John Carroll's book ‘Humanism’is an attempt to bury the ghosts of the past; a recognition of the failure of Humanism to ultimately provide the answer to the human condition.

While he does not call for a return to the dark ages, he seriously questions the so-called advances of existentialist man. It is a book that will anger its readers as much as inspire them, and yet, it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the continuing battle between science and faith. It is a battle that is being fought out as our genetic scientists manipulate complex DNA structures and NASA sends unmanned ships to Mars. Everywhere we look, gigantic and wondrous advances are taking place. Where is religious faith amongst the technological advances of the late 20^th century? Is it keeping pace with its offspring, 'scientific reasoning?' For much of the past few hundred years, religious faith has lagged further and further behind its errant child, preferring to nod disapprovingly whenever the borders of morality were crossed.

Mary Shelley's portrayal of a scientist who sought to abolish the spectre of death and create life afresh however, was an outpouring of the grief she felt over the death of her first child. An extract from her journal a year before she began writing Frankenstein reads:

With this heartfelt cry in mind, we surmise that Mary saw in the scientist Frankenstein, a chance to resurrect the dead and with the romantic philosophies of Percy and Rousseau she saw a new age dawning. Such thinkers as Hartley and Locke also influenced her and in 1816, she had already read Rousseau’s ‘Émile’where he had stated:

The Romantic era saw a proliferation of artists, poets and novelists who saw the death of the old ways and sought to give birth to a new mythology. Their grandiose dreams are satiricised in Frankenstein. Here we have man assuming the role of Creator and God, only to find his creation so hideous that he runs in terror from it.

Shelley’s title ‘The Modern Prometheus, is a deliberate play on words when it comes to Romanticism and the spirit of discovery. The world of Mary Shelley was a frightening place in many respects. The Industrial Revolution was in full flight and rather than liberate man, it had enslaved him. It emptied the villages and countryside and filled the cities with restless hungry souls. Science was god of all it saw in Shelley's England; it was the great liberator - a modern day Prometheus. If not for science man was doomed, for God was no longer the benevolent being he had once been. The Renaissance had effectively rolled the ceremonial stone over the tomb of the risen Christ with Holbien's painting, ‘Christ Entombed.’

In the 1831 printing of Frankenstein Mary writes the immortal words in the introduction.

We have a picture here of a man who has gone to the limits of morality. He has created a life that is outwardly human in its form, but so hideous as to cause him to take fright and flee his creation. Victor Frankenstein is not a demented monster who wants to wreak revenge on the world; he is not an enemy of mankind but its benefactor. He sees death in his child - like innocence and desires only to save his fellowman the pain of death. The passing of his mother is the catalyst that sets him on his downward path to a hell of his own making. His creation destroys everyone whom he loves and cherishes. All that he has held dear is gone and still the monster cries out for understanding, for love and for guidance. It does not destroy him, rather it comes to him as a child seeking warmth and comfort, only to be turned away by its maker.

Victor had stepped away from the throne of grace and entered a twilight world absent of a Saviour. He had toppled God from his heaven, usurped his position as the giver of life, and now stood with the awful ramifications of his rash decision. ‘A new species would bless me as its creator and source.’ Frankenstein desired only to bring light to mankind but in so doing, he had assumed the role of creator, and now he must judge his creation. His moral fiber of course was not up to the task; for he was not able to look beyond the ugliness of his creation to see as God sees, he was not able to see the heart of his creation. Only God judges the heart of man. Frankenstein saw only the hideous results of a disastrous and macabre scientific experiment. His scientific faith lacked the one vital ingredient that is necessary to the sustaining of life; he had no supreme ethical base into which he could sink his foundations. Many years later C.S Lewis would sum up the pursuit of science as he saw it.

Shelley was not the only one who saw the dangers of unrestrained scientific advances. Aldous Huxley writing ‘Brave New World’ in the thirties, warned of a world to come where mankind would be ruled by technology. In Huxley’s novel, he majors on genetic engineering and although written before genetic manipulation had become a feasible and commercial reality, his book is startlingly close to the truth. Science is the new god of our age.

