James Herrick,
Scientific Mythologies: How Science and Science Fiction Forge New Religious Beliefs.
InterVarsityPress Academic, 2008
ISBN-13: 978-0830825882
US$23.00 (pb)
288pp
(Review copy supplied by IVP Academic)
It was perhaps inevitable that at some point in the process of trading religion for science as our window on the universe, science would become religious. We thus find ourselves with new mythologies and new oracles as well. However, as science made its transformative pilgrimage from Houston to Delphi, it passed through Roswell. When science found science fiction, it found religion. (p. 250)
In this outrageously preachy book, Scientific Mythologies: How Science and Science Fiction Forge New Religious Beliefs, James Herrick puts forward the argument that due to the “Western world’s spiritual poverty,” (p. 20) the cultural ideology surrounding science has formed a subtle yet dominant new religion. How he gauges the paucity of the world’s spirituality in comparison to earlier periods is made unclear, with the implication that this lack is self-evident. According to Herrick, in the “post-Christian west” (p. 12), we have all lost sight of the truth and a “counterfeit ideology” of scientific salvation is distracting from the “God who created us.” (p. 246) How one might come to the conclusion that the west is no longer guided by Christian ideology is also not alluded to. Either way, this distraction, he argues, is largely to do with a conceptual misunderstanding of what science is. Whilst Herrick sees science as a practical methodology for understanding the universe at its most superficial level, he believes that there is a popular unarticulated belief in science as a morally perfect force, capable of providing some form of transcendence or salvation to humanity if not to the individual per se.
Whether looking at the very real improvement of the human environment through technological development; the myth of scientific transcendence/salvation found in much Science Fiction (SF) literature and cinema; or the broad cultural faith in scientific advancement, it is impossible to deny that the concept of science as a progressive force is part of western cultural identity. That this concept in some ways fills the same space religion might have in earlier times – providing frameworks of understanding and hope for the future – is also a reasonable claim. Even the notion that scientific knowledge is amoral – as evidenced in the contradictory achievements and atrocities of medical science in the form of disease-prevention and eugenics – is indisputable. That our understanding of science is tantamount to a “counterfeit ideology” with which we have replaced the genuine truth of God is not.
By holding up the popular mediums of SF literature and cinema as the most literal manifestation of Scientific Mythology in contemporary society, Herrick is able to examine some of the key myths regarding science and the potential dangers that these myths represent to both the real world and Christianity. These myths most frequently revolve around concepts of Social Darwinism and knowledge based Salvation, the former being the belief in the natural or contrived production of a genetically superior race and the latter being the belief that through the accumulation of knowledge the human being might well aspire to a higher state of consciousness. It is worth noting that these ideas are as old as civilization and are facilitated rather than produced by modern science. Belief in eugenics, racial purity and racial superiority is epitomized by, among others, the myth of Sparta, while the attainment of transcendence through knowledge lies at the very core of most religions and philosophical systems.
There is no doubt that the notion of knowledge as power is fundamental in Science Fiction. Films and literature revolving around space exploration such as the various incarnations of Star Trek films or Isaac Asimov’s epic Foundation series, seem to suggest that there is an innate human need to explore the outer reaches of space, thereby implying a notion of destiny not incompatible (although it is) with science. In films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind (USA/UK 1977), 2001: A Space Odyssey (UK/USA 1968) or Contact (USA 1977), the viewer is subjected to a similar myth of destiny. The space messiahs of these films seem to indicate that through the advancement of technology and scientific knowledge, a higher level of morality and consciousness will eventually result. This is a premise which, as Herrick points out, is very much based on wishful thinking. Apart from the fact that, as Herrick sees it, the hope for communication with an alien race is tantamount to religious faith (perhaps he does not see the irony), he sees the basic understanding of scientific knowledge in these popular works as inappropriately loaded with moral connotations. After all, some of the most rapid technological development to occur on this planet has been necessitated by war. Herrick, who seems to demand these myths should be understood as literal truths, does not acknowledge that they might best be understood as ideals rather than certitudes.
It might also be pointed out to Herrick that there are just as many books and films warning against such an excess of faith in scientific progress and its consequences. Soylent Green (USA 1973), Logan’s Run (USA 1976) and Planet of the Apes (USA 1968) are just three works that warn against the apocalyptic potential of scientific progress wielded immorally. Even the aforementioned 2001: A Space Odyssey, while providing its moment of scientific transcendence, warns of the ominous shadow of human violence that threatens all future hopes. In this era of climate change, it seems especially odd that Herrick would not have identified society’s deep mistrust of itself and the tools it utilizes. Few view science with religious conviction; although Herrick takes advantage of the fact that some do, when he points to the alien worshipping cults of Scientology and Heaven’s Gate. The fact that religious groups have developed around certain imagery and concepts found in popular SF culture is not particularly surprising. Science has allowed a much more concrete framework for the production of such religions, with pseudo-scientific claims providing a previously unattainable legitimacy for the modern cult. Creating a religion that claims to be scientifically sustainable is the result of trying to resolve the popular acceptance of modern scientific methodology with religious faith. That this points to a failure on the part of Christianity to amalgamate itself with a modern thought process unwilling to succumb to claims of the extra-scientific is true. That this is some kind of contemporary spiritual disaster is not.
Social Darwinism, which is fundamentally the belief in either the inevitable or eugenically derived improvement of the human race, has, as Herrick points out, a rather horrible history. It is also perhaps the most significant example of scientific knowledge being used to support atrocious ideologies and for him, it lurks beneath any project whose aim is the alteration of the human. He cites Nietzsche’s philosophy; its development into the genocidal tendencies of the Nazi regime; and a host of other human atrocities that occurred as a result of this allegedly progressive way of thinking. That all this occurred as the result of a morally relativist interpretation of scientific principles is undeniable. However, contrary to Herrick’s claim that this has become a core part of how we view science, humanity seems to be endlessly haunted by the shadow of previous atrocities. Films like Johnny Mnemonic (Canda/USA 1995), Existenz (Canada/UK 1999) and The Island (USA 2005), as well as books like Brave New World (Huxley, 1932) and Neuromancer (Gibson, 1984) to name but a few, all go out of their way to warn against the potential for science to blindly cross the boundaries of morality. However, Herrick claims that the problem lies in the fact that Social Darwinism contradicts the innate fallibility of man proposed by god, with the improvement of the human only possible at the spiritual rather than genetic level. In other words, this is a continuation of the aforementioned “counterfeit ideology” of science. That science can improve man, according to Herrick, is a fallacy. Man, as the result of Adam’s fall, is charged perpetually with the task of working towards God for forgiveness. Science’s promises are a distraction from the more immediate task.
It seems that at an academic level, as Herrick systematically pulls Scientific Mythology apart, revealing that its core machinations are religious and aimed at fulfilling many of the same human needs as any other religion, he might have been wise to consider whether or not this is evidence of a consistent cultural process rather than a new counterfeit system. In other words, Herrick’s new Scientific Mythology might be made of exactly the same stuff as Christianity but with the addition of dependence on provable hypotheses (or at least not disprovable). At no point does Herrick think to provide any argument as to why his own ideology, which is based around absolute faith in either the literal or metaphorical truths of its myths, should be seen to provide anything closer to transcendence or salvation than science. The reason of course, is that Herrick is only interested in preaching to the converted. No doubt they are convinced.
James Curnow,
Monash University, Australia
Created on: Saturday, 14 March 2009