Star Trek

In Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, the Enterprise is hijacked by a Vulcan mystic named Sybock. His intention is to reach the center of the galaxy where he believes God awaits him and his followers. To achieve this, the Enterprise must safely pass through the "Great Barrier" – a task believed to be impossible.

Though the movie is of questionable quality due to its lackluster acting, directionless directing, and a pauper’s budget, Star Trek V has value as an expression of man’s insatiable desire to explore. More importantly, it attempts to tackle the difficult issue of the ultimate Truth of the universe. Is there a God, or has science sufficiently proven that all religion is yesterday’s news and no more worth consideration than alchemy or magic?

First, let us contemplate the nature of Star Trek in general. Consider the following.

"Space – the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds…to seek out new life and new civilizations…to boldly go where no man has gone before."

These words are essentially the charter for Starfleet, the military/exploratory arm of the Federation. They reflect man’s eternal desire to explore the unknown. We must ask ourselves "Why?". Why is man never happy with his current condition? What is so unbearable about the status quo? It would seem that all of man’s exploration and conquering of the nameless and unfamiliar has done little besides redefine the barrier between the known and the unknown.

Eliade would explain this as man’s desire to replace chaos with cosmos. The cosmos, taken in Eliade’s context, represents meaningful order. It is preferable for mankind to be surrounded with cosmos rather than chaos, a lack of meaningful order. This would make sense if, as he says, man is innately religious. Often, that which is not explained by one’s religion is treated with suspicion. It is outside our realm of knowledge and understanding. We desire to make it sacred – ;to understand its significance in the context of our spiritual beliefs. These sentiments are echoed in the nomos and anomy described by Peter Berger, a sociologist. However, Berger and those who share his views, give religion a purely structural explanation. Berger maintains that religion merely serves to explain that which cannot be explained by our five senses alone. While this description is accurate, I believe it is incomplete. If one begins to consider why religion picks up where science leaves off, the following question may result. Why is science so consistently inadequate that we seek supplemental sources of information?

Eliade tells us that because the universe is sacred, its full meaning cannot be directly experienced. It must be experienced in the form of hierophanies, interruptions of the profane by the sacred. By this, he implies that no amount of scientific pursuit, no matter how earnest, will ever completely unravel the mysteries of the universe. The sacred reveals itself at its own leisure. As my RCIA teacher always says, God and His creation are mysteries, that is, they are so full of meaning that no matter how much we know there is still more to be known.

Consider the most important questions in man’s history. Why are we here? Is/are there is a God/gods? Does human life have meaning? Few would dare to suggest that science, no matter how advanced it may become, could answer these questions. Yet, so many have abandoned spiritual (sacred) lives for purely rational (profane) ones. As Appleyard points out, Carl Sagan and Steven Hawking are perfect examples. They have put forth the rather popular notion that someday we might achieve perfect understanding of the universe’s inner workings through pure scientific pursuit. This so-called "Theory of Everything" would supposedly answer all of man’s questions about existence. It has even been suggested that fine structures of reality may reveal God. More likely, science will do what some of its most ardent supporters have claimed it would inevitably do – prove, once and for all, that God is just a myth. I wonder, though, even if this is the case, what have we gained? Are our lives better because we have rejected our desires for sacred existence?

I maintain that they are not. What possible good could come of eliminating the one and only source of hope in life? Science offers to answer all of man’s big questions, but do we actually want to hear its findings? If it is found that there is no God, mankind will lose every reason to live (aside from a natural fear of death). With that in mind, let us now explore Star Trek‘s part in the advancement of science over religion.

Logic

Anybody who is even remotely familiar with Star Trek is probably aware that Vulcans are exclusively logical beings. They once were just as emotional as humans, but they chose to abandon their true nature and pursue perfect logical thought. This can easily be seen as an allegory for the scientific community’s attempts to replace all sacred thought with rational, profane logic. Freud would be proud. Our society is doing its very best to squash man’s natural desire for "something wholly other". Sybock, the renegade Vulcan, on the other hand, has rejected logic. He feels that it is utterly ill equipped to understand the true nature of the universe. Spock explains to Kirk and McCoy Sybock’s origins in an almost envious and longing voice. We learn in the next movie that Spock believes that "logic is only the beginning of wisdom".

