Star Trek: Picard

1. Out of curiosity, I saw the pilot episode of Star Trek: Picard. I did it in part because the pilot episode can be viewed for free. If I cared enough, I could view the second episode for free by taking out the temporary subscription, then canceling it, but I don't care that much. It's not really fair to judge a series by the pilot episode, but I'll do it anyway. I was never planning to watch the entire series. 

2. I've been viewing Star Trek on and off since 1966. TNG was arguably the most successful of the spinoffs (some Trekkies prefer DS9), so if you're going to exhume one of the spinoffs, that's the obvious candidate. 

3. The newest iteration of the franchise is a star vehicle for Stewart. It will succeed or fail based on his ability to center it. Pushing 80, he looks and sounds his age. In his prime he was a larger-than-life stage actor squeezing into the role of a TV actor. You could often see the frustration as he had to hold so much in reserve. Occasionally he had a scene where he was free to cut loose and perform on a theatrical scale, but that was rare.

Now his situation is the opposite. At his age the reserves are gone. That sets a low ceiling in his ability to rise above a certain dynamic range. 

The Picard character was never all that sympathetic. Aloof and rulebound. For someone who made his career exploring alien civilizations, he was quite narrow, chauvinistic, and intolerant. He treated the Starfleet code of conduct as a universal norm. In one episode, Worf's wife is murdered. Worf exacts revenge by slaying her assailant. That's the Klingon honor code, but Picard disapproves.

However, Stewart's aging process has mellowed Picard. It lends poignancy to the character. 

In that regard, it's striking to compare Stewart, in his prime, playing an old man in "All Good Things…" to Stewart as an old man. Despite his formidable acting chops, Stewart's attempt to play his older self wasn't very prescient or convincing when you compare it to the real elderly Stewart. 

There is a certain irony in the fact that Chris Pine has been bypassed to go back Stewart and TNG. Especially for atheists, there's sentimental appeal to watching beloved actors over the years reprise old roles. Since they deny the afterlife, it gives them a sense of rootedness in their past.  

4. There's a silly fight scene at Stardleet Archives where a female android singlehandedly protects Picard from Romulan terrorists. Doesn't the Starfleet complex have surveillance and security? Can't they scramble/beam armed guards to the fight scene?

5. Picard is having paranormal/precognitive dreams. How does he have that ability? Will the source of his dreams be explained? Is this like hive mind telepathy, where his dreams are subconsciously tapping into other (alien?) minds? Even if that's the case, it wouldn't explain paranormal/precognitive dreams about androids, since their "minds" operate on a different basis, a different wavelength. 

6. The series will have guest stars like Jeri Ryan as Seven of Nine. That betrays a certain lack of confidence on the part of the TV producers. She was the actress/character who rescued Voyager from ratings oblivion, so it's understandable that the producers wish to include her, but her character doesn't belong in the TNG timeline. 

7. The episode suffers from tired plot ideas. Data gave his "life" to save Picard. One goal is to revive Data. But was his positronic mind/memories destroyed? Is he gone forever? 

That recycles The Search of Spock, where Spock gave his life to save the crew. Can he be restored? They have a new body, but what about his mind? Vulcans have a soul or katra. But did he transfer his consciousness to someone else (McCoy) before he died? And can the T'Pau reunite the soul to the body? 

8. Another tired plot idea is the destruction of homeworlds. In Generations, a probe collapses the Veridian sun, wiping out inhabited planets in its solar system. In The Undiscovered Country, an explosion on Praxis dissolves the ozone layer of Kronos. In Star Trek (2009), Vulcan is destroyed by an artificial black hole inside planet. Now, in Star Trek: Picard, Romulus is destroyed when its sun goes supernova. This is lazy screenwriting. 

9. In addition, the destruction of homeworlds suffers from a tension in SF metaphysics: time-travel. In a genre where time-travel is feasible, the obvious, easy solution to the destruction of your homeworld is to go back in time and change a key variable, thereby averting the cataclysm and restoring the status quo ante.

10. Admittedly, it might not be possible to prevent a supernova, but that goes to another scientific absurdity. A sun doesn't go supernova overnight. Surely Romulus would become uninhabitable long before its sun went supernova, at that late stage in its lifecyle. So the Romulans had plenty of lead-time to evacuate and colonize another M-class planet.

11. Time-travel poses a dilemma for the SF genre. On the one hand it's one of the most appealing conventions of the genre, because it's such a nifty way to illustrate and explore hypothetical or counterfactual scenarios. On the other hand, the principle is too powerful, too flexible. If feasible, it would be overused and have a radically destabilizing effect. It would obliterate historical continuity as plenary or cosmic history keeps resetting to create alternate timelines that replace the last timeline. So SF writers are arbitrarily selective about the convention. 

The Vedek conclave

Michael Voris

DS9 Tribune

Reporting from the Vedek conclave on Bajor. Until he withdrew his name from consideration, in a shocking last-minute move, it was a contest between Vedek Bareil and Vedek Winn to be the next kai. The Vedek conclave has been sharply divided. On the one hand the Sedekaist faction, led by Vedeks Taylor, Sungenis, and Matatics, regard former Kais Meressa and Opaka as anti-kais. And they view Vedek Bareil, Opaka's protégé, as another anti-kai in the making. Meressa, Opaka, and Bareil reflect the modernist wing of the Vedek order, viewing the Celestial temple as nothing but a glorified wormhole and the "Prophets" as extraterrestrials rather than gods. Vedek Bareil's candidacy was championed by Vedeks Martin and Barron.

By contrast, Vedek Winn is the RadTrad candidate. They revere the Celestial Temple as the One True Temple. They venerate the Prophets as deities who reveal their will through the mystical orb. They've championed Vedek Winn's candidacy. As Vedek Taylor explained to me in an exclusive interview, the Bajorian faith has been infiltrated by alien influences like the Cardassians and a human Emissary. But as an outspoken xenophobe, Vedek Winn is eager to purge the Vedek order of foreign contaminants. And now that she's running unopposed, they seem to have the upper hand.

For his part, Bajoran liaison Kira Douthat is conflicted, not feeling at home with either side. On the one hand he's not a Bajoran fundamentalist. On the other hand, he's sympathetic to the Sedekaist prognosis that the modernist wing of the Vedek order will steadily demythologize the Bajoran faith to the point where it's indistinguishable from Gene Roddenberry's secular humanism. But straddling fence is a pain in the crotch, so maintaining that posture becomes increasingly untenable.

The Prime Directive

I was asked to comment on the Prime Directive. As someone who watched TOS when it premiered, as well as watching a number of spinoffs, that question has a certain nostalgia. I doubt any deep thought went into whatever TV producer concocted the Prime Directive. I assume it was one of those on the fly decisions. But despite its philosophically undistinguished origins, the Prime Directive is an interesting, provocative concept. 

The Prime Directive is a blanket ban on interference with the internal development of less advanced alien cultures and societies. However, that proved to be dramatically suffocating, so it was routinely flouted by screenwriters, although sometimes a ST episode centered on the controversial nature of the directive. Let's begin by considering some defenses and real-world counterparts to the Prime Directive:

Star Trek at 50

2016 marks the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. This post is just under the wire. 

I thought the best films with the classic cast were The Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, and The Undiscovered Country. 

I liked Generations better than Roger Ebert did. It has some very fine acting by Stewart and Malcolm McDowell. Spiner does some of his best acting as Data. Even Shatner is amusing in the opening scene, as a flabby, curmudgeonly Shatner. 

First Contact was certainly the best entry with the TNG cast. Star Trek (2009) was fine film of its kind. I haven't seen Star Trek Beyond. 

In general, I don't think TOS was all that good. Roddenberry was a poor storyteller. Among the better episodes are "Balance of Terror," "Journey to Babel," and "Mirror, Mirror." The mimetic and balletic acting of the empath make that eponymously titled episode memorable. Likewise, budgetary constraints made "Spectre of the Gun" unintentionally artistic and impressionistic. 

Shatner is a ham actor, but he has the pushy star power that Jeffrey Hunter lacked. 

I thought TGN was the best of the spinoffs, and generally superior to TOS. Some of the better episodes include "Genesis," "The Inner Light," and "Lessons." 

Stewart is a natural stage actor, so the role is noticeably confining, like he's wearing a suit two sizes too small. It puts a crimp in his style. 

In that respect it was nice to see him in "Chain of Command". A good match-up with another really fine actor (David Warner). 

