I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will — and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.
—Gene Roddenberry, creator of the Star Trek series
Update: The source for this has not been found, so he may not have actually said this. Anyone know the source?
Facebook style LIKE and thumbs up!
I would credit “Star Trek” with helping me get on the road to rational thinking and rejecting religious dogma.
Same here. Captain Picard and Data were rather my role models when I was young, due to the philosophical conundrums they would both frequently have to deal with and the thoughtful and measured way they would tackle complex issues. In turn, as a viewer I had to deal with them as well, and it really helped send me on my way to thinking outside the little wooden box of the confessional.
Me too! I started watching Star Trek with my grampa when I was about 5 and I’m certain it had a beneficial effect on me. Funny thing is, my grampa went to his grave throughly entrenched in mythological beliefs (mostly Christian; he was an ordained minister). Interesting.
This was the quote that got me to rethink religion.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-r1.htm
This site calls this a phony quote unless it can find a primary source.
Upon reading his interview in the Humanist, I think it was THAT article that got me reconsidering religion, and not this quote.
This quote may not be true, but it’s certainly not out of character for him.
http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagarticle.php?8
Condemning religion? Nice to see that he agrees with Jesus, is always a good thing.
Yes, I’m sure you and him would agree on Jesus.
Jesus (assuming he ever existed) was one of the false prophets referred to. I doubt he’d agree with anything Roddenberry had to say.
That’s an odd statement to me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you basically saying that a man who probably didn’t exist (and hence there’s nothing to be known of his nonexistent opinion) wouldn’t agree with Gene? I don’t get it.
Well, I suppose Mike is arguing that any character who fits Jesus’ description (from the Bible, I guess) would probably not agree with Roddenberry, but I do think it sounds a bit odd.
I am open to persuasion either way on the matter of Jesus’ historical existence. To speculate on his having an opinion contrary to Roddenbury’s, we have to assume his existence, at least for the sake of argument. Not too hard, really.
No, you do, we don’t.
Yes you do. Or brgulker’s objection is valid.
Wow. That’s weird. But I like it. A conundrum of sorts.
Why is his argument that religion is automatically “irrational”, or takes away the ability to make rational decisions? That is a rather large wholesale generalization and condemnation of millions at best. I wonder if a rational person might not try to put themselves in the shoes of a person who “follows a religion” and consider it from that viewpoint.
Good stuff, Cedric. :)
Did that, done that.
Well, not me, I’ve never bought the woo, but lots of people here have been pious believers.
Well if the creator of Star Trek said it… it MUST be true!
Gene Roddenberry is right because Gene Roddenberry said he was right! You know it in your heart that he’s right. He’s knocking at the door of your heart, Donny… won’t you let Gene in and sup with him?
“Well if the creator of Star Trek said it… it MUST be true!”
As opposed to a bunch of self-contradictory ramblings by some warring Iron-Age semi-literates, which MUST be true cos they’re in a book that says it’s the truth…
That would be bronze age (vice iron).
Daniel,
As a self-labeled intellectual, I think you could really use this software package. That way you’d be able to make much more informed arguments against Christianity. Most of the things I see written here aren’t worth replying to, because you’re attacking something that educated Christians don’t even believe. With billions of followers, there are many who are ignorant of their own faith, and make ignorant statements.
Let me ask you this, as an example… if a man didn’t understand Calculus but went off on a writing spree with some half baked theories, would you make fun of Calculus, or point out that the writer is an idiot? If you chose to rail against Calculus based on that writer’s incorrect assumptions/conclusions, wouldn’t you also be just as much an idiot as he/she?
It is my opinion that if you’re going to attack belief systems you might want to understand them on a deeper level. Yes, I’ve been around enough to know that you were a “fundie” for years… but from things you’ve written I’m of the opinion that you were one of the under-educated-in-your-own-beliefs types.
Please teach us the Real Christian Arguments, Donny. Maybe you’ll convert some of us if you could teach us about all our misconceptions about TrueChristianity™. Many of us were seminary students like you — maybe we missed some important lectures while we were getting lessons from Satan on how to pretend to be Christians.
Teach us The Way, Donny! We can’t know any theology apart from you, O Great Christian Intellectual!
I don’t see any point in trying to educate you. The information is available to you should you choose to argue from an educated position. You have plenty of cheerleaders here to convince you of how enlightened you are, so I’m pretty confident you’ll never take the time to educate yourself. Unfortunately, I like the drive to try to convince you. I just don’t mind pointing out that your straw man arguments only impressive the UF natives, and only “turn” the under-educated Christian.