In Brave New World however, Huxley did create an ethical base into which mankind could take root. An ongoing dynasty of oligarchies that over the course of a few hundred years, had succeeded in 'breeding out' the ‘immorality’ in man. Through a process of genetic manipulation ‘eugenics’, the unstable elements of human nature had been effectively eliminated. People obeyed the dictates of the central governments not through fear of the firing squad or the gas chamber, but because they wanted to render obedience. Here at last was all that Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll had worked for, the perfect moral human being. An individual who obeyed the rules of civilised society without being forced or cajoled.

Huxley's utopia was far from perfect. Had it been perfect Bernard would never have found the Savage attractive. There was an unconscious yearning within the spirit of humanity. In Huxley's world there was no notion of sorrow, pain, want, yearning or hope, all these ‘undesirable’ concepts had been eliminated from the DNA structure on humanity- or had they?

There are numerous examples in the text that this was not the case, for without the soothing effects of ‘Soma,’ rebellion and civil unrest lay just below the surface of the human psyche. With nothing to strive for, no new frontiers to cross, man was more forlorn and helpless than ever he had been under the strictest religious regimes and dogmas. The controller for Western Europe; Mustapha Mond, had his own memories of the dangers of free thought when it came to science.

There is a linking between art and science in Brave New World, as in Frankenstein. The twin worlds of the heart and the mind are identified as stemming from the same source; the restless spirit of man. Bernard and Hermholtz are both imbued with a questing spirit, and as dysfunctional members of society are sentenced to islands amongst other 'rebels.' They were both horrified of course, that Mustapha referred to the dangers of scientific exploration. Hermholtz willingly accepts his exile to the Falklands Islands thinking that its bleak environment will enhance his creativity.

John Carrol in the closing paragraph of his book almost seems to sum up all that is inherent in this text.

He has shone the light of reason onto our proudest achievements. Mankind has undertaken an impressive leap forward in the last five hundred years, but Humanism is suffering from its own inner angst. It is aging, slowly but surely, it is growing older and feebler. Its bones are brittle, its skin is sagging and wrinkled eyes that once shone brightly with the light of the noonday sun, now stare listlessly into the distance awaiting the final curtain call. Moreover, unlike religious faith, there is no hereafter waiting for our hero, there is no last judgement and weighing up of our hero's deeds. God is dead and he is not coming back so Humanism would have us believe. Our child of promise now waits with trembling heart for that last breath and the cry of the human heart; "If only...  " Allen Ginsberg’s words were perhaps more potent.

In ‘The Abolition of Man,’ C.S Lewis warns against the unbridled pursuit of science for science' sake. He proclaims that to rationalise everything out of existence is to guarantee the downfall of humanity. Moreover, as is evident in Huxley's society, we would be at the mercy of what Lewis calls the 'Controllers.' Who is to moderate the controllers, what basis do they have for morality? Lewis posits that it will be whatever happens to be convenient for the majority at the time.

Lewis argued three points that could lead to our destruction and used the illustration of the aeroplane, the radio and the contraceptive pill. These three would represent in his mind, power over our natural environment, power over others and power over our own destiny. In short; we would conquer the laws of physics conquer those around us and become masters of our own destiny. We would become as God. In the closing decade of the 20^th century that is precisely what we are achieving. However, Lewis argues another point. He points to what he calls the Tao. For the benefit of the reader, I would define what he meant by the Tao. It was the sum total of the collected wisdom of mankind. From the teachings of Confucius to Blaise, amongst other enlightened thinkers, as well as the time-honoured traditions of indigenous groups; the wisdom is there for us to utilise. Lewis in his book went onto define the primary motivation for the human race and speaking of the Tao stated.

Science is very much on a par with magic in that it seeks to subdue reality (nature) to its own will. There is a deeper magic however, a knowing that whispers in our hidden memories, it is what Jung would have called the collective unconscious; the early church fathers called it faith. Whilst Lewis does not condone a return to the bigotry of the Middle Ages, neither does he favour that we rationalise ourselves out of existence, or try to control human nature. Whilst his treatise was speaking out against the redefining of language, (as in deconstructive criticism) a similar assumption can be drawn from logical science and religious faith.

