The Science-as-Savior Eco-Myth

The Science-as-Savior Eco-Myth

PT 3002

A science-as-savior myth? Is there one? Yes, but it’s subtle, nuanced, almost invisible. So, let’s make this myth both visible and transparent. Maybe even some de-mythicizing. Let’s start with the ecological crisis.

Like many of you reading this post, I yearn with passion for healing to come to our suffering planet. Our ecosphere is rapidly losing its fecundity, its capacity to support life as we know it. Economic and political resistance to ecologically sound practices demonstrate that it is not nature–but rather it is sin–that destines us to self-destruction. Who can save us from ourselves?

Now, I recommend you not rush through this Patheos article. Take your time. Like baking a batch of cookies, we’re patiently going to mix together our anxiety over the ecological crisis, ancient myths of origin, the Bible’s concept of history, and modern historicized myths. Fill your cup with fresh coffee and get ready for a cookie snack tasting of history, politics, and philosophy.

What is the Science-As-Savior Myth?

As Planet Earth faces a crisis, who can save us? The scientist can save us! Like a knight in shining armor riding a great white steed, the scientist brings us the gnosis (knowledge) to vanquish ignorance and deliver redemptive enlightenment. Really?

One person whom I admire greatly, astrophysicist Lord Martin Rees, touts the science-as-savior myth. He’s just published a book I recommend, If Science is to Save Us. “First,” writes Rees, “our entire world is interconnected: a catastrophe in any region can cascade globally; no nation is truly safe until all are. Second, international science can be our salvation…” (Rees, 2022, p. 18). What is Rees saying here? Let’s look closely.

According to Lord Reese, we are presently in a fallen state characterized by nationalism and localism. What we need is “international science” to “be our salvation.” Science brings us international unity and global redemption from the ecological crisis.

Wow! I really would like to put my faith and trust in this science-as-savior myth. But should I? No.

Should we believe the science-as-savior myth literally?

Should we believe the science-as-savior myth literally?

No. Why? Because such myths are not literally true. Oh yes, many myths give voice to our deep desire to make coherent sense out of life’s tensions. Yet, hidden within this particular myth is a power grab. In the case of the science-as-savior myth, the message being proclaimed is this: society should cede power to an elite leadership, namely, the global scientific community. The science-as-savior myth crowns science as king.

Accordingly, the global scientific community could rule like Plato’s philosopher kings (Plato, The Republic). But we must ask: could such rulers devolve into a political tyranny worse than the fallenness from which they have saved us?

What? Am I overly suspicious? No. Am I promoting a conspiracy theory? No. Rather, I’m concerned about the interaction between myth and history.

At this point, I recommend that you—the reader—pause to click on  & listen to a Ted Talk, “The story that shapes your relationship to nature.” You’ll hear filmmaker Damon Gameau tell us a familiar three-chapter story of Eden, Fall, and Redemption.

Damon Gameau, “The story that shapes your relationship to nature”

Did you hear the three chapters of this story?

Chapter one, Eden takes the form of our premodern ancestors having a harmonious relationship to the natural world. Whether this is factually true or false is beside the point. Gameau tells us about an idyllic past as an original Eden.[1]

The second chapter is the Fall into sin. We fell into disruption between humans and the natural domain. The serpent responsible for this fall is Christianity. Evil Christianity was immediately followed by Cartesian substance dualism. Today we find ourselves in this fallen state, estranged from the natural world where we despoil nature for our own exploitative purposes.

The third chapter points to the future. Redemption as a “miraculous comeback” comes in the future when science rescues us. But, for this science-as-savior faith to become effective, we will need now to heed the prophetic pronouncements of the world’s almost martyred eco-scientists.

What Gameau has given us here is a historicized myth, an ideology in story form. You and I might be persuaded and even inspired by such an ideology because we earnestly ache for eco-redemption. But I believe we should resist taking such a myth literally as true. Rather, we should de-mythicize our knowledge of the evnironmental challenge and take practical steps to bring nature back into fecund balance.

