Man and Myth, a PM Essay

Henry_9

the condescending tone that Carmen Yuen takes with the idea of creation stories in her essay "Man and Myth", P&M August 2005, pp 72-78. Specifically that the naturalist would have a more complete view of epistemology due to his superior understanding of process.

The very fact that we can look in history and see the modern development of the toilet is a far cry from the position that Gould takes in his views of origin, ie evolution versus creation.

The origin refered to by Gould is specifically the origin of life, and let me state up front, Gould was an extremely brilliant man, but he had no more of a historical perspective as a materialist for his views than a "creationist" has for his.

Gould's quote: "...we readily construct myths when we do not have data (or suppress data when a truth strikes us as too commonplace).

Could you then say that all origin stories where we do not have an historical referenced begining are simply myth?

I do not have any access to Ms. Yuen espitemology, cosmology or "religion"; however, I believe that her bias shows and was offended by the inferred (intended or not?) insult that I am a cultural idiot because I would take data and develop a different conclusion based upon my analysis of evidence.

I am not alone in many of my conclusions, and this could very easily take on a religious bent or a deeper bent of the definition of operational science. Furthermore, I am probably reading far too much into this and I do understand the message that she is sending on many of her points, the origin and blame of syphilis is a good one. But it is because of society's view of evolution that the aboriginies of Australia were slaughtered, Hitler, who took many of his views from Nietzsche and ultimately Darwin, was able to develop his "guiding philosophy", slavery was perpetuated, Margaret Sanger was able to develop her highly controversial and damaging theories on eugenics (thank you planned parent hood for perpetuating many of those), Stalin was able to massacre so many of his country men and women. I could go on at length.

The list could go on and on, and now I ramble and am no where near the point that Ms. Yuen ultimately made. However, I disagree strongly with her bias and would challenge her to think through all positions as it relates to culture before she makes the inferred insinuation that I am an uneducated dolt because I believe that faith and the Judeo Christian view of creation and origins is far more rational and culturally sustainable than a materialist view that is based on just as much faith as any religious position. (that might be the longest sentence that I have ever written).

I do not necessarily care to nor do I have the time to get into a debate on this issue. But the materialist has massive flaws in his theory as he would point to mine and say I do as well. As does the materialist, I have a tremendous amount of faith in my conclusions, and only knowledge absloves the need for faith. We should never stop searching for answers. Ultimately, we are all just hitching a ride on this planet, I prefer to think I know where I am headed and I like the destination. I hope that Karl Marx is happy with his.

Sincerely,

A rambling Henry Nichols

Unknown

I fail to see where you are drawing your objection from. She states that people like creation myths regardless of whether they are true or not for a variety of reasons. You just stated your own stance (as well as others) may not be true and is theory, yet you are happy with it anyway. Didn't you just agree with her, then?

Henry_9

Yes, but

The point that she insuates is that the myth is fine for the ignorant masses, the enlightened will rationally come to the truth.

I guess I am just considering the bigger picture of her premise, the philosophy behind the toilet.

Maybe all philosophy just belongs in the toilet?

Henry

Unknown

interesting, in my reading of it I got the impression she was saying everyone, including the "enlightened", like the myths and want them even if they know the rational truth of something.

Henry_9

Maybe....

But look who she sites as experts. I think Gould was brilliant, and a huge loss to humanity in his passing, but I disagree completely on his views of Materialism and his ideas of N.O.M.A.

In agreement with your statement, I need to be more cognizant of other positions, but that is a two way street. If I had all truth cornered, that would make me pretty impressive, unfortunantly, there was only one perfect man, he has missed all his email appointments, but I keep listening none the less.

bob_50

HYDRONICS?

?

mp1969

??????????

> ?

mp1969

??????????

Time and place for everthing gentlemen ! This is neither the time nor the place ? Think HeatingHelp.com

Tony_23

Hey

At least they're having a CIVIL DISCUSSION. Usually things are nasty and personal by now.

If you don't like the thread subject, "turn the channel"

Henry_9

This started because of an

article in P&M, should I use another resource from which to develop the discussion? A little debate on culture is good for the soul.

Henry_9

Oh yes,

thanks Tony.

H

Henry_9

The more that I think about it

the more this next point seems appropriate. You say that this is no place for this discussion, but I think that it is.

Dostoyevsky said, "If there is no God, all things are permissible".

If there is no ultimate purpose nor standard other than the ones which we establish for ourselves, then why be honest? Why not just get mine and who cares what happens to anyone else?

Kant said that good must result, ultimately there is justice. We all live with a standard that was placed in us from somewhere. If all origins are just myth, why is there morality?

jerry scharf_3

About Jay Gould

Can you send a link to the article?

I never met him in person, but I have heard him speak many times. He was an engaging speaker and about as good a biologist as there was. To me he also had many of the signs of a wise man, though that is in the eye of the beholder.

The most amazing thing that jumps out when he spoke was the seeming complete absense of personification of the world. He laughed at the idea that homo sapien was the pinnicle of evolution. He said that we would know in 10 or 20 million years whether we were a major path or just a short lived minor branch. He would talk happily about ants and other insects as the a higher level of evolutionary success. Things never got nicknames. He rarely spoke of things as good and bad.

The idea of mythology being created to help people live with the unexplained parts of life if widely accepted. It can be clearly seen in the prehistoric lore and seems to be clearly part of human makeup. The division of mythology, religion and philosophy is very much in the eye of the beholder. I doubt Jay would have said that he knew this better than the next person.

The amazing thing to me is that people who I see as "good people", with "kind hearts" and "generosity" come from such a wide range of philosophical and religious backgrounds. It gives me great hope for the future.

jerry

hr

A blind man looking for a shadow of doubt

You say you are tolerant of others views yet... It seems you are still bothered by this article. Maybe you should be having this discussion with the author?

hot rod

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Henry_9

Here it is

http://www.pmmag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2379,156589,00.html

I am sure posting this will expose me as a fraud and that I have no idea what I am talking about. Be gentle

H

Henry_9

why deprive myself

of cheap shots and friendly banter?

Unknown

It's simple. Being "evil" has repercussions. It's not as simple as be good and good things will always happen to you, but at least in my experience following the "golden rule" is a much easier, happier, and better way to live life.

I call it "enlightened self-interest". It's in my best interest to be good to people.. makes them more likely to be good to me, plus I don't have to waste energy scheming or remember what I told people or anything of the sort. I can just live, peacefully and happily.

I think of it this way; if this life is all I have, then I want it to be as good as possible. I don't think that it's possible to have life be as good as possible if I'm too busying lying, cheating and stealing. That may get me some material gain, but material gain is not the be-all and end-all of life. Being able to look at yourself in the mirror is big, and having people close to you that you love and care for that return the feeling is also big. Both of those things are also hurt by living for short term gain.

That is why I stick to my moral code. If I do say so myself, I stick to it a lot better than most I've seen that have a moral code handed to them in a church. Because I've built mine, I care about it, and I've changed it as needed when the old rules didn't work anymore.

Henry_9

I do not disagree

in the least, it is perfectly natural to want to be moral, it makes things simpler. However, returning to the position that Gould took, it may be good to be moral, but it is not rational.

Materialists (true form of atheism), have a huge hurdle to overcome when debating the origin of "morals" they should not exist if in fact nature is

"red in tooth and claw" - Tennyson

Life should be about perpetuating yourself, your line and your interest. This issue comes up constantly when debating the position and will continue to be a hurdle for the materialist.

