Yes, so the real questions are whether and to what extent a model is applicable to the case in question. Anyone who claims that their mythology is objectively true probably doesn't even know where to begin to ask the right questions and apply their model correctly (except perhaps in terms of internal community discourse, where parroting the correct words is a kind of beneficial transaction in itself). Anyone who dismisses myth on the grounds that it is not objectively true is barking up the wrong tree too.Analytics wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 3:29 pmI'd suggest that George E. P. Box's maxim is applicable here. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Different myths and philosophies can be thought of as models for making sense of the world.
I don't need to know what "objective truth" actually means in order to confidently say when somebody claims that their mythology is objectively "true," they are wrong.
A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
- Physics Guy
- God
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
- Location: on the battlefield of life
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
Science itself tries in its way to be nuanced about objective truth. We still teach Newtonian mechanics, and not as history. It’s not perfectly accurate. And the basic picture it gives you becomes radically wrong if you take it too seriously beyond its original context. Just as Euclidean geometry fails on the globe when the distances get up to thousands of miles, Newtonian physics fails when speeds get to appreciable fractions of the speed of light, or action scales get to be not too many times Planck’s constant.
Rightly understood, though, Newton identified some important principles that still seem to be true. The laws of nature are second-order differential equations.
Rightly understood, though, Newton identified some important principles that still seem to be true. The laws of nature are second-order differential equations.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
- sock puppet
- 1st Counselor
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:29 pm
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
Yep. You didn't answer my questions.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 3:15 pmAnd? Are you saying that I am skirting around your questions?sock puppet wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:48 pmObviously, but I answer questions when you pose them rather than skirt around them.
"I'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal." Groucho Marx
"The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie." Mark Twain
The best lack all conviction, while the worst//Are full of passionate intensity." Yeats
"The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie." Mark Twain
The best lack all conviction, while the worst//Are full of passionate intensity." Yeats
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
I am not a big believer in the idea of stupid questions, but I do believe there are poorly framed questions. Then there are questions that make sense if you are dealing with things from a particular point of view, but that make little sense when viewed from another vantage point. I know your questions make sense to you, but as a person who has read quite a bit of anthropology, sociology, and theory of religion, your questions don’t really work for me. From my perspective, they border on being loaded questions such as “how badly did you beat your wife?”
On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with PG’s statement about the problem with stupid religion lying mainly in the stupid part.
I can respect someone saying that they identify something as religion and find that thing does not work for them. Fair enough. You do you, as they say. But I question the value of such a pronouncement beyond personal applicability. I am happy to know more about the person who says it, more about what they feel and where they are coming from, but it has as much value in my mind as someone gushing to me about their encounter with an elf. Beyond the subjective experience, I just don’t see the big deal.
I guess what I am saying is that I respect the utility of myths about religion, but I don’t accept them as being objectively true.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
-
- God
- Posts: 5120
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
This is quite profoundly true. Myth has nothing about objective about it, if it did it would decidedly be false...Kishkumen wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 4:20 pmYes, so the real questions are whether and to what extent a model is applicable to the case in question. Anyone who claims that their mythology is objectively true probably doesn't even know where to begin to ask the right questions and apply their model correctly (except perhaps in terms of internal community discourse, where parroting the correct words is a kind of beneficial transaction in itself). Anyone who dismisses myth on the grounds that it is not objectively true is barking up the wrong tree too.Analytics wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 3:29 pmI'd suggest that George E. P. Box's maxim is applicable here. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Different myths and philosophies can be thought of as models for making sense of the world.
I don't need to know what "objective truth" actually means in order to confidently say when somebody claims that their mythology is objectively "true," they are wrong.
