Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moments...

[ProtoAvatar]

Why am I even trying to defend three (excellent) chunky books against the criticisms of people who haven't even read them, and seemingly have no intention of reading them?

No, Q is not in them.

JarodRussell has been up front about not having read the books

Did I say he wasn't?

You gratuitously implied that ALL the 'people' who disagree with you have not read the trilogy and don't know what they're talking about, Therin.


I find your mention of the 'Janeway' thread ironic, considering that you're the equivalent of the so-called 'millitant janeway fan' in this thread, recoursing to ad hominem attacks rather than try to come up with a valid argument.

 

[flemm]

I said all that in my attempt to say I didn't think I wanted to get involved?

Yep. You responded to his post and expressed exasperation at having to defend the Destiny trilogy against "people" who were attacking it without having read it.

Just who are these "people," precisely? JarodRussell was not attacking the novels, and has plainly stated that he hasn't read them. I have the impression that posters such as ProtoAvatar and TrentRoman have indeed read the trilogy. I certainly have.

Too bad the Janeway thread has closed.

Why bring leftover animosity from that thread into this one? This has been a worthwile exchange of ideas, why start casting aspersions on the posters who disagree with you?

 

[JarodRussell]

Please, don't make this thread about me. Unless I'm a Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moment. Hey, would be fun, why don't you writers introduce guest characters named after TrekBBS posters? Captain Jarod Russell has a nice ring to it. Or the Russell Nebula. I'd even take Chancellor Ja'ro'd of the mighty R'us'el Empire. Sean Connery got his own planet, too.

 

[JD]

They've already been doing that for quite a while. KRAD named a character after me in one of his Buffy books, Therin had a park named after him on Trek Lit Andor, I'm pretty sure there was a T'Bonz in the A Time To.. books, and I know there have been others that I'm forgetting.

 

[flemm]

Thrawn mentions this trilogy pushed Trek's morality to its limits- I would say it did so by suggesting that the idealism Trek depends upon and which we all support has limits...yet it also overcame those limits and affirmed that, yes, those values still deliver. Idealism can cross over into..dare we even say it?- a form of ignorant delusion at times, at its extremes. Yet if it was in any way ignorant delusion to think the Borg could be stopped...well, they were. So there. And if Picard and Seven were the only ones not ignorant and deluded...they were still wrong. So there.

Excellent post.

Isn't what you are suggesting, though, that Destiny is mostly about faith? Idealism that can seem like an ignorant delusion until it is miraculously rewarded?

The simplest way to describe what happened to Picard is that he lost faith: in his ideals, in himself, in humanity, in the universe.

Is Destiny the quintessential Trek story because it reveals that, ultimately, Trek is not about science, rationality and self-reliance at all, but rather about the limits of rationality and the need for faith in transcendant values? It's possible. Trek doesn't present itself as overtly religious, but one could argue that beneath the surface Trek is permeated with the divine: the belief that there are universal truths to which humanity has access, that give life meaning, and that allow for our salvation.

Destiny is full of Christian resonance, particularly the individual sacrifice that allows for the salvation of the multitude. Like the hidden God of Christianity, the Caeliar cloak themselves and do not intervene in the course of events until the mediator convinces them otherwise. The borg are driven by the corrupted will of a fallen angel of sorts. Hernandez's mortal body dies, but she is resurrected as a divine being, etc.

 

[JoeZhang]

Thrawn mentions this trilogy pushed Trek's morality to its limits- I would say it did so by suggesting that the idealism Trek depends upon and which we all support has limits...yet it also overcame those limits and affirmed that, yes, those values still deliver. Idealism can cross over into..dare we even say it?- a form of ignorant delusion at times, at its extremes. Yet if it was in any way ignorant delusion to think the Borg could be stopped...well, they were. So there. And if Picard and Seven were the only ones not ignorant and deluded...they were still wrong. So there.

Excellent post.

Isn't what you are suggesting, though, that Destiny is mostly about faith? Idealism that can seem like an ignorant delusion until it is miraculously rewarded?

The simplest way to describe what happened to Picard is that he lost faith: in his ideals, in himself, in humanity, in the universe.

Is Destiny the quintessential Trek story because it reveals that, ultimately, Trek is not about science, rationality and self-reliance at all, but rather about the limits of rationality and the need for faith in transcendant values? It's possible. Trek doesn't present itself as overtly religious, but one could argue that beneath the surface Trek is permeated with the divine: the belief that there are universal truths to which humanity has access, that give life meaning, and that allow for our salvation.

Destiny is full of Christian resonance, particularly the individual sacrifice that allows for the salvation of the multitude. Like the hidden God of Christianity, the Caeliar cloak themselves and do not intervene in the course of events until the mediator convinces them otherwise. The borg are driven by the corrupted will of a fallen angel of sorts. Hernandez's mortal body dies, but she is resurrected as a divine being, etc.

But the christian stories are just rehashes of other stories, so it's unsurprising that these sorts of points pop up.

 

[flemm]

But the christian stories are just rehashes of other stories, so it's unsurprising that these sorts of points pop up.

Sure, but those earlier stories that inspired the christian narrative, or that allowed it to crystallize in the form that was eventually received as canonical, were religious in nature as well. And the Christian narrative is quite prominent in our culture, so it makes sense to use it as a reference.

My point is not that Destiny is a Christian story per se, but rather that it relies heavily on a religious narrative on the one hand, and on the other hand seems to affirm the importance of faith as the last bulwark of human civilisation. At least that is one possibility that seems to be emerging from this discussion.

 

[Thrawn]

Well, the Borg are a disaster of pretty much Biblical proportions; to counteract it, it's certainly a valid choice to have another force of equally god-like abilities. And with that kind of power flying around, you're pretty much at the "mortals being saved by gods" scale anyway.

"Faith" by itself is a meaningless term; you have to have faith IN something in particular. And to me, Destiny is not about having faith in the gods to come save you, but rather in having faith in a certain set of ideals. Those ideals convinced the gods to help them; it wasn't the other way around. The Caeliar didn't say "oh you naughty mortals, I save you, and here - here are some rules to live by."

It uses Christian imagery, and is most certainly about faith, but in Christianity all the morals flow in the other direction. It's not a Christian story.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Well, the Borg are a disaster of pretty much Biblical proportions; to counteract it, it's certainly a valid choice to have another force of equally god-like abilities. And with that kind of power flying around, you're pretty much at the "mortals being saved by gods" scale anyway.

"Faith" by itself is a meaningless term; you have to have faith IN something in particular. And to me, Destiny is not about having faith in the gods to come save you, but rather in having faith in a certain set of ideals. Those ideals convinced the gods to help them; it wasn't the other way around. The Caeliar didn't say "oh you naughty mortals, I save you, and here - here are some rules to live by."

It uses Christian imagery, and is most certainly about faith, but in Christianity all the morals flow in the other direction. It's not a Christian story.

Actually, the Caeliar did say 'We take pity on you, you mere mortals' because that is our will.

Picard or anyone else from the federation was not there to convince the Caeliar with his values, etc. There was no 'flow' of values from the federation to the Caeliar.

Hernandez was long since a Caeliar by the 24th century (by her own admission and by her actions and capabilities), far above mere humans, a half divine being that transcended to full divinity at the end of the story.
Her convincing the other Caeliar to help the alpha/beta quadrants was an internal Caeliar matter, with no influence from Picard's, etc external values.

 

[Myasishchev]

That assumes her origins are completely irrelevant, though, which they aren't.

Unlike the (virtually universal) Christian notion of Jesus being identical to God in some fashion, either via the Trinity or by way of the monophysicite explanation, Hernandez, at least, was born human.

For my part, Christianity sure would be a lot more compelling and meaningful, if Jesus had been born human, and continued to be human up until he kicked it up on the cross. (Thus, the Hernandez part of Destiny is a better story than the canonical Gospels. See, I can be positive.)

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Well, I'm not personally religious, so I don't really relate to fiction in terms of any particular mythology unless it's glaringly asking me to (and as JoeZhang said, you can find these tropes all over human mythology and fiction. If someone sees a Christian meaning in particular in a work like this, I'd say that's just how they're choosing to interpret it- and that's certainly not a bad thing, only what strikes one person as affirming a faith might be shrugged off by another).

As for flemm's question- well, faith comes in many forms, of course. It doesn't have to be religious, any more than any other emotion or personal attribute is inherently defined as religious. The trilogy was very much about hope (it is the last word, after all) but hope is also quite passive- it's faith that drives action and makes those hopes real; faith that you're doing the right thing, faith that it will work. Faith has conviction. Star Trek has always embraced a form of faith- faith in humanity, faith in idealism as bringing about a better future, faith in the accomplishments of its heroes. But Trek has always rejected blind faith (to put it in terms of religious faith, just for the sake of argument, consider DS9 and Kira Nerys vs Kai Winn. The former had genuine faith, which was presented as a strength, the latter blind faith which was always shown in a negative light).

Picard had indeed lost faith, and that's to his detriment here- but of course he lost it not out of any conventional weakness but almost because he was being realistic, because he was not blind. No, I don't think Destiny is trying to overturn rational self-awareness or say that blind belief is now somehow good, but instead that it's daringly skirting the edge of Trek's morals in a way that reaffirms them while also testing their limits. In a way, it presents a situation when realism and idealism seem on opposite sides, where blind faith and idealism- Trek's Big Bad and Great Good- seem dangerously united. Since most Trek fans support rationality and human self-achievement, and also support a strong faith in idealism, having them clash and tangle like this is very daring. Is the only choice a) to be realistic, but therefore give up hope like Picard and Seven have, or b) be idealistic, but therefore ignore what Picard and Seven are saying in favour of blind faith? Either way, we're asked to put one of Trek's core ideals on the line.

But in the end, it holds together. I would say that:

1. Idealism is proven the "correct" response as usual- because the Borg are stopped and great good comes of it (the collective and the Caeliar are saved too, thanks to the latter embracing the Federation's ideals). Star Trek's usual idealistic faith is vindicated.

2. But, also, blind faith is still rejected in favour of humanistic self-accomplishment. Hernandez had to rediscover her desire to do something, to find the strength to go on after finally having stopped resisting Caeliar influence (she almost succumbed in the end to the Caeliar "eh, eternity, sure, I'll just sit passive and let the universe do its own thing" attitude- until the Titan crew arrived). The Titan crew rekindled in her her need to get out there and make her universe a better place. She in turn then convinced the Caeliar that they had to do the same- to stop relying on chance or fate until they suffer one Erigol too many, and instead reach out and help. The Caeliar nearly assimilated her, so to speak, but she turned it around and taught the "gods" the way rather than having those proclaimed "gods" teach her. So I don't see it as being at odds with Trek's usual humanism at all.

3. Realism is vindicated, because Picard's position, while as I say originally grounded in realistic awareness of the situation, not blind idealism, actually mutated into blind faith by book three- blind faith that it was hopeless no matter what happened, and all they could do was go down firing. Even when his reality changed, rendering his earlier "certainties" of knowledge worthless- Axion was suddenly in the equation, Dax had a plan- Picard still considered it hopeless. Indeed, he rejected this new reality in favour of continuing to grasp the "hopeless!!!" position with all his might. So his "realism" eventually becomes a wolf in sheep's clothing; it is blind faith. Dax is the rational one- able to take into account changes in her reality to think up new, effective plans for action based on shifts in that reality. Picard is irrational- he just keeps to the same old plan of "shoot- torpedoes, phasers, thalaron, everything, and try to slow them down!!!", damn whatever the facts are.

So, we end with blind faith being bad, idealism being good, and realistic grasp of the situation being good- it seems to me Trek's ideals survived. Faith in ideals and clear-headed rational thinking- together.

To me, this was definitely the "apocalypse" story- and not just in terms of the Federation about to fall. Star Trek as we know it was presented as falling apart. But in the end, despite the beating, it came through as hoped.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

That assumes her origins are completely irrelevant, though, which they aren't.

Unlike the (virtually universal) Christian notion of Jesus being identical to God in some fashion, either via the Trinity or by way of the monophysicite explanation, Hernandez, at least, was born human.

For my part, Christianity sure would be a lot more compelling and meaningful, if Jesus had been born human, and continued to be human up until he kicked it up on the cross. (Thus, the Hernandez part of Destiny is a better story than the canonical Gospels. See, I can be positive.)

Hernandez was born human, yes, but she was no longer human - and this matters much more. She was Caeliar.

Furthermore - the Caeliar (including herself) reached their decision by applying their values; Hernanzed didn't change those. She merely informed the Caeliar that the borg were their creation.

The Caeliar values were relatively compatible with federation values - much more than with klingon or cardassian values, for example - but the federation had no part in shaping these values, these morals of the gods; the 'Destiny' trilogy makes it clear that humans are FAR too small to even consider contributing - in any capacity, with anything - on that level.


Deranged Nasat

Picard - as most of the federation - lost, indeed, faith in his ideals, in himself, etc. But I disagree that Picard was a realist in doing so.

A few in Starfleet didn't lose faith, surrendering to pasivity and fatalism; sadly, exceptions that confirmed the rule:
Ezri, the Da Vinci crew, the crew that stopped the borg at Kitomer. As Picard himself did so many times when faced with insurmontable odds, they sought the creative solution, they thought outside the box, they kept hope alive as opposed to only waiting for a 'dignified' death and not even trying to prevail (the thalaron weapon fiasco being a symptom of this defeatist mindset).
AND THEY PREVAILED. Their actions saved BILLIONS of lives in the end!

Picard knew this. He knew how he himself accomplised similar miracles in the past. Yet this time, he was broken - the borg crushed his spirit, his will to fight for his values, to 'never give up'.
A 'realist' choice? No. Picard didn't lose faith due to some deduction - such a prosaic deduction proved false too many times in the past; he lost faith because he surrendered to his fears, his indecision, his weakness.

It was the federation's darkest hour. It was the culmination of Picard's longest and darkest arc.
This is when the human spark hould have burn brightest. This is when Picard should have proved his value, gained his greatest victory.
And yet, Picard failed completely, on every level. He showed what he is worth - and it was FAR below our expectations. A severe blow to the character.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Picard ... lost, indeed, faith in his ideals, in himself, etc. But I disagree that Picard was a realist in doing so.

He wasn't a realist because he lost his idealism (the ending proves that idealism and realism weren't truly sundered- we were just daringly asked to consider if they were during this, the ultimate emergency)- he was a realist in that he acknowledged that, as it stood, victory was simply impossible. He couldn't lie to himself- he knew. And that, combined with, as you say, his fears and weaknesses, caused him to lose his idealism and rendered him unable to act in the manner we'd otherwise expect. He understood the severity of the situation in a way no-one else could, and that crushed him, because everyone else's idealism he could just view as ignorance. Of course, he then refused to update his knowledge of the situation when it changed- when he was proven wrong by Axion's arrival and Dax's insight.

AND THEY PREVAILED. Their actions saved BILLIONS of lives in the end!

Exactly. So the trilogy did promote the accomplishments of the Federation heroes. They took action, they sought solutions (Picard excepted, as you say, but we all agree he failed there- only some people like myself don't consider this harmful to the character). In the end, they needed help from the Caeliar- and Dax and Riker and co took action and sought creative solutions by trying to get them onboard. And it was the crew of Titan who helped Hernandez throw off Caeliar ideals when they had finally began to wear away at her resolve, upon which Hernandez turned the tides and convinced the Caeliar to end the war for the good of all three, Federation, Borg, Caeliar. The Caeliar way is to hide, to shut the universe and its problems out and stick your fingers in your ears and passively contemplate your navel, even when 98% of your civilization is gone and the galaxy is on fire around you. The Caeliar's actions in saving the day didn't stem from their standard worldview but from a new one they were convinced to adopt- the very same one Dax and co were promoting.

 

[Trent Roman]

Despite all the devastation in that trilogy, we are still left feeling that things will get better again, are already getting better.

"We" feel no such way. You might. I found the ending irredeemably bleak, impossible to restore--and I cannot imagine what you must be thinking to suggest that any polity is 'better' for having had countless billions slaughtered.

And sand can survive in this situation where the rock is finally shattered by the blow (if that makes any sense)?

It's the old metaphor of the reed. It bends in a storm, and so can survive where the tree does not.

In the end, those ideals, like the Federation, stared the abyss in the face...and survived. Not fully intact- it took a hit, a daring move- but it passed the test, and has the opportunity to come back stronger for it.

No, they didn't. They failed. Horrendously. Abysmally. Failed. And I can't imagine how the Federation is expected to be stronger for having had countless billions slaughtered.

Um. No. It didn't. The Federation continued fighting right up until the bitter end, and continued to do so in a manner it found moral.

Yes, it did. The Federation gave up, as Picard gave up. They did not fight to the bitter end; they sat there and waited to die. Perhaps lighting some candles and singing Kumbayah.

What's the point of having a moral code if you aren't willing to see it challenged, and sometimes fail?

What's the point of a moral code if you are willing to let it fail? A sense of ethics inconsistently applied is no sense of ethics at all. That's like saying, "It's wrong to torture... except when we need to."

Destiny is full of Christian resonance, particularly the individual sacrifice that allows for the salvation of the multitude. Like the hidden God of Christianity, the Caeliar cloak themselves and do not intervene in the course of events until the mediator convinces them otherwise. The borg are driven by the corrupted will of a fallen angel of sorts. Hernandez's mortal body dies, but she is resurrected as a divine being, etc. [...]

My point is not that Destiny is a Christian story per se, but rather that it relies heavily on a religious narrative on the one hand, and on the other hand seems to affirm the importance of faith as the last bulwark of human civilisation. At least that is one possibility that seems to be emerging from this discussion.

This is correct. There's an explicit religious analogy underlying the entirety of the trilogy, from the semi-divine intercessor figure to the fallen godling villain named S---n. Only the author can say where his specific inspirations came from, but I got a distinct "Paradise Lost" vibe from these books. And the ending of the book is intrinsically salvationary 'logic'. Not a quest narrative or anything of the sort, but ineffective characters ultimately being rescued by beings who are simply more powerful. Now, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on what one thinks about that kind of narrative in the first place. For me, that kind of salvationary ending is part of what makes Destiny so off-putting.

Trek, to me, has always been at its core an optimistic, humanistic property--and in this respect, unique. A lot of mainstream properties are optimistic, but little science-fiction is; dystopia predominates our literary futures, and even more balanced societies are rarely as positive as the Federation. Conversely, a lot of science-fiction is humanistic, given the genre's habitual skepticism of doctrine and higher powers, but few mainstream properties are, pandering instead to the theological preferences of the majority of its audience. As such, Trek had occupied something of a sweet spot; the best of both worlds. Destiny, tragically, chose to repudiate both these things; annihilating the positive future in an orgy of destruction and genocide; forsaking the humanist path by presenting mere humanity a woefully insufficient and in need of rescue by higher powers. What was unique is now vanished; Trek has retrenched itself to a position more akin to Battlestar Galactica's pessimistic, wishy-washy deism.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Deranged Nasat]

No, they didn't. They failed. Horrendously. Abysmally. Failed.

How would you then define success in this situation?

And I can't imagine how the Federation is expected to be stronger for having had countless billions slaughtered.

Forgive my tongue in cheek response here: So it should, Picard-esque, use cold hard despairing knowledge as an excuse to passively slip into a defeatist attitude?

Destiny, tragically, chose to repudiate both these things; annihilating the positive future in an orgy of destruction and genocide; forsaking the humanist path by presenting mere humanity a woefully insufficient and in need of rescue by higher powers.

But the Borg were out there anyway, annihilating worlds, destroying civilizations, making slaves of billions. Now they're gone, and those billions have a chance at a new life. I don't see how "Destiny" made the Star Trek universe any worse of a place overall. Destiny didn't invent the Borg- but it did remove them, so I don't understand how it can be seen as "annihilating a positive future". If anything doesn't it make it more positive in the long-run, big-picture? The Borg were already destroying and wiping out civilizations, now they're not.

And how were the Caeliar "higher"? More technologically advanced, yes, but they were xenophobic, selfish, etc. They were insufficient. To me, the trilogy was about the salvation of three civilizations- Federation, Borg, Caeliar- and if the representatives of the Federation had to reach out to another civilization in peace and encourage it in turn to reach out to a third- if that's what saved them- then that's in keeping with Trek's ideals, the power of compassion, of the strength of one compensating for the weakness of another. There will always be a challenge that can't be faced alone- for the Federation it was the Borg Collective trying to wipe them out. But the Federation wasn't alone, and it has its own ideals to thank for that. Its people were able to close the gulf between themselves and an elder race and get that elder race to see the universe their way- and save all three civilizations involved.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Picard ... lost, indeed, faith in his ideals, in himself, etc. But I disagree that Picard was a realist in doing so.

He wasn't a realist because he lost his idealism (the ending proves that idealism and realism weren't truly sundered- we were just daringly asked to consider if they were during this, the ultimate emergency)- he was a realist in that he acknowledged that, as it stood, victory was simply impossible.

