"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

[Bear Wild]

Science has found that a worldwide flood never took place within the past 6000 years. Science took a stand on Genesis.

Sorry to create a misleading statement. I was referring to the stance in the publication of the National Academy of science that tocsa1 used to claim scientists support genesis . The publication was just saying that science and belief in myth are separate and that science has no place in testing religious beliefs. My personal view is that genesis is pure myth for teaching and has nothing to do with real events. I find there are much better creation myths that teach that humans should live in harmony with nature not rule over it. Certainly science shows that the events in Genesis could not happen this has been demonstrated over and over despite the relentless attempts of creationist to misuse and misquote scientific information in their support. Thus when the word creationist didn't work change the word to intelligent design with the goal to slip genesis in through the back door. Now that Intelligent design has not worked some have now used the term neo-creationism. When that fails I have now doubt there are more creative terms in our future.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't need to read Tolkien or IndigoChild to understand what myths are. I have known that for many years.
I don't need to read Tolkien or IndigoChild to understand that myths have had a major influence on mankind throughout our existence. I have known that for many years.

However, it is precisely because of that knowledge, that I disagree with your assertion...


All of the Biblical stories, OT and NT, were written to be understood as facts, not Just So stories. Just So stories have meaning behind them that may or may not be accepted. Factual tales of what actually happened with Man and GOD's reaction thereto, are powerful and are not to be ignored. That is the purpose of God-Belief and Religion.

Consider...

1. Village Elder/WiseMan (teaching about morals): There was a city that had many whorehouses and that led to many people getting sick. It was so bad, that the city eventually died out.
2. Village Elder/WiseMan (teaching about morals): Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Both are morality tales. Both are told as something that actually happened. Which is more powerful?

Religious myths were also intended to "factually" explain things that man was ignorant of at the time:

The origin of Lightning; God
The cause of pestilence; God
Why volcanoes erupt; God

When man taught man that pestilence was caused by an angry/disappointed God, they didn't write that as allegory, they wrote it as something to be factually believed. When they wrote that "offerings" had to be made to the god(s), they didn't write that as allegory, they wrote it as something to be factually believed.




People were consciously aware of the fact that sacrifices needed to be made to appease god(s). Perhaps the only thing seeping into our subconscious minds was the actual existence of and the need for god(s).

I disagree with your basic premise. I think that in, for example, the old traditional Seminole tribe that little children did indeed believe that a turtle carried the world on its back, but that adults understood that this was a different kind of reality, not the same kind of reality as the tree or stone you could touch.j

Of your two stories, the one which is the myth is incredibly more powerful, though both teach the same lesson. That is why I say that myth is the most powerful form of literature.

Yes, myths do tend to explain the unexplainable (God or the animal spirits or whatever). But I don't believe this is their primary purpose. You just have too many myths and fairy stories that don't explain anything at all.

Sure people appeased gods in order to gain their favor. But the primary reason to worship is deeper than that. When chimps dance around at the sight of a waterfall or lightning, they aren't doing it to assure a good harvest.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

To ecco:


To Audie:


So you don't take Genesis literally. You presume it is all allegorical. You presume it is all written just that way for people like you to interpret and learn.

You have no basis to make such a presumption. You cannot show anywhere in Christian or Jewish scripture any authority to take Genesis as anything other than literal fact.

Perhaps you can give an example of something in scripture that you do not see as myth or allegory - something that is absolute truth. Then you can explain why Genesis is myth and why your choice is factual truth.

Myth is not the same as allegory. Myth contains archetypes, race memories, and symbolic representations of our deepest values.

You know, I've tried explaining this to so many people, and inevitably they don't get it. Maybe it's possible that folks just can't understand the basics of mythology unless they've immersed themselves and read a gazillion myths.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I certainly do not think Genesis 1-3 is completely historical. For you to imply that, is absolutely ridiculous.

I also understand that many people, today, recognize Genesis as allegory.

