Science and Religion: What Batman v. Superman’s Lex Luthor Tells Us about Our Relationship with Technology

The alleged conflict between science and religion can show up in unexpected places, but when we consider that we pursue technology through science, and the technology we pursue is directed at specific ends, it isn’t all that surprising.  Today I want to discuss how this theme shows up in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and its implications.  By now, you have probably either seen the movie or plan to never see it after the reviews.  My friend Joseph wrote a review for the film on his blog about filmmaking, which you should totally check out.  He and I also made a video review together as well, so feel free to check that out on your own time.  Beware, mild spoilers ahead.

In Batman v. Superman, Lex Luthor wrestles with theodicy.  He has come to believe in the dichotomy that God cannot be both all-powerful and all good at the same time.  When Superman seems to threaten this paradigm, he attempts to counteract the threat by trying to disprove that Superman is both all good and all powerful, first by instigating the fight between Batman and Superman, and then by creating Doomsday.  Particularly with the Frankenstein-esque creation of Doomsday, the alleged conflict between science and religion manifests itself in an allegorical attempt to use science and technology reassert control over a natural world not controlled by a benevolent God.

Here we have another reflection of the times.  In a RealClearScience article, Ross Pomeroy argues that advances in science and new ways of circulating information about those advances and their corresponding paradigms (i.e. the internet) are a primary reason for the decline of religiosity not only in the world but in the U.S. in particular.  The Age of Science is the third tier in the progress from the Age of Magic to the Age of Religion to today.  And then there are the statistics that supposedly show a correlation between atheism and intelligence and existential satisfaction.  I don’t know if Pomeroy is necessarily making a value judgement, but he is at least arguing that “science … serves as an effective substitute for [religious belief].” Science and religion are still seen as at odds rather than complementary in mainstream society.

Thus, the human attempt to subdue the natural world as a way to compensate for our own insecurities, as Lex Luthor does, is not surprising.  In a TED talk, brain scientist Tony Wyss-Coray talk about the potential for using blood to reverse the effects of aging.  In experiments in which the circulatory systems of old mice were fed young blood, the old mice showed cognitive and physical improvement.  The theory is that this has something to do with the kinds of hormonal factors that exist in young blood vs. bold blood, and these factors influence the organic tissue they come into contact with.  If we can get this to work in humans, we may extend our life expectancies.  We are working towards compensating for our fear of dying and growing old.  Why?  What happens when you don’t believe in a God who values you independently of your functionality, or life after death?  Your functionality in this life becomes the sole indicator of your worth.

Science and technology are great tools for exercising the dominion mandate.  There is nothing wrong with using them to improve quality of life.  What matters is that we remember and communicate to society when we can that science and religion are not at odds, but are complementary to each other.