Moby-Dick was a better vehicle for Stewart's larger-than-life onstage persona. Gives him more room to stretch out. 

Spiner is a limited actor. He was never convincing as an old man (Noonian Soong). However, Data is his signature role. He created the role, and he nails it.

Unlike many Trekkies, I generally like Dr. Pulaski. McFadden and Sirtis were a feast for the eyes. 

Worf was a likable character, but Star Trek producers and screenwriters tried too hard to make him into a warm, lovable Teddy Bear beneath the gruff exterior. 

There were a couple of fun episodes between Worf and his wife K'Ehleyr.

Lieutenant Reginald Barclay was a fun character. He became a recurring character. 

Producers had the wisdom to kill off Tasha Yar. Pity they didn't kill off the insufferably cloying Wesley Crusher while they were at it.

I didn't care for Guinan. She's a variation on the Hippie Hindu/Buddhist sage. But her wisdom is no wiser than the screenwriters.

I admit that in general I don't care for Goldberg. I avoid most of her movies. I did like her in Fatal Beauty–which I once saw when it came on TV years ago. There she's in her element as the street smart, street tough narcotics detective.  

For some Trekkies, DS9 is their favorite series due to its complexity. It has many layers and interwoven storylines compared to other Star Trek series. In general, though, I find it too campy for my liking, and I dropped out before the series ran its course. 

My favorite characters were Odo and Garak. Auberjonois played Odo with mordant wit. At his best in repartee with other characters. 

Garak was shifty and secretive, with some good verbal sparring between himself and Bashir. 

The cynical Kai Winn (Estelle Fletcher) was mildly entertaining, but the character is a Dragon Lady cliché.  

The father/son dynamic between Brooks and Jake is a nice idea on paper, but the actors lack rapport. Seems strained to me. 

I didn't care for Dax. Michelle Forbes was the first choice for Kira, but she turned it down–unfortunately. She would have been so much better in the role than Nana Visitor, who just doesn't do it for me. 

Perhaps, though, the worst part of the show were the Ferengi. The Ferengi are to Star Trek what Ewoks and Jar-Jar Binks are to Star Wars. A mistake that should have been written out of the script after the first draft. Instead, they had a central role in DS9, which singlehandedly makes it nearly unindurable. 

There were some good individual episodes, like "The Visitor". But I bailed on the series long before it ran its course. 

Star Trek: Enterprise was forgettable long before it was gone. 

A new series is slated for next year: Discovery. I wouldn't be surprised if it has gay and transgender characters. 

After TGN, I'd say Voyager was the best series.

"Tuvix" dealt with a moral dilemma. A transporter mishap fused Tuvok and Neelix, creating a new person with the best character traits of Tuvok and Neelix. But the mishap was reversible. Therein lay the dilemma. Tuvok and Neelix died in the mishap. Tuvix was the novel result. The unintended beneficiary of their accidental death. Should he die to restore them to life? Or should they remain dead, as a tragic, but settled event? Leave the past in the past?  

If evil produces a second-order good, should you accept the resultant good, or kill an innocent person to restore the status quo ante? Destroy the present to recreate the past? Either way, there are winners and losers. Someone winning at the cost of someone losing. And not a game, but life or death.  

"Mortal Coil" dealt with loss of faith. Neelix is killed, but restored to life with Borg technology. Talaxians traditionally believe in the afterlife, a belief that Neelix shares, until he dies, to be regenerated 19 hours later. Problem is, he wasn't reunited with his dead relatives when he died. Apparently, he passed into oblivion. That discovery leaves him desolate, not only for himself, but for his dead loved ones. 

"Year of Hell" presented another moral dilemma. An alien time ship erased the crews' own past–including their loves ones. For the past 200 years, the same crew (which is shielded from the passage of time) has labored to keep changing the past until they can restore their own timeline, and loved ones. But they never get it right. There are always unintended consequences.

Another interesting episode was "Barge of the Dead", which explored the Klingon mythology of hell. 

Mulgrew was suitably decisive as captain. Betran was underutilized. 

The Doctor had moments (e.g. "Real Life").

Tuvok, Tom Paris, B'Ealnna Torres, and Harry Kim were cardboard characters played by third-tier TV actors. 

The insipid Kes was mercifully killed off to make way for Seven of Nine. In addition to her hourglass figure, Ryan brought sass to the character, perhaps owing to her experience as an army brat. 