-
- God
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
Whose barking up the right tree? Dismissing religion because it treats myth as objectively true hardly seems like either of the two you mention. But dismissing religion doesn't seem to me to be anything near dismissing that it has anything good to offer, or that it's bereft of any meaning or purpose. And ultimately calling myth, myth is not dismissing myth. It's imply saying the events found in the myth didn't happen. Jesus didn't rise from the dead. That may dismiss the religion, I suppose. But it also leaves the myth that Jesus rose from the dead exactly where it should be--as myth.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 4:20 pmYes, so the real questions are whether and to what extent a model is applicable to the case in question. Anyone who claims that their mythology is objectively true probably doesn't even know where to begin to ask the right questions and apply their model correctly (except perhaps in terms of internal community discourse, where parroting the correct words is a kind of beneficial transaction in itself). Anyone who dismisses myth on the grounds that it is not objectively true is barking up the wrong tree too.Analytics wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 3:29 pmI'd suggest that George E. P. Box's maxim is applicable here. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Different myths and philosophies can be thought of as models for making sense of the world.
I don't need to know what "objective truth" actually means in order to confidently say when somebody claims that their mythology is objectively "true," they are wrong.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
Yeah, I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. I think of treating myth as objectively true as being a huge problem in intellectual history that is probably beyond either of us to unravel and explicate intelligently. The logos is a hugely impactful and multi-faceted thing. I would treat the mythos as very much part of it. When you say myth didn't happen, I shrug my shoulders. In what sense was it meant to happen? Why did you think it should have happened? In what sense did it not happen? Is that the only sense worth taking account of?dastardly stem wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:33 pmWhose barking up the right tree? Dismissing religion because it treats myth as objectively true hardly seems like either of the two you mention. But dismissing religion doesn't seem to me to be anything near dismissing that it has anything good to offer, or that it's bereft of any meaning or purpose. And ultimately calling myth, myth is not dismissing myth. It's imply saying the events found in the myth didn't happen. Jesus didn't rise from the dead. That may dismiss the religion, I suppose. But it also leaves the myth that Jesus rose from the dead exactly where it should be--as myth.
So many big questions that we will not really get to the bottom of here. I am satisfied that the thing that seems to be very much in tune with our times is to dismiss myth as irrational and religion along with it to act in line with what is objectively, factually true. I get it. Yeah, that is what a lot of us do. I am not trying to diss anyone for doing what is clearly the thing to do right now. Either you do the seemingly stupid thing of accepting myth as objectively true or you reject that because it does not make sense.
I think there are other options, but I don't think they will ever gain wide currency.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
-
- God
- Posts: 5120
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
I suspect the problem we have hit upon in our age is that we (society - more or less) has concretized the metaphor to what myths are pointing to. We look at the pointing finger because it is physically there right in front of us instead of realizing the vastness it is pointing to (again a metaphor - I realize it is pointing to space which is physical - or is it?), and therefore part of the metaphor is limiting ourselves to just what is in front of our eyes. I'm just thinking out loud is all.
-
- God
- Posts: 5120
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
Yes we have a diachronic approach and vet what we leave unexplored is the supra-rational imagining there are only two options, when in fact, there may very well be three... It's fun to explore.Kishkumen
I am satisfied that the thing that seems to be very much in tune with our times is to dismiss myth as irrational
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid
You are right on target here, Philo. You put it much better than I did. In response, I read about how the LDS Church is saying the finger is the thing and so religion is bad. I could repeat myself about the finger and the moon, but I am afraid I would just keep seeing the same responses. People are understandably here to talk about the LDS Church doing things wrong and then concluding that religion is inferior. I think I can agree that a lot of views of religion and manifestations of religion are subpar, but I don’t even know what it means to say the religion is inferior.Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 11:38 pmI suspect the problem we have hit upon in our age is that we (society - more or less) has concretized the metaphor to what myths are pointing to. We look at the pointing finger because it is physically there right in front of us instead of realizing the vastness it is pointing to (again a metaphor - I realize it is pointing to space which is physical - or is it?), and therefore part of the metaphor is limiting ourselves to just what is in front of our eyes. I'm just thinking out loud is all.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood