@@_Stormfather as long as their personal lives do not interfere with their work or the standards that work expects of them, the same that Starfleet would expect, then sure.
I liked how Data was being genuinely curious, and Worf upon realizing this chose not to blow up and act offended, but instead gently let down Data in a way one would let down a child asking where babies come from. It was handled very well by all parties.
Not to mention that Worf himself was in the middle of having a conflict between the logic and reason imbued in him by his training in Star Fleet and what appeared to be an actual spiritual experience.
That is not even remotely what happened. Data forced Worf to confront the obvious lack of proof and Worf was faced with his own doubts. His "faith" thus was waivered. You guys really do like making your own dumb reasons to try and sound insightful when you're really just pulling shit out of your asses.
Worf set a healthy boundary and established it in a mature way - he was not capable of having a sensible discussion, as he was aware his emotions were running high, so he informed Data that he couldn't talk about the subject at the moment, and left it at that. More people should be like Worf.
@@OpenMawProductionsonly because the story is framed as such. Let's be honest, despite its status as some of the harder sci-fi projects, Star Trek is no stranger to literal magic. Some races literally transition into glowy blobs, and some are floating ethereal faces, not to mention the nigh omnipotent Q. What's to say Kahless did not receive favour from, say, the Traveler or a plethora of other "magical" beings? I get that Trek is quite averse to religions, and the undertone hinted at here (despite the fair and respectful rhetorics) is abundantly obvious. They mean to say: "Hey, your prophet is imaginary, you may believe in whatever, but please do not rub it in my face."
I love how Data is always curious. He's never criticizing. He's just trying to figure things out. When I talk with people of opposing viewpoints, I try to think like Data.
Considering that Q is such a prankster, the idea that this Kahless is some sort of trick seems far more likely to them than a supernatural explanation.
@Rico Santiago I suppose beyond what the Federation scientists can explain in TNG. It might be effectively magic, but it's to tell a story, not to tell actual science.
There's a lot of responses to Data here, but Worf's composed, honest, yet clearly emotional response is pretty remarkable too. I love how it's possible to see, in pretty much every scene Michael Dorn does, the conflict between the Klingon Worf is and the Human he's raised to be.
@@quinnsinclair7028 I like to think Picard forces himself to believe Q is just a bad apparition of some sort, and doesn't consider them a real and constant presence in the universe.
Imagine having a friend or colleague like data, who has no bias or ulterior motive when discussing things but is genuinely curious and wants to learn. I wish we had datas irl
I would love to talk to him about christ but it would break my heart when we got to the part about him not having a soul so he cant come with me when he finally powers down for good :( damn it i just made myself sad
@@hardwirecars Why would Data not have a soul? Do you require a biological body to have a soul? If so then your soul didn't exist before you were born, or after you die?
We usually stay quiet, unless the environment is clearly safe for reasonable discussion and the people involved genuine, open. That's a rare thing. Most people don't argue or even truly pay attention, merely demand to be conceded to and for the conversation to end, and are often supported by others who aggressively defend the status quo. It's a huge waste of time on average, usually people can't even theoretically contribute to the topic because their view wasn't formed but passed down, and anti-intellectualism (any question regardless of tone/fact citing/having even a mildly sound argument=dismissed as troublemaker) is the instinctive defense. You can't break through that, it's a sad lesson to learn. People have to seek out their flaws by themselves on any subject first, to be open to reasonable discussion. This too is rare. So we stay quiet, that way we avoid "arguments" wasting our time, as well as the superficial conversations which are also wastes of time.
...there was nothing else when this came out hd is actually fairly new its surprising just how fast its advanced past even 4k compaired how long it took us to go from 480 here in the states 240 in europe to even 1080 let alone 4k and here we are staring down 8k now.
@@saymyname8925 Right, but the point is that Q's existence proves the supernatural does exist in Star Trek. So it's strange for Riker to just doubt the entire possibility.
@@DanielWidrew Regardless of the means, he is a being not subject to the laws of nature in our universe. He can alter reality itself to befit himself in almost anyway he wants. There may be a few things Q can't do, but those are due to limitations well beyond the scope of our material reality. Within our universe, he has absolute dominion and is thus basically a god. And, by definition, supernatural (etymologically meaning to _transcend nature)_
It seems a bit odd to me given the Q, the Dowd, the various godlike beings the 1701 encounter, that time travel exists that Riker would be so sceptical. And as discussed in Who Watches the Watches and Devil's Due it is not difficult to appear supernatural given enough technology.
@@danielyeshe You have a point, in the star trek universe, much like the dc or marvel comics universe, one should more readily accept crazy explanations for things as feasible, than is correct in the real universe where magic isn't real. Oh, don't forget telepathy. There's a lot of telepathy in star trek too, and even telekinesis in regular humans, at least in the first season with that aging disease..
It's been said by a lot of people before, but I really do enjoy Data and Worf's interaction here. Data is skeptical, but not disrespectful. He doesn't understand Worf's perspective, and explains his own, yet isn't outright dismissive of it. He's asking questions in a desire to understand Worf and his beliefs better. Worf, in turn, wasn't mentally prepared for such a conversation, and politely but clearly made that known. He didn't dismiss Data's curiosity, nor take offense. Nor did he allow himself to get into a conversation he wasn't prepared for. So he tells Data that it would be better to discuss the topic later. It may not be anything big or groundbreaking, but it demonstrates healthy dialogue and mutual respect, and I just find that nice to watch.
It depends on how you define "doubt." He was certainly questioning it, trying to understand, and gather information. He also expressed a healthy level of skepticism. Doubt and skepticism is synonymous with uncertainty. It is not a denial, refutation, or counterargument to his religious views.
@@Xpistos510 That's all well and good technically speaking, but the intent of the title was clearly to say Data was disbelieving. It makes better clickbait. A more honest title would not bring in as many views (or the one posting the video was afraid it wouldn't).
@@Xpistos510 Doubt can be stretched to cover denial in all but name. When I say "I doubt the character of *your generic corrupt politician*" I am all but saying that I believe that they don't have any good character with just the barest minimum of decency not to say"XYZ is a total crook and probably would sell their mother for another reelection"
I love how everyone on Star Trek tries to be so logical and scientific, when their galaxy is jammed full of supernatural gods. But noooo, we can't believe in someone coming back to life! Besides all the times it's actually happened, of course.
Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. But of course this is all just a springboard for drama and internal character conflict, so it’s best not to think too hard about it
@@El3ctr0Lun4 The point is that resurrection is not beyond possibility when considering all the things that do exist in that world. The word supernatural is pretty meaningless here - how would you ever know whether something was "truly" supernatural? But the fact is that there are tons of things happening in the Star Trek universe that people in our world would call supernatural.
@@GreeneyedApe Yes, I agree that resurrection is not beyond possibility in the Star Trek universe. The point is that all the stuff that happens in the Star Trek show is part of their natural world. We can call teleportation supernatural, but in the Star Trek universe it's just a technology that functions by using certain properties of the natural world. Beings like Q, the Edo god, or the guardian of Forever have "powers" that are also natural or technological. Something being more advanced than humans in terms of capabilities, evolution or technology doesn't make them supernatural. I would go as far as saying that the word "supernatural" is pretty meaningless in our world too, not only in Star Trek. Nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist, and we have an extensive track record of discovering that things that were once considered supernatural actually have natural explanations (e.g. lightning and thunder, sunrise and sunset, "falling stars", psychedellic trips, diseases etc.). Also, we don't have any way of detecting nor investigating anything that's beyond the natural world, and if we were to be able to investigate something seemingly supernatural, it would be to the extent of "here's the effect, but we don't know how it works or what its causes may be". There's nothing there that could warrant making the leap from an observable effect to a supernatural cause.
I think the title is supposed to reflect the viewpoint of data, its arguably misleading because it could lead one to think he was going to refer to Jesus however his response is transferable! in other words had he been in a circumstance where the subject in question was supposed to be the returned Christ he would have responded in the same way.
Jesus doesn't need a spaceship. If his return can be questioned, then he has not returned. Period. Data, being familiar with the relevant literature, would respond entirely differently to the claim of Jesus's return, because he would be able to note that - unlike the case of Kayless's return - the relevant prophesies had not been fulfilled, and if they had been, then it would be a matter of entirely undeniable fact that he had returned.
+Matthew Reynolds While i 100% Agree. Alot of people would doubt Jesus's Return even as it happens before their very eyes (He was doubted on a massive scale even before his Birth!)
+NSlasher Data should've asked C.S. Lewis (if he were still alive), Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, or any of a multitude of others. The answers to Data's questions were written hundreds of years before (for him). This is an example of gross oversight on the writers' part, because if I were Data and really wanted to know, I would've read all of these works, and more, before asking any question of Warf. And the questions would've therefore been informed; it was very obvious Data was a tabula rasa regarding the matter. I find this unconvincing.
DarthRushy Perhaps. Yeah, Star Trek was about space exploration, about humanity ascending to a level that many current social problems have been overcome, and generally about a positivisitc viewpoint on humanity. I appreciate Roddenberry's views that we can eventually overcome significant social problems merely by acts of our collective human will operating in keeping harmony with one accord. But in reality, I honestly don't think it's possible. Going all the way back to ancient Greece, Empedocles commented upon the dual nature of humankind. I think he was right on the money. We simultaneously have the will to do good, but also posses greed, envy, strife, Malthusian competition, murderous intent, and all sorts of other woeful facts within our exists. Science and empiricism are very helpful to garner and understand new knowledge. But they most certainly aren't a means of changing human nature at it's very core. Though I love many things about the potential future that Roddenberry created, by and large I find it not only extremely unlikely, but downright impossible. You'd have to take the humanity out of the human race for it to occur. Thereby, we'd cease to be what we actually are on a quintessential level. It's fantasy. It's an alluring, optimistic fantasy, but fantasy nonetheless. This isn't a new story at all. Thomas More suggested the same idea centuries ago when he penned "Utopia." In my experience, the only manner in which we can truly transcend the base human condition in a permanent way is through faith. But Roddenberry was an avowed atheist and it's clear to the astute observer of the plot lines he put forth in TNG that he stood in stark opposition to this. I find this very ironic, because that type of phenomenon actually forms the most legitimate mechanism to move toward the problem-free, actualized future he pined for and infused into Star Trek lore.
Numinous As this very episode suggests, I believe that faith in the possibility of utopia is more important than utopia itself. Star Trek isn't about our future, it's about making our present a little bit better.
DarthRushy I see what you're saying. But I don't think it's about making things a "little" better. Numerous times in numerous episodes (I've watched every single episode of the series multiple times), it is overtly mentioned that all of the significant problems of human culture have been completely overcome. No war. Nor poverty. No starvation. No intolerance. And no faith in anything other than empiricism and the scientific method. This is what Roddenberry espoused and explicitly stated numerous times, and he made sure to include these themes in TNG plots before he passed away. It's interesting to note that he was also a philanderer and died an early death due to ingesting copious quantities of illicit drugs. His dream for the future, while admirable, I am convinced is nothing more than unattainable fantasy. It makes for an interesting show, though, I must admit.
These little scenes with Data, analysising from his android point of view beliefs, quirks, ideals and culturual practices, were a constant joy and highlight for me watching TNG, no wonder he was so rich a character when he was afforded these lovely moments.
Data didn't necessarily doubt that it was Kahless, he was merely trying to understand the meaning of faith out of curiosity, in this case Klingon faith in Kahless. Being inorganic he can only reason based on fact and science. I am a Christian myself, a man of faith, and still I can appreciate Data's position. It is good to question things sometimes. I listen to those who doubt the existence of God and it doesn't offend me at all. They are merely voicing their feelings and thoughts in the matter. Truthfully, I would enjoy a conversation with someone like Data. I welcome others' views and perspectives. It sounds strange: a Christian who fully appreciates the philosophical view of someone who doesn't believe or have any kind of faith, but I do.
+John Carr _It IS strange. Very few Christians (or people of any other religion) take that view_ What view exactly are you talking about? Are talking about his saying: _"I listen to those who doubt the existence of God and it doesn't offend me at all."_ If so, I wish more atheists were like that too. How else do you explain the "angry atheist" movement? I wish there were much fewer angry atheists.
I was talking about the fact, that Locktwiste72 doesn't get offended when someone doubts the existence of God and actually listens to them and talks to them, which is something most people aren't capable of and it doesn't have to be about their religious beliefs. People usually just hate someone with a different opinion, no matter if they are a christian, an atheist, a communist, a democrat, a republican, a scientist, a priest etc. That's why i wrote "You're one in a billion..."
6 років тому+2
+Quantum Videos Cz _People usually just hate someone with a different opinion, no matter if they are a christian, an atheist, a communist, a democrat, a republican, a scientist, a priest etc. That's why i wrote "You're one in a billion..."_ Yes, unfortunately, knee-jerk reactions of, "how dare you think differently than what I think", seems to be too common these days.
What we need is a story of Data's entry into Starfleet. How did he get into Starfleet, did he attend the Academy, what was the (possibly very interesting) application and admissions process in his case, what rank did he start in Starfleet at, was he treated differently from other cadets, what was his service career before joining the Enterprise?
In other episodes he has explained (to his creator, for example) that his life was saved by Federation Star Fleet officers, which led him to become interested in Star Fleet, and ultimately seek to join them (similar to Worf's backstory). I imagine he asked the officers many questions about how someone joins and then followed their answers carefully. If they were skeptical about having an android join, SOMEONE decided wtf let's give him a chance, he seems like a fascinating, unique dude, stands out from the other applicants. Then I'm sure he impressed them with his intelligence, memory, and ability to get perfect scores on any exam they gave him, not to mention he is absurdly strong and durable, he could certainly hold his own in a combat situation.
These YT clips are so bad for me. Whenever I see them I want to watch the full episode again. The fact that I have Netflix which has basically all Star Trek series and films does not help the matter!
Michael Dorn kills every scene as Worf. no pun intended lol. He is so damn good. A real treasure in the community. And what an amazing beautiful character. Good work brother you really brought him to life.
