from what I gather this guy was a skeptical dicketian... didn't believe in ghosts, religion oriented miracles and yet he faced beings like Q and others...
Picard the skeptical captain and yet...
Q was a powerful being, not anything paranormal. Ghosts and religion have nothing to quantify their existence, except the odd 'eyewitness' that never has any real proof. Q liked to mess with Picard because of those views, but he was still an alien, not a god.
He would be thought of as one in the same way Thor was by primatives, simply because the things he does cannot be explained by people less technically advanced or evolved.
Paranormal: : very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world
sounds like Q to me. Unless, "he's a powerful alien". is more justifiable than "it's a disciple of the devil".
@blackdog2009: Q has explained the existence of his species. They were once very similar to humans and they evolved into a higher level of being.
Picard wasn't totally closed to the idea of the supernatural. In "The Devil's Due," he tells Worf that he doesn't wish to risk his soul (by messing with Ardra). He also exclaims to Q, "You are not God!" when Q insists that he is the Creator after Picard apparently dies. This latter statement from Picard does not seem to be one that would come from a total skeptic about religion or the supernatural.
Also, I disagree with the poster who says that religion is based on "the odd eyewitness." I'm not trying to turn this into a theological debate, but religion can (and does) have substantial evidence.
ok, but man what a leap, he's able to move planets around and such.
It is a very powerful species. Q also hinted that humans may one day equal them.
Picard wasn't totally closed to the idea of the supernatural. In "The Devil's Due," he tells Worf that he doesn't wish to risk his soul (by messing with Ardra). He also exclaims to Q, "You are not God!" when Q insists that he is the Creator after Picard apparently dies. This latter statement from Picard does not seem to be one that would come from a total skeptic about religion or the supernatural.
Also, I disagree with the poster who says that religion is based on "the odd eyewitness." I'm not trying to turn this into a theological debate, but religion can (and does) have substantial evidence.
I meant that ghosts are the odd eyewitness. There are no eyewitnesses for religion. you either believe, or you don't.
@johnnyz256: good points
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment