God, Abraham, and Kirk

[YARN]

That Star Trek 5 bit where Kirk asks "What does God need with a Starship?" is one of the few fondly remembered aspects of that film. It appears to mark Kirk as a rationalist skeptic, a questioner, and a man who is so much of a maverick that he is not afraid to ask God what his business is.

In The Savage Curtain, however, when "Abraham Lincoln" appears floating in space, Kirk brings him aboard, and fetes him with all officers in full-dress uniforms. His colleagues repeatedly remind Kirk that there is positively no way that this thing could possibly be Lincoln, but Kirk cannot help but fall all over himself and refer to him as "Mr. President."

Does Lincoln rank higher that God in Kirk's mind?

Was it that "God" made the mistake of making moves on Kirk's girl (i.e., demanding, more or less politely, his starship as a personal conveyance?).

Did Kirk grow more common sense as the Enterprise magically grew more decks?

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

Certainly, the fact that the god-thing is demanding the Enterprise (and Sybok's going, "Oh, hell yeah! You can have it!") shook an unconvineced Kirk out of his feigned open-mindedness. I always wondered if Kirk was going to nuke God from orbit from the get-go once Sybok led him to it.

Secondly, the Lincoln simulcrum is really charming, and Kirk's all "yeah, I know he's a fake, but he's sooooo good at it, I'm going to cut him some slack and see what's really going on down there on the planet."

 

[YARN]

Certainly, the fact that the god-thing is demanding the Enterprise (and Sybok's going, "Oh, hell yeah! You can have it!")

Ha!

Secondly, the Lincoln simulcrum is really charming, and Kirk's all "yeah, I know he's a fake, but he's sooooo good at it, I'm going to cut him some slack and see what's really going on down there on the planet."

True, but you have to admit it's an amusing contrast.

 

[lurok]

Is it because Lincoln has some special status? Actually Kirk was skeptical about pretty much every 'god' they encountered iirc (Apollo, Landru, etc)

 

[F. King Daniel]

God, JJ Abrams and Kirk

Fixed

 

[jayrath]

Faux Lincoln didn't have his toadies practice mind control to kidnap the Enterprise. Also, he wasn't a big, glowing head.

 

[A beaker full of death]

The "we find the one...." line was a concession to the realities of American viewership (and network realities) at the time. The fact is that the humanist philosophy that permeates Star Trek is informed by an atheist sensibility - it says that gods are a construct, a crutch, that we have outgrown.

 

[T'Girl]

The "we find the one...." line was a concession to the realities of American viewership (and network realities) at the time.

Kirk: We are gathered here today with you, Angela Martine, and you, Robert Tomlinson, in the sight of your fellows, in accordance with our laws and our many beliefs ...

"Our many beliefs," a recognition of the actual religious realities of the 23rd century? Would there be any room in Roddenberry's diverse utopia for a utter rejection of religion? I think not, overt example of atheism are rare, overt examples of the opposite are many - Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, Bajorians - dozens of episodes trotted out religion, spirituality and faith.

The fact is that the humanist philosophy that permeates Star Trek is informed by an atheist sensibility

Data: Which do you believe, sir?

Picard: That what we are goes beyond Euclidian and other practical measuring systems and that ...

our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.

Hardly a atheist sensibility on Picard's part. At least here, Picard doesn't seem to embrace that intelligence existence is merely a bio-chemical process. That there's something more.

 

[A beaker full of death]

^ I'm speaking of Star Trek. TNG is a different animal.

 

[T'Girl]

^ I'm speaking of Star Trek.

All righty then, strictly TOS then.

During Court Martial, Kirk's lawyer had a Bible in his library, if Star Trek were truly a atheist depiction of the future, this feature of Samuel Cogley office would have been omitted.

In the Balance of Terror, Angela Martine was apparently either Catholic or Episcopalian, because she was genuflecting and crossing herself as part of her marriage ceremony, that's a atheist sensibility?

Further, the wall behind the altar in the Enterprise's chapel held a cross (other symbols too), easily could have been left out of the scene, in fact you can barely see it, but it was there.

By his own statement Kirk was a monotheist, in fact the "we" in "we find the one (God) quite adequate," would indicate he wasn't alone in his belief.

The fact is that the humanist philosophy that permeates Star Trek is informed by an atheist sensibility

But of course there are many branches of humanist philosophy, including Christian Humanism.

it says that gods are a construct, a crutch, that we have outgrown.

Apparently not outgrown in the least.

 

[A beaker full of death]

You seem to have skipped the part about these being concessions. They could not very well have a dramatic hero announce on NBC in 1966 that God was dead.

Or that we all make God in our own image...

 

[Sector 7]

Ah yes, the "concessions" excuse. "They have something I don't like in Star Trek. It must be a conspiracy at the highest levels." The fact is that in 1966 atheism was a rarity... most Americans (even today) believe God exists. Judeo-Christian religious beliefs are still the majority in the United States.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Wow. You really might want to read a little more period sci fi. Like, I dunno, the writers of the bloody show did.

I think it's sad that a kernel of an idea in philosophical writing got so diluted by the time it filtered its way culturally to a few tv writers in 1966 that it isn't even recognized today.

The majority of people also believe there are angels all around us and can't find the US on a map of North America. I'm loathe to call Star Trek caviar to the general, but the beliefs of the great unwashed are no indication of the state of literary thought at a given moment in time.

 

[Mr_Homn]

The "we find the one...." line was a concession to the realities of American viewership (and network realities) at the time.

Kirk: We are gathered here today with you, Angela Martine, and you, Robert Tomlinson, in the sight of your fellows, in accordance with our laws and our many beliefs ...

"Our many beliefs," a recognition of the actual religious realities of the 23rd century? Would there be any room in Roddenberry's diverse utopia for a utter rejection of religion? I think not, overt example of atheism are rare, overt examples of the opposite are many - Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, Bajorians - dozens of episodes trotted out religion, spirituality and faith.

The fact is that the humanist philosophy that permeates Star Trek is informed by an atheist sensibility

Data: Which do you believe, sir?

Picard: That what we are goes beyond Euclidian and other practical measuring systems and that ...

our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.

Hardly a atheist sensibility on Picard's part. At least here, Picard doesn't seem to embrace that intelligence existence is merely a bio-chemical process. That there's something more.

You are conveniently leaving out important parts to fit your argument.

"What is death?"

"Oh, is that all? Oh, Data, you're asking probably the most difficult of all questions. Some see it as a changing into an indestructible form, forever unchanging; they believe that the purpose of the entire universe is to maintain that form in an earth-like garden which will give delight and pleasure through all eternity. On the other hand, there are those who hold to the idea of our blinking into nothingness. That all of our experiences and hopes and dreams, merely a delusion."

"Which do you believe, sir?"

"Considering the marvelous complexity of the universe, its clockwork perfection, its balances of this against that, matter, energy, gravitation, time, dimension, I believe that our existence must be more than either of these philosophies. That what we are goes beyond Euclidean or other "practical" measuring systems, and that our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality."

Clearly it is implied that Picard views the idea of an "earth-like garden which will give delight and pleasure through all eternity" as rather simplistic and narrow minded.

Hardly a atheist sensibility on Picard's part. At least here, Picard doesn't seem to embrace that intelligence existence is merely a bio-chemical process. That there's something more.

nothing he said indicates that he is not an atheist. it doesn't indicate that he is an atheist either, but you saying "hardly an atheist sensibility" is totally unfounded. atheist means lack of belief of a god or other deities. He says there is something more, but that doesn't mean he believes in a god. You can be an atheist and believe in "something more"

 

[sonak]

You seem to have skipped the part about these being concessions. They could not very well have a dramatic hero announce on NBC in 1966 that God was dead.

Or that we all make God in our own image...

you're probably right about why that was included, but that makes your argument by necessity one that uses selection bias. "Oh, I'll just ignore the counter-examples there are of religion in the twenty-third(and twenty-fourth centuries)because it doesn't match my point.


The reality in Trek is that it was VERY muddled on this. It seemed to depict a future where religion, if it was still around, was a rarity, and folks were very private about it. Also, there are episodes like "who watches the watchers" which basically comes out and says "religion is a primitive superstition, advanced societies eventually evolve beyond it."


But since Klingons, Bajorans, etc. are often shown as very spiritual peoples, it comes across more as timidity in portraying Human religion in the far future than it does as a strong endorsement of Secular Humanism.



Oh, as to the topic: it makes sense since Lincoln is a hero of Kirk's, and the guy was doing a very good impression of Lincoln.


The fake God on the other hand was acting very suspiciously and wanted Kirk's ship.

 

[A beaker full of death]

The reality in Trek is that it was VERY muddled on this.

I quite agree. Of necessity, what ultimately appears on the screen is the end-product of dozens of people's input, from the guy who wrote the writer's bible to the guy with a story idea to the standards and practices department to legal to....

It may have been a little less so in the 60s. Or it may simply be that the original writers in the 60s had a little more to say, and their writing managed to, in some form, survive all that filtering.

But since Klingons, Bajorans, etc. are often shown as very spiritual peoples, it comes across more as timidity in portraying Human religion in the far future than it does as a strong endorsement of Secular Humanism.

I've been speaking about TOS primarily, because I think TNG and later are very different. TNG is an amalgam of many things, only a small part of which involved those original writers' ideas, some of which devolved culturally (through viewership of Star Trek!) rather than being current philosophical thought at the time TNG was made. I don't want to start hammering The Idiot Berman as the antithesis of intellectualism, any more than I like to kick helpless puppies, but let's just say that any guiding thought Star Trek had at that point was certainly not influenced by a then-20-year-old literary trend.

 

[JustKate]

The reality in Trek is that it was VERY muddled on this.

I quite agree. Of necessity, what ultimately appears on the screen is the end-product of dozens of people's input, from the guy who wrote the writer's bible to the guy with a story idea to the standards and practices department to legal to....

It may have been a little less so in the 60s. Or it may simply be that the original writers in the 60s had a little more to say, and their writing managed to, in some form, survive all that filtering.

I agree, but I'd go perhaps a bit farther and say that Trek (both TOS and TNG) was purposely muddled on this. They (whoever constitutes "they" - GR, the writers, the network, various combinations of these) didn't want to present definitive statements or predictions about how humanity's spirituality might evolve (though they might do so in the case of individual characters). I can think of no other explanation for the mixed messages we got from those shows.

Which is fine with me. If I had to guess, I'd guess that religion still exists on Earth in the 23rd and 24th centuries but that it has become a private thing that people - at least people in Starfleet (who very well not be representative of the population as a whole) - don't discuss that much. That is absolutely a guess, of course, but so are assertions that humans had definitely "outgrown" religion. We aren't given enough data to judge, and if you ask me, we are purposely not given enough data to judge. Everybody's welcome to speculate of course, but it will be mere speculation.

Oh, and as for Lincoln, I agree that Kirk went along with it because he admired Lincoln a lot, and the simulation was the closest he was likely to get to his personal hero.