This scene is followed up on towards the end when Data tells Worf of his "crisis of the spirit" when he was first activated on Omicron Theta. To me, that was a very touching and powerful scene. You had to know Data's backstory and "the way he was", and the quiet way he approached Worf to fully understand and grasp the depth and magnitude of that scene.
I think I might give this series a watch. I’ve never watched any star strek, but I’ve heard great things about this one in particular…about some plots that seemed so fascinating and kinda deep to think about. Like Picard living an entire other life at some point, growing old and having children and grandchildren. And that he always remembers that entire other life lived in subsequent episodes, and sometimes plays a flute or something that he learned in the other life. I can’t remember exactly but I’ve just been very intrigued by a few of the plots I’ve heard about
Can we take a moment to appreciate that Worf, a Klingon(a people who mythologically killed their gods) raised by humans (a particularly pious species) didnt just answer with indoctrinated rhetoric. He stopped and realized he couldnt properly explain his faith in an emotionally compromised state. Sorry. I love Worf.
@@tsinestexicthdauwraum9082 Apologies I didn't know what the fuck pious meant. Yes you're 100% correct we are definitely more religious than other species on earth. Probably because we are the only specious that has the capability to be religious in the first place.
I went to payless shoes and tried to walk off with some of their shoes without paying for them. When they accused me of shoplifting, I said "but it clearly says on the sign that these shoes are pay-less! That means I shouldn't have to pay for them. Just like painless means without pain or topless means without a top."
After decades of watching TV, movies and attending various stage productions, I am still fascinated even sometimes astounded by the imagination and story telling quality of screen plays and play writes. Equally impressed by and with the ability of actors and performing artists who portray the characters.
I gotta call bullshit in that-with all the Klingon-based storylines in TNG AND DS9, seriously? A Klingon literally built to embody their ideals wouldn't have been nice to show up now and a again? A friend/moral mentor for Worf?
The Kahless clone is mentioned in a couple of episodes of DS9. I think they consider him somewhat inconsequential. In Worf's debut on DS9 I think it's mentioned that Kahless orders Gowron not to deploy the fleet and Gowron simply disobeys him with no fallout. Gowron is the only leader really referred to after that. In "The Sword of Kahless" Worf and Kor find the legendary artifact and consider turning it over to the clone before deciding ... "nah." But I agree, more could have been made of him.
@@FanboyFilms he does have his own novel though, where ancient scrolls are discovered that all but denounce all of the original Klingon beliefs that were uploaded into him. Its a great perspective on how interesting the emperor and the empire would be if much of what he preached was proven wrong...
I always thought of Kahless being the Klingon equivalent to King Arthur. Where time has passed far too much to find out if they truly lived or not. Sortek is the Vulcan equivalent of Confucius or the Budda. That is more religious. Kahless is not a god. He is just the hero the Klingons seek to emulate. As our forefathers from Britain sought to emulate King Arthur. And many people today still look up to the ideals that King Arthur represents. The Klingons are no different with Kahless.
This is a bit of a complicated matter. King Arthur also has supernatural components to his Ledgend, as well as a prophesied second coming. I dont think the contention is over whether or not he is a god to the Kingon people or not. It would be exactly like if a man in a suit of armor showed up in Kent claiming to be King Arthur. Of course, this entire problem presented within the show is silly. The entire Enterprise crew know that beings of sufficient power to be called supernatural exist, and regularly exercise that power within the universe, and really should be far FAR more open to the idea of the supernatural than they are. That the source of 'supernatural' events is science beyond human understanding is a distinction without a difference.
@@GrimgoreIronhide Agreed on the lack of supernatural open mindedness. Picard and Q is a perfect example of that attitude having direct consequences. Of the Starfleet Captains, only Sisko shows a little more resolve, but even then, only so far. Janeway is one that shows total acceptance, but only because she needed to. As for King Arthur, the two battles he is legendary for, Mount Badon and Camlann are historical battles.
One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
+Gijs Schenk Because Q's abilities are essentually that of a god's, really. Data says here that he needs things proven "in a rational means", but Q's powers are not rationally explainable and deifies all the know laws of the universe.
Yep, and I don't think Star Trek has actually gone in depth really how the Q Race's abilities work, only taking it at face value. For how anti-religious both Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry were, I am surprised at how many elements that would be considered supernatural have crept up in Star Trek since the beginning. There are more instances other than Q of phenomenon that are almost magic and never scientifically explained in the franchise, yet characters still criticize the supernatural despite the out of world events they may have experienced.
+Daniel Appleton Had the show gone into explanation of how the Q's abilities work (Quantum mechanics, whatever) then I would say there would be some sort of scientific explanation. However, given that the Q Continuum's powers are pretty much near omniscient and omnipotent, and as another commenter said how their powers defy known laws of the universe without explanation, they are by definition supernatural. In hindsight given how scientific TNG was and how concepts such as the use of antimatter and warp drive are grounded in real-life scientific theories, Q feels out of place sometimes IMO.
Wasn't it kinda explained in Voyager that the Qu Continuum exists on another level of existence aka in another dimension? We only know four dimensions, the four we can move in and in one of those, time, we even can only move in one direction (with our current understanding of it). The hinted explanation for the Q Continuum seems to be, that they are from another dimension with different set of rules than our own, and like with H.P. Lovecraft's Old Ones the rules of our universe/dimensions just don't apply to them.
Regardless, the point I feel is there have been many points in TNG that the crew (including Data) have experienced phenomenon that for the most part breaks all known scientific and physical laws of the universe (and at times is never really explained in-depth), yet Data's words here implies in theory he would doubt those experiences (not believing in what cannot be proven empirically). I'll say that while I'm not a materialist in terms of philosophy, I find the blanket explanation for Q and the Q Continuum borderline skirts on some theories of how the afterlife would work, another dimension or plane of existence where known laws work differently, or would violate scientific laws in the physical world. An example is immortality, which is present in most theories of an afterlife and is also shown by the beings of the Q Continuum. As great as a character Q is (and to reiterate, I am not a materialist) I feel the concept of Q borderline skirts with spirituality, something I feel violates Gene Roddenbery's vision of sci-fi seeing that he was an atheist and a humanist.
Just because the author and his or her expected audience does not believe in any supernatural religion is no reason the characters must not. Check out the second half of Asimov’s “Foundation” and the two following novels, “Foundation and Empire” and “Second Foundation.” Or for that matter, Rowling’s Harry Potter series (I’m assuming she does not literally believe in wizardry and witchcraft). The existence of a belief in the return of a great hero of the past, as a part of Klingon culture, provided an interesting plot point in this (and other ST stories), and an explanation for some of their behavior. Likewise with the Bajoran belief that the beings from the Wormhole were Prophets (and evil Pa-wraiths), and the mercenary beliefs of the Ferengi about their afterlife (ref. the episode “Little Green Men,” in which Quark and two of his kinsmen were sent back in time to crash in New Mexico and they thought they had died and gone to either Ferengi Heaven or Ferengi Hell).
One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
@@davidbrogan606 He would also find that there isn't enough evidence for the universe to have been created by a singular entity. Despite the existence of the Q continuum, which itself disproves monotheism if one thought of them as gods. I won't deny the possibility that Qs are the gods in our history, but to believe them to be all-knowing, omni-potent and all good is beyond foolish.
Good quote. One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
@@davidbrogan606 With respect, as someone who has taken your EXACT position before, I'd like to point out that you've committed two logical fallacies here: the *divine fallacy* (or "appeal to common sense"), and the *fallacy of passing the buck.* Let me explain why this rationale is incomplete and somewhat problematic. Just because there is insufficient evidence that the universe created itself, does not NECESSARILY mean (or logically REQUIRE) a divine creator to therefore be the only remaining explanation. Similarly, lack of evidence for a deity also doesn't mean that the universe must have created itself. You've accidentally set up a false dichotomy here and used the same lack of evidence that could be applied to both explanations to deduce your preferred conclusion -- that a god MUST have created the universe. It's important to note that most secular cosmologists and astrophysicists, or general atheists, wouldn't argue that the universe created itself. If they're being honest they would either concede up front that they don't know the origin of the universe, or they'd appeal to either quantum mechanics or thermodynamics and state that matter and energy (interchangeable counterparts) *can neither be created nor destroyed* but only change form, conserve, disperse, or convect. Since the universe as we understand it in it's simplist form is matter and energy, one can reasonably conclude that the universe had no formal beginning, and will have no technical or literal ending (even if there is a heat death of stars) because the matter itself would in some capacity continue to exist. Pure matter/energy/atoms cannot pop into existence just as they can't be destroyed into nonexistence (despite subatomic and quantum processes being tricky). This is in part how you can be sure that the minerals in your flesh and bone were manufactured in the rock we call earth billions of years ago, and how the elements in our planet were manufactured in the star we call the Sun billions of years ago. Secondly, while using God to explain to origin of the universe, or the catalyst of the Big Bang DOES seem to answer a critical question ("where did the universe come from"), it actually poses a series of even harder, less-likely-to-answer questions: -where did God come from? -Who created God? -Who created those creators? -How have these deities spent their time prior to creating, if time even applies to them. -What medium/dimension does God exist within? (If deities exists within the universe, then physics and time must apply to them, making them mortal and their existence contingent upon the universe setting up preconditions for their existence, therefore NOT being gods. If they exist outside of the universe, or "all that is known to exist," then they might not exist as known normal matter or energy and would be something exotic and impossible to prove, or not exist at all.) And since simply saying "God" to the universe's origins questions answers none of the new questions, it has in effect, answered nothing and leaves the nature of the universe as mysterious as it was without God. As counterintuitive as it seems for the universe to have created itself (no scientist argued that it did) is as counterintuitive as it would seem for deities to create themselves. But one key thing here should be taken away, just because something complex doesn't make sense to oneself, doesn't make it untrue. This is not an argument that God does NOT exist, but simply that we really have no idea if he/they/it does. I do not know if God's existence is even necessary for complex processes to occur. But if it IS true that complex processes necessarily require a creator, then logically the creator himself must be AS or MORE complex than that which he created, making it necessary that the creator by this standard must also have a creator. If that is true, then he would not be the temporally omnipresent God that Abrahamic religions describe, but simply a catalyst also dependent upon a catalyst. It may simply be that it is possible for the universe to have always existed and not need a creator. Establishing that as true doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist, only that if he did, is something that no ancient or relevant religious has adequately identified. My point is, we should all be open minded and assume nothing.
Jacob Serrano I admire and appreciate your well thought out response. You really made me think about what faith is and how for certain people it can sort of fill those gaps of not understanding the mysteries of the universe. What do you think, though, if this hypothetical deity or God were completely and endlessly infinite, not necessarily requiring a creator and rising far beyond our finite laws and understanding of reality?
I think Worf's conversation with Data is artificial. One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
@@davidbrogan606 With respect, as someone who has taken your EXACT position before, I'd like to point out that you've committed two logical fallacies here: the *divine fallacy* (or "appeal to common sense"), and the *fallacy of passing the buck.* Let me explain why this rationale is incomplete and somewhat problematic. Just because there is insufficient evidence that the universe created itself, does not NECESSARILY mean (or logically REQUIRE) a divine creator to therefore be the only remaining explanation. Similarly, lack of evidence for a deity also doesn't mean that the universe must have created itself. You've accidentally set up a false dichotomy here and used the same lack of evidence that could be applied to both explanations to deduce your preferred conclusion -- that a god MUST have created the universe. It's important to note that most secular cosmologists and astrophysicists, or general atheists, wouldn't argue that the universe created itself. If they're being honest they would either concede up front that they don't know the origin of the universe, or they'd appeal to either quantum mechanics or thermodynamics and state that matter and energy (interchangeable counterparts) *can neither be created nor destroyed* but only change form, conserve, disperse, or convect. Since the universe as we understand it in it's simplist form is matter and energy, one can reasonably conclude that the universe had no formal beginning, and will have no technical or literal ending (even if there is a heat death of stars) because the matter itself would in some capacity continue to exist. Pure matter/energy/atoms cannot pop into existence just as they can't be destroyed into nonexistence (despite subatomic and quantum processes being tricky). This is in part how you can be sure that the minerals in your flesh and bone were manufactured in the rock we call earth billions of years ago, and how the elements in our planet were manufactured in the star we call the Sun billions of years ago. Secondly, while using God to explain to origin of the universe, or the catalyst of the Big Bang DOES seem to answer a critical question ("where did the universe come from"), it actually poses a series of even harder, less-likely-to-answer questions: -where did God come from? -Who created God? -Who created those creators? -How have these deities spent their time prior to creating, if time even applies to them. -What medium/dimension does God exist within? (If deities exists within the universe, then physics and time must apply to them, making them mortal and their existence contingent upon the universe setting up preconditions for their existence, therefore NOT being gods. If they exist outside of the universe, or "all that is known to exist," then they might not exist as known normal matter or energy and would be something exotic and impossible to prove, or not exist at all.) And since simply saying "God" to the universe's origins questions answers none of the new questions, it has in effect, answered nothing and leaves the nature of the universe as mysterious as it was without God. As counterintuitive as it seems for the universe to have created itself (no scientist argued that it did) is as counterintuitive as it would seem for deities to create themselves. But one key thing here should be taken away, just because something complex doesn't make sense to oneself, doesn't make it untrue. This is not an argument that God does NOT exist, but simply that we really have no idea if he/they/it does. I do not know if God's existence is even necessary for complex processes to occur. But if it IS true that complex processes necessarily require a creator, then logically the creator himself must be AS or MORE complex than that which he created, making it necessary that the creator by this standard must also have a creator. If that is true, then he would not be the temporally omnipresent God that Abrahamic religions describe, but simply a catalyst also dependent upon a catalyst. It may simply be that it is possible for the universe to have always existed and not need a creator. Establishing that as true doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist, only that if he did, is something that no ancient or relevant religious has adequately identified. My point is, we should all be open minded and assume nothing.
@@Xpistos510 Perhaps if you better understood the motives of the "scientists" it might start to make sense. Like most men the do not wish to be subject to God. They wish to be the Gods of their own lives, spurning the plan of the Creator and doing as they alone see fit. As such, they invent the ridiculous. Have you considered that before Creation there was not even any space in which to place the matter? We and not merely talking about complex processes, we are faced with the creation of space itself. How is it even possible that those who claim reason continue to believe that it all happened of its own accord? Now, it is not that we, at a loss for any other explanation have seized upon the concept that a God must have made it. We believe that God did it because He says that He made it all. A worthwhile endeavor is to seek God and thus find out for yourself.
