Star Wars: Choosing My Religion

He holds my hand tightly. He’s become amazed at his own strength lately. His favorite game is to squeeze my hand as tightly as he can. I feign indifference for a moment, then put on my most excruciated grimace.

“Stop, stop, you’re breaking my hand!” I protest.

“I’m using the Force!” he proclaims. And who am I to say he’s wrong?

For the seventh time in as many minutes, Timothy points to an object under glass.

“Is that from Star Wars?” he asks. It’s been his question about each and every exhibit in Seattle’s Science Fiction Museum. The answer continues to be “no.” Anything actually from Star Wars he has spotted long before me: R2D2, the Death Star model, Yoda, the Storm Trooper costume. At exhibit after exhibit I explain to Timothy and his sister another piece of the science fiction canon: why Forbidden Planet’s Robby the Robot is so much cooler than the unnamed Robot from Lost in Space, and how this distinction summarizes the primary difference between didactic morality tales told in a speculative format, and sit coms. Plus Robby looks cooler and has legs.

For me, the museum is a trip down memory lane. Every book mounted lovingly in humidity controlled enclosures mirrors the copy already locked inside my own head. For my children, it was a series of sharp analytical moments in which everything they saw was divided into two and only two buckets: Star Wars. Not Star Wars.

Why is it that 30 years later Star Wars has become the sine qua non of science fiction – not just science fiction movies, but the whole genre. What about this universe that has made it compelling enough to dominate the last two weeks of our multi-generational cousin-rich and sugar-infected vacation? Every video game played, every movie viewed, even the make-believe whizzing through the unfortunately-multi-family 4 bedroom rental condominium has had a common root: they were all imported from a galaxy far, far away.

Let me be clear: while I have consumed the 15 or so hours of Star Wars movies dozens and dozens of times, the Star Wars movies are almost universally crap. They are not good films. The acting is wooden, the writing stilted, and the very universe Lucas so lovingly imagines is plagued by boils and cesspits (Jar Jar, midi-chlorians, Ewoks, Padme's unfortunate choices in lip gloss). And yet I love them. I love them not only despite, but because of their flaws. Half the fun of being a Star Wars fan is the sith-like stew of anger, suffering, and rage that errupts every time crazy-uncle George actually messes with his own creations.

But here’s what I think is most captivating about Star Wars. Star Wars is ultimately about the Force. And what is the Force?

Religion.

Religion in the over-educated techno-libertarian geek circle which I enthusiastically inhabit is nearly taboo. While my family and I go to church most Sundays neither that fact, nor the content of those church services is the topic of dinner table conversation when we have guests over. I consider myself a believer – not in someone else’s specific doctrine, but in a collection of things that have helped me understand my own human experience. Alternatively, if you’re a Marxist, I have successfully opiated my primal Nietzschean understanding of the abyss.

My children yearn for religion. They are fascinated with religion, not in the big “R” sense of the word, but in the dictionary sense – a belief in a supernatural something that governs the universe. They are being trained – quite intentionally – to never stop asking “Why?” And eventually that series of questions leads to big unanswerable “why’s.”

In my own personal parenting worldview, I don’t actually think it’s my job to dictate the answer. I tell my kids what I believe, and why I believe it. But I don’t tell them it’s the only way – I want them to explore.

But when Obi Wan described the Force to them in “A New Hope,” he explained the simplest, clearest, most practical religion ever envisioned for children:

“The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.”

For a 5 year old, this explanation is intoxicating. In a nutshell, the Force:

  • Only requires you to believe that “alive” is fundamentally different from “not-alive.”
  • Provides some people with superpowers, with conditions applied.
  • Explains good and evil.

(This all assumes that like most geeks, you’re willing to just overlook all the midi-chlorian crap and get on with life.)

This is a pretty compelling explanation of the world. A good friend of mine once explained his view of Jesus: “I dunno, he just strikes me as that really cool older brother, who kind of gets it. With superpowers.”

Jedi are the ultimate cool older brothers with superpowers.

That my son is obsessed with Star Wars has, I suspect, less to do with light sabers and blasters than it does with the idea of two boys – one 7, and one 16 – discovering a religion in which they could participate. A religion in which the “miracles” are just a Force-push away.