She became the instant star of the show. The male actors were fine with that, but Mulgrew bitterly resented having Ryan usurp her. 

In my admittedly limited observation, I think that reflects a difference between men and women. The entertainment industry is ferociously competitive. Singers and actors vie with each other for the same parts or the same audience. Yet although the men are often professional rivals, they can still be good friends. But from examples I've read, female rivals are more likely to hate each other. 

How to defeat Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9vHopyEtzs

Rubio or Cruz should try this on Trump at the next debate.

Star Trek Christology

Jesus appeared to me last night in a vision. Well, to be precise, in a tele-vision. But make no mistake–it was Jesus!

Jesus appeared to me as I was watching "the Cage"–the pilot episode of Star Trek. And there he was–right before my eyes! Jesus was Capt. Christopher Pike.

You see, before Jeffrey Hunter played Capt. Pike, he played Jesus in King of Kings. Now there's no doubt that his performance of Jesus refers to Jesus. 

In my benighted philosophical ignorance, I used to think Jesus and Jeffrey Hunter were two different individuals, but then I read philosopher Michael Ray explain say there's exactly one Jesus. This common point of agreement is logically equivalent to the thesis that every Jesus is the same Jesus. In other words, everyone who worships a Jesus worships the very same Jesus, no matter how different their views about Jesus might be.

So it dawned on me that Jeffrey Hunter just is Jesus (transitive law). And it turns out that in the 23C, telepathic aliens with bulging brains will kidnap Jesus. 

Years later (in The Menagerie), Jesus will become the consort of Vina. (This will, of course, requires some adjustments to traditional Christian eschatology.) 

I now plan to wear a bulbous, pulsating head prosthetic to express my religious solidarity with the Talosians, because we worship the same Jesus (aka Jeffrey Hunter). Unfortunately, there are some bigots who refuse to acknowledge that worshipers of Jesus and Jeffrey Hunter worship one and the same being. 

Yeoman Rand

Part of an interview with late Grace Lee Whitney, of Star Trek fame (as Yeoman Rand):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whitney: Well, being written out of Star Trek kicked in the emotional trauma of having been told when I was seven years old that I was adopted and that my parents were not my parents. I said, “Well, who are they?” They said, “We don’t know who your father is. We know that your mother gave you up for adoption because your father would not marry her.” And so I had rejection from the time I was seven years old, when my adoptive mother sat me on her lap and told me I was adopted. She thought she was doing the right thing. Later, a shrink told me that she’d (actually) set me adrift. What happened from the age of seven up to getting written out of Star Trek, I was able to function. But then being rejected from Star Trek and being thrown out of the show, it set me off. Of course, that was my perception. That was how I looked at it. And my perception was not correct. I was written out because of the show, because of the character, not because of me. I started drinking heavily after that. I used to go for a lot of counseling, and the counselors tried to get me to differentiate between the character of Janice Rand and Grace Lee Whitney, and I could not do it. I could not not be Janice Rand. It was Grace Lee Whitney that got fired. Janice Rand was just the character. It was me they didn’t like. They threw me out. Blah, blah, blah.

And I just about killed myself over that reject. And when I would go on interviews, I would smell of alcohol. I was very Lindsay Lohan-ish, very Charlie Sheen. I was lost. I was lost and I began to bottom out. It took me about 10 years after getting written out to come to my senses when I bottomed out. And bottoming out means I was sick and tired of being sick and tired and I had to get help. What happened was that I was down on Skid Row, on 6th and Main in L.A., looking for my lower companions to get some kind of help, when I was 12-stepped down there by a man from the Midnight Mission named Clancy, who is a guru in the 12-step program. His sponsee helped me get to my first 12-step meeting where God absolutely delivered me. There was no question. I could not not drink. I was using a lot of drugs from Dr. Feelgood. A lot of actors used the amphetamines from Dr. Feelgood to stay skinny, to function. It’s just insidious. Once you get into the drinking and using, it’s almost impossible to get out without the grace of God, which is what I give my credit to. Leonard Nimoy (who is also a recovering alcoholic) was so moved that he (later) wrote the forward to my book. But that’s how I began my recovery and my trek back to the studio to make amends, to do everything I’ve had to do there.

You wrote your memoir, The Longest Trek: My Tour of the Galaxy, in 1998. What did you learn about yourself from putting pen to paper like that?

Whitney: I learned what my own part was in all of the pain I’d suffered as a child and growing up. What was my part in all of this rejection? What was my part in getting written out of Trek? What was my part in ending up at downtown 6th and Main? It was my total admission of my part in everything. It was totally amazing. It was the grace of God, and I was able to write about where I turned left when I should have turned right. This is what every sober alcoholic has to learn, or we repeat the addiction. And I have to tell you, I went to 46 conventions in that one year. People loved the book.  

http://www.startrek.com/article/grace-lee-whitney-on-trek-life-2

Was Dr. Pulaski racist?

i) Recently I ran across a defense of Dr. Pulaski, the short-lived character in TNG. This post really isn't about Pulaski, but since that's the springboard, I'll make a few observations before moving onto the main point.

Apparently, a lot of Trekkies hated the character, and waged a successful write-in campaign to get it axed. They succeeded.

I myself don't share their antipathy towards the character. I think the characterization was somewhat heavy-handed. The way the screenwriters depicted her was rather forced. She was basically a type.

She was, however, a good foil for Picard. Tough, independent. A strong female character. 

She was replaced by Beverly Crusher, who was more likable in the sense of being more classical feminine in appearance and demeanor. However, Beverly was bland and essentially decorative. Like Counselor Troi, she was basically eye-candy.

ii) Now to the main point. Apparently, many Trekkies hated Pulaski because she belittled Data. What caught my eye is how they put it. They describe Pulaski as "racist." On the face of it, that's an incongruous way of characterizing her view of an android. It reflects the intellectual poverty of the general culture. A lack of conceptual resources. That's the only category they know to reach for.

iii) Evidently, they sense an analogy between racism and denying that an android is a real person or "sentient being." But is that an accurate definition of racism?

Take the Antebellum law against teaching black slaves how to read. That's racist, but is it predicated on the assumption that blacks weren't real people or sentient? 

To the contrary, it presumes that given a chance, blacks could learn to read just a well as whites–which was threatening to the Antebellum caste-system.   

Or take the Final Solution. Did the Nazis deny that Jews were real people or sentient? If anything, the Nazi antipathy towards Jews reflects a resentful envy for Jewish intellectual and cultural accomplishments. 

So the implicit or intuitive analogy is flawed. 

iv) But there's the deeper issue. There's the classic question of whether artificial intelligence is possible. But there is, if anything, the more interesting question of whether artificial intelligence is detectible. That is to say, even if a computer crossed that threshold, could we tell if it was truly intelligent? That's a legitimate and difficult philosophical question. Not at all "racist," or analogous to racism." 

v) There is, of course, the famous Turning test. But that's controversial.

The question is whether you can tell, by its behavior, whether a computer is actually intelligent, or simply mimicking human intelligence. A clever simulation: clever, not it itself, but cleverly staged. 

Does the computer have consciousness? Does it have a first-person viewpoint?

Even if it did, an outside observer isn't privy to that experience. Since the outside observer isn't a computer, he doesn't know what it's like to be a computer. That's directly inaccessible. So he has no basis of comparison. He can't compare and contrast his experience with the experience (assuming it has any) of a computer. 

So the question is whether that's inferable from computer behavior. And that's tricky because computers are extensions of human programmers. They are designed to approximate human problem-solving skills. So is that really coming from the computer, or is that ultimately coming from the programmer? 

vi) Some people might object that this is just a special case of the problem of other minds. But the analogy is equivocal at the crucial point of comparison: since I know, from direct experience, what it's like to be human, it's reasonable for me to interpret the behavior of other humans along the same lines. But it's precisely because a computer isn't human that the parallel breaks down. That's not something we know in advance.

vii) Of course, the question of artificial intelligence is bound up with the nature of human intelligence. Since a physicalist regards human reason as the product of physical interactions (the brain), the presumption is that, at least in principle, it ought to be possible for a sufficiently sophisticated machine to duplicate (or surpass) human intelligence. 

If, however, the mind/body relation involves the mind (or soul) using the brain, then the AI research program is doomed to fail, although it may generate useful spinoff applications. 

viii) The character of Data was plausibly intelligent because that's fiction. The character was written by human screenwriters. They made him a sympathetic character. And he was played by a human actor. But that's not a real test of AI. Some Trekkies are so invested in a fictional character that they forget this isn't real–or even realistic. They've been manipulated by the actor and screenwriter. 

