The Crisis — Part 2 (of 2)

Last updated on: February 4, 2009 at 9:52 am by Henry Karlson

The Crisis — Part 2 (of 2) 2009-02-04T09:52:04-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Part 1

“Modern science, having progressively become techno-science – the product of the fatal confusion between the operational instrument and exploratory research – has slipped its philosophical moorings and lost its way, without anyone taking umbrage at this, except for a few ecological and religious leaders.”[1] In one sentence, Virilio points out an important fact: ecological and religious leaders are among the few who criticize a modernistic scientific enterprise based entirely upon the pursuit of knowledge without any moral restraint. They rightfully question the ethical behavior behind our research practices, as well as the implications of our research if they are put to use.[2] Ecologists and Christian pro-life activists have much in common. They are both often considered fanatical, and anti-progressive, because of the questions they ask about our society. Both find their concerns too hastily dismissed, which then encourages them to act up in desperation, beyond all prudence. Is it any surprise that such actions solidify the negative image given to them by the media, when they act according to their emotions, without thinking of the best way to handle the situation?[3] They often have to deal with the same root questions, the same moral difficulties brought about by our current, empirical-materialist worship of the science. Sadly, they rarely understand this. Far too few of them work together, which is what is necessary if we want to restore proper ethical debate as a prerequisite for any scientific research.[4]

Indeed, instead of working together, members of such rival activist traditions often clash, one with another, because the demands of one group often infringes upon the personal desires of the people involved with the other. Issue-based activism which does not recognize the self-sacrifice we must engage if we want to improve the world will never suffice; selfishness is one of the root causes which ecologists and pro-lifers both have to fight against, especially when it is their own. The consequences of ecological disasters should be reason enough for pro-lifers to work with ecologists; instead, they show the root selfishness of the individuals involved, because they try to find any and all excuses to keep the status quo instead of investing for the future and realizing the status quo cannot be kept indefinitely without earth-shattering consequences. It would appear that a pro-lifer who fails to acknowledge their debt to the earth and the need they have to keep it and preserve it is being idolatrous, for their concern is to themselves first, and they show this self-worship by the words the speak. They are only willing to do only that which does not greatly interfere with their own livelihood. But the same is true with ecologists who oppose pro-lifers. They find being pro-life would require sacrifices they do not want to make, and so, the worship is not of the earth (as is often claimed) but the self; the reason why they are concerned about the fate of the earth is the negative consequences its destruction would have on their own wellbeing.

Interestingly enough, even though they should know better, because of the demonization they often face from the media, activists often fall for the media bias and criticism given to other groups without thinking the criticism through and finding out its logical failure. How often do we find pro-lifers, who are called “religious radicals,” use such a label for those concerned about ecology, even going so far as to say ecologists “worship the earth?” Pro-lifers, as Pope John Paul II has pointed out, should be every bit as concerned about the fate of the earth and what is going on upon it as ecologists are (if not more so, because of the status they give to human life). But the same should give ecologists pause. What is it that makes the pro-lifer “radical”? What is it that unites the two? It is because both are going against the grain.

Clearly, the world we live in is filled with all kinds of problems. Each age has different ones to deal with, and humanity, with its brilliance, often finds some sort of solution to them, but, to be sure, so many of our solutions end up creating new, and more difficult problems to solve. This is because we don’t always solve the problem, but we either hide it from view or to displace it, letting others suffer the consequences of the problem. But this just makes the problem worse, and indeed, given time, it could break the system which we have established open and leave us more confused than ever before. This is, in part, because of our methodology. We want the fastest and easiest to execute solution we can find. This means we do not give ourselves enough time to actually look at the problem to see if a proposed solution truly is what it claims to be. Indeed, we tend to confuse the symptom of a problem to be the problem itself, and work to deal with the symptom while letting the root problem thrive and grow in power. It will not be long before the problem will re-emerge, surprising us not only with how strong it has become, but how terrible its new symptoms are.

When we bring our discussion back to the empirical sciences, we can see what is really going on. Science often appears to offer us an easy way out to a given problem. But we don’t test it properly. Nor do we question what science offers us if it appears it will be effective. Utility is the only question people tend to ask. What will it do for me? Not, of course, the deeper, more in-depth questions which need to be asked before the question of utility comes up. The speed by which we achieve some sort of solution to a problem is all that is needed to justify the endeavor. What a dangerous way to look at things! And because moral laxity often allows for research to be done quicker, is it any surprise ethics are removed from technological discussions? Anyone who cares about such things must be anti-progressive and want people to suffer (when, in all likelihood, it is the scientist who rejects ethical standards who is the one who doesn’t care about human suffering). Because of the speed by which our discoveries are now being made, we do not even have the time to examine them, inspect them, and discern their strengths and weaknesses, before they are released upon the unsuspecting public. And it is grave weaknesses, which should have prevented such release in the first place, which tend to create new, greater problems, and we find, sooner than later, it is too late, and we are suffering greater than ever before. For this reason alone, it is better for us to slow down, and properly research the problem, and all the ethical questions involved with it, and all the possible, foreseeable difficulties which might arise from a given solution, before engaging any technological advancement.