(should have been “I LACK the drive…”)
Don’t worry, I didn’t really expect you to, Donny. We’re used to people like you. :)
Daniel,
You can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify why you spend so much time trying to refute something that isn’t true. Deep inside, despite all the arguments used to impress each other, I think most of your “atheist” readers are looking for reassurance that you’re doing the right thing. I think you’re petrified that you may be wrong. I realize you’ve been repeatedly asked why you’d devote an entire website to such an endeavor, and I’ve read some of your reasoning behind it. I don’t buy any of it.
Deep inside you know the truth. When you’re finished fighting it, truth will still be waiting to embrace you.
Let me fix that for you Donny:
“You can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify why you spend so much time trying to preach something that isn’t true. Deep inside, despite all the arguments used to impress each other, I think most of you “Christians” are looking for reassurance that you’re doing the right thing.”
Custador,
I’m not running a website teaching why something isn’t true. I don’t spend every day on a website writing about something I think is ridiculously untrue, commenting about something I think is ridiculously untrue, e-slapping someone else’s back who makes a funny joke about something I think is ridiculously untrue…
Seems to me a person who spends so much time trying to “prove” something is ridiculously untrue is questioning, deep inside, whether or not it just might be true after all. :)
My dear Donny Pauling,
You can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify why you spend so much time trying to refute something that isn’t true. Deep inside, despite all the arguments used to impress each other, I think most of your christian and christian porn readers are looking for reassurance that you’re doing the right thing. I think you’re petrified that you may be wrong. I realize you’ve been repeatedly poke your “deep” why you’d devote an entire website to such an endeavor, and I’ve read some of your feelings behind your estasy. I don’t buy any of it.
Deep inside you know the truth. When you’re finished fighting it, truth will still be waiting to embarrass you.
No Donny, you’re just the sad wanker who turns up, spouts bullshit and then runs away when the volume of questions he can’t answer gets too big to ignore. I wonder how long it’s going to take you this time?
Daniel also doesn’t run a website “teaching why something isn’t true”. He runs a website which is a forum for atheists to read articles of interest and to discuss them. The choice to come here, ignore them (I don’t for a second believe you actually read them) and spout your bullshit is entirely yours – though if I were Daniel I would have taken that choice away from you and banned you a long time ago. He is far more tolerant than me.
“Seems to me a person who spends so much time trying to “prove” something is ridiculously untrue is questioning, deep inside, whether or not it just might be true after all.”
… but that’s just because you’re thick as shite isn’t it Pauling?
p.s. Any idea when you’re going to finish your latest little posting spree and crawl back to you pit of ignorance?
I find it amusing that Donny pulled out the “intellectual” card and, but when asked to school us, he used the “deep inside you know the truth” card.
I guess that’s what TrueChristianity™ is according to Donny — don’t use reason, just tell people they know the truth already but are denying it. I bet he has some pretty incredible conversion numbers… with preschoolers.
“But why is Christianity true, Mr. Donny?”
“Well Timmy, it’s because you know the truth already don’t you?
“Sure Mr. Donny.”
“That’s right, and will you stop fighting it and accept that Jesus is real and loves you?”
“Sure Mr. Donny.”
“You’ve been saved Little Timmy! The blood of Jesus doth run down your brow! Now sign this card and tell 3 little tykes this week about how Jesus changed your life.”
Daniel,
I was going to just walk away, as I said. But while I showered I decided to post one more comment in reply to your response to my “deep inside” comment.
I don’t need to read your responses to the questions I want to ask you because it isn’t important what *I* think of your replies.
Your response shines a spotlight on one of the myths most pseudo-intellectuals believe: that “feeling” isn’t important. That what a person “believes” isn’t important. The problem with that is this: you also believe based on “feelings”. It would be a safe bet to assume you haven’t done many scientific experiments yourself. You haven’t participated in so-called “peer reviewed” studies. You haven’t done the experiments required to “prove” scientific theories.
The question is, Dear Daniel, how do you know? No… I mean, how do YOU know? You “have faith” in science. You believe “scientists” (how many “respectable” scientists were part of the group that altered data to “prove” global warming?). You can easily say something like, “But if I wanted to, I could learn how and could then find out for myself”. That, too, is a “belief”. You “feel” as if you can place value on what you’ve been taught. You “feel” like you can trust what we humans commonly label “the scientific method”. But how do you know?