It's taken me 30 years to realize that this is one of the reasons I keep coming back to it. And really, it took the announcement of Knights of the Old Republic, the not-so-secret MMO. Nearly every SF nerd I’ve talked to is more interested in a Knights of the Old Republic MMO than they ever were in Star Wars Galaxies. And I've finally realized it's because the force is so much more present - in other words, religion is so much more present.

From the perspective of religion, the Civil War period of the Star Wars universe – the Rebel Alliance vs. Darth Vader part – is the period most devoid of the Force. It’s all one sided, and it’s only a chosen few who have any interaction with the supernatural. But in the Knights of the Old Republic time frame – that pre-Anakin period – that’s when the Force was everywhere. People believed in their religion because they saw it right in front of them. Maybe not every day, but they saw it.

And there was a chance to be a righteous bad-ass with a light saber, even if a bunch of creepy space-bacteria didn’t knock up your grandmother.

Comments

Great article. Star Wars is a hugely important thing in the life of my 4-year-old. However, The Force is, so far, not significant for him next to lightsabers, and the absolutely essential feature of people having hands chopped off. Whilst Lego Indy is cool, Lego Star Wars will always be his favourite, I think.

SF writers putting transparent God-analogues in their books has always annoyed me (ref: Orson Scott Card) and it's clear to see that The Force was a convenient way to add a spiritual component with a notion of objective morality into The Flanneled One's mythos. The fact that it's a unconscious life force rather than any sort of directed personality also undercuts any geek objection to uncool God connotations.

I also think that this is the reason why I love Lord of the Rings, but the clumsy allegory of the Narnia series leaves me cold. Tolkien's work is absolutely and fundamentally Christian, but it does without any kind of overt religious references. As such, I find it a more cogent argument in favour of Christian ethics than anything I have ever read in the bible, which is cadged in terms of “this is true because God says it is”. In the same way, the threat of “being led to the dark side” is a more convincing argument for a youngster to behave nicely than, say, the vague threat of eternal hellfire.

Religion? Or unique combination of predestination and free will?

And for contrast, you have that other significant bastion of SciFi geeks, Star Trek. Where the universe is ultimately explainable by the efforts of mankind (given a large enough series of polysyllabic words and a quick cut to the exterior of the ship for the week's SFX budget).

Odd, but I never really thought of the two in an atheistic vs. theistic sense before, but more in a smart guys solve all the problems vs. cool guys hit people with lightsabers way. The internet and geek culture being what it is, there's probably multiple books analyzing how a person's Star Trek/Star Wars preference reflects their religious beliefs or some such.

Cool article Rabbit!

JoeBedurndurn wrote:

Odd, but I never really thought of the two in an atheistic vs. theistic sense before, but more in a smart guys solve all the problems vs. cool guys hit people with lightsabers way. The internet and geek culture being what it is, there's probably multiple books analyzing how a person's Star Trek/Star Wars preference reflects their religious beliefs or some such.

What happens if you like both equally? I think both universes are very compelling. I usually prefer the games of Star Wars over Star Trek... though that's not a tough decision considering the lack of good games for Star Wars is lower than the lack of good games for Star Trek

The classic definition of "The Force" always struck me as a Hindu or Buddhist inspired dogma when I finally reached the age to understand what a Hindu or Buddhist might believe. As for Star Trek, it has always been rather void of any sort of religion which I found refreshing because the search for the truth in scientific format and exploration seems so much more grounded than fictional belief in various mythical entities. I see the benefit of both camps being secure in my choice of being Agnostic.

If you ignore the prequels the first set of the movies are designed similiar to other legends and fairytales. If cowboys and indians, santa clause, tooth fairies, exist then so does the Force. At least, that was my 7 year old realization of it.

I have a different hypothesis – Star Wars was Sci Fi (technically it’s fantasy in a Sci Fi setting) for the masses. Until Star Wars all Sci Fi was high brow story telling. Why Sci Fi book/movie/show before then didn’t have some sort of “deeper story” to be told. I can think of all kinds of classics and many were trying to mix their morality/higher thinking with their entertainment. Star Wars was a wacky tale that had fun special effects - the same type of dribble that entertains audiences today (e.g. summer blockbusters). There's no deeper moral story here, just some fun with a wookie.

