I read Dekker’s theology on End of Heaven some years ago with its loaded biblical references and theological exegesis and wondered what is this fixation with science in safety? What is this attraction to the discourse and myth of the scientific method? (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-and-the-myth-of-scientific-method/). Why is it that this industry, infused with so much religious discourse (eg. zero, ‘in the blink of an eye’, safety saves, believe the impossible, spiritual resilience and atonement), wants to claim the discourse of ‘science’? Why is this industry so preoccupied with scientism and the myth of objectivity? And why is it becoming even more extremely religious?

I have just returned from 2 weeks of leadership and culture education with one of the world’s largest companies in India. This has been my second visit. Here is a country of 1.4 billion people (much more than the population of North America and Europe combined) that is deeply religious that manages to reconcile a focus on technology, science and engineering with religion and mythology. This is a culture and civilization that understands the real nature of suffering and mythology.

When visiting a temple in Chennai last week, a boy came up to us and wanted to chat. I think he heard my accent and knew I was Australian. The kids in India love Australians and always want to talk cricket, IPL etc. We had a lovely conversation and at one point I asked him about his faith. Here is this young boy talking about the IPL and when we asked him about his faith he stated ‘I live by these myths!’, Wow, how is that? We took a selfie you can see below and with his family at their request

 

 

What wisdom this young boy had.

The best way to understand faith and the mythology of heaven is through: semiotics, poetics, semiosis, mythology and theology. If you don’t understand these perspectives then what I write in this blog will be quickly declared as nonsense. So much for the closing down of intelligence in safety.

We had many conversations like this at several temples in our two weeks in India and it is very clear that this culture understands and accepts the true meaning of mythology much easier that we do in the West.

I am reminded of the quote from Jung:

“I do not know for what reason the universe has come into being, and shall never know. Therefore, I must drop this question as a scientific or intellectual problem. But if an idea about it is offered to me in dreams or in mythic traditions- I ought to take note of it. I even ought to build up a conception on the basis of such hints, even though it will forever remain a hypothesis which I know cannot be proved.”

1. G. Jung (1989), Memories, Dreams, Reflections

Meanwhile, Safety continues to become more deeply religious that ever. This from the description of Conklin and Dekker’s latest podcast:

“The episode illuminates profound aspects of crisis management as Sidney Decker delves into topics of atonement, forgiveness, and resilience. These conversations provide a fresh human-centered perspective to handling workplace tragedies and issues, steering clear from a detached, mechanical approach.

Sidney Decker’s wisdom from his latest book, ‘Stop Blaming, Create a Restorative Just Culture’, underscores human resilience, and the vital role of compassion and kindness in shaping a healthier work environment. The podcast touches upon self-forgiveness, broadening the discourse on workplace errors, and the role of spiritual resilience in crisis scenarios.”

I wonder how so called ‘safety science’ and the discourse of this theological book on suffering juggles the mythology associated with ‘spiritual resilience’ and the religious idea of ‘atonement’ with the semiotics and mythology of heaven? And all this, from a source that claims no expertise in theology (p.x) and apologises for using the word ‘faith’ (p.xi)? Then proceeds to undertake biblical exegesis throughout the book with no mention of fallibility.

There can be no understanding of suffering, harm, injury, mortality, vulnerability, uncertainty, humanity, personhood, consciousness, death or loss without an understanding of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/). None of these can ever be explained by science or scientism. Indeed, placing a scientific lens on mythology is like trying to use a hammer as a scalpel. Mythology has nothing to do with either rational or irrational thinking but transcends ideas of western logic. Faith itself is not a rational or irrational thing but is aRational, beyond the binary constructs of rationality. These same binary constructs dominate the assumptions of Dekker’s book, which is why it doesn’t understand the nature of suffering. I also see the same nonsense arguments used by so called ‘science’ against the ideas of Jung.

In a similar way this is why so many in safety have little idea of culture. Examining the nature of culture through the lens of chemical engineering is like trying to understand dreaming using a slide rule. Or, trying to understand music and song by asking a car mechanic!

