History of ScienceIn antiquity, scientific inquiry was inseparable from spiritual practice. Pythagoras of Samos (6th century BCE) offers a prime example: he founded a secretive community in Croton that was “half religious and half scientific” mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk . The Pythagoreans were essentially a mystical school – a closed brotherhood bound by secret rites – yet they pursued mathematics, astronomy, and music theory with fervor mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk . Pythagoras and his followers believed numbers had divine significance, and they practiced rituals (such as daily sunrise hymns) aimed at purifying the soul en.wikipedia.org . Indeed, Pythagoras had traveled through Egypt and Babylonia, learning from temple priests. In Egypt he underwent initiation into priesthood and adopted Egyptian customs of ritual purity (e.g. sacred dress, vegetarianism) mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk . In Babylon he “gladly associated with the Magi” and was instructed in “their sacred rites,” even as he mastered “arithmetic and music and other mathematical sciences taught by the Babylonians” mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk . This mingling of spiritual wisdom with technical knowledge typified ancient science. The Babylonian astronomer-priests, for instance, developed advanced mathematics to calculate celestial motions in service of astrology and omen interpretation en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org . One such priest, Nabu-rimanni, serving the moon-god, compiled precise eclipse tables – evidence that religious duty to the gods spurred mathematical astronomy en.wikipedia.org . In Pharaonic Egypt, scholarly knowledge resided in temple “House of Life” libraries where priests “studied and preserved religious texts, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics” egypttoursportal.com . The Egyptian priesthood thus functioned as keepers of both spiritual and scientific lore, seeing no divide between healing rituals and medical recipes, or between sacred calendars and astronomical observations. Similar patterns prevailed in later cultures. During the Islamic Golden Age (8th–13th centuries) – a period often held as a pinnacle of pre-modern science – scholars operated within a religious worldview and often had mystical leanings. Many Muslim polymaths were devout believers who saw scientific study as uncovering the laws of Allah’s creation. For example, the astronomer Al-Biruni (973–1048) not only made groundbreaking measurements of the Earth’s radius but also wrote comparisons of India’s religions, earning the title “father of comparative religion” en.wikipedia.org . The chemist Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber) practiced alchemy imbued with spiritual and numerological ideas, reflecting the Islamic integration of Greek Hermetic lore spacedoutscientist.com . Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980–1037), perhaps the era’s greatest physician-philosopher, explicitly combined Aristotelian science with Neoplatonic theology; he wrote extensive works on metaphysics and the soul alongside his medical canon thenewatlantis.com . Far from being secular, science in medieval Islam flourished under a theological umbrella – Baghdad’s renowned House of Wisdom was founded by a caliph seeking to unite all knowledge (Greek philosophy, Persian astronomy, Indian math, etc.) with Islamic thought thenewatlantis.com thenewatlantis.com . The very word “alchemy” and “algorithm” (from Al-Khwarizmi) point to how intertwined chemistry and math were with occult or spiritual pursuits in this milieu thenewatlantis.com . The upshot: whether in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt or the Islamic east, those advancing knowledge often did so as priest-scholars convinced that in studying nature they were deciphering the handiwork of a Higher Power. In the European tradition, the Scientific Revolution itself emerged from an occult-infused Renaissance culture. Hermes Trismegistus – the legendary syncretic sage (reputed author of the Hermetic corpus) – was revered by Renaissance scholars as an ancient font of wisdom, believed to predate even Moses. This Hermetic tradition, “rooted in ancient Egyptian religion, philosophy, science and magic,” strongly influenced early modern thinkers spacedoutscientist.com . For instance, Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) embraced Hermeticism and the Egyptian god Thoth’s lore, advocating an infinite cosmos with stars as suns – an idea for which he was burned at the stake as a heretic faithhopeandreason.com faithhopeandreason.com . Bruno explicitly mixed Copernican astronomy with mystical magic, invoking Hermes/Apollo as cosmic forces. John Dee (1527–1608), Queen Elizabeth’s court mathematician, similarly embodied the “magical roots” of science smithsonianmag.com . Dee was a renowned astronomer and navigator, but he was also deeply involved in alchemy, astrology and claimed communication with angels. He saw no conflict between these roles – indeed “the magic and alchemy he practiced were intimately woven together with his investigations into religion, mathematics and natural science” smithsonianmag.com . Dee would cast horoscopes, scry in crystal balls, and seek occult “codes” from angels, all while advising on calendar reform and New World exploration smithsonianmag.com . In his era, being a “scientist” meant being a natural philosopher versed in esoteric knowledge: as one historian notes, for Tudor scholars like Dee, “being court mathematician was inextricably entwined with being court magician.” smithsonianmag.com . Even towering figures of the Scientific Revolution remained steeped in spirituality. Isaac Newton (1642–1727), often regarded as the epitome of rational science, actually devoted more time to Biblical theology and alchemical experiments than to physics. Newton wrote some 1.3 million words on Biblical prophecy and Church history – far outpacing his publications on mechanics christianhistoryinstitute.org . He obsessively sought the Philosopher’s Stone in his alchemy lab and attempted to decode hidden messages in Scripture. Historians have uncovered that “Newton’s science was wrapped together with his religious interests to such an extent that the two domains cannot really be considered separately” enlightenedcrowd.org . To Newton, exploring gravity or optics was literally a way to puzzle out God’s design in nature: he saw the world as “a series of mathematical puzzles set by God for him to solve” enlightenedcrowd.org . By his own admission, Newton viewed himself as part of an ancient tradition – he believed the Egyptians and Pythagoreans had known great secrets which he was rediscovering enlightenedcrowd.org . “In fact, Newton was a Christian, an alchemist, and only then a scientist,” as one analysis puts it bluntly enlightenedcrowd.org . This was no anomaly. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), discoverer of planetary laws, was an astrologer who tried to relate the six planets to the six Platonic solids in a mystical harmony set by God. Galileo (1564–1642), though championing empiricism, remained a devout Catholic who felt the “Book of Nature” was written by God in mathematical language – even as he named Jupiter’s moons after a worldly patron (the Medici), the practice of naming celestial bodies after mythic figures (Io, Europa, etc.) soon followed. And Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), the archetypal Renaissance man, filled his notebooks with mirror-script riddles and symbolic drawings; Leonardo mingled art, anatomy and engineering with a quasi-spiritual reverence for nature’s design (some speculate he imbued works like Vitruvian Man with the idea that “the human body is a mirror of the complex mystery of the universe” – a very Hermetic concept of microcosm and macrocosm antigonejournal.com ). In short, early science was frequently advanced by “priests, mystics, or magus-figures who believed they were studying the handiwork of God or the hidden principles of the cosmos.” The Transition to Secular Science (1600–1900)By the 17th century, a shift began: science gradually separated from overt theology and occultism, evolving into a more secular, empirical enterprise. This transition did not occur overnight or without resistance – it was a complex process spanning the Enlightenment and beyond (roughly 1600–1900). During this period, new norms and institutions crystallized: empirical observation and experiment were exalted, peer-reviewed scientific societies emerged, and universities and journals increasingly insisted on natural (non-supernatural) explanations for phenomena. One key milestone was the founding of the Royal Society of London in 1660. Its motto, Nullius in verba (“on the word of no one”), signaled a break from appeals to authority (including religious authority) in explaining nature. The Society and its counterparts in Paris, Berlin, etc. fostered a culture of open inquiry based on evidence and reproducibility. Over the 18th and 19th centuries, science became a profession distinct from the clergy: one could be a “scientist” (the term was coined in 1830s) by training and trade, without also being a priest or mystic. The development of the scientific method – articulated by figures like Francis Bacon (advocating induction from observations) and later John Stuart Mill – provided a methodological secular framework for discovery. By the 1800s, formal peer review processes were instituted in journals and the ethos of science became publicly empirical and materialist. Yet intriguingly, beneath the veneer of secularism, esoteric currents still flowed. Many early scientists who drove secularization were themselves influenced or supported by secretive spiritual groups. The Freemasons, for example, had a profound (if often under-recognized) role in the infrastructure of Enlightenment science. Freemasonry in the 18th century encouraged the study of “the hidden mysteries of nature and science” as part of self-improvement mastermason.com . It is no coincidence that a significant fraction of Royal Society members were Freemasons – by some estimates at least 89 of the first 250 Fellows (nearly 36%) were