However, believers in Genesis do not feel that way...

‘If Christians don’t believe in a literal Genesis, they have no foundation for their doctrine’ | The Christian Chronicle
‘If Christians don’t believe in a literal Genesis, they have no foundation for their doctrine’
Creationist Ken Ham discusses his belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth, what might have happened if Noah ‘had swatted those two mosquitoes’ and why he views the Bible’s opening 11 chapters as so important.​

It is these beliefs that science has refuted.

I realize that there is a minority of Christians who take Genesis 1-3 literally. Often they are indoctrinated into it, so that they are not really given a chance to think straight about it. But whatever the reason, they are a minority.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It seems to me that this essay is simply expressing the value of literature to humans. It looks at one particular type of literature: the fairy story, but the conclusions are more general.

But the point is that they are *fiction*. And there is a difference between fiction and fact. Myth and fairy stories are decidedly on the side of fiction. You create a (false) world, and explore it. As Tolkien notes, it is often for escape, a useful and valuable thing.

The problem, in my mind, is when the myths are taken as factual. When the stories are taken as describing reality. That is a confusion that is dangerous, especially with the great myths associated with religions.

But myths themselves can serve to express our hopes and desires, our fears and our frustrations, our dreams and our goals. As such, they are valuable. Just don't take them as reality.

In any case, that's how I see it.

Oh, my, my,my. You just don't understand what "fiction" can do. Fiction relays things other than facts (and it can relay facts as well, as in historical fiction). Fiction relays our deepest values.

Try relaying values in an essay and everyone will fall asleep before they finish it. You will influence no one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

His religious view clearly changed with age after starting out to be a part of the clergy to his at least agnostic like views of his later life and his belief in a creator much to ambiguous to draw clear conclusions. Clearly he did not place the concept of a creator as an important aspect leaving it to the second to last single sentence and objected to Wallace's stance. Unfortunately he is not here to answer the question. His viewpoint on human behavior was clearly connected with other animal behavior without the separation that Wallace proclaimed as seen in his latter book.

I absolutely agree with you that his views changed over time. I don't think he was ever a Christian. His God was more like the God of the philosophers. But I think clearly at one time he was theistic, even if he was a kind of agnostic theist as I am.

I don't think you can judge how important God was to him by how much dominance he gave it in his scientific writings. It just meant he compartmentalized, feeling that his belief in God didn't effect his observations. In my scientific papers when I was at the university, I never once mentioned God, and I think that's the way it should be, yet God is very important to me.

Clearly towards the end of his life he was more of an unbeliever, perhaps even an atheist. Certainly not a theist.

The reason I began this thread was simply to show that, since AT ONE TIME Darwins theism was compatible with his very own theory, there is no reason for, i.e. creationists to think that the TOE is atheistic.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, my, my,my. You just don't understand what "fiction" can do. Fiction relays things other than facts (and it can relay facts as well, as in historical fiction). Fiction relays our deepest values.

Try relaying values in an essay and everyone will fall asleep before they finish it. You will influence no one.

Oh, I get the value of fiction in organizing how we deal with the world, how we place values, and all of that. But there is also a value in truth. And fiction isn't truth.

Myths are partly how we manage to be human. But that doesn't mean we should take them as facts. And the problem is that all too many people do so. So, when their myth says there was a world-wide flood and the facts say otherwise, they choose the myth over the fact. I see that as a big problem.

 

[ecco]

I disagree with your basic premise. I think that in, for example, the old traditional Seminole tribe that little children did indeed believe that a turtle carried the world on its back, but that adults understood that this was a different kind of reality, not the same kind of reality as the tree or stone you could touch.

So, to the best of your knowledge, the sum total of Seminole myth is a turtle carrying the world.
Seminole Legends (Folklore, Myths, and Traditional Indian Stories)
Trickster Rabbit (Chufe, Chufi, Cokfi, or Chokfee): Rabbit is the trickster figure of Seminole Indian legends.