The answer is… you don’t. You believe based on things you’ve heard and things you’ve read. You and I aren’t so different, after all. I, too, believe based on what I’ve heard and read… but also on what I’ve personally experienced.
G’day. I’m out (and unsubscribed to comments).
Donny, I’m going to risk the moderation filter and say what I know that everybody else is thinking: Fuck off.
Translation of Donny’s comments: NU! IM RITE! UR WRONG!
That’s the essence, really. Good thing I – and reality – couldn’t care less about him.
Donny Pauling is yet another True Christian imbecile whose pathetic, woo-addled ramblings are walls of text that I simply ignore. I see the name, I scroll down.
What Custador said. Oh, and I’d like to add a hearty STFU to it.
“The question is, Dear Daniel, how do you know?”
I don’t think Daniel’s the one who said he KNOWS. I think someone else attributed to him that he supposedly knows:
“Deep inside you know the truth.”
So how does he know?
Wow, a Christian admonishing atheists that we aren’t addressing the deeper and compelling, rock-solid arguments for the truth of their religion, yet won’t ever state what these arguments are.
Gee…. we’ve NEVER seen that before!
BAD US! We never address the REAL and solid arguments for Christianity. Just the shitty ones! LOL!
I love the absurd argument that scientific theories require just as much “faith” as religious nonsense. Or the notion that there being some all-powerful supernatural being is just as likely (or more likely) as the nonexistence of such a being.
I frequent this site (and others), because venting is therapeutic. Why the need to vent? Because religious folks (the crazies and the moderates who enable the crazies) are thwarting progress. If a massive number of adults believed in the Easter Bunny, I’m sure there’d be sites for venting about that, too.
“If a massive number of adults believed in the Easter Bunny” – what do you mean, “if”?
Ooooooh, No True Scotsman, of course, you just blew our minds man! We NEVER encountered THAT argument before.
Please.
“We NEVER encountered THAT argument before.”
Don’t worry about thickster Pauling … he’ll do his normal act and then be off again.
Of course I’ll be off again, quickly. I value my time far too much to spend much of it here. The amount of work required to create a post of real value would be wasted here. If you’re as intelligent as you’d like us to believe, I’m sure you can see the truth in that.
Once in awhile I throw in a barb or two to point out the fact that the arguments you pseudo-intellectuals spout off have just as many holes as you claim Christianity has, then I’m off to… oh, I dunno… trim my toenails, walk a trail, pet a dog… or any number of other tasks that are just as intellectually stimulating as reading the drivel here.
I follow this blog in my google reader. I browse every article, along with the articles from a few dozen other sites I follow. Most of the time I don’t bother commenting here, but once in awhile when the whim strikes, I’ll post a few comments and leave. Not a single person here will be convinced by anything I write. Sometimes, as above, I list resources that actually WOULD have a shot at changing opinions if a person took the time to read them. But since we’re dealing with pseudo-intellectuals here, rather than true academics, it’s probably a worthless bit of time listing such things.
Well, my cleverly unclever friends, the shower calls. I’m, as predicted, out of here, off to get un-stinky, grab some coffee, read some books, and maybe even fire a few rounds downrange. I’m sure y’all will still be cheering each other on the next time we “meet” down here in the comments section. Good luck on your quest.
“The amount of work required to create a post of real value would be wasted here.”
It certainly couldn’t take more time than you waste writing endless volumes of absolute crap, which is what you do every single time you turn up – that is, if you were actually capable of writing a post of any real meaning, and it’s very obvious to everybody that you can’t.
“since we’re dealing with pseudo-intellectuals here, rather than true academics, it’s probably a worthless bit of time listing such things”
Want to compare educational resumes?
“Well, my cleverly unclever friends, the shower calls. I’m, as predicted, out of here, off to get un-stinky, grab some coffee, read some books, and maybe even fire a few rounds downrange. I’m sure y’all will still be cheering each other on the next time we “meet” down here in the comments section. Good luck on your quest.”
Thank you Donny and and if only all christians conclude unintelligently like you think is intelligent, save many much trouble.
Hope you will teach many of your kind to be like the unclever you, idiotly clever.
Donny,
As Custador said, you waste an awful lot of time talking about how posting something of “real value” would be a waste of time. Being the genuine academic that you are, I’m sure you can see how silly that is. Or perhaps I, a mere pseudointellectual, am not able to comprehend the brilliance of your seeming contradiction.
