The question of science itself, is should not it become more simple instead of more complex? if we are approaching reality itself why such ever more complexity? why does not science gives us real? knowledge of what is going on?.

In the mystical-myth traditions enlightenment gives understanding of the world around you what does science give us?

Certain people for some reason are attracted to the ancient past and also glorify it? but is there something more to this glorification other than a deficiency of the one who glorifies? my mind goes to myths again.

To end the mail, this again from another list, where no answer was given...

Something more on the something more on the modesty part, which in fact was not so modest of me. Guess that I am falling in the degree of representations but today is a holiday so on I go, with nothing of mine this time, but Sheldrake's.
 

Well, science is inevitably based on assumptions about the nature of the universe. In the seventeenth century the view that most scientists started from was a kind of neoplatonic conception of God, where there's a sort of timeless mind underlying the universe, essentially mathematical in nature. In this view, the mind of God is filled with mathematical equations and mathematical forms which are what ultimately shape and govern the whole of nature. The conventional scientific assumption of universal changeless laws of nature is simply derived from this neoplatonic theology of the seventeenth century. Most scientists have eliminated the mind of God from the world machine, but what they are left with is the ghost of the mind of that God, which is the idea of eternal laws of nature, fixed forever and applying to the whole universe. The big bang theory itself depends on this assumption. You assume that the laws of nature observed over the last fifty years in the laboratories on Earth apply throughout the entire fifteen-billion-year history of the entire universe, without variation, in every single part of the universe, even parts as yet unobserved by our extralarge arrays of radio telescopes. And, on this assumption, you then crank back the calculations to arrive at the big bang. But the assumption of universal laws of nature that never change, that have all been there from the beginning, is a pure assumption. There's no empirical evidence for it whatever.