Star Trek: The Wrath of the Disciplined

The newest Star Trek movie is a remake of "The Wrath of Kahn," and fills in more of the story about the new crew.  Gene Roddenberry's original intent for the Star Trek series was to show humanity unifying under a secular goal and putting tradition and superstition behind them.  The envisioned goal was the empirical study of the material universe.  In some instances, the original crew encountered the "gods" of human myth who turned out simply to be powerful aliens.

Indeed, in one of the original movies the crew is convinced by Spock's brother to travel to a distant planet in search of "god."  A few thoughtful questions could have saved them time and dilithium crystals.  For instance, if this is the God of theism, who is the Creator of all matter, then in what sense can God be limited to a material body on a distance planet?  Clearly this must be just another powerful alien and not God the Creator.  This would have translated into saving dilithium crystals, which in turn is a savings for the tax payers back home.  In whatever other ways this future earth has improved, it appears that curbing government waste is not one of them.

In this newest movie we see a contrast between Kirk and Kahn.  Both rely heavily on their intuitions, and both tend to come out on top when relying on their intuitions.  Neither questions these intuitions, and the positive outcomes of relying on intuitions reinforce their confidence.  Both seem to confuse intuition with actual knowledge.  However, where intuitions can be incorrect, and are often correct only by accident, knowledge involves self-examination and is able to justify its conclusions to show it is correct.

In Kirk's case, he is encouraged to think more critically by important persons in his life like Cpt Pike and Spock.  Pike points out that Kirk's intuitions have been accompanied by blind luck, and this blind luck is responsible for the good outcomes not intuition.  Kirk doesn't take this suggestions seriously until he is brought under discipline.

Spock also encourages Kirk to think about his reliance on intuition.  Spock does this through a dialogical process, in asking Kirk critical questions designed to get him to examine his assumptions.  In one notable instance Spock calls Kirk's integrity into question by noting that he is acting on a plan that involves immoral choices.  It is interesting to consider that this commits Spock to the belief in natural law, since he is arguing not only that the choice is contrary to the Federation's positive law, but is also immoral.

Kirk is brought under discipline and loses command of his ship.  Similarly, Kahn had been brought under discipline centuries before and confined to a frozen prison.  It is in their responses to this discipline that we see the difference between these two characters.  Although Kirk despises the discipline, he also goes through a learning process and corrects the problems that had manifest themselves and which led to the discipline   Specifically, that his reliance on intuition was fallible and put his crew at risk due to the whims of blind luck.  Kirk learned that his position of leadership involves being a servant leader who must be willing to sacrifice himself for his crew and make choices based on what is moral not simply based on what he wants.

By way of contrast, Kahn came out of his frozen prison full of wrath.  He did not heed any suggestions of self examination.  He redoubled his commitment to his old ways and hardened himself against any suggestions of needing to learn and repent.  He sought to attack and destroy those who had brought him under discipline.

Both Kirk and Kahn manifest excellence.  In both cases it leads to pride.  In Kirk's case this pride is humbled under discipline.  In Kahn's case this pride responds to discipline with wrath.  Kirk is repentant and grows in his ability to serve, Kahn is hardened and grows in his anger.  Both want to save their crew.  Both are willing to endanger themselves to save their crew.  And yet these apparent commonalities are accompanied by each character's response to discipline.  Kirk can lead his crew in ways that Kahn will never be able to lead.  Similarly, Kirk can save his crew from greater perils than Kahn is able to address.  Kahn cannot save his crew from pride, or from having the wrong goals and pursuing self-destructive ends.

This question of ends brings me back to my original comments about Gene Roddenberry's goals for Star Trek.  Many contemporary thinkers have noted that the best way to unite humanity in our current condition is an external threat to our survival.  This could come in the form of aggressive aliens or a dangerous environment.  Either way, the goal of mere physical survival isn't different in kind than the goals of Kahn.  What would we survive to do?  Is Roddenberry's future a utopia simply because we have learned to survive with less suffering?  Wouldn't a future that has union based on a mistaken goal really be a distopia?

The movie introduces Kahn through the character of a father that has a dying daughter.  This father is willing to kill others on the mere promise from Kahn that the daughter can be cured.  This father, Kirk, and Kahn, all want to save others from physical suffering.  This aligns with Roddenberry's vision, and yet seems to be a superficial basis for actual union.  Indeed, in the case of Kahn and this father it is a source of disunity.

Survival is only valuable if it is meaningful.  Many persons who are able to survive physically choose death because their life is empty of meaning.  The implication is that the larger basis on which humanity can be united must be that which brings meaning to life.  Empirical investigation of the material universe is a hint in this direction because it is a desire on the part of humans to gain knowledge.  However, it is a limited hint because it limits human curiosity and wonder to what is empirical.  The empirical is never a source of knowledge by itself since empirical data must be interpreted.  While Roddenberry may have proposed a means to overcome the belief in finite gods by categorizing them as powerful aliens, he did nothing to address the question of what is eternal (without beginning).  Was the material universe brought into being by God as understood in theism?  If so, God is not known empirically.  Instead, the material universe is a revelation of its Creator.

The insights in this movie about Kirk and Kahn and their responses to discipline can help correct and deepen Roddenberry's vision of how humanity can unite.  Like Kirk, humans often blunder forward relying on intuitions that only turn out to be correct due to blind luck.  The process of self-examination to attain knowledge (rather than, at best, lucky opinion, and at worse incorrect opinion) requires the kind of discipline and humility displayed in this story by Kirk.  However, humanity's response has often been the wrath displayed by Kahn.  While physical suffering itself should be a call to self-examination, it is often responded to in wrath and hardening, in less thoughtfulness not more thoughtfulness.  Both responses, humbling under discipline and hardening into wrath, reveal something about the human condition.

Attempts to Avoid Clarity

In my book "The Clarity of God's Existence" I discuss why Christianity presupposes that the failure to know God is inexcusable.  This is set in the larger outline structure of the book which looks at the neglect, avoidance, resistance, and denial that it is clear that God exists.  The first chapter of the book considers how people, often Christians, neglect the need to show the clarity of God's existence.  In the second chapter I discuss 7 common attempts to avoid affirming the clarity of God's existence.  These are:

1.  skepticism: this is the claim that knowledge is impossible.  Sometimes this claim is made by changing the definition of "knowledge" from a true, justified belief into a strong feeling or intuition and then arguing that feelings and intuitions do not provide certainty.
2.  fideism: this is blind belief.  Many "religious" people say that blind belief is all that one needs, although then the difficulty is in knowing which religion to blindly believe.
3.  probability and plausibility: these are used to say it is probable, or plausible, that God exists, but not clear that God exists.
4.  mysticism and religious experience: these dismiss knowledge as "head knowledge" and instead want "heart knowledge" which is supposedly more real.  However, the actual case is that such experiences must be had over and over because they are not lasting, and any given experience can be interpreted in many different ways.
5.  scripture alone: this view confuses sola scriptura, the belief that scripture alone is our source of the knowledge of salvation, and solo scripture, the belief that all knowledge comes from scripture.
6.  no free will, or free will is incompatible with predestination: this view says that it is not necessary to show that it is clear that God exists because persons need to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and arguments do not help with that process.
7.  the Fall provides an excuse: this view says that since all humans are under the Fall, there is no way for us to know anything about God.  This view claims that reason itself is fallen, as opposed to the human use of reason is fallen.

Of course, in my book I enlarge on each of these and my responses.  My argument is that the inexcusability of unbelief and clarity of God's existence a precondition for redemptive claims.  These are attempts to avoid the need to show that it is clear that God exists.