There is a huge difference between interpreting a work of art and actively disregarding part of that work of art in order to make it fit into your preconceived notions of what it ought to be. You're not interpreting Hamlet if you decide to disregard Act III, you're altering it. You're not interpreting Star Trek if you decided to disregard Enterprise, you're changing it to fit your preconceived notions of what Star Trek ought to be.
Enterprise is not the Third Act. It's not art.
Yes, it is. It may not be
good art, but it is art. Any fictional one-hour television drama is art, whether or not it is good.
It's not Star Trek. But that's another debate entirely.
No, that's not a matter for debate at all. It is factually inaccurate to say that ENT is not
Star Trek; it is.
Star Trek is a work of art owned by CBS, not by you or me, and if CBS says that a television series is part of
Star Trek, then it's part of
Star Trek, period. CBS says ENT is part of the
Star Trek canon; ergo, it is part of the
Star Trek canon. This is an indisputable fact.
This is circular logic. You're beginning with the presumption that Humans are predominantly Secular Humanists, someone else is pointing out evidence that most probably contradicts that a priori assumption, and instead of adjusting your assumption to fit the evidence, you are appealing again to the a priori assumption. It's the equivalent of saying that there is a God, someone else saying that if there's a God how come the Bible has errors, and then saying that there can't be any errors in the Bible because God wrote it.
Of course that is my assumption.
It's an
a priori assumption that you are defending from counter-argumentation by appealing to its own authority. It is, again, the equivalent of saying that the Bible is the Word of God, and then denying that there could possibly be any errors in it because it is the Word of God.
You were saying that McCoy could tell the difference between teachings and failing to live up to said teachings. I am saying that it is inaccurate to claim Christian teachings are "nothing but love and brotherhood." Very inaccurate.
Except that's not what you said. THIS is what you said:
-"Bread and Circuses" seems to be the odd one out when it comes to religion. That line does make McCoy sound like an unflinching Christian without regard to the bloodshed done by the so called believers of love and brotherhood.
You never addressed whether or not it is accurate to describe Christian theology as "nothing but love and brotherhood," you addressed a perceived contradiction between being a Christian and recognizing human rights violations committed by Christians historically.
That is an inaccurate claim. It would be more accurate to say that the Star Trek canon has presented seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence about the role of religion in the future as a result of the creative motives of the various creators, particularly Gene Roddenberry, changing over the periods of time in which canonical installments were produced.
Okay. My claim about secular humanism being the dominate belief in the Federation is a personal one as much as it is tied to what is shown in canon. It is never definitively shown in canon what the majority of Federation's opinion on religion is, or even on just Earth, and numerous sources offering conflicting evidence. So, you can create multiple interpretations and use various rationalizations to explain away the contradictory evidence. That is what I have done.
No, you're just twisting canonical evidence to fit your preconceived preferences. There's a big difference between that and actually interpreting the canon based upon the entire body of work and all of the in-universe facts established therein. It is, again, the equivalent of disregarding Act III in interpreting
Hamlet.
Perhaps what you're claiming is irrational, such as love of a single person over many others, is not as irrational as you claim?
It's not irrational to love someone -- but it's irrational to love any
particular person above all others, because any given person is bound to have hundreds of other people who are just as awesome as they are.
I think Data is an excellent character, for showing how a being that runs on pure logic can still create attachments to his friends the way us irrational humans do.
Except that Data doesn't really run on pure logic. In fact, he engages in emotional behavior all the time -- it's just that his emotions are far more subdued and seem to operate on a different cause/effect basis than Human emotions.
Perhaps the personal relationships we have with one another are only irrational if it could be possible to carry out desired relationships with every human on the planet in a single lifetime.
No need for that. In a single lifetime, the vast majority of people meet multiple persons to whom they are romantically attracted and with whom they so bond. Sometimes those relationships survive and they call it "True Love" and say it was "destined;" sometimes they don't survive, but then they go and repeat the process with another person. But the choice of any
particular person is inherently arbitrary. There will always be someone else out there with similar or equivalent combinations of traits as which make someone lovable.
But that doesn't matter, because rationality is not the highest virtue, and irrationality is not inherently bad. Love doesn't need a rational justification.
In any event, there is nothing bigoted about what I said. There is nothing bigoted about saying "atheism is bad."
Yes, there is, and yes, there is. Atheism is
not bad -- and neither is Theism. It's what you do with them that matters.
And, hell, you're the one who earlier in this thread suggested that planets with too many Theists should be denied Federation Membership. So you have advocated, fictitiously if not in real life, discrimination against those whose beliefs you disagree with.
In fact, I welcome anyone to say that, because it can spark some very interesting debates. Now, if you say "All atheists are evil," that is bigoted and obviously untrue. However, I neither believe nor have ever said any such statement about people of religious faith.
That's the equivalent of a Christian saying he doesn't hate gay people, just homosexuality. You're trying to separate someone from their belief systems, and that's just not possible. Condemnation of Christianity is condemnation of Christians. Condemnation of Judaism is condemnation of Jews. Condemnation of Atheism is condemnation of Atheists.
Who said forcing anyone else belief's on others?
Aside from the suggestion that, fictitiously, planets with too many believers should be denied Federation Membership, no one. I was bringing it up as an example of when religion or philosophy or ideology goes wrong, not as an example of something being done.
As for Enterprise series, sorry for those who like it but I don't. Enterprise, IMO, is too far removed from the Star Trek I like and not part of a grand story or part of the same universe.
You have every right to dislike ENT. In my opinion, it was a mediocre series up until its final season. But that doesn't change the fact that it
is part of
Star Trek and it
is part of the Star Trek Universe. Disregarding ENT because you don't like it is like disregarding an entire act of a play.
Or maybe their are little green men's bodies locked up somewhere in classified and secure location. J/K
)
