My Philosophy on "Star Trek"

[Moviefan2k4]

This video is much shorter, compared to the last few I've done. I'm simply giving my own opinion, about the "Star Trek" franchise in general.

Having said that, I know some of what I've said here will likely be controversial. But since I'm not purposely hating or condemning anyone, I don't see any inherent problem with that. If the mods want to lock this thread to prevent another post war, I completely understand. But I am humbly asking, that you please leave the video intact. My aim with doing this was to objectively present my views, and let others draw their own conclusions - that's it.

Thanks for reading, and I hope this doesn't cause any trouble.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Oddish]

I appreciate your willingness to share your opinion honestly. No one should oppose that, or feel threatened by it, even if their opinions differ from your own.

And, I fear that you are right about humanity's basic nature. I think that "Deep Space 9", and it's far less rose colored view of the Federation, touched on that more than once.

 

[James Cole]

Okay the thread title looked interesting, but it's just an out of context link to a YouTube channel. Out of curiosity I did skim the transcript of the video, and it basically suggests that Star Trek can have a Christian interpretation in addition to a secular humanist interpretation. It might be more useful to offer some supporting bullet points to the argument here?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Okay the thread title looked interesting, but it's just an out of context link to a YouTube channel. Out of curiosity I did skim the transcript of the video, and it basically suggests that Star Trek can have a Christian interpretation in addition to a secular humanist interpretation. It might be more useful to offer some supporting bullet points to the argument here?

No rudeness meant on my part, but I believe you misunderstood my intent. I didn't post this video to start a debate, so if that's what you're after, I suggest you look elsewhere.

 

[Michael]

I didn't post this video to start a debate, so if that's what you're after, I suggest you look elsewhere.

Then I suggest you look elsewhere to post something like this, because this is a message board. Debating stuff is what this place is all about. This is not your personal blog or a platform to just broadcast your every brainfart about Trek and god out into the world without any opposition.

 

[Muji]

What I find objectionable about this video isn't the Christian faith-based view that God created humans, or that the only way to 'save' humanity is to return to the word of God - these are simply the poster's chosen views, no matter how vociferously I would disagree with them - but it's that they ask for these views not to be challenged or debated. They are choosing to put this 'controversial' content out into the public domain, as is their right. That right comes with the responsibility to accept that others have the right of response and the ability to share their own view on what they have watched or read. What is really being request here is to not have these views challenged, which would probably make them a singular special case on the internet. I find that request unreasonable.

The OP states they're 'not completely against Star Trek', which I guess is a good thing considering how much they have been posting on a Star Trek forum. The idea of creating a thread, with just their video, that could then be locked to prevent others questioning those views, seems to be requesting unique and special treatment. I don't see why these views should be treated with special reverence.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Then I suggest you look elsewhere to post something like this, because this is a message board. Debating stuff is what this place is all about. This is not your personal blog or a platform to just broadcast your every brainfart about Trek and god out into the world without any opposition.

I didn't mean to come across as controlling. I was simply trying to avoid a repeat of the Danica McKellar thread, which went completely sideways. I don't mind my views being challenged, but I became very tired of having to essentially post repeated variations of the same thing. As a result, I made the video, figuring if anyone wanted to address it, they could...but please, leave me out of it. I got the impression last time, that I came very close to being outright banned, which is the last thing I want to happen.

 

[cultcross]

It's a discussion board - if you post something, it's for discussion and debate - not a personal vlog.

Besides, I think there's interesting meat to a discussion of a Christian viewpoint on Star Trek. Progressive Christianity isn't far removed from the idea of a better future through the way of Jesus (although we're likely to disagree about exactly what that means). I also think there are specific elements of star trek which - unintentionally - pose questions of quasi-Christian ethics, such as TNGs examination of where the line lies where violence is acceptable.

I came very close to being outright banned

You did not - you didn't even receive a warning. I closed the thread because open homophobia will not be tacitly accepted. Stay away from that and you'll be fine.

 

[Michael]

What @cultcross said. But also, please just spare us the constant fucking persecution complex, because I find that just insufferable. You’ve been here a hot minute, and yet you’ve repeatedly gone on about how you’ve been booted from other places for your views and how people just can’t handle your Christian leanings or that you are “not PC”. If you don’t like your opinions challenged, don’t post them on a message board. Or, at the very least, don’t feel obliged to respond to the people challenging them. No one here is out to get you or has anything against people with religious views. But it’s the very nature of a message board that people will see what you write and respond to it with their own takes.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

It's a discussion board - if you post something, it's for discussion and debate - not a personal vlog.

Noted; I guess I just wanted to be heard without dissenters automatically taking my comments personally.

Besides, I think there's interesting meat to a discussion of a Christian viewpoint on Star Trek. Progressive Christianity isn't far removed from the idea of a better future through the way of Jesus (although we're likely to disagree about exactly what that means). I also think there are specific elements of star trek which - unintentionally - pose questions of quasi-Christian ethics, such as TNGs examination of where the line lies where violence is acceptable.

Maybe, but I am in no way "progressive" regarding my faith...at least, not by the modern use of that term. For example, my roommate often says I take the Bible too literally, but I've corrected him many times, saying I actually treat it literarially. There's many different aspects to Scripture - history, poetry, philosophy, prophecy, etc. So I do my best to tackle each one, based on their own merit.

You did not - you didn't even receive a warning. I closed the thread because open homophobia will not be tacitly accepted. Stay away from that and you'll be fine.

The previous conflict made it abundantly clear to me, that I have a very different personal definition of the word "phobia", compared to others on the forum...regardless of the attached subject matter. I don't wish to get back into that, and I didn't even mention it on the above video. So I would appreciate if no one tried drawing me back into that type of discussion; it just keeps going in circles.

 

[Michael]

Noted; I guess I just wanted to be heard without dissenters automatically taking my comments personally.

People (passionately) disagreeing with your views — homophobic or otherwise — does not equal “taking your comments personally”. It’s a weak sauce debate tactic to accuse the other side of just not being able to talk about a subject rationally. It makes the person making that claim look foolish and like they are not able to present any actual arguments.

literarially

The what now?

The previous conflict made it abundantly clear to me, that I have a very different personal definition of the word "phobia", compared to others on the forum...

Regardless of your own personal definition of “homophobia”, have you now understood what the definition is we’re going with here? At the end of the day it doesn’t matter a whole lot to me or the board staff if you personally adopt the way the vast majority of people worldwide use the term “homophobia” (i.e. an irrational fear of, aversion to, dislike of, bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people), but for your future on the board here it’s important that at the very least you are understanding what we mean when we say it and what sort of things won’t fly in your posts.

So I would appreciate if no one tried drawing me back into that type of discussion

No-one is drawing you anywhere. It’s always and can only be your own choice which posts you respond to and which discussions you choose to take part in. Don’t ever blame it on someone else when you decide to respond to a conversation.

 

[Citiprime]

From a paper published in the journal Sociology of Religion:

The appeal of "Star Trek" is not for a kind of personal salvation, but for the future of the "Star Trek" collective …."I" will not live until the twenty-fourth century, but "we" certainly will, according to the "Star Trek" future. It is hope for ourselves as a society, a myth about where we have come and where we are going. Fans want to be part of forming that destiny.​

In interviews with both Roddenberry and people who worked on TNG, like Ron Moore and Brannon Braga, it’s been made clear that the creative intent with the Star Trek universe was for it to be atheistic. Roddenberry felt religion is a symptom of humanity’s problems, since like a lot of things which polarize and separate humans, religion is not based in reason. By its own nature, religion is a “faith” where people choose to believe in things that violate every rule of the natural order because “God wills it.” And the arguments between different groups about whose faith and god is the “real god” has led to rivers of blood being spilled.

Star Trek imagines a universe where, for at least humans on Earth, society has come to treat the concept of religion as being similar to a child’s belief in Santa Claus. And one of the central conceits of Trek is the idea that once humanity “grew up” to accept empirical reality as it is, they were better able to make decisions based in reason and science rather than superstition, and did it together as a united people.

Roddenberry did an interview with a humanist magazine back in 1991 where he lays out his views both on TOS, TNG, television and life in general, and contrary to popular belief, he doesn’t argue for human perfection. He argues that a humanist view accepts humans and the reality we exist in for what it is and finds the beauty in that

Alexander: The first duty of humanists is to be honest with themselves and to accept their humanity, with all of the little warts and wrinkles.

Roddenberry: Yes. I think the warts and wrinkles can be beautiful. They can be the test of whether or not you are a true human. Are you capable of those errors and capable of those foolish little angers that cause you to say foolish little things? To be a human, although you are not perfect, to be guided to accepting yourself, is a great pleasure. You can take great joy from it.​

A humanistic viewpoint fundamentally conflicts with the Abrahamic religions, where Christianity has as a core precept that humanity is tainted by “original sin.” That humanity is fundamentally flawed and broken, that there’s shame in being human, as well as in human experiences like sex if not done in a manner approved of. And we can only be “saved” from these flaws through obedience to Jesus Christ.

I always think it’s somewhat amusing that some Star Trek fans find it easier to accept warp drive, replicators, and weird aliens than the idea that human beings can be better and build a world without greed or war … or a “God.”

 

[James Cole]

^^ Okay, now some interesting reading that doesn't require Googling multiple terms or being aware of BBS threads I never came across.

Hell, one line of argument used by many Kurtzman era critics is that NuTrek doesn't reflect secular humanism...

 

[valkyrie013]

Could you summerize your video? I don't click on video links.

 

[James Cole]

Could you summerize your video? I don't click on video links.

Not the OP, but I asked ChatGPT to summarize it.

The speaker reflects on their perspective of the Star Trek franchise, emphasizing their disagreement with its portrayal of human evolution and the absence of religion. They express a belief in the necessity of God's guidance for humanity's moral progress. The speaker invites respectful disagreement but discourages pointless arguments. Overall, they advocate for a more God-centered worldview.

 

[HotRod]

Because that's just what the world needs.... more religion.*


*but only one particular religion.

 

[Mudd]

From a paper published in the journal Sociology of Religion:

The appeal of "Star Trek" is not for a kind of personal salvation, but for the future of the "Star Trek" collective …."I" will not live until the twenty-fourth century, but "we" certainly will, according to the "Star Trek" future. It is hope for ourselves as a society, a myth about where we have come and where we are going. Fans want to be part of forming that destiny.​

In interviews with both Roddenberry and people who worked on TNG, like Ron Moore and Brannon Braga, it’s been made clear that the creative intent with the Star Trek universe was for it to be atheistic. Roddenberry felt religion is a symptom of humanity’s problems, since like a lot of things which polarize and separate humans, religion is not based in reason. By its own nature, religion is a “faith” where people choose to believe in things that violate every rule of the natural order because “God wills it.” And the arguments between different groups about whose faith and god is the “real god” has led to rivers of blood being spilled.

Star Trek imagines a universe where, for at least humans on Earth, society has come to treat the concept of religion as being similar to a child’s belief in Santa Claus. And one of the central conceits of Trek is the idea that once humanity “grew up” to accept empirical reality as it is, they were better able to make decisions based in reason and science rather than superstition, and did it together as a united people.

Roddenberry did an interview with a humanist magazine back in 1991 where he lays out his views both on TOS, TNG, television and life in general, and contrary to popular belief, he doesn’t argue for human perfection. He argues that a humanist view accepts humans and the reality we exist in for what it is and finds the beauty in that

Alexander: The first duty of humanists is to be honest with themselves and to accept their humanity, with all of the little warts and wrinkles.

Roddenberry: Yes. I think the warts and wrinkles can be beautiful. They can be the test of whether or not you are a true human. Are you capable of those errors and capable of those foolish little angers that cause you to say foolish little things? To be a human, although you are not perfect, to be guided to accepting yourself, is a great pleasure. You can take great joy from it.​

A humanistic viewpoint fundamentally conflicts with the Abrahamic religions, where Christianity has as a core precept that humanity is tainted by “original sin.” That humanity is fundamentally flawed and broken, that there’s shame in being human, as well as in human experiences like sex if not done in a manner approved of. And we can only be “saved” from these flaws through obedience to Jesus Christ.

I always think it’s somewhat amusing that some Star Trek fans find it easier to accept warp drive, replicators, and weird aliens than the idea that human beings can be better and build a world without greed or war … or a “God.”

When Roddenberry described himself as a "philosopher, junior grade,"
he flattered himself. The notions he espoused about God, religion and the future of society were nothing you won't find on any off-campus bar where college undergrads congregate over cheap beer. Second-and-third pitcher musings.

 

[1001001]

Good grief...

Let me try to unpack all of this.

First, posting a link to draw clicks to your YouTube page is not a good start. If you have something to say, say it here. This is a message board, made for discussion, not to host poster's videos.

Second, as already pointed out, you can't post an opinion and then try to prohibit responses to that opinion. The way this reads to me, you've given your opinions (again) and told everyone not to bother responding. That's not how a message board works. You clearly know your opinions will bring negative responses, as you've said so repeatedly.

Against my better judgment, I'll leave this open for now, while I consult with my colleagues.

 

[cultcross]

where Christianity has as a core precept that humanity is tainted by “original sin.”

That's a popular interpretation certainly but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a core element. It didn't emerge at all until the third century and even today is a big point of difference between Eastern and Western churches. Augustine's opinion should not be considered binding for all time. It would have been unknown to Paul or, for that matter, to Jesus. Bettering ourselves and the rest of humanity (to coin a phrase) was a huge part of their worldview, even if the later church found other things to worry about.

 

[BillJ]

Religion has been part of Trek since the beginning. Mentioned in TOS, TNG, DS9 was built around religion.