Religion in Star Trek
November 30, 2004 10:01 AM   Subscribe

Religion in Star Trek. In which Ex Astris Scientia (a deliciously extensive Trek fan site, by the way) explores the future of faith and religion as depicted by each generation of the Trek universe, with elucidation on Gene Roddenberry's own antireligous view of faith and science via Daystrom Institute Tech Library (another lovely fan site).
posted by brownpau (25 comments total)
 
Oh, and while we're on the topic, don't miss our own filmgoerjuan's rock solid feedback on the first season TOS DVD set.
posted by brownpau at 10:03 AM on November 30, 2004


One Trek link per day isn't enough?
posted by adamgreenfield at 10:18 AM on November 30, 2004


Religion in Star Trek: Beam me up Giant Jesus.

It's not me -- it's RSS.
posted by NewBornHippy at 10:28 AM on November 30, 2004


One of the reasons I prefer Babylon 5 is its more realistic depiction of religion. Roddenberry was making a very pointed statement with the distinct lack of religion in Star Trek, but that unrealistic scenario pushes it even more into the realm of fantasy.
posted by jefgodesky at 10:42 AM on November 30, 2004


Sigh. Regarding the above DVD review link: Those who watch the old series merely as something to laugh at for its cheesiness are really missing out. There's plenty that's hokey about the newest generation of sci-fi cliches (on display in movies like "Paycheck.")
posted by inksyndicate at 10:43 AM on November 30, 2004


I'm interested as to the direction they're taking with religion in the new Battlestar Galactica, last night's episode had perhaps the most anti-religious rant I've seen in a mainstream US TV show, albeit from the, shall we say 'conflicted' semi-villainous Baltar. Whether he is persuaded to take up in favour of the Cylon's God has the potential to be an interesting philosophical aspect of the show, and they've not been flunking on tougher questions so far.
posted by biffa at 10:48 AM on November 30, 2004


I'll always appreciate Roddenberry for making what was possibly the first fairly blatant atheistic show on tv.

That being said, Babylon 5 had a much better depiction of religion in a future society. Despite the writer/creator, J. Michael Strazinsky, being an atheist, the show reflected the reality that humans will probably never give up religion or spirituality, no matter how exposed they are to science and education. And religion was neither a good element nor a an evil one. Sometimes it worked well; sometimes it was a great hindrance; sometimes it was used to manipulate people towards a particular goal.

This was much better than the rather two-dimensional renderings in Star Trek.

on preview: what jefgodesky said.
posted by pandaharma at 10:51 AM on November 30, 2004


Actually, should be Straczynski. I knew I was missing a few consonants.
posted by pandaharma at 10:53 AM on November 30, 2004


"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

"I've always thought that, if we did not have supernatural explanations for all the things we might not understand right away, this is the way we would be, like the people on that planet. [ST:TNG Who Watches the Watchers] I was born into a supernatural world in which all my people -my family- usually said That is because God willed it, or gave other supernatural explanations for whatever happened. When you confront those statements on their own, they just don't make sense. They are clearly wrong. You need a certain amount of proof to accept anything, and that proof was not forthcoming to support those statements."


These quotes betray a terrible lack of imagination. Roddenberry seems to confuse certain aspects of Western religion with all religion, and feels that by claiming as absurd or irrational certain aspects of certain faiths, all faiths are rendered foolish. I think that if the man did any serious reading into the nature of religion, he would see that the aspect of faith he rails against is not inherent to religion, but a perversion of many of them.

Science and religion do not have to be at odds with one another. The fact that the question even exists shows a deep rationalist, materialist core in Western thought. The idea that one can prove or disprove the existence of God through proofs or math is absurd; they can only touch, perhaps, our conceptions of the divine.

Science describes what is. Sufficiently mystical systems - Eckhart's theology, Zen Buddhism, thought described in certain Upanishads, etc. - merely point to that simple Is-ness as well. Spirituality is nothing special, and is not merely idealist. It is grounded in what is.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." In closing, I fail to understand how any person, writing after Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein, can place such value on logic. Frankly, it seems to be both childish and selfserious to me.
posted by NoamChomskyStoleMyFace at 11:13 AM on November 30, 2004


One Trek link per day isn't enough?

Foolish hoo-man. Prepare to be phasered.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:24 AM on November 30, 2004


ST doesn't really ever rail against spirituality. That being said, there is no meaningful connection between "spirituality" and religion--particularly actual world religions.

