you mean incompatible, but okay.

Basically Star Trek did the same thing, of course. I suppose in some ways it's unavoidable. Would many writers be very interested in writing stories about a "successful" future that DIDN'T follow their personal beliefs? To the extent writers expound on those who disagree with them, I expect 100% dystopias, cautionary tales, etc, if they write about it at all.

Some cases are blatant. Like in Heinlein's TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE, when one character says humans should use eugenics to breed immunity to disease, and then "proves" it by describing a case of a plague wiping out a planet. Of course, the plague never existed; Heinlein made it up just to back up his crackpot ideas. (NOTE Heinlein is a great SF writer when he's not obsessed with promoting nonsense. He even wrote a theological dystopia in 1940, 40 years ahead of HANDMAID's TALE and 10 years before "1984".)

1) What should writers write about then if not what they want to write at the time ? Is Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" right-wing ? Is "Stranger in a Strange Land" left-wing? Are they strictly neither ? Does the reader approach them with expectations of what they should mean? Why not just take them as individual worlds that exist within the pages. Why if a writer writes something that the reader might find "political" would it be considered "axe grinding"? Can't it just be ideas the writer expresses for the individual work. At least Heinlein had ideas unlike a lot of other writers. Perhaps SF has more of a tendency to be political than other genres. One readers nonsense in anothers Philip K Dick.

2) So the fictitious admiral in the fictitious Krill episode points to a fictitious history? One can refute her fictitiously I suppose. One believers religion is another believers fictitious religion. I never expected Seth McFarland to be political or fictitious, maybe farttious.

3) Theological "dystopias" exist in reality and in history.

4) Yevgeny Zamyatin wrote "We" in 1921, before 1984 and Brave New World. They all exist because reality needed them.

5) Gene Rodenberry and his vision represented by Star Trek was non-religious. So in a quasi Star Trek show like The Orville that would also have to be taken into consideration.

Why do non-religious people still use "My God" as an expression? That makes no sense now, and it makes even less sense 500 years from now. (But it was used in The Krill episode.)

So, Religion and Science cannot coexist? There's at least one Catholic scientist in the Vatican who disproves that statement every time he opens up the roof tiop observatory, gazes at the stars, and makes observations on celestial orbits and heavenly bodies. (And in the Star Trek universe, the crew of Enterprise D found themselves working with of all things, a "Ferengi scientist"!) If/when human kind leaves Earth for the stars, we will take our religion with us, for better or worse, along with out assumptions about what constitutes an "advanced space faring race." Let's hope we d better than the helmsman on The Orville when species interact.;)

How many people are aware that the Big Bang theory was invented by a Jesuit scientist, George LaMaitre? Religion and Science did coexist in this case. What can't co-exist is fundamentalism and science.

@CharlesTheBold said:

How many people are aware that the Big Bang theory was invented by a Jesuit scientist, George LaMaitre?

Or that Charles Darwin himself never believed that evolution and creationism were mutually exclusive, and the Father of Modern Genetics, Gregor Mendel, was an Augustinian Friar. Or that other priests also made great strides in astronomy: Roger Joseph Boscovich discovered that the moon did not have an atmosphere. Jean Picard (not the one who ST:TNG Jean-Luc Picard was named was after, that was a different scientist/inventor) the first to accurately calculate the size of the Earth. Pierre Gassendi was the first to observe the transit of a planet across the sun.

"Or that Charles Darwin himself never believed that evolution and creationism were mutually exclusive, and the Father of Modern Genetics, Gregor Mendel, was an Augustinian Friar. Or that other priests also made great strides in astronomy: Roger Joseph Boscovich discovered that the moon did not have an atmosphere. Jean Picard (not the one who ST:TNG Jean-Luc Picard was named was after, that was a different scientist/inventor) the first to accurately calculate the size of the Earth. Pierre Gassendi was the first to observe the transit of a planet across the sun."

Also Michael Faraday, a devout believer, did the fundamental research on how electricity works. The big harm to Science is not religion itself, but religious leaders who tell their worshipers to attribute everything to miracles.

Or those who tell their worshippers that everything that ever needs to be known is already in the Koran.

@Innovator said:

@CharlesTheBold said:

How many people are aware that the Big Bang theory was invented by a Jesuit scientist, George LaMaitre?

Or that Charles Darwin himself never believed that evolution and creationism were mutually exclusive.

Are we really arguing about religion here ? Well specifically religion defined as a few branches of Christianity. Especially relating to a show that is based on the non-religious world of Star Trek ? While there was a chaplain on MASH there is none in the ST universe. As for "creationism" that is not science of any sort, especially since if conveniently ignores the numerous other religions, thousands of other gods and hundreds of other creation stories and myths to promote one particular one advocated by a few styles of one religion. One is one thing and one is another. Both can co-exist as what they individually are but combining them is another thing entirely. Unless you're a Jedi. In that case, may the force be with you, Amen

“Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.” 
― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary  1906

"Are we really arguing about religion here ? "

Yes. I read a history-of-science book about 10 years ago that observed that there are basically 2 kinds of religion: worship of God as the source of natural law (as in Einstein's quote "God does not play dice with the universe"), vs worship of a God as a performer of miracles and magic tricks. The former group are open to scientific method and knowledge, and the latter don't think they need science because everything be attributed to divine intervention. The latter group are responsible for creationism and denial of Climate change. The distinction is not limited to Christianity.

@znexyish said:

@Innovator said:

@CharlesTheBold said:

How many people are aware that the Big Bang theory was invented by a Jesuit scientist, George LaMaitre?

Or that Charles Darwin himself never believed that evolution and creationism were mutually exclusive.

Are we really arguing about religion here ? Well specifically religion defined as a few branches of Christianity. Especially relating to a show that is based on the non-religious world of Star Trek ? While there was a chaplain on MASH there is none in the ST universe. As for "creationism" that is not science of any sort, especially since if conveniently ignores the numerous other religions, thousands of other gods and hundreds of other creation stories and myths to promote one particular one advocated by a few styles of one religion. One is one thing and one is another. Both can co-exist as what they individually are but combining them is another thing entirely. Unless you're a Jedi. In that case, may the force be with you, Amen

“Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.” 
― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary  1906

Then you miss the point of what I was saying.

"a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist" - Charles Darwin 1879

Also, I should add that the ST universe wasn't non-religious. Vulcans had their own religious practices complete with priests and priestesses.

Also in the Enterprise episode "Cold Front" Doctor Phlox is mentioned to have visited the Vatican and attended Mass at St. Peter's Basilica and visited a Buddhist monastery in Tibet prior to his service on board the Enterprise.

Kirk also states in "Who Mourns for Adonais?", "mankind has no need for Gods. We find the one quite adequate."

Don't forget the whole point of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was Sybok's search for God.

@CharlesTheBold said:

The big harm to Science is not religion itself, but religious leaders who tell their worshipers to attribute everything to miracles.

True. Pope Francis actually agrees with you:

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," - 2014

And as for being both scientifically minded and devout, Pope Francis had this to say:

God, Francis said, "created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment." - 2014

[deleted repeat post] I keep pressing the wrong button today sorry.

"And as for being both scientifically minded and devout, Pope Francis had this to say:"

According to Wikipedia, Pope Francis is a Jesuit, the teaching order, whose members are required to be familiar with modern science.