Let me be clear: while I have consumed the 15 or so hours of Star Wars movies dozens and dozens of times, the Star Wars movies are almost universally crap. They are not good films. The acting is wooden, the writing stilted, and the very universe Lucas so lovingly imagines is plagued by boils and cesspits (Jar Jar, midi-chlorians, Ewoks, Padme's unfortunate choices in lip gloss). And yet I love them. I love them not only despite, but because of their flaws. Half the fun of being a Star Wars fan is the sith-like stew of anger, suffering, and rage that errupts every time crazy-uncle George actually messes with his own creations.

If by this comment you mean Episodes 1 through 3 and Return of the Jedi, then I agree whole heartily, but I cannot include ANH and ESB in with that group. The first movie had too much riding on it. Everyone poured all they had into the movie, and it exuded that effort. None of the actors wrote it in. Whatever they became later on in life, in that movie, they were their characters.

In ESB, the hand of Irvin Kershner kept that movie from de-evolving into what the remainder of the Star Wars movies became. Every line Harrison Ford delivered built up the character and mystic of Han Solo. Carrie Fisher was Leia struggling internally with the feelings she had for Solo (or maybe it was just the drugs). Darth Vader became the coolest bad-ass in all the Universe, and Hamill did learn the ways of the force. I don't know what kind of effort it took for Kershner to get that kind of performance from Ford, but considering how terrible he was in RotJ, it must have been Herculean.

RotJ -- terrible. The only real redeeming part of that movie for me was the Emperor scene mixed in with the space battle. For the new movies, thank goodness for Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor, because no one else in three complete movies could act, but 50% of that I put on Lucas, because I saw RotJ.

They all pale before Dune. I don't plan on even letting my kids know the prequels exist until some friend tells them.

Besides, Star Wars is its own religion now, hell this guy thinks it creates 'spiritual confusion' in America. Welcome to the party pal!

I've always longed for more dialogue about religion in SciFi. I think it's one of the reasons BSG has caught on like it has, it actually discusses religion honestly with how it affects the characters and their actions in the world.

I'm a huge fan of classic SciFi (Asimov, Clarke, etc.), it was my bread and butter growing up (oddly enough I'd read the entire Foundation trilogy before ever watching Star Wars) but almost all classic "hard" SciFi pretty much ignores religion.

While I've never thought about the connection in Star Wars, I can see how the whole "don't give in to the dark side" has penetrated modern culture like it has. It's the universal analogy to hell without the offensive/impolite implications of the big-R Religious big-H hell.

I'll also throw my hat in the ring on the LOTR vs. Narnia arguments, I feel Tolkien's handling of Christian ethics was much subtler and more nuanced. Narnia just tried to rewrite the Bible with talking lions.

PyromanFO wrote:

I'll also throw my hat in the ring on the LOTR vs. Narnia arguments, I feel Tolkien's handling of Christian ethics was much subtler and more nuanced. Narnia just tried to rewrite the Bible with talking lions.

Proof against the existence of the big-G God. If God was really all-knowing, He would have used talking lions from the beginning.

On a more serious note, Rabbit, please never stop writing. Your articles and insights are always top notch.

Timothy.....I am your Father!

sheared wrote:
Let me be clear: while I have consumed the 15 or so hours of Star Wars movies dozens and dozens of times, the Star Wars movies are almost universally crap. They are not good films. The acting is wooden, the writing stilted, and the very universe Lucas so lovingly imagines is plagued by boils and cesspits (Jar Jar, midi-chlorians, Ewoks, Padme's unfortunate choices in lip gloss). And yet I love them. I love them not only despite, but because of their flaws. Half the fun of being a Star Wars fan is the sith-like stew of anger, suffering, and rage that errupts every time crazy-uncle George actually messes with his own creations.

If by this comment you mean Episodes 1 through 3 and Return of the Jedi, then I agree whole heartily, but I cannot include ANH and ESB in with that group. The first movie had too much riding on it. Everyone poured all they had into the movie, and it exuded that effort. None of the actors wrote it in. Whatever they became later on in life, in that movie, they were their characters.

In ESB, the hand of Irvin Kershner kept that movie from de-evolving into what the remainder of the Star Wars movies became. Every line Harrison Ford delivered built up the character and mystic of Han Solo. Carrie Fisher was Leia struggling internally with the feelings she had for Solo (or maybe it was just the drugs). Darth Vader became the coolest bad-ass in all the Universe, and Hamill did learn the ways of the force. I don't know what kind of effort it took for Kershner to get that kind of performance from Ford, but considering how terrible he was in RotJ, it must have been Herculean.

RotJ -- terrible. The only real redeeming part of that movie for me was the Emperor scene mixed in with the space battle. For the new movies, thank goodness for Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor, because no one else in three complete movies could act, but 50% of that I put on Lucas, because I saw RotJ.

O.o

I have to totally agree with rabbit here. The acting in Star Wars was horrific, I'm sure they all did their best, but Ford was less wooden after getting encased in charcoal or whatever it was. He was still better than Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamil.

I sometimes wonder if people have seen different Star Wars movies to the ones I saw. They were fun, but far from amazing.

I think Star Wars owes much of its success to the very careful appropriation of archetypes it uses. A lot like the Matrix did later it uses mythological and fairy tale conventions to make it resonate with wider audiences than most Sci-fi does, as well as the inherent simplicity of the story. It fails when it attempts to become a character study.

I'll just echo the spirit of what has been said already:

In a sense Fantasy/SF is the methadone for the opium of religion. It appeases the same yearning for something greater gives a feeling of wonder, but doesn't come with all the nasty dogma and forced cognitive dissociation.

I saw that whole "Jedi Religion" thing when it made the rounds in the popular press, and as goofy as it seems in real life, I do understand the attraction, I really do. I'm just waiting for the day when my kids *explicitly* start asking about the connections between the Force and the Judeo-Christian backstory.

I guess I am the odd man out. I didn't glean any religion out of Star Wars. I saw The Force as a simplified explanation of sub-atomic energies and forces, which some individuals are able to control. Pure science (fiction). My attraction to it over the decades has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with straight up "good vs. evil". These movies are low tension and high fun because the good guys and bad guys are clearly delineated and you know who will win in the end. Heck, the bad guys wear black (Vader, Emperor) and the good guys wear white (Luke, Leia, Han with a black vest because he is a rogue and HE SHOT FIRST!). Oh, and lightsabers! Who the heck doesn't want a samurai sword made out of laser power!

Besides, I always thought Lucas got his whole Force/Jedi thing from Eastern culture, such as Zen and the Samurai class, and have read as much in the past. And really, if you think about it, it fits much better than the whole Heaven/Hell thing. And nobody came back to life.

PS. As far as the acting goes, yeah it was bad, but as kids we didn't know any better (think of any cartoon you loved as a kid), and as you grow up watching it again and again. you just accept it, like "that line wasn't bad acting, that's just how Luke talks: like a dork."

Kojiro wrote:

And nobody came back to life.

There's that whole "some Jedis can become active spirits" thing...

And virgin birth.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

And virgin birth.

I guess I was thinking of the original trilogy, since most people think the new ones are garbage... Lucas obviously had a change of theology in between the trilogies.

JoeBedurndurn wrote:

And for contrast, you have that other significant bastion of SciFi geeks, Star Trek. Where the universe is ultimately explainable by the efforts of mankind.

A lot of that is explained by author's intent. Trek was Rodenbery's grand "wagon train to the stars", and is written with a certain kind of unifying vision behind it, a very 19th/early 20th century vibe, perhaps. The mysteries of the universe can be explained through observation and travel, mankind will ultimately move onward and upwards to Utopian prosperity as a unit of a greater good, and we'll bang a lot of green skanks on the way. Star Wars, on the other hand, was the sum ripoff product of many inspirational sources (Kurosawa, the Hero mythos). That it's semi-religious in tone probably has a lot to do with the ideas Lucas gleamed from Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces :

Campbell wrote:

"Mythology is often thought of as other people's religions, and religion can be defined as mis-interpreted mythology"

It wasn't until DS9 that Trek really ventured into the idea of advanced civilizations with a strong religious affiliation. And for Lucas, the prequels were, somehow, the perfect place to bring up a possible rationalized interpretation of the force.

sheared wrote:

I cannot include ANH and ESB in with that group. The first movie had too much riding on it. Everyone poured all they had into the movie, and it exuded that effort.