"There was a young student – exceptionally gifted, possessing a great intelligence. It was assumed that one day he would take his place among the great scholars of Vulcan. But he was a revolutionary. The knowledge and experience he sought were forbidden. He rejected his logical upbringing and embraced the animal passions of our ancestors. He believed that the key to self-knowledge was emotion, not logic. When he encouraged others to follow him, he was banished from Vulcan, never to return."

At the end of the film, Dr. McCoy asks, "Is God really out there?" Unsurprisingly, Kirk offers an empty platitude saying, "Maybe he’s not out there. Maybe he’s right here—in the human heart." This is just another example of how science offers to remove current answers to questions and replace them with more questions, to which we lack the answers.

The intelligencia expect us to answer these questions by their own approved means. In other words, if you do not follow the scientific method and materialistic reduction, then your findings are useless. This is fine if we are referring to the growth rate of bacteria or the escape velocity of Mars, but how can science claim that mystical experiences are invalid? So little is known about the human brain, and yet we are told regularly that mysticism is merely the product of over-active imaginations and/or too much LSD. The human mind is a largely unexplored frontier, which leads me to my next point.

The Final Frontier

Is space really the final frontier? The writers of Star Trek would have us believe so. With the possible exception of Deep Space Nine, which has a strong spiritual element in the Prophets, the great majority of episodes and movies based on Gene Roddenberry’s creation have had a very secular (i.e. profane) bias. An ideal is presented in which man has only deep space to conquer. Once he has done that, then there will be no great hurdles left to overcome. All of the universe will be understood. The obvious implication of this is the elimination of religion from man’s life. This is abundantly evident in the many Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, such as Justice, which treat religious cultures as children or savages.

This attitude can also be found in abundance in Star Trek V. When Sybock informs Kirk that he has received a vision from God, Kirk promptly informs him that he is mad. Not for one moment does he consider that perhaps he did receive a vision from God. As it turned out, the vision was actually from a malevolent creature. However, this does not harm the veridicality of the vision (more about this in a subsequent post). Sybock was well in control of his mental faculties. Yet, Kirk would not even entertain the thought that the vision was authentic. If fact, it will soon become clear that Kirk is a rather accurate caricature of the scientific community.

Predictable Unpredictability

It strikes me as ironic that scientists will tell you one moment that nothing is impossible when one uses scientific inquiry, then in the next moment inform you that something is impossible. The scientific community seems to be secretly aware of its own inadequacies, to the point of lacking self-confidence. Kirk embodies science’s skepticism about its own work. When Kirk objects to attempting to travel through "the Great Barrier" at the center of the galaxy, Sybock questions the impossibility of it. He reminds Kirk about a time when man thought the world was flat, a time when the sound barrier seemed impossible to break, and a time when faster-than-light travel was considered an impossible dream. Every time man has said that something is impossible, he eventually makes it possible. We seem to be unable to learn from this pattern. His point is further illustrated when the Enterprise successfully travels through "the Great Barrier" unharmed.

There are countless examples in human history of science being turned on its head. Take for instance Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity or the advent of quantum mechanics. What was once preached as vehemently as any religious fanaticism has become pass� (c.f. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Now we are expected to appeal to ultimate authority of today’s theories and hypotheses. Science pulls the rug from beneath us in a predictably unpredictable manner. If science cannot even predict its own future accomplishments, how can we be expected to accept the proclamation that God does not exist and that the sacred life mankind seeks is an illusion?

Common Ground

The sacred life Sybock sought was to be found at Sha Ka Ree, the Vulcan equivalent to the Garden of Eden. It was where Sybock hoped to find God. His "mission" is a familiar one. It is likely that as soon as man learned to reason, he wondered where he came from and why he exists. Sybock describes this eloquently as he addresses the crew of the Enterprise upon taking over the ship.