(I won't even query about the nature of the "simple Is-ness" though it always catches me when people say such things.)

Finally, ST should be boiled down to "science good, religion bad." The main emphasis of ST (and it's always been overemphasized) is on the wondrous nature of humanity itself. In this sense, it would clearly glorify our strengths like reason and cover up flaws like religious groupthink.

In fact, there are several eps where things like the "Prime Directive" or the fundamental value of the truth (common to both science and religion, hmmm) are simply accepted completely and utterly without questioning. A lot of the characters walk the fine line between philosophy and religion and even then it's clear there are still many people who have a basic, fundamental faith in opposite values.

(A bigger problem with ST, btw, is that there is no pop-culture. I loved this aspect of it, but it's something unimaginable.)
posted by nixerman at 11:30 AM on November 30, 2004


What NoamChomskyStoleMyFace said.

nixerman, I was considering pointing out that exact point, that Roddenberry's Federation and its ideals often take the place of religion. And while I agree that Roddenberry's own criticisms of religion are typically short-sighted and culturally myopic, they at least (thankfully) don't seem to influence his fiction overly much.

But, pandaharma, I'd say the final word on this has to go to JMS, who put the words in the mouth of a monk in "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars": "Science and faith are like the shoes on your feet. You'll get farther with both than you will with just one."
posted by jefgodesky at 11:53 AM on November 30, 2004


This is completely bogus. Spirituality was only sprinkled into the Roddenberry Trekverse because issues of religion weren't the stories he wanted to tell. Or at the very least, they weren't the stories Roddenberry knew he could get past the censors and the ratings watchers and other suits.

Heck, particularly in the first series Gene was fighting tooth and nail just to get the damn series on the air. He had to put in enough sex and violence and humor and beeping lights and goodness knows what other elements, then make it look like the special effects cost more than the budget he was forced into.. It's frankly amazing he found any room to put whatever he wanted to say into the series, much less worry about pesky things that don't bring in the ratings, like arguments over Christian, Jewish and Muslim teachings.

Frankly, to be brutal, it's those things that have caused wars in the past and present. In Roddenberry's vision of the future, to believe we humans would avoid causing our own extinction, blind faith would have to take a back seat not only to science, but just common sense. Religion existed, but it became a more individual path toward enlightenment. It wasn't necessarily something that required every member of the ship to believe the same way. They weren't a devoted congregation of followers, but a dedicated crew of individuals dedicated to their ship. You could probaby ask anyone who's been in the navy and they'd tell you that just cuz your primary motivation of the day is to get the ship where it needs to go and perform one's mission so that one day you can get home, that doesn't mean you stop believing in your God.

Religion did exist on the Enterprise. There was in fact a chapel where weddings were performed. Spock practiced his own faith alone in his quarters. There were episodes where some powerful being(s) insisted they were god(s) and the crew of the Enterprise proved that wrong. The issue of religion made appearances, but saying it should have been more important than it was would be like saying the tv series Bonanza didn't have enough football in it, or MASH shoulda dealt more with spaghetti. It's not relevant.

If it wasn't integral to a storyline, it didn't come up. Theoretically humanity had evolved beyond the petty differences that make religion a bad thing, so that (again in theory) all that was left was the good stuff, which doesn't make conflict, and therefore doesn't get airplay on prime time television. Not if you wanna keep your show on the air. So the websites in question, questioning the lack of religion in Roddenberry's vision of the future are completely dismissing the plight he was under when producing the original series, and to a lesser extent the Next Gen.

If you wanna see a movie where religion and science really clash, I'd recommend Contact. Again, though. Many will argue that it's the factor of religion that slowed this movie down, even though it was integral to the theme.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:57 AM on November 30, 2004


"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth: scientific truth, or historical truth or personal truth. It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based, and if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth, you don't deserve to wear that uniform."

--Jean-Luc Picard, "The First Duty" (Ep. #219)
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:04 PM on November 30, 2004


I thought DS9 portrayed the Bajoran faith system quite well, even to the point of having Captain Sisko ultimately "go native" in his role as a religious icon to the Bajoran people. The Bajoran Prophets also had a scientific explanation, so one culture's gods were another culture's non-linear-time wormhole aliens.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:19 PM on November 30, 2004


Tying these two threads together:

"Spock practiced his own faith alone in his quarters."
posted by tpl1212 at 12:24 PM on November 30, 2004


Those who watch the old series merely as something to laugh at for its cheesiness are really missing out.

That's not the only reason I watch the old series, but it is a factor (I love the sci-fi concepts, love the characters and enjoy some of the cheesier moments too). I just happened to focus on the cheesiness because I thought it made a more amusing (and less sanctimonious) blog post.

With Star Trek, as with most things, I try to apply the philosophy of IDIC ;)

Take "City On The Edge of Forever": it's a wonderful sci-fi episode, great characterization, raw emotion and a powerful story; but I can also appreciate the cheesiness of the depiction of McCoy's delusional state at the beginning of the episode. It's all things to all people!
posted by filmgoerjuan at 12:24 PM on November 30, 2004


Zachsmind, there's a palpable difference from series to series in the approach to religion. The article makes a pretty good case for the differences between the shows. Religion is relevent because Star Trek's society was presented as a kind of utopia, and it's only natural to ask what place religion has in that society. TNG's pissy atheism is wonderful. I was really digging this article up until the commentary section, where the author takes Roddenberry to task for disrespecting religion.

I always hated the Voyager ship members' bland acceptance of Chakotay's spirit guides. TNG would never have gotten away with that.
posted by painquale at 12:40 PM on November 30, 2004


Actually, when you think about it, it's actually not surprising at all that religion wouldn't be discussed on Star Trek. The various characters are always observed at their workplace, so to speak. In present day society, it is usually considered impolite to debate religion in most workplaces. This would be even more important if you also had to live with your co-workers in a small enclosed space for 5 years at a time. So, if the people of the Federation did have religion, they probably wouldn't talk all that much about it when on their 5 year missions, out of a desire to avoid argument and awkwardness, if nothing else. They might have a chaplain of some kind, but considering that he she or it would have to know about zillions of alien religions, that would probably prove impractical.
posted by unreason at 12:56 PM on November 30, 2004


Actually, one of my very favorite Religious Studies professors at Indiana University teaches a course on Star Trek and Religion
posted by salsamander at 3:53 PM on November 30, 2004


> with elucidation on Gene Roddenberry's own antireligous view of faith

So did he have "Faith of the heart" instead then? I know the Enterprise theme music doesn't make specific reference to religious faith, but it still seems completely out of place with the future Roddenberry wanted to present us. I guess we have Rick Berman to blame for inflicting that Bolton-esque crap on us at the start of every episode.
posted by crayfish at 4:13 PM on November 30, 2004


adamgreenfield, if we can fill an front page just with posts about bush and the US election, it's only fair that we can fill up entire day with Trek!
posted by shepd at 6:03 PM on November 30, 2004


When one reads Roddenberry's comments about religion and his scripts for several episodes - one should never forget the time he lived in: the sixties. He is presenting this idealistic and naive point of view that all religions and gods are more or less the same.

Especially all sort of divine beings get deconstructed and demystified. There is nothing divine or mystical in the trek universe (Kirk 'Why does God need a spaceship').

There is this hippie idea that all races will work together in peace and ignore all differences, because we are 'basically all humans anyway'.

The Star Trek stories that deal with religion and spirituality in the 90ties are much more political correct and 'respectful'.

Overall Star Trek is very clean and boring, when it comes to religious views/conflicts. It mostly ignores the conflict between religious myths and science (which is treks ultimate religion).

Treks mystical message: if it can be scanned it can't be divine. If it isn't divine it can be destroyed by some sort of energy flux fart redirector.
posted by homodigitalis at 9:04 PM on November 30, 2004


I fill up entire days with Trek regardless of MetaFilterian linkage. DVD box sets are kickass! :D

Though, I spent most of Thanksgiving weekend watching Battlestar Galactica DVD box set instead. Hmm, yeah it is the book of Exodus, isn't it! How interesting...

However, BG doesn't hold up well 26 years later. "Awesomely craptastical" is how I'd have to describe it. Great concept; lousy execution.

What about people who make Trek their religion? More than a few of those... ;)
posted by zoogleplex at 10:18 PM on November 30, 2004


However, BG doesn't hold up well 26 years later. "Awesomely craptastical" is how I'd have to describe it. Great concept; lousy execution.

But the new series is about the best science fiction series that's come out in ages. Referential to the old series, with extended storylines and character led.
posted by biffa at 4:20 AM on December 1, 2004


« Older Beam me up!   |   One man live! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments