Is myth any less valuable a tool for living than science?

[crystalonyx]

Myth - the Iraq war is defeating terrorism - yes some myths are not true, and very dangerous.

 

[sandandfoam]

If all our perceptions are mythical, though, it's meaningless to compare myth to anything else.

Why so?
I experience everything subjectively.
I find myth a valuable tool of understanding. Science is another valuable tool for subjective understanding.
Why is it meaningless to compare two tools of understanding?

 

[Smoke]

Well, to each his own. But I don't think science have ever considered anything it proves or dis-proves a "provisional truth" otherwise there would be no reason to prove anything. It is an ever-changing process. I guess I prefer to place my faith in stability, rather than an ever changing constant.

But that's just the point. Science is ever-changing. It has the ability to revise itself and to become more accurate with the accumulation of knowledge. Religion changes, too; the "stability" you mention is illusory. But more than that, it's undesirable. The inability to receive correction means you can never free yourself from mistaken ideas. If you're wrong about anything, you're wrong forever.

 

[Smoke]

Why so?
I experience everything subjectively.
I find myth a valuable tool of understanding. Science is another valuable tool for subjective understanding.
Why is it meaningless to compare two tools of understanding?

If you experience everything subjectively, how is it possible to distinguish science from myth?

 

[sandandfoam]

If you experience everything subjectively, how is it possible to distinguish science from myth?

This is a problem that I have been stuck on for some time and have not figured out. I have the same problem with history. Any suggestions would be gratefully accepted.

 

[sojourner]

Of course that's enough. But if you want to compare the utility of myth to the utility of science -- and I think it's a mistake to try -- it's hard for me to agree that taking "our understanding of what we already know deeper, so that it is integrated on a more basic level" is a more pressing need than food, shelter, and clothing, especially since that deeper understanding might be approached by means other than myth.

I think it's a mistake to compare the two, as well. A big part of "the myth" is to feed, clothe and shelter those who are in need, so that they can participate in deeper understanding.

 

[sojourner]

But that's just the point. Science is ever-changing. It has the ability to revise itself and to become more accurate with the accumulation of knowledge. Religion changes, too; the "stability" you mention is illusory. But more than that, it's undesirable. The inability to receive correction means you can never free yourself from mistaken ideas. If you're wrong about anything, you're wrong forever.

doesn't the Church see herself as "an ever-changing constant?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Scientific theories are testable, and the test results are intersubjectively verifiable.

 

[rheff78]

But that's just the point. Science is ever-changing. It has the ability to revise itself and to become more accurate with the accumulation of knowledge. Religion changes, too; the "stability" you mention is illusory. But more than that, it's undesirable. The inability to receive correction means you can never free yourself from mistaken ideas. If you're wrong about anything, you're wrong forever.

Revise and more accurate, isn't that just a nice way to say it was wrong? That's whay I'm saying, why put so much faith in something that is always wrong? My stability in my religion I don't see as illusory (although I don't expect you to agree). Science serves its purpose definately. But it shouldn't ever take the place or be on the same level with for living as religion.

 

[sandandfoam]

Scientific theories are testable, and the test results are intersubjectively verifiable.

Aren't truths drawn from myths intersubjectively verifiable?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My stability in my religion I don't see as illusory (although I don't expect you to agree).

Good grief ... :slap:

 

[Smoke]

Revise and more accurate, isn't that just a nice way to say it was wrong? That's whay I'm saying, why put so much faith in something that is always wrong? My stability in my religion I don't see as illusory (although I don't expect you to agree). Science serves its purpose definately. But it shouldn't ever take the place or be on the same level with for living as religion.

To me, that sounds like you don't mind being wrong as long as you never find out you're wrong.

 

[rheff78]

To me, that sounds like you don't mind being wrong as long as you never find out you're wrong.

To me it sounds like you don't mind being proved wrong repeatedly.

 

[Smoke]

To me it sounds like you don't mind being proved wrong repeatedly.

That's right! It's better to learn more and change your opinions and beliefs in the light of new information, even knowing your knowledge will never be perfect, than to imagine your knowledge is perfect when it isn't.

 

[rheff78]

That's right! It's better to learn more and change your opinions and beliefs in the light of new information, even knowing your knowledge will never be perfect, than to imagine your knowledge is perfect when it isn't.

Oh, my knowledge will never be perfect, even through my faith. But I don't rely on science for all the answers. I guess the difference is, I know I will not find th answer, science says it has the answer and then diproves it. Putting your faith in something you KNOW will be proved wrong later seems absurd to me.

 

[Willamena]

science says it has the answer and then diproves it.

That's a myth, an illusion, a 'truth'.

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

If science was afraid to prove itself wrong, we would still be treating colds by putting toads on our heads. There is nothing worse than being wrong and refusing to change your mind.

 

[Smoke]

Oh, my knowledge will never be perfect, even through my faith. But I don't rely on science for all the answers. I guess the difference is, I know I will not find th answer, science says it has the answer and then diproves it. Putting your faith in something you KNOW will be proved wrong later seems absurd to me.

It's not about faith. It's about learning. Science is a way of learning more. Dogma is a way of refusing to learn more. I think it should be self-evident that the former is preferable, but apparently it's not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Putting your faith in something you KNOW will be proved wrong later seems absurd to me.

Yet you do it every day of your life!

 

[rheff78]

Look, like I said, science has it place. I'm not a bible thumper that thinks we shouldn't have technology. And yes, science has improved our lives and our knowledge. I guess what I'm saying is, science is not AS valuable as religion in our lives. Did science teach us morals?