MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

Myth

Copyright © Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science ISSN: 2037-2329 and the author. Nopart of this article may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without the priorpermission of the Editors. To refer to the content of this article, quote: INTERS – InterdisciplinaryEncyclopedia of Religion and Science, edited by G. Tanzella-Nitti and A. Strumia, www.inters.orgDate: 2002Jean-Michel Maldamé [1]

I. Reason vs. Myth – II. Reason and Imagination. 1. The Concern of Epistemology for Myth. 2. Myth asIntellectual and Cultural Driving Force. 3. Metaphysical Insufficiency of Scientific Rationality. - III.Myth and Contemporary Science. 1. The Presence of a Language Related to Myth in Some Models Usedby Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics. 2. Biological Evolution as a “Narration.” – IV. Myth, Religionand Faith. 1. The Triumph and Survival of Myth. 2. Myth and Biblical Language. 3. Concluding Remarks.

With the passing of time, scientific progress succeeded in relegating to the background what is commonlycalled "myth," a term that connotes not only the sum of ancient “tales” which lie at the base of culture,but also the intellectual attitude that governed mankind’s original rapport with reality. The rationalismtied to classical science stigmatized myth as “infra-scientific,” hence, incapable of revealing any sort oftruth. Myth was considered precisely a mystification. In our day, thanks to developments in the naturalsciences, with the modification of certain conceptions and the introduction of new ideas, the perception ofmyth’s value has changed. The human sciences as well have altered the contemporary notion of myth byrediscovering the importance of traditional culture. Even philosophy, which occupies itself with universalspiritual experience, has cultivated a respectful relationship with myth. All this has lead to a newappreciation of the value of myth, without in any way detracting from the defense of reason before theshifting manifestations of the irrational.

I. Reason vs. myth

The devaluation of myth was properly the work of positivist philosophy, especially in the form expressedby Auguste Comte (1798-1857). This view was – and is – largely shared in many scientific circles. In hisreflection on the history of thought, Comte subdivided the adventure of the human spirit into three stagesthrough which reason passed on its way to full maturity in the modern age (see Positivism [2]). In the"mythological" or "religious" stage, according to Comte, thought was as yet the prisoner of images, androom still remained for divine arbitration. The following "metaphysical" stage entailed the emergence ofreason, but the total confidence accorded to reason was in some way blind, leaving the human spiritprisoner of a certain anthropocentrism.

Reason finally reached full maturity in the "scientific" age when it became an adequate instrument ofknowledge whose awareness of its own limits permitted it to lay claim to objectivity. The philosophical© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013

Page 1 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

formulation suggested by Comte dominted the greater part of European thought and social behavior; themilitant attitude of the laity interpreted it almost verbatim. The progress of university science and worldconquest found their justification in the triumph of rationality over religious representations and myths. Inthe realization of progress, European colonizers referred themselves to the use of reason as much foreducation as for economic and administrative development. Scientific knowledge was taken as the modelfor every kind of knowledge. Such a classification was subsequently inherited in part by criticalphilosophy. However, recognizing the complexity and the value of the human spirit, critical philosophydid not fall into the same simplistic interpretation: according to Kant (1724-1804), in fact, knowledgeresides essentially in the judgement which, in turn, is based on positions or postulates that do not leavethemselves restricted by the hegemony of rationalism or its claim to perfect objectivity.

The 19th century rationalistic attitude, broader than simple positivism or scientism, followed steadfastlywhat had already been accomplished at the dawn of western thought. From this perspective, science isconstructed in opposition to a religious vision of the world. A nature populated by divinities ormysterious forces, understood in an anthropomorphic way, is subject to the arbitrariness of good and evilspirits. This view of the world leaves wide scope for the unforeseeable while discouraging any rationaleffort at prediction or codification. Contrariwise, to imagine a law (nómos) written in natural phenomena,frees the spirit and gives precedence to reason (lógos). This was the accomplishment of the Greeks at thedawn of western thought in their formulation of the ideal of the City and knowledge based on the analysisof facts and their coherent application to theory. From this perspective, as much political as scientific, themetaphysical idea of "nature" (physis) took shape as the capacity for autonomous action, being regulatedand balanced by a principle of order. Also formulated was the notion of "essence" (ousía) which, given itsinvariability, could serve as the origin of secure knowledge based on universal principles (archaí)accessible to the intelligence by way of a language that was itself subject to logical rules.