No, he's trying to politely understand irrational belief. He knows he won't get any information out of Worf if he shows his beliefs the respect they actually deserve. It's like confronting a 10 year old child that still believes in Santa, and interviewing him to try to figure out what makes him tick. It doesn't mean that the INTERVIEWER thinks there's a snowball's chance of Santa actually being real.
For Worf this is a very personal matter - for people like Worf your faith is part of your identity. Part of the chemical and biological and emotional makeup that makes you who you are. For something that intimate it would be like bearing your soul to try to 'rationally' explain away (or confirm) that which you believe in. Worf isn't refusing to explain his 'insight' into 'the matter' - he's just not comfortable with the idea of trying to define WHY he believes what he does. Especially not to someone who is as logical as Data is.
Data's definition of android is very strange. All data is arbitrary, even data gathered by instrumentation or arrived at by logic. He could absolutely be programmed to accept any data coded as an axiom. I know this because reality contains axioms and thought requires the acceptance of them without proof. That's not even to say the ability to understand fiction or debate pure abstractions. If anything Data should understand faith better than anyone because he can clearly see the logical clockwork all at the same time while humans just don't have minds of sufficient power and order. (Vulcans might.)
+Brandon “Innomen” Sergent I think you're right, except that I think that Data is probably actually just talking like that to give his words more weight. Data is a complex character; I think he's always been a lot more human than he would ever admit.
***** Oh wow. I didn't even consider it like Data phrasing things for human benefit. One could argue it's not even possible to be perfectly unambiguous and objective in English. And considering that, you could further argue that all his comments aimed at people are warped as he feels the need to get the conveyed idea as close to his original thought as possible. Reading the Culture series has me thinking about AIs in a whole different way and your comment is along those lines. The moment you go down the road of an AI being manipulative, it becomes impossible to nitpick because an AI can think 10 moves ahead. They could walk up to you and "randomly" say "elephants" and then two weeks later to decide to stay in watching a documentary on elephants and as a result avoid a fatal car crash. It's like butterfly wings on purpose with those damn things XD
James Wood They can injure each other as Q’s. And if they can strip one another of their powers, they should be easily able to kill their defrocked brethren, or place them in deadly situations. But I don’t believe it’s ever been confirmed that they can kill each other. For that matter, offhand I can’t remember Q killing _anyone._
J D I remember the war of course, but I don’t remember any Q’s being killed onscreen (de Lancie’s Q was injured). Was there a throwaway line of dialogue about unseen Q’s dying in the supernovae?
@J D There are gods in mythology that have killed each other (eg Seth killed Osiris in Egyptian mythology). The Q are like Western pagan gods, who are categorically different than the God acknowledged by the Abrahamic religions.
Worf's dismissal of Data is so mature for him. Like Data just directly questioned everything he believed in, and Worf's like maybe I'll tell you about the phenomenon of mortals irrationally placing value in the belief of a metaphysical benevolence for the sake of a communal good on the basis of blind faith another time Data. I bet if everyone was super rude to Worf all the time he'd be surprisingly cool about it, or shank them. That's Klingons.
One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work. There is nothing blind about faith.
@@davidbrogan606 that's one of the dumber arguments for religion. proposing a "supreme consciousness" adds nothing to our understanding of the problem. what created your "supreme consciousness"? if you answer that it has always existed in some form, well there's no reason not to ascribe that quality to the universe itself. your argument that "god must have done it" is like me saying that my computer generates magic pixies, and those pixies send my data thru the networking cable and out to the internet. given that there is no evidence for either god or miniature computer pixies, this extraneous nonsense should be omitted from any rational view of the universe.
@@sirmoonslosthismind God was not created. He always existed. He had no beginning and will have no end. He is eternal. How do I know? He told us and he continues to tell us. It is incredibly sad that you choose to believe the Atheist dogma that the Universe created itself. To believe that is utterly irrational and begs the question, have you lost your mind?
@@davidbrogan606 Do you not think that god gave you a brain for a reason? To draw conslusions and derive knowledge through rational means? Do you not think that god could've just created a simple "I think what I've been told and I kiss the boots of those who tell me what to do"-worshipping-automaton without the incredible intellectual potential that our brain is capable of? And do you not think that a lie is still a lie, regardless of wether it is only to fake "proof" of your personal conviction? You are like a kid that thinks brownnosing the teacher is better than impressing him by working with the tools he's given you to create something that you can be proud of and show the teacher that you've actually understood the lesson and gained understanding the only possible way: by your own thinking - repeating hearsay is not understanding.
@@Radonatos Well, I can appreciate your unbiased opinion. However, I came to knowledge of God through direct experience. He healed my heart of serious heart disease, angina. He healed my shoulder of an old rotator cuff injury and he healed me of a horrible bone spur on the bottom of my heel. All this in the last two years. I know what God thinks because I listen to what he says. I expect the words you said are true for one of us. You would do well to rethink your entire life.
I like how Beverly actually starts thinking logically with all possibilities like 'coalescent being' given the wide variety of weird they've encountered over the years, yet when something like that actually does happen people just think the person's crazy.
@@LordsofMedia have you ever had the urge to write your name in wet cement? have you ever felt like you were being watched? ok i cant keep this up but look up that video if you want a good laugh
Legit crying with sadness that Athiests and Religious people can't be like this online or IRL etc. and just talk about this shit. I feel like there's so much we could learn from each other.
We've already learned all there is to learn from religious fanatics. When faced with anything that contradicts their fairy tales they lash out, mostly with physical violence since they can't argue their case...there's no evidence to back them up. The time for being polite with these people is *over* . They murdered non-believers for centuries, just for rejecting their bullshit, they're just *_starting_* to get what's due to them.
This was exactly the same as modern religious debates. The nonbeliever asks the believer why they believe, and the believer avoids answering the question, citing "faith" instead.
You know I could fully support the crews disbelief in Kahless being a god.... IF it weren't for the fact that the Q exists in this very same universe. Or for that matter the Doud's and the worm hole aliens or that time an alien evolved into a Q like being on TNG right in front of their fracking eyes! The fact that the crew even doubts the possibility of Kahless being a "God like" being is comical by this point. Especially when you go back to the episode "Devils Due" when they encounter a being claiming to be the actual devil.... Their round table conversation immediately goes from its Hocus pocus to "Is it Q?" to its possible she is the devil! And yet this time around... Its not possible! Hilarity!
Or that the crew of the older Enterprise actually encountered the god Apollo. At the time of TNG, the fact that there are absurdly powerful transcendent beings in the universe and beyond it is a matter of empirical fact.
There may be a little bit of anti Klingon racist here.... "Well the Klingons...after all they are still SAVAGES who believe in all sorts of ridiculous superstitions" Ya know....
The crew of the original Enterprise encountered extremely powerful aliens who had provided the BASIS for the myth of the Greek Gods, and were unhappy when humans drove them away from Earth in the 4th century (itself proof that they were not actual deities), and took their encounter with Kirk’s crew as the opportunity to rebuild their former group of human worshipers. As the late Sir Arthur C. Clarke said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” To which Murphy might have added, “until it breaks.”
Y'all are missing a key point. They didn't have to have "faith" in Q and Apollo--they directly saw the power these beings demonstrated. Same with the Prophets in DS9. "Kahless" didn't demonstrate any characteristics like the others.
@@Camelotsmoon And the remote is somewhere under your ass and the cat's got you pinned down sprawled across your legs. After my divorce I moved permanently to the couch, a 7 foot down-batt filled beauty, a real top of the line expensive kind but the ex and I got a steal when we asked the salesman what he had in the back. It was a display piece s'pposed to go the warehouse but he was waiting weeks for the truck. I told him I had my little pick up and I'd take it right there. A $5500 plus tax sofa now 800$ take it away, so I sez what about cash? He looked around then said 500... you don't need a receipt, do you? The couch was already written off as a floor piece, plus decor styles change and this was out of date... so no one had to know where the couch went or for how much and the 500 large went right into Hip National Pocket. And there we were tooling down the hiway with this beast hanging out of my Toyota pick up truck I'd come home from heavy construction, shower then sweats and hit the couch all night til rise for work time, with the small double-hung aside the picture window left open so Charlie the tuxedo cat could come and go usually chkn in around 3 am. Then come weekends I'd be there non stop til 4 am Monday morning. Of course I'd watch Trek and whatever scifi was on... DrWho, Samurai Jack on Adult Swim... but once the highlights came on, I'd leave Sport Center looping all night. Ya see I'm an old guy born in 60 and TV was a wood cabinet set which was in my parent's bedroom and if the atmosphere was right the rabbit ears would tune in 2,4,5,7,9,11,13... but often in snowy gray. Then when we moved from NY to CT my old man put an antenna on the roof which didn't give us any more channels but let us pull the signal in from 50 miles away. So tv was never that big for me and thus didn't see the need to spend the bucks, but right after my divorce 9/11 happened and when Tower 1 fell, it took with it that enormous mast transmitted 6 of the 7 NY stations I was getting from my crappy roof antenna. I came home early from work that horrible day and all I could get on tv was snow... except for CBS 2, that came from the Empire State Building but being not as tall, that never came in good. So here I was, a victim of terrorism myself forced to break down and finally get cable tv. Funny thing I noticed, some time after getting it: For something that used to be free and usually off, ... now was neither. Lol
Data: "As an android.....I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter." 1:42 Worf: "Perhaps some other time, commander. Right now, I gotta go to Deck 18, and take a massive dump." 1:50
One odd thing is Star Trek occasionally challenges real-world religious views but if you lived in the Star Trek universe would the idea of Jesus' return be that crazy? There's characters on the show, including Data's own creator, who are brought back to life sometimes by technology, other times through timeline jumps. They also run into god-like characters on the show. A show where in their reality humans can turn water into wine just by using beam and replicator technology.
Worf takes a lot of shit for being emotional and irrational, but this scene shows his evolution of civility on board the enterprise. Here he is learning that his peoples literal messiah may be returning, and when his entire belief system is questioned by a gosh dang robot he remains civil and states that he is not qualified to answer. Could most modern humans with such beliefs remain so calm and collected in such a situation? I doubt that.
I always appreciated how well Worf seemed to get along with Data. Even when he seems annoyed with him, he treats him with respect. It's a very unlikely friendship.
@@TheyMadeMePickAName He is very mature and so are the writers when dealing with difficult topics such as faith and tolerance. Sadly most people seem to be stuck in whatever dogma they grew up in and will fight for it without even understanding what they believe in the first place. Best to understand the self and listen to others.
that was all religion was in the beginning, explaining the unexplained at the time. all atheism is, is the denouncement of the explanation and demanding proof of its validity.
I love how Captain Picard handles this diligent issue . It kinda reminds of the military way of understanding that there is a personality under the uniform but that person, idea or thing can't disrespect or discredit the Federation or its principals / mission . Well done I wonder what would i do if I were in the other person shoes . Especially now with all the laws being passed about obstructing people right to go out at night or even buy things.
To be a good debater you have to understand the other party,the best way to do this is to listen to them and ask questions without becoming emotionally compromised.Then you will be in a much better position to refute their beliefs and win the discussion.
The title of the video is misleading. It is Riker who doubts the Second Coming of Kahless. Data is just asking some questions and wants to learn more about what Worf calls faith.
At 1:27 Data inquires about how one can determine fact in the absence of empirical data. At 1:40 Data states that as an android he cannot 'accept that which cannot be proven except through rational means". The assumption ('presumption'?) here is that ''rational" means ''empirical". Rationality is NOT the exclusive possession of Empiricism. Empiricism is merely one expression of Rationality. There ARE others. Not all that which is logical is Positivistic Materialism.
+v1e1r1g1e1 "I cannot accept that which cannot be proven through rational means" Since he's an android and they were talking about faith, I believe he meant to say that *facts* must be proven through empirical means, which is not wrong. Facts and empiricism go hand in hand. And then of course there are other more abstract forms of rationality, like theories formed by reasoning, but I don't think that was the point of the discussion.
Okay, we're agreed: ''Facts'' and empiricism do go hand in hand, but empiricism is NOT the only way to establish facts. My point is that the writer/s of Star Trek, TNG seem to equate rationality with empiricism and, frankly, they are wrong to imply this... and/or champion such a view.
***** Okay, let's see how LOGICAL you can be.... You claim that logic without empirical evidence is fantasy. Ever done any Calculus... as in, Maths....? Or maybe done stoichiometry in Chemistry? Or perhaps you've done a bit of Physics or Formal Logic as practised in Philosophy? NONE of these require empirical evidence - these disciplines are all pure Logic - pure Reasoning. The mathematics of Newton put men on the Moon. You wanna call THAT ''fantasy''?!
I love how they doubt this so much with all the crazy stuff they have seen, hech farpoint ""station"", the crystalline entity and Q are all stuff that would make most people say ""a Klingon coming back from the dead after thousands of years? Ive seen crazier stuff"" and this is before we even get to DS9 or Voyager.
More like "Riker doubts the second coming" Data just thinks logically and asks a question to. Better understand where Worf's belief of faith is coming from
no science always trying to put logic to something that is not logical science does not reject or aferm anything it simply studies. fyi i am christian i was not trying to offend just stating that religion at least christianity is not logical because its based on love and love is not logical at all.
In german, science is called "Wissenschaft". Despite there being one "f", the "a" is pronounced short, therefore one may add an "f". Directly translated, it would be "knowledge fabricates". Without the added "f", it would be "knowledge shaft" or, with a little imagination, "knowledge sheep'd". I'd rather not comment on my tangent... In all instances, we got to acknowledge, via the scientific method nobody will ever prove anything. So speaking with scientists about that which was, is and forever is a vain effort. Materialists have to get hit by the fence post, as we say. Humans use logic, that way of thinking directly derived from the logos. Automatons simply add some measurement series and remain clueless. :) Well, to quote you: "If you haven't figured this shit out yet it's probably too late", so I'm writing to the audience, I guess. Either way, let your birthdays always be happy ones.
