A review by darrylb
Origin, by Dan Brown
4.0
Browns writing more engaging, making each book more of a page-turner than the previous book. I like to think of Brown’s Langdon series as a crime book with an intellectual and somewhat religiously toned mission built in. This book takes the reader on an adventure fueled by a billionaire’s goal of sharing his computer modelling results with the world. The main protagonists seem to argue for modernism, materialism, scientism and hail technological integration as the future of man. There are many assumptions behind the protagonist’s thesis, but they are unstated (every writer will try to make their position seem unassailable), though at the end of the day, at best only a possibility despite being narrated as iron clad. To extrapolate that such a possibility must necessarily change the worlds view of human origins suggests that Brown (and perhaps the scientific community he credits) holds to a form of scientific imperialism, in which resistance to such possibilities is resistance to reality (painted as “progress”). While arguing against and belittling creationism, the protagonist (and thereby presumably the author) does not seem very familiar with its positions or arguments, and really has a major problem with the premise of creationism - that it argues for a Creator.
The problem with not understanding the other position is that while the main protagonists talk about tolerance, they assert repeatedly that religious ideas are dangerous, and that religion is responsible for wars. This risks contributing to a growning anti-religious sentiment in the west. How long will it be before the tolerance is dropped and religious views are just regarded as dangerous. If they’re dangerous, surely laws should be enacted to slow or prevent its use. Suddenly, the tolerant become the ones who legislate based on beliefs. I hope this doesn’t happen, but it is hard to see it not happening on this trajectory.
Fundamentally, Brown’s characters fail to recognize that religion and technology are not the problems, but man is. He suggests this as several points, but never seems to draw this conclusion. People kill, using religion as the reason. People kill, using technology as a tool. Elimination of religion doesn’t change people. Similarly integrating people with technology will not solve the moral dilemma of the human state. We do bad things because evil is in each of us. Evolution doesn’t explain it, nor does technology solve it.
The problem with not understanding the other position is that while the main protagonists talk about tolerance, they assert repeatedly that religious ideas are dangerous, and that religion is responsible for wars. This risks contributing to a growning anti-religious sentiment in the west. How long will it be before the tolerance is dropped and religious views are just regarded as dangerous. If they’re dangerous, surely laws should be enacted to slow or prevent its use. Suddenly, the tolerant become the ones who legislate based on beliefs. I hope this doesn’t happen, but it is hard to see it not happening on this trajectory.
Fundamentally, Brown’s characters fail to recognize that religion and technology are not the problems, but man is. He suggests this as several points, but never seems to draw this conclusion. People kill, using religion as the reason. People kill, using technology as a tool. Elimination of religion doesn’t change people. Similarly integrating people with technology will not solve the moral dilemma of the human state. We do bad things because evil is in each of us. Evolution doesn’t explain it, nor does technology solve it.