VOY: "Mortal Coil"

[CharlesPhipps]

Star Trek's in a weird place where some religions have had their gods proven to be real (the Prophets, Apollo, and [if you count the animated series] Satan), with the debate only being over whether they're worthy of worship.

It's a fairly relevant point for reality. If Jesus is proven to be a historical personage and had a bunch of Gospels rather than a mythological person, for a lot of people that won't change their views on the man but would be relevant to their interpretation of the man.

Which in Star Trek terms was how ENT used Sarek. His historical status is without question and his "true words" are important regardless of any supernatural status he had (or lack thereof).

Studies have shown that the people most vulnerable to being taken in by groups like QAnon, the really crazy shared conspiracy stuff, are the least educated people - and the most. With the most, it's because they think they're too smart to be taken in by nonsense.

Application of this fact to religious belief is left as an exercise for the student.

(edit to add) Star Trek is both advanced, and rationalist.

Christopher Hitchens notably had a big debate with Tony Blair about whether religions were a good thing or a bad thing but both men found that their debate didn't actually go over well with the religious as a whole because the issue is not whether "religions" are good or bad. Any person who is religious or has an interest in them historically is asking WHAT RELIGION and what their practices are.

By lumping them all together, you have already made a definitive statement about what you think about them.

If you were living in same universe as the Q Continuum, the Prophets, the Pah Wraiths, the Organians, the Nexus, multiple parallel realities, functional time travel, spatial anomalies that make space and time bend to its will, technology that breaks the laws of physics, magic space mushrooms and whatever it is that Dr McCoy's liver is made out of, you too would be open to at least the possibility of there being an afterlife.

To be fair, this is probably Roddenberry's point through all the Fifties Drugs and pop psychology he was experimenting with. If we encountered aliens and they had vastly more powerful technology or natural abilities, what meaning does "god" have in any sense? Which is an interesting thought for a literal God.

Is there any reason to worship the Abrahamic God EVEN IF HE'S REAL? If you don't respect what he is for?

Mind you, for most atheists, this is an incredible irrelevancy. They don't believe in gods so what's the point.

Which actually is why its always fun to have Western atheists meet Buddhists of certain schools.

"I don't believe in God or an afterlife."

"Yes, such only exist in the mind."

"So you're an atheist."

"That is a stupid worldview."

"Wait, what?"

[Lazerlike42]

Studies have shown that the people most vulnerable to being taken in by groups like QAnon, the really crazy shared conspiracy stuff, are the least educated people - and the most. With the most, it's because they think they're too smart to be taken in by nonsense.

Application of this fact to religious belief is left as an exercise for the student.

(edit to add) Star Trek is both advanced, and rationalist.

I would appreciate citation of this fact, because while I have no reason to prima facie dismiss the claim, I also have no reason to embrace it. It strikes me as the kind of claim that could be true, or which could be one of those "facts" that people spread around.

Beyond that, I would strongly argue that applying this to religious belief is a form of circular reasoning, of question begging. It depends on assuming that the claims of not only any but of every religion are epistemologically equivalent to the claims of groups like QAnon, all as one stage in an argument which seems intended to dismiss the claims of religious groups as epistemologically unsound.

Moving even beyond this, if we were to apply the same dynamic to religious belief, then what is suggested here is only one out of several possible interpretations. Yes, it could be that - again, assuming the claim were true - that a major cause for the least educated people and the most educated people being religious are due to a lack of education and an overconfidence in their own knowledge, respectively. Alternatively, it could be that the least educated people are more open to religion because they tend to have a greater humility - something that most religions regard as at least important to faith or even as a kind of prerequisite for openness to faith. On the other end of the spectrum, it is possible that more educated people are more open to religion precisely because they really do understand the world better than others. Those persons who lie in the middle of the educational spectrum could conceivably be more likely to dismiss religion out of a kind of Dunning-Kruger effect whereby they know enough to think they can make a sound judgment but they ultimately don't know enough to know what they don't know, as the saying goes.

Step back, though, and consider that if the equivalency being suggested here were true, it would ultimately prove too much. Notice that in the previous paragraph I assumed for the sake of argument the implication that more educated persons are more likely to embrace religion for the reasons suggested - but in reality I'm not so sure that this is true. Recall that my original claim was only that an understanding and an investment in science does not preclude religious belief, but not that these things predispose a person to religious belief. This is because, as I said, I suspect that there are plenty of educated atheists just as there are many educated theists/religious believers. If we're going to say that high levels of education can lead to people being easy targets for being "taken in" by things, there's no reason not to say that atheism is not equally likely to be that by which these educated people are taken in as compared to religious belief.

[CharlesPhipps]

Studies have shown that the people most vulnerable to being taken in by groups like QAnon, the really crazy shared conspiracy stuff, are the least educated people - and the most. With the most, it's because they think they're too smart to be taken in by nonsense.

Application of this fact to religious belief is left as an exercise for the student.

(edit to add) Star Trek is both advanced, and rationalist.

I would appreciate citation of this fact, because while I have no reason to prima facie dismiss the claim, I also have no reason to embrace it. It strikes me as the kind of claim that could be true, or which could be one of those "facts" that people spread around.

Beyond that, I would strongly argue that applying this to religious belief is a form of circular reasoning, of question begging. It depends on assuming that the claims of not only any but of every religion are epistemologically equivalent to the claims of groups like QAnon, all as one stage in an argument which seems intended to dismiss the claims of religious groups as epistemologically unsound.

Moving even beyond this, if we were to apply the same dynamic to religious belief, then what is suggested here is only one out of several possible interpretations. Yes, it could be that - again, assuming the claim were true - that a major cause for the least educated people and the most educated people being religious are due to a lack of education and an overconfidence in their own knowledge, respectively. Alternatively, it could be that the least educated people are more open to religion because they tend to have a greater humility - something that most religions regard as at least important to faith or even as a kind of prerequisite for openness to faith. On the other end of the spectrum, it is possible that more educated people are more open to religion precisely because they really do understand the world better than others. Those persons who lie in the middle of the educational spectrum could conceivably be more likely to dismiss religion out of a kind of Dunning-Kruger effect whereby they know enough to think they can make a sound judgment but they ultimately don't know enough to know what they don't know, as the saying goes.

Step back, though, and consider that if the equivalency being suggested here were true, it would ultimately prove too much. Notice that in the previous paragraph I assumed for the sake of argument the implication that more educated persons are more likely to embrace religion for the reasons suggested - but in reality I'm not so sure that this is true. Recall that my original claim was only that an understanding and an investment in science does not preclude religious belief, but not that these things predispose a person to religious belief. This is because, as I said, I suspect that there are plenty of educated atheists just as there are many educated theists/religious believers. If we're going to say that high levels of education can lead to people being easy targets for being "taken in" by things, there's no reason not to say that atheism is not equally likely to be that by which these educated people are taken in as compared to religious belief.

It also leads to a rather bizarre conclusion that non-religious people are neither particularly dumb or smart.

[clearspira]

There is a difference between God and what man says about God. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I say this because I do not believe that believing in a God is proof that you are dumb. I believe that believing in talking snakes proves that you are dumb. The devil is in the details.

[Frustration]

I would appreciate citation of this fact, because while I have no reason to prima facie dismiss the claim, I also have no reason to embrace it. It strikes me as the kind of claim that could be true, or which could be one of those "facts" that people spread around.

Fair enough. I don't have easy access to the academic citations I once did. Take a quick look at this Salon article for a brief example.

[Frustration]

Beyond that, I would strongly argue that applying this to religious belief is a form of circular reasoning, of question begging. It depends on assuming that the claims of not only any but of every religion are epistemologically equivalent to the claims of groups like QAnon, all as one stage in an argument which seems intended to dismiss the claims of religious groups as epistemologically unsound.

On the contrary, groups like QAnon are much sounder than most religious claims. QAnon makes factual claims that are false, then undermines people's ability to evaluate them rationally with rhetoric. Religions make semantically null claims mixed in with factual claims that are false, then undermine people's ability to evaluate them rationally with rhetoric.

On the other end of the spectrum, it is possible that more educated people are more open to religion precisely because they really do understand the world better than others.

Smart people often make really stupid claims because they are arrogant enough to believe they're beyond simple errors and thus do not check them. Really, spending any time at all with a university faculty would be enough to convince anyone of this.

People aren't interested in religion because of epistemic validity. It fills emotional needs that rationality doesn't. I'm sure those smart people are highly capable in domains where they apply their smarts, but no intelligent person who had actually evaluate miracle shrines (for example) would take them seriously in the least. They've been utterly and completely debunked.

[Nobody700]

Hot take... I don't hate Neelix. Now I admit he's not a good character but I don't loathe him like so many do. Maybe cause I like Ethan Phillips, and trust me he HAS gotten annoying, but I never found him to be a pest. So Mortal Coil for me is far better and it's mostly cause Neelix is shown in a rather sympathetic sad light of a happy go lucky guy who brings joy to people (bring joy is on paper and used with air quotes) is driven to clinical depression and suicide after finding out his entire belief in religion is a lie. It was rather depressing that he's not over the top in his depression... he's just sad and pretends to be fine when people ask but he's left hollow. It was also good and mature he NEVER got mad at Seven and thanked her, even though he's ready to off himself. That is not only mature of him, but show's he didn't want Seven to blame herself for what he does next. It's rare for Neelix to come off intelligent and thoughtful.

Maybe if he was always depressed he woulda been a more liked character is all I'm saying.

[CharlesPhipps]

On the contrary, groups like QAnon are much sounder than most religious claims. QAnon makes factual claims that are false, then undermines people's ability to evaluate them rationally with rhetoric. Religions make semantically null claims mixed in with factual claims that are false, then undermine people's ability to evaluate them rationally with rhetoric.

I think that's a very interesting way of saying "Qanon lies to people to bilk them out of money" versus "people often actually believe in their religion." Also, this is doubly ridiculous because I was there on 4chan when Qanon was created as an internet flash game.

If you claim, "Is there any real difference between Slenderman and a religious figure" and you say "No" then I don't believe you have anything to say about either.

People aren't interested in religion because of epistemic validity. It fills emotional needs that rationality doesn't. I'm sure those smart people are highly capable in domains where they apply their smarts, but no intelligent person who had actually evaluate miracle shrines (for example) would take them seriously in the least. They've been utterly and completely debunked.

This is just basically wrong and pretty much the statement of someone who doesn't know anything about religion. No one joins a religion because it is demonstratably untrue. They join it for a variety of reasons including social, mental, societal, and believing it to be factually true.

[clearspira]

On the contrary, groups like QAnon are much sounder than most religious claims. QAnon makes factual claims that are false, then undermines people's ability to evaluate them rationally with rhetoric. Religions make semantically null claims mixed in with factual claims that are false, then undermine people's ability to evaluate them rationally with rhetoric.

I think that's a very interesting way of saying "Qanon lies to people to bilk them out of money" versus "people often actually believe in their religion." Also, this is doubly ridiculous because I was there on 4chan when Qanon was created as an internet flash game.

If you claim, "Is there any real difference between Slenderman and a religious figure" and you say "No" then I don't believe you have anything to say about either.

People aren't interested in religion because of epistemic validity. It fills emotional needs that rationality doesn't. I'm sure those smart people are highly capable in domains where they apply their smarts, but no intelligent person who had actually evaluate miracle shrines (for example) would take them seriously in the least. They've been utterly and completely debunked.

This is just basically wrong and pretty much the statement of someone who doesn't know anything about religion. No one joins a religion because it is demonstratably untrue. They join it for a variety of reasons including social, mental, societal, and believing it to be factually true.

People always forget the social aspect of religion, particularly for those who live in a small town or village. The local church is literally the whole community. Not going to church literally means loneliness.

That said, he is right in what he says and it is an extension of what I was saying above about how I do not consider the belief in God to be dumb, I consider the belief in talking snakes to be dumb. Same here. You are not an intelligent person if you seriously, genuinely believe in miracle shrines.

Its also true, let's be honest, that ''science is hard.'' A lot of people lack the ability to understand why things actually work the way that they do, its much easier to say ''God did it'' or ''miracles'' or faith'' because those things are easy. Its how I believe religion started in the first place. The ancients did not know why lightning came from the sky or a volcano erupted because they did not have the scientific know-how to work it out. But ''we've angered an enemy god who is attacking us'' is a much easier way to see to the world.

[Frustration]

This is just basically wrong and pretty much the statement of someone who doesn't know anything about religion. No one joins a religion because it is demonstratably untrue.

"It is not true, but I believe it."

Plenty of people have joined religions despite them being demonstrably untrue. There are even people who have acknowledged the falsity of a religion but practice it anyway. Your statement demonstrates that you don't actually know much about the relationships between people and religions.