The blind spots of science and experience

Article by Evan Thompson et al. In sum, the scientific myth of the given:

"So the belief that scientific models correspond to how things truly are doesn’t follow from the scientific method. Instead, it comes from an ancient impulse – one often found in monotheistic religions – to know the world as it is in itself, as God does. The contention that science reveals a perfectly objective ‘reality’ is more theological than scientific." 

However there is also an experiential myth of the given: 
"Unlike myth, however, science is constrained by its conceptual framework to function along a causal chain of events. The First Cause is a clear rupture of such causation – as Buddhist philosophers pointed out long ago in their arguments against the Hindu theistic position that there must be a first divine cause. How could there be a cause that was not itself an effect of some other cause? The idea of a First Cause, like the idea of a perfectly objective reality, is fundamentally theological."

To be more specific, some Buddhist philosophers debunk the Hindu theistic position on a first cause, usually consciousness itself. Others fully embrace that myth. Search for shentong v. rangtong at the Ning forum.