Masons modernrationalist.com . Notably, luminaries like Sir Robert Boyle (pioneering chemist), Elias Ashmole (antiquarian), and possibly even Isaac Newton interacted with Rosicrucian or Masonic circles (Newton’s alchemical confidant Elias Ashmole was an early Freemason). The Masonic fraternity provided networking, patronage, and an ideological bridge between mystical and rational pursuits. Freemasons saw no conflict in pursuing rational science – in fact, Masonic lodges often described themselves as devoted to “science and virtue,” using symbols like the Temple (architecture, geometry) and tools (compass and square) to allegorize enlightenment. There is even an historical hypothesis that Freemasonry itself emerged partly from proto-scientific circles in the 1600s: one theory posited that “a set of philosophers and scientists” in the Royal Society instituted Freemasonry under Charles II universalfreemasonry.org universalfreemasonry.org . While that specific claim is debated, it underscores the acknowledged overlap of membership and ethos between early scientific and fraternal organizations modernrationalist.com . These secret or semi-secret societies acted as conduits for hidden spiritual influences within the ostensibly secular scientific establishment. Concrete examples abound. Sir Isaac Newton, as mentioned, pursued alchemy and unorthodox theology privately even as he presided over the Royal Society; only later did scholars realize how much Hermetic thought informed his mechanics enlightenedcrowd.org . Benjamin Franklin – a key figure in electricity experiments – was a Freemason who imbued his Enlightenment deism into the founding of American scientific institutions (he founded the American Philosophical Society, a sort of counterpart to the Royal Society). John Dee’s ideas (via his student alchemists) arguably influenced Francis Bacon’s vision of a utopian scientific college (New Atlantis), which in turn inspired the formation of scientific academies smithsonianmag.com . In the 19th century, we even see quasi-mystical societies like the Theosophical Society (1875) and Rosicrucian orders promoting a synthesis of science and spirituality – influencing individuals like chemist Sir William Crookes (who investigated spiritualist phenomena alongside discovering thallium) and psychologist William James. The funding and institutional support for science also sometimes came from occult-minded patrons. For instance, many American founding fathers who nurtured science (like Washington and Jefferson) were Freemasons or Rosicrucians and deliberately encoded esoteric symbolism into the new nation’s institutions (more on this in the next section). Tellingly, George Washington performed the cornerstone laying of the U.S. Capitol in 1793 as a full Masonic ritual, wearing a decorated Masonic apron while he consecrated the building with corn, wine, and oil gwmemorial.org mdmasons.org . Thus, the very Capitol of secular governance and science-friendly legislation was founded in an occult ceremony – an almost literal metaphor for the hidden spiritual foundations beneath modern secular science. By the late 1800s, scientific discourse had largely purged open references to gods or magic, focusing instead on natural laws and material causes. The theory of evolution by Darwin (1859) omitted any supernatural guidance; Maxwell’s electromagnetism and later Einstein’s relativity made no appeals to divine ethers. But while science’s methods became officially secular, the motives and private beliefs of many scientists did not suddenly turn atheistic or mechanistic. Instead, a sort of compartmentalization occurred: spiritual impulses went underground, expressed through selective symbolism or through parallel membership in esoteric societies, while public science marched on in a neutral tone. It is in this context that early 20th-century developments – like quantum physics resurrecting philosophical debates about consciousness, or cosmology being initiated by a Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) – took place. Even as late as the Space Age, the convergence of secret society influence and science re-emerged (e.g. Jack Parsons, co-founder of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab in the 1940s, was an avid occultist who performed Crowleyan rituals to invoke pagan deities during rocket tests sciencehistory.org pasadenanow.com ). In short, the transition to secular science was real in terms of practice and institutions – observation, experimentation, and peer review became the norm – but the human element of wonder, symbolism, and covert mysticism never fully disappeared, instead shaping science from behind the scenes. Hypothetical Perspective: If the Ancient “gods” Were Real – Traces in Modern SocietyImagine, for the sake of argument, that the supernatural beings and forces ancient scientists revered were in fact real and active. From this hypothetical angle, one can reinterpret many aspects of modern society – especially those touching science, medicine, space, and power – as continuing the involvement of gods and goddesses, albeit in disguised form. It is striking how frequently the symbols and names of antiquity’s deities appear in our ostensibly secular world, almost as if paying homage to unseen influences:
The universal symbol of medicine is the rod with a serpent. Most medical organizations use the Rod of Asclepius, depicting a single snake coiled around a staff – Asclepius being the Greek god of healing. In the United States, however, a common emblem is the Caduceus (two entwined serpents with wings), which actually derives from Hermes (Mercury), messenger of the gods nature.com . This confusion aside, the intent is clear: serpent staffs from ancient myth still “rule” modern healthcare logos, from the WHO emblem to pharmacy signs. The presence of twin snakes harks back to Hermetic symbolism – indeed Hermes Trismegistus (identified with Thoth) was said to carry a serpent staff guiding wisdom. Thus one could say the spirit of Hermes/Thoth – patron of knowledge and alchemy – coils through every hospital and pharmacy, subtly acknowledged in their iconography. Look at the names we give to the heavens. The planets of our solar system all bear Roman deity names (Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc.), continuing a tradition from antiquity. When modern science sought to reach beyond Earth, NASA likewise leaned on mythological nomenclature. The first U.S. manned space program was Project Mercury (Mercury being the wing-footed god who could traverse realms). The groundbreaking Moon missions were named Apollo, after the sun god associated with light and knowledge – an ambitious choice that NASA’s Abe Silverstein made after “reading through a mythology book” and envisioning Apollo’s sun-chariot as analogous to reaching the heavens axios.com . Fittingly, the current return-to-Moon program is Artemis – Apollo’s twin sister and goddess of the Moon axios.com . Virtually every NASA mission echoes a deity: Atlas rockets (the Titan who held up the sky), the Gemini missions (named for the divine Twins Castor and Pollux), the Saturn V rocket (Saturn = Cronus, father of Jupiter), the Juno probe to Jupiter (Juno being Jupiter’s wife), Dawn mission to asteroid Ceres (Ceres goddess of agriculture), and so on. Even the omnipresent term “heliocentric” embeds Helios, the Greek sun-god. The Sun itself is poetically still called Sol (Roman) or Helios in literary contexts. This mythic naming is so routine we seldom pause to consider it – but in our hypothetical, it takes on literal significance: it is as if NASA’s enterprises invoke the ancient gods for success. Consider also the Apollo 11 Moon landing: during the mission, astronaut Buzz Aldrin privately took communion on the lunar surface (a ritual to honor his God) – a subtle sanctification of the voyage. Conspiracy theorists even point out that the Apollo program’s timing and site (Tranquility Base) align with certain star positions; one story claims an Egyptian-born adviser, Farouk El-Baz, helped select lunar landing sites and times with an eye to celestial symbolism (El-Baz, though a geologist, was nicknamed “King of the Moon” and was steeped in Egyptian heritage, perhaps nodding to Osiris or Thoth in planning). Indeed the very location of NASA’s Launch Complex at Cape Canaveral sits near the tropics, where ancient sun-worshipping cultures (Maya, etc.) might have built ziggurats – it’s a stretch, but one can’t help noticing how rocket launches resemble modern pyramids shooting fire skyward, modern obelisks to the gods. The world’s largest particle physics lab, CERN in Geneva, has become a magnet for mythological conjecture. On its premises stands a prominent statue of Lord Shiva Nataraja – the Hindu god in his cosmic dance of creation and destruction – gifted by India in 2004. Officially, it symbolizes the “cosmic dance” of subatomic particles home.cern . But in our hypothetical lens, one might see it as Shiva literally presiding over the tearing of the fabric of reality in high-energy collisions. Conspiracy theorists also note CERN’s logo, which consists of three intertwined curves – to some eyes, these form three sixes, “666”, the biblical “number of the Beast” (often linked to the demon Apollyon or Apollo) newcovenantbaptist.org reddit.com . CERN strongly denies any occult meaning – explaining the logo as abstract accelerator rings home.cern – yet the coincidence fuels the notion of hidden in-jokes. Furthermore, CERN’s main collider complex lies on the border of France and Switzerland in a locale called Saint-Genis-Pouilly. In Roman times, this town was Apolliacum, and legend holds that a temple to Apollyon (Apollo in his destroyer aspect) stood there facebook.com prophecyalerts.com . Apollyon is named in the Book of Revelation as the angel of the bottomless pit (the Destroyer). It is eerily poetic that CERN – whose LHC tunnel could be fancifully likened to an “abyss” opening new dimensions – sits on ground once dedicated to Apollyon. As one commentator put it, “the spiritual significance…cannot be missed” if one believes in these beings’ reality rockofages.org.sg . From this angle, CERN’s breakthroughs (like finding the “God Particle” Higgs boson) might themselves