Science and Myth
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SCIENCE AND MYTH What We Are Never Told BY THE SAME AUTHOR Cosmos and Transcendence: Breaking Through the Barrier of Scientistic Belief Teilhardism and the New Religion The Quantum Enigma: Finding the Hidden Key The Wisdom ofAncient Cosmology: Contemporary Science in Light of Tradition Sagesse de la Cosmologie Ancienne Christian Gnosis: From Saint Paul to Meister Eckhart Wolfgang Smith SCIENCE AND MYTH What We Are Never Told SOPHIA PERENNIS SAN RAFAEL, CA First published in the USA by Sophia Perennis © Wolfgang Smith 2010 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission For information, address: Sophia Perennis, P.O. Box 151011 San Rafael CA 94915 sophiaperennis.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Smith, Wolfgang, 193o- Science and myth: what we are never told p. em. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59731-097-0 (pbk: alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-59731-098-7 (hardback: alk. paper) 1. Religion and science. 2. Myth I. Title. BL241.S685 2010 201'.65-dc22 2010011744 In Memoriam WERNER PETER SCHMITZ-HILLE t 24 December, 2008 CONTENTS Introduction 1 1 Science and Myth 7 2 Modern Science and Guenonian Critique 25 3 Science and Epistemic Closure 46 4 The Enigma of Visual Perception 69 5 Neurons and Mind 99 6 Cakra and Planet: O.M. Hinze's Discovery 131 7 Metaphysics as "Seeing" 156 Acknowledgments 180 Index of Names 181 INTRODUCTION Science, according to the prevailing wisdom, constitutes the very antithesis of myth. As Albert Einstein has famously said, it deals with "what is"; in which case myth has to do, presumably, with "what is not." It turns out, however, that the matter is not quite so simple. In the first place, it happens that science does not refer purely and simply to "what is": even in the case of physics, its most accurate branch and foundational discipline, it refers, finally, not to Nature as such, but to the responses, on the part of Nature, to the strategies of the experimental physicist, which is something else entirely. Obviously, this was not understood in Newtonian times, and to this day is hardly ever acknowledged in our schools and uni versities; yet it is physics itself, in the form of quantum theory, that disqualifies our customary view of what it is that physics brings to light. Like it or not, physics deals-not simply with "what is"-but ultimately with what John Wheeler terms a "participatory universe." A disconnect, therefore, exists between what science itself affirms and what one generally takes to be the scientific world-view; in a word, that so-called scientific world-view turns out, finally, to be itself a myth. We tend, however, to be equally confused regarding the nature and function of myth itself. We forget that, so far from dealing sim ply with "what is not;' authentic myth "embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be expressed in words;' as Ananda Coomaraswamy points out. Yet in practice the two misconceptions-the over-valuation of science and the under-valu ation of myth-go together, and count equally as a mark of enlight enment among the "well-informed." To complicate matters, science itself, as we have noted, begets myths of its own: a kind that would banish all others, and in so doing undermine, not only religion and morality, but indeed all culture in its higher modes. I say this with out denigrating, in the slightest, the authentic achievements of 2 SCIENCE AND MYTH science: I deny neither the beauty and sublimity of its actual discov eries, nor the fact that the resultant technology, wisely utilized, can be of benefit to mankind. I speak rather of science in its present-day actuality as the prime determinant of culture: the oracle before which Western society at large has come to bow down in a kind of mindless adoration. How could it be otherwise, given that few, these days-a mere handful, it seems-distinguish with any degree of clarity between science and scientistic myth! Science has thus de facto turned into a kind of Trojan horse: we know not what we have let into our city. Seduced by the miracles of technology, we open ourselves to what we take to be scientific enlightenment, unaware of what it is that we imbibe; it is exactly as Christ foretold in his apoc alyptic discourse to the disciples, when he spoke of "great signs and wonders" that might "deceive even the elect." This monograph is concerned throughout with "science and myth." Its intended function, however, so far from being "merely academic;' is eminently practical: the central and primary aim-of each chapter as well as of the whole-is to break the spell of scientis tic myths, their strangle hold upon educated