What widely accepted scientific theories do you not accept, and why? Perhaps you can point me in the direction of peer-reviewed works that prove Biblical creationism, or other miraculous events written about in the Bible, or the existence of the Christian God, or the superiority of Christianity over all other religions. Or works that disprove evolution by natural selection, or works that disprove the notion that adherence to a particular religion has more to do with where one is born than it has to do with being in possession of the one true truth. Post links to such peer-reviewed works, and I’ll read them.
Of all the different gods invented throughout human history, why have you chosen to believe in the one in whom you believe?
Daniel:
Paulee boy is right; you clearly do not have the knowledge to address these high issues. What you should do is close this blog and start a career in porn, as Paulee boy did (and is in fact still doing: “Porning for Jesus”), and after 9 years maybe you will have the knowledge to discuss these matters with him. You could also start studying fairyology…
That’s a great idea! I’ll run it by my wife tonight and see what she thinks.
Waaaahahahahaha! Yes, Donny, hostility and hatred at us until we see the light and convert to christianity!
religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.
This quote is disappointing to me, as is the praise it receives upthread for two reasons. First, because of its arrogance. Religion isn’t about how smart/intelligent (or not) a person is. Second, (even though it’s obviously somewhat rhetorical), it’s factually wrong. The majority of human beings on the world are religious, and the majority of religious people have perfectly normal brains.
I love Star Trek in all its geeky splendor. It’s hard for me to accept its author would say and actually believe something as disturbing as this. Ah well.
Let me try to say that better than I did.
This blog and the majority of commenters here are empiricists, correct? The quote above makes an empirically-verifiable claim, specifically, that religion is the result of a brain that’s malfunctioning.
So I ask you, as empiricists, is that statement accurate or not? Is there any scientific consensus that “for most people” religion is caused by a brain malfunctioning or not?
If not, then I have to ask why you’re betraying your own principles, because it appears that you’re doing so simply because it suits you. And that strikes me as … to borrow a phrase from fellow commenters here, a bit intellectually dishonest.
I don’t say any of that spitefully. I honestly find this to be an obvious inconsistency that’s frankly, very disheartening.
Well of course the question could be turned around as to why you don’t believe it …
I don’t believe that religion is the result of a malfunctioning brain because there’s no evidence to support it!
Yet the beliefs that are core to aspects of your life are also not supported by evidence, so what’s so different about this quote?
Yet the beliefs that are core to aspects of your life
All of us make decisions that are core to our life that are not supported by empirical evidence, including you and me. So I don’t think that particular comment is as strong as you do, but that’s more of a tangent.
so what’s so different about this quote?
The person promoting/making the claim makes all the difference. To my knowledge, both Gene and DF are empiricists. This quote makes an empirical claim about religion, specifically, that it’s produced by the malfunctions of the human brain. It strikes me as odd (and a bit hypocritical, although DF has said he disagrees with the last sentence of the quote) for an empiricist to make that claim, because not only is there no scientific evidence to support it, what we know about the human brain says precisely the opposite.
I don’t see what my lack of full commitment to naturalistic empiricism has to do with the above objection. The sum of my objection is simply, “be true to your principles.”
Well, he did qualify the statement. He said “For most people” . Aren’t most religious people fundamentalists? I would say there is a certain degree of likelihood that a fundamentalist’s brain is malfunctioning.
Except that every religionist I’ve EVER encountered has been, at the least, mildly schizophrenic and/or some kind of addict. So much for a “normal” brain….
Forgive my skepticism, but are you a licensed Psychologist or Psychiatrist?
FWIW. Daniel Dennett explains the nature of the malfunction in empirical terms in Breaking the Spell.
I’d be curious to hear a summer of the empirical terms.
*summary
I don’t know if I could do it justice. Brain is currently malfunctioning. I’ve got some notes somewhere. I’ll get back to you.
No worries. If it’s easy and convenient, I’d be interested. If not, I won’t be offended.
No. I am glad to do it. It’s something I’ve been intending to do for a while now. A part of it. Consolidating my notes on religion. Might as well begin with Dennett.
The majority of religious people are uneducated and don’t think critically about their beliefs.
Seems there’s a Malfunction going on somewhere.
I don’t agree, because it’s entirely possible for one’s brain to be functioning normally and still come to a wrong conclusion. So, even if I were to grant to you that religious people are coming to wrong conclusions, it’s entirely possible that it’s due to poor reasoning, which says nothing at all about how the brain is functioning.
Surely poor reasoning is a malfunction of the brain, even if only a temporary one? When people think something along the lines of 1+1+1=1 without blinking, I’d argue that there’s some kind of problem.
