Books by Crichton and Whitman Are Both Shards of the Science/ Religion/ Politics Battle
Published February 13, 2005
Modern science--with its empirical evidence, evolving arguments, and careful studies--has all mythic/supernatural religions beat, hands down, in most of those categories. It tells a damn good story, it changes like a chameleon every time an aspect of it is proved false, it attempts to explain everything that's asked of it, it grows and develops with time instead of depending on winged creatures and men walking on water in far off times and lands, and it tells a more believable and immediately useful tale than anything found in the tomes of old. And every religious person and institution knows in its secret heart that if science (or a competing religion) makes more sense and is more provable than itself, then eventually the moral support system being propped up by the religion will fail and people will be momentarily devastated and the institution will loose its power and go broke.
So every religion has to fight for its survival, even if it means mocking all of its competitors senseless, and chief among modern religious competitors is--don't doubt it for a second--science. Regrettably, science fails in the key category of offering individuals a warm-and-fuzzy alternative path to redemption, which is why religion keeps crying checkmate and trumping the fearsome intelligentsia. Religion provides humanity with a purpose, salvation, and a moral structure; science is more existential, and simply reports the facts and makes careful conjectures, without offering immediate hope for heaven and the afterlife. (God is your daddy; science is your well-read uncle. The problem is, dad hasn't actually visited in at least 2,000 years, and your uncle is paying all the bills.)
The environment might not be as hot a topic as, say, evolution, and most Christians have managed to rationalize large chunks of modern science--especially in the realm of medicine (other than Christian Scientists)--but at a time when the right-wing political ideologues have scooped up the Christian vote thanks to moral issues, it's to be expected that right-wing crusades will likewise gain precedence in Christian thinking. So suddenly we're reminded that God made the Earth, and therefore the left-wingers in America must be crazy for wanting to do God's job of protecting the Earth. This has nothing to do with multinational corporations trying to save millions by not having to properly manage waste, no. It's a religious issue!
By the end of his article, Nicoll does come around by saying, "Unarguably we must be world stewards whose actions are responsible and sympathetic to the environment." But he does so grudgingly. It's not because of science, he's saying, that we should protect the environment, but instead "because the cosmos and everything in it is a product of divine intention" (i.e., God probably doesn't like toxic waste, either, but let's not get worked up about it, because he hates gays more).
- Books by Crichton and Whitman Are Both Shards of the Science/ Religion/ Politics Battle
- Published: February 13, 2005
- Type:
- Section: Sci/Tech
- Filed Under: Books: Nonfiction, Books: Politics and Affairs, Books: Thriller, Culture: Media, Sci/Tech: Science, Politics: Law and Rights
- Writer: Lucas Brachish
- Lucas Brachish's BC Writer page
- Lucas Brachish's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Good post! Having read Crichton's latest opus, I'll offer a few comments on the thesis his book advances...
First, I'm unsure about the description of Crichton as a storyteller because as a thriller State of Fear is less than...well, less then almost every other thriller on the market today. It does not deserve to be hitting the best-seller lists. It is episodic, lacking a compelling plot, with an uneven set of protagonists and a tendency to drop into pages of preachy dialogue and situations designed to lecture the reader on the evils of the environmental movement and global warming in general. It makes for a tiresome read...constantly setting up 'straw men" then knocking them down. Several characters seem to exist for the sole purpose of asking stupid questions and then being "edjercated" by the author. The book is enough of a skreed to make me overtly conscious that Crichton may have his own political axe to grind (most notably when a thinly disguised Martin-Sheen actor character meets a horrificly nasty fate).
Crichton also has a strong tech-run-amuck theme that echoes through most of his work. Generally he notes that the human qualities - falliability, pride, power etc. - tend to lead to grandiose attempts to manage nature through science (that's how you get all those damn dinosaurs all over the freakin' place. hell, i can't walk through my kitchen without tripping on one of these compys...) and that science routinely overestimates their understanding of the issues...good points all, but just not very well written.
Crichton does advance the arguable case that the science behind global warming etc. is at times questionable and that both the pro and anti-global warming camps are heavily politicized in their approaches.
My personal view is that as all of recorded human history essentially falls into an interglacial period, we probably don't have a strong enough picture of long-term climate change patterns to make a strong conclusion whether global warming is due or exacerbated by human activities... but it might be best in the interests of prudence to keep a very open mind. It is a small planet after all...




That's a very link-rich review, Lucas! It's certainly true that science tells a more believable and immediately useful tale than myth or religion. But I don't agree that it is replacing religion, nor even that it should. Science and religion are separate and distinct ways of approaching the unknown.
Science says "maybe this, then test this, then probably this, then almost certainly this [until something that explains reality better comes along]."
Religion says "this, now and evermore, despite all evidence to the contrary, because I believe."