[The following is adapted from a paper I wrote for an undergraduate class I took several years ago. – Funky]
Religion as Sacred and Science as Profane:
Bryan Appleyard’s Views on Science and Religion in Relation to Mircea Eliade’s Theory of the Sacred and the Profane As It Applies to the Search for God
Introduction
For those unfamiliar with Mircea Eliade or Bryan Appleyard, allow me to briefly who they are, what they had to say, and why they are important to this article. I will also briefly summarize Star Trek V for those who have not seen it within recent memory.
Mircea Eliade (1907-1986) was Chairman of the Department of History of Religions at the University of Chicago as well as prolific writer of religious theory. In his book, The Sacred and the Profane: the Nature of Religion, he puts forth the notion that life is intrinsically sacred. By that, he means two things. First, he says that mankind is naturally religious. Religion is the driving force behind almost every human endeavor. He goes as far to refer to humans as Homo religiosis. Second, he claims that there is a fundamental reason for this singular obsession. That is, the universe is sacred and therefore every creation in the universe is born from the sacred and steeped with religious significance and meaning.
Eliade, basing is ideas upon the groundwork laid by Rudolf Otto, defines the sacred as something "wholly other". It is like nothing human or cosmic. Mankind, faced with the presence of the sacred nature of the universe is transfixed and gripped with fear as he realizes his "profound nothingness". Strictly speaking, that which is profane is in opposition to the sacred. In other words, it is that which is taken to be precisely what it appears to be. No significance beyond its physical reality is taken into account. Eliade chooses not to put the profane mode of existence to shame, but simply to represent the sacred life as one that provides meaning to existence for those who engage it.
This brings me to Bryan Appleyard, whose goals are not quite as innocent or simple as those of Eliade. Appleyard, a columnist for London’s Sunday Times, seems to share in Eliade’s belief in sacred life, but not in his sympathy for those who choose a profane life. In his insightful and caustic book, Understanding the Present: Science and the Soul of Modern Man, he takes aim at the scientific community. He claims that science has poisoned our souls. He believes it has robbed us of our purpose of being. However, rather than simply start a witch-hunt against science, as many (particularly fanatical Islamists and certain so-called Fundamentalist Christians) have done in the past and continue to do today, Appleyard intelligently suggests that science is appropriate, and less likely to be harmful, when used for the right purpose. That purpose is the discovery of the "how’s" of the universe. He would like to see religion regain its place as the explainer of the "why’s".
This is where I come in. I believe that the universe is inherently sacred and that mankind’s obsession with the unknown is due to a longing to be reunited with that sacredness. I also believe that the profane sciences, specifically the demands of materialistic reductionism, have wrongfully attempted to place themselves in a position to undermine religious faith and replace it with their own brand of faith, based entirely on logic. [NOTA BENE: This does not mean that I distrust and disavow science. I am a scientist by training and obviously hold science in great esteem. However, as a scientist, I’m rather fond of sayings like "the right tool for the job" and would like to see reilgion and science stop trying to answer each other’s questions.]
My purpose here is to discuss the conflict between science and religion in the context of sacred and profane existence. I will be using Star Trek V: The Final Frontier to illustrate my points. In particular I will be focusing on Sybock’s search for God at the center of the glazy. The opinions expressed are my own, but are developed out of a marriage of the theories of Eliade and Appleyard.
“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.” – Spock
This was said in ST VI:TUC. If you recall the early years of TOS, he did not make this conclusion. I think it was only after getting back his katra in ST III-IV and reevaluating himself could he come to this conclusion.
I remember in “The Galileo Seven” (Episode: #1.16 – 5 January 1967 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/guests ) when Spock only used his logic to command, he was ineffective. It was later, esp. seen in ST VI when he saw that logic was only the beginning of wisdom and was better as a Captain and a Vulcan.
–
“This was said in ST VI:TUC.”
I know. I acknowledged that.
“We learn in the next movie that Spock believes that ‘logic is only the beginning of wisdom’.
I hadn’t thought of the katra angle. Perhaps you could write a follow-up to this post focused on Spock’s death and “resurrection” and how that affected his outlook on life. I’d be very interested to read such a piece.
Gawd, there’s so much wrong with this I don’t know where to begin.
First, you picked just a terrible Star Trek to talk about. Two, there is no cult of reason or science. Frankly, I wish there was. That’s because rational people can admit that they might be wrong. If string theory doesn’t hold up then dismiss and rethink the problem. This way you can’t fool yourself into believing that infallible popes need immunity deals. Three, Christian philosophers aren’t taken seriously because they start with the answers and don’t fearlessly pursue the question. Frankly, I’ll take Eric Drexler and his visions over any clergyman’s or philospher’s. A wiser person might conclude that infallible popes shouldn’t need immunity deals and that perfect male clergy members shouldn’t rape young boys…but you can’t. And, yes, that’s a kind of stupidity…
Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com
PS: I love Spock and the Vulcans and yes, to command humans, you need to know something about human emotion. Of course, if you watched the later Treks, it becomes clear that while Wulcan’s can suppress their emotions they still express them. I’m thinking Tuvoc in Voyager.
The Shroppenator’s back! Shrop, I missed you so!
