Religion after First Contact

isthisscience

I've been mapping out a few things I'm trying to cover in my script, one area I want to talk about is religion on a world that has recently made first contact (Bajor is a bit of an exception as their gods were actual aliens). I noticed a few foundry authors state they're religious (somewhat of a novelty to me as a Londoner, the only Christians I know round here are from in the Afro-Caribbean community, not Trekkies, besides that all the other religious people in my area are in the Muslim and Hindu communities) so I was wondering if I could tap that reserve, so to speak.

I'd like to get some insight from those people who are Trekkies and religious. As someone who is a Trek fan, and hence has thought about life on other worlds and interaction between humanities culture and religion and the cosmos in the event of contact with life beyond Eden... how do you think human religions and religious people react to First Contact? What do you think would change, how would views and teaching change, if at all?

Note: I do not want to start a religious debate. Historically, I've found these discussions can quickly degenerate into arguments on the basis one of mis-understood statement. I ask anyone who replies to please not debate who is right and who is wrong and so on.

markhawkman

Well, one example is the Malcorians. Their ideology was so screwed up that there would have been planet-wide riots if the public had found out that they had been visited by people from another planet.

realmalize

Historically speaking, religion will find a way to survive. It is a human constant that has provided for as many positive as negative inputs into world history...although it is often en vogue to portray those who would have faith as stupid, backwards, etc. An objective look at religion is fairly kind to it...and most of the evils ascribed to religious intolerance origins are almost always actually originated in some other socio-economic factor(s.)

So that being said, religion will find a way...it may not exactly *look and sound* like religion today, in fact our religions today (in the west at least) have only a rudimentary resemblance to the practices (and sometimes even beliefs) of the originators.

Thus it can be stated, with just a hint of irony: religions evolve. faith evolves.

In the Trek universe there are clearly cultures that have faith, Klingons, Vulcans, Ferengi. Their faiths are often (on the surface) any more rational than your run of the meal belief system anywhere on current Earth.

In our current world, there would be relatively little religious-sourced rioting to alien contact. I know this will not be the opinion of those who knee jerk belief those with faith to be backwards cave dwellers...but it is more the truth than expecting the world to erupt with faith-based rioting to alien contact.

That isn't to say there wouldn't be rioting and unrest, but not because some homocentric religious concept has been overturned -- 99% of that kind of reaction is gone from western and most asian cultures with faith. However, you would get rioting and unrest in some quarters due to anxieties about world impacts, at least after the initial shock of the contact has abated.

Also, you could actually see an uptick in faith after first contact (again counter-intuitive to anyone who hasn't paid any attention to how humans deal with uncertainty...but faith is turned to after momentous uncertainties, sometimes its the only base-point tool to reference a feeling against, or marshal emotional recovery around.)

I would think first contact would be a point of evolution for faiths. There would be questions to ask, but none of those questions would deal with the appropriateness of maintaining faith.

Immediate questions would arise, such as:

1) Do the aliens have faith(s)?

2) Do any extant alien faiths relate to extant human faiths?

3) Do the aliens have a "soul" concept, reincarnate or otherwise?

4) Does the alien "soul" count within the human understanding/religious framework (i.e., "If Arex dies, does his soul also go to/eligible for Heaven as one of Gods creatures?", etc.)

Longer term issues, such as working out accommodations for aliens, and how the alien presence and cosmology impacts current religious facets would likely occur via councils of various kinds. A real life example of religious evolution would be the First Council of Nicaea of 325 which under Imperial mandate created a unified creed (the Nicene Creed)

I doubt First Contact would be a catalyst for a "unified" Human faith.

Eventually, religion (as all facets of human politics, geopolitics, commerce, society and culture) would come to terms with the realities of alien life. Simply because aliens show up does not mean that humans stop being humans...if one thing is certain, regardless of Gene Roddenberry's dreams, humans will persist on being the Hobbesian creatures that they are (in the overall.)

lincolninspace

Yes humans are spiritual beings. As the old saying goes "there are no athiests in the foxhole" and even the soviets found it difficult to motivate there troops without getting the orthodox church involved. Organizations such as alcoholics anonymous teach that belief in a higher power is needed to beat powerful addictions. It is ironic that modern Britain is so agnostic when their head of state (the Queen) is also the head of the church of England and they claim to ultimately be ruled by God.


On a side not the explorers of the new world found new civilizations with new religions including the Aztecs who used the cross n their worship and believed that Cortez was a returning god fulfilling prophecy.

orangeitis

realmalize wrote: »

Historically speaking, religion will find a way to survive. It is a human constant that has provided for as many positive as negative inputs into world history...although it is often en vogue to portray those who would have faith as stupid, backwards, etc. An objective look at religion is fairly kind to it...and most of the evils ascribed to religious intolerance origins are almost always actually originated in some other socio-economic factor(s.)

So that being said, religion will find a way...it may not exactly *look and sound* like religion today, in fact our religions today (in the west at least) have only a rudimentary resemblance to the practices (and sometimes even beliefs) of the originators.

Thus it can be stated, with just a hint of irony: religions evolve. faith evolves.

History will not necessarily dictate what the future will bring. Statistics show that religion is dwindling in many countries.

realmalize wrote: »

In the Trek universe there are clearly cultures that have faith, Klingons, Vulcans, Ferengi. Their faiths are often (on the surface) any more rational than your run of the meal belief system anywhere on current Earth.

It's "run of the mill".;)

lincolninspace wrote: »

Yes humans are spiritual beings. As the old saying goes "there are no athiests in the foxhole" and even the soviets found it difficult to motivate there troops without getting the orthodox church involved.

First of all, that saying is demonstrably wrong. Second of all, if we're talking about IRL here, you need to demonstrate that spirituality has any foundation in the real world at all. Until then, we cannot presuppose your premise.

lincolninspace wrote: »

Organizations such as alcoholics anonymous teach that belief in a higher power is needed to beat powerful addictions.

That doesn't mean that they are in the right, or that method is the best to offer.

lincolninspace wrote: »

It is ironic that modern Britain is so agnostic when their head of state (the Queen) is also the head of the church of England and they claim to ultimately be ruled by God.

It is not ironic. England hasn't progressed to having church and state separation yet, simple as that.


Regardless, this is a fiction, so religious doctrines can be portrayed as factual and demonstrable. But so far, Star Trek seemed to have been going for the 'religious beliefs are BS' direction. Do we even know that humanity still clings to religion in the Star Trek continuity?

Assuming that Terran religion isn't dissolved by first contact in the Star Trek continuity, I see that things like the most religious people might view the Vulcans as demons or their religion's equivalent... it will be very bad for a lot of beliefs. Most religious people will either develop a more open mind, or they'll start riots and attempt to assassinate Vulcan dignitaries.

realmalize

the op explicitly requested not to do exactly what you just did orangeitis

orangeitis

And what exactly might that be?

markhawkman

orangeitis wrote: »

And what exactly might that be?

Note: I do not want to start a religious debate. Historically, I've found these discussions can quickly degenerate into arguments on the basis one of mis-understood statement. I ask anyone who replies to please not debate who is right and who is wrong and so on.

Anyways, One thing I thought of about the Malcorian example, is that the Malcorian beliefs were very inflexible and (from an outside point of view) illogical, but they were not inherently religious. The Malcorians treated their bizarre beliefs as scientific fact.

Truthfully, in this sort of scenario, it doesn't matter whether an ideology is properly defined as a "religion" or not. It is the nature of the ideology that determines the outcome.

azurianstar

isthisscience wrote: »

I've been mapping out a few things I'm trying to cover in my script, one area I want to talk about is religion on a world that has recently made first contact (Bajor is a bit of an exception as their gods were actual aliens). I noticed a few foundry authors state they're religious (somewhat of a novelty to me as a Londoner, the only Christians I know round here are from in the Afro-Caribbean community, not Trekkies, besides that all the other religious people in my area are in the Muslim and Hindu communities) so I was wondering if I could tap that reserve, so to speak.

I'd like to get some insight from those people who are Trekkies and religious. As someone who is a Trek fan, and hence has thought about life on other worlds and interaction between humanities culture and religion and the cosmos in the event of contact with life beyond Eden... how do you think human religions and religious people react to First Contact? What do you think would change, how would views and teaching change, if at all?

Note: I do not want to start a religious debate. Historically, I've found these discussions can quickly degenerate into arguments on the basis one of mis-understood statement. I ask anyone who replies to please not debate who is right and who is wrong and so on.

Honestly, this wouldn't really have to be around religion. Religious or non-religious, I would view people going from extreme to extreme. You would have:

Types that welcome with arms wide open
Those who would devote the new comers like royalty
Types who want to take advantage (like learning technology to gain power or wealth)
The violent types who think the worst
And you have those who are scared and hide for weeks, months, even years.


Now with your story, you just focus around your alien culture and what type of personalities they would have.

For instance, Klingons likely would've been confrontational to newcomers. Vulcans would've been very welcoming. Romulans would likely welcome you and then try to control you. And Ferengi would've tried to make a profit. :P

adverbero

Not sure about religion always going to survive as some have said

Many experts in socioeconomic circles have been expecting, and witnessing on the whole a decline in the uptake of religious Beliefs

The more technologically advanced we become as a species the more and more we put our faith in sciences, on the list of techonologically advanced nations, the highest are the most Post-religious, while they may keep their religions label as a cultural identty, its become much less common to believe the Scriptures as a literal truth, and most orthodox religions are having to adapt to modern life, or they will die out

The grasp of organised faith systems is failing, being replaced i think in most people with a mush more personal spiritual belief( or in many cases a total rejection of belief entirely) , which in the context of First contact could become something of a mess, people don't look to a figure head, but instead to their own beliefs making a somewhat chaotic response to the aliens rather than a unified one

designationxr377

I think a possible question you can find yourself working with is where does the idea of a religion end and a philosophy begin. I think thats where a lot of the issues could come up with in a scenario that you describe.

Additionally, I think some of this discussion in the thread illustrates a few points. Not just in what is being said by different folks but how they go about saying it or thinking on it.

Finally, an interesting direction to take your thoughts on the issue would be scientific rationalization for religious beliefs. You don't eat this because it will have a high chance of making you sick. It is a religious taboo to go up to dig deep into the planet because most people pie, (they don't know it's due to a large particle generator system built into the core of their planet and the dense outer crust protects the people.) There is some interesting fun to be manipulated in that.

theraven2378

Enterprise pretty much showed how destructive religious extremism in season 3, the Jem Hadar and Vorta were programmed to think the founders as gods.

Overall Star Trek has hit the religious nail on head over it's long life and it questioned religion many times in some very good episodes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6NPq_kPSUM

this clip is very relevant to the OP's argument on religion in trek

markhawkman

designationxr377 wrote: »

I think a possible question you can find yourself working with is where does the idea of a religion end and a philosophy begin. I think thats where a lot of the issues could come up with in a scenario that you describe.

Additionally, I think some of this discussion in the thread illustrates a few points. Not just in what is being said by different folks but how they go about saying it or thinking on it.

Finally, an interesting direction to take your thoughts on the issue would be scientific rationalization for religious beliefs. You don't eat this because it will have a high chance of making you sick. It is a religious taboo to go up to dig deep into the planet because most people pie, (they don't know it's due to a large particle generator system built into the core of their planet and the dense outer crust protects the people.) There is some interesting fun to be manipulated in that.

Now this is a good point. Ideologies and beliefs always have a foundation in something. It may not be something tangible, but it's there.

The same is true of Atheism today. Many people are devoutly opposed to the existence of religion. Is that a good thing? I don't think so.

The Federation may be a generally Athiestic society, but it's not devoutly so. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if a society that truely worshipped science(as some people today do) met the Federation.

isthisscience

Some interesting points of view, nice to hear from you guys. Just to quickly respond to azurianstar, the ideas I'm working on are not centred on this topic, but it having a religion on the planet in question will be central to the plot. I'd like to avoid an insensitive portrayal of religious people, which if I am not careful will be the result of the kind of plot I have in mind and that I've never really understood "faith" - usually responding to the idea like Data trying to understand sarcasm.

There has been quite a variety of religious views in Star Trek (not just in aliens, remember Kirk's line in Who Mourns for Apollo?: "we don't need gods anymore, we find the one quite sufficient" and don't forget Bread and Circuses) so there does seem to be a plurality of opinion, though perhaps more nuanced that today's stark divisions. It always evolves, and I've been pondering how. No doubt in 100 different ways, to each according to their personal needs.

Perhaps if I could be more exact. Most changes in religion come through gradual societal changes. Most churches slowly absorbed evolution into adjusted teachings as evidence for it grew and fighting it became more and more difficult. Aliens would be quite sudden. How do you see the Star Trek universe being absorbed into your religion? An act of creation on 100s of worlds yet unmentioned and seemingly more advanced yet no knowledge of your god?

markhawkman

Well, science is a matter of observing your surroundings and drawing conclusions based on those observations. But the truth of the matter is that it's easy to misrepresent scientific information, just look at the "Global warming" debate if you don't beleive me. Just because soemone has a "Scientific" reason for something doesn't make them right. Science only works if you collect good data. If you either have insufficient data or flawed data your conclusions are suspect at best. So the idea that science is infallible is bogus.

isthisscience

markhawkman,
Well science is a process, not a fixed body of information, people or authority. Someone may claim something is scientific even if they have no observed scientific principles while you can follow scientific procedures in areas not usually considered the domain of science.

markhawkman

isthisscience wrote: »

markhawkman,
Well science is a process, not a fixed body of information, people or authority. Someone may claim something is scientific even if they have no observed scientific principles while you can follow scientific procedures in areas not usually considered the domain of science.

Well, the point I was making, is that that is what science SHOULD be. People don't necessarily do it that way though. Good examples are the Voth and Malcorians. They didn't really have religious reasons for denying the existence of outsiders. It's just that their scientific efforts got mixed with politics, and skewed.

designationxr377

And on that idea I would argue that if you had to use any word to describe the federation as a whole it would be agnostic. Neither confirming or denying any religious or philosophical ideal. After all, religion is a cultural aspect and the federation doesn't make it a big point about denying any cultures unless they become harmful.

But again, that's the federation. Who knows what happens with a side group. Cults attacking the idea of space travel ala the movie Contact's bomber guy. Even if the Prophets of Bajor were wormhole aliens their presence was a dubious notion to prove, yet the religion about them thrived after first contact and before burden of proof was resolved.

nynik

I don't doubt that many religions would simply adapt their teachings to include those from others worlds,. We currently interpret stories, accounts and parables, so the interpretation would simply expand. Words like 'world' would be retconned to be 'worlds' etc.

However, I think there could be an unfortunate distinction between humanoid and non-humanoid lifeforms. Speaking from a Christian perspective, if we were created in God's image, then what does a Horta represent? Although sentient, does it have a soul?

As we can see in todays world, there are instances were certain types of people do not share an equal status within a religion. I think that such an exclusion policy if it ever did transpire, would be very detrimental to society, er galactic society's development. Two steps forward, one step back.

orangeitis

designationxr377 wrote: »

I think a possible question you can find yourself working with is where does the idea of a religion end and a philosophy begin.

Well religion is pretty well defined actually. Is the 'phiolosophy' using doctrines and tenets in any way? If so, then it's a religion. If not, you're all good. Hope that cleared things up.

(does this count as arguing? I honestly can't tell any more <.<)

markhawkman

nynik wrote: »

However, I think there could be an unfortunate distinction between humanoid and non-humanoid lifeforms. Speaking from a Christian perspective, if we were created in God's image, then what does a Horta represent? Although sentient, does it have a soul?

Ask 12 people and you might get 12 answers. My answer is that the idea of people being "made in God's image" is referrign to sentience and not their literal appearance. After all, God doesn't have a physical body.

orangeitis wrote: »

Well religion is pretty well defined actually. Is the 'phiolosophy' using doctrines and tenets in any way? If so, then it's a religion. If not, you're all good. Hope that cleared things up.

Would you characterize the Voth's beliefs as religious?

lincolninspace

markhawkman wrote: »

Well, science is a matter of observing your surroundings and drawing conclusions based on those observations. But the truth of the matter is that it's easy to misrepresent scientific information, just look at the "Global warming" debate if you don't beleive me. Just because soemone has a "Scientific" reason for something doesn't make them right. Science only works if you collect good data. If you either have insufficient data or flawed data your conclusions are suspect at best. So the idea that science is infallible is bogus.

Yeah science is only as good as the people who wield its power. I think a scientific state would likely be a Fascist regime akin to The Hirogen or the TRIBBLE(Although Hitler was neo Pagan/ Catholic). Men like Dawkins promote heartless evolutionary philosophies that are actually quite scary. After all the genius of Einstein also lead to the atom bomb.

Trek is not explicitly atheist, Picard and Janeway celebrate Christmas and Kirk sides with "Christians' in the episode bread and circuses. The federation ascribes to a code of values that many religious people could find familiar although such values have been bastardized by many faiths, fairness and diplomacy y'know the golden rule.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

orangeitis

markhawkman wrote: »

Would you characterize the Voth's beliefs as religious?

They do have a central doctrine, so yes. As I understand it, regardless if a doctrine coincides with the happenstances of reality, if followed unquestionably, it is still religious.

lincolninspace

skollulfr wrote: »

it could just as easily be anarchy due to the scientific method seeking to eliminate the irrational.
and without special pleading, appeal to authority, circular reasoning and appeal to tradition, government in the current from we have on earth now, and depicted in sci-fi, would be nothing but a cult.

even your own post is full of manipulative appeals to emotion and ad-hominem strawmen.

The fascist philosophy is that of "survival of the fittest' a state that is constantly warmongering. "even your own post is full of manipulative appeals to emotion and ad-hominem strawmen." - Thats because I am the space pope :P. Christ in the gospels was an enemy of the religious political system since he saw that it put heavy burdens on the common man, many with a bone to pick with religion would be surprised how much Jesus would have agreed with them. After his death the original spirit of the faith was mixed with dirty politics and became the very thing he spoke against. The medieval church built elaborate cathederals and fought bloody wars funded by the impoverished masses.

orangeitis

lincolninspace wrote: »

The fascist philosophy is that of "survival of the fittest' a state that is constantly warmongering. "even your own post is full of manipulative appeals to emotion and ad-hominem strawmen." - Thats because I am the space pope :P. Christ in the gospels was an enemy of the religious political system since he saw that it put heavy burdens on the common man, many with a bone to pick with religion would be surprised how much Jesus would have agreed with them. After his death the original spirit of the faith was mixed with dirty politics and became the very thing he spoke against. The medieval church built elaborate cathederals and fought bloody wars funded by the impoverished masses.

While possible that's true, most skeptic secular individuals probably just question the biblical claims that Jesus is the son of a deity. I doubt they would have problems with many of Jesus(as a man)' political and philosophical stances.

And if he was really that great of a guy, whether he has divine heritage or not, I'd think that he would probably be sickened by a lot of the nasty, immoral acts that were committed in his name.

@ skollulfr: Cults are secretive by definition though. I doubt today's cultures and practices would be defined as such. Irrational, you bet. A cult? Nah.

lincolninspace

orangeitis wrote: »

While possible that's true, most skeptic secular individuals probably just question the biblical claims that Jesus is the son of a deity. I doubt they would have problems with many of Jesus(as a man)' political and philosophical stances.

And if he was really that great of a guy, whether he has divine heritage or not, I'd think that he would probably be sickened by a lot of the nasty, immoral acts that were committed in his name.

@ skollulfr: Cults are secretive by definition though. I doubt today's cultures and practices would be defined as such. Irrational, you bet. A cult? Nah.

Many judge the bible before even reading it for themselves. The medieval church kept it in latin and murdered those who translated it. The bible often speaks out against corruption and can open peoples eyes. A secular stance does not make a person less vulnerable to being fleeced whether they don a robe or a lab coat oppresive bullies can take any belief system and abuse it. A lot of science today has political bias just watch fox news to see what I mean....

orangeitis

lincolninspace wrote: »

Yeah science is only as good as the people who wield its power. I think a scientific state would likely be a Fascist regime akin to The Hirogen or the TRIBBLE(Although Hitler was neo Pagan/ Catholic). Men like Dawkins promote heartless evolutionary philosophies that are actually quite scary. After all the genius of Einstein also lead to the atom bomb.

Dawkins' promotion of evolution has nothing to do with being 'heartless' or not. He promotes it as fact, it's true, but as far as I know, he does not believe that 'how we got here' should dictate 'how we should be'.

No matter how much one thinks we evolved from a primitive 'survival of the fittest' behavior, they can still accept that we no longer live as such, and with our evolved capacity for intelligence, reasoning, and empathy brought our society changes in circumstances, needs, and understanding. We empathize, which allows us to acknowledge that hurting other people is wrong.

My point is, 'how we were' has no bearing on 'how we ought to be', and I'd bet my firstborn that Dawkins knows this. =D

lincolninspace wrote: »

Trek is not explicitly atheist, Picard and Janeway celebrate Christmas and Kirk sides with "Christians' in the episode bread and circuses. The federation ascribes to a code of values that many religious people could find familiar although such values have been bastardized by many faiths, fairness and diplomacy y'know the golden rule.

Fairness and diplomacy are not owned by religion, mind you. Even the most secular of societies could accept those as the best way for individuals to function within their societies.

skollulfr wrote: »

even the vulcans have a society under the yoke of a system based on dogmatic adherence to some rationally fallacious codified text that tells them how to live.

I see your point here. Vulcans may preach logic, but until they actually demonstrate rationality enough to use logic properly, they are as irrational as other species.

A glaringly obvious example of logic based on a fallacy is in the 2009 Abrams movie, where Spock cites the(granted reused phrase) "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth." ...which is an argument from ignorance, as it ignores possibilities that they aren't even aware of. Whether or not he hit the nail on the head with it is irrelevant.

lincolninspace wrote: »

Many judge the bible before even reading it for themselves. The medieval church kept it in latin and murdered those who translated it. The bible often speaks out against corruption and can open peoples eyes. A secular stance does not make a person less vulnerable to being fleeced whether they don a robe or a lab coat oppresive bullies can take any belief system and abuse it. A lot of science today has political bias just watch fox news to see what I mean....

True, many people do judge The Bible before they read it. Sadly, that includes Christians - and apparently, an overwhelming number of Christians here in the states. Even as an atheist, I can admit that even if The bible as bad things in it, it has its share of good things too. I just happen to think that we should live by good things because they're good, not because a book tells us to.

kirksplat

I was a little hesitant to post in this thread, because the mods are probably on it like hawks. I will say this, in relation to story-telling and canon.

Star Trek (as influenced by atheist and humanist GR) tends to present a somewhat whiggish interpretation of the "ascent of man" from superstition to an enlightened self-awareness of diversity. Eventually, we'll stand before a "god" himself and ask, "What do you need with a starship???"

In this view of humanity's evolution, when humans discovered that the sun is but a star among many stars, it decentered them from their worldview, or should I say worldsview. Then, after FC, they learned that there is an infinite diversity of peoples, beliefs, and "gods."

The logic, I think, sort of runs like this:

When Europeans discovered the New World, they found lots of people who had been living for centuries without knowing the holy texts that are required for salvation. So, it begs the question, how could "our god" be all-loving and only reveal himself to "our people." What's going on? This is a moment of enlightenment, when humans realize just how subjective are their beliefs.

It's sort of the same story in Star Trek, but you have to add in the Carl Sagan stuff about redemption and revelation through FC. It's bare-bones humanism that sort of ignores how Europeans actually responded to their own FCs with non-Europeans.

So, instead of what seems likely, as far as Earthly missionaries to convert the damned heathens of Vulcan, we get a more humble self-reflection about how arrogant the humans were to assume that they were the center of the universe and the chosen people of a specific god.

I think in GR's mind, there is no contradiction. Understanding the universe is liberating. The petty gods become things of the past, or else we discover that they're simply aliens. Eventually, we'll become gods ourselves, when our potential to ascend to an even higher plane makes us competitors to the Q.

That's my take on Star Trek's view of how FC affects the "primitive" religious beliefs of people.

lincolninspace

orangeitis wrote: »

Dawkins' promotion of evolution has nothing to do with being 'heartless' or not. He promotes it as fact, it's true, but as far as I know, he does not believe that 'how we got here' should dictate 'how we should be'.

No matter how much one thinks we evolved from a primitive 'survival of the fittest' behavior, they can still accept that we no longer live as such, and with our evolved capacity for intelligence, reasoning, and empathy brought our society changes in circumstances, needs, and understanding. We empathize, which allows us to acknowledge that hurting other people is wrong.

My point is, 'how we were' has no bearing on 'how we ought to be', and I'd bet my firstborn that Dawkins knows this. =D

Fairness and diplomacy are not owned by religion, mind you. Even the most secular of societies could accept those as the best way for individuals to function within their societies.

I see your point here. Vulcans may preach logic, but until they actually demonstrate rationality enough to use logic properly, they are as irrational as other species.

A glaringly obvious example of logic based on a fallacy is in the 2009 Abrams movie, where Spock cites the(granted reused phrase) "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth." ...which is an argument from ignorance, as it ignores possibilities that they aren't even aware of. Whether or not he hit the nail on the head with it is irrelevant.

True, many people do judge The Bible before they read it. Sadly, that includes Christians - and apparently, an overwhelming number of Christians here in the states. Even as an atheist, I can admit that even if The bible as bad things in it, it has its share of good things too. I just happen to think that we should live by good things because they're good, not because a book tells us to.

I once had a school teacher who believed cancer victims should not be allowed to reproduce since it weakened the evolutionary gene pool. This is an example of what is called "social Darwinism" which is being used to promote many disturbing positions.

I agree that finding peace and being good to ones neighbour is not owned by religion but it is still akin to the golden rule. Star trek idealizes mankind in an unrealistic way, it's escapist fiction. to quote scripture: "Man has dominated man to his injury" or the old addage "power corrupts" it is likely impossible to be a politician without getting ones hands dirty or falling into temptation to use you position to benefit yourself first.

- Gotta agree with the Vulcan thing! They take themselves so seriously they cannot see there own flaws.

otisnoble

I'm a Christian and a Trekie. As long as the religion isn't forced on players where they have to choose a god or pray to a god I don't mind religion in games.