The Dangers of Combining Religion and Science

            Superstitions evolved from centuries ago. “To find a horseshoe brings you good luck”, “if you walk under a ladder you will have bad luck”, or “a broken mirror will bring seven years bad luck”; these are all common modern superstitions. One superstition that has seemed to have stuck around since the Victorian Age is vampires. Bram Stoker’s Dracula imitates the Victorian-istic culture’s rebirth of superstition from the past through the vampire king, Dracula, and the wisdom of the famous vampire slayer, Van Helsing, who manages to live in peace with science and religion, leaving wiggle-room for the two characters to have similarities.

            Stoker reincarnates the history of the Victorian Age through Dracula, who is a symbolization of superstition. The Victorian period is also known as the “ago of science”, an era of comprehension that the world is dictated by the “natural laws”, instead of the divine supernatural, leaving supernatural beliefs to be rejected as superstitions (Noakes 23). Van Helsing promotes superstitious tactics frequently throughout the story, one when Van Helsing put a necklace of garlic around Mina’s neck after being bitten. Van Helsing also uses religious tactics like placing a cross on the body of Lucy, blocking evil spirits, and praying while placing a cross on Mina’s forehead burning her, a sign of evil invading her body. The “superstition”, Dracula, associates many of his actions with biblical scriptures to expo his degree of power to that of Jesus Christ; “And you, their best beloved one, are now to me, flesh of my flesh; blood of my blood; kin of my kin; my bountiful wine-press for while” (Stoker 328). A biblical phrase, similar of the sort, is also specified in the Bible, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you”, “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11: 24-25). Drinking the cup of wine representing the blood of Jesus, “the blood of the lamb”, compares to that of the drinking of human blood as an illustration of a demonic communion. Even though Dracula puts himself on a pedestal by using biblical phrases comparing himself to Jesus, and his demonic nature connecting to the spiritual communion, Stoker also involves the use of science.

Stoker displays the use of technology to document events through the type-writer, phonograph, telegraph, and Kodak; all used to Van Helsing’s advantage. Van Helsing’s obsession of the Count is a scientific characteristic, aggregating knowledge over time. Van Helsing states that Dracula was a “soldier, statesman, and alchemist-which latter was the highest development of the science-knowledge of all time”, also explaining how Dracula’s child-like brain matured into that of a man (Stoker 342-343). Both Dracula and Van Helsing, both scientists, have developing intellectual power, like the constant metamorphose of science.  However, only the Count provokes the rebirth of the Victorian ideal bringing authority to science.

Spiritualism in the Victorian Age had to be caste out because it intimidates the betterment of science, according to the opinions of Victorian scientists (Noakes 24). This assumption, along with Stoker’s rebirth of the Victorian culture, is a violation of Stephen J. Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria, aka NOMA. Gould states religion and science have boundaries and are “non-authoritian”, meaning one magisteria cannot be cognizant in its entirety but both “hold equal worth” (Gould 58). Combining the two can cause controversial conflict, literal in Dracula’s case, but balance between science and religion can equal wisdom.

             Stoker demonstrates the danger in combining science and religion by using Dracula as an example and the balance between them that amplifies Van Helsing’s wisdom. Dracula’s nature violates the rules of NOMA by resurrecting the Victorian past, a time where religion fuses into superstitions giving science the upper hand. Stoker's rebirth of the Victorian past allows questions to arise as to whether Stoker supports Christianity or Scientology, the knowledge of life.

Work Cited:

Gould, Stephen Jay. Noma defined and defended. New York, NY: The Ballantine Publishing Group, 1999. Print.

Noakes, Richard. The Victorian Supernatural. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.

Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Glennis Bryon, 1998. Print.

Dracula as anti-Christ

Bare with me fellas...I started writing and just couldn't stop!

 

Count Dracula, Bram’s Stoker’s famed blood-drinking villain, is a creature of menacing wickedness, an evil figure of mastery over both body and spirit. What makes this vampire terrifying is not his domination of one’s physical self, but rather his craving of authority over the human soul by virtue of his nearly indestructible malice and brilliant personal appeal. While his character is chillingly parallel to Jesus Christ, the miracle-working savior of God’s sinful children, Dracula is perhaps Stoker’s representative of another biblical figure: the anti-Christ.

The first sign of Dracula’s anti-Christ figure is found in the omens indicating his coming, an allusion to the biblical arrival of the Messiah. Mina writes in chapter 19 that the mist in her room, Dracula, becomes a “pillar of cloud…through the top of which I could see…the light of the gas shining like a red eye” (Stoker 420), running parallel to the Old Testament concept of the Lord’s visitation through human figures. In Exodus, “Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshipped…the Lord would speak…as one speaks to a friend (New International Version, Exodus 33:10). Mina wonders to herself if this visitation is “some spiritual guidance” (Stoker). Ironically, while God as a “pillar of cloud” led Moses and the Hebrew slaves to freedom in the Old Testament, Count Dracula as a “pillar of cloud” enslaves and tyrannizes souls. This concept of the Messiah’s coming through clouds is also found in the New Testament, as Jesus ascends into heaven on a cloud in Acts of the Apostles; his amazed disciples write that “he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight…(and) this same Jesus…will come back in the same way (they saw) him go to heaven” (Acts 1:9) Bram Stoker thus makes analogous the coming of Dracula’s evil Messianic persona through perverse biblical references, as the anti-Christ – per Christian beliefs – is presumed to appear so much like the Son of God that it will be nearly impossible to distinguish the two.

Second, Dracula’s Christ-like dominion over nature is an eerie correspondence to biblical references. The reader’s initial sample of the Count buttresses the concept that he is in fact a supernatural bad guy. When wolves overwhelm Jonathon Harker’s carriage as he winds through the Transylvanian wilderness to meet Dracula, he frighteningly observes the Count’s authority over the animals. “I heard his voice raised in a tone of imperious command,” Harker writes, and “he swept his long arms, as though brushing aside some impalpable obstacle” (Stoker 21) as the wolves fell back and “began to howl as though the moonlight had had some peculiar effect on them” (21). Of course, Jesus’ authority over nature is highlighted throughout the New Testament in multiple parables. This mastery over the natural world is a similarity between Dracula and Christ – and likewise, between the anti-Christ and Christ. Nonetheless, Jesus uses his authority to preserve and save, while Dracula uses his to ruin and feed: the same wolves the Count keeps from killing Harker later gruesomely devour a peasant woman. In fact, Count Dracula’s wolves could be yet another allusion to the Bible: Jesus Christ explicitly warns to “watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15). It seems Stoker included the wolves to equate Dracula’s ultimate command of the beasts with the anti-Christ’s title of the ultimate false prophet. In this sense, while Dracula’s supernatural powers seem similar to Jesus’, his evil use of them is what separates the figures.

Dracula’s supernatural powers are additionally manifested in his Christ-like miracles, while the products of those miracles undeniably point to his anti-Christ-like guise. Dracula is apparently capable of the act of resurrection: he brings Lucy Westenra back to ‘life’ three days after her death, much like Jesus resurrected Lazarus in the Gospel of John. “Your brother will rise again,” Jesus said to Lazarus’ sister Martha, “(because) I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:22-26). However, Dracula’s resurrected Lucy is the antithesis of Lazaurus, who was welcomed back into the community. Lucy is a ferocious vampire, something which Stoker’s protagonists see as someone who must be destroyed. When Dr. Seward records their discovery of the re-born woman, he notes “how changed” she is, as the “sweetness was turned to adamantine, heartless cruelty, and the purity to voluptuous wantonness” (Stoker 342). In fact, he only refers to her as Lucy because “the thing…(merely) bore her shape” (342). Dracula’s new project is exactly like him, “callous as a devil,” “blazed with unholy light” (343), and “unclean and full of hell-fire” (342). Though Lucy was raised from the dead like Lazarus – equating Dracula with Christ – the product of that resurrection was far more sinister – equating Dracula with the anti-Christ. This evil miracle is preempted by the Bible: “The coming of the lawless one (the anti-Christ) will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10).

Finally, the theme of blood in Stoker’s Dracula is perhaps the most glaring proof of the Count’s role as anti-Christ. The vampire’s drinking of blood is clearly prohibited in the Bible: in Leviticus, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off” (Leviticus 17:14), and in Deuteronomy, “You must not eat the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:16). The focus on blood in the Bible is as a gift by Jesus’ Atonement of sin, while the focus on blood in Dracula is the literal taking of it as an act of sin. In this sense, Dracula is more than a sinner, but rather an illustration of the anti-Christ – one whose use of blood to achieve eternal life and re-birth is a sharp perversion of Jesus’ gift of blood to sinners so that they would achieve eternal life. “Whoever…drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day” (John 6:54) said Jesus to his followers. In contrast, Dracula drinks the blood of his victims so that he will achieve immortality, a mockery of the sacrament of the Eucharist and what Van Helsing refers to as a “baptism of blood” (Stoker 523). By engaging in an anti-sacrifice and anti-Eucharist, Dracula is a clear representative of the anti-Christ.

Bram Stoker’s Count Dracula is undeniably illustrative of the anti-Christ. As evidenced from his Messiah-like appearances, his domination over the natural world, his ability to perform resurrections and his symbolic use of blood, Dracula’s character is so disturbingly comparable to Jesus Christ that it is easy to equate him as such. Nonetheless, the motivations behind these parallels – an evil use of nature, the resurrection of people into demon-like vampires, and the reversal of Christ’s sacrifice – prove that the Count is in fact the opposite.

Female Sexuality in Dracula

Female sexuality in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, is a strong topic throughout the book. It enhances the Victorian male imagination to believe that woman are a certain way and should only act a certain way. In England, women’s sexual behavior is dictated by society which sets high expectations for their actions. In Dracula, Lucy and Mina are threatened by Dracula himself.

Although they have their differences, Lucy and Mina are woman that are true to their men, innocent, and have a strong Christian faith known as “God’s women” much like Victorian women. They aren’t like real people though. Victorian women were expected to be very faithful to their husbands, be a good wife/mother, and are set on such a high standard to act a certain way. In Chapter XVII Mina states that, “We women have something of the mother in us that makes us rise above smaller matters when the mother-spirit is invoked.” The women are innocent from their evil’s and walking around being a “whore” is not acceptable in their society. After the transformation, Lucy takes the mother instinct to a whole new level. She turns on the children and attacks them by attacking them instead of nourishing them and feeding them like a Victorian woman should do. Also, Stoker uses interesting vocabulary to describe Lucy. She is described more of in terms by her sexuality than of the proper ways.

Dracula transforms Lucy into a vampire and the men are left to destroy her in order to keep her at an acceptable state. After the transformation, Van Helsing and the other men keep a close eye on Mina to make sure that she does not become a victim of Dracula. The transformation of Lucy can be seen as the dark side of female sexuality. She becomes openly sexual and struggles to find a balance of good and evil. This is a reoccurring theme throughout the book because the men are struggling to find a balance with Dracula and themselves with Lucy. Dracula is determined to turn the women into the individuals that they are not meant to be. He wants to open their sexual desires and influence them to become impure while Van Helsing and his men want Lucy to remain true to herself.  Ironically, the attack on Lucy turns her into an openly sexual predator which supports Stoker’s way of showing female sexuality.

Lucy’s final actions show resemblances with sexuality are strong. Even though it was an act to restore Lucy and help her to become pure again, when Holmwood pierces Lucy with the stake it can be seen as an act of intercourse. Holmwood was doing his best to keep Dracula from consuming Lucy into his sexual relationship. Also, the blood transfusion also shows some kind of resemblance through sexuality and intercourse. They see the transfusion of the blood similar to intercourse because they are making a direct connection between the male and female.

Throughout Dracula we are introduced to sexuality and female sexuality in different ways. Although the women are supposed to act a certain way their behavior is tested throughout the book through Dracula’s motives. Their behavior is dictated by society but Dracula’s actions causes them to turn into improper Victorian women.

Tell me what you guys think. Any ideas that you may have would be greatly appreciated!

Phase 3 -- Prompt 1

            Civilization in London, otherwise known as the World State, is quite an extreme society. Since all paths and futures are essentially predetermined at conception, people lack the freedom we treasure most – the freedom to make decisions. Having free will is just one of the biggest things that we consider to be ‘civilized’ today, however in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, those who were so free were considered ‘savages’. On the Reservation, the freedom of personal choice reigns, and it contrasts deeply with the overly oppressed society in London.