The myths appeared, then, as great tales in which forces independent of the rules recognized and sharedby human beings intervened. With time, myths became not only useless, but even, in the words of GastonBachelard (1884-1962), an “epistemological obstacle.” Plato (428-348 B.C.) maintained that myth doesnot derive from science, but from opinion, and is a barrier to the rational interpretation of phenomena.Moreover, he criticized the ancient tales on account of their immorality. For Plato, truth and error are notonly of the speculative order, but relate to virtue. He opposed myth (mythos) to argumentative discourse(lógos). Thus, while a “tale” (the poet’s word) is satisfied to delineate contingent events, “science” (theword of the philosopher and sage) looks to reason or the cause of things.

The Socratic/Platonic rupture that inherited and crowned the work begun by the early “physicists”(physilógoi) was later taken up by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), in whose thought reference to myth waspractically nonexistent. Aristotle placed great importance on the concept of nature. From the beginning,his scientific ideal was characterized by the distrust of myth, as testified by his particular attention to theways of expressing and reasoning. Myth, for Aristotle, is a form of expression that retains pedagogicalvalue as a means of integration into the City and participation (mímesis) in its life, but must be interpretedin an allegorical way. This tradition would later be developed by the Stoics, who saw in the ancientstories a distorted way of reporting reality: one can “say” what belongs to reality, however, only within arational system.

Science constructed the ideal of a knowledge capable of predicting, by means of calculation, themovement of the celestial bodies, eclipses, and the celestial conjunctions, relegating guesswork andmagic to the margins of knowledge. Biological phenomena were explained by means of the constitutiveelement of vital influence (the pneûma of the medical schools of Alexandria). Work such as theconstruction of houses, palaces or temples, the rigging of ships, and the realization of war machines, were

© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013Page 2 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

all regulated by the demands of proportion and balance, fruit of rigorous calculations. Thus the term"science" came to define the dominion of man over nature by means of reason (Gr. orthós logós; Lat. recta ratio), finally displacing that term from the terrain of myth. As allegorical keys, myths were notignored, though they were held to be imperfect, a mere hint of that which was now scientifically known.Myth, then, appeared as the fruit of the imagination, reserved for religious discourses and the instructionof children, in which case it contributed to social integration and the maintenance of City values.

For this reason, the entry of Aristotelian thought into the highly religious society of the Middle Ages gaverise to a crisis which once again put into play the victory of reason over imagination or the world ofemotions. In respect to logical rules that presuppose the use of propositions, the ideal of reason hadachieved a distinction between principles and conclusions, as well as precise arguments on the content ofpropositions. This ideal was taken up again in the Renaissance and the age of scientific development,classically understood, when mathematical procedures were perfected to the point of being able todescribe and unveil the intimate secrets of nature. In this long historical passage, science was hailed as thetriumph of reason and victory over myth. In effect, mythological tales recount events unknown to humanexperience: animals speak, beings transform themselves, necessary physical consequences are eluded ormodified instantly by words or thought alone. In myth, the principle of non-contradiction is not alwaysguaranteed; narration does not respect those links of space and time proper to human life and founded onthe common experience of the unfolding of time and daily work. For these reasons, the ideal of scientificknowledge was characterized, soon after its birth, by a definite distrust of mythological language: thescientific spirit had no difficulty declaring that narrated facts are untrue simply because they areimpossible.

The founding metaphysical direction of scientific method was encouraged by the continuing success of itsapplications, notwithstanding that the thought of scholars was not always homogenous and still preservedat times conceptions that were in a certain sense religious. Thus, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) constructedthe first great rational system of the world as a whole, bringing to fruition what had been begun byGalileo and Kepler. But his attention was attracted also by alchemy and the numerical relations thatappear in the language of the Apocalypse. Descartes and his disciples (faithful when in need to Aristotle),refuted the obscurity, we could say, the impertinence, of the concept of action at a distance, and realizedthe foundational exigency of science: a language completely void of every reference to the sacred and to mystery [3].

The birth of chemistry with Lavoisier (1743-1794) confirmed this conclusion: the language of myth is notappropriate for describing the true cause of the transformations and proprieties of bodies. Theclassification of substances must adhere to the rigorous analyses of chemical activities and not to simpleanalogies noted in the field of biology. In its turn, biology was born as an exact science founded on themeasurement and determination of quantitative relations, as for example, the measurement of temperatureand that of temperature exchanges with the external environment. Experimental medicine was kept at aproper distance from tales that explained the geneses of living forms in terms of the intervention of agentsand principles extraneous to nature and inexpressible in scientific terms.

The triumph of science in the 19th century, then, incited the philosophy of knowledge to favor the use ofreason just as it was employed in the mathematical organon of the exact sciences. From this perspective,thought cannot be truthful without passing through logical deduction, whose propositions are the object ofan appropriate formalism. Facts have to be submitted to an experimental verification which records themwith the rigorous detachment of objectivity. Epistemological work confirmed this philosophy. The orderof knowledge tends toward transforming metaphysical thought into a generalized rationalism in whichconcepts intersect logically and examine reality according to their own internal exigencies. Epistemology

© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013Page 3 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

is attentive to the growth of the understanding of reality. For experts in pedagogy who strive to designacademic programs introducing students to scientific reasoning, the development of the intelligence oughtto lead to the domination of reason, according to the logical/mathematical model. Evolutionarypsychology preserves this perspective even to our day. Myth, considered a kind of infantile knowledge,gives form not only to the thought of children, but also to primitive cultures untouched by progress. Atthe same time, the critique of myth was extended to all religious language in kind, and to the expressionof theological faith. The Christian message was accused of allowing itself to be held prisoner by anemotionalism that projected onto realty the intimate convictions of the subject, without bothering toverify them, hence lacking any objectivity. Thus, myth became an object of study for sociologists andpsychologists, a gate of access to the investigation of the archaic and unconscious (FREUD).

This negative view of myth continues to hold sway today over western culture, faithful as it is to itsagenda of “secularization.” It is important, therefore, to point out a certain change that has come about inthe appreciation and evaluation of myth.

II. Reason and Imagination

The new approach to myth is based on three types of argument: epistemological, cultural, andmetaphysical.

1. The Concern of Epistemology for Myth. The most fertile criticism of the contempt of all that does notcome from a reason reduced to pure mathematics was that formulated by Blaise Pascal (1623-1662).Pascal recognized the great value of the new science (of which he made ample use), but emphasized at thesame time that every line of reasoning is based on principles, and every demonstration is based on termsand concepts; these, in their turn, are based on others, and so forth. Pascal called for theacknowledgement that every understanding rests on “primary determinations,” often admitted in animplicit way, without being put in discussion by the experts of a specific discipline. In this perspective,critical thought considers similar choices such as beliefs or primary intuitions which cannot be expressedadequately by means of scientific language. The admission of knowledge’s radical incompleteness is acharacteristic of mature reason: of a reason, that is to say, capable of critically considering its ownfoundations.

In the course of the 20th century such thinking was taken up again with the intention of founding themathematical sciences on logic. It was soon clear that this all-embracing project was unrealizable, asdemonstrated in the rigorous, logical form of Gödel’s celebrated theorem. Scientific reasoning cannot be“self-founding”: it bases itself on that which partially evades reason, on intuitions or postulates.Contemporaneous attempts to reach a “theory of everything” are vain. These considerations allow us toaffirm that an all-encompassing and universal discourse, as that which is found in myth, is not at allextraneous to scientific knowledge. Notwithstanding the difference existing between scientific andmythological discourse, it cannot be denied that myth may even have had a fundamental role in thedevelopment of scientific thought. Hence, myth is rehabilitated on the epistemological plain. Scientificcreativity, for example, is not reduced to pure rationality; if it were, it would surely be impoverished.Certainly the exigencies of verification and testing are essential in every scientific procedure, but theseactivities serve as a control and are, in some sense, secondary. The creativity of the spirit is not exhaustedin the rigorous, expository course of a demonstration.

2. Myth as Intellectual and Cultural Driving Force. In the second place, time has proven that it is notpossible to realize any scientific work without recognizing certain basic “values”. The sociology of

© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013Page 4 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

knowledge has demonstrated dependence on paradigms that have a cultural, globalizing value. The steadyadvance of science was favored by the ideal of progress [4], an ideal possessing some mythical value.Hence, modern science can rightly consider itself the daughter of the myth of progress.

The study of the foundations of the development of modern science show that this development waspreceded at the dawn of the classical age by certain convictions orienting the European spirit towardworld conquest. These convictions were found in the so-called “utopian” texts, named thus after the titleof Thomas More’s (1478-1535) first book. Thomas More, Francis Bacon, François Rabelais, andTommaso Campanellla projected into the future an ideal model of civilization. Their works rested onpopular thinking and opened up the prospect of an ideal of theoretical and practical reason: they gavestrength and legitimacy to the actions of the spirit, to medical art, and economic and political activity, butalso to the ideal of science, attained theoretically in the educative system, and in a practical way in theorganization of work and of industrial production. In the disenchantment of contemporary culture, thecharacter of the “founding myth” can be noted in the discourses on reason which would be taken up againlater by the Enlightenment or the rationalists, from J.A. Condorcet to J.E. Renan.

Any argument denying reason its proper dominion is perceived as a danger. The destructive fruits ofirrationalism are such as to provoke a reaction against every kind of nihilism. Today scientific reasonfeels the need, along with the call to progress, not to lose the dynamism inscribed in its origins. Scientistsare seen as one source of this dynamism. For this reason, in reaction against certain “wild” forms ofreturning to the sacred that would destroy the human spirit, scientists seek to renew an alliance withmonotheistic theology that recognizes the value of reason and is willing to open itself to verification anddialogue with the sciences. Catholic theology, in its turn, has recovered a significant role in thefoundation of scientific thought, whose development, as demonstrated by Pierre Duhem (1861-1916), istied essentially to monotheism.

3. Metaphysical Insufficiency of Scientific Rationality. The third motive for the re-evaluation of myth is ofthe metaphysical order. The classical ideal that rejected myth as a perverse fruit of the imagination,considered as an evil power, proved to be too naïve. A more profound knowledge of matter [5] has shownthat philosophical ideas which in certain epochs were able to explain the various modes of rationalitybecame insufficient: determinism could not describe the relations and the interrelations between theultimate components of nature, and the notion of a “clear and distinct idea” came to be set aside.According to a famous expression, “reality is veiled.” It comes to be known little by little, and the morewe know it, the more we recognize that we are enfolded in mystery. This perspective highlights theprecarious character of many of the things we know and invites us to consider that the ideal of atransparent scientific language, an ideal that permeates classical science, remains utopian, since reality ismuch richer than our representations, and whatever new knowledge we acquire always poses even moredifficult questions.

For these three reasons, myth has ceased to appear as something contrary to rational discourse. On thecontrary, it has formed with it more intimate and subtle ties – something that could not have beenimagined during the age of the triumph of scientism.

III. Myth and Contemporary Science

The new rapport between mythos and logos is evident in three areas of fundamental science: cosmology,physics, and biology. It is worthwhile to examine these three spheres where the relation between the twolanguages, scientific and mythical, is not exclusive but complementary.

© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013Page 5 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

1. The Presence of a Language Related to Myth in Some Models Used by Cosmology and QuantumMechanics. The image of the world furnished by contemporary science often presents anall-encompassing perspective. Departing from the standard cosmological model (usually linked to theimage of the Big Bang), cosmology [6] proposes a complete history of energy, matter, and life. This Weltanschauung is presented as a great story that, departing from a certain initial singularity, explains thepresent and opens the future to interrogation. This “historical” presentation is based on observations thatdepend, in strength and diversification, on various instruments that work not only in the range of opticradiation, but also in other zones of the electromagnetic spectrum. The results obtained are based on theawareness of fundamental applied physics with success both at the intimate level of matter and in thestudy of the higher energies. The articulation of the infinitely great and infinitely small carried out todayby astrophysics lays the groundwork for a coherent presentation of the world, considered as atrue universe [7], unified by laws expressed with mathematical models. The presentation of results placesattention on the limits of the observable and the threshold of the validity of physical theories. Scientificconcepts are pushed beyond themselves with the end of fashioning theses that anticipate results fromobservations or from the same theoretical constructions. In such a way cosmology finishes by re-aligningitself with ancient cosmology such that elements of what was at one time considered a mythologicaldiscourse are appearing once again.

Some, such as Edmund Whittaker, have drawn from the standard model a sort of "concordism" withreligious teaching, wanting to identify the initial singularity of these cosmological models with the firstwords of the Book of Genesis ("In the beginning God created..." Bereshit bara’ Elohim). It is important,however, to accept with reserve some presentations of scientific results since the “translation” of a theoryinto a universal discourse often hides certain areas of ignorance and reconstructs a myth that cannotthereafter avoid being transformed once again into an epistemological obstacle. Silence, thus, covers whatis unknown and an illusion of absolute knowledge is offered, sometimes colliding with religious themes.

Also, the way in which certain results of quantum mechanics [8] are presented seems to signal the returnto a religious view of the world, as indicated by the break with a deterministic vision of naturalphenomena. The ultimate essence of matter leaves space for the unforeseeable since quantum mechanicspresents the results of its calculations by means of a mathematical language that expresses uncertainphenomena. The rupture with determinism has lead some to read in the substance of matter thelegitimization of a “spiritualistic” vision. Terms such as energy, actions, awareness, or freedom areinterpreted within a cosmogenesis permeated by sacredness. The scientific ideal ceases to becharacterized by rationalism, becoming instead a sacralization of nature. Nature – written with a capital“N” – is seen as a maternal power, a source of renewal (natura naturans is a natura mater). In this way,the cosmological discourse is accompanied by religious themes deriving from oriental traditions (the“dance of Shiva,” the idea of a “universal consciousness,” etc.). At times, these notions are only anornamentation to discourse, but for some the legitimization of scientific work by reference to the sacred isvery important. Scientific results may evoke a new Concordism with the ancient religious myths thatexpress pantheistic monism. Matter is seen invested by a dynamism that explains how the world is “set inmotion” according to an order or universal law possessing absolute value. The reduction to immanence ofa principle that would have to act in a transcendent manner is considered by some as a way of returning tothe great theme of finalism [9].

2. Biological Evolution as a “Narration”. Thirdly, this time in the biological sphere, the theory of evolution [10] proposes a continuous and progressive history of the transformation of species accordingto a relentless development that overcomes challenges originating from restrictions, internal and external,of an ecological, geological, climactic or geographic nature. The theory of evolution offers a unified

© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013Page 6 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

vision of the progressive emergence of the complexity of an ever more efficient organization of thevarious organisms. Also, this scientific idea is not infrequently presented within expressive contexts of amythic character.

The glance that man turns on his distant past brings him back in touch with that archaic spiritual state thatis typical of the origin of myth. In fact, prehistory is imagined as a period in which hunters lived in a kindof happy Eden where life flowed along tranquilly – a view modernized in the idea of a golden age. At thesame time, the rusticity of the first realizations of objects and instruments evokes the notion of a naturalstate, almost innocent – a view rediscovered in the medieval discourse on Paradise. Representationscontaining references to sexual behavior have given rise to a dream world in which there were norestrictions on the life of a couple, nor difficulties for the survival of children – a re-actualized version ofmyths regarding sexual innocence in the face of a morality imposed by a society based on precise rules.Similarly, catastrophic theories that have brought about a reconsideration of gradualism, typical of thetheories of synthesis, re-align themselves with those Gnostic visions that favor the notions of fall andalienation.

All these myths are at the same time the fruit of an historical reconstruction, a manifestation of theunexpressed desire to seek a perfection realized in history. It appears evident, then, that the strictseparation between science and myth, in place from the moment the intellectual climate was dominatedby rationalism, is in fact illusory. There exists a complementarity between science and the foundingancient narratives. What is necessary now is a work of discernment.

IV. Myth, Religion and Faith

The return of the presence of myth in science invites us to recall some foundational elements of scientificthought. Departing from the 17th century, science acquired a great power to “explain the world” thanks toa transparent, precise language, like that used by mathematics, in which clear and distinct ideas reign. Thesuccess of scientific results, as much on the theoretical as the functional plain, has confirmed not only thevalue of practical reason, but above all that of the metaphysics of being in the purity of the Logos. Suchsuccess should not let us forget that, in its process of development, classical science, linked typically withDescartes and Newton, has conducted a contemporaneous battle on two fronts: first, against an academictradition of the Aristotelian type; second, against the hermetic tradition reassumed during theRenaissance.

