Difference Between Church and Star Trek?

[Shadow Wolf]

The Vulcan discipline has all the "earmarks" (get it?, earmarks!) of being understood as the religion of logic.

It isn't a religion though, but a philosophy. It is a misrepresentation to consider IDIC as a religion because it is not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who is trying to do that? Certainly not me. I'm trying to point out that many human endeavors engender very similar patterns of symbology and practice. I don't see that such similarity makes being a fan of Star Trek into a religion (although Jediism is recognized as a religion...). Geertz's model does, however, show that the typical dictionary definition of religion is inadequate and that 'religion' is very similar to other human endeavors.

Is it really a model for religion, or a massively broad definition that ultimately says "afraid to let go?"

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Is it really a model for religion, or a massively broad definition that ultimately says "afraid to let go?"

It's a model of social systems, that applies to religions and other larger-scale human endeavors. I suggest reading Geertz. There is nothing in Geertz that would suggest he is trying to preserve religion...to the contrary, he is trying to improve understanding of the how and why of religion as compared with other human social activities.

 

[sealchan]

Jehovah is more comparable to the Dominion. The Federation allows for the freedoms we value and cherish the most. The Dominion expects people to kneel and obey by default. It isn't necessary, but when god says to invade the followers of god tend to obey.

In the story...and later certainly there were church directed campaigns of war. But there is also a lot of equivocation from God about forming up His people into a kingdom as well.

Sort of like when a story portrays someone as really evil...then it is okay for the protagonist to unleash his or her righteous fury...

On the other hand I don't believe that the Flood story was literally true and that at one time people were all just evil and needed (aka deserved) to be just wiped out. And those other stories of Israel conquering Canaan where everyone was destroyed...not substantiated by actual historical, archeological evidence. So again a violent fantasy perhaps of a culture with a history with violence. But how many evil henchmen have served in the role of the victims of righteous killing force in modern stories? (A-Team notwithstanding)

I don't want to dismiss your critique here but I do think there is some valuable context to consider. The use of the Bible to justify violence has been a long-standing evil act that puts the lie to the face of religion as not corruptible by political-worldly power. That is why it is all the more important IMO that we see the need to return religion to a culture of creative story-telling that adds or even edits the wealth of spiritual knowledge through further creative interpretation of history and projection of story into the future.

And there is no need to have one right story but perhaps there is an enjoyment to maintaining a consistent canon within a particular story-Universe.

 

[sealchan]

It's a model of social systems, that applies to religions and other larger-scale human endeavors. I suggest reading Geertz. There is nothing in Geertz that would suggest he is trying to preserve religion...to the contrary, he is trying to improve understanding of the how and why of religion as compared with other human social activities.

I'm just starting into a lecture on YouTube from Daniel Dennett:

The Evolution of Religion by Daniel Dennett

He promises to offer a new angle on the scientific study of religion from a very evolutionary perspective. The persistence of a religion as a part of a human culture, its spread between cultures and its longevity over time all suggest that there is something worth wanting to understand about religion.

 

[sealchan]

It isn't a religion though, but a philosophy. It is a misrepresentation to consider IDIC as a religion because it is not.

I read some Trekkie stuff just now...it seems that perhaps the idea is that the Vulcans evolved out of a belief in gods but retained the trappings of religious institutions as they still fulfilled a need...perhaps for focus and discipline and the institutionalization of their beliefs.

So sure not a religion. But if we breakdown religion into its components I think that a belief in a personal God is not a universal feature of religion...but setting that aside. Even if we were to reasonably say that a belief in any deity or supernatural entity is a requirement for religion then might we not say that religion is simply one way in which humanity meets the needs that religion meets?

Philosophy, story, ritual, moral code, personal meaning...not a religion but whatever it is, this contains religion as a subset.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So sure not a religion. But if we breakdown religion into its components I think that a belief in a personal God is not a universal feature of religion...but setting that aside. Even if we were to reasonably say that a belief in any deity or supernatural entity is a requirement for religion then might we not say that religion is simply one way in which humanity meets the needs that religion meets?

Religion itself doesn't give us much more than stories. We have to act on it to satisfy any of our needs, such as social needs. Anything religion fulfills, we can get it elsewhere and without the dogma.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I read some Trekkie stuff just now...it seems that perhaps the idea is that the Vulcans evolved out of a belief in gods but retained the trappings of religious institutions as they still fulfilled a need...perhaps for focus and discipline and the institutionalization of their beliefs.

Humans and Vulcans both acknowledge religion as a part of their primitive ways and history, and both have eschewed such primitive thinking and behaviors.

Philosophy, story, ritual, moral code, personal meaning...not a religion but whatever it is, this contains religion as a subset.

That is nothing more than trying to force religion into an area that allows it to encompass things that aren't inherently religious. We can have a religious story, but not all stories are religious. Philosophy may be theistically inclined, or it can be very hostile towards anything that resembles religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IMO that we see the need to return religion to a culture of creative story-telling that adds or even edits the wealth of spiritual knowledge through further creative interpretation of history and projection of story into the future.

Or we do it like they do on Star Trek, and leave religion behind us, in the past where it belongs.

 

[dianaiad]

What are the similarities and differences between someone who faithfully attends church services and someone who religiously watches new Star Trek episodes?

Sounds silly...but I would argue this is a critical question regarding the nature of religious belief and practice. Will explain as the discussion progresses...

The biggest difference is that when people go to church, they are going to hear someone say or do something new. They may be repeating the same beliefs, of course, and may be speaking on the same topics, but there is always something a little different going on, even if its only that the baby crying three pews back is a different baby from last week, or is a week older.

There aren't any new Star Trek episodes.

Going to church allows one to associate with others who share one's beliefs and participates in the event. Watching Star Trek is a solitary enterprise; one cannot participate in what's happening on the screen.

and yeah, the comparison is pretty silly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There aren't any new Star Trek episodes.

Patrick Stewart is reprising his role as Jean-Luc Picard for a new ST series.

Watching Star Trek is a solitary enterprise; one cannot participate in what's happening on the screen.

You can't watch with friends? And what of the legions of scientists who were inspired by Star Trek, and it shows with the plethora of ideas that are based on things from the series?

 

[dianaiad]

Patrick Stewart is reprising his role as Jean-Luc Picard for a new ST series.

You can't watch with friends? And what of the legions of scientists who were inspired by Star Trek, and it shows with the plethora of ideas that are based on things from the series?

Can any of these friends and scientists change one word of the script, alter one special effect, save even ONE 'red shirt?"

Got news for you. Comparing Star Trek to church is like comparing the movie goers seeing "The Ten Commandments" with the archeologists at an Egyptian dig.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can any of these friends and scientists change one word of the script, alter one special effect, save even ONE 'red shirt?"

Why would they?

Comparing Star Trek to church is like comparing the movie goers seeing "The Ten Commandments" with the archeologists at an Egyptian dig.

No, comparing those who see The Ten Commandments to those who do archeological digs in Egypt is like comparing those who see The Ten Commandments to those who do archeological digs in Egypt.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are certain similarities between Star Trek devotion and religion. Star Trek (and Science Fiction in general) is essentially a collection of morality play, hardly different from the morality play of the middle ages. As a Trekkie myself, I enjoy being stretched by the ethical dilemmas and the solutions presented. But here is the question: when faced with a moral dilemma or life issue in REAL life, do these Trekkies ask themselves WWKD? (What would Kirk do)

I think that there are times that fandom, when the fictious world and its ethics are developed enough, can cross into that murky in between space where devotion is almost a religion. I would say my adoration of the Lord of the Rings falls into this category. I have memorized huge portions of the book, and reflected on its ethical teachings and their possible application to my life -- and THAT is why it crosses the line. It is why I call the LOTR my other sacred text.

I don't think I've ever met anyone else who has taken it to this level. They are simply enthusiasts. And that is NOT the same thing as a religion, no matter how much trivia you know.

In THE SACRED AND THE PROFANE, Mircea Eliade talks about how today some completely secular people will nevertheless on an unconscious level still have remnants of religious thought and behavior. It is not true religion, but rather the shadow, or holdover of religion. For example, in religion we set aside certain locations as sacred space. The unbeliever may place an unequal value to a certain place because it is where they met their loved one.

This fandom of science fiction or fantasy worlds, with their godlike characters such as Q, and emphasis on ethics, is exactly that -- a shadow religion. Not true religion.

It's also a HECK of a lot of fun!

Beam me up, Scotty

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I would say my adoration of the Lord of the Rings falls into this category. I have memorized huge portions of the book, and reflected on its ethical teachings and their possible application to my life -- and THAT is why it crosses the line. It is why I call the LOTR my other sacred text.

LOL. I haven't memorized it, but since I first read LOTR at age 12...uh...48 years ago...I've re-read it roughly every year (checks calendar...it's almost Bilbo and Frodo's birthday...will probably start reading it again in the next couple of weeks...)...

Over the last decade or so, I've made a concerted effort to read everything else Tolkien wrote, at least a couple of times each...simply amazing as far as I'm concerned...Each time through LOTR I try to focus on different aspects...

I wouldn't call it religion, either, but it is a serious study...for fun...

 

[dianaiad]

Why would they?

No, comparing those who see The Ten Commandments to those who do archeological digs in Egypt is like comparing those who see The Ten Commandments to those who do archeological digs in Egypt.

You don't see the comparison?

Well, in church a group of people get together and actively participate in the goings on.
When a group of people watch a TV show, they sit on the couch, and though they might kibitz with one another, they can't do one single thing about the show except...watch it.

If you can't see the similarity between people watching "The Ten Commandments," where a story is presented to the viewers and those viewers can't change anything in the movie, and a group of archeologists who actively participate in examining the relics and shards of the era and come to their own beliefs about what happened, then you aren't paying attention.

Try this.

The ONLY way one could compare Star Trek to church is if you were comparing church goers to the people who film and act in the show. They are the only ones who can change anything.


People individually can find inspiration from pretty much anything...Tolkien, Mark Twain, Yeats, Shakespeare, the Beetles...whatever. But they can't change the books, the poems or the performances.

Church goers ARE the folks acting and interacting.

Oh, this is getting too serious for the subject.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You don't see the comparison?

Well, in church a group of people get together and actively participate in the goings on.
When a group of people watch a TV show, they sit on the couch, and though they might kibitz with one another, they can't do one single thing about the show except...watch it.

If you can't see the similarity between people watching "The Ten Commandments," where a story is presented to the viewers and those viewers can't change anything in the movie, and a group of archeologists who actively participate in examining the relics and shards of the era and come to their own beliefs about what happened, then you aren't paying attention.

Try this.

The ONLY way one could compare Star Trek to church is if you were comparing church goers to the people who film and act in the show. They are the only ones who can change anything.


People individually can find inspiration from pretty much anything...Tolkien, Mark Twain, Yeats, Shakespeare, the Beetles...whatever. But they can't change the books, the poems or the performances.

Church goers ARE the folks acting and interacting.

Oh, this is getting too serious for the subject.

It doesn't sound like you've ever seen or attended a Star Trek convention...

 

[blü 2]

What are the similarities and differences between someone who faithfully attends church services and someone who religiously watches new Star Trek episodes?

An interesting question.

There are several Star Treks, from different eras ─ Primitive, which behind Shattner + Nimoy, clunky effects, and all the fist fights and set-your-phasers-to-stun, reflects Roddenberry's humanist outlook: the good guys boldly go, help, show respect, reach out, do the right thing, expand human knowledge, use reason, solve problems. Generations had a much bigger budget, much better plotting, a captain (Paddy Stewart) who could act, and was Star Trek's high tide, even more visibly and effectively humanist. (Then the duller Soap, with Janeway, and Losing Your Grip with Archer, and so on. The Reboot with J.J. Abrams is a step towards Marveldom, but still with the humanist ideals in there somewhere.)

In short, all Star Treks set out to tell tales with a particular moral PoV which now and then can get a bit close to preachy, but gee it looks good in the Age of Trump.

How does that differ from going to church? Well, no one gets worshiped, is the most striking thing for me ─ simple admiration will do it, and you can be as critical as you like. Oh, and there's no collection, no tithing, no fetes ...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

they can't do one single thing about the show except...watch it.

They are shaping the world with it. Star Trek inspired people to be scientists. Their love for the show didn't just vanish.
And what of Star Trek games? Cosplay? The discussions about it here on RF? Robert Nozick wrote of a thought experiment called the Spock Problem, I wrote a paper about it in college explaining Nozick basically had no idea what he was talking about when it comes to Spock and Vulcans (truly, he was very wrong in several regards), and my philosophy teacher and I both agreed it felt like a philosophy class should give an acknowledgement to Leonard Nimoy when he died. That is certainly more than just watching a television show.

 

[DanishCrow]

Well, the similarity would be that both devotees find a community of others that cares about something as much as they do. They will find 'services worldwide', though a great many trekkies only communicate through the internet, which has a lot of in-built limitations. A service gives personal contact with other devotees, and the added benefits of communal sacrifice or prayer.

As for the differences, well, it's mostly that fandom isn't spirituality. A spiritual community can help you overcome a great deal of adversity in your life by giving you the tools needed to confront life on it's own terms when it's being difficult to handle.

Fandom mostly gives you tools needed to distract yourself and get into arguments with others over pointless ****.