Atheism in the UFP

[Mr. Oragahn]

I remember that TNG episode where Picard pissed off Q by telling him he was absolutely 300% convinced that one day humans would be gods, or something along those lines.
It's a funny atheism. There's a claim that god does not exist, but that there's clearly a spot left for one or more to exist.
In other words, it's a circumstantial, temporary atheism.
As far as Picard was concerned, sure.

[Sideswipe]

I dont recall that one. Though there is an episode called "Who Watches the Watchers" that is unambiguously anti-religious.

[Mike DiCenso]

There does not appear to be any institutionalized state atheism like in the old Soviet Union or other communist countries, and individuals seem to have their own faiths and beliefs.

We know that Doctor Phlox was able to watch Mass being given at St. Peters square and at another time went to a Tibetan Buddhist monastery, and his being familiar with Hinduism was still a major religion in the 2250s.

By the TOS-era, we hear in "Balance of Terror" during the wedding Kirk speak of "Our laws and many beliefs" which strongly indicates religion, even if only personal, is still important to a lot of people. McCoy seems to be Christian based on his "Lord forgive me." line from "The Man Trap", and Kirk tells off Apollo in "Who Mourns for Adonis?" with "We find the one god sufficient."

In the TNG-era, things are more nebulous, but indications are that religion is still important to people, such as the elder Sisko when he recited, "I have fought the good fight. I have finished the course. I have kept the faith." indicating he is a Christian. (DS9: "Far Beyond the Stars"), and in Generations, Picard in the Nexus experiences his family celebrating Christmas, indicating that his more traditional-minded family members are Christian or at least celebrate the holiday in a secular fashion, where he may not.
-Mike

[Firmus Piett]

You'd think that people in the Federation would be more enlightened than to still be believing in things based on faith alone.

[Mike DiCenso]

Why would it make those people "enlightened"? I think proper enlightenment would be by knowing not to force your beliefs on another.
-Mike

[Firmus Piett]

Because believing anything to be true based only on faith is foolish. You can't prove anything based on faith, but faith is often the justification given for believing in things religious. I had always imagined that people in the Federation were very well educated, and would be skeptical of beliefs or "truths" for which there is no evidence.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Because believing anything to be true based only on faith is foolish. You can't prove anything based on faith, but faith is often the justification given for believing in things religious. I had always imagined that people in the Federation were very well educated, and would be skeptical of beliefs or "truths" for which there is no evidence.

Needless to say that mainstream, eastern religions are quite heavy on the side of unproven stuff.
But there are some other religions which not only rely on very little dogma, but also make sound claims based on what is observable and use a bit of logic, and the universe itself is the proof, just like the way it works with hard science and its theories.
Anyway, atheism (not agnosticism) relies on a strong faith too.

Still, what about Picard's line to Q? That was something most interesting and I remember it hugely pissed Q.

[Sideswipe]

Anyway, atheism (not agnosticism) relies on a strong faith too.

No, just no...

[Firmus Piett]

The universe is proof of the universe. But I kinda agree, I would be less surprised to see the occasional "religion" akin to Buddhism, than say, Islam, in the Federation. Hell, they'd have a hell of a lot more justification for believing in this stuff than we do today, what with all the miracles and god like beings encountered and endured throughout the original series lol

I assume by "atheism" your really talking about absolute belief that there is no god. A lot of people throw that one about, but it's really a claim to do with absolute knowledge. When we go down the "you can't prove you don't live in a virtual reality" route, we have to concede that we can barely claim to know anything with absolute authority. Therefore we have to have a little faith that the reality that we live in is actually... reality.

But simply rejecting unjustified beliefs doesn't require faith. For example saying "I don't believe that fairies are real" doesn't exercise any faith. There simply no evidence to suggest that they do, but a lots of evidence to say that they can't (spirits are minds without bodies, after all).

[Mike DiCenso]

But simply rejecting unjustified beliefs doesn't require faith. For example saying "I don't believe that fairies are real" doesn't exercise any faith. There simply no evidence to suggest that they do, but a lots of evidence to say that they can't (spirits are minds without bodies, after all).

True, in our real life, Piett. But in the reality of the Trek Prime universe and timeline, that is a real thing; intelligences that exist without corporeal form!
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

Anyway, atheism (not agnosticism) relies on a strong faith too.

No, just no...

No pb, I've been through this so I know the reason behind this reflex. :)
So let's just agree to disagree.

