Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 6:25AM #1
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 14,245
How is it here that this subject is so hotly contested, rather than being understood with interest, and compared?

A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, formally, it does not imply falsehood. Cultures generally regard their creation myths as true. In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths—that is, they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 6:05PM #2
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Jul 11, 2015 -- 6:25AM, Karma_yeshe_dorje wrote:

How is it here that this subject is so hotly contested, rather than being understood with interest, and compared?

A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, formally, it does not imply falsehood. Cultures generally regard their creation myths as true. In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths—that is, they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth



Becausse to YECers, nothing in Genesis is "myth", it's all historical fact.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 7:56PM #3
McAtheist
Posts: 9,224

I have a question on terminology:


If the stories in the OT are myths, by the formal definition, what do you call the exo-biblical stuff YECs invent in an attempt to make the physical evidence match their myths? 


I'm talking about continents galloping from Pangaea to their current arrangement in a year,  flood waters partially receding so a dinosaur nesting colony can put in place, all of life "de-evolving" since the flood, the earth vomiting up the asteroid belt, and similar silliness.  Are those "myths" in the same way the bible is ?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 8:18PM #4
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 14,245

Hi Roymond:

Becausse to YECers, nothing in Genesis is "myth", it's all historical fact.


Anthropology and theology are not really my skills. But I'll have a bash/go. Wikipedia's article on creation myths has a classification. And in this, perhaps the Big Bang would be a hybrid, ex nihilo launching into Creation from chaos.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth#Clas...


I suppose here that my interest lies in why any of us think that our pet creation myth is so important to us. While if we think of some anthropologist's tribe, it's reported that they think/believe such-and-such--and we all go ho-hum! Innocent

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 8:28PM #5
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 14,245

Hey, McAtheist:

similar silliness


I am not going to call the Australian Aborigines' rainbow serpent dreaming (myth) "silliness". And I think that it is most unhelpful to use such denunciation-terms  to describe each others' pet perspectives.


As an example, I recall a junior accounting graduate's telling me off for an "erroneous" time-sheet. Whereas I pointed out to her in front of her boss that she had assumed that an hour had a hundred minutes instead of 60! While we might be demonstrably right--having it shoved in our nose/face can engender hurt feelings.

If the stories in the OT are myths, by the formal definition, what do you call the exo-biblical stuff YECs invent in an attempt to make the physical evidence match their myths?


What is this grasping-at-straws that we do to secure our precious ego-identity?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 9:48PM #6
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Jul 11, 2015 -- 7:56PM, McAtheist wrote:


I have a question on terminology:


If the stories in the OT are myths, by the formal definition, what do you call the exo-biblical stuff YECs invent in an attempt to make the physical evidence match their myths? 


I'm talking about continents galloping from Pangaea to their current arrangement in a year,  flood waters partially receding so a dinosaur nesting colony can put in place, all of life "de-evolving" since the flood, the earth vomiting up the asteroid belt, and similar silliness.  Are those "myths" in the same way the bible is ?




What I call the exo-biblical YECist inventions is "unmitigated bullshit", except when I'm calling it "antichrist heresy".


In a technical way, I suppose they're myths -- meta-myths, really, myths on top of other myths.  But the YECists mean them literally, so in another way they aren't myths at all.  It's an old question of genre:  do we go by form or intent?  If we go by intent, I have to conclude that they're very failed attempts at convincing themselves that their denial of the Bible is justified; if we go by form, then functionally they're meta-myths.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 9:52PM #7
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Jul 11, 2015 -- 8:18PM, Karma_yeshe_dorje wrote:


Hi Roymond:

Becausse to YECers, nothing in Genesis is "myth", it's all historical fact.


Anthropology and theology are not really my skills. But I'll have a bash/go. Wikipedia's article on creation myths has a classification. And in this, perhaps the Big Bang would be a hybrid, ex nihilo launching into Creation from chaos.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth#Clas...


I suppose here that my interest lies in why any of us think that our pet creation myth is so important to us. While if we think of some anthropologist's tribe, it's reported that they think/believe such-and-such--and we all go ho-hum!



