Myths?

So, what we've proven is this:

Scientific facts are not myths. They are facts.
BUT, the stories that Science tells are modern myths, and they are the RIGHT myths. So, for instance:

We can say that God created the atom.

But, in reality, all we need science to tell us is that there is an atom.

Science can also tell us the STORY of how the atom came to be (albeit an incomplete story). Since science has holes in the story, we turn to others stories to fill in the gap.

BUT, at the end of the day, no matter which story you turn to, you end up with the facts. You end up in an experienced world. One that is tangible and real.

I choose science because I can see it.
Others choose Christianity/Indigenous/Hindu/etc. because they can FEEL it.

We tell kids about Santa Claus so they will grow up to be kind and generous.
Kids like fantasy because it paints a picture of the universe in a way that tunnel visions it. Simplifies it by breaking rules. We use these "myths" to teach lessons.

I personally dislike this system because I'd rather hear: "Connor. Be a good person..." and leave it at that. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE STORIES. I read LOTR twice a year. And, I love Harry potter and what not. But, I don't read for "lessons" or myths. I read because it's an escape.

RiddleNox:

I'll tell you "be a sith", you will become one? How about I tell you be a Jedi? will you become one?

But you saw "Star Wars" and now you call yourself a Jedi...

Myths are incredible, because when someone hear a whole story, he will accept it! If I waste a whole year telling you to play 'minecraft', you will never give it a shot. (Consider me as a person who just met you) But if I tell you one of my stories that I was playing minecraft... Tomorrow, I'm listening to your story of your last play.

I just noticed that I myself in this topic in the last post, instead of giving facts, told two stories... without noticing it, perhaps because I felt that way you will agree with me easier

hahha. That's very interesting indeed. Though, I have to say, that sounds like manipulation to me. A good story CAN indeed make anybody do something. Like Christianity's stories. People LOVE hearing about the cute, baby Jesus who will one day ride on horseback and stab all the Antichrists.

But, that doesn't make it right... And, in fact, I'd be MORE wary of an interesting story. It's like the Hanzel and Gretel effect. I want the candy, so I'll keep going toward the house, unbeknownst to me, there is a witch going to eat me. (See, I used a myth just now to prove my point, I'm not heartless. )

Did I said every myths is right? (Hint: Nope!)

And I'm saying if myths/stories are factual, then they aren't myths. They are just stories.

RiddleNox wrote: And I'm saying if myths/stories are factual, then they aren't myths. They are just stories.

Imagine we are before year 1000, now, I tell you "The earth is flat, sun / moon / plants move around it" At that time, it was a fact, a scientific accepted one... but it's no longer.

I remember writing this sentence in my journal "Every religion is true, in it's time and it's place," It's true about myths...!

No, it's not.

Every religion is USEFUL, in its time and in its place.

Same with myths.

To me, they've outgrown most of their usefulness in explaining fact. Now, if the POINT isn't to explain fact, but to teach some kind of spiritual or internal lesson, then that's different.

I might, from that point of view, consider something like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings to be a myth because of their applicability (not allegory) to a moral lifestyle.

Yeah, that's just another way to put my words

Well, what I was wishing the discussion would lead to, is an answer to the last questions I asked... "Why we have these myths? Why people spend money to hear those story again, rather than staying home, listening old stories from their grand parents?"

Easy... because they are interesting. If you mean movies, it's because the lights stimulate endorphins in our bodies that release dopamine... When we see lightsabers flying, we just enjoy the spectacle.

Grandparents' stories often require imagination we, as a species, are beginning to grow out of. We like others to be imaginative for us.

I remember this sentence was written in Timus website (an ACM website):

"Every problem has a fast, easy, wrong answer"

Yours isn't wrong, but there are better answers out there...think again maybe

You think so?

Then why ask? hahaha.

Hehe great discussion guys, i'm glad so many have such great input into the idea of Myths. Hmmmmmm where to begin with Myths...... oh i know, lets start from the beginning!



Do you know the one indisputable difference between Humanity and the rest of Nature? Some say its the ability to construct, but you see birds-monkeys-ants-etc. building enormous structures all the time. Others say it's our ability to Love, although dolphins have been known to pick life long partners and mourn for them when they die, as well as apes and so do elephants. In all actuality the one quality that separates us from the Animal Kingdom is..... Our ability to tell Stories !!!


