What Do You Think Really Happen with Religions in ST?

[Nightdiamond]

Flying Spaghetti Monster:

What I am saying is that there is no real tangible, demonstrable benefit of religion that requires religion. Sure, religions can help the homeless, but so can secular organizations. And if you say that religions can promise an eternity in heaven, well i know a few used car salesmen that can make promises too, but that doesnt mean that there is any truth to it.

This is exactly what Trek is saying.

The story goes that humans went through a number of wars including nuclear war that destroyed millions of lives.

Then they eliminated poverty, disease, bigotry, etc. all with either technology, science or rational thinking.

No religion or god concept played a part whatsoever.

Heck, earth is even referred to as "paradise"-you can bet it was because of technology and moral and rationalistic thinking-at far as Trek is concerned.

If you look at from that point of view, then 24th century humans have very little reason to be religious-but just from that point of view.

 

[sonak]

You sometimes hear "most wars were religious," which doesn't stand up to examination, using numbers coming from The Dictionary Of Wars (G. C. Kohn), of the the 1,700 plus wars listed, only seven percent of them are religious wars.

Certainly the various non-religious secular wars have killed far more people. Prior to the twentieth century the estimate for all war related death in Human history is 40,400,000. The figure for "just" the twentieth century is 169,200,000, the bulk of whom died in secular wars.

I dunno. The European aspect of World War II was by turns a religious war by any other name, with its principal antagonist pursuing a rather millenarian goal. Nazism and Communism really blur the lines between a secular ideology and a religious faith, however materialist.

I also wonder if it does not count as religious the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, which had more than a tint of religiosity to them; it's impossible not to consider the police action in the Vendee or the guerilla combat in Spain without considering their inhabitants' Catholicism.

In any event, does the sample include wars from before the rise of Christianity? The study is better made if one excludes from the sample wars which took place prior to any of the major exclusivist, proselytic religions actually existed. Judaism is pretty much the only religion fighting holy wars in antiquity, of which I am aware.

I think you're defining religion far too broadly to include Nazism and Communism under its tent.


Religion doesn't mean "any sufficiently extreme ideology that has dedicated followers."

Communism doesn't "blur" any lines. Orthodox Marxism is militantly atheist, the fact that it declares Communism will be inevitably triumphant through historical, materialist processes makes it no more of a religion than any random dictator who portrayed his or her successes as "inevitable."

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Everyone saw Star Trek V. That's enough to put anyone off God for good.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

At least, it is the route of 24th century atheism: they know there is no God, because Spock shot and killed him.

 

[Paradon]

Don't Vulcans feel emotions, but it's like standing back and observing them, or something...? So, do they have a sort of religion, or maybe they're too smart, or super-human smart, and don't need anything to cheer them up. I mean those Vulcans are tough, man! Have you seen Tuvok on "Voy" when his blood boiled, and he recovered like it was minor scratches! [chuckle] I guess, all they need is logic, and they're happy! [laugh] So, they're like...super-logical...?

 

[T'Girl]

Currently most people, as a percentage of the Human population, have a religion, faith or a form of spirituality that provides focus, meaning, direction and comfort in their lives. Gene Roddenberry's utopian paradise would seem to be incompatible with religious suppression in any form. Even in the form of subtle discouragements, like "leave it in your quarters." Just as there is a nice "secular" place to meet like ten forward aboard the Enterprise Dee, likely there are places for the crew and visitors to meet in worship, either in a dedicated chapel somewhere in the Enterprise Dee's vast interior or on a holodeck.

When Riker instructed Ensign Ro to remove her earpiece, I wonder if he was unaware that it was a Bajorian religious symbol? The more knowledgeable Picard never actual told her not to wear it, and didn't object when she replaces it in his presence

Many of the Starfleet characters seem like secular humanists

Actual Star Trek was pretty noncommittal on the subject one way or the other in most episodes. Many starfleet characters never let us know where they stood one way or the other. You can't say with certainty they were secular, nor I faith. And not all humanists are secular humanists.

and there has been no positive benefit of religion that could not also have been achieved through secular means

This is really conjecture on your part, you have no way of knowing how the history of Humanity would have played out if our ancestors had been purely secular, any more than I could know what would have happen if there had been no secular aspects at all in human events. I can accept that it was a blending.

Likely the opposite of that statement would be true.

please explain what you mean.

...and there has been no positive benefit of secular(ism) that could not also have been achieved through religious means.

What I mean is that your statement can be made to work both ways by simply exchanging two words. For example, if I say that religion helps form community, you might say that a secular group could do the same.

If you were to get there first and say that a secular group helps form community, I might say that a religious group could do the same.

Both statements are true. (oh, and most places of worship are community centers.)

What I am saying is that there is no real tangible, demonstrable benefit of religion that requires religion.