be seen as guided by or unleashing those ancient forces. Modern media is rife with imagery that harks back to pagan symbols. One cannot watch a big awards show or music video without spotting an “all-seeing eye,” a pyramid, a pentagram, or references to demons and angels. For instance, at the 2023 Grammys, pop artist Sam Smith performed “Unholy” donning devil horns amid red lighting – a performance so overtly infernal that it sparked public commentary about Hollywood “satanic rituals” bobcatmultimedia.com bobcatmultimedia.com . Many superstar musicians – Beyoncé, Katy Perry, Billie Eilish, Lil Nas X, to name a few – have used occult or mythological motifs in their concerts and videos bobcatmultimedia.com bobcatmultimedia.com . Lil Nas X, in particular, went so far as to produce “Satan Shoes” (666 limited-edition sneakers containing a drop of blood) after a music video depicting him pole-dancing into hell to give Satan a lap dance bobcatmultimedia.com . Likewise, rock music has a long history of “pact with the Devil” lore: from Robert Johnson’s crossroads legend to heavy metal bands openly embracing Luciferian imagery udiscovermusic.com udiscovermusic.com . The Beatles placed Aleister Crowley (infamous occultist) on the Sgt. Pepper album cover udiscovermusic.com ; the Rolling Stones invoked His Satanic Majesty in song and album title udiscovermusic.com . It may be done with a wink or for shock value, but in our hypothetical scenario these could be seen as genuine tributes to spiritual patrons who grant worldly success. The prevalence of the Eye of Providence (aka Eye of Horus) in music and film iconography – think of the logo of CBS (a single eye), countless movie posters with one eye emphasized, or stage sets featuring pyramids with eyes – suggests an unconscious (or conscious) veneration of that ancient symbol of omniscience en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org . Even comic-book and film universes resurrect the old pantheons: Marvel’s Thor brings Norse gods into pop culture, Wonder Woman is literally an Amazon demigoddess, and Hollywood’s penchant for myth-based blockbusters (from Clash of the Titans to Percy Jackson) keeps the gods in our imagination. The very design of civic structures often mirrors ancient temples. In Washington D.C., the Supreme Court, the National Archives, the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials – all are neoclassical, essentially resembling Greek or Roman temples with columns and pediments. The U.S. Capitol Building itself features the fresco “The Apotheosis of Washington” inside its dome – a painting explicitly showing George Washington being deified among the heavens study.com americanart.si.edu . He is flanked by goddesses Liberty and Victory, and encircled by six vignettes that pair classical gods with American endeavors (Minerva/Athena guiding Science and Mechanics, Neptune aiding Commerce over the seas, Vulcan at a forge representing Industry, Ceres for Agriculture, etc.) americanart.si.edu . In essence, the entire “family” of Olympian gods is enshrined in the Capitol’s art program, overseeing the republic americanart.si.edu . This was done in 1865, hardly a pagan time – yet the choice underscores how the nation’s self-image borrowed divine iconography. Moreover, national personifications like Columbia (a robed female often depicted with a Phrygian cap) and Lady Liberty directly echo goddesses. The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor is essentially a modern Colossus bearing a torch (light of wisdom) – in classical terms, she’s a composite of Libertas (Roman goddess of liberty) and maybe Athena (goddess of wisdom/war). Fittingly, the torch’s flame recalls Prometheus (who stole fire from the gods to uplift mankind) – indeed a gilded Prometheus statue adorns Rockefeller Center in NYC. The Great Seal of the United States, printed on every dollar bill, famously bears the Eye of Providence atop an unfinished pyramid, with Latin mottos Annuit Coeptis (“He [God] has favored our undertakings”) and Novus Ordo Seclorum (“New Order of the Ages”) en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org . While officially the Eye represents God’s guidance, it is also a Masonic emblem – implying the architects of American independence (many of whom were Freemasons) deliberately infused the currency with an esoteric symbol linking back to ancient Egyptian imagery (the pyramid and eye strongly resemble the Eye of Horus). Conspiracy theorists love to interpret the dollar’s symbolism as Illuminati or satanic, but at face value it shows the young nation saw itself under divine/providential oversight, much as kingdoms of old claimed patron gods. Additionally, numerous Freemason cornerstones and plaques are scattered across federal buildings, quietly venerating the Grand Architect (a Deistic stand-in for God). Washington D.C.’s original city plan (by Pierre L’Enfant) is often said – perhaps apocryphally – to have Masonic compass-and-square patterns in its street layout. Even outside the U.S., consider that European capitals often have obelisks (e.g. the Vatican’s obelisk, the Washington