Victory seemed imposible many times in the past, too. Yet Picard prevailed, kept hope, kept fighting. Not now. Now he failed on every possible level.

AND THEY PREVAILED. Their actions saved BILLIONS of lives in the end!

Exactly. So the trilogy did promote the accomplishments of the Federation heroes.

"A few in Starfleet didn't lose faith, surrendering to pasivity and fatalism; sadly, exceptions that confirmed the rule"

The 'Destiny' trilogy clearly showed a defeatist federation leadership; most of starfleet only wanting to commit seppuku, only trading soon-to-be-useless transphasics or useless phasers with the borg, not even trying to find ways of prevailing.

The Caeliar's actions in saving the day didn't stem from their standard worldview but from a new one they were convinced to adopt- the very same one Dax and co were promoting.

Dax&co promoted no values to the Caeliar, convinced them of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, Deranged Nasat.
The Caeliar ended their isolation simply because Hernandez informed them that the borg are their creation, their responsability - according to their own values.

And I can't imagine how the Federation is expected to be stronger for having had countless billions slaughtered.

Forgive my tongue in cheek response here: So it should, Picard-esque, use cold hard despairing knowledge as an excuse to passively slip into a defeatist attitude?

No, it shouldn't. But it - and you - also shouldn't go to the other extreme and embrace an equally non-sensical attitude: the death of BILLIONS was beneficial, made us stronger!

 

[Deranged Nasat]

But it - and you - also shouldn't go to the other extreme and embrace an equally non-sensical attitude: the death of BILLIONS was beneficial, made us stronger!

I'm not. Deaths and losses are not in themselves beneficial. What I meant was, just as the trilogy's actions of challenging Trek's ideals ultimately affirmed them stronger when (in my reading) they passed through their ultimate test, the Federation can use this to become stronger, because it survived its greatest trial. It came through the fire, and it might be able to draw strength from its collective grief, instead of succumbing to "it's ruined forever!!" mentality.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

But it - and you - also shouldn't go to the other extreme and embrace an equally non-sensical attitude: the death of BILLIONS was beneficial, made us stronger!

I'm not. Deaths and losses are not in themselves beneficial. What I meant was, just as the trilogy's actions of challenging Trek's ideals ultimately affirmed them stronger when (in my reading) they passed through their ultimate test, the Federation can use this to become stronger, because it survived its greatest trial. It came through the fire, and it might be able to draw strength from its collective grief, instead of succumbing to "it's ruined forever!!" mentality.

"the trilogy's actions of challenging Trek's ideals ultimately affirmed them stronger when (in my reading) they passed through their ultimate test"

Hardly.
The federation's values proved clearly inadequate during the trilogy:
It was heavily implied that these ideals and the federation itself would have soon collapsed; it was shown that most already lost faith in these ideals.

In the end, Caeliar values saved the day.
The federation ideals, Picard's - the federation's - speeches or actions had nothing to do with it.

If anything, the federation's ideals, its humanistic values took a severe beating during the trilogy - and at no point did they recover.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

^ I think I understand your position, believe me. The trilogy did skirt into some uncomfortable territory. I read that as intentional, carefully calculated for positive effect and ultimately it reaffirmed for me what I see Trek as being "about", even during the "darkest hour" where the most extreme pressures are acting upon it (and warping it in places). That's why I loved these novels. Were Trek always like this, I'd hate it, probably for many of the reasons you've outlined in this thread! But this was supposed to be the exceptional tale, the full-blown everything-at-stake story. It pushed everything to the extremes, and when that happens I can't expect everything to work quite as it usually does.

But I do see how, for some others, these novels might well have miscalculated, and shot over the line it was skirting into somewhere you find distasteful.

 

[Christopher]

Isn't what you are suggesting, though, that Destiny is mostly about faith? Idealism that can seem like an ignorant delusion until it is miraculously rewarded?

Maybe it's just me, but "faith" implies a certain passivity: "Some higher power will deliver us." I'd rather call it hope: "There may still be a way we can solve this." Or maybe just perseverence. Basically, it boils down to the motto of another noted starship captain: "Never give up, never surrender."

After all, even if you are screwed, you won't make anything worse by continuing to strive for a solution. And you never know when there might be an opportunity you would've missed if you gave up. As yet another starship captain (Robert Hewitt Wolfe's Dylan Hunt from Andromeda) put it, "Pessimism is not a survival trait."