@@Darkaiming wow, thank you for checking me out a bit there! That was intense! Yes, the more I learn, the less I know. When I say this, it means that I am forced to shed what I thought I knew about something's as I observe and take in other this. Scientists methodologies is good for the superficial level of analysis, the now moment. That said, some things are standardized in what we perceive to be "reality," such as one cup of sugar always having the same mass and weight everytime it is measured, which is using the scientific method to prove the superficially existential fabric of reality. Nothing can ever be astutely proven, however. If I said that the weather was 90 degrees outside while it's 40, noone could prove it without being there to dismiss it. Individuals can accept the supernatural and spiritual or choose to deny them of their own accord, some, many, will fluctuate through how they lean on these things until they feel they have gained enough experience to either fully accept or dismiss them. The more we learn, the less we know, or knew depending on the context. Yes, with knowledge, things are fabricated. Created. Ideas, physical things, feelings and emotions; all experienced within the organs of our bodies which will largely never see the light of day. The brain, the heart, the internal glands which release hormones. Life truly is but a dream in the sleepwalking universal mind.
@@hardwirecars yes, love is illogical, from time to time. It cannot be accurately measured. Harm someone for hurting our loved ones, harm those we love, be harmed by those we love, ignore those we love, take pride in those we love; all of these happen everyday for all of us and we rationalize how we deal out our love on am individual basis. It truly is a variable of an emotion.
One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
@@Reignor99 You can go to Turkey and visit Noah's Ark. It is a state park with a museum and all the scientific evidence and Archaeological identification.
Kahless was very different from the re - creation of him appearing in the classic Star Trek episode ( The title of which I've forgotten ). That was back when the Federation basically thought of Klingons as outer - space Nazis whose entire culture centered around their military conquests & expanding their Empire, & the aliens creating his image based it on the mental image that most humans had of Klingons.
***** You REMEMBERED ! There is a God. Or a Kahless ! The " reproduction ", facsimile, whatever, was derived from the biased information about Klingons that Kirk & co. were taught. Very likely the same deal for Surak & Lincoln. Also vintage 70's, at least re. : Lincoln & Genghis Khan. KHAAAAAAAANNNNNNN !
Christopher Brehe I always thought the TOS Klingons were a cross btwn extra - terrestrial Nazis ( Well, sort of ), Mongol warriors, as well AS Soviets. TNG Klingons - DEFINITELY space samurai. " the rigid Klingon code ", mentioned by Q as an example. TNG Klingons are more honourable than the TOS Patahk.
+Daniel Appleton I always figured the Carries where more like the Nazis. Their treatment of the Bojorans mirrored the way the Nazis treated the Jewish citizen of Germany and other areas they held until their fall from power.
Christopher Brehe Good analogy ! Cardassians were probably more like the Nazis - OR Spanish Conquistadors, or the U.S. Federal troops who removed the Eastern Band Cherokee to Oklahoma & points west. ( Re. : The episode where the Cardies took over the planet colonized by ancestors of Native Americans, & Wesley stirs things up )
Riker: Dude, come the fuck on... Worf: What?! It could've happened like that! Picard: Look, let's just be nice to the guy, okay? Data: Dude... you want to talk about it? Worf: No! I mean... look, I don't know, alright?
So they have trouble believing in supernatural or god-like beings without evidence, yet accept that supernatural beings exist, like Trelane and the Q. Makes sense to me. And Q isn't so technologically advanced, that he seems to be magical. He is a cosmic-like being, who goes beyond the laws of time and space. What would you call that?
Q's just an advanced alien. There's a whole race of creatures like him with their own culture and rules. A material but highly advanced being he is, but he's not supernatural or a god.
Atheist: In the absence of empirical data, how can you be sure God is real? Religion: It is not an empirical matter, it is a matter of faith. Atheist: Faith? Then you believe God has supernatural attributes? Religion: ... Atheist: As an Atheist, I am unable to accept that which cannot be proven through rational means. I would appreciate hearing your insights on this matter. Religion: Perhaps some other time... I do not believe I can provide much insight at this moment.
Smartass: question I assume the other guys don't have an answer to and is based on more than one moot premise Strawman: vague things that don't represent what everyone in this group believes put in a way no experienced debater ever would be caught dead saying
Do you have a solid proof? There isn't even a definitive medical/physical definition of what Death is... we're not even sure when we consider someone is dead... Also if we cease to be conscious does that mean we're automatically dead? Finally there's nothing wrong if people believe that we'll go in some special place or that we reincarnate into another being...
@@ikagura Actually, there IS something wrong if people are willing to believe in ANYTHING without proof or evidence...Why? Because if they're willing to believe in anything without proof or evidence, they are likely to allow this kind of sloppy thinking in other aspects of their lives such as what they believe in politics, child-rearing, how they treat medical problems, environmental problems, etc....and THAT does real damage, not only to themselves but also eventually to others in their society.
Empiricism is not the epistemological end-all-be-all. It's great, and useful for many things. But we know a great many things very deeply through means other than empiricism, and this relegates them to no inferior level of truth, for the most part.
+Numinous "But we know a great many things very deeply through means other than empiricism" We do? I can't think of a single example, let alone "a great many". Can you provide any examples?
Timrath Sure, tackling issues such as the meaning of life. Knowing why fidelity and honor are desirable and manners of living which are to be pursued. A great amount of mathematics was not scientifically garnered, but philosophically garnered. Science can't tell me why my life is falling apart if I have no meaning, purpose, direction and feel useful to greater society. Science is completely mute regarding all questions of morality. Science also speaks nothing about aesthetics. Ironically, science doesn't tell us how to use scientific knowledge. Science doesn't explain the human condition, such as our impulse to explore. And obviously, science doesn't draw conclusions on the supernatural; by it's very nature, as a naturalistic/empiricism based epistemology, it cannot.
What does replication have to do with empiricism? Monuments, skeletons, ruins, documents, artifacts, etc., are all empirical data. We don't know history by waiting for divine inspiration; we know it by studying physical evidence, and using logic as a tool (as we always do when interpreting empirical data) to draw conclusions from that evidence. A historian who doesn't rely on empirical evidence is a soothsayer at best.
Timrath I believe Hakam Adam is specifically referring to the scientific method, which is the prevalent, practical use of empiricism, nowadays. He conflated the two. It's easy to do because key elements of empiricism include observation and measurement. When this is done via the scientific method, it occurs through repeatable experiments. Read my comment above for further explanation.
This pretty much sums up science vs religion. Data (science) asks Worf (religion) for a logical explanation that is based in fact & reason and Worf not having anything reasonable to back up his claims just fumbles & runs away.
No, in this case, Data (science) is being open-minded to another way of thinking and asking questions - as it should be. How many "mystical and magical" things were finally explained once the science caught up to them? Like so many others, you make the mistake in believing that everything worth discovering has already been discovered. Worf, on the other hand, is struggling with both his belief system and the unbelievable aspect that not only has Kahless returned, but has chosen Worf to reveal himself to. His confusion and inability to discuss his "insights" are completely understandable.
I like how Picard was all: Children, please. I don't care what you think about the assignment, just do your homework.
We need more of that these days. Stop getting people fired for what they do with their personal lives and just let them do their jobs
Picard has work to do. He doesn't have all day to discuss this. And he knows his subordinates have work to do too.
@@_Stormfather that’s an oddly specific response.
@@_Stormfather as long as their personal lives do not interfere with their work or the standards that work expects of them, the same that Starfleet would expect, then sure.
@@asneakychicken322 he's in another thread, derailing a discussion to go on about the 1st amendment alluding to censorship
I liked how Data was being genuinely curious, and Worf upon realizing this chose not to blow up and act offended, but instead gently let down Data in a way one would let down a child asking where babies come from. It was handled very well by all parties.
Not to mention that Worf himself was in the middle of having a conflict between the logic and reason imbued in him by his training in Star Fleet and what appeared to be an actual spiritual experience.
That is not even remotely what happened. Data forced Worf to confront the obvious lack of proof and Worf was faced with his own doubts. His "faith" thus was waivered.
You guys really do like making your own dumb reasons to try and sound insightful when you're really just pulling shit out of your asses.
Worf set a healthy boundary and established it in a mature way - he was not capable of having a sensible discussion, as he was aware his emotions were running high, so he informed Data that he couldn't talk about the subject at the moment, and left it at that.
More people should be like Worf.
It was not really handled well by Worf at all. He realizes he wasn't on the right path the moment Data started asking his questions.
@@OpenMawProductionsonly because the story is framed as such. Let's be honest, despite its status as some of the harder sci-fi projects, Star Trek is no stranger to literal magic.
Some races literally transition into glowy blobs, and some are floating ethereal faces, not to mention the nigh omnipotent Q. What's to say Kahless did not receive favour from, say, the Traveler or a plethora of other "magical" beings?
I get that Trek is quite averse to religions, and the undertone hinted at here (despite the fair and respectful rhetorics) is abundantly obvious. They mean to say: "Hey, your prophet is imaginary, you may believe in whatever, but please do not rub it in my face."
I love how Data is always curious. He's never criticizing. He's just trying to figure things out. When I talk with people of opposing viewpoints, I try to think like Data.
Then.........you are obviously not very wise.
Being critical is not criticizing, of course Data would be critical. Don't let words rule your thoughts, your thoughts rule words.
+Robert Jones is a spammer.
Look into the socratic method. It is more insightful, constructive, and helpful when approaching questions of this nature
This is probably the best way of discussing things. People never look for the truth, when they believe that they already know the truth.
but worf has an empirical data right next to him
Exactly what I was thinking.
hahaha, right on. I guess Data just wanted to be apreciated but Worf didnt get it.
SAVAGGGEEE! xD
"but worf has an empirical data right next to him"
If it's "an" it would be "datum." ;-)
perfect
Hard to believe any of them are skeptical about Kahless when they have regular visits from Q, literally an Omnipotent being.
That's a good point. A good starting point of what is possible. But to be skeptical is to be, for lack of a better word, godly.
Considering that Q is such a prankster, the idea that this Kahless is some sort of trick seems far more likely to them than a supernatural explanation.
Kirk literally met Apollo!
@Rico Santiago Seems somewhat vague, but it's implied to be explainable by science that is beyond us currently.
@Rico Santiago I suppose beyond what the Federation scientists can explain in TNG. It might be effectively magic, but it's to tell a story, not to tell actual science.
There's a lot of responses to Data here, but Worf's composed, honest, yet clearly emotional response is pretty remarkable too. I love how it's possible to see, in pretty much every scene Michael Dorn does, the conflict between the Klingon Worf is and the Human he's raised to be.
Best damn character.
Agreed. In this scene he is more Data, than even Data could ever be.
K-less went on to become fabulously wealthy on Ferenginar, opening a chain of stores with the motto:
"Pay less at K-less"
I can't believe how much this joke made me laugh.
I will buy 1 t-shirt please. Will go nicely with the other one "Commender Worf head looks like a fanny"
haha
@FANG
That right SHOP SMART!
awesome comment
"Captain's Log, Stardate 47331.2, we still cannot eliminate all the helium Q added to our air three weeks ago."
Q did that to appease the Copyrighteeans that inhabit the same space but in a different dimension.
I would love to hear that voiceover
Captain's log, dropped a deuce at starbase 6.
hey pixel girl, have i seen you in an rpg before?
@@coreyander286 maybe someone from FF6?
Scotty survived in a transporter buffer for 75 years but they all face palm when Worf suggests that it might actually be Kahless
Brilliant!
randOmZ TV is correct.
I mean an entity of Q’s power could easily bring someone back to life or out of time.
Transporter tech didn't exist back in Kahless' day. Good try tho
@@quinnsinclair7028 I like to think Picard forces himself to believe Q is just a bad apparition of some sort, and doesn't consider them a real and constant presence in the universe.
0:38 The moment Riker realizes: "Oh shit, this is gonna be a Worf episode, isn't it?" XD
Not as bad as a... shudders at the thought... Troy episode.
@@PaulGaither At least she wasn't hard to look at. Though the actress is a right cunt that shames her fans for appreciating her work.
Riker: "Ah shit here we go again"
@@Meton2526 Probably because it threw her entire career into a catsuit. Personally, I preferred her role as Demona in Gargoyles.
@@Krystalmyth It goes well beyond that. She belittles fans of her video game voice acting.
Worf and Data is a criminally underrated pairing, especially when they're not set against each other
They had quite a few moments together at the end of season 6. I liked this.
Eat any good books lately?
Shipped!
When there needs to be two teams.
Worf and Data are mostly opposite because they are the stronger of the group
IIRC Picard deliberately threw them together to prepare a briefing once as he knew he'd get the middle ground.
Imagine having a friend or colleague like data, who has no bias or ulterior motive when discussing things but is genuinely curious and wants to learn. I wish we had datas irl
I would love to talk to him about christ but it would break my heart when we got to the part about him not having a soul so he cant come with me when he finally powers down for good :( damn it i just made myself sad
Have you not heard of Lt commander Mark Zuckerberg?
@@hardwirecars Why would Data not have a soul? Do you require a biological body to have a soul? If so then your soul didn't exist before you were born, or after you die?
We usually stay quiet, unless the environment is clearly safe for reasonable discussion and the people involved genuine, open. That's a rare thing.
Most people don't argue or even truly pay attention, merely demand to be conceded to and for the conversation to end, and are often supported by others who aggressively defend the status quo.
It's a huge waste of time on average, usually people can't even theoretically contribute to the topic because their view wasn't formed but passed down, and anti-intellectualism (any question regardless of tone/fact citing/having even a mildly sound argument=dismissed as troublemaker) is the instinctive defense.
You can't break through that, it's a sad lesson to learn. People have to seek out their flaws by themselves on any subject first, to be open to reasonable discussion. This too is rare.
So we stay quiet, that way we avoid "arguments" wasting our time, as well as the superficial conversations which are also wastes of time.
There are Datas in real life
Picard coming through with the right course as always. You could tell him he was escorting Jesus on his starship and he’d still react the same way.
And what wonderful conversations they would have. Just remembering The Chosen :).