I like the little story of how every British extra they had on the set thought this little space opera was going to bomb hard. During the medal scene at the end, when the rebel folks are lined up, they whispered things like "wanker" and "bollocks" as Solo and company made their way up towards Leia.
Anyway, the movie was incredibly taxing on Lucas. So taxing that he pretty much succumbed to depression and exhaustion after shooting was done. That left the job of editing, largely, up to his first wife. She made sure a good film came out of it, from what I hear.

thank goodness for Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor, because no one else in three complete movies could act, but 50% of that I put on Lucas, because I saw RotJ.

In defense of the NT folks, Hayden and Portman are pretty ok actors in their own right. (Odd as it may seem, Anakin was in a critically acclaimed movie before he did AotC). McGregor, McDarmid and Neeson did what they could with the script and direction, and I dare say they actually did some work to find the core of that particular character. Lucas is a TERRIBLE director, so I can see how that would cause the younger actors to just go along with and and not give a toss.

Kojiro wrote:

Besides, I always thought Lucas got his whole Force/Jedi thing from Eastern culture, such as Zen and the Samurai class, and have read as much in the past. And really, if you think about it, it fits much better than the whole Heaven/Hell thing. And nobody came back to life.

His first draft of The Star Wars was pretty terrible, or so I hear. I'm talking Hidden Fortress with blaster pistols and space ships.
As for nobody coming back to life. Well, do Force Ghosts count?

On a side note, I dug the episodes in Lost in Space where Robbie shows up, and thrashes the other robot. Take that Danger danger! You're not in a movie where the Freudian psychology is turned into Freudian Cosmology! Or make a hundreds of bottles of moonshine! Or involve the only serious role I've seen Leslie Nelson in.

Side note to my side note: The disrepair I last saw the Chicago museum of science and Industry, specifically in the Robot Exhibit, made me really sad. Couldn't they even bother fixing the Theremin? It's not exactly the most complicated of instruments. And the Dust collected over Robbie....sigh.

I like robots a lot more than the force.

rabbit wrote:

But here’s what I think is most captivating about Star Wars. Star Wars is ultimately about the Force. And what is the Force?

Did you say the Schwarz?

And will there be a Harry Potter article when rabbit's kids start reading those? Maybe a discussion on Houses and sorting?

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

Kojiro wrote:

Heck, the bad guys wear black (Vader, Emperor) and the good guys wear white

Storm Troopers.

McChuck wrote:

And will there be a Harry Potter article when rabbit's kids start reading those? Maybe a discussion on Houses and sorting?

And prejudice against other groups!

Spaz wrote:

Star Wars, on the other hand, was the sum ripoff product of many inspirational sources (Kurosawa, the Hero mythos). That it's semi-religious in tone probably has a lot to do with the ideas Lucas gleamed from Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces :

Campbell wrote:

"Mythology is often thought of as other people's religions, and religion can be defined as mis-interpreted mythology"

Lucas certainly did have his influences, but calling Star Wars a sham for being built on Campbell's "monomyth" structure sounds like faulting Shakespeare's tragedies for all being based on the Aristotelian definition of what constitutes a tragedy, especially in that both Campbell and Aristotle were looking explicitly at common themes and audience expectations within a genre, and how those expectations and themes affected the audience.

And, well, I think Magnificent Seven is a pretty decent movie, even while I also appreciate Seven Samurai.

Edit: There are certainly a lot of interesting religious threads running through Star Wars. I've always found it fascinating to compare and contrast modern religions with the religion of The Force. I find that looking closely at the similarities and differences teaches me a fair amount about what is and isn't going on in modern religions, and in their public perceptions.

wordsmythe wrote:
Kojiro wrote:

Heck, the bad guys wear black (Vader, Emperor) and the good guys wear white

Storm Troopers.