1. The Triumph and Survival of Myth. The Aristotelian tradition that dominated medieval universityteaching, after having born its fruits, became rather rigid and seemed chained by the preeminence of textover observation and qualitative evaluation over measure. Against such an exacerbating tradition somedaring innovators made their appearance. Referring themselves to the authority of the ancients, theyreevaluated the role of numbers and geometric perfection with the intention of giving essences new rigor,modifying the sense itself of the word “concept.” This aspect of their efforts is well noted. However, theother front of the scientific dispute should not be forgotten, that tied to the success of the new ideal ofthought: the rejection of hermetism.

This term, that in reality defines a certain spiritual attitude, refers properly to Ermete Trismegisto, analmost legendary person rediscovered by the erudite scholars of the Renaissance, whose influence wasfelt in medicine [11] and alchemy. In hermetic practice, arguments of a globally significant value weredeveloped in reference to entities. The language was that of analogy between the form and the play of theelements. Natural elements, it was believed, enjoy a certain autonomy and possess the intentionality and

© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013Page 7 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

will proper to living beings and human persons. Classical science broke with such “spiritualizing” ofmatter to replace it with the abstraction of mathematical laws. After Kepler, it was no longer necessary tosuppose the existence of angels or divinities to preside over the movement of the stars and planets since itwas sufficient to use the forces described by rational mechanics. This victory, however, did not put an endto the relationship we human beings have with our imagination. Rather, a distinction had to be madebetween the fruits of the imaginary and that activity of the imagination that derives from the imaginativeand expresses the creativity of the spirit.

The relation between science and myth is not limited to the theoretical aspect of thought. Applied science,or technology [12], also has ties with myth, both for what it produces and in its development. Thelanguage of applied science was created by progress; its investigations are validated by a preoccupationwith results. To earn credit, research laboratories give preference to those themes that have a certainsocial and political importance. Hence, the dominant themes of social and political discourse are alwaysinspired by the “myth of progress”: health, agricultural development, abundance of consumer goods,quality of life, victory over geographic limitations, conservation of the purity of nature. Eventechnological objects are invested with mythical power: the computer, for instance, owns these powerswhen it presents its results. Daily life bears continual witness to this dynamic. Also, scientific languageproduces myths, and does so under its veil of being the font of the truth, even when it does not tell thetruth. Truth, to be such, must not confine itself to listening to only one source of knowledge, because itcannot be other than symphonic.

Science, taken in its widest sense, also produces certain works that are born from the purely imaginary,works that we call “science fiction.” Science fiction novels have an important role in the structuring ofthe imaginary. Jules Verne, for example, is one of the typical heroes of modernity; his numeroussuccessors today know how to utilize the paradoxes of the new physics to heighten the contrastwith common sense and lead the spirit beyond the immediate. In these novels we rediscover thefundamental structure of myth (see Cinema [13]). We find there the determination of a territory in verysimple geometric form (circle, square, or pyramid), or more complex form (labyrinth), where a universaldrama unfolds in which benign and evil powers confront each other. There follows a chain of events inwhich heroes pass through initial trials that suppose a certain amount of know-how to dominate space andtime. In this context, the sacralization of numbers indicates a return to the Cabala and the recognition ofthe esoteric. These rules are presented today as a source of truth, but this is pure illusion since their“sacredness” refers to the truth only in an indirect way, in the measure in which these numerical relationswere used to express the profundity of the soul and the mysteries of the unconscious. The use of biblicallanguage, however, is different in that numerical reference expresses a relation with God and maintains itsreference with history.

2. Myth and Biblical Language. In times past, biblical texts were read as if they were detailed, historicalaccounts of events that took place at the beginning of the world and of human history. Such a reading wasfavored by some of the Fathers of the Church, such as Basil the Great and Augustine of Hippo, withoutignoring the figurative value of the events related. Others, such as Origen, developed a type of allegoricalreading. Scientific discoveries showed that a reading of the Bible in which historicity is so understoodleads to errors and confusion. Since the birth of science, such “historicizing” readings of Genesis wereconsidered an epistemological obstacle to the progress of scientific research. This conflict embarrassedbelievers and put them on the defensive, as happened in the case of concordism.

