So for an end of the quarter research assignment I was given this website as one of my sources. After reading it I thought of Holy Worlds and thought I would get your takes on it. I know a lot of us use magic and/or also write science fiction so I'm rather interesting to hear your opinions.

http://chalcedon.edu/topics/science/

Has anyone read this article? I'd like to know your thoughts...

It was interesting...never thought of things like that before. I didn't really have strong thoughts about it either way, though, which is why I didn't post before.

They just now caught on?
The scientist have been like this since Darwin.

Interesting. I never thought of it that way.

'Tis hard to digest, but fascinating none-the-less.

Using a cut-and-dry definition of science, I don't think one could equate it with myth or magic. Science is ever bound to the physical; it can read from and write to the atoms but it cannot touch the soul. It can accomplish great things, but it cannot save man from mortality.

But I think it's fair to say that perhaps "scientific myth" is a new genre in the "Man Is God" department. Take alchemy (in which the ultimate goals were immortality and wealth, right?), subtract the supernatural elements, add some rationalism/intellectualism, and you have scientific myth!

That's a good way to put it in perspective.

Wow, this is an old thread.

I take issue with the column's definition of "myth", as I find C. S. Lewis's description of Christianity as the only completely true myth entirely convincing, and their argument relies entirely on any myth being necessarily a vile lie.


In the religion (or "myth") of Naturalism (which I think Lewis called "Scientism"), "science" takes the place of magic as the means by which the false religion's God-figure (either the Self or the State, depending on the portrayal) accomplishes its election, salvation, etc., and gives health, wealth, and eternal life.
And while science is necessarily limited to the repeatably-measurable, to say that it "cannot touch the soul" assumes a model of human nature that is arguably not the only one consistent with Scripture. (In my philosophy class, my freshman year of college, we talked about this, and I don't remember anyone coming up with a compelling argument that showed the the-soul-is-identical-to-the-body hypothesis to be inconsistent with Scripture.) And even if it can't save man from mortality, it's hardly different from any other false myth---the Norse myths , for example, didn't even claim (true, everlasting) immortality was even possible.


This really isn't "new" by any means (recognizable forms of the same worldview go back at least to the Renaissance); it's just become the blatant Dominant Myth of the age.

Fair enough, kingjon. I guess I was working from the blog's definition of myth, which you've already pointed out as potentially problematic. You're right that, under a physicalist worldview, any "magic" could only accomplish the sorts of things science is trying to do anyways. And you're right about the age of the genre, too. I was just thinking "new" as opposed to the other myths discussed in the blog.