Archaic Myths of Origin

Before we de-mythicize, let’s get a critical grip on just what myth is and how it becomes the story of our self-understanding. My working definition of myth goes like this:

A myth is a story about how the gods created the world in the beginning, in the time before there was any time (in illo tempore), that explains why things are the way they are today.

This is my summary of myth as described by the estimable history of religions scholar, Mircea Eliade (1902-1986). “The myth, then, is the history of what took place in illo tempore, the recital of what the gods or the semidivine beings did at the beginning of time”  (Eliade 1957, 95).

Myths of origin–cosmogonic myths–represent our human propensity for archonic thinking. This term comes from the Greek, arché, which means both origin (as in ‘archaeology’) and rule (as in ‘monarchy’). How something begins defines its essence. Really? You betcha! Well, at least if you tell your own story as a myth.

Myth justifies kingship.

In archaic culture, a myth of origin functioned to justify the rule of the king. The king, allegedly, was established as our ruler by the gods directly or indirectly at the moment of creation. This means that you and I as the king’s subjects should revere, honor, and obey the king. Even treat the king as sacred. Now, if you were the king, you’d like a myth like this, wouldn’t you?

Let me give you two examples.

Enuma Elish in ancient Akkad and Babylonia

The first is Enuma Elish, the ancient Akkadian and Babylonian myth alluded to in Genesis 1:1. Enuma Elish tells of a cosmic battle between the fierce dragon of chaos, Tiamat, and the valiant warrior, Marduk. Marduk slays Tiamat and turns chaos into the social order the Akkadians and Babylonians resided in.

According to the myth, Marduk’s successor is the king who sits on the throne. Today’s king rules with the authority of the god, Marduk. All subjects should obey their king in gratitude to Marduk for saving the people from the threat of chaos.

If you happen to be a king, you would like this myth. You’d like it so much that once a year you would retell the myth in plays and rituals and art so that everyone in the kingdom would get the message: you are the king because the gods said so. That’ll seal your authority!

Memphite Theology in Ancient Egypt

The second founding myth—actually my favorite!–is that of the creator god Ptah. This myth is known as the Memphite Theology because it declares Memphis to be the capitol city of Egypt. In this myth of origin, there is no battle between chaos and order. Rather, Ptah simply thinks about a world he might create. Then, Ptah speaks. Ptah’s word establishes the reality of the world we know.

“The mighty Great One is Ptah, who caused all gods [to live],” we find engraved on the Shabaka Stone now in the British Museum. By thinking with his heart and speaking the names of the gods with his words, Ptah created all things. First, Ptah created all the other gods, the gods previously known in various regions of Egypt. Then, through these gods, the world we know came into being. In short, the Memphite Theology is a henotheism with Ptah as the top god ruling all other gods and, through them, all of creation.

Some years ago, I studied the Memphite Theology in detail and concluded that its function was to declare Pharoah Menes (2925 BCE) to be the divine representation of Ptah on earth. The pharaonic king is the son of the divine. And the Pharoah’s city, Memphis, is the preeminent city of all cities in the land of Egypt. When the Pharoah speaks, everyone obeys, just as all reality obeys when Ptah speaks.

Initially, I thought this myth might provide a fascinating parallel to the creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. After all, in both the Memphite Theology and Genesis we find that the divine word creates.

But, after further research, I could find no historical connection between the two accounts. If you’re interested in this analysis, try my article, “Monotheism and Kingship in Ancient Memphis.”

When I first penned this article, I thought the Memphite Theology might be classed as history’s first instantiation of monotheism dating to perhaps 2925 BCE. After further consideration, however, I concluded that henotheism would be a more accurate descriptor of Memphite Theology.

Be that as it may, here is the point relevant to our present discussion: the archonic myth of creation by Ptah provides theological justification for the sacred authority of the Pharoah. This is typical of many archaic creation myths.

From Myth to History in Ancient Israel

Before we jump to modern myths such as the science-as-savior myth, let’s wander for a moment through the Bible.

The Bible certainly looks something like a text we’d likely find in ancient Babylonia or Egypt. Genesis 1-11 tells stories of origin that are clearly archonic. Genesis 1 tells us the origin of the seven day week. Genesis 2-3 tells us the origin of human sin. The Tower of Babel story tells us the origin of multiple languages. And so forth. But, significantly, there is no divine blessing of kingship.

In Genesis 1:26-29, the king turns out to be the entire human race. Or, more precisely, the creator God is the invisible king and the human race is the visible representative of the king.

Each human individually and humans collectively bear the image of God (tselem, imago Dei). As God’s representative on earth, we human beings are commanded to rule with royal radah—that is, to rule with stewardship, justice, mercy.

When Israel’s historical kings come on the scene about three thousand years ago, they sit uneasily on their thrones. The Word of God belongs to the prophet, not the king. If the king fails at stewardship justice, and mercy, then the prophet pronounces the judgment of God against the king. There is no myth to prop up an unjust king’s authority. If you don’t believe this, try reading Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings. Every human king fails to genuinely represent the only true king, the eternal God.

When we get to the New Testament Gospels, it’s the king of Judah and the emperor of Rome who demonstrate in spades their lack of stewardship, justice, and mercy. Rulers must be judged prophetically by the cross of Jesus. The cross of Jesus points to a divine messiah who is the true king of kings and lord of lords. No myth of origin can prop up a failing king. At least in Holy Scripture.

In short, the Bible replaces reliance on myth with the cold hard facts of history.[2]

The Bible’s History and Our Modern Myth

The story we in the modern world tell ourselves is primarily history. Not myth. But then we mythicize our history. Really? Yep! How? Let me explain.

The modern world inherits its underlying concept of history from the Bible. The Bible begins first in Eden, in illo tempore, a world of harmony between humanity and nature. Then, secondly, human beings fall into sin, estranging themselves from nature, from God, and from one another. Thirdly, God sends a savior, a messianic king to rule with true stewardship, justice, and mercy. Historical time is linear with a past, present, and future.

According to the New Testament, we today live between the times, between the first incarnation of the messianic king who died on the cross and the future transformation of creation into the New Jerusalem promised in Revelation 21. The true king lies in the future. The future judges the present for our failure to exact stewardship, justice, and mercy.

Oh, yes, we moderns have long forgotten that this history and this judgment originated with the Bible. We’ve dismissed the Bible as a myth to be disbelieved. But, curiously, even we secular and non-religious people love to tell this myth.

However, we amend this myth when we retell it. We amend it by replacing Jesus Christ with ourselves. Or at least with our ideology. The myth-teller becomes identified with the ultimate, with being the savior.

Note the key difference between biblical history and contemporary historicized myth-telling: the transcendent king gets replaced by an immanent king. The messianic king, Jesus Christ, gets replaced by a local leader, ruler, president, emperor, proletariat, scientists, Elvis Presley, or other class of would-be saviors.

There is danger here. This little emendation leads routinely to ideology and frequently to tyranny.

The Three-Chapter Structure of Historicized Myths

Let me appeal for a moment to a little-known yet I believe profound philosopher of history, Eric Voegelin (1901-1985). Voegelin began as a professor in Vienna in the 1920s and 1930s. When needing to escape Nazi persecution of intellectuals in 1938, he fled to the United States. He taught a “new science of politics” at Louisiana State University and then Stanford. His firsthand with experience with Nazi tyranny informed his interpretation of interpreters of human history (Voegelin, 1990-1995).

Let’s look at the myth of modernism, of which the science-as-savior myth is its progeny. The very concept of modernity itself is saddled on a three-chapter mythical steed.

Chapter one in this historicized myth is ancient Athens four centuries before Christ. This was the age of enlightened rationality and proto-scientific thinking.

Chapter two is the fall into Christianity. The Middle Ages, when the Christian church dominated culture, are considered the “dark” ages.

What happens in chapter three? Redemption begins in eighteenth century Europe when a renaissance of Greek reason gives birth to empirical science. Western culture gets redeemed by reason and science from the darkness of medieval religious superstition. The science-as-savior is myth proclaims redemption.

Unknowingly, Ted-Talker Damon Gameau’s science-as-savior eco-myth is merely a garbled variant on the Enlightenment myth of modernism. But, it’s glaringly self-contradictory.

Recall how during the industrial revolution science along with its accomplice, technology, became responsible for most of the rape and pillage of nature. Recall how during World War II it was science along with its accomplice, technology, which invented gas chambers for genocide and dropped atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Despite this, Gameau still hopes that science can be our savior. Gameau is asking the sinner to self-save. How’s that work’n fer ya?

To ask science to save us from eco-disaster is like betting on the Oakland A’s–now on the bottom of the American League standings–to win the World Series.

The Nazi Myth of the Third Reich

Such a historicization of the myth risks the ideological justification of tyranny. Adolph Hitler, for example, divided German history into three kingdoms or Reichs. The “First Reich” was Charlemagne (Karl der Grösse), who was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in the year 800. The “Second Reich” was the consolidation of German speaking states two centuries ago, which Hitler mistakenly thought to be an empire. Hitler rose to power prophesying a new “Dritte Reich” to last 1000 years. Imagine! 1000 years of world dominance by German language, culture, and sauerkraut! This would mark a blissful millennium of biblical proportions. Who would not want to participate in such a millennial triumph?

After dissecting the gripping power of Adolf Hitler’s historicized myth of the Third Reich, Voegelin discerned how this deep structure of the historicized myth—the three-chapter structure—supports tyrants. The third chapter in every historicized myth proclaims that the myth-teller is the savior king, deserving of absolute allegiance.

What should we learn from myths of origin and historicized myths? Be wary. In the case of the new science-as-savior eco-myth, we are being asked to turn our allegiance over to the global fraternity of scientists. Isn’t this risky?

Once we’ve turned our allegiance over to the world’s scientists, might our scientists become tyrants? Or would they become as virtuous as Plato’s ideal philosopher kings?

Demythologizing versus De-mythicizing

It was New Testament scholar Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976) who told us to employ demythologizing when interpreting Holy Scripture. Bultmann wanted Bible readers to avoid reading ancient myths literally. To demythologize is to read scripture for its existential meaning, for how the Bible addresses us in faith.

“This method of interpretation of the New Testament which tries to recover the deeper meaning behind the mythological conceptions, I call de-mythologizing–an unsatisfactory word, to be sure. It’s aim is not to eliminate the mythological statements but to interpret them. It is a method of hermeneutics” (Bultmann, 1958, p. 18).

Demythologizing is not the same as de-mythicizing. When I use the term, de-mythicizing, I’m recommending that we eliminate the myth. Stop believing the myth. Set it aside. Look for another interpretation. Science at its best demythicizes. So, science itself should be de-mythicized.

It follows that both the Enlightenment myth as well as Damon Gameau’s science-as-savior eco-myth are extra-scientific. Perhaps even un-scientific. They are self-congratulatory misinterpretations of history told in story form.

Conclusion

Demythologizing in order to understand how Genesis 1-11 speaks to our faith today is a hermeneutical method I embrace. However, mythicizing history so that the myth-teller appears to be our savior is not a method I embrace. In the case of the science-as-savior myth, I fear the myth-teller demonstrates intellectual arrogance. In the case of the Nazi Third Reich, the myth-tellers led the planet into a world war.

