[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[QuarianRex]

Re-read my earlier post that the quote was based on. Labeling something as a myth does alter its meaning. Regardless of where the meaning of the term was 'tainted' (the church being the most likely culprit) the fact remains that it does have negative connotations of falsehood.

[Chronon]

QuarianRex and Fyron, I think you both make good points on this one. Pinning down terminology is a very messy business because it's so flexible, and so "user" driven.

QuarianRex has a point, because unfortunately (in my view) mythology does have connotations of untruth, or half-truth, in our society. One of the meanings listed in my dictionary for mythological is "fabulous, imaginary," and one of the listings for myth is "one of the fictions or half-truths forming a part of the ideology of a society." I do not know the origin of these negative connotations, but I have seen them applied to Christian mythology (by scientists - especially on evolution/creation) just as often as I have seen them applied to Homer. That, I think, is why QuarianRex had such a negative reaction to your categorization of the Bible as mythology.

On the other hand, my dictionary also has the following definition for mythos: "1. Myth. 2. Mythology. 3. The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people, characteristically transmitted through the arts." This defintion has no negative connotations, (for me anyway) and seems pretty close to the mark when it comes to the Bible and other religious texts (I'll set aside the issue of Homer, for now), and it serves as the basis for my previous argument.

So, you're right Fyron, we are talking about language. But I think it could be resolved, especially if you clarify your position. Do you mean to say that Christian religion is myth in the fabulous, half-truth sense, or are you making more of a cultural point that Christianity and the Christian mythos should be given equal value in our society with other religions and their mythoi? If the latter is the case, I would wholeheartedly agree.

PS Cool new avatar QuarianRex (although I did like the historical one) - is that a particular character from fantasy or SF?

[ March 13, 2003, 15:25: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Fyron]

So, you're right Fyron, we are talking about language. But I think it could be resolved, especially if you clarify your position. Do you mean to say that Christian religion is myth in the fabulous, half-truth sense, or are you making more of a cultural point that Christianity and the Christian mythos should be given equal value in our society with other religions and their mythoi? If the latter is the case, I would wholeheartedly agree.

My point was that Christian mythos are no more or less valuable to Christians than the mythos of other cultures are to that culture.

[Andr�s]

You're also forgetting a fundamental difference between science and religion.

Science accepts its own flaws and limits.
A theory is the current best explanation, and can be disproved or enhanced by new research, observation, mathematics examinations, and experimentation.
Most laws have several conditions and parameters within which are valid.
For example Newtonian mechanics cannot be applied to sub-atomic particles or near-light "relativistic" speeds, but are still applicable to most "normal" mechanics that rule our everyday world.

On the other hand religion (not only christianity) is based on texts written about two thousand years ago, and not subject to change.
Limitations are only defined by the "faith" and judgement of the reader.

The most fanatic believers will blindly accept all scriptures as the literal absolute truth, and deny anything that contradicts them.
Others will be more liberal, even if they believe the scriptures are truth, they will know that the scriptures were written as a guide for the people of their time, and considering how they saw the universe, that many of its teachings are timeless truths but some are not applicable to the modern world.
Science is not opposed to religion, but complements it.

As a matter of fact, many renowned scientists do believe in god and actively practice a religion.

ISTR some of the scientists researching about the Big Bang saying something like "We're not trying to deny that god created the universe, we're trying to determine how He did it."

[Phoenix-D]

"Science accepts its own flaws and limits."

Before anyone jumps on this I'd like to point out the scientists are human too, and this is in the ideal world. Of course, not everyone does this easily.

Still, one of the IMO most important attributes for a scientists is being able to admit that you've been proved wrong.

Phoenix-D

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Chronon:
PS Cool new avatar QuarianRex (although I did like the historical one) - is that a particular character from fantasy or SF?

You would have to ask David Gervais (or maybe I will). I yanked it off of the avatar emporium. I liked the old one to, it reminded me of a monk or somesuch, but this one was calling to me.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My point was that Christian mythos are no more or less valuable to Christians than the mythos of other cultures are to that culture.

No argument here. The problem I had was in refering to the entirety of a religious text (of any religion) as myth, as opposed to pointing out the mythical elements of a text. I was never arguing for the dominance of the christian viewpoint. I was arguing against the implied triviality of religious texts.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That is wrong. The ages of rocks are calculated from the half-lives of and relative levels of Carbon, Uranium, and a few other substances in the rocks. This has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution, and is in no way circular reasoning.

Having now double checked at my school's library, I find "most" is a sever exaggeration - however, it is used. Earth in Upheaval by Immanuel Velikovsky on page 215 says "Coal is found in layers that are ascribed to various ages mainly on the basis of fissils found in them" and in Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307.

Oh, and Fyron, when you contradict someone outright, it is common courtesy to include a source.

[Phoenix-D]

"Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307."

Simple method where this sort of thing can work.

You've found X fossil in several rock formations. They all date to approximately the same age. Now you find another X fossil in another rock formation. You can't date these rocks directly, because they don't have enough of the proper elements (dating based on nuclear decay doesn't work if there's nothing to decay). So you can say that the rocks are -probably- about the same age as the other rocks holding X fossil.

Immanuel Velikovsky- what I've heard of him was been..somewhat less than favorable. The words junk science comes to mind.

Phoenix-D

[CEO TROLL]

DAMN!!! I am not needed on this thread.

[Fyron]

QR:

I was arguing against the implied triviality of religious texts.

This would be another example of people putting words in my mouth. My Posts did not imply any such triviality.

Jack:

Having now double checked at my school's library, I find "most" is a sever exaggeration - however, it is used. Earth in Upheaval by Immanuel Velikovsky on page 215 says "Coal is found in layers that are ascribed to various ages mainly on the basis of fissils found in them" and in Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307.

I never said that there were not scientists that get things wrong. But- esp. in the modern day- the vast majority of scientists do not do what you said they do, they date things in the most correct and accurate manner available to us.

Oh, and Fyron, when you contradict someone outright, it is common courtesy to include a source.

My contradiction needed no sources, actually. I could have spent time finding them, but they would not have contributed anything to my post in this case that my own words did not contribute. Extra verification would have been overkill, as it is a basic fact, not an obtuse one.

[ March 13, 2003, 23:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]