Error:  the Big Bang theory is not myth in any sense of the word.  Trying to fit it into a myth classification scheme is like trying to decide what automobile registration tax to apply to a hand-truck.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 9:58PM #8
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Jul 11, 2015 -- 8:28PM, Karma_yeshe_dorje wrote:


Hey, McAtheist:

similar silliness


I am not going to call the Australian Aborigines' rainbow serpent dreaming (myth) "silliness". And I think that it is most unhelpful to use such denunciation-terms to describe each others' pet perspectives.


As an example, I recall a junior accounting graduate's telling me off for an "erroneous" time-sheet. Whereas I pointed out to her in front of her boss that she had assumed that an hour had a hundred minutes instead of 60! While we might be demonstrably right--having it shoved in our nose/face can engender hurt feelings.

If the stories in the OT are myths, by the formal definition, what do you call the exo-biblical stuff YECs invent in an attempt to make the physical evidence match their myths?


What is this grasping-at-straws that we do to secure our precious ego-identity?




The galloping continent crap isn't a "pet perspective", it's proposed as what should be required to be taught in all schools.  And while it may make a great fantasy story, it has nothing to do with science, which is what it's proposed as.


BTW, please stop turning everything into emoting.  Neither myth nor science is about emoting' both are scholarly categories that have to do with logic.  If you want to go on about "ego-identity" and other subjective stuff, start a new thread.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 10:57PM #9
McAtheist
Posts: 9,224

karma_yeshe_dorje: I am not going to call the Australian Aborigines' rainbow serpent dreaming (myth) "silliness". And I think that it is most unhelpful to use such denunciation-terms  to describe each others' pet perspectives


Even the YECs don't think crap like the galloping continents or the universe-in-a-white-hole inventions are religious.


These stories are put forth as scientific explanations for why a suite of data seems to uphold the old-earth/evolution model instead of YECism.  They appear in pseudo-scientific journals or "scientific" books.  They often include lots of pseudo-scientific jargon and math and figures.  These concepts are what YECs think should be taught alongside mainstream science in public schools.


So, this isn't about denouncing someone's religion --- it's about denouncing their extraordinarily bad science. 


Is there some reason why YEC scientific ideas should be treated differently than any other scientific ideas, some reason why their research shouldn't be held to the same standard as all the rest?


And do recall that people like me didn't go storming the churches of the YEC faithful demanding that they preach evolution; they dragged their theology into the scientific arena and demanded it be accepted as a legitimate scientific alternative to mainstream models.


I think "silliness" is a very polite description of that attitude.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2015 - 11:56PM #10
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Jul 11, 2015 -- 10:57PM, McAtheist wrote:


karma_yeshe_dorje: I am not going to call the Australian Aborigines' rainbow serpent dreaming (myth) "silliness". And I think that it is most unhelpful to use such denunciation-terms  to describe each others' pet perspectives


Even the YECs don't think crap like the galloping continents or the universe-in-a-white-hole inventions are religious.


These stories are put forth as scientific explanations for why a suite of data seems to uphold the old-earth/evolution model instead of YECism.  They appear in pseudo-scientific journals or "scientific" books.  They often include lots of pseudo-scientific jargon and math and figures.  These concepts are what YECs think should be taught alongside mainstream science in public schools.


So, this isn't about denouncing someone's religion --- it's about denouncing their extraordinarily bad science. 


Is there some reason why YEC scientific ideas should be treated differently than any other scientific ideas, some reason why their research shouldn't be held to the same standard as all the rest?


And do recall that people like me didn't go storming the churches of the YEC faithful demanding that they preach evolution; they dragged their theology into the scientific arena and demanded it be accepted as a legitimate scientific alternative to mainstream models.


I think "silliness" is a very polite description of that attitude.




Yes, most of you here denounce their attempts at science.  I and occasionally a few others denounce their attempts at religion -- on the same basis, really; they assert what their data (the Bible) do not support.


I don't care that they interpret the Bible that way; some have, off and on, through the ages.  But when they advance it as the ONLY way that counts as Christian, that is heresy.


As for their "science" . . . if they weren't trying to force it on the rest of the world, it would get about the same reaction from me as the movie Empire of the Ants: a hilarious venture not worth worrying about.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook