Scientific Models and Religious Myths

Scientific Models and Religious Myths

The best introductory paragraph for such a paper can use the words and perspective of Alister E. Mcgrath, who sees that science and religion (so, from that common front, scientific models and religious myths) both share a common source: the need of human beings to find explanations for the things they observe. According to the author, science and religion aim to "make sense of what is observed" and are "interpretations of experience"

Another common fundamental premise of both the scientific model and the religious myth is that they both accept the causality of events, namely the fact that if one event happened and it caused another event, there is an element that explains this relation of causality. In one case it would be a religious myth, in another, a scientific model, but both are based on the relationship of causality that they have to explain.

This paper will also aim to go a bit beyond a simple discussion of the similarities and differences of a scientific model vs. A religious myth by introducing another element between the two: the religious model. While this is not a religious myth and carries some of the characteristics of the scientific model, there are many things that differentiate it from a model based on science. In this sense, the paper will aim to analyze the issues from all three perspectives.

Alister E. Mcgrath's book "Science and Religion" puts together the characteristics of a scientific model and often does so throughout his book in comparison with the religious model. For example, on page 107 of his work, he notes three important differences between the religious and scientific models, which are a key in also bringing forth characteristics of the scientific model per se. In his opinion, the main differences are the lack of non-cognitive functions in scientific models, the lack of personal involvement in scientific models and the fact that "scientific models are subservient to theories"

Another interesting characteristic is the fact that scientific models in their entirety are much more dynamic than religious models or religious myths. For example, a scientific theory that finds itself contradicted can be improved, with new theories being added to change its explanatory course or it can be discarded altogether if evidence against it is strong enough. The author argues that this does not usually occur in the case of religious myths, such as Christian myths (the author gives the example of God as a shepherd), which are much more traditionalist and often impossible to change.

There are reasons to argue against this difference and discuss that it probably also depends on the temporal life of the myth. As a personal opinion, a myth in its early stages of development is probably much more influential and can indeed be changed according to the way the respective religion is adopted by people. Using the same example of Christianity, the initial Christian myths easily adopted myths of Eastern inspiration, such as myths that belonged to Mithraism simply because the new religion could be better promoted to people and adopted by new categories of Christian believers. Here, the theory that a myth is much less changeable does not necessarily stand ground.

Among some of the interesting similarities that McGrath mentions in his book is the fact that scientific models are, just as religious models and myths, analogical, which means that they "can be extended to cope with new situations, and are comprehensible as individual units"

. This similarity is, however, less strong than the following that will be mentioned further below. First of all, as mentioned previously, the scientific models are much more flexible: if the situation imposes it, the model can and will be changed to accommodate the new situation, which is much less so for a religious model. Second, it is difficult to analyze how much the comprehensibility element is available in both models and to what degree.

The second similarity shows that both the scientific model and the religious model or myth are "not to be taken as literal depictions of reality"

. This is an interesting argument because, while on one hand it can easily be understood for the religious model, the scientific model was always assumed to give scientific and, as such, much more realistic and less fictional depictions of reality. The truth is that the scientific model is often not seen as a symbolical representations of what reality is, despite the fact that most of its characteristics, as they have been mentioned here, are exactly that.

Another important similarity as expressed in "Science and Religion" is that both the scientific and the religious approaches rely on the underlying organizational objective, that of "structuring and interpreting patterns of events in our personal lives and in the world"

. At the same time, there is also an important difference here, namely the fact that in one case, the underlying element is the observational data, while in the other, it is the experience of individuals and communities they are part of.

This similarity is very much tied to what was discussed previously related to the way both science and religion have the main purpose of interpreting reality, while the instruments and means to do it usually differ. As is the case here, the objective usually faces the subjective, but both approaches are aimed at providing explanations on the reality surrounding the individual.

With Mircea Eliade and his work "Myth and Reality," religious myths seems to go beyond the religious model that has been discussed by Alister E. Mcgrath in his book. For Mircea Eliade, first of all, myth is, first and foremost, "an account of creation"

. More than a religious model, aimed at describing everyday reality and at creating a framework that can explain everyday reality, the religious myth is aimed at describing the initial moment of creation, the moment when matter appeared out of nothing. As such, the religious myth for Eliade, because of its primordial place, is above the religious model.

However, Eliade's myth is also tied with the explanation of reality. He clearly states in his book that origin "is the first manifestation of a thing that is significant and valid"

and the myth is the description of that first manifestation. As such, according to Eliade, the myth is also a descriptive instrument that helps us understand reality. The only fundamental difference is that, according to his arguments, reality is not what we live in the present, it is only in the original moment. The true reality exists only in the moment of creation and, as such, the myth only has value in explaining the developments at that initial moment.

Another important difference that Eliade reveals and that appeals to the discussion on the differences and similarities between scientific models and religious myths is related to part of the purpose of the myth and model. In the case of the scientific model, the purpose is explanatory and descriptive: the reality is received, variables and data are attached to it and these are translated into a symbolical (in this case, scientific) interpretation that forms a model.

As Eliade mentions in his work, the religious myth has an additional essential purpose: that of providing a model, not in the sense of an explanatory model, but in the sense of a model that provides a moral and ethical framework as Eliade points out, the myth is "living," in the sense that it supplies models for human behavior and, by that very fact, gives meaning and value to life"

In many cases (and here Eliade gives the example of the "cargo cults" in Oceania), the myth influences the present day reality in that many of the traditions are the result of a primordial myth and have been received, through the ages, from generation to generation, under the tacit justification that the myth provide the appropriate recipe for eternal happiness, if the recommendations are followed accordingly. There are no such recommendations with scientific models, where the raw data is simply presented and explained, without necessarily bringing about a subjective consequence of such an interpretation. Eliade explains different manifestations as "mythical behavior," a direct relationship with primordial myths.

In another direction, it is interesting to look at some of the definitions of the concept of myth that Eliade attempts. At one point, he mentions that the "myth is an extremely complex cultural reality, which can be approached and interpreted from various and complementary viewpoints"

. This is an important difference from the scientific model that needs to be emphasized: the scientific model has no relation with culture (although vague implications could be discovered, for example, if a statistical model is created to interpret demographical trends and consumer preferences), while the myth is actually based on this cultural reality in a people, draws its existence and implications from there.

One should briefly analyze the implications of the intrinsic relationship between myth and culture. In my opinion, this type of relationship ensures the profane part of the myth, its manifestation within a civilization. The relationship goes beyond any simple realistic or complex scientific models, because it cannot be explained through the observances of realities around us. Myth and culture can often be on the same temporal level, with one or the other being generated at different times. As such, some of the myths were actually born out of a certain culture, determined by the geographic or demographic realities of the respective culture. In other cases, culture was born out of a myth.