Star Trek V and the Atheist’s Strawman

I recently watched Star Trek V: The Final Frontier for the first time. There has been plenty of ink spilled over the philosophy of Star Trek (especially, no doubt, in blogs). I’d like to do a different take on it. I think that this particular Star Trek movie showed clearly the god of popular atheism. What I mean is it showed the god that many atheists reject. It is not though, the God Christians actually believe in.

The plot of Star Trek V is fairly straight forward (I apologize for spoilers). A Vulcan mystic named Sybok has had a vision from god. God wants him to come to him beyond the great barrier at the center of the galaxy where no ship or probe has ever returned from. This place is known has Eden to us terrans and a bunch of different names depending on whatever alien species you happen to be talking to. Sybok, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy eventually land on the planet where they meet god. The emotion and tone is one of great discovery, reverence, and general profoundness of the situation.

God has a small request. He needs a starship. Sybok is ready to give it him. Kirk, on the other hand, asks a question: “What does God need with a starship?” God gets a little upset. Sybok explains that Kirk is not totally on board with the mysticism. Finally, god starts smiting Kirk et al for doubting him. God never answers the question.



Whether it was intended or not, this image of man encountering god is something that is told by “atheist folklore.” It would not be hard to put Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins in Kirk’s place (or maybe they wouldn’t have come for the ride. Who knows?), or any atheist who might describe god as a “cosmic ego maniac” or something similar. God, so presented, can be found on just about any atheist website or in the stinkpile of non-theist vs theist forums on the internet. The belief is that if you question god, he will kick your ass. So theists worship him because they’re either too dumb to ask questions or so scared that they’re groveling all the time.

The problem is that this simply isn’t the God Christians believe in. I can’t think of any Christian thinker (at least no credible one) that has taught that if you ask God questions, or doubt him, God will smite you. In fact, anyone familiar with Abraham’s, or even Moses’ dialogues with YHWH we can get a clear idea that God doesn’t smite people for “doubting” him.

Now, it is true, that God isn’t obligated explain himself. This is something else that atheists may not seem to get about the Christian God. We can ask God all we want, but we may not always get an answer. If God does not answer, then this is no fault of him. This is the important point that Abraham seemed to understand when he questioned God. He did not ask presumptuously or as if he had authority to take God to court. Yet even if people shake their fists at the God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that he is not likely to smite them as the big scary blue god did in Star Trek V.

Next time I run into an atheist who denies the existence of god, maybe I should ask what “god” he rejects in the first place. I think that might clear up a lot arguments. By clear up, I of course mean “avoid.”

Thanks for reading.

Atheists and their Fathers: Who really needs Sky Daddy?

There is a common complaint, that is at least a hundred years old, the Christians like myself believe in Sky Daddy. Specifically, the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and –above all- all-loving God is a projection of childish desires for protection from the scary world. “God” is just an exalted projection of an earthly father. While there is some truth to this, I think it is an argument that can just as well easily be leveled against an atheism. Paul Vitz, a psychologist, summed it up in his book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism.

Now, there is some qualified truth to the Sky Daddy idea. I think that many Christians use God as a security blanket even into adulthood. There is a tendency to dump every decision in life to what God is telling you. Thing is, there comes a point when God wants you to do things on your own a bit. But this does not mean that this is all Christianity and theism are motivated by.

Many atheists assert that people’s belief in God is a subconscious result of their good fathers. Why not instead assert that people subconsciously reject God because of their lousy, abusive, or absent fathers? This is called “the defective father” hypothesis. Vitz, in his book, lists many famous atheists from history –such as Sartre, Voltaire, and Netizche and shows that all of these men had either dead fathers, weak fathers, or abusive fathers. For instance, H.G. Wells’ father spent time playing cricket, drinking, and gambling instead of looking after his family’s businesses.

In contrast, Christians like Pascal, Wilberforce, and G.K. Chesterton, all had positive fathers or surrogate fathers. Pascal was “home-schooled” and accompanied his father to the philosophical lectures of his day. Wilberforce’s father died at a young age, but was looked after by his uncle, who introduced his nephew to Methodism.

Now, there is of course not a “proof” of God here anymore than there is a “proof” against God in the Sky Daddy case. It does however show a connection between our fathers and our beliefs about God. More importantly, it shows that atheism can be just as ‘pathological’ as they sometimes claim theists are.

So maybe next time you talk to an atheist, who thinks he has the finest intellectual reasons to reject Christianity, you should forget about your personal testimony or apologetics or whatever. Instead, just ask, “So how’s your relationship with your Dad?”