Kish critiques John Dehlin

[Kishkumen]

Just a fan of Ursula Le Guin.

Of whose writing this was a creative use.

[Rivendale]

Of course Myths are unavoidable. However there is a spectrum of Myths that even our subterranean primate brains can categorize as a misrepresentation of a justified true belief. A horoscope for one's life map is one of them.

[Marcus]

I don't know. Maybe because myth creates absurdities. Maybe because people get hurt because of these. Would you allow me to give you a blessing? Would you allow me to tell you how to behave around people? And don't transpose that to some historical cultural blip. To borrow from Doc cam...dum

Myths are unavoidable. It takes a lot of hard work and concerted effort to avoid mythologizing. I mean, you seem to believe in the myth of rational human beings whom mythology corrupts by its irrational influence. That's obviously a myth, since human beings are not, by nature, rational creatures but instead generally irrational creatures capable of exercising reason if they try real hard.

So, are myths unavoidable? Or does it take hard work and effort to avoid mythologizing? Can't be both.

But the bigger issue here is that you are equating an opinion about humans and a belief in a supernatural oracle as no more than two examples of myths.

The first is an opinion: a belief in "rational human beings whom mythology corrupts by its irrational influence"

The second under discussion is reliance for PBs on what you called an oracle: defined as "a person or thing considered to provide insight, wise counsel or prophetic predictions, most notably including precognition of the future, inspired by deities..."

Calling both simply myths, or two sides of the same coin as you seem to be implying bypasses the main issue. They are not the same thing in this thread's discussion, not even by degrees. One is a supernatural belief that not all have, and which can't be fairly discussed by assuming it exists for all.

[Morley]

I don't know. Maybe because myth creates absurdities. Maybe because people get hurt because of these. Would you allow me to give you a blessing? Would you allow me to tell you how to behave around people? And don't transpose that to some historical cultural blip. To borrow from Doc cam...dum

Myths are unavoidable. It takes a lot of hard work and concerted effort to avoid mythologizing. I mean, you seem to believe in the myth of rational human beings whom mythology corrupts by its irrational influence. That's obviously a myth, since human beings are not, by nature, rational creatures but instead generally irrational creatures capable of exercising reason if they try real hard.

I agree. We don't want facts, we want a story that helps us to understand those facts.* I think Walter Fisher called this the narrative paradigm. He theorized that human beings don't respond to rational argument (the so-called rational world paradigm), but are eager to embrace concepts that can be turned into stories--as long as these stories reflect things already in their cultures and values. We want a narrative--and then we want to know where we fit into that narrative.

Our job, in part, is to make sure those narratives are ethical and coherent.

* This is one reason that Physics Guy is so effective in discussion. He weaves every idea into an understandable narrative analogy.

[Rivendale]

Ethical and coherent sure. Is it coherent and ethical to give a horoscope mind imprint to young people? This oracle of advice is to be used as some kind of road map?

[Marcus]

I don't know. Maybe because myth creates absurdities. Maybe because people get hurt because of these. Would you allow me to give you a blessing? Would you allow me to tell you how to behave around people? And don't transpose that to some historical cultural blip. To borrow from Doc cam...dum

Myths are unavoidable. It takes a lot of hard work and concerted effort to avoid mythologizing. I mean, you seem to believe in the myth of rational human beings whom mythology corrupts by its irrational influence. That's obviously a myth, since human beings are not, by nature, rational creatures but instead generally irrational creatures capable of exercising reason if they try real hard.

I agree. We don't want facts, we want a story that helps us to understand those facts.* I think Walter Fisher called this the narrative paradigm. He theorized that human beings don't respond to rational argument (the so-called rational world paradigm), but are eager to embrace concepts that can be turned into stories--as long as these stories reflect things already in their cultures and values. We want a narrative--and then we want to know where we fit into that narrative.

Our job, in part, is to make sure those narratives are ethical and coherent.

* This is one reason that Physics Guy is so effective in discussion. He weaves every idea into an understandable narrative analogy.

But he doesn't sacrifice rationality to do so. I don't generally see an inclusion of specific supernatural beliefs, especially the very specific Mormon-type ones where some Mormons pretend to have more access to the information associated with those beliefs than others (patriarchs, the Q15, etc). Those type of beliefs are not a necessary element of ethical and coherent narratives, in my opinion.

A couple pages back, PBs that assigned a black person to the tribe of Cain or Ham were pretty universally decried as unethical and damaging. Fixing that problem isn't accomplished by better human effort that still pretends PBs come from a supernatural Oracle; fixing that problem is accomplished by being better and more ethical humans and letting go of an insupportable belief in the magic of patriarchs. That doesn't obviate the need of or benefits from ethical and coherent narratives.

[Kishkumen]

Of course Myths are unavoidable. However there is a spectrum of Myths that even our subterranean primate brains can categorize as a misrepresentation of a justified true belief. A horoscope for one's life map is one of them.

Really? OK. I applaud your confidence. Maybe you are speaking for your advanced self and not thinking of the lowest common denominator.

[Rivendale]

One is the lowest common denominator. It takes one to dismiss all the oracles that shout out to gather the tribe and rub all the backs of the participants. Myths dissappear when humans aren't involved. This self constructed support of humanity and the quest for narratives is an illusion generated by evolutionary biology that some people think they are above.

[Kishkumen]

A horoscope for one's life map is one of them.

Yeah, I would not spend my time on horoscopes. I have had my chart done a couple of times out of casual interest. Astrology is a very complicated topic that requires much effort to master, but, then, most of us would have no interest in doing so, for understandable reasons. I do know of people much smarter than me who take it seriously, and I think a lot of us would call those people cranks. I actually would not, but still I would not spend MY time on astrology. I study a little of the history of astrology in connection with my historical scholarship.

[Kishkumen]

So, are myths unavoidable? Or does it take hard work and effort to avoid mythologizing? Can't be both.

Thanks, Marcus. Good eye. So, yes, myths are unavoidable, and I do think we should, to the best of our ability, pursue exercises in myth avoidance, at least in certain contexts (science, math), if we want to make headway in some human endeavors.

But the bigger issue here is that you are equating an opinion about humans and a belief in a supernatural oracle as no more than two examples of myths.

The first is an opinion: a belief in "rational human beings whom mythology corrupts by its irrational influence"

The second under discussion is reliance for PBs on what you called an oracle: defined as "a person or thing considered to provide insight, wise counsel or prophetic predictions, most notably including precognition of the future, inspired by deities..."

Calling both simply myths, or two sides of the same coin as you seem to be implying bypasses the main issue. They are not the same thing in this thread's discussion, not even by degrees. One is a supernatural belief that not all have, and which can't be fairly discussed by assuming it exists for all.

At no point have I predicated anything I have said in this thread on a belief in the supernatural.