The Star Trek universe vs. reality
Earlier tonight I was watching a BBC4 documentary which explored some of the effects science fiction has had on modern society. One interviewee described what he saw as the impressive moral values of Star Trek: tolerance of other races and kindness towards all are important aspects of the show. I knew that this wasn't surprising as Gene Roddenberry was both an atheist and humanist, and the Star Trek universe is very much based around humanist philosophy. The interviewee who mentioned this turned out to be a vicar. Obviously there's not necessarily any conflict here, and I'm sure I would have much in common with somebody who seemed to be a nice guy. Nevertheless, I can only assume that he would, if questioned, claim something like:
The science fiction universe of Star Trek has explorers traversing the galaxy, using their extensive experience of the universe to reason out peaceful solutions to problems while demonstrating a tolerance and kindness towards all people of all races. Of course, here in the real world I get my moral guidance from a magical being in the sky whose son came back from the dead.
I suppose this is why I find the psychology of religious belief so interesting, as I'd find such a statement very difficult to comprehend.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
January 6th, 2007 - 02:52
In fairness you are disagreeing with a point of your own making here. While it may be lighthearted the quote is a classic scarecrow. The vicar would perhaps invite you in for a cup of tea and tell you that it’s so wonderful to see such moral fibre in the world today. Or he could offer you a plate of lime jelly and have you watch countdown while sat of a copy of the Bandini Quartet. Alternatively, he may hit you over the head with a leather bound copy of the King James.
You seem to be irritated here by a value commonly shared by both Humanists and the Church. Keeping the value intact but ligating faith from the equation. On questions of morals I think it’s more important how one acts in everyday life and how they apply those morals to circumstance. The vicar believes in these values autonomously and from the sounds of the interview…doesn’t even mention religion! (hence your surprise at him being a vicar).
Surely the most important thing is that the value is being upheld – whether by rationalism or the cross. I really don’t care as long as people are amenable in the street. For me, that is tolerance. Reprimanding someone for being what you see as morally reprehensible is one thing, but taking a shot at someone for expressing agreement with a moral value you hold also, within a scnenario of your own construction no less, is a nicely stuffed, sweet smelling, golden yellow…straw…man.
I guess the question is… why question him further? Like you say he seems like a nice guy. If it’s a purely theoretical preoccupation then it doesn’t really count one jot in the world of applied ethics – but then again to muse over these questions online seems strangely meta-ethical by proxy so what the hell, go mad.
January 6th, 2007 - 14:40
It’s to do with wanting the world to be a better place when you know that the downside of human nature precludes it
January 6th, 2007 - 17:07
I wasn’t ‘reprimanding him’, nor ‘taking a shot’. It was a little joke that wasn’t intended to be serious social commentary, and was more to do with my confusion at the odd juxtaposition of ST and his own worldview. I wasn’t insulting him, just saying that what seems to be a logical extrapolation is rather bizarre. It’s not the way I’d phrase things in a proper debate, but equally it’s a valid shorthand for what I thought was an interesting point, and I don’t think I was rude or impolite.
January 10th, 2007 - 17:17
Paroxysm, I disagree that Humanists and the Church share common values, as seen in this article below:
Faith groups protest against gay rights laws.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-09T193247Z_01_L08875115_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-GAYS.xml&WTmodLoc=Top News-C1-Headline-5
What can you say about this? Humanists do not value intolerance, inequality and the very things most faithful publicly announce in their name of their god.
January 10th, 2007 - 22:08
To be fair, and to stop this getting into a fight, I think he meant that sometimes the Church promotes tolerance and ‘respect’ in the same way humanists do. I agree that the religious version often comes with a huge amount of baggage and exclusions attached, though.
January 11th, 2007 - 00:59
No fight necessary. Leandro please see the word ‘a’ as in singular before ‘value’. This essentially means ‘one’. I’ve really no need to refer to the post when my comment is read properly.
January 11th, 2007 - 01:04
Oh and Paul I think you are agreeing with me here. Yes that is one way of looking at it, (unless I have completely misread your comment). Myself and Andrew will discuss at length at the next available opportunity and report our findings.