The Enlightenment gave rise to the notion in Western societies that progress based upon human reason could enable mastery over the natural world. Thinkers such as John Gray suggest that this secular model of humanistic rationality has its roots in monotheistic religious beliefs. Monotheistic religions, such as Christianity, conceive of a transcendental god that is separate from the natural world. This contrasts with pantheistic religions which view God and nature as coextensive. According to the monotheistic view, humans are made in God’s image, and to some degree also exist over and above the natural world, which includes other animals.
Science and technology based upon monotheism, therefore, suggest that humans should be able to transcend the contingencies, mishaps and disasters which are features of a hostile and arbitrary natural world. Humans like to believe that they are in control of their destiny, and are thus not subject to the capricious meanderings of nature. As humans place value in their decision-making, intent and reason, it does not seem reasonable that unconscious external forces should undermine these qualities. For example, in England, if there is a problem due to the weather it is someone else’s fault for providing poor meteorological prediction, or failing to implement appropriate protective measures. Whilst it is prudent to scrutinise such situations, it is seldom acknowledged that no amount of rational planning can fully address vast, inhuman natural processes.
When mishaps or accidents occur, humans ascribe blame to other humans rather than accept that factors outside our control had an impact. It is seen that human endeavour is the prime mover in the universe, and insentient natural processes should not be able to mediate this conscious activity. In a qualifier for the European Championships against Croatia in Zagreb in 2006, Gary Neville made a back-pass to goalkeeper Paul Robinson. Robinson went to clear the ball, but it hit an uneven patch of ground and bounced over his foot and into the goal. It was certainly embarrassing, but did Robinson really deserve the degree of vilification he received?
Retrospectively, Neville could perhaps have played the ball back so that it was not directed at the goal; and Robinson could have taken a touch before clearing. But this is the kind of activity which is undertaken several times in every match without incident. What happened was a freak accident: a contingency of the external world affecting the interaction between two humans. But of course, the intervening environmental factors had to be underplayed, whilst full blame was apportioned to the human agents, particularly Robinson. Prior to this game Robinson had kept several cleansheets, and his form was probably damaged by the extreme public response to this accident.
Of course there is an element of schadenfreude in such situations. Righteous indignation and/or amusement at the supposed failings of others manages to distract us from our own manifest shortcomings. But no human activity is undertaken without the natural world intervening to cause or compound our errors. So remember, when you feel tempted to scream at your television the next time England elaborately contrive an own-goal, your response is merely an irrational corollary of secularized monotheism!