.jpg)
Why are almost all "educational" TV shows about the universe about ways it can kill us? Why all this emphasis on how it can crush us or incinerate us or vaporize us or freeze us or starve us or...?
Some recent autobiography: I watched about an hour's worth of the History Channel's "The Universe" last night, and what I saw was a bunch of university professors talking about how black holes or some other cosmic-something-or-rather could easily destroy life on earth if thus and so astronomical event were to take place in close enough proximity to our planet. Then this morning, out of curiosity, I turned on the History Channel again and discovered "Mega Disasters," a program chiefly concerned with informing viewers that ridiculously violent, volcanic activity - at some time or other, perhaps soon - will snuff out all or most of the human race. "It is not a matter of if but when," says the narrator.
This is a curious emphasis, don't you think? I suppose people have always been interested in death and disaster, but still, how could the producers of a high-budget television program and some of the brightest scientific minds look out on the universe and find most salient its power to destroy us? This strikes me as pathological.
Then again, perhaps it is just a natural consequence of the naturalistic point of view.
How often have you heard statements like this: "From time immemorial, sages, mystics, philosophers, priests et al have speculated about the end of the world, but now - for the first time - we know how the world will end...'not with a bang but a whimper.'" (Or, as an alternative to taking Eliot out of context, maybe this time they tickle our ears with a bastardized Shakespearean quip.) Following this confident assertion, the narrator takes us on an historical tour of the Cosmos, from the Big Bang all the way to the future "heat death" of the universe. This sequence of events is presented as inevitible and bleak. No light. No heat. No life. Nothing but cold, dead matter and empty space.
(Now if that is the truth about the world, then so be it. But has the issue of its truth been settled? Clearly it hasn't. Christians believe that God will make a new heavens and a new Earth, one invulnerable to decay - full of light and life. What in the history of philosphy or science refutes the Christian vision? Nothing that I can see. Yet, it is treated as if it were refuted or at least irrelevant to the realm of facts. But this isn't really the point of this blog; so I'll leave it for another time.)
I wonder (I don't know) whether fixation on the various powers of the universe to kill us is not in large part the result of widespread, naturalistic (atheistic) presumptions about the world and our place in it.
9 comments:
Finally(:
I think I was watching a part of "The Universe" actually! We all know why we're making up (or emphasizing) the death of the world... it's because we need more action and thrill in our lives! Or maybe it is because we are scared of the future and need to come up with a reason to make us feel comfortable. But should that reason be that everything will end in fire or ice? I don't know.
I guess we assume the world will end because everything we know (as of now) has been perishable over time, so why shouldn't the world die? Vanitas! Everything is ephemeral! (I like that word.)
... So far atleast? (:
I think the connection from naturalism (or atheism) to this type of fetish pessimism is more of a giant leap than an easy step.
In fact, it could easily be argued that the naturalist/atheist will have significantly less regard for the potential ruin of the Earth than a Christian will. After all, from the naturalist perspective, that event, whether it's a bang or a whimper, is completely meaningless in that nothing comes after it. It ceases to matter almost as soon as its begun. Those with faith in some everlasting reality are the only people who ought to have any real concern for the end of this world--they're the only people who believe it will have any effect on them.
Further to the point, most religious beliefs systems are concerned primarily with what comes after this life and after being "freed" from this physical world, whereas atheists resign themselves to the fact that they have one very short opportunity to make an impact on the only world in which humanity will ever exist.
So I think it's more likely that any fixation on the end of the earth stems from the Christian preoccupation with the end of physical life, and much less likely from any supposedly widespread atheistic sentiments.
Also, I really enjoy reading your blog :)
Amanda,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment! It's good to have the perspective of the "other side." :)
Let me first clarify: that last bit I wrote about the connection between naturalism and popular fixation on universal destruction wasn't really mean to be an easy step or a giant leap; it was less of an inference than it was a speculation--of course a lot of intellectual grunt work would need to be done before such a claim could be well justified. But still I think there might be something to it. If there isn't, that's fine with me. I don't have much of a dog in the fight. But the reason I see what could be a connection naturalism and these shows about death and destruction is that they (for the most part) share common naturalistic philosophical assumptions, chief among them the causal closure of the physical--that is, the idea that only physical things can act on physical things and that any outside/non-physical interaction with the physical is either impossible or at least so wildly improbable as to be negligible. The makers of these shows take for granted that the universe is going to do what the universe is going to do and that no outside force would or could do anything about it. That's a naturalistic assumption, is it not?
