If you read what I said, I didn’t say it was “wrong” or that it was “primitive science” but that, if anything, it was protoscience. The problem is that various religious groups tend towards pseudo-science and ignore the profound message of the poetic and symbolic content.
I am afraid that your understanding of tribal storytelling is flawed, but that is normal because we have all fallen into the habit of overstating the narrow focus that we can gather in words rather than pictures. Storytelling is the pictorial portrayal of events, with vivid narratives of emotion and consequences, and not the sober recording of facts or evidence. The specialized activities you list are not extracted out of storytelling, but in fact step back from any emotional participation, and I have no idea where “revolution” comes into the discussion.
But that is exactly what I am saying, subjective experience is what is described in the bible, not objective observation. I find great satisfaction in the Lord of the Rings but see how it is problematic to make it any more than a fictive narrative, projecting a mythological perspective. All the same, the world Tolkien created has a Catholic basis, with God, Angels, Heroes, and anti-heroes, all struggling against a manifestation of evil. But, as Tolkien says, it is absolutely not suitable as an allegory of modern events, but tells the gritty story of conflict.
I’m afraid that, once again, you confuse the issue. Yes, Schrödinger mentioned in the preface that he was entering a sphere with that book, which was not his own, but I didn’t read it as a scientist. I read it as an attempt of a human being who has a scientific background, to come to terms with foundational questions. In particular the religious side, which in his case he took from Vedanta rather than Christianity, speaks through his quasi-scientific vocabulary. From a scientific perspective it is also dated, admittedly, but the struggle of one seeing the eternal looking back at him as he observes the universe is present.
… and which Schrödinger confirms in My View of the World, but it is more the rejection of a philosophical view, which ironically in itself is philosophical, that he is describing.
I nearly added an expletive here. The words, “I need the vocabulary of poets to describe the universe,” is attributed to Carl Sagan, who was known for his ability to blend scientific understanding with a poetic and philosophical approach when describing the cosmos. Gazing at the stars was probably the begin of science, which explains why astronomy was prominent for so long but also how astrology landed in religious scriptures.
Arthur Eddington also famously said, "Science is the poetry of reality,” which reflects his appreciation for the beauty and complexity of the universe, which transcends the purely technical or scientific descriptions. Just as poetry ignites emotions, imagination, and contemplation, science unveils the wonders of the universe, uncovering the intricate truths and patterns that dictate our reality. By comparing science to poetry, Eddington emphasizes the enchantment and artistry inherent within both disciplines, inviting us to appreciate the captivating melody that harmony between facts and wonder can create.
Of course it is wrong to bring experience in line with scripture, but your words about “replacing” are lost on me. I have a high reverence for scripture in its context, and that is what it has been about for some time. It was correct for science to point out that religion and science were not the same, but it was wrong not to see them as two sides of a coin. It was wrong for religion to fail to accept its role in the humanities, but to try and gain acceptance as some kind of science. It is a little bit like the joke that Alan Watts told, about a psychologist who continually wore a white coat to see if he could get away with it.
