The Theology of Doctor Who. Chapter 1. SCIENCE AND RELIGION part II

CHAPTER 1

SCIENCE AND RELIGION
(part II)

...continued

Faith
The caricature of religious faith presented in Doctor Who is widespread in popular culture. Richard Dawkins would have religious faith described[1] as “A persistently false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence”[2]. That is to say, that faith is not only ‘Believing without proof’, but ‘Believing against proof.”[3] While ‘Believing without proof’ does appear as a definition of faith in many dictionaries, it is accompanied by other definitions that Christians for one might find more analogous to their own understanding, for example: “Confidence or trust in a person or thing”[4]. ‘Faith’ is also characterised as unempirical, yet ‘faith’ can be defended as an empirical position[5]. Critic Terry Eagleton concludes: “Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason.”[6]

In The Curse of Fenric ‘faith’ finds another definition. Vampires are repelled by one soldier’s faith in the Russian revolution, whilst the doubting vicar becomes their victim. The Doctor explains that ‘faith’ -that is, believing in something- creates a psychic barrier, which he does by reciting the names of past companions. There must be more to faith than a verifiable trust, however. Quantum physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne often presents the neat analogy: "If I am always setting little traps for you to see if you are really my friend, I shall in time destroy the possibility of friendship between us."[7] Nevertheless, faith is much more than “Shutting one’s eyes, gritting ones teeth, and believing the impossible.”[8]

Dawkins ties his notion of “Faith” to intellectual dishonesty, and there is certainly some evidence to back his claim. The church has occasionally adopted a fideistic understanding of faith. “As everyone knows, religion is based on Faith, not knowledge”[9], writes one Christian to Einstein, advocating silence about his religious doubt for the sake of the masses. This "damningly exposes the weakness of the religious mind" asserts Dawkins. “No,” replies critic Stephen Tompkins, “it damningly exposes the weakness of a religious mind”[10].

An Open Mind

Dickens: I can’t partake in this

Doctor: Humbug? Come on. Open mind.

[11]

Doctor Who seeks to encourage an open mind, but its characterisation of blinkered religion allows for a remarkable switch of logic[12]. In Doctor Who, those who express belief in the supernatural are portrayed as closed-minded, whilst materialists are lauded as clear thinkers. Surely, those who are open to the idea something larger than themselves, something beyond their physical experience, are the open-minded. The anti-supernatural bias is a sign of a mind unwilling to accept that there is something beyond their experience and indeed, that they are not the most intelligent and complex beings in the universe. We see this in The Unquiet Dead where the Doctor has no time for Dickens’ anti-supernaturalism: “If you’re gonna deny it, don’t waste my time, just shut up.[13]” Likewise, the Doctor is impressed by Rose’s open-mindedness.[14]

Religious belief could be said to promote independent thought over and above scientific enquiry. The layman must place ‘faith’ in science, relying on the authority of those more educated to deliver the latest scientific discovery. Dawkins advises: “Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?’ “[15] How many people, though, become big-bang ‘believers’ having observed red shift for themselves? A belief in God is much more likely to be based on personal experience than on the authority of others.


Scientism

“SF tends to combine a high view of science’s revelatory role with a low one of any other method.”[16]
- Stephen May

It is not only religion that is misrepresented in Doctor Who. The anti-supernaturalism inherent in the ‘scientific explanation’ plots is a symptom of scientism. Couch et al. observe: “The problem with scientism is that it over-values what science can do. It sounds scientific to talk in these terms about evidence, but it isn’t. Scientism is a misuse of science and it is not scientific.”[17] They qualify: “Explanations should be rational, but being rational does not necessarily mean being scientific.”[18] Dawkins critic Terry Eagleton agrees: “Only positivists think that ‘rational’ means ‘scientific’.”[19] Couch et al. continue: “When the possibility of anything supernatural is dismissed out of hand because we ‘know’ that science is steadily disproving ‘that kind of thing’, we are in danger of distorting the evidence to fit our pre-ordained verdict.”[20] John Polkinghorne is quite comfortable to talk of the limitations of scientific enquiry, and sees them as entirely proper and quite intentional. ‘The self-restricted modesty of its ambitions’[21] is what allows science to flourish. He concludes that ‘There are some questions that are meaningful to ask and necessary to address with which science is powerless to deal.’[22] Indeed, according to Polkinghorne there is a metaphysical curiosity behind all scientific enquiry. He states: “It is the desire for ontological knowledge, and not just for mere functional success, which motivates the labour of scientists.”[23]


‘Up Above the Gods’
It is important to clarify that, in Doctor Who, science is not above criticism. The Doctor’s enemies are far more likely to be megalomaniacal scientists than to have any sort of religious motivation. The cold empiricism of villains like the Rani is thematic. The epitome of this is Dalek creator Davros, who claims that his creations will set him “Up above the Gods.” “The Doctor seems to decry the very science of the scientists”[24] writes Thacker. The point is that science that is overconfident, or exists divorced from ethics, is inhuman.

Conclusions
Doctor Who’s treatment of religion is caricature but this is hardly peculiar of popular drama, and especially not of science fiction. Its conflict thesis and scientism are similarly common. What is unique is that where other sci-fi sees science as the path of infinite human progress, Doctor Who is rather more cautious.
On the relationship between science and religion, as the Doctor says[25], “Each needs the other.”[26] The open-mindedness and inquisitiveness celebrated in Doctor Who are driving forces in both theological thought and scientific enquiry[27]. As John Polkinghorne has it: ‘In both science and theology, the central question is, and remains, the question of truth. We shall never attain a total grasp of it but in both disciplines we may hope for a developing understanding of it.’[28] Likewise, the Doctor: “Always search for truth. Mine is in the Stars."[29]

[1]Based on the first half of Microsoft Word’s definition of “delusion”.
[2]Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers, London. 2006. Pg.5
[3]This definition of faith is gaining popularity within religious groups, and there is the danger that Dawkins’ “Vulgar caricature of religious faith” (Eagleton) will become true. This has been unfairly linked to the postmodern death of occulocentrism. I am wholeheartedly postmodern, yet I am of the opinion that archaeological evidence that the resurrection did not physically happen, or irrefutable proof that the books of the Bible were forgeries should lead to a mass abandonment of Christianity.
[4]Faith. Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith (7/3/07)
[5] The analogy of the collapsing chair: One trusts that a chair is not going to collapse, having sat on many chairs before. The chair may still collapse, but the fact that chairs do not usually collapse when sat upon is empirically verifiable. Thus there is an element of empiricism and an element of trust.
[6]Eagleton, Terry. Flailing, Lunging, Mispunching. The London Review of Books. 2007.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html (3/3/07)
[7]Abstract: The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker. IOP Electronic Journals. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/22/1/001 (7/3/07) pg. 12
Also, given in any number of interviews and articles.
[8]Polkinghorne, John. Serious Talk: Science and Religion in Dialogue SCM Press Ltd, St Alban’s Place, London, 1995. Pg. 47
[9]Cited in Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers, London. 2006. Pg.17
[10] Tompkins, Stephen. 1½ Cheers for Dawkins. Ship of Fools. 2007.
http://ship-of-fools.com/Features/2006/dawkins.html (3/3/07)
[11] Mark Gatiss. ‘The Unquiet Dead’ in Doctor Who: The Shooting Scripts. BBC Books, BBC Worldwide Ltd, London. 2005. Pg. 112
[12] The von Däniken plot is another switch of logic, being a much more fanciful explanation than anything mainstream religion has come up with.
[13] Mark Gatiss. The Unquiet Dead in Doctor Who: The Shooting Scripts. BBC Books, BBC Worldwide Ltd, London. 2005. Pg. 108
Doctor: They want to overthrow the human race. And destroy you. D’you believe me?
Rose: No.
Doctor: But you’re still listening.
Davies, Russell T. Rose in Doctor Who: The Shooting Scripts. BBC Books, BBC Worldwide Ltd, London. 2005. Pg. 24
[15] Dawkins, Richard. A Devil’s Chaplain. cited in Couch, Steve; Watkins, Tony; Williams, Peter S. Back in Time: A Thinking Fan’s Guide to Doctor Who. Damaris Books, Milton Keynes. 2005. Pg. 156
[16] May, Stephen. Stardust and Ashes: Science Fiction in Christian Perspective. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1998. Pg. 62
[17] Couch, Steve; Watkins, Tony; Williams, Peter S. Back in Time: A Thinking Fan’s Guide to Doctor Who. Damaris Books, Milton Keynes. 2005. Pg. 159
[18] Couch, Steve; Watkins, Tony; Williams, Peter S. Back in Time: A Thinking Fan’s Guide to Doctor Who. Damaris Books, Milton Keynes. 2005. Pg. 153
[19] Eagleton, Terry. Flailing, Lunging, Mispunching. The London Review of Books. 2007.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html (3/3/07)
[20] Couch, Steve; Watkins, Tony; Williams, Peter S. Back in Time: A Thinking Fan’s Guide to Doctor Who. Damaris Books, Milton Keynes. 2005. Pg. 163
[21] Polkinghorne, John. Serious Talk: Science and Religion in Dialogue SCM Press Ltd, St Alban’s Place, London, 1995. Pg. 58
[22] Polkinghorne, John. Serious Talk: Science and Religion in Dialogue SCM Press Ltd, St Alban’s Place, London, 1995. Pg. 58
[23] Polkinghorne, John. Belief in God in an Age of Science. Vail-Ballou Press, Binghamton, New York. Pg.30
[24] Thacker, Anthony. A Closer Look at Science Fiction. Kingsway Publications, Eastbourne. 2001. Pg. 165
[25] Or, more precisely, ‘would have said’ in the unmade story: Coburn, Anthony. The Masters of Luxor. (1963)
[26] Coburn, Anthony. The Masters of Luxor. (1963) cited in Thacker, Anthony. A Closer Look at Science Fiction. Kingsway Publications, Eastbourne. 2001. Pg. 44
[27] ‘Intellectual honesty’ is another important principle in Doctor Who.
[28] Polkinghorne, John. Belief in God in an Age of Science. Vail-Ballou Press, Binghamton, New York.
[29] Nation, Terry; Barry, Christopher; Martin, Richard. The Daleks (1963)