Mythology has nothing to do with fantasy, fairy tales, irrationalism or make believe. Indeed, one would need to actually study mythology to understand it. Perhaps a start with the following would be helpful:

• Armstrong, K., (2005) A Short History of Myth. New York.
• Bauer, H., (1994). Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. University of Illinois Press.  New York.
• Campbell, J., (1972). Myths to Live By. Bantam Books.  New York.
• Clayton, M., (2020)  Australian Mythology, Captivating Dreamtime Stories of Indigenous Australians.  Sydney.
• Dobson, G., (2005) A Chaos of Delight. Science, Religion and Myth and the Shaping of Western Thought. Equinox, New York.
• Golsan, R., (2022). Rene Girard and Myth. New York.
• Jung, C. G., and Kerenyi, C., (1951) Introduction to a Science of Mythology. New York.
• Liszka, J., (1989) The Semiotic of Myth. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
• Malville, K., (1975) A Feather for Daedalus, Explorations in Science and Myth. Cummings Publishing. Manilla.
• MacCormac, E., (1976) Metaphor and Myth in Science and Religion. Duke University Press. Durham.
• Midgley, M., (1992). Science as Salvation, A Modern Myth and Its Meaning. Routledge,  New York.
• Midgley, M., (2004). Myths We Live By.  New York.
• O’Connell, M., (2009)  Symbols, signs & visual codes: a practical guide to understanding and decoding the universal icons, signs, motifs and symbols that are used in literature, art, religion, astrology, communication, advertising, mythology and science.  London.
• Pattanaik, D., (2003) Indian Mythology, Tales, Symbols, and Rituals from the Heart of the Subcontinent.  Inner Traditions Rochester, Vermont
• Shamos, M., (1995) The Myth of Scientific Literacy. Rutgers University Press, New York.
• Vignoli, T., (2012). Myth and Science. London.

It is no surprise that the safety industry has little understanding of culture or mythology. Indeed, we have the ‘Indiana Jones of Safety’ (more mythology) instructing us to not talk about it.

Yet, we see so much desire for mythology and metaphysics about us through the popularity of film, music, literature and arts. All these media are infused with the thirst for religion and mythology (Leyden, 2003, Film as Religion, Myths, Moral and Rituals; Ostwalt, 2003, Secular Steeples, Popular Culture and the Religious Imagination. Continuum, New York). The top 100 grossing movies of all time are consumed with mythology.

Similarly, the safety industry is consumed with mythology, most prominently demonstrated through the myth of zero. The video In the Blink of an Eye released in 2019 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIhgJ93t0Jw)  is the most extreme demonstration by Safety (Zero Vision) of its fixation with religion and mythology. This is why the video is called ‘The Spirit of Zero’ (https://safetyrisk.net/the-spirit-of-zero/), a wonderful metaphysical metaphor for the great safety delusion (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/ ). This apocalyptic delusion was released by the same industry that despises religion in its ignorance of myth. Then it creates its own myths, symbols and rituals and attributes validity to these as ‘science’. Indeed, Dekker speaks often about myths in his text but never defines what it means. It’s difficult to even work out the value of Dekker’s book for an industry so ignorant on myth, religion, cosmology and the nature of suffering.

But let’s take a step back for a moment and explore the notion of heaven. Engineering, science and the regulation of objects provide no insight into the nature of myth, disaster or suffering. And this is why Dekker’s book offers so little understanding or help on suffering indeed, that we even live in a ‘scientific age’ is simply projection. There is plenty of evidence that our post-truth world in the West is anti-science. Dekker even affirms this (https://safetydifferently.com/oil-and-gas-safety-in-a-post-truth-world/).

All religions on the planet hold to an idea of a transcendent place or state beyond the material quantifiable binary bias of Western notions of ‘science’. For example, in India the mythology of ‘svarga’ and ‘naraka’ represent states similar to heaven and hell in Christianity. In Buddhism the notion of paradise and nirvana represent a similar transcendent state. All Abrahamic theologies believe in heaven/afterlife. So, that puts about 80% of the planet that believe in some kind of heaven.

Amongst other things, the notion of Heaven serves as a semiotic-mythology of hope. Indeed, many of our most loved songs are about heaven (https://spinditty.com/playlists/Songs-With-Heaven-in-the-Title) perhaps the most famous ‘Stairway to Heaven’ by Led Zeppelin (https://genius.com/Led-zeppelin-stairway-to-heaven-lyrics). When Eric Clapton lost his son in tragic circumstances he wrote ‘Tears in Heaven’ (https://www.thisisdig.com/feature/tears-in-heaven-eric-clapton-song-story/ ).