Here we have science, which like magic seeks the hidden paradoxes behind the laws of nature and tries to bend them to its will. The problem remains however, how far can we go before human beings themselves are made redundant? Huxleys world is not so much science fiction as science fact; we stand at the turning point with religious faith on one hand and scientific faith on the other. Shelley, Huxley and R.L Stevenson along with the Romantic poets, all constructed a godless universe where man was the sum total of his existence. In the end their gods and alternate universes failed, they were repulsed by their creation. It follows then, that science must remain in its proper place alongside religious faith and fulfill its original function; that of a servant of humanity, not a wise and benevolent king who will lead us to a brand new age. Human beings are not by nature benevolent, they are survivalists; the survival of the species is what ultimately motivates us.

Both C.S Lewis and John Carrol are beckoning to look through new eyes at our history. The underlying truth beneath these two religious creeds is the search for truth and enlightenment. Star Trek’s ‘to boldly go where no man has gone before,’ and ‘you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free’ go hand in hand, they are two halves of an indispensable whole. Similarly in Robert Zemeckis’ ‘Contact’we have Jodie Foster as ‘Ellie’ breaking free of her restraints and launching out to a brave new universe. The movie itself was an attempt to marry the twin faiths of science and religion. In the end Ellie is left with her faith that she really did travel to an alien universe. Without Lewis' Tao, we will rationalise ourselves out of existence. Without the basic human drive to understand our environment we may very well return to the bigotry of the Dark Ages, albeit in modern form. We cannot accept the infallibility of Popes and ministers of religion, but neither can we allow science full reign with its promise of a nuclear winter and economic rationalisation. Blind evolution leaves us cosmic orphans stumbling alone in the dark. A 'religious science' would have us striving towards a greater pursuit, that of a Divine life force behind evolution that is continually guiding the cosmos. It gives us something to strive for, a goal however distant, as we reach for the stars in our search for meaning. By investigating the laws of a lawgiver or life force, science finds its true meaning. In the end science and religion must always be the means to the same end, the twin jewels in our crown of thorns.
 
 

Written by Alastair Rosie
November 1997 ©
Subject: Literature Analysis
Teacher: Carolyne Lee
 

Take me back to the contents please!
 
 

Carroll, John.
Humanism: The Wreck of Western Culture.
London: HarperCollins, 1993
 

Shelley, Mary
Mary Shelley’s Journals March 19, 1815. P. 40. (Extracts only)
Ed. Norman Jones, L, Frederick.
University of Oklahoma Press 1947.
http://virtual.park.uga.edu/~232/mws.letandjour.html
Downloaded 2/11/97
 

The Birth of a Monster (author unknown)
http://www.netaxs.com/~kwbridge/birth.html
Downloaded 2/11/97
 

Mary’s husband Percy Shelly also wrote a play called Prometheus Unbound. It was an outpouring of rage over the tyrannical powers of kings and other despots. Percy’s influences also included Milton’s Satan as portrayed in ‘Paradise Lost,’ a book which also influenced Mary when she was writing Frankenstein.
 

In John Carroll’s book, he shows a reproduction of Holbien’s ‘Christ Entombed.’ The painting was considered radical for its day in that it showed Christ’s corpse laid out on a slab. It is as though the side of a coffin has been cut away and we are peering into an enclosed space. The implication being that the Messiah was clearly still dead and that he hadn’t risen on the third day.
 

Shelley, Mary.
Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus (Introduction) P. 11.
London: Pan, 1994.
 

Ibid. P. 52.
 

Chapman, Colin.
The Case for Christianity (A Lion Handbook). P. 195
Hertfordshire: Lion 1981
 

Huxley, Aldous.
Brave New World. P. 206.
London: HarperCollins, 1994.
 

Op Cit. Epilogue, P. 232.
 

Alan Ginsberg was a U.S poet who was quoted in ‘The Case for Christianity. P. 220.
 
 

The book is a series of three lectures he gave in response to a deconstructive critique of Coleridge’s work. He also covered Natural Law and the progress of civilisation, arguing that we would rationalise ourselves out of existence with existentialism.
Lewis, C.S.
The Abolition of Man
London: HarperCollins, 1978.
 

Ibid. P. 15. ‘It is the Reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. It is Nature, it is The Way, the Road... This conception in all its forms, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian and Oriental alike, I shall henceforth refer for brevity as ‘The Tao.’
 

Ibid. P. 24.
 

Gospel of John 8:32.
 

Yeats, W.B.
The Second Coming.
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ah370/2ndComing.html