Monument) or statues of classical gods in public squares (Athena, Mercury, etc.). In our hypothetical, these aren’t just artistic references – they are offerings that honor the ancient gods’ continued presence in modern nation-states. In sum, virtually everywhere we look – from the insignia of a medical association, to the code names of space missions, to the artwork in legislatures, to the rituals of entertainment and the logos of corporations – we find ourselves surrounded by the fingerprints of old mythologies. If one subscribes to the ancients’ belief that symbols and names invoke real power, then modern society could be seen as unknowingly reenacting pagan worship on a grand scale. The two serpents on a doctor’s caduceus might be more than a logo – perhaps a quiet salute to Hermes, asking for cleverness in healing. The launch of Apollo 11 might have succeeded not just through engineering, but because the name Apollo pleased the sun god to allow men to walk on his sister Artemis’s moon. CERN’s scientists may have found the Higgs boson only under the watchful eye of Shiva’s statue and Apollyon’s underground temple, “coincidentally” located where dimensions could be rent. While this perspective is speculative, it aligns with a core observation: the secular world visibly carries an enormous baggage of spiritual symbolism, as though some unseen influence endures. Counterargument and Refutation: “It’s Just Metaphor” – Is that Enough?Skeptics will rightly point out that the above interpretation relies on reading in intent where there may be none. The conventional, secular rebuttal to these observations goes something like: Yes, these symbols and names are used, but they are metaphorical, aesthetic, or honorific. Ancient people invoked gods because they “didn’t know any better,” and modern uses of such imagery are mere cultural homage or coincidence. In other words, the gods and spiritual beliefs are not literally real – they are allegories we keep for tradition’s sake. However, this counterargument is surprisingly weak when scrutinized logically, and even somewhat hypocritical if espoused by a strictly atheistic viewpoint. Why? For one, dismissing historical claims as “metaphor or ignorance” can become a non-falsifiable catch-all – much like a religious apologist can claim any inconvenient scripture is “meant metaphorically” to avoid contradiction. A secularist who says “All those references to gods are symbolic” is effectively reinterpreting the past to fit a modern rationalist narrative, rather than addressing the evidence on its own terms. The ancients consistently wrote and acted as if their gods were quite real – Pythagoreans truly believed in the transmigration of souls and divine numerical harmony; Newton truly believed alchemical secrets were revealed to purified souls by divine illumination enlightenedcrowd.org enlightenedcrowd.org . To wave away these convictions as “they didn’t know better” is to potentially undermine their intelligence and agency. Many of these historical figures were extremely intelligent (Newton!); they chose to invest enormous effort in spiritual inquiries. The skeptic must ask: is it credible that generation after generation of brilliant minds “didn’t know better” and wasted time on theology or magic, if there were absolutely nothing to those domains? The “ignorance” argument can come off as dismissive and chronically presentist. Furthermore, from a strict scientific standpoint, one cannot disprove the existence or influence of metaphysical entities, just as one cannot prove them. Atheists often accuse theists of circular reasoning when the latter say “God is real because my scripture says so,” yet here the skeptic risks a similar fallacy: assuming gods aren’t real, and therefore interpreting all evidence in a way that reinforces that assumption. This is a form of confirmation bias. In fact, to assert confidently that “the gods aren’t real, the symbols mean nothing” is not a scientifically derived conclusion – it is a philosophical (or sometimes emotionally motivated) stance. True logical rigor would admit the possibility, however remote, that unseen intelligences could exist. If one admitted that possibility, then the persistence of god-symbols in critical places (like national seals, etc.) might appear in a new light – not proof of anything by itself, but certainly consistent with the hypothetical that influential people might have kept some ancient pacts or beliefs alive. Critics might also argue that modern uses of myth are intentionally ironic or purely decorative. For example, NASA naming rockets after gods might just be because those names are inspiring and culturally recognizable – not because anyone at NASA believes in Zeus. That is undoubtedly true on the surface. Yet, one must consider how human psychology and culture work: symbols have power because of their historical and unconscious resonance. Even if a scientist doesn’t literally believe Apollo rides a chariot across the sky, the choice of that name for a Moon mission tapped into a collective well of meaning – Apollo symbolizes enlightenment, prophecy, reaching high. By embedding that into the program’s identity, it arguably helped galvanize support and a sense of destiny (as one classics professor noted, it’s fitting that only in a more inclusive era did NASA finally pick Artemis for the Moon – acknowledging the mythological appropriateness of the Moon goddess axios.com ). In short, mythological references are not arbitrary; they are chosen to invoke certain qualities. This undermines the idea that “it’s all arbitrary metaphor.” The metaphors were chosen for a purpose, which suggests those old archetypes still operate in decision-making, however subtly. Another counterpoint often raised is: “Yes, early scientists mixed faith with science, but as science progressed, it purged those elements – we reinterpret the ancient achievements in modern terms now.” For example, some might claim Pythagoras’ math survives while his belief in metempsychosis doesn’t; or Newton’s equations are valid while his alchemy was wrong. The weakness here is that it assumes a linear progress narrative where everything religious/occult was simply an impediment or fluke until rationality prevailed. History is more nuanced. In many cases, spiritual frameworks provided the incentive or intuitive leap for scientific discovery. Kepler arrived at his laws through an almost mystical quest for cosmic harmony; Newton’s concept of universal gravitation was facilitated by his belief in occult “action at a distance” (which mechanists of his time ridiculed as magical). To retroactively strip their work of the context that birthed it is to perform an intellectual dissection that might misrepresent how science actually advances. It’s akin to how one might remove a scaffold from a building once built – but that doesn’t mean the scaffold was useless or “false.” The “scaffolding” of spirituality was crucial to erecting the edifice of science. Dismissing it entirely could lead to missing insights even today (for instance, the resurgence of interest in consciousness and quantum physics has led some scientists to seriously read Eastern philosophy or contemplate panpsychism – ideas once relegated to mystics). In conclusion, the secular skeptic’s explanation – that all these occult connections are coincidental, symbolic, or born of ignorance – has an inherent fragility. It often relies on a priori rejection of anything not empirically proven, which is not proof of absence, merely an article of faith in its own right. Meanwhile, the historical record shows a strong continuity of spiritual influence, even if transformed, rather than a clean break. To simply declare the ancient worldview “metaphorical” is arguably an avoidance strategy, not a refutation. Indeed, it is exactly the sort of reasoning skeptics themselves decry when the religious use it to excuse prophecies (“Oh, that miracle story in the Bible is metaphorical, don’t take it literally,” say apologists – which frustrates atheists who see it as slippery logic). Sauce for the goose: one can’t have it both ways. If one demands evidence and is unconvinced by holy texts precisely because they’re open to countless interpretations, one should likewise be cautious in blithely interpreting all historical symbolic behavior as “just aesthetic.” By logically and scientifically rigorous standards, we cannot disprove the proposition that intangible “forces” (call them gods, archetypes, or collective unconscious motifs) have been guiding human creativity and institutions. All we can do is note the patterns. And the pattern is: science, from antiquity to now, has never really been divorced from its mystical origins – it has only externalized and codified the material aspects while the spiritual aspect lives on in subtler forms. Ultimately, ignoring or underrating the role of spirituality in the story of science does a disservice to historical truth. A more honest appraisal is that modern science, even as it established autonomy from organized religion, still bears the birthmarks of its sacred origins. The figures of the past were not foolish – their pursuit of the “handiwork of God” drove them to uncover genuine natural laws mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk enlightenedcrowd.org . Their intuition that the universe has order and meaning (a notion rooted in theology) was essential for science to flourish. Thus, rather than view the spiritual dimension as an embarrassing relic to be swept under the rug, we should recognize it as an integral part of science’s heritage. Dismissing it outright is not only logically unprovable, it risks erasing the very motivations that led to humanity’s greatest discoveries. In a final analysis, the “secularization” of science may be less about eliminating the spiritual and more about sublimating it – hiding the ancient gods behind equations and institutional logos, but never truly killing them. After all, as the ancients might say, you cannot kill a god. Science’s history suggests that, at the very least, you cannot entirely kill the human yearning to connect scientific truth with deeper meaning – a fact as true in Pythagoras’ secret commune as it is in a cutting-edge lab today.
References |