Spock

Star Trek has become a fixture of the American mythos. I suppose Star Trek is to the American pop cultural lexicon what Homer was to the Greeks. A source of so many illustrations and catchphrases. Far more than Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. 

The Western is the only rival in that regard. But Star Trek is far more of a one-man vision than the Western genre. Mind you, Roddenberry was a limited storyteller. He himself ran out of material early on. Others had to pick up where he left off. 

I'm old enough to have seen the premier broadcast. I wasn't really into Westerns as a kid. I watched episodes of Bonanza, The Big Valley, and the Rifleman, but that was basically filler. They weren't my favorite shows. I don't think I ever saw Gunsmoke. 

The only Western I really liked was The Wild Wild West, because of the retro science fiction elements and the rapport between Robert Conrad and Ross Martin. 

I was more into shows like Star Trek, Time Tunnel, The Invades, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Green Hornet, the Prisoner, and the Avengers. 

As a teenager I once made the mistake of reading a book by a Trekkie. I just wanted more background about Star Trek. But I got more than I bargained for. Reading it I was suddenly and temporarily inducted into the world of Trekkies. I thought to myself, "These people take it really seriously. It's unhealthy!"

The author, a woman (forget her name) would compare Kirk/Shatner with Spock/Nimoy. Some viewers, she said, bonded with Kirk while others bonded with Nimoy.

Can't say I bonded with either character. 

I thought McCoy/Kelley was the most likable actor/character. But he was underutilized. Scotty/Doohan was another underutilized actor/character. I liked Sarek/Lenard as well. 

It's interesting that Shatner, Nimoy, and Lenard are all Jewish. 

I think Spock caught on in large part because his character dovetailed with the Sixties. The counterculture. 

Nimoy had to cope with the dilemma of typecasting. Would you rather play one memorable character or play dozens of forgettable characters? 

I do remember him in some other roles. He was good in Brave New World. Good in a remark of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I remember him in A Woman Called Golda, although he was eclipsed by Ingrid Bergman. 

But, of course, Spock was his signature role. Technically, Shatner was the star and the lead character, but he was quickly overshadowed by Nimoy. 

Shatner was, himself, a replacement for Jeff Hunter. Although he's hardly a great actor, Shatner does have starpower. Had the dominating stage presence that Hunter lacked. I think the series would have bombed if they kept Hunter.

I think Nimoy was convincing, in part, because he had an unusual face. A good face for a humanoid alien. He used to have a great speaking voice, but that became very frayed over time.

As he himself said, he modeled the character's isolation on the Wandering Jew motif. The consummate outsider and observer.

There are people who become very attached to certain TV characters. But I can never forget that it's fiction. It's not the world I have to live in. It's not my present, and–more importantly–it's not my future.

Nimoy enjoys the immortality that the world can confer. But the immortality which a dying world confers is ephemeral and delusive. 

I'm not emotionally invested in the life and death of actors. They are strangers. There's an illusory sense of familiarity that comes from watching them. And if we were introduced to them at a certain age, there's an element of nostalgia. But I don't have a personal connection with celebrities. That's make-believe fellowship.

Nimoy's death is just another reminder of my own mortality. I was just a kid when I saw it for the first time. Now I'm 20+ years older than the actors were at the time. And they are dying off. 

Overdosing On Fiction

One of the reasons why people are so interested in the death of somebody like Leonard Nimoy is that they enjoy thinking about imaginary worlds, like the imaginary world of Star Trek. There's a lot they don't like about real life. They want a better world. That's also one of the reasons why people are interested in science fiction books, romance novels, and video games, for example. While that sort of fiction is acceptable and useful up to a point, our culture is far too focused on it. There's not much interest in real evidence about how real people will really live in a real afterlife with a real God. People prefer their fiction. When they're interacting with relatives, neighbors, classmates, and coworkers, they'd rather discuss the fake world of Star Trek than the real heaven. Behind that preference is the presumptuous wishful thinking that God is like them and that the afterlife will be what they want it to be. They ought to spend more time in non-fiction and less time pursuing their fictional preferences.

Captain Kirk's guide to fighting

Better than placebo.