A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[GrandizerII]

Corporate media like Star Trek is designed to flatter and massage the audience, spoon feeding emotions in pre-tested satisfying amounts. So if a book demands that a person change his pace and his type of attention, and sort of re-do how he relates to a thing, it has managed something important.

I never really got into Star Trek, so can't comment on what you say specifically about that series. However, what you say here does remind me of the distinction I felt between the Japanese (original) version of Ghost in the Shell and the American version. The Japanese version was very confusing to me, and I didn't know what to make of it when I first watched it, as it felt too artistic and left it to me to figure out the various messages the movie was trying to convey in very subtle ways (this was quite a while ago when I had not been primed to really get into such movies and just wanted some thought-provoking but nevertheless "easy" movie to enjoy). Years later, when the American remake came out, I went to watch it with my partner, and the difference was very clear: the American version made sure I understood all the points they wanted me to take away from the movie, by explicitly stating these points, even when the context implicitly made some of these points clear anyway. At the end, I was basically left feeling meh about it and just made me learn to appreciate the Japanese version more.

This is not to say, of course, that all movies made in America are lame or anything like that. But the kind of artistic and philosophical subtlety you see in foreign movies doesn't seem common enough in American Hollywood.