Is ABC’s “Lost” Becoming a Conduit for Pseudoscience and Proselytization?

Fantasy and science fiction are all well and good as art forms: as I’ve argued previously, the distance from reality both genres create allows for a certain objective analysis, permitting renewed and unencumbered evaluation of our world and all of its peculiarities. In this model, “magic,” advanced technology, etc., are all literary devices for creating the requisite distance, and changing the human condition to maximize or minimize various issues. The art form breaks down, though, when the artist asserts that the imaginary conditions present in the imagined world actually exist in our world: for example, no-one would fault Gene Roddenberry for dreaming up warp drive, but they might look at him a little askance if he tried to give a lecture at MIT about the effects of the Bajoran wormhole on subspace.

This was the problem with M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Happening”: he created a universe where (for whatever reason), the laws of physics didn’t seem to apply, but used this universe to argue that, in the real world, science is similarly insufficient to explain natural phenomena. He turned a nice story (I suppose) into a vehicle for pitching the same mysticism joyfully used by creationists to tear down public respect for science. Not cool, man (and PZ Myers agrees!). It’s also the problem with C.S. Lewis’ famous Chronicles of Narnia – and what separates Lewis from his contemporaries like J.R.R. Tolkien, who openly spurned allegory: because the hand of the author is so present, crafting the religious allegory to guide the reader to Christianity, the storytelling suffers.

Sadly, there’s reason to fear that ABC’s hit show “Lost” – a personal favorite of mine – is about to similarly jump the tracks from an enjoyable mystery/horror/fantasy into the realm of proselytizing bad science… or religion.

Warning: remainder of post contains spoilers regarding the 18 Feb. 2009 episode of “Lost”:

An enduring theme of the “Lost” universe has been the conflict between science, rigorous materialism, and blind faith, exemplified by the clash between Jack Shephard, the natural leader and physician, and John Locke, the seemingly-delusional mystic obsessed with “The Island’s” bizarre properties, and determined to pursue them at any cost. The “Lost” creators have seen no reason to paint this theme subtly: the second season premiere, where Jack and Locke’s tensions first came to a head, was titled “Man of Science, Man of Faith.” Juuuust in case you missed the point.

Up until the end of season four, the show seemed rather ambivalent as to the question of which philosophy was objectively “best,” content simply to portray the differences between each philosophy in action. Each avatar had his own successes and failures: Jack, the man of science, holds the island’s ragtag inhabitants together and surmounts crisis after crisis. However, he’s also a drunk (by and by) with crippling emotional problems. Locke, on the other hand, seems to gain unique benefits from his connection to the island (surviving a bullet to the gut being one of them), but risks and sacrifices the lives of his friends whenever necessary, seemingly without second thought, to obtain that connection. By the opening of season five, it’s painfully obvious that they’re both doing something wrong. Maybe that’s the message: “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Nope. If the last episode (“316″) is any indication, in the enduring conflict between science and religion, Team “Lost” has declared religion the winner in no uncertain terms.  The episode is rife with religious imagery and themes: primarily, it turns out that John Locke, now dead, died to allow Jack and the “Oceanic Six” one last chance to make it back to the Island – paradise. In a previous episode, the seemingly undying Richard Alpert had informed him of the need for this noble sacrifice. You see where this is going?

It gets worse. The characters meet up in a church, where Benjamin Linus, perennial liar & manipulator, actually takes the time to pray, exposing a vulnerable and spiritual side of his character deeply at odds with is day-to-day behavior. Taking a sabbatical from playing Machiavelli, Linus upbraids Jack for his lack of “faith” in the Island and, by extension, John Locke, likening Jack to the apostle Thomas, who doubted Jesus’ divinity, but eventually came to believe. Later, we read John Locke’s last message to Jack:

Jack, I wish you had believed me. – JL.

Uh oh. And then, the flight number they take to get back to the Island? 316. I wonder if that number’s significant…

John (!!!!) 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I’m afraid it is. It’s all well and good to construct a fantasy universe where the rules don’t apply, and allegory is certainly the oldest tool in the author’s guidebook. Well, second oldest, I guess. But Linus’ lecture on the importance of faith, and the dangers of doubt, seems to stride across the thin line between describing and lecturing: the intended listener is no longer just the recalcitrant Jack, but the agnostic viewer. If Jack can believe, only after suffering for his lack of belief, why should we wait so long? Why not just believe, now?

If this was the goal – if the producers intended to cross the Tolkien/Lewis line – then “Lost,” a hitherto enjoyable show, may end up as a piece of missionary drama, enjoyable for what it is, but always paying the price for putting mission before story. I always knew it was a possibility. But now I’m more than a little worried. Should I be? At least now I have two reasons to watch “Lost”…