[Elizadolots]

We've touched on religion in the threads about Gay characters in Star Trek. I thought it would be interesting to get a discussion going about just that issue: Religion in Star Trek.

I think, of necessity, this will also delve into the questions: Will we have religion in the future? or will Science provide al the "answers"?

As noted in the other thread, at least in TOS there seems to be an acknowledgement of a God, a Creator. However, I think each series looked at the issue in a different way.

[Botany Bay]

How could sience ever have all the answers? Wouldnt that make Poker a terribly boring game? If one has to blame religions for anything, then the arrogance to proclaim having all the answers. Irony that some people hope sience to just replace religion.

Religion was never a big topic in Star Trek and in the places it was the connotation was critical for the most part. What Star Trek was, was open minded to the possibilities and positive towards spirituality, faith and moral integrity.

ST:V is a fine example for that. Eventhough many fans dont like the movie for many reasons, I think its a classical Star Trek story. While being sceptical about religions, sects and spiritual comunities and their tendencies for fundamentalism and intollerence, our heroes keep an open mind nontheless.

[Elizadolots]

See...my description of Star Trek V has always been "They find God, don't like him, so nuke him"....Why did they nuke the God being? Because he couldn't measure up to Kirk's vision of a God that didn't require a starship.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by Elizadolots

See...my description of Star Trek V has always been "They find God, don't like him, so nuke him"....Why did they nuke the God being? Because he couldn't measure up to Kirk's vision of a God that didn't require a starship.

No, eventhough your way of expressing it is really funny. The question of the film was, what legetimizes God as a ruler that we have to obey? Just because he is God? Doesnt every ruler has to be just? Kirk doesnt obey an unjust ruler, wether he may be a God or a chicken. Morale comes from within. And wether we like it or not, no belief, no religion and no community, no leader and no God can take the burden of decission and responsibility from our own shoulders.
Thats the very basic problem of modern philosophy as existentialism for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

[MissionTrek08]

Given how multicultural, multi-species "society" has become by the 23rd century, my guess would be that known religions (by then perhaps thousands of them) wouldn't have to change much by this time, but certainly our attitudes toward religions would change. I hesitate to use the word assimilation, but clearly in the universe GR created for the 23rd, humanity has surpassed many of its own traditions and bad habits of prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, greed and selfishness. Humanity is much more willing to look outward with open eyes, instead of clinging rigidly to dogma within.

One could argue religion gets diluted in such a multivariate universe, but it might also free up true religious belief from -- as wisely noted above -- the political and economic uses for it which we insist on inflicting upon our fellow humans of differing creeds.

In short, my guess is religion becomes a more personal choice, and in such an 'ecumenical' universe, will be readily accepted and appreciated as such a choice by others. If not real religious freedom, something much closer to it that what we practice in our actions and rhetoric today.

As for the notion of science "solving all the answers" for religion: I personally find this notion impossible by the very nature of the two elements themselves. By definition, the loose term 'science' can never even solve all the answers for science itself, so how can it possibly solve answers to questions of spirituality and faith -- two entirely non-empirical, unmeasurable quantities?

Science may provide answers to some temporal questions within our lifetime or within human history, but most theoretical and natural science begins falling apart rapidly when you throw "eternity" into the equation. The more science increases our understanding, the more unknowns it reveals to us beyond our current limit of understanding.

On the other hand, humans also seem to desire religion or spirituality (not necessarily the same things) or mythology, because these help us assign meaning and understanding of things which cannot be empirically answered. We seem wired to have some variable degrees of need, whether our myth meaning is derived from a God, or a story or a ritual.

For me, science and religion can overlap in their higher pursuits, but one need never cancel out the other. And it's only some humans who insist on making them competing enemies.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

For me, science and religion can overlap in their higher pursuits, but one need never cancel out the other. And it's only some humans who insist on making them competing enemies.

Wich is irony. Scientists, that ask for proofs of religious beliefs; religious people, that act is if believe is knowledge. Scientists, who act as if there is nothing to believe; religious people who proclaim believe to be truth... if I have proof for any Gods existance my religion becomes obsolete, because now I know. The whole point about any belief is, that I do not know, but have to guess.

[RunSpotRun]

Originally Posted by Botany Bay

No, eventhough your way of expressing it is really funny. The question of the film was, what legetimizes God as a ruler that we have to obey? Just because he is God? Doesnt every ruler has to be just? Kirk doesnt obey an unjust ruler, wether he may be a God or a chicken. Morale comes from within. And wether we like it or not, no belief, no religion and no community, no leader and no God can take the burden of decission and responsibility from our own shoulders.
Thats the very basic problem of modern philosophy as existentialism for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

Huh. I never thought the 'God' character in ST:V was the, or any other, God, I thought it was an alien entity trapped for all eternity on that planetoid, within that energy field, that simply 'assumed' the Deity-of-choice for whatever race were seeing 'it'. They were all tricked by what they wanted to see instead of what was really there. God, as Kirk pointed out, does not need a Starship to 'bring His message' to the Universe, God IS the Universe.

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by Elizadolots

See...my description of Star Trek V has always been "They find God, don't like him, so nuke him"....Why did they nuke the God being? Because he couldn't measure up to Kirk's vision of a God that didn't require a starship.

But that was not the god of Sean Connery... or any other god!

[FanWriter45]

When you mention "religion" to people, they automatically assume you are talking about judeo-christian dogma. Such is not always the case. Religion, from the root latin relios, meaning "in relation to," is about how you define your place in the universe.

Trek seems to have an almost schizoid approach to religious belief. In one episode they will mention religion as something that most have left behind, in others they seem to take it as fact that judeo-christian beliefs are the one and only way to go. I think it really depended on the writer of the individual episode.

As such, Trek becomes like religion itself: you read into it what you want to, and ignore the rest.

Compare this to Star Wars, where the religion is actually the central theme. "The jedi are all but extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe, you my friend (Vader) is all that is left of their religion." Of course, it helps when your religion actually has some demonstrable effect: the ability to move objects, fortell the future, levitate, and so on. Heck, I'd probably convert if someone could show me proof of that! (This despite Christianity's legendary magic show of conjuring staffs into snakes, changing water into wine, stilling stormy seas, and creating Romero-like zombie revivals of the dead... I keep hearing how great this show is, but so far haven't seen any evidence of it that either Randi or Penn and Teller couldn't duplicate.)

[z28wanted]

Originally Posted by FanWriter45

Heck, I'd probably convert if someone could show me proof of that! (This despite Christianity's legendary magic show of conjuring staffs into snakes, changing water into wine, stilling stormy seas, and creating Romero-like zombie revivals of the dead... I keep hearing how great this show is, but so far haven't seen any evidence of it that either Randi or Penn and Teller couldn't duplicate.)

Fanwriter... as a Christian this is where faith comes into the conversation. You have to have faith. The stronger faith is one that someone doesn't need to see those miraculous signs to believe in God.