In the face of the protracted effort of scientific progress, some theologians, such as Karl Barth(1886-1968), sought an interpretive plan that could be shared by both science and faith. The project ofdemythologization (Entmythologisierung) owed to Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) realized a separation

© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013Page 8 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

between the salvific message of the biblical text and the forms of its linguistic expression. Such a plan,however, derived from a scientistic conception that considered myth merely a work of fiction.Apologetics, then, refuted the use of the term myth when referred to biblical stories since it indicatedsomething that did not respond at all to the reality. More recently, changes in the understanding of mythand its value have rendered this position obsolete. We can acknowledge that the Bible [14] uses mythicallanguage as a linguistic tool to express the content of faith, especially in the first eleven chapters ofGenesis, and that such a usage is necessary and legitimate.

The first chapters of Genesis seek to confess faith in one God, creator and provider. The inspired authorwants to say that everything that exists was made by God [15], Lord of history. Scientific and literarylearning that places the text in its cultural context shows that it is not merely the report of a witness, butthe result of a sapient, inspired reflection, put into writing on the basis of the author’s own experience. Toaccomplish this task, the sacred author uses the knowledge available in his day – which certainly appearslimited in respect to our own time – and puts it at the service of a confession of faith. The culturaldistance that separates us from the text obliges the theologian to make a distinction between “origin” and“beginning.” In fact, these two terms must be distinguished. The term “beginning” indicates that which isat the start of a temporal process and pertains to the logic of duration. The term “origin,” however,indicates a causal relation which is not limited to a moment of the temporal process, but is co-extensivewith it. A beginning is homogenous with a process, while an origin transcends it. It should be said,therefore, that the biblical text means to express the “origin” of things, and is, hence, independent of thedescription of the “beginning.” Faith in a creating and provident God accords, then, with descriptions thatdiffer among each other, be they scientific or naïve. The Bible does not canonize, therefore, anycosmology.

The difficulty comes from the fact that the origins of the world and of man cannot be expressed withoutthe help of human language, a language tied to time. To speak of the origins, the author is obliged toconstruct a tale according to “temporal duration” and, hence, speaks of the beginning. For this reason, itis not always easy to distinguish between beginning and origin. It is not difficult to understand thedifficulty of many believers when they do not know how to differentiate between the creative act and a“description of the beginning” as part of a tale transmitted from one or the other culture. The conflictbetween science and faith often arises from such a difficulty.

Finally, the biblical author’s concern to speak of God’s transcendence and His total lordship over spaceand time, over all beings and their history, causes him to use certain expressions removed from dailyexperience: the language that seeks to “explain the origins” distances itself in a legitimate way fromdescriptions tied to human actions. This “surpassing of the ordinary” also regards the distance betweenbiblical language and philosophical language which prefers to make use of the concept. The linguisticreach expressed by the various literary forms such as myth, epic, poetry, or paradox, is at the service oftranscendence, in a play of metaphor that invites the spirit to go beyond the immediate. Such playfulnessmust be controlled by reason, by the meaning of the transcendence of the one God, and by the perfectsimplicity of His being (see, on this poit, Analogy [16]).

3. Concluding Remarks. In the face of a revived recognition of the value of myth – a myth that candevelop along with science – a prudently critical perspective should be maintained. The attitude thatpermitted the foundation of science should be conserved. In the first place, reason (lógos) need not bedisparaged; rather, its promotion should continue, especially in regards to education in the areas oflanguage and argumentation. At the same time, a lively awareness should be maintained by individualsand institutions concerning the limits of scientific reasoning. A certain vigilance is required that willensure the recognition of scientific rationality as a source of true knowledge, without at the same time

© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013Page 9 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

negating the existence of other sources equally capable of gaining access to the truth. Finally, anyregression to the confusions of “sacralism” or a lazy Concordism must be avoided. A lively awareness ofGod’s transcendence, which prevents the reduction of the divine being to a “being of the world,” makespossible the use of the language of myth without remaining prisoner to its literal meaning. One can makethe most of the imagination, without falling into the trap of the imaginary, thus according a proper placeto religious language at the service of faith.