Shrop: “Christian philosophers aren’t taken seriously”
Really? Ever hear of Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, or Kant? (I’ll give you a few hints: If you read the preface to the Meditations, Descartes leads off with the fact that his study is devoted to the evangelical work of the Fifth Lateran Council; he believed his was the only metaphysic that could maintain transubstantiation; and he influenced Queen Christina of Sweden to convert to Catholicism. Leibniz is a man looked upon as a theologian by Catholics. Berkeley was an Anglican bishop. Kant’s ethics were based on the theology of his Protestant background.)
Eric: Why is it that you see the entire universe as sacred? It seems to me that if everything’s sacred, nothing is. If you’re saying that the entirety of Creation is on an ontologically elevated state, then it isn’t elevated relative to anything; that statement effectively means nothing, if I’m reading you correctly.
I had a feeling if any post would draw Phil out of the woodwork, it’d be this one. Mind you, that wasn’t my intention. 😉
“Why is it that you see the entire universe as sacred? It seems to me that if everything’s sacred, nothing is. If you’re saying that the entirety of Creation is on an ontologically elevated state, then it isn’t elevated relative to anything; that statement effectively means nothing, if I’m reading you correctly.”
So if man had never fallen, messing up Creation in the process, you wouldn’t consider the universe that God called “very good” sacred?
Hey, Phil, keep going with the election fraud stuff. I don’t entirely agree with your Chicken Little attitude, but I find some of the stuff you link to educational. More citizens should make an effort to understand the electoral process.
“Of course, if you watched the later Treks, it becomes clear that while Wulcan’s can suppress their emotions they still express them. I’m thinking Tuvoc in Voyager.” -Philip Shropshire 10.14.05 – 1:21 am
Yes, Vulcans have shown their emotions, but, from TOS, only in ritual (esp. in mating ritual).
Outside of this, they realize they have made an illogical response and suppress it.
I’m not sure about Tuvoc in Voyager since I did not waste my time watching many of the newer Treks (esp. Enterprise and the heavy reliance on sex). I wouldn’t use an argument based on these shows.
At any rate, Spock can be cited as an example that “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.” He started with logic and grew from there.
–
“So if man had never fallen, messing up Creation in the process, you wouldn’t consider the universe that God called ‘very good’ sacred?”
I have many things to say. First, you conflate “good” with “sacred.” Led Zeppelin was a good band. They weren’t a sacred band, though.
Second, the Fall has no bearing on the main thrust of my point. Since the entire universe was changed at the Fall, it isn’t as though there’s anything to compare it to (except, perhaps, the pre-Fallen state. . . but the change at the Fall could only have been a negative one). The only thing that can be sacred irrespective of other things is God. Every other thing, to be sacred, must be sacred *relative* to other things that are less sacred. The only thing other than the Universe is God, right? (I assume that you don’t posit an entity other than Creator and Creation.) So it seems that the Universe must, in order to be sacred, therefore, be so *relative* to God, which clearly can’t be the case. So that’s why I believe that the Universe, before the Fall, wasn’t sacred.
After the Fall, however, how would the Universe actually become sacred? It doesn’t make sense. If its sacredness changed at all at the Fall, then it would’ve gone down, not up.
Next, because sacredness is an ontological, metaphysical thing, the whole point you make seems to be a non-sequitur, because we obviously can’t use science to study the Universe before the Fall anyway, can we?
What I might agree with you on, however, is that scientific study is driven by the search for sacredness; I cannot, however, agree that one reaches that end by stopping at the study of Creation, because it is not sacred. However, I do believe that the study of Creation points to the Creator, Who is sacred. So, yes, science is driven by the pursuit of that which is sacred, but only indirectly, through the study of the profane (Creation) as a first step.
Finally, I think that sacredness is an ontological condition — a *metaphysical* one. Science, though definitely a worthy pursuit, having absolutely nothing to do with metaphysical realities, cannot study sacredness.
“Science, though definitely a worthy pursuit, having absolutely nothing to do with metaphysical realities, cannot study sacredness.”
I couldn’t agree more. Like I said, science asks/answers the wrong questions (for this context). Likewise, religion asks/answers the wrong questions for scientific pursuit. Religion should guide ethical and moral practices within science, though.
Sacred and profane, at least as defined by Eliade (or my fuzzy memory thereof), are two aspects of Creation. The only thing that is wholly sacred is God. All other things are sacred to lesser degrees in proportion to how much they bear the “mark” or likeness of God. Some aspects of the universe are more sacred than others, but all are sacred.
Am I conflating sacred and good? Well, the English language has hindered me a bit here. I am treating them as synonymous, but only in a certain sense of good. To use your Led Zeppelin example, they are objectively good, irrespective of tastes and trends, insomuch as their music is beautiful and inspiring. Beauty is a sacred good created by God. For more on this, c.f. C.S. Lewis’ discussion of nearness to God by likeness.
BTW, that paper is at least 6 years old. I’d have to reread Eliade’s book to know if he or I abuse the term “sacred”. As I recall, though, it’s an interesting book. It’s short, too. You should read it. 🙂
Maybe I will… it sound interesting enough.
For me, there is too much divorce between elements of reality. Scienctific study doesn’t need to be kept an arm’s length from Christianity because it merely serves to acknoledge the natural laws God set in place.
I believe that the dichotomy has arisen because men, as they search for God, stop short at their own mirror and the journey becomes more self-discovery than actual information gaining.
Good post though! (I’d have to use the X-Men as my example though! Lol! )
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Scientism