|
Written Fall 2008
Myth As Experiential Reality A scientific explanation differs from a mythological explanation in a number of ways, but first we need to define our terms. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines science as “knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method” which is defined as “the rules and methods for the pursuit of knowledge involving the finding and stating of a problem, the collection of facts through observation and experiment, and the marking and testing of ideas that need to be proven right or wrong.” As such, a scientific explanation is one that attempts to explain a phenomenon by way of observable processes, mechanisms, or laws. The dictionary defines myth, however, as “legendary narrative that presents part of the beliefs of a people or explains a practice or natural phenomenon” or alternatively “an imaginary or unverifiable person or thing” while mythology is defined as “a body of myths and esp. of those dealing with the gods and heroes of a people.” Of course, the dictionary’s explanation of a myth is why I want to first clarify what it is that I mean by ‘myth’ throughout this essay. The modern world defines “myth” much differently than the context in which the ancient world understood the concept. Whereas modern people generally equate ‘reality’ with science and “unverifiable superstition” with myth, ancient people would have generally defined ‘reality’ with verifiable myth. The distinction is subtle but important. For them, myths were not simply legendary stories or fables designed to explain natural processes, mechanisms, or laws but rather the ‘language’ by which our collective experiences are communicated with one another. As such, reality is not defined as something which is external to oneself or temporal but rather eternal and internal to oneself. Or to put it differently, thoughts originate in eternity but are manifested in the temporal according to the purposes of the Mind or minds from which they originate. This is why it was pointed out in class lecture that scientific explanations are always subject to improvement whereas myths generally are not. Mythological explanations of ‘natural’ or ‘physical’ phenomenon are not so much interested with the factual details of causation, but rather they use such phenomenon as a means of communication through symbols and allegories. Nevertheless, this is not to say that the ancient world intentionally sought to deceive their audience or even that myths are inherently false. More accurate would be to say that myths are verifiable to those who engage them on their own terms by embracing the worldview or cosmology described therein. Myth, in a real sense, is a more accurate guide of ‘reality’ than science precisely because it can be verified by personal experience whereas most ‘scientific’ explanations require one to embrace an ever-changing ‘system’ of processes, mechanisms, and laws that are being continually updated as new evidence comes to light. In fact, Joseph Campbell advises one to “Read myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols… Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. It tells you what the experience is.” [POM, 8] He also explains that “Mythological symbols touch and exhilarate centers of life beyond the reach of vocabularies of reason and coercion” and “mythology, then, is to foster the centering and unfolding of the individual in integrity, in accord with d) himself (the microcosm), c) his culture (the mesocosm), b) the universe (the macrocosm), a) that awesome ultimate mystery which is both beyond and within himself and all things” [CM 4, 6] Having introduced and defined our terms, let’s now explore where and how mythological explanations differ from those of a more scientific orientation. Let’s start with a basic investigation of cosmology. Someone living in the ancient world would naturally observe the sun rising from the eastern horizon only to travel across the sky to set in the west. One does not ‘feel’ the earth moving but ‘sees’ the obvious motion of the sun. A careful observation of the sky across many months and years reveal that not only does the sun travel from east to west each day, but there is also a north and south migration pattern. The ‘heavenly hosts’ or zodiac is likewise in continual motion across the backdrop of the sky. The key point here is that this is an accurate portrayal of our experiences and thus conducive to a mythological explanation. Knowing this, an insightful or mystically inclined individual or community of individuals may be inclined to narrate a series of stories or allegories based upon a ‘testimony’ that is observable in the sky. This allows universal values or experiences to be communicated across the zodiacal backdrop in such a way as to preserve continuity in the midst of an ever-changing environment wherein kingdoms not only conquer other kingdoms, but often the victors ‘rewrite history’ to suit their own purposes. What king or emperor can exert his will to change the heavenly testimony? And so it is that cultures and civilizations have always looked to the heavens in a basic assumption that not only are their origins ‘in the stars’ but also that the creator continually speaks to us through the testimony of creation itself. It is for this reason that what we commonly think of as ‘science’ today was studied in conjunction with more spiritual or mystical topics. As such, the separation and antagonism between science and religion is a relatively recent development in man’s quest for knowledge. What reason would the ancient world have to believe otherwise? If I were to write something in antiquity, then only a relative handful of people would be literate enough to read my treatise. This, by itself, is not an effective form of communication. It would be better to somehow ritualize my communication in such a way as to initiate others into the message I wished to convey apart from them needing to know every minute detail that was known to me. If I were to communicate the message through visual word pictures based upon the observable and experiential processes taking place around each one of us, then perhaps others would be able to more effectively interact with the message that I was attempting to convey. From this perspective, it’s easy to see why so many myths are widely divergent in their specific details but almost always share a common set of core elements. A geocentric cosmology is preferable because not only are our bodies composed of earthly materials, but it most naturally corresponds to our earthly experiences. I mean, who among us has not had that sneaky suspicion that we truly are the center of our own universe? The earth is pictured as motherly for the simple fact that all life is derived from the earth. The sky or heavens are pictured as fatherly for the simple fact that the life-imparting and life-sustaining qualities of water and air both reside above. The sun is an appropriate picture of a Father’s ever-persistent love which bathes all of creation. Yet, we also know from experience that the strength of the sun can become quite oppressive during certain periods of the year or in certain regions of the earth; which naturally makes for an enduring picture of a Father’s correctional disciplines when we stray into error. And so it is that there is an almost endless list of reasons for why mythological explanations are primarily interested in communicating our experiences within this realm based upon observable processes, mechanisms, and laws. As such, mythological cosmologies generally are not adaptable to new factual or experimental information in the same way that of a more scientific one. For instance, I would submit that Galileo’s promotion of a heliocentric cosmology is not necessarily the thing that got him into trouble with the Church, but rather it was his introduction of an alien cosmology into one that is irrevocably geocentric. Any attempt to alter or redefine the myths and symbols within a given cosmology could significantly corrupt the whole system. To illustrate, Joseph Ratzinger offers great insight into biblical cosmology when he observes that “the most telling episode of all is that of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Their hearts are transformed, so that, through the outward events of Scripture, they can discern its inward center, from which everything comes and which everything tends… they experience in reverse fashion what happened to Adam and Eve when they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: their eyes are opened. Now they no longer see just the externals but the reality that is not apparent to their senses yet shines through their senses” [SOTL; 121] Thus, any changes to the ‘outward events’ of Scripture could alter the ‘inward center’ or ‘living experience’ for which they bear witness; that is, one can not super-impose a heliocentric model of the universe upon the Bible apart from consequences. Even so, biblical cosmology is itself a product of broken myths that have changed according to our experiences and perceptions of reality. To illustrate, Gordon Lanthrop observes that “The biblical business, time and again, seems to be to propose a hole in these systems or to reverse their values while still using their strengths, to turn or re-aim their words toward another purpose. The biblical concern seems to be to break these systems before the encounter with God and to fill biblical liturgy with just that encounter..." and "The New Testament carries this general biblical pattern of reinterpretation yet further, with christological and trinitarian purpose. When the reinterpretation has to do with cosmology, a liturgical expression frequently lies close at hand..." [HG; 39, 43] Throughout this essay, I have stressed the importance of communicating experiences through mythological explanations. But what are we to make of the more ‘causal’ aspects of cosmology? Should we accept mythologies at face value by attributing such actions to a Supreme Being, various lesser deities, or forces of nature? When an apple falls from a tree, does this require some ‘being’ or ‘force’ to explain an underlying cause? If a series of observable patterns are noticed in a systematic manner that is repeatable under controlled circumstances, would this suggest that a causal or scientific explanation is more reliable and trustworthy than a mythological one? Even if we were to accept the premise that causal explanations are more accurate when it comes to describing reality, how would one account for the growing evidence within modern Physics of a connection between the observer and the observation being observed? What makes a scientific explanation of reality more ‘verifiable’ than personal experience? Does one define reality according to what they have read in a book or been told by a reputable source of authority? Whether one reads a religious text or an academic textbook, I would submit that the same problem confronts each one of us as we come to terms with our own perception of reality. Works Cited
Campbell, Joseph The Power of Myth. New York: Doubleday, 1988. ---. The Masks of God: Volume IV Creative Mythology. London: Penguin Group, 1968. Crowe, Michael J. Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution 1990 New York: Dover Publications, Incorporated 2001 Dear, Peter Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and its Ambitions 1500-1700 Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001 Lathrop, Gordon W. Holy Ground: A Liturgical Cosmology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. Merriam-Webster The Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Home & Office Edition. 1995 Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated 1998. Pederson, Olaf Early Physics and Astronomy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 Ratzinger, Joseph C. The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000. |