Well, I didn’t have Math as much in view as I did Philosophical considerations, I suppose. To answer your proposition, I don’t know. I’m not sure we know enough about how the brain works, and I don’t know if we’d ever be able to investigate the brain at the specific moment that someone is insisting that 1+1=1.
I do, however, think we enough to state with confidence that the overwhelming majority of religious people have brains that function within the realm of “normal.”
The point about faulty reasoning was more to say something like, even if I grant that you’re correct, and religion is purely irrational fantasy, one can’t link that irrational fantasy to a brain malfunction.
Not 1+1=1, but – as JMW said – 1+1+1=1. There’s a significant difference.
I agree the ending is harsh and I don’t agree with it. Though I do think it is the case for *some* people, though that could be said about almost anything.
Malfunctioning brains produce many things, most often, homeless people (one of the great tragedies of our society, if you ask me).
Or they cause depression, anxiety, malaise… hallucinations… ;)
And criminals. Here’s a lovely statistic for you: In Britain, one in ten prisoners DON’T have some form of mental illness.
Or they cause depression, anxiety, malaise… hallucinations… ;)
Which often lead to … homelessness (in the USA, anyway, may be different where you’re from). Or, as Custador points out, jail.
Well, that too, but over here the homeless are mostly the criminally poor.
The crazies end in jail and/or dead; unless they’ve families who support them, in which case they end with psychiatric help.
While I may find the last statement about religion being a substitute for a malfunctioning brain to be a bit dodgy, I agree with the rest of his statements about religion–especially about religion draining people of their free will and their money and being equally idiotic.
And “Star Trek” (particularly TOS and TNG seasons 1-3) at times did intimate that religion was nothing but non-rational superstition and that humanity would, at some point, abandon superstition in favor of enlightened rationality.
And as I said above, I credit watching Star Trek with giving me the tools with which I could question Christianity. I wondered, “What if God is an alien–just something that is as fallible as the rest of us, but just more advanced?” As a kid, I saw this future, this optimistic future in which humanity had overcome poverty, war, famine, racism and thought, “This is something worth working towards–not the Christian stuff about a ‘heaven’ and ‘praising God for eternity.’”
I never really watched Star Trek, but being raised among different faiths (xtian mother who tends toward deism, muslim, buddhist, jewish and wiccan turned hindu friends), as well as a passion for mythology (thank you, Saint Seiya – the anime – for getting me addicted to both astronomy and mythology), kind of made me think: what if they’re all wrong? What if it’s aliens? Hell, what if it’s Loki?
Star Trek fan? Heck, I’m named after a Star Trek episode.
I can beat that. The person who wrote “Measure of a Man,” voted the third best Star Trek:TNG episode of all time, is one of my best friends.
I can haz star trek geek cred?
Well, all right! Themz some bad creds. But I guess I have to qualify my fanhood. I’m only a fan of the original series. Didn’t much get into TNG or the Star Trek movies.
Here I am:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXRsdNQEkAo
I find it so hard to take TOS seriously. It was good for its time but it didn’t age so well IMO…
Okay. I know TNG. I can vaguely recall what TOS was. The Other Side?
The Original Series.
The Old Stuff.
This is when I realise it may be even more of a geek as I read TOS as Type Of Service …
Terms of Service surely :D
Ohhhh!!! No, man, they’re great! You’re kidding me?
Nope. Just can’t get into it. The production & acting just kills me. I do like the concept though. Just can’t watch it without being a video snob.
Same for me. I just can’t get into TOS. It’s fun as a history lesson, but nothing more for me.
Voyager is still my favorite of the TV series, followed closely by DS9. TNG is quality — who doesn’t love Picard?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDHw6ow2el0
Yeah. The FX are dated. The acting though, I love it. Especially…Captain…Drama………………………School…..T……….Kirk!
“As a self-labeled intellectual”
I’m glad you self-labeled, otherwise we never would have known.
Do you sew those labels to your underwear, or does it go over your left shirt pocked like one of those “Hello my name is …” stickers you see people wearing at conventions?
lol. Well, actually, col. (chuckling out loud).
“For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.”
I think this might make some cheerful: “For most people, religion is nothing more than a need for a malfunctioning mind.”
This
Sadly, Gene himself had what I would call a malfunctioning brain. He was a drunk and a misogynist.
While I appreciate his role in pop culture, and the fact that he was an atheist, I wouldn’t put too much value on his emotional outbursts.
I love you, Gene Roddenberry!
Has anyone ever heard of a little low-budget three-year television series called “Star Trek”?
You have changed the world!