Breathmaker: The great Creator god of the Seminole tribe.
Breathmaker is the Creator God of the Seminole tribe. He made the people out of clay and taught them the arts of civilization. He is associated with the Milky Way, which he created as his own home and which is considered to be the afterlife in traditional Seminole cosmology.

Little Giver: Corn spirit of the Seminoles.
Little Giver is a corn spirit from Miccosukee and Seminole mythology. Usually appearing as a dwarf, Little Giver appeared to the people to present them with the gift of corn, for which he was subsequently always honored.

Stikini: Dreadful owl-witches of Seminole legend.

Long-Ears: Wolf-like monster from Seminole folklore.
[paste:font size="5"]Seminole Creation Story:
Miccosukee and Seminole legends about the creation of the earth.

Origin of the Seminole clans:
Seminole legends about the creation of the animals.

Men Visit the Sky:
Seminole legend about men transformed into angels.

The Milky Way:
Hitchiti and Seminole stories about astronomy and weather.

The White Potato Clan:
Seminole legend about the Creator's gift to clanless children.

Myths and Tales of the Southeastern Indians:
Collection of traditional stories from the Seminole Creek and other Muskogean tribes.

Of your two stories, the one which is the myth is incredibly more powerful, though both teach the same lesson. That is why I say that myth is the most powerful form of literature.

They are both myths. The second is more powerful because it invokes a god.

Yes, myths do tend to explain the unexplainable (God or the animal spirits or whatever). But I don't believe this is their primary purpose. You just have too many myths and fairy stories that don't explain anything at all.

If you would stop conflating myths with intentional fiction, you wouldn't have that problem. Give me one myth from religious scripture that is not meant to explain anything at all.

Sure people appeased gods in order to gain their favor. But the primary reason to worship is deeper than that.

I did state that one of the reasons people created gods was to explain the then unknowable. Sorrow about death also plays a part.

When chimps dance around at the sight of a waterfall or lightning, they aren't doing it to assure a good harvest.

When chimps dance around at the sight of a waterfall maybe they are just happy to have found drinking water. When chimps dance around at lightning, perhaps they are just frightened. On the other hand, I've never seen chimps dance at either. Have you? Or did you make that up?

 

[ecco]

Myth is not the same as allegory. Myth contains archetypes, race memories, and symbolic representations of our deepest values.

al·le·go·ry
/ˈaləˌɡôrē/
noun

1. a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

myth
/miTH/
noun

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
   synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore, folklore; More
2. 2.
   a widely held but false belief or idea.

If we had race memories, in the context you seem to want to use the term, we would have no need for myths.

You know, I've tried explaining this to so many people, and inevitably they don't get it. Maybe it's possible that folks just can't understand the basics of mythology unless they've immersed themselves and read a gazillion myths.

You say people don't get it, people don't understand it. I think I get it. I think I understand it. I just don't buy it. You do see the difference, don't you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, I get the value of fiction in organizing how we deal with the world, how we place values, and all of that. But there is also a value in truth. And fiction isn't truth.

Myths are partly how we manage to be human. But that doesn't mean we should take them as facts. And the problem is that all too many people do so. So, when their myth says there was a world-wide flood and the facts say otherwise, they choose the myth over the fact. I see that as a big problem.

Now I am going to point something out. "But there is also a value in truth." Is that a fact? Is that true? Is it fiction? Is it myth? Is it a big problem? What is it? And how does it connect to: "...how we manage to be human."? Are there a "we" in that? What kind of "we" is it? What about "them"?
In short, I have a creation myth of my own. But I compartmentalize that, when I look at that which we share. The common reality and then I realize that there is no single truth or one kind of fact. Because it is a fact, that different human have different values and different understandings of truth. To me cognitive relativism is a fact and to others is not. So it is a fact that we have cognitive relativism, because within the common reality we can get away with different understandings of facts, truths and values. I just point it out. There is no singular truth for "we". How you deal with that, can in fact be different from another human including me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, to the best of your knowledge, the sum total of Seminole myth is a turtle carrying the world.