"Consider the questions of existence. These are the questions man has asked ever since he first gazed at the stars and dreamed. My Vulcan ancestors were ruled by their emotions. They felt with their hearts. They made love with their hearts. They believed with their hearts. But above all, they believed in a place in which these questions of existence would be answered. Modern dogma tells us this place is a myth, a fantasy concocted by pagans. It exists. My brothers, we have been chosen to undertake the greatest adventure of all time, the discovery of Sha Ka Ree."

He rightfully states later that "every culture in existence shares this common dream of a place from which creation sprang." To the best of scientific knowledge, since that is what the profane mind insists upon, it appears that every human society has a creation story. In fact, the stories have a common theme. An all-powerful being creates the universe as we know it and then defeats an evil creation that has tried to destroy and/or take over the universe. Interestingly, some of the societies studied are great distances from their nearest neighbors.

I could discuss for pages the similarities in myth around the world, but it would be off-topic. The point is, science admits that there is a common bond between all humanity. It seems to me a bit odd that sociological and historical evidence is insufficient to convince the profane sciences to accept the possibility of the sacredness of the universe, as evidenced by a unified story of Creation.

Victory for the Profane?

At the end of Star Trek V, it is revealed that what Sybock believed was God was actually an imprisoned alien being. The rational minds of the profane sciences, as well as the writers of Star Trek, would have us believe that the nonsense of sacred existence was defeated once again. It is suggested that logic, rather than emotion would have prevented the negative outcome (Sybock’s death, for instance). As I have mentioned already, we are supposed to accept Kirk’s platitude as an adequate answer to life’s biggest question and leave the movie feeling hopeful. Ultimately, we are supposed to see the futility of attempting to live sacred lives. We should see that science won in the end – that it will always win. We should see the childishness of our silly religions and leave them. We are to join the legions of deluded fools who have sold their souls to materialistic reductionism.

I find that proposition unacceptable. There is about as much substance to it as the Soviet Union once had when trying to dispel religious ideas with its Marxist propaganda. When they launched Sputnik, they triumphantly proclaimed that God did not and could not exist because they had pierced the heavens with their satellite and found nothing. No reasonable human could accept that logic. Are we to believe that God is a fantasy because ancient men had no concept of space travel? Heaven represents so much more than "up there". Heaven, Brahma, Valhalla, or whatever you call it, represents mankind’s beginning and its end. Our natural desire for the sacred is designed to help us find it.

Conclusion

Science expects us to abandon our faith. We are told, as Kirk told Sybock, that we are foolish or mad. We are told that science is the one and only true religion. However, science is much more like a cult. It lures people away from their primary cultural beliefs. With its high priests (physicists, chemists and the like), scientists claim to have verifiable explanations for the important questions in life. The point to research. They show experimental evidence. They appeal to common sense. At first, one is easily convinced of science’s firmness/steadiness and ability to answer all of the important questions about the universe. I was. However, once the subject (what a person is in relation to scientific inquiry) has been stripped of his/her hopes and dreams, science paints a different picture for him/her. Science explains that ideas change with time and research. It makes it plain that no idea is safe. In other words, once it has placed itself where religion once was in our lives, science pulls the rug from under us by saying that not even it is permanent. Yet, the profane sciences expect unquestioned devotion to them and their rituals.

Materialistic reductionism robs us of our purpose and spiritual being and tries to replace it with an IOU. It is difficult to be like Sybock. Those who have tried, receive little or no respect in the intellectual community. Eliade was lucky. His writings seem to be objective enough to have satisfied his peers. C. S. Lewis, however, exemplifies the unlucky sacred man. He was a professor of medieval studies who also happened to be a writer of Christian theology. His thoughts are concise, intelligent, and well written, yet he receives little, and often no, respect from the philosophical community. His rejection reminds me of something Albert Einstein once said.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

The opposition will continue until we decide that enough is enough and temper our scientific pursuits with emotional awareness. Logic is not the end all and be all of life.

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." – Spock