minds, and in so doing, to provide access once more to the perennial myths of man kind. These are the kind that open doors rather than bolt them shut, the kind that convey a sense of the sacred, which is finally none other than a sense of the Real. Contrary to what we have been taught to believe, the Real is not what we catch in our nets, but pre cisely what we do not catch: what ever eludes our mental grasp. It is, in a way, what ultimately "catches" us. And that is why it must be sought, figuratively speaking, "with folded hands;' a gesture that betokens, not a "grasp;' but the very opposite: a submission, namely, an unconditional openness, like that of a mirror wiped clean. But does this imply that there is nothing to be told of the Real: no doc trine at all? That, as I say, is where authentic myth comes into play: the kind that "embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be expressed in words." One thing more remains to be done by way of introduction: given that the book need not be read sequentially, it will be expedi ent to preview its content chapter by chapter. I shall be brief. INTRODUCTION 3 1: SCIENCE AND MYTH This essay is designed to connect with Ananda Coomaraswamy's elucida tions regarding the nature and function of authentic myth. It begins with the observation that science too is based upon "myths" (known as "para digms"), and proceeds to enumerate the three which currently preside: the Newtonian, the Darwinian, and the Copernican. The first is simply the paradigm of "mechanism:' which despite its spectacular success over several centuries was invalidated (as foundational) through the advent of quantum physics. The second is still dominant in biology, but hardly squares with the facts, and has moreover been disqualified by William Dembski's discovery of "intelligent design." The third-the so-called Copernican principle, which stipulates a constant average density of matter in space-still underpins contemporary astrophysics, but stands today on the verge of failure (due in part to seemingly insuperable diffi culties in accounting for the formation of stars and galaxies). Now, what I wish to emphasize is not simply that these presiding paradigms stand on shaky ground and ought de jure to be replaced, but that they consti tute in fact a species of myth, what I term "anti-myth." My major point is that these "myths of science"-each in its own distinctive way-militate against the perennial and indeed sacred wisdom of mankind. 2: MODERN SCIENCE AND GUENONIAN CRITIQUE Here we reflect upon the Guenonian critique of modern science as it applies, in particular, to physics. Surprisingly enough, much of what the French metaphysician has to say in that regard proves to be plainly false, due to the fact that he conflates true science and scientistic belief. On the other hand, his conception of quantity as "the 'residue' of an existence emptied of everything that constituted its essence" turns out to be a mas ter-stroke: the key, in fact, to the metaphysical understanding of modern physics, beginning with quantum theory. In light of considerations pre viously delineated in The Quantum Enigma, I present a philosophy of physics based upon the aforesaid Guenonian conception of"quantity." 3: SCIENCE AND EPISTEMIC CLOSURE This chapter, too, deals with the philosophy of science-and of physics, especially-this time based upon the notion of"epistemic closure" intro duced by Jean Borella, which may be defined as the elimination (from a 4 SCIENCE AND MYTH concept) of all that is recalcitrant to expression in linguistic or "formal" terms. As Borella points out, this proves to be the defining condition of scientific as distinguished from philosophic thought. The latter is in fact characterized by what he terms "l'ouverture a l'etre": the very opposite, namely, of epistemic closure. Following a brief introduction to Borella's thought, I show that these twin notions empower a philosophy of physics that rigorously accounts for the nexus between "science and myth," which in a way brings to completion my earlier studies in this field. 4: THE ENIGMA OF VISUAL PERCEPTION The chapter presents a theory of visual perception propounded by the late James Gibson, based upon experimental findings accumulated over a period of several decades. It recounts how this hard-headed scientist was led, on the basis of empirical facts, to deconstruct the Cartesian dualism which underlies our scientistic world-view. What Gibson discovered is that perception is not of a visual image (be it retinal, cortical or mental) as just about everyone had thought, at least since the days of Descartes but that, on the contrary, we actually perceive what he calls "the environ ment" (in basically the ordinary sense).