(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

Swinging at Beams from an Orb While Blindfolded
05/14/2003

Glenn Reynolds believes that "science fiction compete[s] with religion as a source of moral guidance in the public sphere," partly as an expression of the "religion of science." Actually, let me give you that whole paragraph:

Does science fiction compete with religion as a source of moral guidance in the public sphere? The answer, I think, would have to be "yes." There may be numerous reasons for that. One is, as Isaac Asimov once put it, that "it is the chief characteristic of the religion of science, that it works." Both religion and science have been promising a better future for centuries now. Science, however, has delivered on its promises in a way that's hard to miss, while religion promises its benefits in a hereafter from which no one returns. That is bound to make science fiction - which promises a better, or at least more glamorous, science-based future - a plausible competitor for religion.

My overall impression is that Mr. Reynolds threw a bunch of related HUGE topics into a short column and came to a conclusion that misses the underlying point that relates them. Part of the problem lies in the way he phrases the issues. Looking more closely at the paragraph above:

Does science fiction compete with religion as a source of moral guidance in the public sphere? The answer, I think, would have to be "yes."

Well, which connotation of religion are we talking about? Religion writ large — as in, a collection of organized spiritual institutions — or specific religions and their individual ceremonies? He must mean the latter, because the following paragraph addresses the trappings — costumes, music, settings — of religion versus science fiction. More importantly, his reference to "Jediism" points to a spiritual subtext of a science-fiction — indeed, within the fiction, the science is shown as no match for, albeit perhaps an augmenter of, that religion. But if he means to say no more than that people are receiving the message to "be good to each other" through Sunday matinees rather than Sunday mass, then this makes no sense:

... as Isaac Asimov once put it, that "it is the chief characteristic of the religion of science, that it works." Both religion and science have been promising a better future for centuries now.

This is clearly the broader definition of "religion." Here, Reynolds is placing the idea of religion against the idea of science. But the two are not directly comparable, just as "meaning" and "process" are not directly comparable. In the following, it is only the phrasing that makes such comparison possible:

Both religion and science have been promising a better future for centuries now. Science, however, has delivered on its promises in a way that's hard to miss, while religion promises its benefits in a hereafter from which no one returns.

Even within that specific phrasing, somehow we slide from "a better future," suggesting specific claims, to generic, but too-limited, "benefits." This may be the central flaw in such certainly common thinking: it sees "benefits" as synonymous with "a better future." Only through mistaking where science and religion are inherently different endeavors of society is this possible. How many people throughout history have led happier, more fulfilled lives owing to religion — in the right now — with or without any given scientific innovation? On a larger scale, to what extent has religion fostered the morality and perpetuated the cohesion to enable scientific progress?

According to Reynolds, among the "advantages" of a society in which "science-fiction films provide a competitive source of morality" is that "they tend, for fairly obvious plot reasons, to focus on individuals, and an increased focus on the needs and desires of individuals is almost inevitably pro-freedom and anti-tyranny." I'd suggest that this is less a function of the science than of the storytelling, a means of conveyance that religion has used from its very beginnings. As the message to be conveyed, however, extreme deification of the individual is arguably among the most corroding aspects of modern life. More importantly, I'd assert that, in the real world of real science, religion has played a crucial role in maintaining the sanctity of the individual. Science, as a way of thinking, would have no problem with eugenics, for example.

Digging down into what seem to be the ideas behind Reynolds's piece, I'm left wondering what he's placing in opposition to religion and its expression through individual religions. Does he see science as the broader concept conveyed through individual science-fictions? The emphasis on the non-science message of science-fiction would seem to belie such a construction. Frankly, I think he's using rhetorical Force to reach for a conclusion that is not there.

On balance, I think we come out ahead on this deal. That Hollywood possesses no moral authority on its own means that people will not take its messages on faith. That movies have to sell means that they're unlikely to become too preachy. (As Sam Goldwyn famously advised, if you want to send a message, you're better off using Western Union than a film).

Either way, we're stuck with them. So my advice to you, if you're filmmaker or want to be one, is to bear in mind that the messages you build into your films may stick with the audiences long after the final credits roll. Try to use that power for good and not, as Obi Wan would say, for Ee-vill.

I'm not sure how it is a good thing that "a competitive source of morality" has "no moral authority." I also wonder why it is that filmmakers must be cognizant of their power to influence if one of the benefits of movie morality is that "people will not take its message on faith." In the end, it comes down to a familiar construction — "we don't need religion; we've got science" — with a new addendum: "and special effects, too." And, as is perennially true of the argument, it uses flashes and gadgetry to avoid explaining how it is that science can explain what is good... other than more, less-impeded science.

After all, when the viewing audience first met Obi Wan, we was wandering the desert with an out-dated weapon. The locus of Ee-vill, on the other hand, was mainly housed in a high-tech, manmade planet with a really big laser that was custom-made for genocide.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 11:42 AM EST