To follow what Mike posted, with the wonky stuff that happens in the Trek Milky Way, rejecting the existence of spirits as sheer stupid folklore and myth stuff is simply untenable.

[Mr. Oragahn]

There it is.
Voila!
Very, very nice scene and one of the best battles in all Star Trek.

[2046]

As a practical matter, agnosticism and atheism are not that different, operationally. It's just that the former is an acknowledgement of the ignorance on the topic shared by all, whereas the latter is a declaration of militant certitude.

I may be certain that no religion as literally described has any satisfactory explanatory power for any question I have ever had, and that moreover there is no proof for such beliefs, but if belief in some invisible pink unicorn is comforting and does not involve murderous frenzy against other human beings I am quite content to let it be, and reject the asinine behavior of those atheists who actively seek to destroy Christmas, religious conscience rights, et cetera.

I daresay this is similar to the popular Federation viewpoint, with the extra note that they can recognize the demonstrable existence of 'superior' beings without feeling it necessary to worship them, e.g. Bajor and its Prophets. Indeed, most of the time when a 'superior' being is encountered, it seems Federation personnel end up blowing up the sonsabitches, especially when they mess with our women. I can get behind that.

Edit: Indeed, Picard's immortal pwning of Q there comes after Q had put Tasha in a penalty box, threatening her life. Tearing Q apart literally may not have been an option, but he clearly did Garak's sort of 'damage to last a lifetime'.

[Sideswipe]

whereas the latter is a declaration of militant certitude.

Wrong. I am sure some atheists would fit that category, but that is by no means required of atheism. You can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time.

[Darth Spock]

I daresay this is similar to the popular Federation viewpoint, with the extra note that they can recognize the demonstrable existence of 'superior' beings without feeling it necessary to worship them, e.g. Bajor and its Prophets. Indeed, most of the time when a 'superior' being is encountered, it seems Federation personnel end up blowing up the sonsabitches, especially when they mess with our women. I can get behind that.

It's funny, in preparing a post for another thread, I thought of comparing Federation humans, and the overall society on Earth, as being sort of like a high tech, atheist Amish colony. As far as what seems to be conveyed for the state of the universe in Trek, yes, it looks like "God" in the traditional sense does not exist. It really does seem to fit with Roddenberry's overall philosophy as I understand it. I am not really up on his whole biography, but as a self proclaimed pagan, the Trek'verse lines up perfectly as a place where most current religions couldn't exist, but where a number of god-like beings are all over the place.

Anyway, atheism (not agnosticism) relies on a strong faith too.

No, just no...

whereas the latter is a declaration of militant certitude.

Wrong. I am sure some atheists would fit that category, but that is by no means required of atheism. You can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time.

Depends on how you take the connotative meaning of the word "faith." At it's core, faith refers to trust, or conviction, not necessarily without cause. Compare to blind faith. A dedicated atheist may not put faith in a god, but they certainly put faith in their conviction that there is no god.

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

That said, Agnostic atheism is a thing.

I may be certain that no religion as literally described has any satisfactory explanatory power for any question I have ever had, and that moreover there is no proof for such beliefs, but if belief in some invisible pink unicorn is comforting and does not involve murderous frenzy against other human beings I am quite content to let it be, and reject the asinine behavior of those atheists who actively seek to destroy Christmas, religious conscience rights, et cetera.

Personally, I find the idea of an interested party overseeing the formation of the universe, solar system, planet, etc. more likely than infinite monkeys getting lucky, and this being it. If this whole place, and all of us are the result of more than a really weird fluke, I can only think of 3 possibilities:
A) God got bored and wandered off. (Sounds like Q from All Good Things)
B) God is mean, and everything is a sick joke. (Again, Q looks guilty)
C) God had a plan, but something bad happened. Fixes forthcoming. (Which is actually what the Christian Bible indicates)

Meaning, to me, that religion is at least worth investigating. I confess, I have not conducted a thorough investigation of religions other than Christianity, but you can understand my inclination to work outward from something familiar. :)
At any rate, as much as I dislike putting labels on things as a matter of oversimplification, I suppose at present I would most likely fit under the category of agnostic theist. I'll just keep digging until everything clicks, or until Armageddon rolls along. That would be a dandy of a confirmation, although I wouldn't relish the idea of getting strung up for believing in God. Nobody expects the Atheist Inquisition.