Picard don't give a fuck
Captain's Log : Stardate 46852.2 : The Enterprise is to proceed directly to planet 480p
looooooool
It is a peculiar planet, where all the material substance is strangely made of large granules that defy chemical analysis.
...there was nothing else when this came out hd is actually fairly new its surprising just how fast its advanced past even 4k compaired how long it took us to go from 480 here in the states 240 in europe to even 1080 let alone 4k and here we are staring down 8k now.
Great scene, but all Worf needed to say was "Remember Q?"
Q demonstrated his powers before anyone believed.
@@saymyname8925 Right, but the point is that Q's existence proves the supernatural does exist in Star Trek. So it's strange for Riker to just doubt the entire possibility.
@@victorconway444 is Q supernatural? i don't think so, he's just exceedingly advanced beyond us
@@DanielWidrew Regardless of the means, he is a being not subject to the laws of nature in our universe. He can alter reality itself to befit himself in almost anyway he wants. There may be a few things Q can't do, but those are due to limitations well beyond the scope of our material reality. Within our universe, he has absolute dominion and is thus basically a god. And, by definition, supernatural (etymologically meaning to _transcend nature)_
Data didn't have any doubts about the second coming that night with Commander Yar.
HEYOOOOO!
@@slappy8941 YOWZA YOWZA!!
You so bad !
🤣✊
You could say that he..... divided her zero. That's a good robot/computer joke.
Worf: "Do you realise how important this person is to my faith?"
Riker: "I couldn't, Careless"
Underrated comment.
Riker's face at 0:38 when he hears that Worf believes it might be Klingon Jesus.
It seems a bit odd to me given the Q, the Dowd, the various godlike beings the 1701 encounter, that time travel exists that Riker would be so sceptical. And as discussed in Who Watches the Watches and Devil's Due it is not difficult to appear supernatural given enough technology.
@@danielyeshe You have a point, in the star trek universe, much like the dc or marvel comics universe, one should more readily accept crazy explanations for things as feasible, than is correct in the real universe where magic isn't real. Oh, don't forget telepathy. There's a lot of telepathy in star trek too, and even telekinesis in regular humans, at least in the first season with that aging disease..
Mintaka III wants to know your location
damon8r351 - Riker knows there's only one Jesus.
Archer carried the katra of the Vulcan Jesus in his head for an episode.
It's been said by a lot of people before, but I really do enjoy Data and Worf's interaction here.
Data is skeptical, but not disrespectful. He doesn't understand Worf's perspective, and explains his own, yet isn't outright dismissive of it. He's asking questions in a desire to understand Worf and his beliefs better.
Worf, in turn, wasn't mentally prepared for such a conversation, and politely but clearly made that known. He didn't dismiss Data's curiosity, nor take offense. Nor did he allow himself to get into a conversation he wasn't prepared for. So he tells Data that it would be better to discuss the topic later.
It may not be anything big or groundbreaking, but it demonstrates healthy dialogue and mutual respect, and I just find that nice to watch.
Agreed.
The title should read "Data is curious about the second coming". He didn't doubt it.
It depends on how you define "doubt." He was certainly questioning it, trying to understand, and gather information. He also expressed a healthy level of skepticism.
Doubt and skepticism is synonymous with uncertainty. It is not a denial, refutation, or counterargument to his religious views.
@@Xpistos510 That's all well and good technically speaking, but the intent of the title was clearly to say Data was disbelieving. It makes better clickbait. A more honest title would not bring in as many views (or the one posting the video was afraid it wouldn't).
@@Xpistos510 Doubt can be stretched to cover denial in all but name.
When I say "I doubt the character of *your generic corrupt politician*" I am all but saying that I believe that they don't have any good character with just the barest minimum of decency not to say"XYZ is a total crook and probably would sell their mother for another reelection"
I love how everyone on Star Trek tries to be so logical and scientific, when their galaxy is jammed full of supernatural gods. But noooo, we can't believe in someone coming back to life! Besides all the times it's actually happened, of course.
@@8Kazuja8 Good point.
Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. But of course this is all just a springboard for drama and internal character conflict, so it’s best not to think too hard about it
None of the "gods" in Star Trek are supernatural.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 The point is that resurrection is not beyond possibility when considering all the things that do exist in that world. The word supernatural is pretty meaningless here - how would you ever know whether something was "truly" supernatural? But the fact is that there are tons of things happening in the Star Trek universe that people in our world would call supernatural.
@@GreeneyedApe Yes, I agree that resurrection is not beyond possibility in the Star Trek universe.
The point is that all the stuff that happens in the Star Trek show is part of their natural world. We can call teleportation supernatural, but in the Star Trek universe it's just a technology that functions by using certain properties of the natural world. Beings like Q, the Edo god, or the guardian of Forever have "powers" that are also natural or technological. Something being more advanced than humans in terms of capabilities, evolution or technology doesn't make them supernatural.
I would go as far as saying that the word "supernatural" is pretty meaningless in our world too, not only in Star Trek. Nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist, and we have an extensive track record of discovering that things that were once considered supernatural actually have natural explanations (e.g. lightning and thunder, sunrise and sunset, "falling stars", psychedellic trips, diseases etc.). Also, we don't have any way of detecting nor investigating anything that's beyond the natural world, and if we were to be able to investigate something seemingly supernatural, it would be to the extent of "here's the effect, but we don't know how it works or what its causes may be". There's nothing there that could warrant making the leap from an observable effect to a supernatural cause.
This title totally misses the point of this scene.
The title is the propaganda.
I think the title is supposed to reflect the viewpoint of data, its arguably misleading because it could lead one to think he was going to refer to Jesus however his response is transferable! in other words had he been in a circumstance where the subject in question was supposed to be the returned Christ he would have responded in the same way.
Jesus doesn't need a spaceship. If his return can be questioned, then he has not returned. Period. Data, being familiar with the relevant literature, would respond entirely differently to the claim of Jesus's return, because he would be able to note that - unlike the case of Kayless's return - the relevant prophesies had not been fulfilled, and if they had been, then it would be a matter of entirely undeniable fact that he had returned.
+Matthew Reynolds While i 100% Agree. Alot of people would doubt Jesus's Return even as it happens before their very eyes (He was doubted on a massive scale even before his Birth!)
lol
Data be like: Worf, please explain religion in logical terms.
'Worf.exe as stopped working'
+NSlasher Data should've asked C.S. Lewis (if he were still alive), Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, or any of a multitude of others. The answers to Data's questions were written hundreds of years before (for him). This is an example of gross oversight on the writers' part, because if I were Data and really wanted to know, I would've read all of these works, and more, before asking any question of Warf. And the questions would've therefore been informed; it was very obvious Data was a tabula rasa regarding the matter. I find this unconvincing.
+Numinous It wouldn't have been interesting television.
DarthRushy Perhaps. Yeah, Star Trek was about space exploration, about humanity ascending to a level that many current social problems have been overcome, and generally about a positivisitc viewpoint on humanity. I appreciate Roddenberry's views that we can eventually overcome significant social problems merely by acts of our collective human will operating in keeping harmony with one accord. But in reality, I honestly don't think it's possible. Going all the way back to ancient Greece, Empedocles commented upon the dual nature of humankind. I think he was right on the money. We simultaneously have the will to do good, but also posses greed, envy, strife, Malthusian competition, murderous intent, and all sorts of other woeful facts within our exists. Science and empiricism are very helpful to garner and understand new knowledge. But they most certainly aren't a means of changing human nature at it's very core.
Though I love many things about the potential future that Roddenberry created, by and large I find it not only extremely unlikely, but downright impossible. You'd have to take the humanity out of the human race for it to occur. Thereby, we'd cease to be what we actually are on a quintessential level. It's fantasy. It's an alluring, optimistic fantasy, but fantasy nonetheless. This isn't a new story at all. Thomas More suggested the same idea centuries ago when he penned "Utopia." In my experience, the only manner in which we can truly transcend the base human condition in a permanent way is through faith. But Roddenberry was an avowed atheist and it's clear to the astute observer of the plot lines he put forth in TNG that he stood in stark opposition to this. I find this very ironic, because that type of phenomenon actually forms the most legitimate mechanism to move toward the problem-free, actualized future he pined for and infused into Star Trek lore.
Numinous As this very episode suggests, I believe that faith in the possibility of utopia is more important than utopia itself.
Star Trek isn't about our future, it's about making our present a little bit better.
DarthRushy I see what you're saying. But I don't think it's about making things a "little" better. Numerous times in numerous episodes (I've watched every single episode of the series multiple times), it is overtly mentioned that all of the significant problems of human culture have been completely overcome. No war. Nor poverty. No starvation. No intolerance. And no faith in anything other than empiricism and the scientific method. This is what Roddenberry espoused and explicitly stated numerous times, and he made sure to include these themes in TNG plots before he passed away. It's interesting to note that he was also a philanderer and died an early death due to ingesting copious quantities of illicit drugs. His dream for the future, while admirable, I am convinced is nothing more than unattainable fantasy. It makes for an interesting show, though, I must admit.
These little scenes with Data, analysising from his android point of view beliefs, quirks, ideals and culturual practices, were a constant joy and highlight for me watching TNG, no wonder he was so rich a character when he was afforded these lovely moments.
Data didn't necessarily doubt that it was Kahless, he was merely trying to understand the meaning of faith out of curiosity, in this case Klingon faith in Kahless. Being inorganic he can only reason based on fact and science. I am a Christian myself, a man of faith, and still I can appreciate Data's position. It is good to question things sometimes. I listen to those who doubt the existence of God and it doesn't offend me at all. They are merely voicing their feelings and thoughts in the matter. Truthfully, I would enjoy a conversation with someone like Data. I welcome others' views and perspectives. It sounds strange: a Christian who fully appreciates the philosophical view of someone who doesn't believe or have any kind of faith, but I do.
It IS strange. Very few Christians (or people of any other religion) take that view.
Well, then you're one in a billion...
+John Carr
_It IS strange. Very few Christians (or people of any other religion) take that view_
What view exactly are you talking about? Are talking about his saying:
_"I listen to those who doubt the existence of God and it doesn't offend me at all."_
If so, I wish more atheists were like that too. How else do you explain the "angry atheist" movement? I wish there were much fewer angry atheists.
I was talking about the fact, that Locktwiste72 doesn't get offended when someone doubts the existence of God and actually listens to them and talks to them, which is something most people aren't capable of and it doesn't have to be about their religious beliefs. People usually just hate someone with a different opinion, no matter if they are a christian, an atheist, a communist, a democrat, a republican, a scientist, a priest etc. That's why i wrote "You're one in a billion..."
+Quantum Videos Cz
_People usually just hate someone with a different opinion, no matter if they are a christian, an atheist, a communist, a democrat, a republican, a scientist, a priest etc. That's why i wrote "You're one in a billion..."_
Yes, unfortunately, knee-jerk reactions of, "how dare you think differently than what I think", seems to be too common these days.
What we need is a story of Data's entry into Starfleet. How did he get into Starfleet, did he attend the Academy, what was the (possibly very interesting) application and admissions process in his case, what rank did he start in Starfleet at, was he treated differently from other cadets, what was his service career before joining the Enterprise?
According to the novelization of Relics, he did go through the academy and advanced up the ranks like any other officer.
In other episodes he has explained (to his creator, for example) that his life was saved by Federation Star Fleet officers, which led him to become interested in Star Fleet, and ultimately seek to join them (similar to Worf's backstory). I imagine he asked the officers many questions about how someone joins and then followed their answers carefully. If they were skeptical about having an android join, SOMEONE decided wtf let's give him a chance, he seems like a fascinating, unique dude, stands out from the other applicants. Then I'm sure he impressed them with his intelligence, memory, and ability to get perfect scores on any exam they gave him, not to mention he is absurdly strong and durable, he could certainly hold his own in a combat situation.
Worf "I think he IS geniune"
Data "Frankly, I couldn't Kahless, Mr Worf.."
These YT clips are so bad for me. Whenever I see them I want to watch the full episode again. The fact that I have Netflix which has basically all Star Trek series and films does not help the matter!
Agreed.
YT and Netflix are in collusion.
Agreed
100%
I watch my dvd's when i want to see full episodes.
Michael Dorn kills every scene as Worf. no pun intended lol. He is so damn good. A real treasure in the community. And what an amazing beautiful character. Good work brother you really brought him to life.
Michael Dorn is peak Star Trek having the highest episode count of all of 'em.
@@BTG514 yessir!!! worf is a straight UNIT l! stud all day
This scene is followed up on towards the end when Data tells Worf of his "crisis of the spirit" when he was first activated on Omicron Theta. To me, that was a very touching and powerful scene. You had to know Data's backstory and "the way he was", and the quiet way he approached Worf to fully understand and grasp the depth and magnitude of that scene.
You did not answer my question. What does Kalis need of a spaceship?
PainMonkey Starship*
*Kahless
* with
PainMonkey Kahless not that stupid way you sauce
Holy Crap people stop being grammar Nazis and take it for what it is, a joke.
I think I might give this series a watch. I’ve never watched any star strek, but I’ve heard great things about this one in particular…about some plots that seemed so fascinating and kinda deep to think about. Like Picard living an entire other life at some point, growing old and having children and grandchildren. And that he always remembers that entire other life lived in subsequent episodes, and sometimes plays a flute or something that he learned in the other life. I can’t remember exactly but I’ve just been very intrigued by a few of the plots I’ve heard about
You just can't be mad at Data. He is so genuine with his curiosity how certain things work, what he can't understand. Like a little kid
HE IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL
Can we take a moment to appreciate that Worf, a Klingon(a people who mythologically killed their gods) raised by humans (a particularly pious species) didnt just answer with indoctrinated rhetoric. He stopped and realized he couldnt properly explain his faith in an emotionally compromised state.
Sorry. I love Worf.
You could see he almost felt ashamed in front of his peers, but carried on professionally. Such a good show.
In the show the humans are pious? Because we sure aren't.
@@jackkraken3888 in relation to the other species on our planet. Yeah. We are.
@@tsinestexicthdauwraum9082 Apologies I didn't know what the fuck pious meant. Yes you're 100% correct we are definitely more religious than other species on earth. Probably because we are the only specious that has the capability to be religious in the first place.