Okay Flying Spaghetti Monster, now reverse it. Name a few benefits of secularism that simply won't work if the individuals involved were religious. How many secular advances to Humanity in general, require pure secularism?

And yes, I'm blatantly throwing your own words back at you.

------

For every crusade and Spanish inquisition any of you can name, I can point out a secular massacre and Stalin purge. For every Iranian imposed sharia law from you, there's a Chinese religious suppression from me. Just because a man or group sought territory or wealth and had a religious symbol on their wall or on their armor, doesn't mean you can blame religion, or lay their actions at the feet of God.

.

 

[Paradon]

I think too much of anything is bad, or nasty, just like putting too much cream on a cake.... It's nasty! That's over-indulging.... Having religion isn't bad.... You just need to find the right balanced, and sometime being grounded on reality isn't too bad either. You just need to find the right balance.

Although...some people like more cream than others! [laugh]

 

[Captain Verata]

Actual Star Trek was pretty noncommittal on the subject one way or the other in most episodes. Many starfleet characters never let us know where they stood one way or the other. You can't say with certainty they were secular, nor I faith. And not all humanists are secular humanists.

Well, I agree with Mr. Roddenberry's belief that the people of the future will be secular humanist by the natural erosion of supernatural beliefs by the expansion of knowledge and reason. I know it couldn't have been made more obvious because it would have turned off religious viewers(rating killer) but he did consciously left out religion for the most part and if there was something about religion, it was carefully crafted to bash it or destroy it or to discredit somehow(but it was ok as it about an alien, false prophet, computer,etc). I personally see a bunch of secular humanists as the heros on Star Trek. I know it is left vague enought for all to enjoy.

I actually call myself a secular humanist thanks to Star Trek. I knew I was always an atheist but I just knew the term just lacked the depth of my views. Then one day when I was teenager when I was looking up Star Trek stuff I stumbled across information about Gene Roddenberry. It said something about humanism and that sounded interesting, so I looked it up. From that day on, I knew my beliefs had a name, thanks to Star Trek.

 

[Paradon]

I think the terms atiest, religious, or agnostic are just words use to describe people who don't actually agree with you...using it to divide people. Everybody doubt the existence of God, or supernatural beings. In one excerpt of the Bible it said: in His absent your faith will grow stronger.... That's when humans pray the most when we need him. Some people just like God more than others because it makes them feel good on the inside.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Currently most people, as a percentage of the Human population, have a religion, faith or a form of spirituality that provides focus, meaning, direction and comfort in their lives. Gene Roddenberry's utopian paradise would seem to be incompatible with religious suppression in any form. Even in the form of subtle discouragements, like "leave it in your quarters." Just as there is a nice "secular" place to meet like ten forward aboard the Enterprise Dee, likely there are places for the crew and visitors to meet in worship, either in a dedicated chapel somewhere in the Enterprise Dee's vast interior or on a holodeck.

When Riker instructed Ensign Ro to remove her earpiece, I wonder if he was unaware that it was a Bajorian religious symbol? The more knowledgeable Picard never actual told her not to wear it, and didn't object when she replaces it in his presence

Many of the Starfleet characters seem like secular humanists

Actual Star Trek was pretty noncommittal on the subject one way or the other in most episodes. Many starfleet characters never let us know where they stood one way or the other. You can't say with certainty they were secular, nor I faith. And not all humanists are secular humanists.

and there has been no positive benefit of religion that could not also have been achieved through secular means

This is really conjecture on your part, you have no way of knowing how the history of Humanity would have played out if our ancestors had been purely secular, any more than I could know what would have happen if there had been no secular aspects at all in human events. I can accept that it was a blending.

please explain what you mean.

...and there has been no positive benefit of secular(ism) that could not also have been achieved through religious means.

What I mean is that your statement can be made to work both ways by simply exchanging two words. For example, if I say that religion helps form community, you might say that a secular group could do the same.

If you were to get there first and say that a secular group helps form community, I might say that a religious group could do the same.

Both statements are true. (oh, and most places of worship are community centers.)

What I am saying is that there is no real tangible, demonstrable benefit of religion that requires religion.

Okay Flying Spaghetti Monster, now reverse it. Name a few benefits of secularism that simply won't work if the individuals involved were religious. How many secular advances to Humanity in general, require pure secularism?

And yes, I'm blatantly throwing your own words back at you.

------

For every crusade and Spanish inquisition any of you can name, I can point out a secular massacre and Stalin purge. For every Iranian imposed sharia law from you, there's a Chinese religious suppression from me. Just because a man or group sought territory or wealth and had a religious symbol on their wall or on their armor, doesn't mean you can blame religion, or lay their actions at the feet of God.

.