You are deliberately obfuscating. I made no such indication. I simply gave an example.

Give me one myth from religious scripture that is not meant to explain anything at all.

The Resurrection of Jesus. It doesn't explain anything in nature.

When chimps dance around at the sight of a waterfall maybe they are just happy to have found drinking water. When chimps dance around at lightning, perhaps they are just frightened. On the other hand, I've never seen chimps dance at either. Have you? Or did you make that up?

Yes, I've seen video footage of some of it. Mostly I'm paraphrasing from something Jane Goodall wrote. If you replaced the chimps with humans, we would have to call it religious worship.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh, I get the value of fiction in organizing how we deal with the world, how we place values, and all of that. But there is also a value in truth. And fiction isn't truth.

Myths are partly how we manage to be human. But that doesn't mean we should take them as facts. And the problem is that all too many people do so. So, when their myth says there was a world-wide flood and the facts say otherwise, they choose the myth over the fact. I see that as a big problem.

Yes, fiction is truth. If fiction teaches a kid not to go get lost in the forest because it's dangerous, that's called truth. You want to completely disregard all the truths that can be found in fiction because they are coupled with imagination. And then you ignore how prose can be biased and slant all the facts out of context.

 

[Polymath257]

Now I am going to point something out. "But there is also a value in truth." Is that a fact? Is that true? Is it fiction? Is it myth? Is it a big problem? What is it? And how does it connect to: "...how we manage to be human."? Are there a "we" in that? What kind of "we" is it? What about "them"?
In short, I have a creation myth of my own. But I compartmentalize that, when I look at that which we share. The common reality and then I realize that there is no single truth or one kind of fact. Because it is a fact, that different human have different values and different understandings of truth. To me cognitive relativism is a fact and to others is not. So it is a fact that we have cognitive relativism, because within the common reality we can get away with different understandings of facts, truths and values. I just point it out. There is no singular truth for "we". How you deal with that, can in fact be different from another human including me.

No. Truth is *defined* to be that which doesn't depend on our individual opinions. It goes beyond us, even beyond being human. It is something independent of us.

Myth, on the other hand, is *all* about us. It is the story we tell ourselves so we can deal with the world around us. So, we tell ourselves comforting lies, or even uncomfortable lies.

Yes, mistaking myth for truth is a HUGE mistake.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, fiction is truth. If fiction teaches a kid not to go get lost in the forest because it's dangerous, that's called truth. You want to completely disregard all the truths that can be found in fiction because they are coupled with imagination. And then you ignore how prose can be biased and slant all the facts out of context.

No, fiction is NOT truth. It is a story to convey a moral principle, perhaps. It is a story we tell ourselves. But it is NOT a truth.

I don't want to discount the 'truths' that are found in fiction. I know that fiction can point to iussues we prefer to avoid. It can help us frame our views of ourselves and our place in the universe. It can help us to understand others and why they do what they do.

Fiction, myths, fables, an allegories are all valuable parts of the human experience.

But they are not truth. They are fiction. To not notice or understand the difference is, I think, a danger.

 

[ecco]

So, to the best of your knowledge, the sum total of Seminole myth is a turtle carrying the world.

You are deliberately obfuscating. I made no such indication. I simply gave an example.

I'm deliberately obfuscating? We are discussing myths that have meaning. You presented, as an example, a tale told to little children. Who is deliberately obfuscating?

The Resurrection of Jesus. It doesn't explain anything in nature.

You seem to have a problem remembering the conversation, even your own comments. This is a forum. You can always look back at previous posts to refresh your memory.

Here is what you said...

Yes, myths do tend to explain the unexplainable (God or the animal spirits or whatever). But I don't believe this is their primary purpose. You just have too many myths and fairy stories that don't explain anything at all.

Since I didn't believe your assertion, I responded...

Give me one myth from religious scripture that is not meant to explain anything at all.

You replied: The Resurrection of Jesus. It doesn't explain anything in nature.

Previously you stated: Too many myths and fairy stories that don't explain anything at all.

How did you get from "don't explain anything at all" to "doesn't explain anything in nature"? "IN NATURE"? That's a completely evasive answer. That's a duck and dodge answer.

Yes, I've seen video footage of some of it. Mostly I'm paraphrasing from something Jane Goodall wrote. If you replaced the chimps with humans, we would have to call it religious worship.

I won't even bother to challange your assertion about Jane Goodall and ask for an actual reference.

But again, let's remember what the discussion was. You wrote...

Sure people appeased gods in order to gain their favor. But the primary reason to worship is deeper than that. When chimps dance around at the sight of a waterfall or lightning, they aren't doing it to assure a good harvest.

You were implying that the chimps were dancing because they were engaged in a deep worship religious experience. You've presented no evidence for that.

Furthermore, your assertion that if we replaced the image of dancing chimps with dancing humans "we would have to call it religious worship" is also nonsensical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Truth is *defined* to be that which doesn't depend on our individual opinions. It goes beyond us, even beyond being human. It is something independent of us.

Myth, on the other hand, is *all* about us. It is the story we tell ourselves so we can deal with the world around us. So, we tell ourselves comforting lies, or even uncomfortable lies.

Yes, mistaking myth for truth is a HUGE mistake.

Truth is not independent of individual opinion. It is your individual opinion, that it is independent. But that is not mine. That is how you falsify that opinion and show that it is an opinion.
I like how you use philosophy and not science. Truth is an idea in the brains of some humans. There wouldn't be the idea of truth without humans.
BTW Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That truth matters, is all about us.

 

[Polymath257]

Truth is not independent of individual opinion. It is your individual opinion, that it is independent. But that is not mine. That is how you falsify that opinion and show that it is an opinion.
I like how you use philosophy and not science. Truth is an idea in the brains of some humans. There wouldn't be the idea of truth without humans.
BTW Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That truth matters, is all about us.

Looking at the article, it aseems to directly contradict your viewpoint and support mine. Thanks for the support.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Looking at the article, it aseems to directly contradict your viewpoint and support mine. Thanks for the support.

Yes, of course. Correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, realism, anti-realism and redundancy are all the same when it comes to truth. You win, god and no god are also the same, while we are it.
You have just reduced 2000+ years of philosophy about truth to be the same. Again you win. Or not!

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, of course. Correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, realism, anti-realism and redundancy are all the same when it comes to truth. You win, god and no god are also the same, while we are it.
You have just reduced 2000+ years of philosophy about truth to be the same. Again you win. Or not!

I didn't say they are the same philosophy. But they all say that the truth is something outside of ourselves. That there is a distinction between truth and myth. And that this distinction is an important one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say they are the same philosophy. But they all say that the truth is something outside of ourselves. That there is a distinction between truth and myth. And that this distinction is an important one.

No, correspondence: A belief is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact.
Coherence: A belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs.
Pragmatism: Truth is the end of inquiry - or - Truth is satisfactory to believe.
Realism: The world exists objectively, independently of the ways we think about it or describe it. Our thoughts and claims are about that world.
Anti-realism: Truth is not, to this view, a fully objective matter, independent of us or our thoughts. Instead, truth is constrained by our abilities to verify, and is thus constrained by our epistemic situation. Truth is to a significant degree an epistemic matter, which is typical of many anti-realist positions.
Redundancy: "It is true, that is snowing" is the same as "it is snowing".

So, no, not all theories of are ontological/metaphysical as yours is.

You can also see that here:
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

Notice the "or" and how the 2 part start for different considerations. "Reality as a whole" versus "human existence and experience".
Truth depends on where you start and what you take for granted.

: