Please Define "Religion"

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting that you accuse me of using descriptions as a means of putting things in boxes, then go on to talk about the boundaries, limitations etc, that ‘we’ must place on abstract thought.


If the purpose of abstractions of thought, be they mathematical, linguistic, or otherwise, is to help us extend the frontiers of knowledge, how can they do that if we insist they be constrained by what we already believe to be demonstrably real? We would have no Big Bang theory if theoretical physicists hadn’t created mathematical models, based on Einstein’s field equations, which have since been confirmed in part by observation. The point being that the entirely theoretical models arrived at independently by Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre came before the discovery of CMBR, and the observations of Edwin Hubble, which provided the first observable evidence in support of the theories.

Your understanding of what is meant by theory is somewhat limited btw. As well as the definition you offer above, theory refers also to those elements of scientific laws - Newton’s laws of Motion for example - which are not observable. Gravity, for example, is not observable, though accurate values can be assigned to it’s effects, using Newton’s Law of Gravitation.

Your understanding of what is meant by metaphysics is, I would suggest, similarly limited; in order not merely to measure gravity, but also to articulate it’s reality, to say what it is, an ontology is required. And metaphysics is a key component of any ontology, it is what bridges the gap between the empirical and the theoretical.

Well, It should be noted, that it is possible to do the everyday world with metaphysics and ontology, but even that has a limit.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, It should be noted, that it is possible to do the everyday world with metaphysics and ontology, but even that has a limit.

Conversely, one can take an Instrumentalist, or Logical Positivist view of the world, which is entirely functional. No need for any underlying ontology or fundamental reality, if we are satisfied with such a perspective. The thing is, however, this is very much an anti realist approach to reality, being concerned only with observable phenomena.

 

[MikeF]

Interesting that you accuse me of using descriptions as a means of putting things in boxes, then go on to talk about the boundaries, limitations etc, that ‘we’ must place on abstract thought.

And I find it equally interesting, my friend, that you deflected from addressing my assertion that you intentionally define science in a way as to protect certain beliefs from scientific investigation by claiming, falsely, that I am doing the same thing in regards to abstract thought.

I wonder if you will address my assertion directly. To be clear, the box is a metaphor for restricting the application of scientific principles and standards to a specific subject, namely Natural Philosophy as understood in classical Western Philosophy. At least this is the impression that I am getting from you and the manner in which you regard and define science.

Now, am I placing abstract thought, neigh the realm of abstraction, in a similar metaphorical box? No. I have described the realm of abstraction itself as boundless. What I did say was the abstract systems one wishes to create in the realm of abstraction becomes a specific system by assigning rules and properties to the constructs created for use in that particular system. As an example, the abstract system of mathematics has foundational axioms and rules of operations, etc which permit the tool of mathematics to function in a usable and useful way.

Do you still claim that I am placing the entire realm of abstraction in an artificially restrictive metaphorical box?

If the purpose of abstractions of thought, be they mathematical, linguistic, or otherwise, is to help us extend the frontiers of knowledge, ...

The purpose of abstract thought is simply to think. The purpose of creating abstract systems of thought is to label, organize, reason upon, and communicate our thoughts.

Since we are born with a relatively blank slate, setting aside our instinctual pre-programming, extending our knowledge of the world outside the confines of the mind is first and foremost a necessity to meet the two primary imperatives inherent in all lie, to survive and reproduce. The tools we posses to gain knowledge about the world are our biological senses. Knowledge then starts with experience and repeated experiences are use to form expectations based on experience, hence, knowledge is reasoned expectation based on experience, and such knowledge is held with varying degrees of confidence. The more experiences reinforce an expectation, the greater the confidence in that expectation. The reasoning ability of human beings allow us to extend, to a degree, beyond direct observation or experience to make predictions or assumptions; in essense, the ability to infer. The validity or usefullness of any inference is highly dependent on the amount and quality of the information upon which the inference is formed. An inference made from incomplete and insufficiant set of facts can easily go asstray. As a result, we can both infer correctly and incorrectly. Consequently, an inference will not be held with any degree of confidence unless and until it's prediction or assumption is verified or confirmed, and the more often this occurs, the greater the confidence that will be engendered.

