Debunking A Modern Myth: the Conflict of Religion & Science – Part Two

OK, another extract from the ongoing debate! Part One can be found here —

https://jerome23.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/debunking-a-modern-myth-the-conflict-of-religion-science-part-one/

and an earlier post on a very common part of the myth, that of the Evangelical opposition to Charles Darwin and evolution can be found here–

https://jerome23.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/myths-of-evolution/

Frazer and his Myths on Mythology

Sir James Frazer in his monumental work The Golden Bough managed to pollute the intellectual atmosphere of the world in a way few have rivaled; he did to history what Henry Ford did to our lungs. Within months of Frazer publishing his work was torn apart by serious anthropologists, but it was popular, and went through edition after edition. Frazer’s kooky ideas are with us in many ways today – Tim O’ Neil and I often note their prevalence in Christ Myther circles (as someone asked — a Christ Myther is a person who denies there was a historical Jesus, claiming Christ is a fiction) and other pseudo-historical nonsense, but I’ll briefly explain the relevance here.

Frazer postulated that religion was primitive science, and that as scientific knowledge grew it usurped the role of earlier religious knowledge. His idea, which one can still find similarities with in Gebser, Wilber and some of the transpersonalists, sees Magic as the most primitive level of human interaction with the environment. From Magic develops mythology and Religion, and these fall victim to Science. It’s a historicist, approach, deeply teleological, in which history has an onward momentum, culminating in the White Anglo-Saxon Victorian civilization of Frazer. It’s also b*****ks.

Sir James Frazer, popular, intelligent, well meaning, and author of myths that have corrupted our reading of myths!

Sir James Frazer, popular, intelligent, well meaning, and author of myths that have corrupted our reading of myths!

The idea is superficially attractive. Knowledge does by and large increase through history, as does technology, taken globally. Individual cultures rise and fall, and there are fits and starts, but generally we see progress through history towards greater scientific and technological achievement. That certain cultures (with their religions) favour science more than others is pretty obvious – I’ll talk about that later. Frazer however saw everything was his own position, as the logical end point of the whole progress caboodle, as do his disciples. An Inuit animist was a “primitive”, being trapped in magical thinking, a Catholic Spaniard to him “a superstitious papist, trapped in the Religion phase” and the Frazer and friends reflected the epitome of rationality and “the high point”. I think we can all see the flaw in this. Compared with what?  It’s arrogant and wrong. Quite an achievement.
🙂
Still, that is not the real problem. The problem is Frazer failed to note that religion is NOT primitive science. While we may have difficulties defining science, we can all agree that science serves an explanatory function in relation to the natural world – and this was by and large not the role of magic or religion. Just as very few people really believe “thunder is angels bowling”, so generally religion has not concerned itself with explaining nature.

Confronting the errors: “what everybody knows”

“Everyone knows” that Religion is Primitive Science. My opponent in the debate has implied it. But it’s not true, as a few minutes research will establish definitively for yourself. I’m going to ask you you to think through your own assumptions here, and test them againts the empirical evidence.

Religion does not explain the natural world. Let us look at the Christian Bible, how much of it represents “primitive science”? I set this challenge at the end of my introductory post. You get off to a good start with Genesis and Creation – which I will discuss the meaning of in a future post, and show it is clearly theological NOT scientific, but for now let us accept it is “scientific”. What follows? What explanatory purpose in terms of physical phenomena do the story of the Patriarchs serve? The Exodus? What of the endless law codes of Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers? Kings and Chronicles are history – any science in there? Nope. Esther and Ruth lack any explanatory purpose in terms of the physical world. Ditto the Prophets. Judaism generally is certainly not supportive of “religion is primitive science”. The claim is clearly nonsense – Judaism is not interested in explaining physical phenomena, instead Creation is invoked to support the claims of Judaism – not Judaism invoked to explain the natural world. When we move in to the Gospels we find no “explanation” material – Jesus does not, the best efforts of astrotheology kooks notwithstanding, appear to tell us anything about the natural world. You can read the Gospels, Epistles and Revelation in search of “primitive science” – but you look in vain.