            John, one of the novel’s early protagonists, is thought of to be completely savage and uncivilized by the members of the World State. While John has the ability to use his mind and imagination to their full advantage, the people from London cannot. Lenina, for example, does not agree with John’s beliefs and decision to not sleep with her. In London’s community, sex is extremely prominent and something that is to be expected with multiple people. On the other end of the spectrum, John’s savage ways keep him from doing things with Lenina that he would have questioned later. Having the freedom to make decisions possibly makes things more complicated than living in a blissful ignorance.

            In my mind, I believe that the savage Reservation is more human than the World State in London. This is ironic because to be savage is to be wild or untamed, and to be civilized is to be well kept and somewhat organized. Being human is about the overall sake and evolution of humanity within mankind. Anyone can be a person, with the same features and body. But to be a humane individual requires compassion and the ability to better society through decisions and goals. The society in London is quite strategically designed; technology is the most important symbol from very early on. In essence, technological advancement is the World State’s religion. Even the unit of time used by the World State is measured by years after the Ford Model T release – and characters use the phrases like “His Fordship” (34). Even though technology seems to dominate this society, an inside perspective would probably not say the same thing.

            Another notable difference between the savage Reservation and the city of London is the use of drug-induced happiness. With the freedom to make personal decisions, happiness is always attainable. Ironically, without the burden of so many choices, those in London enjoy soma holidays where they forget entirely about any feelings that they are having. “Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or mythology” (54). The city of London distributes soma pills to every person in the society, as well as encouraging plenty of its use. Because of this behavior, people have become numb to any and all feeling. This is supported even more by the types of conditioning the World State practices on children. This training is responsible for the loathing of flowers, and the desensitization over death and relationships. The members of the World State are blinded by the things that they cannot see or do not know the difference from. Every decision made in London’s society is not a choice by free will, but a choice made by government.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World,. New York: Harper & Bros., 1946. Print. 

Phase 3, Prompt 3

      Margaret Atwood’s article “Everybody is Happy Now” argues that Aldous Huxley’s dystopian society of Brave New World is very much alive and well today. Atwood outlines the similarities between Huxley’s work and the world we live in now, illustrating how the novel is in fact still an important text, and worth reading in spite of heavy political incorrectness. After thorough examination, though Brave New World is in many ways applicable to today’s society – most notably through consumerism and the birth of genetic engineering – it is also far from an exact portrait of it – as seen in the society’s lack of religion.

      During the Cold War, it seemed as though George Orwell’s 1984 was the more relevant novel to the time period. Communism was descending upon Eastern Europe behind the Soviet Union’s ‘Iron Curtain” as America and its allies sought to contain it. Orwell’s novel envisioned a wicked, “mind-controlling totalitarian state” (Atwood) that seemed to align with the political situation following World War II. But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 and Communist authoritarianism was virtually eliminated, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World instantly became the better predictor of our future. In fact, the aftermath of the Cold War illustrated that the era was not simply an ‘East versus West’ conflict, but in fact pitted the society of Brave New World against the society of 1984. The West, as Atwood argues, became the society of Huxley’s work, with its essential worship of consumerism and a desire for “instant bliss” (Atwood).

      Of course, this assumes that the West, especially America, has willingly submitted to this style of hypnotic “regime.” This is probably true; from our shopping malls to our computers to our smartphones, the world is a different place than 1934. We’re surrendered to technologies that distract us from real issues: The release of the iPhone 5 out-trended the Benghazi attacks on Twitter.

      Atwood is also accurate in her connection between Huxley’s society and today’s human genetic industry. It is shocking how rapidly human embryonic stem-cell research has grown in the beginning of the 21^st century, with the United States at the forefront of scientific research. “On the wilder fringes of the genetic engineering community,” Atwood writes, “there are true believers…engaging in schemes for genetic enhancement” (Atwood), from surrogate motherhood, egg and sperm donation, cloning, and the designing of genetically ‘perfect’ children. Though the use of stem cells is highly controversial, this genetic technology is nonetheless the first step toward Huxley’s prophecy. We obviously have not established a ‘Hatchery and Conditioning Center’ as found in Brave New World, but the development of this science is enough to cause alarm. The calculations of Brave New World illustrate a frightening consequence of this genetics development, yet nobody seems willing to stop it.

      However, the one major difference between Brave New World and today’s society is the role of faith – something Atwood fails to recognize. Faith and religion still play huge roles in today’s world, whereas Huxley’s prophecy World State has all but eliminated God from individual thought. Mustapha Mond makes the argument that religion in his world is materialistic, thus the widespread worship of “Our Ford,” and that the culture of utopian comfort has made God essentially obsolete. According to Mond, humans turn to faith only when pain and loneliness force them to search for a meaning beyond the physical world. “We inevitably turn to God,” he claims, because God “makes up to us for all our other losses.” (Huxley 233). Thus, while Mond accepts the virtues of Christianity and has read the Bible, he still points out that soma – with its ability to suppress emotions and pain – can do the work of God, “without tears” (Huxley 238). ‘Ford’ has consequently become ‘Lord,’ and ‘soma’ has become ‘communion.’ Atwood admits that God’s presence is absent in Brave New World, save for the faithful John the Savage, which is very much a departure from today’s society. God still holds a significant presence today and, according to Mond’s logic, proves that pain is also very much exists.

      Margaret Atwood was mostly correct in her outline of the parallels between Brave New World and today’s society. While she noted the Cold War and its aftermath, the rise of consumerism and excess technology, and the genetic revolution in comparison to Huxley’s work, she forgot to mention the discrepancies between the Godless society of the book and the God-loving society we live in. Thus, though Brave New World has in many ways succeeded in forecasting our humanity, it has still failed in one major aspect to completely prophesize it – at least for now.

 

Atwood, Margaret. "'Everybody Is Happy Now'" The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Nov. 2007. Web. 14 Oct. 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/nov/17/classics.margaretatwood.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperPerennial, 1932. Print.

"Brave New World" Than Knows No Tears

             Aldous Huxley’s novel “Brave New World” depicts a world starkly contrasted to our own in which people are engineered to be thrust into a certain caste. This takes away choice and trades it for happiness. All individuals are made specifically to fulfill a void in society and crafted to enjoy that job, and only that job. The society depicted in this book has almost always been depicted as a dystopian society. But, is it really all that bad? Is life choice really too much to trade for happiness? I don’t think so. I think that if you really think about it, you would discover Huxley’s “Brave New World” isn’t all that bad, and may in fact depict a utopia of sorts. However, the analysis of the Society in “Brave New World” will require some deeper level thinking.

                First, let’s consider why many readers have considered the environment a dystopian one. The most common argument I have heard against the utopian nature of “Brave New World” is that it takes away the right of a person to choose their own path. In the novel, all human beings (except for the “savages”) are designed for a purpose. They are all “test-tube” babies, manufactured on a large scale for a specific purpose. They are put into castes to perform certain tasks and conditioned to be happy in that field. This is viewed by many as a negative thing. They believe that one can only be truly happy if they choose their own way. Happiness, they would assert, is not just about conditioning, but is an exercise of free will. They would argue that someone cannot be truly happy if they are forced into a situation.

                Supporters of this theory are missing a large piece of the puzzle, however. They do not understand that they themselves have been conditioned by our current culture. Let’s think about this a moment. Think about your childhood. Whether you can see it or not, somewhere in during your early years you were taught the basic of life and how our culture operates. This is a part of every human being’s life on the planet. But we do not see this as conditioning because it is subtle and takes more time. But, what’s the difference between a long, drawn out process and a short and quick one. So, we see that conditioning is something we all go through. The only difference between the society in “Brave New World” and our own is that we condition our citizens slowly and without reason whereas in “Brave New World” it is done before the person even knows it for a definite reason. The society of “Brave New World” simply takes a natural process and organizes it. All else remains the same.

                But, don’t they live unfulfilling lives if they do not choose their own paths? From the text we can determine that, for the most part, everyone is happy in the caste they are in. Except for the cases of perhaps Bernard and Helmhotz, everyone seems quite sublime. Even in these cases, the two are unhappy because the system has failed on them. They are social deviants, just as we have now. In fact, it is rumored that Bernard is the way he is because someone added too much alcohol to his sample when he was in the lab. This then, would not be the fault of the society. So we see that the citizens of the society are indeed happy. In fact, the citizens in this culture (which prides itself on freedom) seem to be far less happy than the ones in “Brave New World”. I think this is because they do not have to go through the pain of seeking happiness as we do. Their happiness is handed to them and secured at birth. Ours, on the other hand, must be fought for. This is rough and causes much heartache  Mustapha Mond understands this. He claims that “happiness is a hard master”. By this I think he means that appeasing and supporting happiness is difficult. It is much easier to have it handed to you.

                Given all these facts, I would conclude that the society in “Brave New World” is a utopian society because everyone is truly happy and fulfilled in their lives. No one is left out any more than now. It is a fundamentally different culture, but that does not make it wrong. I think this is why it has been written off as a dystopian society: it is different from ours, therefore it must be wrong. This view is narrow-minded and ethnocentric. Who are we to judge this society as ill just because it is different? If everyone is truly fulfilled with the life they live, what holds it back from being a utopia?

Phase 2 Prompt 3

            When you picture a utopian society, religion, society class segregation, and drug abuse usually aren’t included in that image. These qualities typically lead one to plan a more “perfect” world, not for Huxley’s Brave New World. Huxley’s idea of perfect society includes these ideals.

            Religion in today’s society is the belief of the supernatural higher power that provides moral codes or standards applied to living life the right way. In Huxley’s Brave New World the belief of God faded as technology matured. Throughout the book the “civilized” substituted the name of Henry Ford, the early twentieth-century industrialist and founder of Ford Motor Company, when in today’s time we say “Lord”. This goes to show in Huxley’s society religion has been replaced by worship for technology. Mustapha Mond’s reason for this is “God isn’t compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness” (Huxley 231). Mustapha Mod believes “it is natural for you to believe in God when you’re alone”, which brings up why loneliness is eliminated in this utopia (Huxley 235). Since loneliness is eliminated, sadness is eliminated, which would be required in a utopia; in this case there would be no need to turn to God. Another reason mentioned is that God is old and never changes as men change. Men change as technology changes. Going back to “Our Ford”, Henry Ford started the assembly line. This applies significantly to the production of this society, how babies are developed in factories in bottles on an assembly line, hence their “Ford” is their maker instead of God. A religious service takes place, what we call church, they refer to as “Solidarity Service” where they praise their “Ford” and have an orgy at the closing of service, which would be a horrific sin in our religions today. After observing Mustapha Mond’s reasons as to why there is no God in their society, I see that technology brings happiness with no sin, while God brings loneliness (unhappiness) and love, which causes passion, which can bring war, which isn’t part of a utopia.

            Like our world today, people are divided by social classes where it is possible to move up in society. In Huxley’s society, citizens are born and locked into their social class where they are genetically forced to enjoy and accept their place, which eliminates greed, eliminating the urge to move up in class. You would think this to be dystopian because in a utopia everyone should be of equal stature. If this occurred in the time setting of Brave New World it would be an unstable disaster because everyone is genetically conditioned to love their place in their “caste”; higher caste isn’t meant to do lower caste work (not everyone is equal). These conditions keep this society running.

            Mustapha Mond mentioned “happiness is a hard master” (Huxley 227). Since this isn’t perfected, citizens publicly take anti-depressant like pills they call soma. This controls that imperfection of this utopia. Any negative emotions the people feel soma relieves it. In our world this would be drug abuse (dystopian), but since soma is taken for the sole purpose to maintain happiness, this is a key factor in this type of utopian society.

            A typical utopia, just to name a few, has happiness, no loneliness, no pain, and no diseases. In Huxley’s fictional world there are the typical traits a utopia has, along with the typical dystopian traits. Dystopian traits like what we see as drug abuse, religion, and social segregation makes the society of Brave New World a utopia stabilizing order and happiness. Lastly, going back Mustapha Mond’s statement about naturally looking to God when you’re lonely, if “everyone belongs to everyone else” (non-loneliness), then why do they need any form of religion?