Throwing the words back at me won't work for a few reasons.

- Secular mentality has allowed us to progress scientifically and has increased our compassion and openness on all fronts. What I'm saying is that much (not all) of the progress we have made in these various areas have occurred in spite of the presence of religion. Things like the studies of the origins of the universe and our species, the understanding of the way the world actually works, as well as our legal system, which keeps us form stoning people or has allowed women to vote just to name a few scant examples that wouldn't be true.

See the thing is, I believe that probably the only way to get a decent person to do bad things is through religion, or some other dogmatic methodology, where that person believes such a system without question. Sure , normally good people do good things and some bad things, bad people to bad things and some good things (Hitler wasn't hurting anyone when he brushed his teeth) but in order to get a genuinely good person to do morally questionable acts, you needs something, like a dogmatic constant, to get them to do it.

You could say, naively, that religion doesn't cause do those things, that it comes out equal, that people do good things in a secular environment, and that they also do good things under religious mandate, but two points. 1) it has been demonstrated that religion is inherently divisive and does cause harm, and 2) even if I were to agree to that for the sake argument, that they were both equal, then the religious baggage is not necessary at all.

 

[Paradon]

Oh, come on.... Everybody killed in the old days and in a primitive culture....like the paleolithic people of the America, but it doesn't mean they are truly evil.... If everybody was doing it and forced you to do it, it isn't as bad...where killing and fighting was a necessity. People can change! And...the Conquistadors had no right to kill the Aztec base on religion by the way IMO. Those were some evil people, the ones that murdered the Aztecs for their gold. If you travel back in time to England and met the ancestors, you wouldn't recognized them.

And, why do people kill...? It's all the same! It's greed! Hitler was a self-important, greedy, little puss...he wanted it all for himself. He just used the Jews and the master race theory as an excuse to go to war in order to conquer the world.

 

[Paradon]

Actual Star Trek was pretty noncommittal on the subject one way or the other in most episodes. Many starfleet characters never let us know where they stood one way or the other. You can't say with certainty they were secular, nor I faith. And not all humanists are secular humanists.

Well, I agree with Mr. Roddenberry's belief that the people of the future will be secular humanist by the natural erosion of supernatural beliefs by the expansion of knowledge and reason. I know it couldn't have been made more obvious because it would have turned off religious viewers(rating killer) but he did consciously left out religion for the most part and if there was something about religion, it was carefully crafted to bash it or destroy it or to discredit somehow(but it was ok as it about an alien, false prophet, computer,etc). I personally see a bunch of secular humanists as the heros on Star Trek. I know it is left vague enought for all to enjoy.

I actually call myself a secular humanist thanks to Star Trek. I knew I was always an atheist but I just knew the term just lacked the depth of my views. Then one day when I was teenager when I was looking up Star Trek stuff I stumbled across information about Gene Roddenberry. It said something about humanism and that sounded interesting, so I looked it up. From that day on, I knew my beliefs had a name, thanks to Star Trek.

NO, war doesn't bring peace and prosperity. Wars weaken a country! Peace is what makes a country prosper. Everything prospers when their is peace...science, literature, and philosophy. It was the Roman dream for peace and democracy that usher in the modern era for humanity. They influence the Saxon culture and the Saxons modernized the whole world. It was the Roman used of military that brought an end to their Republic and later...their empire....

 

[Captain Verata]

Actual Star Trek was pretty noncommittal on the subject one way or the other in most episodes. Many starfleet characters never let us know where they stood one way or the other. You can't say with certainty they were secular, nor I faith. And not all humanists are secular humanists.

Well, I agree with Mr. Roddenberry's belief that the people of the future will be secular humanist by the natural erosion of supernatural beliefs by the expansion of knowledge and reason. I know it couldn't have been made more obvious because it would have turned off religious viewers(rating killer) but he did consciously left out religion for the most part and if there was something about religion, it was carefully crafted to bash it or destroy it or to discredit somehow(but it was ok as it about an alien, false prophet, computer,etc). I personally see a bunch of secular humanists as the heros on Star Trek. I know it is left vague enought for all to enjoy.

I actually call myself a secular humanist thanks to Star Trek. I knew I was always an atheist but I just knew the term just lacked the depth of my views. Then one day when I was teenager when I was looking up Star Trek stuff I stumbled across information about Gene Roddenberry. It said something about humanism and that sounded interesting, so I looked it up. From that day on, I knew my beliefs had a name, thanks to Star Trek.

NO, war doesn't bring peace and prosperity. Wars weaken a country! Peace is what makes a country prosper. Everything prospers when their is peace...science, literature, and philosophy. It was the Roman dream for peace and democracy that usher in the modern era for humanity. They influence the Saxon culture and the Saxons modernized the whole world. It was the Roman used of military that brought an end to their Republic and later...their empire....