From here, I apply Occam's razor (isn't it wonderful how we can make philosophy say anything that we want )
If morality exist, so must the standard by which it
is defined, and we could logically call that standard
"God" (which is a slightly abbreviated Euthyphro
arguement created by Socrates [modified for my
purpose])

H

Unknown

I disagree that it isn't rational. If I do not have a trail of angry people behind me, I am more secure. If I have connections with people who are willing to help me (and conversely, they with me, who is willing to help them) we are all more secure. The thing that is missing from these early science theories is the lack of co-operation in their evolutionary models, their entire focus is on competition. These older thinkers stopped at "darwinism" as the driving force behind nature. We can see now how co-operation is a survival tool stronger than any other (otherwise, we wouldn't have societies), so I see no hurdle or obstacle for materialists at all, just perhaps limiting thinking about how "nature" works. Co-operative action (and by extension, moral action) is both rational and good.

Henry_9

As usual, these discussions

should go on for hours at Starbucks, I unfortunantly cannot. You strike me as well read and I would love to continue the discussion.

The only point where I will take exception is with the "early thinkers".

Dawkins, who is now probably the strongest voice for Darwin (GTE as defined later by Popper) and has taken Gould's place (not as well I might add) and Gould himself would say that while your position is more palatable and "nicer", it is not necessarily correct.

Case in point there is no rationale why a symbiotic relationship should develop in nature short of the entire process having a complete and fully functioning origin. This is a point that Michael Behe has made and peer defended in his theory on Irreducible Complexity.

Darwin himslef in Origin explained that if any complex structure (or arrangement) could be shown to exist, his theory would fall. He was right. I think Gould would agree which is why he developed his own theory of "Puncuated Equilibrium" and was criticised greatly for it. He saw the flaw.

As I stated, I enjoy this greatly. I appreciate your well reasoned responses and the civil discourse.

Hoo seys plumbrs ain't smart?

H

Unknown

well I have to admit I'm not terribly well read on the theory here, I just know what has been thrown around in front of me over the years, and how it all seems to fit to me. For instance, at first glance it seems ridiculous that symbiotic relationships could not evolve. Assume for a moment that a creature begins as a parasite, one that presumably the host wishes to kill (or that hurts the host). Then any mutation in the parasite that lessens the damage to the host/reduces the hosts' desire or ability to kill it would make such a parasite more successful as it has healthy hosts to feed from for longer periods of time.

That doesn't seem particularly difficult to conceptualize, so if you can point me to a place to read more that would be great.

I consider my view mostly in tune with social structure at any rate. We have more or less conquered darwinistic breeding tendencies as our mating selection is based on social constructs and not biological fitness, and our weak and sick are not necessarily unable to breed anymore. The system we live in is different than if you are an animal in the woods, similar in some ways, but markedly different and requires different thinking.

ok.. too much going on right now risking a ramble so I have to go for now take care and talk to you later!

jerry scharf_3

not a scholarly article

Footnotes and quotes do not make a scholarly article. It's very odd to see such a mix in a trade rag.

We do create myths all the time, and the quote from Gould could have been replaced by hundreds of others. We create myths about ourselves as well as the world we live in. Ever ask anyone what you need to do to take care of a rechargable battery? How about the "urban legends" that appear on the internet all the time.

The article was not about creation vs. evolution. Each is a valid theory in it's context, one is religious and the other scientific. I like to put explain the difference as one deals with why and the other how. It's easy to cross the line and mix them, but it leads to a mess.

jerry

Henry_9

I disagree

neither are operational science both are based on faith where we gather evidence to support a position. Prove to me Ceaser lived, you cannot, you just have evidence from history.

Ultimately the article is grounded on principles of origins and is philosophical in its intent if not its message.

H

Dave Yates (PAH)

Wow!

Football season is soon set to begin!

You want to "see" intelligent designs? Drop off a kid at college. There's lots of intelligent designs on my wallet by the university! We should all be writing cla$$ room book$!!!

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

leo g_13

The next evolution in fighting

bacteria and virusses, could be along those lines Rob. I read an article about a year ago, about a scientist, who feels that we should not be trying to wipe out the bacteria, as we see now with super bugs, but to lessen their effect upon our bodies. Thus minipulating the little buggers into a more symbiotic relationship, as the bacteria in our gut has evolved.

very interesting discussion, and as I have very little time to do anything but work at this point, the post has really "healed" my spirit, THANX!

Leo G

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"