In all the years I have encountered death, loss, suffering, harm and pain and in conducting funerals, it is heaven and love people turn to for understanding not engineering and science. It is in the Metaphors We Live By (Lakoff and Johnson) that we find meaning and purpose in death, suffering and dying.

And so, we can see, there is no end of heaven in our society or culture.

Of course, the word for ‘heaven’ in the New Testament simply means ‘clouds’. The word ‘ouranos’ and ‘paradise’ are used synonymously by Paul in 2^nd Corinthians which is often read at funerals as a message of hope. Paul offered political hope to Christians under the persecution of Roman Imperialism. Indeed, Paul’s metaphors (eg. tent, building, clothing) and theological linguistics offer this politics of hope to the most marginalised and alienated group in the ancient world. The power of love in suffering (1 Cor 13) against the tyranny of the ideology of empire is captured well by Elliot, who understands fallibility and the nature of power in the New Testament and Pauline theology. (Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle; Paul, Empire and the Arrogance of Nations).

No-one knows and can never know what happens after death just as no-one knows and will never know what happens in a black hole. This is why recent scientific researchers in quantum physics see a merging of religion with quantum science (Zukav, 1980, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, An Overview of the New Physics). Heaven also represents symbolically the world of the uncertain and unknown. The same kind of faith required to believe the unknowns of quantum physics, is the same kind of faith required to engage in discourse about heaven.

Heaven represents our hearts deepest longing for peace, love and justice. This quest for perfection is the same faith as the safety industry’s concoction of zero harm. However, a semiotic, poetic, mythic worldview understands all of this differently. One can’t take the assumptions and myths of the scientific method to non-science. And so, in trying to understand the nature of disasters, suffering and harm one can’t turn to ‘safety science’ for any help in finding solace and hope.

There need not be any concocted disharmony or binary opposition between a theology of heaven and the language of science. When one tackles the nature of suffering, loss and harm through a semiotic, poetic and mythic worldview then there is no end of heaven nor an age of science. Similarly, when one understands and isn’t afraid of faith and fallibility, there is no ‘drift into failure’.

When one is prepared to engage in a Transdisciplinary worldview then we see hope in disciplines that Safety ignores. In a Transdisciplinary worldview knowing is not confined or concocted as some binary opposition that seeks righteousness in ‘safety science’. The reality is, ‘safety science’ offers less hope and less insight into the realities of disaster and suffering. Safety science is a narrow worldview locked into the narrow mono-disciplinary of Safety, immersed in the materialistic assumptions of STEM and positivism. This is how we end up with the Safety Science Lab at Griffith University declaring that zero harm is now ‘science’ (https://safetyrisk.net/since-when-did-zero-become-a-science/) and a moral goal (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-is-an-immoral-goal/).

Yet, even Safety doesn’t want this worldview as it urges people to ‘believe the impossible’ (https://safetyrisk.net/believe-the-impossible-and-speak-nonsense-to-people/) and triumph in zero vision that took ‘centre stage’ (https://visionzero.global/vision-zero-takes-centre-stage-world-congress) at the last World Congress on zero in Sydney, supported by the regulators and the AIHS. Three cheers for the safety saviours (https://safetyrisk.net/three-cheers-for-the-safety-saviours/). Get your salvation here, and don’t forget to pay your dues!

The real problem with the perfectionism of zero, the mythology of ‘safety science’ and the demonisation of risk and fallibility is, it offers nothing of help or care for those harmed or in suffering. All Safety cares about is root cause, numerics and blame with no skills to care and help. And always in hindsight, Safety becomes the saviour who always knows better and who no-one wants to consult. When suffering and harm visit any fallible person the last place one seeks solace is in Safety. The last place one will ever find help is in ‘safety science’.

If however, you are interested in pastoral care, helping and persons then, there is extraordinary help in all that SPoR offers (https://cllr.com.au/register-to-study/). There is an alternative to the narrow worldview of safety science. There is a worldview that perceives the world through semiotics, poetics and myth that makes sense of risk. And it is not a worldview of theory but rather a positive, constructive method that works (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).

This is a worldview that puts personhood and resilience as its focus at its next global convention in May (https://spor.com.au/canberra-convention/). It is only in understanding personhood and resilience that we will learn to live with fallibility and risk.