... how can they do that if we insist they be constrained by what we already believe to be demonstrably real? We would have no Big Bang theory if theoretical physicists hadn’t created mathematical models, based on Einstein’s field equations, which have since been confirmed in part by observation. The point being that the entirely theoretical models arrived at independently by Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre came before the discovery of CMBR, and the observations of Edwin Hubble, which provided the first observable evidence in support of the theories.

Our only constraint on knowledge is our ability to gain experience of it. When we infer beyond the scope of our ability to directly experience in some fashion, those inferences are only held with the appropriately limited degree of confidence engendered by the quality and quantity of the information used to form those inferences.

What you describe above simply illustrates how the confidence in an inference grows and becomes stronger once observable evidence begins to corroborate it. This is exactly how knowledge acquisition and our confidence in knowledge works.

Your understanding of what is meant by theory is somewhat limited btw. As well as the definition you offer above, theory refers also to those elements of scientific laws - Newton’s laws of Motion for example - which are not observable. Gravity, for example, is not observable, though accurate values can be assigned to it’s effects, using Newton’s Law of Gravitation.

Really? A scientific law states the relationship of a set of variables under specific conditions and is therefore always considered to be true under those conditions. Scientific laws are different from theory in that they specifically refer to how as opposed to addressing the why question. Again, designating such as a law indicates the degree of confidence in the conclusion. Sufficient experience provides the required confidence to describe the relationships as a physical law.

Science also uses the terms fact, theory, and hypothesis, and all relate to a level of confidence. I shan't explain further.

To state that gravity is not observable would represent a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, in my view. If you mean to imply the 'why' of gravity is currently unobservable, that is accurate. Given that, all we may do in the meantime is make inferences based on what we do know and observe.

Your understanding of what is meant by metaphysics is, I would suggest, similarly limited; in order not merely to measure gravity, but also to articulate it’s reality, to say what it is, an ontology is required. And metaphysics is a key component of any ontology, it is what bridges the gap between the empirical and the theoretical.

What you do not seem to understand is that theoretical is empirical. Theoretical implies possible.

What is needed is a methodology of demarcation, to ensure the abstract systems we use to describe and understand all that is, remains empirical and distinct from pure abstraction without correspondence to the real world.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My friend, please explain how this verse is related to "a bias opposed to tradition". If you need to zoom out to include other verses in the chapter, be my guest. Thank you,

Besides Isaiah 29:13, just as Jesus said at Matthew 15:9 that tradition outside of Scripture being taught as Scripture is wrong.

 

[dybmh]

Besides Isaiah 29:13, just as Jesus said at Matthew 15:9 that tradition outside of Scripture being taught as Scripture is wrong.

If you need Matthew to make your point, that shows the bias against tradition is your faith, as I said.

I am fully aware of the bias opposed to tradition in your faith. But thank you for the reminder.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And I find it equally interesting, my friend, that you deflected from addressing my assertion that you intentionally define science in a way as to protect certain beliefs from scientific investigation by claiming, falsely, that I am doing the same thing in regards to abstract thought.

I wonder if you will address my assertion directly. To be clear, the box is a metaphor for restricting the application of scientific principles and standards to a specific subject, namely Natural Philosophy as understood in classical Western Philosophy. At least this is the impression that I am getting from you and the manner in which you regard and define science.

Now, am I placing abstract thought, neigh the realm of abstraction, in a similar metaphorical box? No. I have described the realm of abstraction itself as boundless. What I did say was the abstract systems one wishes to create in the realm of abstraction becomes a specific system by assigning rules and properties to the constructs created for use in that particular system. As an example, the abstract system of mathematics has foundational axioms and rules of operations, etc which permit the tool of mathematics to function in a usable and useful way.

Do you still claim that I am placing the entire realm of abstraction in an artificially restrictive metaphorical box?



The purpose of abstract thought is simply to think. The purpose of creating abstract systems of thought is to label, organize, reason upon, and communicate our thoughts.

Since we are born with a relatively blank slate, setting aside our instinctual pre-programming, extending our knowledge of the world outside the confines of the mind is first and foremost a necessity to meet the two primary imperatives inherent in all lie, to survive and reproduce. The tools we posses to gain knowledge about the world are our biological senses. Knowledge then starts with experience and repeated experiences are use to form expectations based on experience, hence, knowledge is reasoned expectation based on experience, and such knowledge is held with varying degrees of confidence. The more experiences reinforce an expectation, the greater the confidence in that expectation. The reasoning ability of human beings allow us to extend, to a degree, beyond direct observation or experience to make predictions or assumptions; in essense, the ability to infer. The validity or usefullness of any inference is highly dependent on the amount and quality of the information upon which the inference is formed. An inference made from incomplete and insufficiant set of facts can easily go asstray. As a result, we can both infer correctly and incorrectly. Consequently, an inference will not be held with any degree of confidence unless and until it's prediction or assumption is verified or confirmed, and the more often this occurs, the greater the confidence that will be engendered.



Our only constraint on knowledge is our ability to gain experience of it. When we infer beyond the scope of our ability to directly experience in some fashion, those inferences are only held with the appropriately limited degree of confidence engendered by the quality and quantity of the information used to form those inferences.

What you describe above simply illustrates how the confidence in an inference grows and becomes stronger once observable evidence begins to corroborate it. This is exactly how knowledge acquisition and our confidence in knowledge works.



Really? A scientific law states the relationship of a set of variables under specific conditions and is therefore always considered to be true under those conditions. Scientific laws are different from theory in that they specifically refer to how as opposed to addressing the why question. Again, designating such as a law indicates the degree of confidence in the conclusion. Sufficient experience provides the required confidence to describe the relationships as a physical law.

Science also uses the terms fact, theory, and hypothesis, and all relate to a level of confidence. I shan't explain further.

To state that gravity is not observable would represent a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, in my view. If you mean to imply the 'why' of gravity is currently unobservable, that is accurate. Given that, all we may do in the meantime is make inferences based on what we do know and observe.



What you do not seem to understand is that theoretical is empirical. Theoretical implies possible.

What is needed is a methodology of demarcation, to ensure the abstract systems we use to describe and understand all that is, remains empirical and distinct from pure abstraction without correspondence to the real world.

Okay, we’re going round in circles here now, whilst talking past each other. That said, I’ll respond to the challenge in the first paragraph above, since it seems important to you (though vague and I’ll defined from where I’m standing).

Science in Newton’s day was Natural Philosophy, so I’m not sure where you’re coming from there. That’s how scientists referred to themselves, and their discipline. Science is the study of natural world, and the laws apparently governing it, through observation and experiment. Or do you take issue with that definition?

I can assure you I have no cherished beliefs that I fear I must protect from the searching lens. of the natural sciences. You mentioned demarcation earlier; demarcation us exactly, and exclusively, the conundrum that concerned Karol Popper when he developed the doctrine of falsifiability, with which I imagine you are familiar. Belief in God, the Infinite, the Underlying Creative Intelligence, the Great Spirit, all those things the literal minded find so vague and the open minded find so intriguing is, I am always being told, is unfalsifiable; and therefore, by Popper’s definition, outside the perview of the natural sciences.

So no, my belief in an infinite and eternal transcendent deity, is not threatened by science, which being a series of tools developed and used by humans to explore the material world around them, is subject to human limitations.

You will be familiar, of course, with the concept Non Overlapping Magisteria. This frequently serves as a useful compromise for students of science and religion to avoid unnecessary and unfruitful confrontation. Each field of human enquiry in it’s own territory as it were. In reality, all areas of human experience do overlap. I am particularly interested in that section of a hypothetical Venn diagram where science, philosophy and religion overlap, but that’s for another discussion.

 

[MikeF]

Okay, we’re going round in circles here now, whilst talking past each other. That said, I’ll respond to the challenge in the first paragraph above, since it seems important to you (though vague and I’ll defined from where I’m standing).

Science in Newton’s day was Natural Philosophy, so I’m not sure where you’re coming from there. That’s how scientists referred to themselves, and their discipline. Science is the study of natural world, and the laws apparently governing it, through observation and experiment. Or do you take issue with that definition?

I'm sorry you feel we are spinning our wheels here. Certainly to make progress, we would have to begin to find some common ground upon which to build.

I do take issue with your definition of science above. Through much of the history of Western thought, all knowledge pursuits fell under the broad umbrella term of Philosophy. Under that umbrella, subcategories of particular interest or concentration formed around questions of existence, the mind, values, language, reason, etc. I'm sure you agree that despite grouping types of questions into general subcategories, all of it remained philosophy, to seek answers to general and fundamental questions we human beings set before ourselves in an effort to both understand ourselves and the world around us.

Would you agree with me to this point? Are we still on common ground? If so, I would ask then, why a schism occurred between natural philosophy and the rest of philosophy such that natural philosophy became science and considered different and separate from the rest of philosophy?

I can assure you I have no cherished beliefs that I fear I must protect from the searching lens. of the natural sciences.

I can only say that the above sentence exactly illustrates my point. You do not assert that your cherished beliefs require protection from a searching lens in general, you specifically add the qualifier "of natural sciences", and this imagined searching lens you have restricted to looking at only a specific set of questions and in a specific set of ways, the purpose of which is to prevent the reforms that took place in natural philosophy from being applied to the rest of philosophy, for to allow such reform threatens cherished beliefs.

You will be familiar, of course, with the concept Non Overlapping Magisteria.

Simply the artificial boundary erected to preserve cherished artificial constructs of reality, to shield them from a searching lens.

 

[Augustus]

Science is philosophy that acknowledges and accepts that humanity is imperfect and fallible, and therefore takes steps to identify those imperfections and fallibilities and actively mitigate them.

Although beyond the natural sciences (social sciences, etc.), it is not always clear that its practitioners and those that listen to them recognises the limitations of science in these fields.

I fully agree that declaring a ‘subjective value’ as being self-evident is every bit a myth as any found in religion.

If this is the case, where are people getting their shared values from if they aren't self-evident and they aren't being transmitted in stories and narratives?

do not agree that we cannot wean ourselves from employing myth in our social belief and concept systems. We are already doing just that, and it is this fact that gives you concern, it seems.

It gives me no concern as it is impossible.

Where do you think humanist values came from? How are they transmitted and learned?

To me, your arguments represent a strong desire to preserve myth in social constructs and perhaps specifically Christian myths.

I'm an atheist, and my mythos is based more on the pre-Christian tragic view of human nature.

Secular Humanists, with their progressive teleology and salvation narratives are the ones doing a good enough job of preserving Christina myths anyway (albeit in secular guise).

Christian myths became providential deist myths became humanist myths. Just change a few words and Bob's your uncle.

I can’t say whether or not all human beings can exist myth-free. Not every human being has an identical intellectual capacity or emotional profile. If myth will always be required for some, then the goal would be to work toward a culture in which required myths are more dynamic in nature such that they adapt as required by the continuous evolution of society and culture. I would not consider religious myths dynamic, or at least anywhere near sufficiently dynamic. Perhaps dynamism in myth is a function of abstraction, the more abstract the more dynamic. I suppose only time will tell.

What does a society without myth (a story that outlines values and explains how things are an should be) look like?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry you feel we are spinning our wheels here. Certainly to make progress, we would have to begin to find some common ground upon which to build.

I do take issue with your definition of science above. Through much of the history of Western thought, all knowledge pursuits fell under the broad umbrella term of Philosophy. Under that umbrella, subcategories of particular interest or concentration formed around questions of existence, the mind, values, language, reason, etc. I'm sure you agree that despite grouping types of questions into general subcategories, all of it remained philosophy, to seek answers to general and fundamental questions we human beings set before ourselves in an effort to both understand ourselves and the world around us.

Would you agree with me to this point? Are we still on common ground? If so, I would ask then, why a schism occurred between natural philosophy and the rest of philosophy such that natural philosophy became science and considered different and separate from the rest of philosophy?



I can only say that the above sentence exactly illustrates my point. You do not assert that your cherished beliefs require protection from a searching lens in general, you specifically add the qualifier "of natural sciences", and this imagined searching lens you have restricted to looking at only a specific set of questions and in a specific set of ways, the purpose of which is to prevent the reforms that took place in natural philosophy from being applied to the rest of philosophy, for to allow such reform threatens cherished beliefs.



Simply the artificial boundary erected to preserve cherished artificial constructs of reality, to shield them from a searching lens.

Science is not different from philosophy as to knowledge, because any justification of what knowledge is, is cognitive and thus not based on observation.
Here is what you do:
1. There are some accepts we can decide based on observation.
2. I then decide based on my thinking as something I do, that it is the only correct method and in effect this thinking in this sentence is the only valid way of thinking about the world as per 1, because all other versions are wrong based on my thinking.

That is your method in practice and you can't justify using philosophy, because it is in effect a contradiction.

 

[MikeF]

IMO, this is probably the single most important misunderstanding that underpins many humanistic ideologies.

These things are not divisive they are the among the most unifying things in human history. They can only be seen as divisive if we start with the assumption that people are naturally united until something divides us.

Humans evolved in small groups, and only were able to form larger and more complex societies due to things like religions and ethnic/national identities. The idea we can keep on ever expanding our in group until it contains all of humanity is palpable nonsense.

Simply being the same species doesn't engender a sense of loyalty and brotherhood, and our sense of self is as much defined by who we are not as by who we are.

There are genetic and structural limits to how united our species can be, and those who are happy to see a decline in the traditional unifying forces thinking they will be replaced by global harmony will likely be very disappointed.




You need myths to bind people into a community.

Studies have shown immigration into a community reduces the level of social trust and thus support for things like welfare that are based on community solidarity.

To improve social cohesion, these outsiders need a way to become 'us'. For example, an inclusive ideology like the American Dream and similar things allows diverse people to become a community. Diverse people can all become American patriots and find a high level of acceptance.

In a nation where community membership is defined by ethnicity of genealogy, outsiders cannot easily become good community members.

A transactional approach that doesn't rely on myth would need to be something like 'immigrants are good for the economy, here are some stats...'. It will not prove effective against competing myths as, in general, humans are less persuaded by facts than they are by stories (not to mention 'facts' are often disputed).



No, it's just a series of narratives that underpin a worldview and are not the neutral presentation of objective fact. What matters are the principles

it communicates, not whether or not it is broadly true or false

These are the stories that explain why we hold the values we do, why things are the way they are and what out vision for the future is.




People are driven by emotion

All societies contain transactional aspects, but no society is purely transactional. They are all dependent on some form of unifying narrative that people buy into.

On a divisive issue, I could have all the facts in the world and neutrally present people with reams of data, but without a narrative of my own, I would lose to any well crafted myth.



They are they why more than the what.

A country is not a myth, but its origin story, national character, heroes, triumphs and disasters are.

What obfuscates is artificially separating belief systems and their underlying myths into "religious" and "not religious", often with the implicit premise that the religious are 'irrational', 'primitive' or 'bad' and the secular are 'rational', 'progressive' and 'good'. This is itself a myth, basically a secular theodicy and salvation narrative: good humans do evil because religions have corrupted them and made them irrational, if we get rid of these we can all be rational and live in harmony.



This is a statement of opinion.

Myths tend to explain situations with regard to normative desires, justify values, etc.




The 2nd one is just an expression of a standard secular humanist principle.

Also, IMO, resistance to change is good as otherwise you rush into faddish, silver bullet solutions that don't deliver what they promise. The ideal society had resistance to change, just not a refusal to change.

Most new ideas are ****, only a handful will stand the test of time The default heuristic should be anything that has remained in place for a long time most likely serves a purpose that has enabled it to survive. While things do become obsolete, we should be cautious regarding such things as we may end up making things worse.

The idea is expressed by Chesterton's fence:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.



This changes the point. It is not stating a value.

Your 'must' is also prescriptive, to justify this you need to create a mythos as to why people should want to do this. You can state a principle without myth, you can't justify why it is normatively desirable without (at least in most cases).

Also the imperative is on the individual or group to survive, it doesn't operate at the level of the species. "Humanity" is also a mythical concept born largely of monotheism. There is no humanity, but human as individuals and groups with competing and often incompatible needs and wants.

If you want to justify our responsibilities to unrelated people and their progeny, especially when they go against our self-interest, then you utilise myth/narrative.



I'd say the above is a myth.

It was articulated as the law of three stages by Auguste Comte, who though we could create a science of everything.

The problem is humans aren't rational and are impacted far more by emotions and intuitions than they are facts, reason and evidence.

Clearly you use a definition of myth to your own design for the express purpose of creating a false equivalency between foundational stories that are fictional and those that are historically true.

While an origin story and foundational values form a structure for building a group identity, there is no requirement that they be false or fictional to serve that purpose.

The only reason to distort the definition of myth and create such a false equivalency would be to protect and preserve myth; false, fictional stories.

We can and are moving beyond myth.

 

[MikeF]

What does a society without myth (a story that outlines values and explains how things are an should be) look like?

This is the false equivalency. Not all stories that outline values and explain how things should be are fictional. Myths are fictional.

 

[MikeF]

Science is not different from philosophy as to knowledge, because any justification of what knowledge is, is cognitive and thus not based on observation.
Here is what you do:
1. There are some accepts we can decide based on observation.
2. I then decide based on my thinking as something I do, that it is the only correct method and in effect this thinking in this sentence is the only valid way of thinking about the world as per 1, because all other versions are wrong based on my thinking.

That is your method in practice and you can't justify using philosophy, because it is in effect a contradiction.

All I can say is that you are missing a fundamental concept here. It is not about what I personally think or what you personally think. It is the compilation of what many, many people think and making an effort to understand why they think the way they do, and then doing our best to reconcile those many, many thoughts and draw conclusions based upon that.

As to knowledge, it is entirely based on experience. If I could isolate an infant at birth and make it blind and deaf, paralyze it and deaden physical sensation, all the while keeping it alive until adulthood, how much knowledge would you predict such an adult would have if at that point you restored all senses?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All I can say is that you are missing a fundamental concept here. It is not about what I personally think or what you personally think. It is the compilation of what many, many people think and making an effort to understand why they think the way they do, and then doing our best to reconcile those many, many thoughts and draw conclusions based upon that.

As to knowledge, it is entirely based on experience. If I could isolate an infant at birth and make it blind and deaf, paralyze it and deaden physical sensation, all the while keeping it alive until adulthood, how much knowledge would you predict such an adult would have if at that point you restored all senses?

Yeah, now I will reconcile a difference in thinking as going on here and in other threads. You are physically, objectively unreal and not even in the real world and i can observe that. I can observe that you are unreal. Because I experience first person as a non-external experience of you as unreal, i.e. I think/feel that you are unreal, but because only external experience is real and I am real, my experience is objective. I observe that you are unreal, just as I can observe that a cat is black. I am not fallible, because I don't have to check my experiences, because they are all objective, because I say so. You are faible, but I not, because I am nothing but objective, even if I am subjective, because I say so.

All my experiences are external, so if I experience you as not in reality as actually ontologically and physically unreal as a case of non-existence then that is a fact, because all my experience are based on objective, external experiences.
That is called a reductio ad absurdum and thus the falsification of your naive empiricism.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, now I will reconcile a difference in thinking as going on here and in other threads. You are physically, objectively unreal and not even in the real world and i can observe that. I can observe that you are unreal. Because I experience first person as a non-external experience of you as unreal, i.e. I think/feel that you are unreal, but because only external experience is real and I am real, my experience is objective. I observe that you are unreal, just as I can observe that a cat is black. I am not fallible, because I don't have to check my experiences, because they are all objective, because I say so. You are faible, but I not, because I am nothing but objective, even if I am subjective, because I say so.

All my experiences are external, so if I experience you as not in reality as actually ontologically and physically unreal as a case of non-existence then that is a fact, because all my experience are based on objective, external experiences.
That is called a reductio ad absurdum and thus the falsification of your naive empiricism.

You are still missing it, Mikkel. All I see here is I, I, I. Where is the intersubjective corroboration in your example and how does your example disprove the efficacy of intersubjective corroboration?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are still missing it, Mikkel. All I see here is I, I, I. Where is the intersubjective corroboration in your example and how does your example disprove the efficacy of intersubjective corroboration?

Because if we are disagreeing and we are, you don't explain how that works. You subjectively only accept intersubjective agreement.

 

[Augustus]

Clearly you use a definition of myth to your own design for the express purpose of creating a false equivalency between foundational stories that are fictional and those that are historically true.

I usually think you try to discuss in good faith, but here you are both misrepresenting me and assuming I am acting in bad faith based on this misrepresentation. In addition you have simply hallucinated a motive for this out of thin air.

I have explained my definition multiple times, but you are forcing your definition onto my words and thus missing the point.

My usage is not idiosyncratic, it is certainly a less common usage than the one in popular imagination, but it's still perfectly valid.

For example:

The term mythology can refer either to a collection of myths or to the study of myths. A mythology, in the sense of a collection of myths, is an important feature of many cultures. According to Alan Dundes, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind assumed their present form, although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story. Bruce Lincoln defines myth as "ideology in narrative form". Myths may arise as either truthful depictions or overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual. They are used to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach.

While an origin story and foundational values form a structure for building a group identity, there is no requirement that they be false or fictional to serve that purpose.