The defining moment for early man was when they went out for their daily hunt and happened to look down upon these animal footprints they were hunting and through their form of communication was able to relay to his hunting partner a detailed description of what animal it is, how big it is, how fast and what direction it was going.
That fact alone is what projects us into the evolutionary record books, because from there you develop Myth and of course from Myth you get Culture


You can track the beginning of Culture, almost every time, to the camp fire. The camp fire is where the stories would be shared, the long and exciting day of tracking down pray or the gathering of berries or the weaving of baskets or the playing of children, would all be shared around the camp fire- consequently creating Culture! As we see today the few remaining tribes that are still around all center around fire circles, especially for social events and ritualistic dances, which is obviously what keeps their culture alive.



So here we are, "The Modern Age" "The Digital Age" "Age of Information", titling our present is yet another form of myth, not to say that its false but it is our story's title(or myth's title). If simply the Era we choose to declare is a myth then We must be immersed in more myth than you can possibly believe!!! So have u heard of the American Dream Myth? or how bout the War on Terrorism Myth. And better yet let me introduce you to the Social Media Myth, which will actually turn into a super Myth (-Meme-) factory.
We should all know the "World is meant for Man" myth by now, but do you realize your kids are told this myth everytime they go to school. History books are packed full of Cultural Myth's passed down from generation to generation. Now not all myths are bad, in fact majority of myths are there to help. But the "World is meant for Man" Myth is the most dangerous one of our culture, it is literally the Noose we will hang ourselves with if we don't open our eyes and change our minds.

The way You destroy a Myth is the same way you Create a Myth, by Exposing The Myth!!

Sorry to "pop" back in here RiddleNox when you made it so clear earlier that you were "done" with me, but...

RiddleNox wrote: So, what we've proven is this:

I think it's important for you (and everyone else who likes to argue "facts") to remember, that just because you've stated a thing...even if the rest of the community agrees...does NOT equal "proving" a thing.

You have argued much, but proven nothing.

If you're going to take for granted that the consensus of the "scientific community" will "stand as proof", fine, but state it as such. And when that very consensus is what's being debated, you can't use it as a basis for proof. That would be like saying the bible is true because the bible says it is.

(And for the record, we were not coming down to simply "arguing definitions")

Alluvius wrote: If you're going to take for granted that the consensus of the "scientific community" will "stand as proof", fine, but state it as such. And when that very consensus is what's being debated, you can't use it as a basis for proof. That would be like saying the bible is true because the bible says it is.

(And for the record, we were not coming down to simply "arguing definitions")

I'm not talking about logical proofs. I'm talking about philosophical abstracts. I prove that love exists because I feel it. And, I choose to identify love as the feeling I have when I am in "love". So, therefore, it exists.

I mean, in the end, if you think that way, NOTHING exists. But, we have to assign meaning to things or else we cannot communicate.

So, yes, we were arguing definitions.

RiddleNox wrote: I mean, in the end, if you think that way, NOTHING exists. But, we have to assign meaning to things or else we cannot communicate.

But all communication exists in the realm of the abstract...thus meaning is unnecessary. But, by that token, neither is communication, and you're right, nothing exists...at least not as opposed to or separate from anything else.

RiddleNox wrote: I choose science because I can see it.
Others choose Christianity/Indigenous/Hindu/etc. because they can FEEL it.

We tell kids about Santa Claus so they will grow up to be kind and generous.
Kids like fantasy because it paints a picture of the universe in a way that tunnel visions it. Simplifies it by breaking rules. We use these "myths" to teach lessons.

I personally dislike this system because I'd rather hear: "Connor. Be a good person..." and leave it at that. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE STORIES. I read LOTR twice a year. And, I love Harry potter and what not. But, I don't read for "lessons" or myths. I read because it's an escape.

I'm curious...how does the above statement not contradict the statement below?

RiddleNox wrote: I'm not talking about logical proofs. I'm talking about philosophical abstracts. I prove that love exists because I feel it. And, I choose to identify love as the feeling I have when I am in "love". So, therefore, it exists.

I can't see how they conflict... so I don't know how to answer your question.

RiddleNox wrote: I can't see how they conflict... so I don't know how to answer your question.

...and we're done here.

haha. Ok! Sounds good. nice talking with you.