Religion as Sacred and Science as Profane

[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.

This entry was posted in essays, editorials, fisks, and rants, science and technology and tagged , , , on by .

About Funky Dung

Who is Funky Dung? 29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic. I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil. Why Funky Dung? I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!" Whence Ales Rarus? I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P Wherefore blog? It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907) Statement of Faith I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements. I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter. Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces. May He take full possession of me for ever. May His divine unction cause my face to shine. May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart. May His understanding enlighten my darkness. May His counsel guide me. May His knowledge instruct me. May His piety make me fervent. May His divine fear keep me from all evil. Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it. Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005) I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o' the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback. Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester" Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without further ado, here are my answers to his questions. 1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you favorite Pink Floyd song and why? Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music, but the lyrics describe me pretty well.

New World Man He's a rebel and a runner He's a signal turning green He's a restless young romantic Wants to run the big machine He's got a problem with his poisons But you know he'll find a cure He's cleaning up his systems To keep his nature pure Learning to match the beat of the old world man Learning to catch the heat of the third world man He's got to make his own mistakes And learn to mend the mess he makes He's old enough to know what's right But young enough not to choose it He's noble enough to win the world But weak enough to lose it --- He's a new world man... He's a radio receiver Tuned to factories and farms He's a writer and arranger And a young boy bearing arms He's got a problem with his power With weapons on patrol He's got to walk a fine line And keep his self-control Trying to save the day for the old world man Trying to pave the way for the third world man He's not concerned with yesterday He knows constant change is here today He's noble enough to know what's right But weak enough not to choose it He's wise enough to win the world But fool enough to lose it --- He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church. At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me, even as a former Lutheran. During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself. Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith. Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing, thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil. 3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever done? I set up WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :) 4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman? "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt." 5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be? That's a tough one. As a member of the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick one, though, I'd probably pick "Sing of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.

15 thoughts on “Religion as Sacred and Science as Profane

  1. gbm3

    “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.

  2. Funky Dung

    “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.

  3. Philip Shropshire

    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.

  4. Tom Smith

    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.

  5. Funky Dung

    “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?

  6. Funky Dung

    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.

  7. gbm3

    “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.

  8. Tom Smith

    “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.

  9. Funky Dung

    “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.

  10. Funky Dung

    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. 🙂

  11. Mark La Roi

    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! )

  12. Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Scientism

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *