Why are so many Trek fans skittish about Trek's secular aproach?

[CaptainHawk1]

First, I never claimed to be atheist (I'm agnostic.) I simply respect them, and figuring agnosticism is considered by christians to be nearly as untrustworthy (between faith and food choices -- I'm vegan -- I'm a minority of a minority of a minority, hated by everyone) as saying 'no god.'

After the typical science/spirituality mindfuck issues, I reached a comfortable ease as far as spirituality in my 20s (my truth is that there isn't one truth but we can define ourselves and act truthfully regardless), and haven't had too many crises with respect to that since. No proseltyzing though. It has for the most part extended to others with the caveat, 'believe what you want, just don't do it aggressively out in the street and frighten the horses.' But my experience of christian fundamentalists (you're quite right that I shouldn't have said republican and american, it was kneejerk of me, I should have specified) is that you become an ongoing target once you're perceived as different, and it is a bellicose response. The idea that this kind of group can sustain a hatred greater than they have for gays staggers me, because you'd figure they couldn't be more extreme than that.

I AM dismissive of a lot of folks who seem to need organized religion as a crutch, but I'm more fearful of the hatred those groups conjure up, against those with different beliefs (including 'none of the above'), because I've seen way too much crap go down with people losing jobs over it as a root cause and not being able to fight it. Shoot, I made the mistake of taking a job managing a bookstore operated by a supposedly secular order in the 90s, and whaddya know, I'm no longer the golden boy when I decline their offers to sit in with the masons. They weren't any more enlightened or progressive than the fundamentalists, but they covered it with a kind of elitism. If that's the kind of message I gave off, I apologize.

Understood, and apology accepted, and I apologize for assuming that you were an atheist but that's how it came off. As far as my own Faith is concerned, I'm Roman Catholic and quite proud of it. OTOH, it's not my responsibility to proselytize anyone. We have missionaries that do that around the world and Catholics (like Jews) feel in general that each individual needs to have their own personal "come to Jesus" moment (well, Jews don't call it that but the sentiment is the same). Yes, they will act as missionaries around the world to help the poor and downtrodden (charity is one of the most fundamental tenets of Catholicism) and in the process preach the Word, but we don't deny anyone help, compassion or love if they don't convert and we generally don't deal in fear (It really doesn't make sense as Christ/God is about love, not punishment and damnation). Catholics are far more concerned with spreading the Word then bringing more people into our flock. The Eternal Word of Christ should be enough without further coaxing from our flawed, mortal humanity.

As far as being agnostic goes, I completely understand being agnostic and I certainly don't begrudge you for it and any Catholic (or Christian) who claims that there's something wrong or damning about being agnostic is being completely disingenuous because every Catholic has been agnostic at some point in their life. It's simply impossible not to question ... we're human. It's a crisis of Faith and there's nothing wrong with it and Christians in general need to understand that simply saying "I don't know" and wanting concrete evidence is part of human nature and isn't sinful. To be honest I'm probably agnostic half a dozen times a day but my Faith wins over my human frailty.

I've also got another advantage in that I've experienced evidence that has confirmed my Faith but that's another story for another day.

I hate to point fingers but your opinions about fundamentalist Christians are understandable and even though I respect their Faith, I don't agree with many of their interpretations of the Word. For Goodness' sake, even the Catholic Church has signed on to the Big Bang Theory and Evolution (as they are both completely compatible with Christianity). I'm getting off-track a bit here, but a lot of their stances do make the rest of us Christians look bad and the myth is that they represent Christianity as whole in the U.S. and they do not. Even in the U.S. Catholics make up the largest group of Christians.

I also agree with you about people who use religion as a crutch. There are some people who do that because they lack any self-worth and those are the people who generally are easily recruited into the more fundamentalist denominations. I saw a post recently and I think was from Apostle where his girlfriend broke up with him over a minor disagreement over a minor interpretation of their fundamentalist doctrine. Now, I'm the first one to say that issues of Faith in the big picture are important in relationships and should be deal-breakers, but not the minutae... that's just foolish and to me that shows a very spiritually immature person who is using religion as a crutch.

As far as Truth is concerned, I disagree with you. There is One Truth but it's completely elusive to human beings simply because we lack the capacity to be able to comprehend it at this stage in our existence.

The last thing I want to leave you with is that often Faith and religion are confused as being the same and they are not. When I was 18, I had a conversation with my father in which I intimated that I was dissatisfied with the dichotomy of the Church on several issues. My father explained to me the problem wasn't the Church, the problem is that the people who run the Church are flawed human beings. The point is that there's nothing wrong with the Faith, it's the idiots running the thing because they are inherently flawed because they're human. He also explained to me that it's up to good people to not abandon the Church, but to work to change the Church for the better so that it can attempt to live up to the ideals of Christ better.

Atheists and agnostics need to cut people of Faith some slack. We're just as flawed as the rest of you and we're just trying to get through it the best we can as well. We're not perfect and we're generally not self-righteous. Unfortunately, and i freely admit this, there is a small minority who look down at you with disdain, but inever see it at the Trekbbs. I certainly don't happen to be one of those people (and the majority of people of Faith aren't either) and with all love in my heart I say that I pray that you and any other agnostics or atheists find in your heart the same peace and knowledge that I and others have found. Either way we wish you nothing but good will.

Now, can we go back to bitching about the Reboot?


-Shawn

 

[CommanderRaytas]

As I have said in other threads "living your life however you want to" and "not encroaching" on the lives of others is very difficult to do.

Or so you'd like to hope. It's true that "no man is an island unto himself", but I doubt that interaction extends to telling someone else who to marry or what to eat or what to wear. What I do within my four walls, so as long as it doesn't effect you physically or emotionally in any shape or form, is none of your business. THAT'S where my problems lie. And that's what's appealing about a secular society.

Do you need to be dogmatic to be a believer? I for one consider myself to be spiritual, but not religious. I believe in God, but not religion.

So if there are hundreds of differing views on spirituality today, why would the future be any different? I doubt it that people who're more enlightened will have the dogma of atheism rammed down their collective throat.

believing does not mean telling other people they have to share your views.

 

[Augustus]

First, I never claimed to be atheist (I'm agnostic.) I simply respect them, and figuring agnosticism is considered by christians to be nearly as untrustworthy (between faith and food choices -- I'm vegan -- I'm a minority of a minority of a minority, hated by everyone) as saying 'no god.'

After the typical science/spirituality mindfuck issues, I reached a comfortable ease as far as spirituality in my 20s (my truth is that there isn't one truth but we can define ourselves and act truthfully regardless), and haven't had too many crises with respect to that since. No proseltyzing though. It has for the most part extended to others with the caveat, 'believe what you want, just don't do it aggressively out in the street and frighten the horses.' But my experience of christian fundamentalists (you're quite right that I shouldn't have said republican and american, it was kneejerk of me, I should have specified) is that you become an ongoing target once you're perceived as different, and it is a bellicose response. The idea that this kind of group can sustain a hatred greater than they have for gays staggers me, because you'd figure they couldn't be more extreme than that.

I AM dismissive of a lot of folks who seem to need organized religion as a crutch, but I'm more fearful of the hatred those groups conjure up, against those with different beliefs (including 'none of the above'), because I've seen way too much crap go down with people losing jobs over it as a root cause and not being able to fight it. Shoot, I made the mistake of taking a job managing a bookstore operated by a supposedly secular order in the 90s, and whaddya know, I'm no longer the golden boy when I decline their offers to sit in with the masons. They weren't any more enlightened or progressive than the fundamentalists, but they covered it with a kind of elitism. If that's the kind of message I gave off, I apologize.

Understood, and apology accepted, and I apologize for assuming that you were an atheist but that's how it came off. As far as my own Faith is concerned, I'm Roman Catholic and quite proud of it. OTOH, it's not my responsibility to proselytize anyone. We have missionaries that do that around the world and Catholics (like Jews) feel in general that each individual needs to have their own personal "come to Jesus" moment (well, Jews don't call it that but the sentiment is the same). Yes, they will act as missionaries around the world to help the poor and downtrodden (charity is one of the most fundamental tenets of Catholicism) and in the process preach the Word, but we don't deny anyone help, compassion or love if they don't convert and we generally don't deal in fear (It really doesn't make sense as Christ/God is about love, not punishment and damnation). Catholics are far more concerned with spreading the Word then bringing more people into our flock. The Eternal Word of Christ should be enough without further coaxing from our flawed, mortal humanity.

As far as being agnostic goes, I completely understand being agnostic and I certainly don't begrudge you for it and any Catholic (or Christian) who claims that there's something wrong or damning about being agnostic is being completely disingenuous because every Catholic has been agnostic at some point in their life. It's simply impossible not to question ... we're human. It's a crisis of Faith and there's nothing wrong with it and Christians in general need to understand that simply saying "I don't know" and wanting concrete evidence is part of human nature and isn't sinful. To be honest I'm probably agnostic half a dozen times a day but my Faith wins over my human frailty.

I've also got another advantage in that I've experienced evidence that has confirmed my Faith but that's another story for another day.

I hate to point fingers but your opinions about fundamentalist Christians are understandable and even though I respect their Faith, I don't agree with many of their interpretations of the Word. For Goodness' sake, even the Catholic Church has signed on to the Big Bang Theory and Evolution (as they are both completely compatible with Christianity). I'm getting off-track a bit here, but a lot of their stances do make the rest of us Christians look bad and the myth is that they represent Christianity as whole in the U.S. and they do not. Even in the U.S. Catholics make up the largest group of Christians.

I also agree with you about people who use religion as a crutch. There are some people who do that because they lack any self-worth and those are the people who generally are easily recruited into the more fundamentalist denominations. I saw a post recently and I think was from Apostle where his girlfriend broke up with him over a minor disagreement over a minor interpretation of their fundamentalist doctrine. Now, I'm the first one to say that issues of Faith in the big picture are important in relationships and should be deal-breakers, but not the minutae... that's just foolish and to me that shows a very spiritually immature person who is using religion as a crutch.

As far as Truth is concerned, I disagree with you. There is One Truth but it's completely elusive to human beings simply because we lack the capacity to be able to comprehend it at this stage in our existence.

The last thing I want to leave you with is that often Faith and religion are confused as being the same and they are not. When I was 18, I had a conversation with my father in which I intimated that I was dissatisfied with the dichotomy of the Church on several issues. My father explained to me the problem wasn't the Church, the problem is that the people who run the Church are flawed human beings. The point is that there's nothing wrong with the Faith, it's the idiots running the thing because they are inherently flawed because they're human. He also explained to me that it's up to good people to not abandon the Church, but to work to change the Church for the better so that it can attempt to live up to the ideals of Christ better.

Atheists and agnostics need to cut people of Faith some slack. We're just as flawed as the rest of you and we're just trying to get through it the best we can as well. We're not perfect and we're generally not self-righteous. Unfortunately, and i freely admit this, there is a small minority who look down at you with disdain, but inever see it at the Trekbbs. I certainly don't happen to be one of those people (and the majority of people of Faith aren't either) and with all love in my heart I say that I pray that you and any other agnostics or atheists find in your heart the same peace and knowledge that I and others have found. Either way we wish you nothing but good will.

Now, can we go back to bitching about the Reboot?


-Shawn

Well said. I think a lot of misunderstanding comes when people of faith try to live what they believe to be the one truth. And that comes off as being high and mighty. Sometimes that is the case, that they do pat themselves on the back and condemn everyone else, but most of the time it isn't

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd tend to agree with the OP. Secularism goes hand-in-hand with modernity and all of the supposed benefits of progress that - while arguable from some points of view - are intrinsic to the entire "Star Trek" milieu from concept forward. Trek's producers were right in step with the main line of American science fiction dating from at least the 1920s, in this regard; while one can cite any number of individual works which portray religion as good or relevant, sf as a genre has been the most secular and progressive in its premises and values for a long, long time.

The Bible, as Asimov was wont to point out, contains a good deal of instruction about how servants and slaves and their masters should get along, but not a single specific condemnation of slavery as an institution. The religious leaders who from time to time spoke against it in the modern era gained traction only after the Industrial Revolution began to make human slavery a positive economic nuisance.

 

[Vance]

When you think about it, working together and doing right by your fellow man because it is the RIGHT thing to do and not because it will guarantee you paradise or 72 virgins or whatever after you die is a noble goal that transcends any and all religious dogma. Also, living your life in however you want to, so as long as it doesn't encroach on someone else's in any way, is also something to attain. So why all the hate over a secular society?

There's a lot of things wrong with your view on religion, and you're also conflating Trek's secular society with an athiest one. Remember, the United States is a secular society itself, with most (indeed, nearly all) of its members choosing to be Christian in one capacity or another.

So my question to you would be, why are some Trek fans skittish about Trek not being explicitly athiestic in a Stalinist sense?

 

[Misfit Toy]

Just offering a word to the wise - this can be a hot button issue - but I'd like to think we can be mature enough to handle the discussion without tempers fraying. I appreciate the efforts to do so, by all parties concerned.

Please accept this reminder to keep the thread civil. Thanks for your continued cooperation.

 

[3D Master]

Pefectly put. It's called piety for piety's sake and people who don't understand Faith automatically assume that because people of Faith try to live pious lives that they must be doing it for some grand reward as their ulterior motivation.

No, it's because all the faith people claim that those who have no faith have no morality, that only if you believe in god can you know right from wrong, and that only the punishment of hell will keep you from doing the wrong thing even if you know it's wrong.

That's the problem with secularism. It's materialistic by nature and it can't comprehend the nebulous concept of morality based motivations.

Ah, there it is. People who are secular can't have morality, and therefor can't understand the motivations, there are all a bunch of greedy bastards who only do something for reward or for punishment.

No, you see, that's where you're wrong. We, those who are "secular", have no believe, not only understand the perfectly clear concept of morality based motivations, we have ONLY those motivations. Our morality comes into play in just about every decision we make; if something is right or wrong, and whether we should them because of that or regardless. It's our entire being, because we have no book that perfectly tells us what is right or wrong, and beware going to be sent to hell if you don't follow it.

That is also where problem comes in of those who believe, as you so aptly illustrated, that we without faith in a god, understand no morality. It is not only that, false claim, but the whole slew of people coming after afraid of everyone who doesn't believe slaughtering people and fornicating on their corpses in the middle of street afterwards, because we do not worry the punishment.

It is utterly ridiculous though many theists claim this. In fact, it would be the other way around. We make decisions based upon our own idea of what's right and wrong; not on what a god tells us. If god tomorrow would reveal himself, and tell believers to kill their first born and then fornicate on that corpse in the middle of the street, that it's the right thing to do, and defiance means going to hell, they'll do it.

Those who do not believe, would tell this god to go stuff it, and if it means getting tortured for an eternity, so be it, but we will not serve evil, nor will we perform evil acts.

People of Faith don't distinguish between morality and Faith as the two are one. Most people of Faith aren't trying to rack up points to get into Heaven.

Actually, from all the claims of those who "have faith", it seems most are.

 

[Vance]

No, it's because all the faith people claim that those who have no faith have no morality, that only if you believe in god can you know right from wrong, and that only the punishment of hell will keep you from doing the wrong thing even if you know it's wrong.

Wrong due to the abosluteness of the statement. Many people of faith learn their sense of morailty from their faith. For all your posturing about 'morality of secularism', you're grossly mischaraterizing people of faith, while also getting the definition of secularism completely wrong.

(To be fair, the person to whom you replied ALSO got the definition of secularism wrong).

A more true statment about 'secular morality', in absense of faith, is that it's pretty darn whimsical, and can be dangerously so. After all, we've seen true athiest and full-secularlist societies in the world's history already. The "greater good" is an incredibly nebulous concept, and has been used to justify the most outrageous of atrocities in very recent history.

The reason that people of faith are skittish about the 'TNG Athiest Utopia' is that we've seen what these 'utopias' are really like. These are NOT secular societies, for they HAVE a religious doctrine behind them - athiesm and obedience to the state.. for the 'greater good'.

A secular society, by contrast, allows its citizens to worship as they please, so long as their worship doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Again, this is NOT what the so called 'secularlists' are advocating.

 

[3D Master]

No, it's because all the faith people claim that those who have no faith have no morality, that only if you believe in god can you know right from wrong, and that only the punishment of hell will keep you from doing the wrong thing even if you know it's wrong.

Wrong due to the abosluteness of the statement. Many people of faith learn their sense of morailty from their faith. For all your posturing about 'morality of secularism', you're grossly mischaraterizing people of faith, while also getting the definition of secularism completely wrong.

(To be fair, the person to whom you replied ALSO got the definition of secularism wrong).

A more true statment about 'secular morality', in absense of faith, is that it's pretty darn whimsical, and can be dangerously so.

Nope, not at all. My morality is neither whimsical, nor is it dangerous. It is absolute, and I rather die that break it, I rather be tortured for an eternity, than break it.

After all, we've seen true athiest and full-secularlist societies in the world's history already. The "greater good" is an incredibly nebulous concept, and has been used to justify the most outrageous of atrocities in very recent history.

You mean like the great Christian, republican administration in the past eight years, happily kept people without a trial or any evidence, and even had people, countless ones, many if not most if not all totally innocent, tortured all for the "greater good"?

Doing such things, has nothing to do with atheist or secular societies, it has to do with EVIL societies and/or societes run by EVIL people - and people regardless of creed, or faith, to trust and abey those with authority - in fact, the illusion of authority is usually enough.

The reason that people of faith are skittish about the 'TNG Athiest Utopia' is that we've seen what these 'utopias' are really like. These are NOT secular societies, for they HAVE a religious doctrine behind them - athiesm and obedience to the state.. for the 'greater good'.

You mean like the great Christian utopia of the USofA, that deposed democratic governments in Souther America because they weren't exploiting their own people enough to enrich the business folks in America, put tin-pot dictators in their place running those countries on fascist principles, including their equivalent of the SS, torture devisions being trained by the American military, on an American military base, on American soil?

Then that same America attempting to do the same again recently in Bolivia in this century?

Again, this has got nothing to do with atheism or secularism. It's all about EVIL, greed, and being taught you should respect and do what authority tells you to do from an early age.

That, however, is not an atheist or secular utopia. On the contrary, it's a DIStopia, period - no atheism, secular, or theism part of it; and most of us, sadly, are living in it.

However, as for TNG and its utopia; remember how Picard praised Data in the episode with blockade of the Klingon border (can't remember the title now) for NOT following orders?

Remember how in Angel One, civilians not only do not have to follow the Prime Directive, but get to tell Starfleet to F off when they're not following it, and Starfleet then actually has to F off?

It's rather the OPPOSITE of obeying the state, doesn't it? It's individuals practically ordering the state around.

A secular society, by contrast, allows its citizens to worship as they please, so long as their worship doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Again, this is NOT what the so called 'secularlists' are advocating.

What are they advocating? Cause last time I checked, that's exactly what they're advocating, in fact they're working to make it true, by championing the beliefs and religions of minorities; by protecting them from an oppression through majority.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

No, it's because all the faith people claim that those who have no faith have no morality, that only if you believe in god can you know right from wrong, and that only the punishment of hell will keep you from doing the wrong thing even if you know it's wrong.

Wrong due to the abosluteness of the statement. Many people of faith learn their sense of morailty from their faith. For all your posturing about 'morality of secularism', you're grossly mischaraterizing people of faith, while also getting the definition of secularism completely wrong.

(To be fair, the person to whom you replied ALSO got the definition of secularism wrong).

A more true statment about 'secular morality', in absense of faith, is that it's pretty darn whimsical, and can be dangerously so. After all, we've seen true athiest and full-secularlist societies in the world's history already. The "greater good" is an incredibly nebulous concept, and has been used to justify the most outrageous of atrocities in very recent history.

The reason that people of faith are skittish about the 'TNG Athiest Utopia' is that we've seen what these 'utopias' are really like. These are NOT secular societies, for they HAVE a religious doctrine behind them - athiesm and obedience to the state.. for the 'greater good'.

A secular society, by contrast, allows its citizens to worship as they please, so long as their worship doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Again, this is NOT what the so called 'secularlists' are advocating.

Although you make good points, to be fair, I didn't define secularism. I simply stated that it's materialistic by nature, which it is.

But I appreciate you responding to kooky rants so that I don't have to. That last big post of mine is the last big one I'm devoting to this thread.

-Shawn

 

[CaptainHawk1]

The Bible, as Asimov was wont to point out, contains a good deal of instruction about how servants and slaves and their masters should get along, but not a single specific condemnation of slavery as an institution. The religious leaders who from time to time spoke against it in the modern era gained traction only after the Industrial Revolution began to make human slavery a positive economic nuisance.

And you like Asimov, don't understand the Bible or Faith. Take time to read the second to last paragraph of my big post. The Bible is considered to be Divinely Inspired. The Truth comes not in the words but in their moral context. What Catholics and most Protestants believe is that the Holy Spirit gave the prophets the Truth of the Bible in manner that they could comprehend and the flawed human prophets wrote it in context and according to the times that they lived in.

We do not consider the Truth of the Bible to be in the literal words on the page. Again, it shows an enormous amount of arrogance to believe that that the prophets could comprehend or read the mind of God.

As far as slavery is concerned, the institution has been around since the dawn of humanity so again, when it's referred to in the Bible, it has to be considered in the context of the times it was written. Does that make moral or acceptable, no, but it is what it is. Again, you expect far too much from flawed human beings from any Faith who are simply responding to the times that they live in. Enlightenment is a process, it's not an automatic, even for the pious.

-Shawn

 

[Augustus]

CaptainHawk1

Very well said. Some people believe that Bible is the absolute and perfect word of God as if it spilled out of His mouth as a complete book.

No it is a collection of inspired writings given to various prophets throughout the history of the world. It is flawed in that it was written by flawed men. But its teachings and principles are of divine origin.

 

[3D Master]

But if it is written by flawed human beings, why would you need to read it to understand any truth, let alone one about morality?

 

[number6]

But if it is written by flawed human beings, why would you need to read it to understand any truth, let alone one about morality?

Who do you think wrote the Bible?

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Do you need to be dogmatic to be a believer?

No, you don't.

I believe in God, but not religion.

You're not alone and it's understandable and I was where you are.

So if there are hundreds of differing views on spirituality today, why would the future be any different? I doubt it that people who're more enlightened will have the dogma of atheism rammed down their collective throat.

Agreed.

believing does not mean telling other people they have to share your views.

Ditto that and it doesn't meant that it's appropriate to dismiss someone becauset hey don't accept them either.

-Shawn

 

[3D Master]

But if it is written by flawed human beings, why would you need to read it to understand any truth, let alone one about morality?

Who do you think wrote the Bible?

Uhm, let's see,

1 post about it.

2nd post about it.

My 3rd question post about it.

Yup, in all three, it's there: FLAWED HUMAN BEINGS.

 

[Augustus]

But if it is written by flawed human beings, why would you need to read it to understand any truth, let alone one about morality?

Because those flawed human beings mostly wrote what God told them to write. That is worth something.

 

[number6]

But if it is written by flawed human beings, why would you need to read it to understand any truth, let alone one about morality?

Who do you think wrote the Bible?

Uhm, let's see,

1 post about it.

2nd post about it.

My 3rd question post about it.

Yup, in all three, it's there: FLAWED HUMAN BEINGS.

So what's your point, assuming you even have one?

 

[CaptainHawk1]

But if it is written by flawed human beings, why would you need to read it to understand any truth, let alone one about morality?

Read my posts as it was explained to you. Those of us of Faith subscribe to the notion that the Bible is written by God through man, i.e Divinely inspired. The words should not betaken literally, only the substance and Truth on the principles of morality and virtue.

Seriously, please have the courtesy to read prior posts in their entirety.

-Shawn

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Who do you think wrote the Bible?

Uhm, let's see,

1 post about it.

2nd post about it.

My 3rd question post about it.

Yup, in all three, it's there: FLAWED HUMAN BEINGS.

So what's your point, assuming you even have one?

Joel, he really doesn't. He's just being hostile and condescending toward people of Faith as he has been from the beginning. We're all a bunch of superstitious fools and he's doing his best to try to prove it even though he has no understanding whatsoever of Judeo-Christian tenets or history.

-Shawn