Current developments show that one should take into account history and recognize that it was really afaith in one God, separated and transcendent, which made possible an escape from the sacralization of theelements and favored the development of science. The desired syntheses will not be only an extension ofscientific discourse. There is space for a harmonious conception of truth. And there is the necessity ofcarrying out a sapient enterprise.

Read also: Mystery [3]Nature [17]Truth [18]Bibliography: R. Barthes, Mythologies (Paris: Ed. du Seuil, 1957); L. Bouyer, Cosmos. The World and the Glory of God(Petersham, MA: St. Bede's Publications, 1988); P. Buehler, C. Karakash, Science et foi font système(Genève: Labor et Fides, 1992); C. Cohen, L’Homme des origines (Paris: Ed. du Seuil, 1999); J.Danielou, Mythes païens, mystère chrétien (Paris: A. Fayard, 1966); H. Bondi, Assumptions and Myths inPhysical Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967); P. Duhem, Le système du monde. Histoiredes doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic, 10 vols. (Paris: Hermann, 1913-1917 e 1954-1959),espec. vol. II; M. Eliade, Myth and Reality (New York: Harper & Row, 1975); M. Eliade, Cosmos andHistory. The Myth of the Eternal Return (London - New York: Garland, 1985); P. Grimal, Le mythe, sonlangage et son message (Louvain-la-Neuve: Colloque de Liège et Louvain-la-Neuve de 1981, 1983); G.Gusdorf, Mythe et métaphysique (Paris: Flammarion, 1983); M. Hesse, “Physics, Philosophy and Myth,”Physics, Philosophy and Theology. A Common Quest for Understanding, R. Russell, W.R. Stoeger, G.V.Coyne, eds. (Vatican City: LEV and Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1988), pp. 185-202; K. Hübner, DieWahrheit des Mythos (München: C.H. Beck, 1985); L. Kolakowski, The Presence of Myth (Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1989); L. Kolakowski, Methaphysical Horros (London: Penguin, 2001); J.Ladrière, The Challenge Presented to Cultures by Science and Technology (Paris: Unesco, 1977); R.Lenoble, “Origines de la pensée scientifique moderne,” Histoire de la science, Encyclopédie de la Pléiade(Paris: Gallimard, 1954), pp. 369-536; J. Morales, “Mito y Misterio,” Scripta Theologica 28 (1996), pp.77-95; W. Pannenberg, Christentum und Mythos. Späthorizonte des Mythos in biblischer und christlicherÜberlieferung (Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1972); J. Pépin, Mythe et allégorie (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes,1976); J. Piaget, “Nature et mèthode de l’Èpistèmologie,” Logique et connaissance scientifique,Encyclopèdie de la Plèiade (Paris: Gallimard, 1967), pp. 3-132; P. Ricoeur, “Mythe: Interprétationphilosophique,” Encyclopaedia Universalis, 1985, vol. 12, pp. 883-890; P. Ricoeur, “Myth: Myth andHistory,” The Encyclopedia of Religion, M. Eliade, ed. in chief (New York: Macmillan Co., 1987), vol.10, pp. 273-282; J. Servier, L’Utopie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985); P. Trousson, LeRecours de la science au mythe. Pour une nouvelle rationalité (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1995); J.-P. Vernant,Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (New York: Zone Books, 1990).

Source URL (retrieved on 2015-05-29 19:06): http://inters.org/myth

Links:© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013

Page 10 of 11

MythPublished on (http://inters.org)

[1] http://inters.org/jean-michel-maldame[2] http://inters.org/positivism[3] http://inters.org/mystery[4] http://inters.org/progress[5] http://inters.org/matter[6] http://inters.org/cosmology[7] http://inters.org/universe[8] http://inters.org/quantum-mechanics[9] http://inters.org/finalism[10] http://inters.org/evolution[11] http://inters.org/medicine[12] http://inters.org/technology[13] http://inters.org/cinema[14] http://inters.org/sacred-scripture[15] http://inters.org/god[16] http://inters.org/analogy[17] http://inters.org/nature[18] http://inters.org/truth

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

© Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science 2003-2013Page 11 of 11