I think the major problem is, that even the most genrous use of the word science would be "interpretation of observed evidence". And while you can observe emotions and the way people act and behave, it is really hard to tell what evidence there is that would make us hypothezies the existance of the cosmic beings mentioned in the first post.[MENTION=55456]Anselyn[/MENTION], the word "science" was used by Steiner for his work, which he called "Spiritual Science," which was science in the sense that he advocated an empirical approach to spirituality, one not based upon belief or faith but experience (that said, most Anthroposophists treat Steiner's words as gospel and Anthroposophy as a religion). It wasn't science in the narrow sense that it is commonly (and perhaps erroneously) used, that is dealing only with the physical world. By the way, I'm not saying that Steiner is correct in terms of specifics, but that I agree that science need not be limited to physical, sensible realities, that there is a "science of inner domains" that manifests in different cultural contexts, from Tibetan tantra to Hermetic alchemy to Steiner's Anthroposophy.
Like people just painting other peoples paitings instead of coming up with new motives?If we're to use Coleridge's taxonomy of Imagination, I would say that the primary Imagination is a spiritual capacity that few tap into, while the secondary imagination is what could be called "true art" - that echoes and manifests the vision of the primary Imagination. But most art, most fantasy, is merely the regurgitated re-combinations of what Coleridge calls fancy which, he says, deals only with "fixities and definitives" rather than living, archetypal forms. Tolkien's work is so vital, imo, because he had a deep experience of primary Imagination, which was expressed through his secondary Imagination of Middle-earth.