Since the publication of Hunting Magic Eels I've continued to ponder the contrasts between enchantment and disenchantment.
Specifically, how does enchantment perceive and approach the world differently from a disenchanted perspective? In Hunting Magic Eels I argue that much of the contrast is due to attention. If so, where is attention being directed in the enchanted versus disenchanted experience? In this series I'd like to set out some of those contrasts.
To start, let me describe today what I'll call the "ontological-to-epistemological shift."
The common story you hear about the scientific revolution is that it ended the era of enchantment. And while that's true, at least for many modern people, it leaves a huge question unanswered. Specifically, why did science have this effect?
Many things can be talked about here. Perhaps the most discussed issue is how science disputed literal readings of the Bible, calling its sacred infallibility into question. Once a hole was poked in the Bible a Pandora's box of unbelief and skepticism was opened. All the effort put into "Creation science" by fundamentalist Christians is an attempt to close that Pandora's box.
A related issue, which I'll talk more about in this series, is the one I highlight in Hunting Magic Eels, how science, especially Newtonian mechanics, changed the way we perceived the cosmos. Discovering the inviolate and universal "laws of nature" caused us to imagine the cosmos as a deterministic machine, ticking along like a mechanical watch. The "laws of nature" made the universe seem sufficient unto itself, putting the intimate providence of God at a remove. Theism gave way to Deism, which opened the path to atheism.
All this is true and has been widely discussed. But today I'd like to highlight a different sort of attentional shift caused by science that facilitated disenchantment.
Prior to the scientific revolution, ontology was a source of philosophical and theological contemplation. Being itself was a question to ponder. Existence itself was a source of wonderment and awe. The fundamental question of ontology--Why is there something rather than nothing?--kept philosophers and theologians busy.
But with the onset of the scientific revolution, philosophy turned away from ontology to epistemology, turned away from being to knowledge. The mystery of existence was set aside to consider issues of justification and proof. Plato declared that philosophy begins with wonder. And much of that wonder was the shock of existence itself. No longer! Modern philosophy doesn't concern itself with ontological wonder. The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is marginalized, too child-like, a non-starter, beyond the bounds of serious modern scholarship. Modern philosophy is concerned with epistemology: What can we prove, know, justify and verify?
Science turned our attention away from the mystery of being--and Being itself--to the issues of justification, knowledge and proof. Science caused philosophy to become empirical, concerned with justifying claims about beings (material objects within the universe) than about the Source of Being Itself. And in doing so, philosophy turned away from ontological wonder.
Disenchantment flows out of an attentional focus upon the justification of empirical claims about objects within the universe. That is to say, disenchantment brackets questions of ontology to focus upon epistemology, mostly the claims of science.
Enchantment, by contrast, is ontological wonder, experiencing the halo of awe and the corona of mystery that crackles around the dark shadow of science. Enchantment is ontological attention to the Source of Being.
This is an interesting exploration, though I think it starts in the wrong place. The study of being (ontology) and the study of knowing (epistemology) part ways in our modern, secular age. The supremacy of ontology only really becomes of thing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Heidegger comes to mind as someone who insists on doing ontology before even beginning to think about epistemology.
The ancient and medieval worlds are dominated by metaphysics, which is a hybrid of ontology and epistemology. The biblical texts belong to this ancient world. They explicitly assert that God/God's will is beyond any human capacity to know or understand, but find in themselves a reflection of God's creative activity, i.e., the image of God.
Plato also belongs to this metaphysical world: his theory of how intelligible forms inhere in sensible matter obviously crosses the very, very modern barrier we have erected between ontology and epistemology. The same can be said for Aristotle, Neoplatonism, Stoicism, etc.
It's unnecessary to do an analysis of the historical development of Western philosophy/theology to come to this conclusion. Persons can consult their own inquisitive nature. Human beings are thinking beings. Indeed, if the idea that Logos became flesh means anything concrete, it is precisely that human beings are thinking beings.
Wonder at the mystery of Being is a really annoying idea. It is vague and indeterminate. It is more true to the Bible texts to wonder, not about the transcendent mystery of Being/God in the abstract or the numinous sacrality this transcendent mystery invests in finite things, but about the mystery of the problem human beings pose for themselves and the mystery of divine Incarnation.
There's a lot to chew on here.
As writer (mostly songs), this is kind of where I mostly try live.
When I tell people that I read the Bible with the eyes of a poet and poetry appreciator I usually run up against two kinds of reactions:
-People who think I'm dismissing the Bible and not taking it seriously enough. "So you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God?" They think I'm a heretic and they are appalled.
-People who think I'm dismissing the Bible as a bunch loose metaphors . They think I'm a heretic and they are relieved.
It's neither of those things. About songs I say, "it's just a stupid song, but it's everything." That's the aim, to get a the essence of being.
At my best I read the Bible with "enchantment," "ontological wonder," "a halo of awe," the "corona of mystery."