What Ellul suggests about social problems and proposed solutions to them proves true here as well: “We find ourselves thus in the presence of a large number of solutions, but these do not respond to any problem posed – or more precisely, the problem is posed well enough in reality, in the practical life, but it is not formulated, it is not intellectually, analytically conceived.”[5] Ellul points out how one proposed solution, which might at first appear simple, are actually more complex than we first believed, because no social action is independent of other influences; ultimately, we could end up leveling of society because we did not consider the potential ramifications of a single, apparently minor, change we bring to it. Similarly, what happens with the sciences and our technological progress is the same. We might put out a new product which, because of the interdependent nature of the world, would end up destroying the world around it. We must not end up like Icarus, who, attaining great heights with his wings, felt a real sense of freedom, before falling back down and crashing to his own destruction. Will we stop ascending the heights and deal with the problem around us, or will we keep on climbing up, up, and up, never looking back until it is too late?

The words of Neo at the end of The Matrix should not be seen as addressing some possible future which we might end up living under. It should be seen as addressing the current situation which we find ourselves in. We might not be hooked up to computers, living in artificial reality, but we do not have to be: the world around is – it is already an artificial reality, created by our ingenuity. We have constructed it even as we have hid this fact from ourselves. And this artificial world has already gained control of our lives, and we live within it as if it were natural; the real has been devastated and bulldozed away, where, in its wake, we find we live in a kind of Disney Land, although, as Baudrillard points out, we try to hide this fact from ourselves. “Disneyland: a space of the regeneration of the imaginary as waste-treatment plants are elsewhere, and even here. Everywhere today one must recycle waste, and the dreams, the phantasms, the historical, fairylike, legendary imaginary of children and adults is a waste product, the first great toxic excrement of a hyperreal civilization.”[6] We must dismantle the boundaries of this imaginary land, this construct which hides from ourselves the true revolting nature of the modern world, before it is too late. The boundaries established for us by modernism and its empirical sciences must be overcome and deconstructed, as post-modernists proclaim, so as to open us up to start anew, with less grand designs, less Promethean desires. There is still time. That is the challenge of Neo to us. It’s not merely a challenge for others, but it is for us all, because we all, together, have created and control the unreal, hyperreal social structures which surround us today. It is time to begin again, to begin anew, to be, born again, as it were (without, of course, expecting utopia to result from such a change):

The way we work, the salaries we earn, the houses we construct, the cars we drive, the money we spend, the luxuries we enjoy, the goods we consume, the resources we waste, even the channels we decide to watch or ignore on television – all of these, we now know, impact directly on our neighbors within our own society, in our neighborhood, and more broadly, in our world. Our way of living, we now know, either enhances or endangers the earth’s inhabitants as well as all future generations. Perhaps this is the unique responsibility and historical privilege that we share as human beings in the twenty-first century. Are we prepared to assume this responsibility and accept this challenge?[7]

Patriarch Bartholomew has it right when he calls for Christians to work for this change. We live in a world where it is still possible. But that future is up to us. Indifference must be dealt with, especially our indifference to the ethical questions involved with the modern world and all that has brought it about. Even if, in the past, people could remain indifferent, because the implications of these advances did not affect them, the time is soon be near when no one will be left unaffected by the harm we have caused the earth because of our Promethean designs; and by that time, it might be too late for us to fix it. That will be the time of Antichrist, and it will be the Antichrist which we have made, a messiah as artificial as the world of our own creation.

Footnotes

[1] Paul Virilio, The Information Bomb. Trans. Chris Turner (New York: Verso, 2005), 1. Interestingly enough, in a footnote to this point, Virilio mentions the religious leader he thought best represented this trend: Pope John Paul II. “Pope John Paul II was criticizing the militarization of science and its culture of death as early as the late 1980s.” ibid.
[2] Of course, there are others, such as animal rights activists, who should also be included here.
[3] One just needs to consider the reaction the general public has to either Greenpeace activists out at sea or pro-lifers at an abortion clinic to realize how activists’ actions, even if justified and needed at specific occasions, might not be the best action for every situation. It’s when they act imprudently that they are most remembered, causing an embarrassment to the cause itself. Wisdom looks ahead and tries to find a way to correct the root problem; sadly, irrational actions of activists often increase the tension and end up worsening the situation, preventing the dialogue needed to correct societal wrongs.
[4] It is, of course, important to note that Pope John Paul II saw the necessary connection between ecology and the pro-life movement. In a homily he gave in Brazil, he made many relevant points, which demonstrate the interconnected nature between the ecological and the pro-life cause. “The other great problem affecting society today is the environmental question, the problem of ecology. We all know the causes of this problem. On the occasion of the recent publication of the Encyclical Centesimus annus, the topic was treated to emphasize that ‘in his desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, man consumes the resources of the earth and his own life in an excessive and disordered way.'” Moreover, he said, “When one enters into contact with environmental problems, whether in the Amazon basin or the lowlands of Mato Grosso, these observations are confirmed; unfortunately, they do not affect Brazil alone, but also other regions of the planet, even in the industrialized nations.” And finally, connecting this together, with what he saw in Brazil itself, and how it reflects the situation in the rest of the world, he said, “For Brazil, environmental protection is most of all the right to protection of life. If we take into consideration the enormous problems of the infrastructure of the large urban centres, we will have an idea of the challenges which will face the country in this closing century,” Pope John Paul II, Homily at Mass in Cuiabá, Oct. 16, 1991.
[5] Jacques Ellul, “Needed: A New Karl Marx!” pgs. 31 – 45 in Sources & Trajectories. Trans. Marva J. Dawn (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company. 1997), 37.
[6] Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation. Trans. Sheila Faria Glaser (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1994), 13.
[7] Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 156.

Consequentialism

Henry Karlson

Science

Previous Post

February 3, 2009

Michael Dubruiel Passes

Next Post

February 4, 2009 Chicago Cathedral Catches Fire

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was Jesus' legal father?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Matthat Heli Joseph Jacob