Turn to the Qu’ran. Does this book purport to teach you physics, chemistry, biology? I don’t think that is the message in any way. To assert that the revelation of God, or any religious text is primitive science is to completely misrepresent most religion. In fact the natural world is large a mystery to the religious mind, but one that can be explored, and understood, because it functions by rational laws, set by God.

Now let us be fair on Frazer. Frazer was talking about what he saw of Primitive Religion, which he believed reflected a kind of mythic set of archetypes about vegetation gods and reaping, sowing, etc. Unsurprisingly he found agricultural motifs and images in many religions – because naturally enough in an agriculturally based economy these motifs will be central! Frazer saw the great monotheisms as having surpassed this stage – but ever in Greek mythology, his favourite topic, it fails. He gives the story of Proserpine and the seasons as an exemplar – the myth explains the changing of the seasons. Er, quite. Is this really an explanation? As countless students of mythology have pointed out since, Greek, Roman and Norse myth are not explanatory in this way. Not all lightning came from Zeus – he was not the embodiment of the lightning, he was a God who used lightning bolts as a weapon. How does Cerberus, Orpheus, the Titanomachy, Semele and Hera, explain anything in nature? What of Loki, what does he tell us of the physical world? What “scientific” explanation did he give us? Or Jorgumand? Fenrir? What physical principle is reflected in Mjolnir?

If you have read this far, and please do say something about this in the comment thread, please examine what you have taught and your cultural beliefs about mythology. Have you been taught to think of the Gods in this mechanistic way, with deities associated with a particular realm? We often think of “X as God of Y”, and apply this across all pantheons, as if Gods represented natural forces – “Surt was a fire demon/giant”, “Flora goddess of vegetation”, and do forth. Nope, it does nto work like that. It’s a shorthand, to explain things the Gods are associated with, but most pantheons for not follow these neat (X=”corn god”) categories – while it made the old  D&D book Deities and Demigods much easier to use, it doe not reflect real mythology. Classicists (and I hope some are reading this and will jump in to tell me if i am seriously wrong!) can point out that they “unlearn” these associations early. The Gods, and religions, were never “primitive science”, and if you think they were, who is the Sun God in Norse religion? Who embodies Rain? And who embodies the Wind? Not so easy is it?

Religion is not superseded primitive science. Once you realise this, you realise that a great deal of the Dawkinite assault rests upon this thoroughly mistaken assumption, as does much of the Conflict Myth.

Please do comment if you have read this far!

cj x

Advertisements

About Chris Jensen Romer

I am a profoundly dull, tedious and irritable individual. I have no friends apart from two equally ill mannered cats, and a lunatic kitten. I am a ghosthunter by profession, and professional cat herder. I write stuff and do TV things and play games. It's better than being real I find.
This entry was posted in Debunking myths, History, Religion, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Debunking A Modern Myth: the Conflict of Religion & Science – Part Two

  1. Eliste says:

    Well, since you asked so nicely and I did read through to the end, clearly I must respond. 🙂

    To begin, I completely agree with your premise: science and religion as concepts do not have to be at odds.

    That being said, you seem to be saying that they are not at odds because science and religion (myths) tread in completely different spheres. And that bit I don’t agree with.

    I once studied tai chi and choy li fut style kung fu at the same school, and the Sifu of the school explained to me that you could study the harder kung fu side or the softer tai chi side, but when you reached the top levels both arts became the same. I.e., they were different paths to the same end. I think if more people realized that religion and science were different paths to the same end (in fact, some people make a religion out of science), not only would there be the getting along, but we might even figure stuff out a lot faster if we work at a problem from both sides.

    I do agree with you that mythology never was ‘primitive science.’ Myths were not made up to explain natural phenomena, and then were not ‘replaced’ by scientific explanations. (This ridiculous assumption makes me want to jump up and down.)

    However, if you include the soft sciences, myths *were* science, and nothing primitive about it. Myths represent the psychology, anthropology, sociology, and if you take a euhemeristic point of view, history of the cultures that formed them. And if you drill deep enough into religion, you get this one basic teaching at the heart of all the metaphor: that everything and everyone has a divine essence. A fact that physics (quantum physics most especially) is slowly but surely climbing its way toward; we already know that everything in the universe is, at the sub-atomic level, made up of energy.

    And there you have my two cents! Make love and war, and all that. Things are never as divided as they seem….

  2. Pingback: silly mythy | Oasis Stories

  3. Chris says:

    Hey Eliste, your Oasis looks interesting. I have added it to my blog roll, I hope you don’t mind. Creative roleplaying and playing with myth are subjects close to my heart — I guess roleplaying games, especially the Glorantha based games are one way I express this. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorantha ) tells you abit about Glorantha!

    Eliste wrote
    “That being said, you seem to be saying that they are not at odds because science and religion (myths) tread in completely different spheres. And that bit I don’t agree with.”

    That is the Non Overlapping Seperate Magisteria approach of the late Stephen J Gould and others, and is the heir to a Christian tradition of understanding called the Two Books theory pioneered by Sir Francis Bacon. I agree with you this is flawed – it is generally true, or contains much truth, but it is in no way completely so. I’m just thinking I should define myth and religion as well now – actually I will write a proper post on myth – the loss of myth is one of the tragedies of the modern age I think.

    Eliste wrote
    I think if more people realized that religion and science were different paths to the same end (in fact, some people make a religion out of science), not only would there be the getting along, but we might even figure stuff out a lot faster if we work at a problem from both sides.

    I see no conflict – both are ways of knowing, and all ways of knowing are potentially useful. Truth is what interests me – whether or not that Grail is ever seizable, I know not! Perhaps real truth forever eludes our grasp.

    Eliste wrote
    I do agree with you that mythology never was ‘primitive science.’ Myths were not made up to explain natural phenomena, and then were not ‘replaced’ by scientific explanations. (This ridiculous assumption makes me want to jump up and down.)

    Same here, but I guess this is the blog equivalent. The actual debate is taking over at Richard Dawkins place, but they are good folks, but yes I grow occasionally frustrated. The notion of religion as primitive (natural) science is very very common!

    Eliste wrote
    And there you have my two cents! Make love and war, and all that. Things are never as divided as they seem….

    I’ve heard “make love not war”, but never “make love and war” – though that sounds more like romance as I understand it! Thats a great line, is it yours?

    Anyway great to hear from you!
    cj x

  4. Eliste says:

    How could I possibly mind? I shall happily return the blogroll favor. 🙂

    I am very much looking forward to your post defining ‘myth’ and ‘religion!’

    ‘Make love and war’ is mine….’and’ was a typo at first but then I started thinking and decided to leave it. As you say, that is a more useful view of what romance is. Conflict exists for a reason and is a necessary part of being human. It is important for *me* to remember that conflict doesn’t negate love. It’s the actions taken by conflicting parties that can lead to unfortunate ends….

  5. Chris says:

    I think that is an a really neat phrase “make Love & War”, and when you have time you should explore it either in fiction format or in a straight opinion/psychology piece.If you don’t I will! It’s too good not to steal…

    cj x

  6. Eliste says:

    Steal away….and when I am feeling thinky again I will do my riff on it and compare it to yours 🙂

  7. Chris says:

    OK cool, will do and thanks — may be a day or two as I seem to be up to my neck in writing about ghosts at the moment! I’m assuming you are in Italy based on reading your blog, do you have a strong tradition of “true ghost stories” and paranormal accounts?

    cj x

  8. Eliste says:

    I would dearly love to know why you assumed that! Because as it happens I am in the US, in San Diego.

  9. Chris says:

    Ah, San Diego! No idea. I’m in the UK, where it is cold wet and spook ridden. 🙂

    cj x

  10. Pingback: Eostre never existed: why Easter is NOT a Pagan Holiday « Jerome23’s Weblog

  11. Pingback: Debunking A Modern Myth: the Conflict of Religion & Science – Part One « "And sometimes he's so nameless"

  12. Pingback: rites behind rites: the dark gods | Madame Pickwick Art Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s