@@jackkraken3888 Someone did a study of a specific tribe of primates in the wild and they actually did seem to form a proto-religion of some sort.
Where does a Klingon shop for footwear?
Kay-less Shoes
I went to payless shoes and tried to walk off with some of their shoes without paying for them. When they accused me of shoplifting, I said "but it clearly says on the sign that these shoes are pay-less! That means I shouldn't have to pay for them. Just like painless means without pain or topless means without a top."
Did Kahless file for bankruptcy too?
Crusher and her coalescent beings
that makes me /moist
She should know, she shagged one
After decades of watching TV, movies and attending various stage productions, I am still fascinated even sometimes astounded by the imagination and story telling quality of screen plays and play writes. Equally impressed by and with the ability of actors and performing artists who portray the characters.
I wish this character had showed up again in the show, he was a classic OG honorable Klingon.
I gotta call bullshit in that-with all the Klingon-based storylines in TNG AND DS9, seriously? A Klingon literally built to embody their ideals wouldn't have been nice to show up now and a again? A friend/moral mentor for Worf?
The Kahless clone is mentioned in a couple of episodes of DS9. I think they consider him somewhat inconsequential. In Worf's debut on DS9 I think it's mentioned that Kahless orders Gowron not to deploy the fleet and Gowron simply disobeys him with no fallout. Gowron is the only leader really referred to after that. In "The Sword of Kahless" Worf and Kor find the legendary artifact and consider turning it over to the clone before deciding ... "nah." But I agree, more could have been made of him.
Why did they cast a short pipsqueak in that role?
@@FanboyFilms he does have his own novel though, where ancient scrolls are discovered that all but denounce all of the original Klingon beliefs that were uploaded into him. Its a great perspective on how interesting the emperor and the empire would be if much of what he preached was proven wrong...
I always thought of Kahless being the Klingon equivalent to King Arthur. Where time has passed far too much to find out if they truly lived or not. Sortek is the Vulcan equivalent of Confucius or the Budda. That is more religious. Kahless is not a god. He is just the hero the Klingons seek to emulate. As our forefathers from Britain sought to emulate King Arthur. And many people today still look up to the ideals that King Arthur represents. The Klingons are no different with Kahless.
No. Kahless is a genuine historical figure.
Good point. Especially since new evidence points to the possibility of an actual historical Arthur.
This is a bit of a complicated matter. King Arthur also has supernatural components to his Ledgend, as well as a prophesied second coming. I dont think the contention is over whether or not he is a god to the Kingon people or not. It would be exactly like if a man in a suit of armor showed up in Kent claiming to be King Arthur.
Of course, this entire problem presented within the show is silly. The entire Enterprise crew know that beings of sufficient power to be called supernatural exist, and regularly exercise that power within the universe, and really should be far FAR more open to the idea of the supernatural than they are. That the source of 'supernatural' events is science beyond human understanding is a distinction without a difference.
@@GrimgoreIronhide Agreed on the lack of supernatural open mindedness. Picard and Q is a perfect example of that attitude having direct consequences.
Of the Starfleet Captains, only Sisko shows a little more resolve, but even then, only so far.
Janeway is one that shows total acceptance, but only because she needed to.
As for King Arthur, the two battles he is legendary for, Mount Badon and Camlann are historical battles.
@@mickeye6428 he never said that King Arthur wasn’t or was a genuine historical figure
Data is GREAT!!!! LOVE how he dont criticize but try to understand and not take a position on the subject. Dude is EPIC👏👍💯
When data asks a question that's his true intent.. he is not using the guise of a question to mask as an opinion
One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
@@davidbrogan606 that simply means there might be more empirical data to be discovered.
@@kamalkumar7978 No amount of empirical evidence can get something from nothing, which is what they want you to believe.
I find Data's words intresting when the TNG crew has to reguraly deal with Q.
+Gijs Schenk Because Q's abilities are essentually that of a god's, really. Data says here that he needs things proven "in a rational means", but Q's powers are not rationally explainable and deifies all the know laws of the universe.
Yep, and I don't think Star Trek has actually gone in depth really how the Q Race's abilities work, only taking it at face value. For how anti-religious both Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry were, I am surprised at how many elements that would be considered supernatural have crept up in Star Trek since the beginning. There are more instances other than Q of phenomenon that are almost magic and never scientifically explained in the franchise, yet characters still criticize the supernatural despite the out of world events they may have experienced.
+Daniel Appleton Had the show gone into explanation of how the Q's abilities work (Quantum mechanics, whatever) then I would say there would be some sort of scientific explanation. However, given that the Q Continuum's powers are pretty much near omniscient and omnipotent, and as another commenter said how their powers defy known laws of the universe without explanation, they are by definition supernatural. In hindsight given how scientific TNG was and how concepts such as the use of antimatter and warp drive are grounded in real-life scientific theories, Q feels out of place sometimes IMO.
Wasn't it kinda explained in Voyager that the Qu Continuum exists on another level of existence aka in another dimension? We only know four dimensions, the four we can move in and in one of those, time, we even can only move in one direction (with our current understanding of it). The hinted explanation for the Q Continuum seems to be, that they are from another dimension with different set of rules than our own, and like with H.P. Lovecraft's Old Ones the rules of our universe/dimensions just don't apply to them.
Regardless, the point I feel is there have been many points in TNG that the crew (including Data) have experienced phenomenon that for the most part breaks all known scientific and physical laws of the universe (and at times is never really explained in-depth), yet Data's words here implies in theory he would doubt those experiences (not believing in what cannot be proven empirically).
I'll say that while I'm not a materialist in terms of philosophy, I find the blanket explanation for Q and the Q Continuum borderline skirts on some theories of how the afterlife would work, another dimension or plane of existence where known laws work differently, or would violate scientific laws in the physical world. An example is immortality, which is present in most theories of an afterlife and is also shown by the beings of the Q Continuum. As great as a character Q is (and to reiterate, I am not a materialist) I feel the concept of Q borderline skirts with spirituality, something I feel violates Gene Roddenbery's vision of sci-fi seeing that he was an atheist and a humanist.
It's pretty rare to see Worf so soft spoken and unsure.
nochtczar not really
Roddenberry was a devout atheist, I think after he died they played with the themes of religious belief more in the shows
+benedictify …and now he reigns with #CarlSagan in Atheist Heaven - LOL!!!
+Neen HA!
I don't think the word DEVOUT applies to atheists or any other nonbeliever.
Just because the author and his or her expected audience does not believe in any supernatural religion is no reason the characters must not. Check out the second half of Asimov’s “Foundation” and the two following novels, “Foundation and Empire” and “Second Foundation.” Or for that matter, Rowling’s Harry Potter series (I’m assuming she does not literally believe in wizardry and witchcraft).
The existence of a belief in the return of a great hero of the past, as a part of Klingon culture, provided an interesting plot point in this (and other ST stories), and an explanation for some of their behavior.
Likewise with the Bajoran belief that the beings from the Wormhole were Prophets (and evil Pa-wraiths), and the mercenary beliefs of the Ferengi about their afterlife (ref. the episode “Little Green Men,” in which Quark and two of his kinsmen were sent back in time to crash in New Mexico and they thought they had died and gone to either Ferengi Heaven or Ferengi Hell).
Thank the gods for DS9
Wrong title; it's Worf who isn't sure of his beliefs. Data is just exploring.
Data is just curious, as usual. the big question is if data's curiosity will ever kill his cat...
We was clickbaited!
@@Gizziiusa
I hope not, such a sweet creature deserves to live up to arthritis.
One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
@@davidbrogan606 He would also find that there isn't enough evidence for the universe to have been created by a singular entity. Despite the existence of the Q continuum, which itself disproves monotheism if one thought of them as gods.
I won't deny the possibility that Qs are the gods in our history, but to believe them to be all-knowing, omni-potent and all good is beyond foolish.
As Darth Vader would say "I find your lack of Faith....disturbing...."
Good quote. One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
@@davidbrogan606 With respect, as someone who has taken your EXACT position before, I'd like to point out that you've committed two logical fallacies here: the *divine fallacy* (or "appeal to common sense"), and the *fallacy of passing the buck.* Let me explain why this rationale is incomplete and somewhat problematic.
Just because there is insufficient evidence that the universe created itself, does not NECESSARILY mean (or logically REQUIRE) a divine creator to therefore be the only remaining explanation. Similarly, lack of evidence for a deity also doesn't mean that the universe must have created itself. You've accidentally set up a false dichotomy here and used the same lack of evidence that could be applied to both explanations to deduce your preferred conclusion -- that a god MUST have created the universe.
It's important to note that most secular cosmologists and astrophysicists, or general atheists, wouldn't argue that the universe created itself. If they're being honest they would either concede up front that they don't know the origin of the universe, or they'd appeal to either quantum mechanics or thermodynamics and state that matter and energy (interchangeable counterparts) *can neither be created nor destroyed* but only change form, conserve, disperse, or convect. Since the universe as we understand it in it's simplist form is matter and energy, one can reasonably conclude that the universe had no formal beginning, and will have no technical or literal ending (even if there is a heat death of stars) because the matter itself would in some capacity continue to exist. Pure matter/energy/atoms cannot pop into existence just as they can't be destroyed into nonexistence (despite subatomic and quantum processes being tricky). This is in part how you can be sure that the minerals in your flesh and bone were manufactured in the rock we call earth billions of years ago, and how the elements in our planet were manufactured in the star we call the Sun billions of years ago.
Secondly, while using God to explain to origin of the universe, or the catalyst of the Big Bang DOES seem to answer a critical question ("where did the universe come from"), it actually poses a series of even harder, less-likely-to-answer questions:
-where did God come from?
-Who created God?
-Who created those creators?
-How have these deities spent their time prior to creating, if time even applies to them.
-What medium/dimension does God exist within? (If deities exists within the universe, then physics and time must apply to them, making them mortal and their existence contingent upon the universe setting up preconditions for their existence, therefore NOT being gods. If they exist outside of the universe, or "all that is known to exist," then they might not exist as known normal matter or energy and would be something exotic and impossible to prove, or not exist at all.)
And since simply saying "God" to the universe's origins questions answers none of the new questions, it has in effect, answered nothing and leaves the nature of the universe as mysterious as it was without God.
As counterintuitive as it seems for the universe to have created itself (no scientist argued that it did) is as counterintuitive as it would seem for deities to create themselves.
But one key thing here should be taken away, just because something complex doesn't make sense to oneself, doesn't make it untrue. This is not an argument that God does NOT exist, but simply that we really have no idea if he/they/it does. I do not know if God's existence is even necessary for complex processes to occur.
But if it IS true that complex processes necessarily require a creator, then logically the creator himself must be AS or MORE complex than that which he created, making it necessary that the creator by this standard must also have a creator. If that is true, then he would not be the temporally omnipresent God that Abrahamic religions describe, but simply a catalyst also dependent upon a catalyst.
It may simply be that it is possible for the universe to have always existed and not need a creator. Establishing that as true doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist, only that if he did, is something that no ancient or relevant religious has adequately identified.
My point is, we should all be open minded and assume nothing.
Jacob Serrano I admire and appreciate your well thought out response. You really made me think about what faith is and how for certain people it can sort of fill those gaps of not understanding the mysteries of the universe. What do you think, though, if this hypothetical deity or God were completely and endlessly infinite, not necessarily requiring a creator and rising far beyond our finite laws and understanding of reality?
He neither doubt nor believe, he is simply verifying
I think Worf's conversation with Data is artificial. One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
Like a scientist.
@@davidbrogan606 With respect, as someone who has taken your EXACT position before, I'd like to point out that you've committed two logical fallacies here: the *divine fallacy* (or "appeal to common sense"), and the *fallacy of passing the buck.* Let me explain why this rationale is incomplete and somewhat problematic.
Just because there is insufficient evidence that the universe created itself, does not NECESSARILY mean (or logically REQUIRE) a divine creator to therefore be the only remaining explanation. Similarly, lack of evidence for a deity also doesn't mean that the universe must have created itself. You've accidentally set up a false dichotomy here and used the same lack of evidence that could be applied to both explanations to deduce your preferred conclusion -- that a god MUST have created the universe.
It's important to note that most secular cosmologists and astrophysicists, or general atheists, wouldn't argue that the universe created itself. If they're being honest they would either concede up front that they don't know the origin of the universe, or they'd appeal to either quantum mechanics or thermodynamics and state that matter and energy (interchangeable counterparts) *can neither be created nor destroyed* but only change form, conserve, disperse, or convect. Since the universe as we understand it in it's simplist form is matter and energy, one can reasonably conclude that the universe had no formal beginning, and will have no technical or literal ending (even if there is a heat death of stars) because the matter itself would in some capacity continue to exist. Pure matter/energy/atoms cannot pop into existence just as they can't be destroyed into nonexistence (despite subatomic and quantum processes being tricky). This is in part how you can be sure that the minerals in your flesh and bone were manufactured in the rock we call earth billions of years ago, and how the elements in our planet were manufactured in the star we call the Sun billions of years ago.
Secondly, while using God to explain to origin of the universe, or the catalyst of the Big Bang DOES seem to answer a critical question ("where did the universe come from"), it actually poses a series of even harder, less-likely-to-answer questions:
-where did God come from?
-Who created God?
-Who created those creators?
-How have these deities spent their time prior to creating, if time even applies to them.
-What medium/dimension does God exist within? (If deities exists within the universe, then physics and time must apply to them, making them mortal and their existence contingent upon the universe setting up preconditions for their existence, therefore NOT being gods. If they exist outside of the universe, or "all that is known to exist," then they might not exist as known normal matter or energy and would be something exotic and impossible to prove, or not exist at all.)
And since simply saying "God" to the universe's origins questions answers none of the new questions, it has in effect, answered nothing and leaves the nature of the universe as mysterious as it was without God.
As counterintuitive as it seems for the universe to have created itself (no scientist argued that it did) is as counterintuitive as it would seem for deities to create themselves.
But one key thing here should be taken away, just because something complex doesn't make sense to oneself, doesn't make it untrue. This is not an argument that God does NOT exist, but simply that we really have no idea if he/they/it does. I do not know if God's existence is even necessary for complex processes to occur.