What? I didn't say anything about war or peace and most certainly didn't saying war brings peace and prosperity.

 

[Paradon]

I'm sorry! I thought what you meant by heroes is going out and destroying mean-assed aliens. My mistake! Sorry!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

NO, war doesn't bring peace and prosperity. Wars weaken a country! Peace is what makes a country prosper. Everything prospers when their is peace...science, literature, and philosophy. It was the Roman dream for peace and democracy that usher in the modern era for humanity. They influence the Saxon culture and the Saxons modernized the whole world. It was the Roman used of military that brought an end to their Republic and later...their empire....

This is not true. Or, at least, it's far too simplistic. The Romans spread their empire too thinly, and couldn't afford it. Couple that with with lead poisoning and some corrupt leaders and that is why their empire fell.

Should I remind you now how much wars have helped? I mean, look at World War 2. It helped our country immeasurably, putting everyone to work. Our country was producing again, and this prosperity continued long after the war.

You can't make general statements like that.

 

[Paradon]

Needn't I remind you follow after WWII...? The depression because the inflation rate was out of control...was at an all time high.

Right now we are experiencing high inflation rate again because of the war. The government doesn't really have a source of revenue other than taxes. When taxes go up because of war, the producers have to raise the price in order to compensate for the money lost...hence they recession we are currently experiencing now.

Every time they go to war, the Roman people suffer...like starvation...because of taxes. And the grains had to be used for the soldiers. This is true in every culture. The reason Thai food and Muay Thai and Krabi Krabong (which are basically Thai martial arts) are so awesome is because they pride themselves on being a peaceful nation...even back in the ancient time. These people weren't war mongering. Although, they did fought because the situations forced them to do it. The people would literally kill the Kings if they went to war all the time in the name of conquest.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Needn't I remind you follow after WWII...? The depression because the inflation rate was out of control...was at an all time high.

You must be missing a couple of words here. The depression was before the war.

I'm not supporting our actions in an undeclared war in which we are occupying foreign land with out authorization. I am saying that your anti-war mindset is simple at best and deadly at worst.

 

[Paradon]

The point is if they keep taxing us...how are the people supposed to live. How are we supposed to make money? That's what happened all the time. I think it may have been the result of WWI, but how in details...? I'm not sure....

Tsung Su said: "No war ever benefited a nation.... Only weakens it! While your enemies grow stronger, you are getting weaker.... It's dangerous" He said something a long those line, and so did Thomas Jefferson, which probably study him and Roman governement before writing the Constitutions.

 

[T'Girl]

Well, I agree with Mr. Roddenberry's belief that the people of the future will be secular humanist ...

While by observation I think that you could comfortably say that many starfleet and non-starfleet characters are likely humanists, it would seem to go with the general starfleet/federation credo/ethos. There are exceptions, Worf comes to mind.

But it difficult to see where there is an indication that the various humanists are secular humanists. Many among the crews could just as easily be Christian humanists like myself, I've often thought that Chief O'Brien might be a Christian humanist. But as I stated earlier without a character coming right out and stating it, none of us can know where they stood one way or the other.

NO, war doesn't bring peace and prosperity. Wars weaken a country!

War can bring a return of peace, peace that had been taken away by an outside party. War and the ability to fight wars can engender a environment of security where prosperity can exist and grow.

Nothing weaken a country like said country ceasing to exist.

 

[jayrath]

TOS had a ship's chapel, in which Kirk mentioned "our many beliefs." They went on to meet the actual Roman god Apollo, and then visited another planet where Rome never fell, and "son worshippers" were obviously early Christians. Uhura saw what she thought was a ghost (of Kirk) and so apparently believed in an afterlife -- at least for a time. Sargon confesses that his own race thought themselves Gods, and Spock agrees that -- if they visited -- that might explain some Vulcan legends. They also meet a super-race that claimed to have been the gods of Ancient Greece. "The Great Bird of the Galaxy" is on-screen canon, though we don't know what that means (besides being an off-screen joke). Gary Mitchell ends up thinking he's a god, and Trelane's race might as well be. Ditto the Preservers.

TAS encountered a real Mayan/Aztec god and the honest to goodness (badness?) Lucifer.

In the movies we find out that Vulcans have literally imperishable souls -- so long as their "katra" is saved somehow. Apparently humans can store katras (Chapel also saved Spock's, on TOS), and Kirks own was stored in a globe, along with that of the actress who would later play TNG's Dr. Pulaski. So that question is out of the way; humans have souls.

Holy cow, how much more religion do you want? I like to think that the Federation pretty much celebrates IDIC -- believe or not believe, in whatever you want, and let's celebrate difference.

Personally, I worship the creator -- Jackson Roykirk.