The original Christian interpretation of history sought to avoid tyranny by drawing allegiance to a transcendent king, the crucified Christ. If the crucified one who is powerless is truly king of kings and lord of lords, then no earthly king or emperor or president or Caesar or Fuhrer or even a class of scientists has a right to play the role of savior.

One more thing. I thank God for our scientists. Especially those scientists who for six decades have been warning us and warning us about the impending despoilation of Earth’s natural ability to support life.

Scientific ecologists should be treated as heroes for painstakingly gathering the data that not only announces doom but provides gates we can open for redressing past errors. Today’s scientists are the equivalent of God’s prophets such as Amos and Jeremiah in ancient Israel. Our scientific prophets call us earthlings—we humans are the temporal king in Genesis 1:26-29) recall–to repent, to turn from our exploitative and greedy practices, and embrace a holy responsibility toward stewardship, justice, and mercy on Earth.

We can heartily thank our scientists without embracing a science-as-savior myth.

▓

Ted Peters (Ph.D., University of Chicago) is a public theologian directing traffic at the intersection of science, religion, and ethics. Peters is an emeritus professor at the Graduate Theological Union, where he co-edits the journal, Theology and Science, on behalf of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, USA. He recently co-edited Astrobiology: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy (Scrivener 2021) as well as Astrotheology: Science and Theology Meet Extraterrestrial Intelligence (Cascade 2018). He also co-edited The CRISPR Revolution in Science, Ethics, and Religion (Praeger 2023). Peters is author of Playing God: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom (Routledge, 2^nd ed, 2002) and The Stem Cell Debate (Fortress 2007). See his blogsite [https://www.patheos.com/blogs/publictheology/] and his website [TedsTimelyTake.com].

▓

Notes

[1] There is simply no historical evidence that our ancestors lived idylically in an Edenic harmony with nature. Evolutionary accounts of human origins excise Eden from history. “The first step toward a more accurate, and hopeful, picture of world history might be to abandon the Garden of Eden once and for all, and simply do away with the notion that for hundreds of thousands of years, everyone on earth shared the same idyllic form of social organization” (Graeber 2021, Kindle 238). Does this spoil the biblical history of humanity? No. Contemporary theologians rely on the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2-3 as taking place in illo tempore–that is, Adam and Eve represent the entire human race at all times and all places. The fall into sin by Adam and Eve depicts the present state–our state of estrangement from God, from one another, and from nature. We’ve inherited this fallen state from our biological evolution (Bennett, 2008).

 

[2] The shift from a worldview dominated by myth to a worldview framed by history was terrifying because one could no longer rely on the stability of archonic thinking. History means that the future is unpredictable. “Judaism presents an innovation of first importance,” writes Eliade. “For Judaism, time has a beginning and will have an end…Each new manifestation of Yahweh in history is no longer reducible to an earlier manifestaion”(Eliade, 1957, p.110). Some Jews take umbrage. “Being Jewish,” write David Graeber and David Wengrow, we “don’t particularly appreciate the suggestion that we are somehow to blame for everything that went wrong in history” (Graeber, 2021, Kindle location 9629). As I read Eliade, I don’t believe he described the biblical notion of linerar history as a fall from myth nor as responsible for subsequent historical calamities. That would make Eliade a myth-maker rather than a myth-interpreter. I believer Eliade was the latter.

Works Cited

Bennett, G.; Hewlett, M.; Peters, T.; and Russell, R.J., 2008. The Evolution of Evil. Gottingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht.

Bultmann, R., 1958. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Eliade, M., 1957. The Sacred and the Profane. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.

Graeber, D., and D. Wengrow, 2021. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Peters, T., 1977. Monotheism and Kingship in Ancient Memphis. Perspectives in Religious Studies, 4(2), pp. 156-168.

Rees, M., 2022. If Science is to Save Us. Cambridge UK: Polity.

Voegelin, E., 1990-1995. Collected Works 34 Volumes. Baton Rouge LA: Louisiana State University Press.