But if it IS true that complex processes necessarily require a creator, then logically the creator himself must be AS or MORE complex than that which he created, making it necessary that the creator by this standard must also have a creator. If that is true, then he would not be the temporally omnipresent God that Abrahamic religions describe, but simply a catalyst also dependent upon a catalyst.
It may simply be that it is possible for the universe to have always existed and not need a creator. Establishing that as true doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist, only that if he did, is something that no ancient or relevant religious has adequately identified.
My point is, we should all be open minded and assume nothing.
@@Xpistos510 Perhaps if you better understood the motives of the "scientists" it might start to make sense. Like most men the do not wish to be subject to God. They wish to be the Gods of their own lives, spurning the plan of the Creator and doing as they alone see fit. As such, they invent the ridiculous. Have you considered that before Creation there was not even any space in which to place the matter?
We and not merely talking about complex processes, we are faced with the creation of space itself. How is it even possible that those who claim reason continue to believe that it all happened of its own accord? Now, it is not that we, at a loss for any other explanation have seized upon the concept that a God must have made it. We believe that God did it because He says that He made it all.
A worthwhile endeavor is to seek God and thus find out for yourself.
No, he's trying to politely understand irrational belief. He knows he won't get any information out of Worf if he shows his beliefs the respect they actually deserve. It's like confronting a 10 year old child that still believes in Santa, and interviewing him to try to figure out what makes him tick. It doesn't mean that the INTERVIEWER thinks there's a snowball's chance of Santa actually being real.
For Worf this is a very personal matter - for people like Worf your faith is part of your identity. Part of the chemical and biological and emotional makeup that makes you who you are. For something that intimate it would be like bearing your soul to try to 'rationally' explain away (or confirm) that which you believe in. Worf isn't refusing to explain his 'insight' into 'the matter' - he's just not comfortable with the idea of trying to define WHY he believes what he does. Especially not to someone who is as logical as Data is.
Mystery voice: "Eh-hmm. Hi. Remember me? What does your empirical data have to say now?"
Picard: "Oh F*ck off Q"
I always liked this episode. Plus, the Klingons cloning their first emperor is some pretty fuckin' epic shit.
It shows how far the Klingons are willing to go to regain their lost honor.
+Son of Tiamat Wish someone would clone a lost bible prophet like Moses or Daniel or anyone to see what life was truly like back then.
Glad to know you're a Star Trek fan (well maybe two years ago), Son of Tiamat. Seen your comments on a lot of other videos of the political variety.
I love Worf, he was the character i could always relate to the most.
My condolences with the turtle on your head. Lol
Data's definition of android is very strange. All data is arbitrary, even data gathered by instrumentation or arrived at by logic. He could absolutely be programmed to accept any data coded as an axiom. I know this because reality contains axioms and thought requires the acceptance of them without proof. That's not even to say the ability to understand fiction or debate pure abstractions.
If anything Data should understand faith better than anyone because he can clearly see the logical clockwork all at the same time while humans just don't have minds of sufficient power and order. (Vulcans might.)
+Brandon “Innomen” Sergent I think you're right, except that I think that Data is probably actually just talking like that to give his words more weight. Data is a complex character; I think he's always been a lot more human than he would ever admit.
*****
Oh wow. I didn't even consider it like Data phrasing things for human benefit.
One could argue it's not even possible to be perfectly unambiguous and objective in English.
And considering that, you could further argue that all his comments aimed at people are warped as he feels the need to get the conveyed idea as close to his original thought as possible.
Reading the Culture series has me thinking about AIs in a whole different way and your comment is along those lines.
The moment you go down the road of an AI being manipulative, it becomes impossible to nitpick because an AI can think 10 moves ahead.
They could walk up to you and "randomly" say "elephants" and then two weeks later to decide to stay in watching a documentary on elephants and as a result avoid a fatal car crash.
It's like butterfly wings on purpose with those damn things XD
Worf would like to hit Data, but he knows that wouldn't help, he would only hurt himself.
I thought it was more of a "hes not trying to mock me, hes simply curious " thing
I think the traditional Klingon reaction to Data is a head-butt.
Let me get this straight, the supernatural is difficult to believe, yet no one takes issue with the existence of the Q?
He isn’t really supernatural, just has a much higher understanding of the workings of the universe
James Wood They can injure each other as Q’s. And if they can strip one another of their powers, they should be easily able to kill their defrocked brethren, or place them in deadly situations. But I don’t believe it’s ever been confirmed that they can kill each other.
For that matter, offhand I can’t remember Q killing _anyone._
J D I remember the war of course, but I don’t remember any Q’s being killed onscreen (de Lancie’s Q was injured). Was there a throwaway line of dialogue about unseen Q’s dying in the supernovae?
The Q Continuum is most certainly still in nature; thus -- by definition -- they cannot be supernatural.
@J D There are gods in mythology that have killed each other (eg Seth killed Osiris in Egyptian mythology). The Q are like Western pagan gods, who are categorically different than the God acknowledged by the Abrahamic religions.
Worf's dismissal of Data is so mature for him. Like Data just directly questioned everything he believed in, and Worf's like maybe I'll tell you about the phenomenon of mortals irrationally placing value in the belief of a metaphysical benevolence for the sake of a communal good on the basis of blind faith another time Data.
I bet if everyone was super rude to Worf all the time he'd be surprisingly cool about it, or shank them. That's Klingons.
One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work. There is nothing blind about faith.
@@davidbrogan606
that's one of the dumber arguments for religion. proposing a "supreme consciousness" adds nothing to our understanding of the problem. what created your "supreme consciousness"? if you answer that it has always existed in some form, well there's no reason not to ascribe that quality to the universe itself. your argument that "god must have done it" is like me saying that my computer generates magic pixies, and those pixies send my data thru the networking cable and out to the internet. given that there is no evidence for either god or miniature computer pixies, this extraneous nonsense should be omitted from any rational view of the universe.
@@sirmoonslosthismind God was not created. He always existed. He had no beginning and will have no end. He is eternal. How do I know? He told us and he continues to tell us.
It is incredibly sad that you choose to believe the Atheist dogma that the Universe created itself. To believe that is utterly irrational and begs the question, have you lost your mind?
@@davidbrogan606 Do you not think that god gave you a brain for a reason? To draw conslusions and derive knowledge through rational means? Do you not think that god could've just created a simple "I think what I've been told and I kiss the boots of those who tell me what to do"-worshipping-automaton without the incredible intellectual potential that our brain is capable of?
And do you not think that a lie is still a lie, regardless of wether it is only to fake "proof" of your personal conviction?
You are like a kid that thinks brownnosing the teacher is better than impressing him by working with the tools he's given you to create something that you can be proud of and show the teacher that you've actually understood the lesson and gained understanding the only possible way: by your own thinking - repeating hearsay is not understanding.
@@Radonatos Well, I can appreciate your unbiased opinion. However, I came to knowledge of God through direct experience. He healed my heart of serious heart disease, angina. He healed my shoulder of an old rotator cuff injury and he healed me of a horrible bone spur on the bottom of my heel. All this in the last two years. I know what God thinks because I listen to what he says. I expect the words you said are true for one of us. You would do well to rethink your entire life.
I like how Beverly actually starts thinking logically with all possibilities like 'coalescent being' given the wide variety of weird they've encountered over the years, yet when something like that actually does happen people just think the person's crazy.
I always Loved Riker's facial expressions when he heard or saw B.S
And he's the boss poker player.
@@LordsofMedia have you ever had the urge to write your name in wet cement? have you ever felt like you were being watched? ok i cant keep this up but look up that video if you want a good laugh
Legit crying with sadness that Athiests and Religious people can't be like this online or IRL etc. and just talk about this shit. I feel like there's so much we could learn from each other.
We've already learned all there is to learn from religious fanatics. When faced with anything that contradicts their fairy tales they lash out, mostly with physical violence since they can't argue their case...there's no evidence to back them up.
The time for being polite with these people is *over* . They murdered non-believers for centuries, just for rejecting their bullshit, they're just *_starting_* to get what's due to them.
tremedar and people like you is why we’ll never have peace.
Put simply, I agree with the original post. Sadly, humans are humans, as one of us here has proven so well...
This was exactly the same as modern religious debates. The nonbeliever asks the believer why they believe, and the believer avoids answering the question, citing "faith" instead.
People who are correct don't have much to learn from people that are incorrect.
You know I could fully support the crews disbelief in Kahless being a god.... IF it weren't for the fact that the Q exists in this very same universe. Or for that matter the Doud's and the worm hole aliens or that time an alien evolved into a Q like being on TNG right in front of their fracking eyes! The fact that the crew even doubts the possibility of Kahless being a "God like" being is comical by this point. Especially when you go back to the episode "Devils Due" when they encounter a being claiming to be the actual devil.... Their round table conversation immediately goes from its Hocus pocus to "Is it Q?" to its possible she is the devil! And yet this time around... Its not possible! Hilarity!
Or that the crew of the older Enterprise actually encountered the god Apollo. At the time of TNG, the fact that there are absurdly powerful transcendent beings in the universe and beyond it is a matter of empirical fact.
There may be a little bit of anti Klingon racist here.... "Well the Klingons...after all they are still SAVAGES who believe in all sorts of ridiculous superstitions" Ya know....
The crew of the original Enterprise encountered extremely powerful aliens who had provided the BASIS for the myth of the Greek Gods, and were unhappy when humans drove them away from Earth in the 4th century (itself proof that they were not actual deities), and took their encounter with Kirk’s crew as the opportunity to rebuild their former group of human worshipers.
As the late Sir Arthur C. Clarke said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
To which Murphy might have added, “until it breaks.”
Y'all are missing a key point. They didn't have to have "faith" in Q and Apollo--they directly saw the power these beings demonstrated. Same with the Prophets in DS9. "Kahless" didn't demonstrate any characteristics like the others.
How the fuck is an alien with nearly limitless (or limitless) powers not a deity if it was worshiped before?
Worf is excited like a kid who has seen his first mall santa.
Thank you so much for citing the episode and season number!!
STTNG is such a good series too turn on when it's going through reruns and take a nap.
Then roll over and thru the haze watch a scene like this
@@tommypetraglia4688 Haha, yeah.
@@Camelotsmoon
And the remote is somewhere under your ass and the cat's got you pinned down sprawled across your legs.
After my divorce I moved permanently to the couch, a 7 foot down-batt filled beauty, a real top of the line expensive kind but the ex and I got a steal when we asked the salesman what he had in the back.
It was a display piece s'pposed to go the warehouse but he was waiting weeks for the truck. I told him I had my little pick up and I'd take it right there.
A $5500 plus tax sofa now 800$ take it away, so I sez what about cash? He looked around then said 500... you don't need a receipt, do you?
The couch was already written off as a floor piece, plus decor styles change and this was out of date... so no one had to know where the couch went or for how much and the 500 large went right into Hip National Pocket.
And there we were tooling down the hiway with this beast hanging out of my Toyota pick up truck
I'd come home from heavy construction, shower then sweats and hit the couch all night til rise for work time, with the small double-hung aside the picture window left open so Charlie the tuxedo cat could come and go usually chkn in around 3 am.
Then come weekends I'd be there non stop til 4 am Monday morning.
Of course I'd watch Trek and whatever scifi was on... DrWho, Samurai Jack on Adult Swim... but once the highlights came on, I'd leave Sport Center looping all night.
Ya see I'm an old guy born in 60 and TV was a wood cabinet set which was in my parent's bedroom and if the atmosphere was right the rabbit ears would tune in 2,4,5,7,9,11,13... but often in snowy gray.
Then when we moved from NY to CT my old man put an antenna on the roof which didn't give us any more channels but let us pull the signal in from 50 miles away.
So tv was never that big for me and thus didn't see the need to spend the bucks, but right after my divorce 9/11 happened and when Tower 1 fell, it took with it that enormous mast transmitted 6 of the 7 NY stations I was getting from my crappy roof antenna.
I came home early from work that horrible day and all I could get on tv was snow... except for CBS 2, that came from the Empire State Building but being not as tall, that never came in good.
So here I was, a victim of terrorism myself forced to break down and finally get cable tv.
Funny thing I noticed, some time after getting it:
For something that used to be free and usually off,
... now was neither. Lol
Data: "As an android.....I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter." 1:42
Worf: "Perhaps some other time, commander. Right now, I gotta go to Deck 18, and take a massive dump." 1:50
We never do find out how much a Klingon shits, how much it smells and what colour and consistency it is. Important questions need to be answered here.
@@nekroneko
I choose to remain willfully ignorant on that subject matter.
@@nekroneko An average of eight pounds, a lot, tar black, and like chunky peanut butter.
One odd thing is Star Trek occasionally challenges real-world religious views but if you lived in the Star Trek universe would the idea of Jesus' return be that crazy? There's characters on the show, including Data's own creator, who are brought back to life sometimes by technology, other times through timeline jumps. They also run into god-like characters on the show. A show where in their reality humans can turn water into wine just by using beam and replicator technology.
Worf in this video has less of a gruff Klingon voice than usual. I like it
This is how every religious debate should go. Believer says "I don't know" and walks away.
Michael Dorn is underrated. He is always excellent, of course, but wasn't often given subtle material like this and he's terrific.
Worf takes a lot of shit for being emotional and irrational, but this scene shows his evolution of civility on board the enterprise. Here he is learning that his peoples literal messiah may be returning, and when his entire belief system is questioned by a gosh dang robot he remains civil and states that he is not qualified to answer. Could most modern humans with such beliefs remain so calm and collected in such a situation? I doubt that.
I always appreciated how well Worf seemed to get along with Data. Even when he seems annoyed with him, he treats him with respect. It's a very unlikely friendship.
@@TheyMadeMePickAName He is very mature and so are the writers when dealing with difficult topics such as faith and tolerance. Sadly most people seem to be stuck in whatever dogma they grew up in and will fight for it without even understanding what they believe in the first place. Best to understand the self and listen to others.
Data: "My guy Worf, what is religion...?"
Worf: "Simple: it's anything that doesn't make sense."
rly makes u think
As if atheism makes any sense.
that was all religion was in the beginning, explaining the unexplained at the time. all atheism is, is the denouncement of the explanation and demanding proof of its validity.
