Doctor Who doesn't have a moral code, for that matter neither does the Doctor. Everything he says is bad, he's done himself on numerous occasions. Everything he says is good, he's taken a character to task for. The Doctor's system of values changes from incarnation to incarnation, and writer to writer. He has no code.
The observation that there are spiritual and religious overtones to the show is an emergent property of the fact that (a) it was written by and for a human audience (b) there is a shared cultural experience which forms a basis of reference (c) the exploration of religious, cultural and sociological systems has been as staple of science-fiction since the genre began.
In Sociology, for theological research, a general definition has to be widely established so people can measure and determine the scale of religion.
They use this explanation: Religion is anything which worships something sacred, brings the community together in a state of idol/worship and has its own set of morals/beliefs e.g. collective identity.
Using this definition - the substantive definition - Doctor Who would be classed as a 'religion' in Sociology. Just as football, sport and other televisions shows would.
However, taken from the second definition called the Functionalist definition, a religion is anything with a divine being and a power in large establishments. In this view, religions only apply to mainstream churches, and therefore, not Doctor Who.
I would suggest that the substantive definition is a load of foetid dingoes kidneys and is not a useful definition or one that ordinary people would recognise or relate to. It's not useful precisely because it does not exclude things which are clearly not religions such as football and science fiction programmes.
I would further suggest that the functional definition is hardly any better. While ordinary people would recognise the description, it excludes things which obviously are religions (as already mentioned by an earlier poster).
Logic dictates that since religions have different attributes and properties to the likes of football and other types of fandom, they are in different categories. That's what a real scientist would do anyway.
With "logic" like that on display in coming up with those definitions it's no wonder real scientists laugh and point at sociologists at parties.
:rolleyes:Yep i knbow that bbut rrussell diddd use a kind off jesus typpe sstttorry in lasst of the timelords ax which he is like a religon
jusst discussing ways of thinnking
Comments
No. It's a television programme.
I would suggest that the substantive definition is a load of foetid dingoes kidneys and is not a useful definition or one that ordinary people would recognise or relate to. It's not useful precisely because it does not exclude things which are clearly not religions such as football and science fiction programmes.
I would further suggest that the functional definition is hardly any better. While ordinary people would recognise the description, it excludes things which obviously are religions (as already mentioned by an earlier poster).
Logic dictates that since religions have different attributes and properties to the likes of football and other types of fandom, they are in different categories. That's what a real scientist would do anyway.
With "logic" like that on display in coming up with those definitions it's no wonder real scientists laugh and point at sociologists at parties.
jusst discussing ways of thinnking