On the other hand, I think you are on to something when you say that this fixation on death and "the end" might very well have its roots in religion. Now I must say that I don't agree with your statement: "most religious beliefs systems are concerned primarily with what comes after this life and after being 'freed' from this physical world." This might be true of some strands of modern American Christianity, but it is not true of Christianity as a whole. In fact, one of the most notorious Christian heresies is Gnosticism--which includes the belief that matter is evil and that the goal of life is to escape the physical. Orthodox Christians believe that the physical world was created "very good" (Gen 1:31), and that our eternal future is a physical one. Moreover, it is clear from history that Christians have been active in working for positive social change in the world (e.g. women's rights, abolition of slavery, hospitals, universities, etc.). Also, it is no accident that science as we know it was born and grew up in Christian Europe (read Stanley Yaki on this). In other words, Christianity, though it has a robust vision and hope for the afterlife, is not at all dismissive of the here and now. C.S. Lewis sums this up nicely when he says, "If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this."
...which leads me to my next point: it's certainly true that some strains of American religion are obsessed with the "End Times," etc. Maybe (again I don't know) that has influenced the TV folks to focus on the various apocalyptic possibilities inherent in the universe. I could see that being the case. I just don't know.
But one thing is clear: the destruction of the world is a boon to ratings. It must be; otherwise, the History Channel (et al) would stop spending tons of money to produce shows about it. And I reckon money is the bottom line for most of these big time TV producers. But it still seems strange to me, the fusion of naturalistic presuppositions about the way the world works and apocalyptic scenarios. Perhaps, these shows work as secular surrogates for religiously informed apocalyptic obsessions? And maybe the core reason for the fixation on the end of the world is found more in the cultural heart of America than it is in either secularism or Christianity simpliciter? I guess some cross-cultural studies are in order here... :)
(Amanda continued)
Again, I want to emphasize that my speculations about the roots of this obsession with destruction are just that: speculations. I don't claim to know what's going on here. I'm just trying to make sense of the phenomenon with the limited evidence I've got.
One more thing I'm just curious about - you say, "atheists resign themselves to the fact that they have one very short opportunity to make an impact on the only world in which humanity will ever exist." I hear this sort of thing a lot, and I guess I can see where you're coming from. But why should an atheist give a hoot about what happens to this world at all? Why bother "shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic," as they say. The ship's sinking; forget about it. I don't get it. I don't understand where the motivation to "make an impact" comes from, on an atheistic view.
Kat,
I agree that we modern folks tend to feel the need for more thrills and chills...and automobills! But why do we look to cold death for our thrills?
I agree with you. "Ephemeral" is such a great word! Good call. And your point about everything being perishable is a good one, and it also accords with the well-attested Law of Entropy--which says something like all things in the universe are winding down, moving from order to disorder or active energy to stasis...like a hot cup of coffee slowly moving from hot to room temperature, but on a universal scale! And here's a simple but profound question: what explains the universe's initial wound-up-ness? What or Who provided that initial blast(s) of energy that we observe slowly winding down?
The supposition that matter is all we've got is naturalistic by definition. And the supposition that entropy is going to take it's course and nothing is going to stop it is, I think, made in the absence of any proof to the contrary. These shows are, I assume, meant to be based on scientific fact and theories, which don't give much weight to anything that isn't tangible. So the question of whether or not there are other things at play just isn't relevant to the issue in the context of these shows.
But the issue of why these shows are so popular is where I wasn't convinced that what you were speculating was correct, regarding atheism.
I certainly never meant to imply, either, that Christians are lazy citizens. Of course Christians have done wonderful things for the world. But I have a hunch that if we were to go back even half a century that almost all of the talk of the end of the world that was going on was in a religious context, and not necessarily all Christian. Now I'm just speculating, of course, but I think the idea of it definitely started within religious teachings. Of course, maybe we atheists took it and ran with it and made it all doom and gloom, and television-worthy.
As for your last question - I can't speak for all atheists, and definitely wouldn't want to. Those of us that aren't just embittered former Christians, or people using existentialism as an excuse to do whatever we want, aren't the hopeless, negative, uncaring ingrates that a lot of people (not necessarily you) think we are. The ship may be sinking. Call me crazy, I have some stupid hope that maybe it's not... but at any rate, it's sinking pretty slowly, and a lot of people on this planet have a lot of years still to put in. And however short-lived and meaningless pain may be, and however fleeting and useless joy is, they're both real. So if I can do something to make the rest of the people living and dying on a sinking ship, or at least a few of them, experience less pain and more joy, then I kind of think I should.
Amanda,
Thanks for another really helpful comment.
I definitely don't mean to suggest that all or really any atheists are ingrates or in some other way morally sub par. I know and have known really wonderful, generous and loving people who didn't believe in God. And, from what Bobby says about you, I believe you are one such person.
As to positive Christian social action, I only mention it to reinforce the fact that historically Christians have not been "so heavenly minded as to be no earthly good." In other words, such social and cultural activity demonstrates that (on the whole) Christians are not (or at least have not been) escapist - escapism being the attitude of one who inordinately yearns for the afterlife and to be freed of bodily existence.
Also, I want to make clear that I think "the End of the World" is a highly interesting and worthy subject of thought and inquiry. People should spend time thinking and talking about this topic. My concern, again, is with the fixation, not necessarily the topic itself. In a similar way, I would worry about a Christian who neglected to reflect on God's mercy and care for the world and only thought about the justice and wrath of God. (I assume you already knew that, but for the sake of clarity, I felt I should clear it up).
More in next comment... :)
I want to comment on a couple more things you said.
First, you say,
"And the supposition that entropy is going to take it's course and nothing is going to stop it is, I think, made in the absence of any proof to the contrary."
I agree, but it is noteworthy that neither is there proof to the contrary of the contrary! It is entirely possible (though perhaps not probable) that entropy will stop tomorrow. We have no proof one way or the other...especially in the long run. There are plenty of possible worlds in which things go absolutely physically haywire in 2011. I don't know of any way to prove that we don't live in one of those worlds. Of course, I don't believe that we do, but it's hard to say why I'm so confident of that. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that these shows operate under methodological naturalism - the method of theorizing that assumes naturalism is true and makes predictions based on that assumption.
Moreover, I think that science is always making claims about things that are not tangible. The theory of gravity, for example, is all about this thing - gravity - that cannot be seen, tasted, touched, smelled, heard. All we see is its effects, if in fact it exists (which I assume it does). The same with quarks, magnetic fields, and all manner of speculation in quantum physics. But, more to the point, the future is intangible, and yet scientists make predictions about the future all the time.
In short, what I'm saying is that these shows tacitly assume methodological naturalism and that science is all up in intangible business whether they include the possibility of God or not.
I think intangible was a poor word choice. What I should have said was that science concerns itself with the quantifiable. Gravity, and magnetism are both quantifiable. Neither God nor the direct effects of His existence are quantifiable, and that makes them irrelevant to science and any predictions made based on science.
I do understand what you're saying, though, that if what is basically conjecture with a scientific spin make it to the television shows, why shouldn't religious conjecture get it's due consideration, too? So I think an interesting question would be what has occurred sociologically to change Western society from one where religion was integrated with every facet of life to one where any reference to it as even possible fact is labelled total bunk? I think that's what led to anything that is meant to be scientific, which doesn't actually deny the possibility of God, but only ignores it, seeming naturalistic. It's just that if you mixed in any God talk, the general public would view the entire broadcast as religious propaganda, and any scientific theorist discussing God as a nutjob. We're just conditioned that way. So if the shows are going to seem credible, best to leave God out.
Anyway, as far as the fixation - I agree with you 100% that it's useless and probably unhealthy. And I concede that I have no idea what started it, but maintain that I don't think it could be as simple as naturalism and atheism becoming more prevalent.
And thanks for your responses to my comments. I was pretty sure you'd think I was some kind of troll here to, uh... what's the opposite of Bible bashing... you know, where I try to force you to believe there's no God? I thought you'd think I was doing that, and I definitely wasn't. Thanks for the food for thought.
Post a Comment