They are still narratives that are not objectively true and that shape peoples perception, thoughts and actions based on these.

In addition, they are generally dependent on centuries of internalised cultural assumptions that are founded on myth too, often to the point people don't even realise this (the concept of humanity for example).

Humans require narrative to understand the world, that's a simple fact. When we are transmitting "ideology in narrative form" it is is not "true" of "false" like a scientific fact, it is normative preference.

This is the false equivalency. Not all stories that outline values and explain how things should be are fictional. Myths are fictional.

Why would you ask someone how they use a word then purposely ignore how they use the word simply because you prefer another definition?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Why would you ask someone how they use a word then purposely ignore how they use the word simply because you prefer another definition?

That is simple. Because of the myth of "we must agree on how the world is and if we don't then you are faible, because my understanding is correct".
Objective models like the only correct one as at play here doesn't not allow for subjective difference, because all differences are either objectively correct or incorrect.
This is not unique to this debate, but rather the conflation of different versions of positives and negatives.
Correct for all humans.
Correct for a cultures as norm.
Correct for logic and math.
Correct for how individually someone lives a life.
Correct for how to add it all up.

All 5 are different myths including my version. I just know that.
The objectivists only accept correct for all humans since that is practice objective and then claim they can add all up as objective.

Remember some people don't think about how they think. They don't reflect over that, they take their thinking as in effect self-evident because it makes sense to them individually.
We are doing psychology for different forms of thinking.

 

[MikeF]

I usually think you try to discuss in good faith, but here you are both misrepresenting me and assuming I am acting in bad faith based on this misrepresentation. In addition you have simply hallucinated a motive for this out of thin air.

I have explained my definition multiple times, but you are forcing your definition onto my words and thus missing the point.

My usage is not idiosyncratic, it is certainly a less common usage than the one in popular imagination, but it's still perfectly valid.

For example:

The term mythology can refer either to a collection of myths or to the study of myths. A mythology, in the sense of a collection of myths, is an important feature of many cultures. According to Alan Dundes, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind assumed their present form, although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story. Bruce Lincoln defines myth as "ideology in narrative form". Myths may arise as either truthful depictions or overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual. They are used to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach.




They are still narratives that are not objectively true and that shape peoples perception, thoughts and actions based on these.

In addition, they are generally dependent on centuries of internalised cultural assumptions that are founded on myth too, often to the point people don't even realise this (the concept of humanity for example).

Humans require narrative to understand the world, that's a simple fact. When we are transmitting "ideology in narrative form" it is is not "true" of "false" like a scientific fact, it is normative preference.



Why would you ask someone how they use a word then purposely ignore how they use the word simply because you prefer another definition?

I ask how you use a word so that I may understand what you mean when you use the word. Once I understand how you are using a particular word I can disagree with they way it is being used and point out shortcomings that may result from such usage.

In this particular case, if your definition treats ideas of a different character as having the same character, then it is perfectly reasonable to point that out and explain why such usage is problematic.

If I am misrepresenting you position, I apologize. I will ask directly then, is it your position that fictional beliefs are a requirement for any society to function? Fictional beliefs in my usage would be those that are objectively not true.

 

[MikeF]

Remember some people don't think about how they think. They don't reflect over that, they take their thinking as in effect self-evident because it makes sense to them individually.

I suppose that is meant to describe me, then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suppose that is meant to describe me, then.

Well, here is a test for both of us.

Test all understanding of 2+2=4, 2+2=11, 2+2=5 and 2+2=∞. If you do that, you can only explain that as different first person experience of how a given individual brain works.
Then do other tests e.g. morality and describe those results. Again you get the same result, it depends on individual brains.
There is a whole branch of science, but not natural science that deals with first person understanding.

Your model only deals with objective and shared positive intersubjectivity, because you only first person accept natural science.
I know this, because I can understand when you think differently and how that it is a fact that you understand differently than me without needing to go correct and incorrect for our different cognition.

So here is as simple as I can express it. All differences are not cases of either correct or incorrect, but that is first person cognition. And you do that differently and get different results, because you describe some differences differently, because you evaluate them as correct or incorrect.
So here it is:
You - I can do everything that matters for all humans as for all humans correct or incorrect.
Me - I do that differently.
You - But we must agree.
Me - No, because we don't have to for all cases of the world to have individual lives.

That is it.