>>44
Yet the same set of myths can explain your experience of something fundamnetal like, say, consciousness so much better than a list of brain chemicals and their interactions.
Science is very good at describing what is there, but not what it means to experience it.
>>38
Empirical Science is an off-shoot of Jesuit Theology. Rene Descartes kick-started the mode of enquiry as a more systematic way to examine certain repeatable physical phenomena in the context of a wider enquiry in mystery of God.
Theology isn't rote learning the bible, it's a form of philosophy that examines the idea of God, and what implications there may be in the event that there is one (or several) or not at all.
Other forms of enquiry: philosophy, visual art, music, narative fiction, mythology.
Almost all of human enquiry that involves language is an off-shoot of philosophy, itself arguably an off-shoot of theology. Proir to a standardised wrtten language we had visual art, story-telling and music for a hell of a lot longer.
To be honest, there are no real distinctions between modes of human enquiry per se as many overlap (imagine science or maths without visual representations... anathema) and all pretty much overlap. Modern compartmentalisation due to funding issues in academic institutions have helped foster the idea that there are some that are better than others, but this does not in fact make it so.