When it comes to the cannon fodder, the bad guys do the strictly organized faceless fascism thing, and completely dehumanized while the good guys are the ramshackle but unique snowflake rebels that couldn't punch a hole in a pack of butter weren't it for the fact that they're the good guys.

Sorry. I'll let you go speak now.

rabbit wrote:

I'm just waiting for the day when my kids *explicitly* start asking about the connections between the Force and the Judeo-Christian backstory.

I was raised in a churchgoing household. I don't remember ever asking explicit questions regarding the Force and my family's own religious beliefs/practices, but I certainly remember making the connection between the two. At that age, the parallels were obvious.

Star Wars completely permeated my early childhood, and looking back I've no doubt that it informed my religious and spiritual views in those years. In fact, the Star Wars universe, which at that time certainly seemed more vivid and real than the stories I heard in Sunday School, probably had the greater impact. Maybe that's why a part of me felt genuinely betrayed by the whole midi-chlorian thing. It's like Lucas was making a mockery of my childhood faith.

The Fly wrote:

Maybe that's why a part of me felt genuinely betrayed by the whole midi-chlorian thing. It's like Lucas was making a mockery of my childhood faith.

That's a much clearer way of saying why it's pissed me off too. Too bad you didn't say that to me like 2 days ago and I could have just stolen it for the piece.

wordsmythe wrote:

Lucas certainly did have his influences, but calling Star Wars a sham for being built on Campbell's "monomyth" structure sounds like faulting Shakespeare's tragedies for all being based on the Aristotelian definition of what constitutes a tragedy, especially in that both Campbell and Aristotle were looking explicitly at common themes and audience expectations within a genre, and how those expectations and themes affected the audience.

I'm not calling it a sham, I'm just being a jackass. It's a little difficult to see A New Hope as the jumping off point for the great franchise when you look at the vast amounts of film/literary theory that he cribbed from. I'm more interested in seeing how Lucas made a pretty patchwork of good ideas and later turned that into a semi-coherent universe. It's pretty skillful artistry.

The Fly wrote:

Maybe that's why a part of me felt genuinely betrayed by the whole midi-chlorian thing. It's like Lucas was making a mockery of my childhood faith.

In that respect, Phantom Menace's midichlorian cop-out sounds like some janky "revealed doctrine" that someone discovered years after the fact. A religious retcon, if you will.

I'm thinking church services would be cooler if there were lightsabers involved.

Spaz wrote:

I'm thinking church services would be cooler if there were lightsabers involved. :)

I'm not so sure that getting your head lopped off by accident when being baptised (or something) would be that great!

I think receiving holy communion via force lifting the wafer to your mouth would be cooler.

I agree with Shoal on this one, I don't think the appeal of Star Wars is based upon it using the Force as religion so much as it simply being a lot less cerebral than other science fiction shows, before and after it. Even if you didn't get the not-so-subtle subtext in there it still had sword fights and awesome battle scenes with fighter planes and battle stations!

Regarding the Force being popular, I don't think that's because of its religiosity (holy crap, spellchecker says that's a real word!) so much as because, unlike most religions, the Force had obvious real-world effects. It's the same reason we love wizards in the various fantasy worlds so much, or characters like Kratos in God of War who are touched by the gods and given badass powers because of it. There's no questioning whether or not the Force exists, how you know that it does, etc. These people can pick up a car and fling it into the side of a building with their mind because of "the Force" so you know it's real.

It's that kind of unequivocal proof of faith that a lot of people yearn for I think, and reality just isn't giving that to us.

McChuck wrote:

And will there be a Harry Potter article when rabbit's kids start reading those? Maybe a discussion on Houses and sorting?

Twilight is the new Harry Potter apparently. His kids'll be squealing about teenage vampire romance instead of teenage wizard romance.

bnpederson wrote:

Twilight is the new Harry Potter apparently. His kids'll be squealing about teenage vampire romance instead of teenage wizard romance. :P

Yeah, too late, my wife is already all over these.