religion they did not support, they were indeed persecuted. How would you feel if an atheist was forced to contribute to a religious organization and then killed for non-compliance? When this has happened in history, you rightly object and condemn those who carried out those acts. Yet you present Christians' being in the same situation as this paradisical situation because you happen not to agree with Christianity. That is hypocritical, I'm afraid.
anyone can believe what they wish to believe, but the point where I personally draw the line is when people try to force their beliefs on others. And this goes for religious and non-religious folks alike.
And saying the romans didn't persecute people who didn't in their gods? Go read your history books. They did plenty of that and most often it was people who didn't believe the Emperor was a god. Like most old world rulers, the romans believed the Emperor was a man and a god of men. Many of the other cultures they had conquered didn't want to believe that.
Now comes Christianity, which at that time period was considered by the majority to be a cult (No offense towards anyone, but I've always viewed this bit of info a bit ironic considering how society kind of looks down on "cults" today) saying that No, he's not a god. he's just a man. There's only one god, and all your's suck. Paraphrased of course, but you get the idea.
Of course, then the roman empire falls many years later, christianity becomes a more dominate religion, and then they do the same thing in saying you have to believe us, or suffer the consequences. Now we've got the holy crusades, the inquisitions, etc.
It has gone both ways for almost the entirety of history, and why? Because any group that says "I'm right, your wrong" is going to eventually want to get rid of those who say the opposite. Either through more horrifying means (ethnic cleansing, the afore mentioned crusades and inquisitions) or more modern and socially accepted means (Discrediting, misinformation, etc)
Faith is one thing. You can have faith that we're all here for a reason, you can have faith that someone is watching over you. But once you throw in a structure (be it religion, science, politics, whatever) and people argue, disagree, but heads, and history repeats.
And saying the romans didn't persecute people who didn't in their gods? Go read your history books. They did plenty of that and most often it was people who didn't believe the Emperor was a god. Like most old world rulers, the romans believed the Emperor was a man and a god of men. Many of the other cultures they had conquered didn't want to believe that.
Now comes Christianity, which at that time period was considered by the majority to be a cult (No offense towards anyone, but I've always viewed this bit of info a bit ironic considering how society kind of looks down on "cults" today) saying that No, he's not a god. he's just a man. There's only one god, and all your's suck. Paraphrased of course, but you get the idea.
Of course, then the roman empire falls many years later, christianity becomes a more dominate religion, and then they do the same thing in saying you have to believe us, or suffer the consequences. Now we've got the holy crusades, the inquisitions, etc.
It has gone both ways for almost the entirety of history, and why? Because any group that says "I'm right, your wrong" is going to eventually want to get rid of those who say the opposite. Either through more horrifying means (ethnic cleansing, the afore mentioned crusades and inquisitions) or more modern and socially accepted means (Discrediting, misinformation, etc)
Faith is one thing. You can have faith that we're all here for a reason, you can have faith that someone is watching over you. But once you throw in a structure (be it religion, science, politics, whatever) and people argue, disagree, but heads, and history repeats.
Well, it didn't exactly happen that way. What happened was that the Roman Empire persecuted Christians for the first 3 centuries, until Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan and proclaimed religious toleration, making Christianity legal; several decades later, Theodosius made it the official state religion, and it remained so in the Western Roman Empire until its fall, and in the Eastern Roman Empire aka Byzantium for another thousand years, until its own fall under the Ottomans. Christianity went from the great internal threat to the cornerstone of the state, and, later, of a religious organization that was even more powerful than kings and emperors during the early Middle Ages. From an extremely subversive and, one may say, revolutionary religious movement that early Christianity was (aimed against the rich, the Roman authorities and the Jewish religious establishment, and in favor of the poor and the outcasts) it turned into a dominant, official religion and the source of power and authority - and increasingly, of intolerance and persecution. The same process can be observed with pretty much every subversive movement, whether religious or ideological, after it gains wide acceptance (say, communism - the parallels can be astounding).
Of course, that doesn't mean that Christianity would not still be subversive in the centuries to come - but that time, it was in the shape of various heretical movements during the Middle Ages and later Protestant movement, against the official church(es).
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Nope, not at all. Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong, shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't have the right to do things, and generally should be punished with eternal torture or torment.
And with nutcases ANY line, thought, idea or "attitude" can lead to atrocities, especially if one is not careful. That's hardly a reason one cannot speak the truth about things.
Trying to shove in shoes and words that I paint theists with the same brush. Well, I suppose I do, if claiming each healthy member of the human race has two arms, two legs, a torso and head. The truth his the truths. Theists believe in (a) god(s), it's rather the whole point.
Except for that annoying fact that according to the religion, its leaders and the holy books purporting all that is good tells you those things are exactly what you need to do to be a good, Christian, Muslim or Jew.
And I performed no broad brushing, nor discrimination. If you believe in something doesn't exist, your superstitious. God is something that doesn't exist, you believe in it, your superstitious. You can jump high and low all you want, disagree with it all you want, but it's the cold hard truth.
The difference is that:
a. those philosophies aren't atheism. That's like claiming Muslims are Christians because the same god is behind it. Claiming atheism is to blame for those philosophies is incorrect.
b. unlike atheism, who has absolutely nothing to it but "there is no god", virtually every religion, and especially the one-god religions all have texts in their official canon that tells you how to live, that tells you those who do not believe like you do are evil and should be murdered and killed. Even "peace-loving" Christ has a parable where he tells everyone to kill all those who don't believe in him.
Result being, that those who committed atrocities claiming atheism, have absolutely nothing backing them up and sucked their reasons out of their thumb. Those who committed atrocities in the name of religions though, have the books to back up their decisions, which means it is a whole hell of lot easier for good non-nutcase people to be taught atrocities is the right way to go.
Sorry, no.
1. The times were different, totally different. Judging it by our standards and then saying it's wanting is easy. Yes, it was wanting, yes it was bad, but it doesn't matter. In comparison to most other cultures and empires at the time, they were positively sweet, nice, and tolerant.
2. Christianity was still far worse than the Roman Empire ever was. Because they tolerated NOTHING. They did not compromise at all. You're either a Christian, or you get tortured until you die or you convert. Hell, even if you are a Christian and you did something some priest didn't like you got tortured until you die. This is infinitely worse than the Romans who never attempted to torture you for believing in whatever god you believed in.
3. These two are facts. The Roman Empire was bad but much better, much, much better than Christianity which was far worse. There's nothing hypocritical about pointing out truths.
And I'm the one who doesn't read my history books.
Seriously, the crusades were never about making people believe as they did. Islam conquered Israel, and church didn't care. Islam conquered more lands, and even stood at the gates of Vienna, and still Europe did not retaliate. But when Muslims started slaughtering pilgrims to Jerusalem, that's when they said, this far and no further.
And when the Muslims learned their lesson and stopped killing pilgrims, the crusades stopped as well.
- Status
