Judging what is unlikely

[Quintessence]

What I have attempted to do here is give them a neutral scenario (Buddhists are scarce in here), ask them for their REASONING why Story 1 is far more likely to be historical than Story 2, and then end with the suggestion that they should use the same reasoning when reading their own sacred text.

What are some reasons why one would apply a uniform standard? What are some reasons why one wouldn't? Just thinking it might be interesting to brainstorm that.

I suppose I find the notion that humans would aspire to or hold such a standard to be a bit weird since that's just not what happens in practice. Humans are fundamentally myth making and storytelling animals who will assign greater weight to their own preferred stories since they authentically express their way of life (values, traditions, rituals, etc.). Not everyone likes and resonates with the same genres or aesthetics, so to speak. I'm not convinced it is desirable to vainly impose some sort of standard because it grates against what mythos is supposed to do - assuage existential concerns of meaning and purpose. If the genre appeal isn't there, it's not going to do that job well.

But I probably just don't get it because I find mythological literalism to be bankrupt and missing the point of what mythology is for.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What are some reasons why one would apply a uniform standard? What are some reasons why one wouldn't? Just thinking it might be interesting to brainstorm that.

Would? I don't know that I expect that. Should? Absolutely.

A double standard is not technically a fallacy in the strict sense of formal logic, but it is a flawed reasoning approach. A double standard occurs when someone applies different principles or rules to similar situations or people without a valid justification. In a way, it can lead to biased or inconsistent arguments, which undermines fairness and credibility.

While not categorized as a specific fallacy like ad hominem or straw man, a double standard can contribute to fallacious reasoning when it results in arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions. It often reveals a form of special pleading, where one applies a rule to others but exempts themselves or favored individuals without a reasonable basis.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm going to use as part of my illustration two stories about the Buddha, and then I'll ask you which is more likely to be true.

STORY #1
Siddhartha Gautama, later known as the Buddha, was born a prince in the 6th century BCE in Lumbini, present-day Nepal. Raised in luxury, he was shielded from the suffering of the world. However, at the age of 29, Siddhartha left the palace and encountered the "Four Sights"—an old man, a sick man, a dead body, and an ascetic. Deeply troubled by the reality of suffering, he renounced his royal life and embarked on a spiritual journey to find the cause of and solution to human suffering.

STORY #2
When Siddhartha Gautama was born, he immediately stood up and took seven steps in each cardinal direction. At each spot where his foot touched the ground, a lotus flower bloomed, symbolizing purity. He then pointed to the heavens and declared, "I am the chief of the world, this is my final birth." As he grew older, Siddhartha developed miraculous powers. He could fly across rivers without using a bridge, shrink his body to the size of a grain of rice, and transform into thousands of different beings simultaneously. It is said that during one of his teachings, he caused an entire field of mango trees to suddenly bear fruit, feeding thousands of his followers who had not eaten for days.

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

I believe they both are real , when looking through reality with the Tarot.. The Fool takes a long journey to the World. History is a story.. it includes real physical things, and the imagination. The Wheel turns: on one side is the outer-world, and the inner world is on the other. Both are needed for motion

 

[Quintessence]

Would? I don't know that I expect that. Should? Absolutely.

A double standard is not technically a fallacy in the strict sense of formal logic, but it is a flawed reasoning approach. A double standard occurs when someone applies different principles or rules to similar situations or people without a valid justification. In a way, it can lead to biased or inconsistent arguments, which undermines fairness and credibility.

Yeah, but why does any of that actually matter when it comes to the roots of people's very identities and ways of life (aka, the mythos of religions)? It strikes me as super weird to expect something so personal to be subjected to such... impersonal and almost robotically inhuman assessments. It sort of defeats the entire purpose of it - that purpose of resolving existential questions of life and meaning. It'd be like going into an art gallery and assessing the works by assigning numbers to the pigments based on a standardized EM analysis. I mean, you can, but... just... why? That's weird.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe they both are real , when looking through reality with the Tarot.. The Fool takes a long journey to the World. History is a story.. it includes real physical things, and the imagination. The Wheel turns: on one side is the outer-world, and the inner world is on the other. Both are needed for motion

I think you misunderstood the question. I was not asking which was more meaningful, or more needed, or more enlightening. This question was simply, which is more likely to be historical.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I think you misunderstood the question. I was not asking which was more meaningful, or more needed, or more enlightening. This question was simply, which is more likely to be historical.

I can't answer you more extensively, since I'm busy, but I'd say it depends on how you define history.. what actually happened, versus what's in one's head - both these things 'happen,' in a way

 

[Secret Chief]

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

The first.

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

The first describes events which may actually have happened. Nothing is claimed which could not be "actual history."

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

It would and I do, if assessing in regards to historical accuracy.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I can't answer you more extensively, since I'm busy, but I'd say it depends on how you define history.. what actually happened, versus what's in one's head - both these things 'happen,' in a way

What happens in the imagination, along with 'what actually happened,' is also representative of content, that happens. In an inclusive view of the universe, a product of the imagination has the same quality as a rock, in a sense. They both were created, and stand in contradistinction to nothingnesss. There is a history of the imagination. There is also a history of the rock. The latter object simply appears more solid, but is just a historical creation , along with the thing that someone imagined, which also occurs in history

Say that someone imagines something , far back in time. A peasant in the middle ages, or a hunter-gatherer from 10,000 years ago. They don't write down what they thought, or tell anyone. Or maybe they do, but it isn't remembered. Maybe they imagined something very novel one random afternoon. That still represents a perturbation in history, something still ripples out from that.

It is almost like a quantum event , (although I don't know anything about physics really) where the 'invisible world' of the 'history of human imagination' is able to move energy about. Though if that is too far out for people, fine. But real things seems to come into existence based on what was previously invisible material in the imagination

 

[Secret Chief]

That’s the thing, both resemble common mythic tropes.

Of the two, 1 is less improbable, but it’s 2 things that almost certainly didn’t happen (but their factuality is not the most important feature).

I don't see anything mythic about 1?

Why do you say that the first almost certainly did not happen? It is generally accepted as fact that the person was a real person who did live around that time in that area.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm going to use as part of my illustration two stories about the Buddha, and then I'll ask you which is more likely to be true.

STORY #1
Siddhartha Gautama, later known as the Buddha, was born a prince in the 6th century BCE in Lumbini, present-day Nepal. Raised in luxury, he was shielded from the suffering of the world. However, at the age of 29, Siddhartha left the palace and encountered the "Four Sights"—an old man, a sick man, a dead body, and an ascetic. Deeply troubled by the reality of suffering, he renounced his royal life and embarked on a spiritual journey to find the cause of and solution to human suffering.

STORY #2
When Siddhartha Gautama was born, he immediately stood up and took seven steps in each cardinal direction. At each spot where his foot touched the ground, a lotus flower bloomed, symbolizing purity. He then pointed to the heavens and declared, "I am the chief of the world, this is my final birth." As he grew older, Siddhartha developed miraculous powers. He could fly across rivers without using a bridge, shrink his body to the size of a grain of rice, and transform into thousands of different beings simultaneously. It is said that during one of his teachings, he caused an entire field of mango trees to suddenly bear fruit, feeding thousands of his followers who had not eaten for days.

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

1: Definitely #1. Although it is a bit more mythical than I would personally go for.

2: I just don't like to presume supernatural occurrences. It is lazy, it is dangerous and it is pointless.

3: Yes, of course it would. Then again, I don't really use or approve the use of supernatural expectations for anything outside fiction. Religions should not rely on supernaturalism either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The objective of this thread is not to dis myth. I actually enjoy myth. And I think that the best way to transmit ethics and values is through fiction. But that's not what this thread is about.

There are people who read religious texts without an eye as to what genre is being used. They assume that everything in the text is factual, HISTORICAL. And they don't like it when others point out that it is very obvious at face value that it is not.

"Obvious" to us with a few thousand more years' worth of knowledge wasn't necessarily "obvious" to ancient people.

Rather than deciding what was intended to be non-literal just based on what sounds ridiculous to a modern reader, I think it's more responsible to look for some sort of evidence for how people interpreted the passage originally.

What I have attempted to do here is give them a neutral scenario (Buddhists are scarce in here), ask them for their REASONING why Story 1 is far more likely to be historical than Story 2, and then end with the suggestion that they should use the same reasoning when reading their own sacred text.

I think both are unlikely to be historical. Story #1 is physically possible, but it reads like a hagiography.

 

[Augustus]

I don't see anything mythic about 1?

Why do you say that the first almost certainly did not happen? It is generally accepted as fact that the person was a real person who did live around that time in that area.

Prince leads idyllic life until event leads him to undertake moral quest during which he experiences things that teach him moral lessons and in the end he achieves his goal and finds transcendence.

It’s the standard hero’s journey, compare to Harry Potter:

Boy gains knowledge that overturns his life leading to new powers and purpose, he experiences many things that teach moral lessons and in the end he triumphs over evil and finds happiness.

 

[Secret Chief]

Prince leads idyllic life until event leads him to undertake moral quest during which he experiences things that teach him moral lessons and in the end he achieves his goal and finds transcendence.

It’s the standard hero’s journey, compare to Harry Potter:

Boy gains knowledge that overturns his life leading to new powers and purpose, he experiences many things that teach moral lessons and in the end he triumphs over evil and finds happiness.

Your belief 1 "almost certainly didn't happen" seems over-confident to me, but whatever.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Is it far more likely? Or just marginally less unlikely?

If you were to find some method of assigning probabilities, the second scenario would surely be somewhere in excess of one chance in 10^73. So even if the probability of the first scenario being historically accurate was one in a million, it would still be far more likely.

 

[Spice]

Prince leads idyllic life until event leads him to undertake moral quest during which he experiences things that teach him moral lessons and in the end he achieves his goal and finds transcendence.

It’s the standard hero’s journey, compare to Harry Potter:

Boy gains knowledge that overturns his life leading to new powers and purpose, he experiences many things that teach moral lessons and in the end he triumphs over evil and finds happiness.

Sorry, but Harry Potter is not a good comparison by any stretch for Siddhartha's story.

 

[Augustus]

Sorry, but Harry Potter is not a good comparison by any stretch for Siddhartha's story.

It’s not really a comparison, just pointing out they both share common structural tropes.

 

[Spice]

It’s not really a comparison, just pointing out they both share common structural tropes.

I figured, but I don't even see that. I don't see HP a hero at all. If I were to relate Siddhartha's story to a children's book it would probably be The Secret Garden, even though the little rich boy did not take his enlightenment public.

 

[Valjean]

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

Heretic! Burn the witch!

 

[Spice]

Heretic! Burn the witch!

The season is upon us!! Who's ready for the old millstone test? Cover your devil's teats and be careful of the herbs you gather. It will soon be October............

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm going to use as part of my illustration two stories about the Buddha, and then I'll ask you which is more likely to be true.

STORY #1
Siddhartha Gautama, later known as the Buddha, was born a prince in the 6th century BCE in Lumbini, present-day Nepal. Raised in luxury, he was shielded from the suffering of the world. However, at the age of 29, Siddhartha left the palace and encountered the "Four Sights"—an old man, a sick man, a dead body, and an ascetic. Deeply troubled by the reality of suffering, he renounced his royal life and embarked on a spiritual journey to find the cause of and solution to human suffering.

STORY #2
When Siddhartha Gautama was born, he immediately stood up and took seven steps in each cardinal direction. At each spot where his foot touched the ground, a lotus flower bloomed, symbolizing purity. He then pointed to the heavens and declared, "I am the chief of the world, this is my final birth." As he grew older, Siddhartha developed miraculous powers. He could fly across rivers without using a bridge, shrink his body to the size of a grain of rice, and transform into thousands of different beings simultaneously. It is said that during one of his teachings, he caused an entire field of mango trees to suddenly bear fruit, feeding thousands of his followers who had not eaten for days.

Question 1: Which story is more likely to be actual history?

Story #1 is clearly more likely to be literal, actual, history.

Question 2: What reasoning went through your head when you decided this?

The normal reasoning associated with natural, biological-brain based cognition, i.e, fact, empiricism, and rationalism.

Question 3: Wouldn't it be fair to use this sort of reasoning with all religious texts, from the Bible to the Quran?

Absolutely, yes. We initially subject all texts, even religious texts, to normal reasoning based on natural cognition, empiricism, and rationalism.

Question 4: Which story is more likely to be true (versus factual and historical)?

STORY #2 is exponentially more likely to be true than STORY #1 since only STORY #2 intimates a grasping for truth rather than fact, empiricism and rationalism. STORY #2 is framed as mythological truth whereas STORY #1 fully accepts and genuflects in the spirit of its well-known limitations circumscribed as they are within the known world of rationalism and empiricism. STORY #1 gives up the ghost so far as reaching for the fruit of truth dangling from the higher branches of mythology and religious thought.

The branches of history, rationalism, and empiricism, grow low to the ground where even the masses of small people can still reach them. Mythology and religious thought are higher up on the tree of human insight and perspective such that to get at them many righteous men have broken the branches of rationalism and empiricism when they used them like mundane steps of a ladder to climb upon the shoulders of the giants ahead of them trying to perhaps grasp the gleaming fruit on the higher branches.

Because of the ease with which the fruits of rationalism, history, and empiricism can be had, many people have lost their balance and fell while trying to climb higher on the tree. Once on the finer branches higher up, the fact of their having gorged themselves on the fruit of the lower branches rarely bodes well for their safety and security. The wise man never eats from the table of knowledge an ounce more than is required to gain the energy to climb to the fruit of truth.



John