Reading the latter chapters of Kirsch’s book, it becomes clear just how incredibly pervasive and enduring apocalyptic thought is in western culture. In a way, i
t’s not difficult to see why;
the end of the world, be it through the surreal religious gusto that John of Patmos describes, or through a “godless” event like nuclear war or a natural disaster, is a deliciously theatrical notion, but what piqued my interest the most was the notion of a “godless” apocalypse, and the fundamental paradigm shift it represents in terms of apocalyptic thought.
Though the Book of Revelation is, in part, a bloody revenge fantasy centered on destruction, it is also a tale of creation; a new world is created for those who (in the author’s mind) are deserving, where they are to live eternally. There aren’t an abundance of cases of such optimism in many of the “godless” versions of the apocalypse, as there is no supernatural force, such as a creator, on which to fall back. So without the undertones of optimism that are imbued in a religious apocalypse, and beyond the theatricality that certainly contributes to apocalyptic thought’s appeal, why is the idea of a “godless” apocalypse attractive?
I think it might come down to egocentrism, and the difficulty some individuals might have with not only dying, but also the strong possibility that the world will continue on, largely unaffected by their eventual demise. That continuation of history might actually be scarier than the end of the world to many people, and might be why such “godless” visions of the apocalypse exist.
Hey Eric,
I think this is an incredibly interesting topic to think about. Why ARE godless apocalypses so appealing to us? I have a few thoughts: with our society that is becoming increasingly more extreme, we have Christian Fundamentalists who truly believe in a literal God-filled apocalypse in which they will be saved. On the other hand, however, there are those who have completely taken God out of the equation, like you mentioned, and the Godless apocalypse with different man-made imagery thrives. But this group also thinks that they will survive. When observing the way in which the film and media industries portray destruction and apocalyptic stories, the narrative always follows one family that is smart enough and lucky enough to survive (“The Day After Tomorrow”, “2012”, etc.). Therefore, I think egocentrism is the right word to use. After all, we are so attracted to the theme of destruction as humans that the apocalyptic narrative is attractive to us, while, as a culture, we are so used to bad things happening to OTHER countries that we are sure we will be smart and lucky enough to escape death by apocalypse. With these two elements combined, who wouldn’t be attracted to a Godless apocalypse?
Hey Colby,
Your analysis of the general trajectory of apocalyptic stories, in which one family is smart or lucky enough to survive, hearkens back to psychology class to me, reminding me of what’s called the “Invincibility Fable,” which is a mentality many adolescents adopt that essentially boils down to “Oh, [terrible thing] won’t happen to me!” This, not surprisingly, leads to some pretty bad decisions. These apocalyptic movies you mentioned seem to thrive on the same kind of mentality; what does that say about our culture as a whole? I’m not sure…
I think that a “godless” apocalypse is still comforting to people. I think looking at people from the perspective of, “Well, we don’t know what the hell happens when we die but we’re dying together,” is largely comforting. I think that in general, the idea of a group death so that the idea of being alone – which religion subverts or totally manages to get rid of in its own ways, good or bad – isn’t such a fearful one.
However, while I think the “idea” of an apocalypse is comforting to some, I think where the line between “belief” in an idea and acknowledgment of an idea’s appeal are separate, and it’s important to draw that line. Many find the idea of dying with others comforting, probably – it’s almost to be expected, I think – but does that mean they would wish for a total ending of society and civilization? I’m not sure. That’d be an interesting thing to interview people about, actually.
Hey Amy,
I agree with you that there is a comforting aspect to it all. I’m not sure how people would respond to that question in an interview, either. I think most would probably say no, just based on social pressure (saying you want the whole world to end with you isn’t the kind of statement that wins people over, after all), but I wouldn’t be surprised if a considerable number of folks would secretly be enthralled or supportive of such a scenario.