I love how Captain Picard handles this diligent issue . It kinda reminds of the military way of understanding that there is a personality under the uniform but that person, idea or thing can't disrespect or discredit the Federation or its principals / mission . Well done I wonder what would i do if I were in the other person shoes . Especially now with all the laws being passed about obstructing people right to go out at night or even buy things.
To be a good debater you have to understand the other party,the best way to do this is to listen to them and ask questions without becoming emotionally compromised.Then you will be in a much better position to refute their beliefs and win the discussion.
I love how childlike Data is yet how rational and mature he is at the same time.
same as Worf
@1:32 - Am I the only one that, when Worf says "It's not an imperical matter" that I hear "this is an ecumenical matter" ? :)
...YES...
James Niclair Father Ted and Star Trek CROSS OVER FECK
Worf needs to be penetrated by the Holy Stone of Clonrichert.
The word is 'empirical'.
DRINK
I wish I had Worf's voice
Even if it means to have that shit on your face 😄
Most likely the second coming was referring to his words and message raising from the dead
"lol, magic and spiritualism is so stupid"
"Man Q is such an awesome character".
lol
@TheEsotericZebra It's fucking magic.
@@chainmail5886 bullshit
It's pointless to mix religious debate with sci-fi.
I love when the chipmonks dub startrek.
You have to be at the top of your game when talking with DATA....
"I do not doubt, nor believe. I simply verify." Data at his finest, from another episode.
The title of the video is misleading. It is Riker who doubts the Second Coming of Kahless. Data is just asking some questions and wants to learn more about what Worf calls faith.
if this was made today there would twenty five lens flares in the scene and someone saying this crew is their real family
"Thats the power of science people"
Fuck Yeah, Shit!
I love this comment and hate how true it is
At 1:27 Data inquires about how one can determine fact in the absence of empirical data. At 1:40 Data states that as an android he cannot 'accept that which cannot be proven except through rational means". The assumption ('presumption'?) here is that ''rational" means ''empirical". Rationality is NOT the exclusive possession of Empiricism. Empiricism is merely one expression of Rationality. There ARE others. Not all that which is logical is Positivistic Materialism.
I think you need to read my post again. I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying.
+v1e1r1g1e1 "I cannot accept that which cannot be proven through rational means"
Since he's an android and they were talking about faith, I believe he meant to say that *facts* must be proven through empirical means, which is not wrong. Facts and empiricism go hand in hand. And then of course there are other more abstract forms of rationality, like theories formed by reasoning, but I don't think that was the point of the discussion.
Okay, we're agreed: ''Facts'' and empiricism do go hand in hand, but empiricism is NOT the only way to establish facts. My point is that the writer/s of Star Trek, TNG seem to equate rationality with empiricism and, frankly, they are wrong to imply this... and/or champion such a view.
Deduction, induction and abduction. AKA, logic.
***** Okay, let's see how LOGICAL you can be.... You claim that logic without empirical evidence is fantasy. Ever done any Calculus... as in, Maths....? Or maybe done stoichiometry in Chemistry? Or perhaps you've done a bit of Physics or Formal Logic as practised in Philosophy? NONE of these require empirical evidence - these disciplines are all pure Logic - pure Reasoning. The mathematics of Newton put men on the Moon. You wanna call THAT ''fantasy''?!
The video: The crew has an interesting discussion on the nature of faith and the
supernatural
The title: Data DESTROYS Klingons with FACTS and LOGIC
I love how they doubt this so much with all the crazy stuff they have seen, hech farpoint ""station"", the crystalline entity and Q are all stuff that would make most people say ""a Klingon coming back from the dead after thousands of years? Ive seen crazier stuff"" and this is before we even get to DS9 or Voyager.
More like "Riker doubts the second coming"
Data just thinks logically and asks a question to. Better understand where Worf's belief of faith is coming from
Data straight out says is not even able to believe it. He not only doubts it, he dismisses it out of hand.
@@robinvik1 Sounds like Data is more in tune with people in our own time and the second coming debate of "you know who!"
Science always trying to reject the supernatural and the creator most high.
no science always trying to put logic to something that is not logical science does not reject or aferm anything it simply studies. fyi i am christian i was not trying to offend just stating that religion at least christianity is not logical because its based on love and love is not logical at all.
In german, science is called "Wissenschaft".
Despite there being one "f", the "a" is pronounced short, therefore one may add an "f".
Directly translated, it would be "knowledge fabricates".
Without the added "f", it would be "knowledge shaft" or, with a little imagination, "knowledge sheep'd".
I'd rather not comment on my tangent...
In all instances, we got to acknowledge, via the scientific method nobody will ever prove anything.
So speaking with scientists about that which was, is and forever is a vain effort.
Materialists have to get hit by the fence post, as we say.
Humans use logic, that way of thinking directly derived from the logos.
Automatons simply add some measurement series and remain clueless. :)
Well, to quote you: "If you haven't figured this shit out yet it's probably too late", so I'm writing to the audience, I guess.
Either way, let your birthdays always be happy ones.
@@Darkaiming wow, thank you for checking me out a bit there! That was intense!
Yes, the more I learn, the less I know. When I say this, it means that I am forced to shed what I thought I knew about something's as I observe and take in other this.
Scientists methodologies is good for the superficial level of analysis, the now moment.
That said, some things are standardized in what we perceive to be "reality," such as one cup of sugar always having the same mass and weight everytime it is measured, which is using the scientific method to prove the superficially existential fabric of reality.
Nothing can ever be astutely proven, however. If I said that the weather was 90 degrees outside while it's 40, noone could prove it without being there to dismiss it.
Individuals can accept the supernatural and spiritual or choose to deny them of their own accord, some, many, will fluctuate through how they lean on these things until they feel they have gained enough experience to either fully accept or dismiss them. The more we learn, the less we know, or knew depending on the context.
Yes, with knowledge, things are fabricated. Created. Ideas, physical things, feelings and emotions; all experienced within the organs of our bodies which will largely never see the light of day. The brain, the heart, the internal glands which release hormones.
Life truly is but a dream in the sleepwalking universal mind.
@@hardwirecars yes, love is illogical, from time to time. It cannot be accurately measured. Harm someone for hurting our loved ones, harm those we love, be harmed by those we love, ignore those we love, take pride in those we love; all of these happen everyday for all of us and we rationalize how we deal out our love on am individual basis.
It truly is a variable of an emotion.
oh how i wish data would answer the door when jehovah's witnesses come ringing
One would think that Data would, through the use of his extraordinary mental processes, realize that there is not nearly enough empirical evidence to support the belief that the Universe created itself. Then he would have to conclude that there must be a supreme consciousness at work.
@@davidbrogan606 He would also conclude that Yahweh is not the creator.
@@Reignor99 You have sailed into fantasy land.
@@davidbrogan606 That's ironic, I'm not the one who believes in Noah's Ark.
@@Reignor99 You can go to Turkey and visit Noah's Ark. It is a state park with a museum and all the scientific evidence and Archaeological identification.
Kahless was very different from the re - creation of him appearing in the classic Star Trek episode ( The title of which I've forgotten ). That was back when the Federation basically thought of Klingons as outer - space Nazis whose entire culture centered around their military conquests & expanding their Empire, & the aliens creating his image based it on the mental image that most humans had of Klingons.
***** You REMEMBERED ! There is a God. Or a Kahless !
The " reproduction ", facsimile, whatever, was derived from the biased information about Klingons that Kirk & co. were taught. Very likely the same deal for Surak & Lincoln. Also vintage 70's, at least re. : Lincoln & Genghis Khan. KHAAAAAAAANNNNNNN !
Actually the TOS Klingons where based of the USSR, TNG on where based off the Samurai of Acient Japan.
Christopher Brehe I always thought the TOS Klingons were a cross btwn extra - terrestrial Nazis ( Well, sort of ), Mongol warriors, as well AS Soviets. TNG Klingons - DEFINITELY space samurai. " the rigid Klingon code ", mentioned by Q as an example. TNG Klingons are more honourable than the TOS Patahk.
+Daniel Appleton I always figured the Carries where more like the Nazis. Their treatment of the Bojorans mirrored the way the Nazis treated the Jewish citizen of Germany and other areas they held until their fall from power.
Christopher Brehe Good analogy ! Cardassians were probably more like the Nazis - OR Spanish Conquistadors, or the U.S. Federal troops who removed the Eastern Band Cherokee to Oklahoma & points west. ( Re. : The episode where the Cardies took over the planet colonized by ancestors of Native Americans, & Wesley stirs things up )
i wonder how data feels about robot priests
Riker: Dude, come the fuck on...
Worf: What?! It could've happened like that!
Picard: Look, let's just be nice to the guy, okay?
Data: Dude... you want to talk about it?
Worf: No! I mean... look, I don't know, alright?
Lmao basically
Hah! The two classic answers of religious people.
"You got to have fait" and "I gotta go".
BETMARKonTube That's not my response as a follower of Christ Jesus.
@@1FatHappyBirthday Why does Yahweh allow so much suffering?
@@Reignor99 Because we deserve it. They'll never say this in your face, but that's what they're insinuating.
So they have trouble believing in supernatural or god-like beings without evidence, yet accept that supernatural beings exist, like Trelane and the Q. Makes sense to me. And Q isn't so technologically advanced, that he seems to be magical. He is a cosmic-like being, who goes beyond the laws of time and space. What would you call that?
Q's just an advanced alien. There's a whole race of creatures like him with their own culture and rules. A material but highly advanced being he is, but he's not supernatural or a god.
Q is the Great Gazoo
EmptyMan000 Lol sure. You would shit your pants and worship Q.
@@EmptyMan000 what is the signifigant difference between Q's race and 'the gods' of Greek mythology?
Atheist: In the absence of empirical data, how can you be sure God is real?
Religion: It is not an empirical matter, it is a matter of faith.
Atheist: Faith? Then you believe God has supernatural attributes?
Religion: ...
Atheist: As an Atheist, I am unable to accept that which cannot be proven through rational means. I would appreciate hearing your insights on this matter.
Religion: Perhaps some other time... I do not believe I can provide much insight at this moment.
Smartass: question I assume the other guys don't have an answer to and is based on more than one moot premise
Strawman: vague things that don't represent what everyone in this group believes put in a way no experienced debater ever would be caught dead saying
Or conclusion: STFU before I lose my faith!!!
Can you explains what happens after death then?
Do you have a solid proof? There isn't even a definitive medical/physical definition of what Death is... we're not even sure when we consider someone is dead...
Also if we cease to be conscious does that mean we're automatically dead?
Finally there's nothing wrong if people believe that we'll go in some special place or that we reincarnate into another being...
@@ikagura Actually, there IS something wrong if people are willing to believe in ANYTHING without proof or evidence...Why? Because if they're willing to believe in anything without proof or evidence, they are likely to allow this kind of sloppy thinking in other aspects of their lives such as what they believe in politics, child-rearing, how they treat medical problems, environmental problems, etc....and THAT does real damage, not only to themselves but also eventually to others in their society.
Worf obviously has a soft spot for Mr Data, they have a good friendship
Later in that episode Data tells Worf that he, Data, took a leap of faith to believe that he, Data, was a person.
He has no problem with FTL travel though.
We don't know much about physics yet.
No, because it has a rational explanation in universe
Sorry fuckwits but it's impossible. You don't know anything about physics but I do.
@ Pointless to debate it this is a fictional world we are talking about here it's not a physics lecture.
@ You clearly don't know anything about Science Fiction nor about how Science laws keep evolving as our knowledge about the Universe evolves.
Empiricism is not the epistemological end-all-be-all. It's great, and useful for many things. But we know a great many things very deeply through means other than empiricism, and this relegates them to no inferior level of truth, for the most part.
+Numinous "But we know a great many things very deeply through means other than empiricism"
We do? I can't think of a single example, let alone "a great many". Can you provide any examples?
Timrath Sure, tackling issues such as the meaning of life. Knowing why fidelity and honor are desirable and manners of living which are to be pursued. A great amount of mathematics was not scientifically garnered, but philosophically garnered. Science can't tell me why my life is falling apart if I have no meaning, purpose, direction and feel useful to greater society. Science is completely mute regarding all questions of morality. Science also speaks nothing about aesthetics. Ironically, science doesn't tell us how to use scientific knowledge. Science doesn't explain the human condition, such as our impulse to explore. And obviously, science doesn't draw conclusions on the supernatural; by it's very nature, as a naturalistic/empiricism based epistemology, it cannot.
History is not known through empiricism. It can't be replicated.
What does replication have to do with empiricism? Monuments, skeletons, ruins, documents, artifacts, etc., are all empirical data. We don't know history by waiting for divine inspiration; we know it by studying physical evidence, and using logic as a tool (as we always do when interpreting empirical data) to draw conclusions from that evidence.
A historian who doesn't rely on empirical evidence is a soothsayer at best.
Timrath I believe Hakam Adam is specifically referring to the scientific method, which is the prevalent, practical use of empiricism, nowadays. He conflated the two. It's easy to do because key elements of empiricism include observation and measurement. When this is done via the scientific method, it occurs through repeatable experiments. Read my comment above for further explanation.
This pretty much sums up science vs religion. Data (science) asks Worf (religion) for a logical explanation that is based in fact & reason and Worf not having anything reasonable to back up his claims just fumbles & runs away.
No, in this case, Data (science) is being open-minded to another way of thinking and asking questions - as it should be. How many "mystical and magical" things were finally explained once the science caught up to them? Like so many others, you make the mistake in believing that everything worth discovering has already been discovered.
Worf, on the other hand, is struggling with both his belief system and the unbelievable aspect that not only has Kahless returned, but has chosen Worf to reveal himself to. His confusion and inability to discuss his "insights" are completely understandable.
I don't think it's similar at all. Worf is actually being fairly skeptical, and Data is... being fairly skeptical.
They litterally know if half a dozen supernatural beings, least of Q.
Would even the Ghost busters be able to put these things down?
Faith is belief without knowing.
comments are just a big atheist circlejerk
I'm seeing both atheists and religious folk jerking each other off here.