Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Hmmm... well this is where we differ. I suppose because of the context I have to fall into some scientific speak. If you want to examine myth in the light of Dawkin's projection of a meme or the older definition of myth being the social fabric or accumulated wisdom of the path, than some myths have more meaning than others.
Religious myths of all kinds seem to project the most meaning onto the human consciousness and indeed have had the most impact upon the cultural tapestry of the world. I recognize their relevance and wouldn't want them to be lumped in with "Peter and the Wolf". You may choose to see those myths as a survival mechanism, I would agree in part, but I am also interested as to why these myths have such an impact that extends outside of being a "crutch to life".
|
Again Im going to simplify. Do you suppose that the control of the church had anything to do with the dominance of the myths? Do you suppose that IF people were free to disagree with the church 500 years ago that some of the myths might be different if not eliminated? I dont think we are talking a different language here...you keep saying "Religious myths, I agree, thats what they are. But they arent being taught as myths...they are being taught as fact. Thats the parallel I was talking about in regards to Aesops et al. The relevance of myths is great. Stories are a great way to get messages through to children....as long as its not about Bears killing and maiming children.
He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of The Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys." (2 Kings 2:22-24 RSV)