Agreed. For example, some Hindu traditions had no problem with truly cosmic time frames and ideas that seem quite modern, such as the creation, evolution, and destruction of entire universes. This is not to say that they are scientific or accurate and don’t also contain more than their share of truly fantastic mythology. But in theory, if God wanted to reveal the truth of the origin of the cosmos to the Hebrews in metaphoric form, He could have done it much more accurately than the Genesis stories.
I haven’t the foggiest. It’s probably for the same reason, so to speak, that few mythologies/religions present answers we would term scientific (hypothesis, testing, modification, theory, further testing, etc.). Atlas doesn’t actually hold up the Earth, Zeus doesn’t fancy lightning rods (I wonder if he likes rough sex), Neptune is far-removed from any significant involvement with the sea (it’s a planet), etc. The truth is not nearly as much fun to tell over a campfire as are stories some hundreds of years old.
Or at least that’s the opinion I’ve formed. I’m open to eludication/correction/discussion on the matter, especially as regards the Hindu tradition, about which I learned relatively little.
I’m still confused, here. Just what sort of dumbing down and described in words that a stone age nomadic tribe might have, do you expect to be used? Let’s see, time as a continuum that is measured is a bronze age artifact, as I understand it. Years were uncertain and you want to stretch a stone age mind enough to encompass billions of years? So, a long, long time ago, there was just a bit of nothing. And then God made a big bang. (“Let there be light.”)
This explosion, (by the way, another modern concept, there) caused the universe to expand and cool until untold millions of years later quasars formed, evolved into galaxies, and suns. Now, some of those stars exploded, themselves making for heavier elements which are necessary for life and other good things.
Then this cloud of debris from a first generation star starts to coalesce in the void. By the way, how do you plan to explain the concepts of gravity, vacuum, or adiabatic heating to stone age nomads? I defy anyone to come up with a metaphorical way to describe the origin of the universe (As it is currently understood.) that is repeatable by stone age nomads, let alone understandable to same.
Sample_the_Dog may be right about how sophisticated the Hindu myths are, I really don’t know them that well. I’ve only studied some of the Krishna myths for their trickster motifs. Even so, I suspect anyone trying to insist on a fundamentalist interpretation of them would soon be hitting any number of inconsistencies.
For those interested in Hindu mythology, this page cites some interesting passages, although I think the page is best used as a jumping off point rather than a source in itself. Keep in mind that the Vedic literature is vast. This page may serve as a general orientation to Hindu creation tales.
As I said above, and as OtakuLoki echoes, applying literal interpretations to these stories would be fruitless. What’s interesting is that many of the ideas seem much more modern than the Hebrew tales (which really should not be surprising) especially the time frames involved and the sense of mutability of reality. Even more interesting to me is the underlying resistance to concretizing, or even to knowing or claiming to know, a stance toward the Creator which I find more appropriate for the human position in this universe than the “Bible believing” mentality so prevalent in the US these days.
I think NoClueBoy’s approach to the Genesis 1-2 stories is a wise one to take with these myths also.
As a believer, my brain hurts.
Belief in God is one thing. It’s a nonfalsifiable hypothesis. As long as I don’t claim to have evidence proving it, I figure I’m okay.
OTOH, believing in Biblical literalism despite solid scientific evidence is just stupid. I believe the universe was created billions of years ago when a bizzare kind of singularity expanded, creating space and time. I believe this because the sky is dark at night, because we can observe cosmic background radiation, and because Stephen Hawking says so.
I believe life evolved over hundreds of millions of years based on the fossil records, cladistics, DNA, and the writings of Gould.
I believe the children are our future. Teach them well, and let them lead the way. Give them a sense of pride, to make it easier to the let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be.
I decided long ago, to wear a trenchcoat like the Shadow. If Eifel towers can succeed, in Texas towns like Abilene.
Learning to love your elves is the greates love of all.
I agree. And thanks for the links. (I think) I really should go to bed, but… It broke, I’m awake, and feeling too lazy to want to take apart the bedframe just so I can put the boxspring and mattress on the floor. And the web remains tempting 24/7. :smack: :wally
I am interested in learning more about this, especially if diagrams are used.
::snicker::
I’m sure for the all-knowing being in question it would be a piece of cake. Or, maybe don’t dumb it down at all. Teach them about the world so they can understand what you say. Maybe get them to the point where they don’t want to slaughter each other just because their version of the holy book tells them to.
I don’t know about the author of that article, but in York county, Pennsylvania, at the eastern end of the state, they are trying to require that a local school district teach Intelligent Design. An editorial advocating teaching it written by Senator Rick Santorum appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Christmas Day. Since then, there have been letters to the editor for and against it. It’s not on the curriculum yet, but it’s not dying quietly, either.
CJ
It things like this that make me remind people that Santorum isn’t just the name of a senator.
It’s also that frothy mix of lubricant and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
From the letter (I can’t bring myself to type anything indicating that the filth known as that jackass from PA disgraced this MB):
“In contrast, the theory of intelligent design claims that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as random mutation and natural selection, and it makes scientific arguments to back that up.”
Here’s my problem with this: how in the red, white and blue fuck do you test for an “intelligent cause”? What scientific hypothesis could possibly be constructed, however torturously, to assess the existence/validity/etc. of this “intelligent cause”? Or am I ascribing too much knowledge of the scientific method to advocates of this school of “thought”? This shit looks about as scientific as astrology and is disguised more poorly than ceremonial deism.
Discuss the perceived shortcomings of evolution (though for my money the “shortcomings” are about half outright misunderstanding and about half getting at fossils we haven’t yet found), sure. Discuss the shortcomings of science. Just don’t attempt to teach some bullshit “intelligent cause” that is emphastically not science.
But at least he recognized that creationism isn’t, by definition, science.
How does one test for natural selection? Mr. Falsifiability himself, Karl Popper, never figured out a way. Until his recantation late in life, he had ascribed to natural selection the status of “pseudo-science”. For reasons he did not explain, he eventually exempted the theory from the rigorous requirements he demanded of other theories. But there is no way to test many theories generally considered to be scientific. String (or Brane) theory is another. No test can be devised for natural selection that will allow someone to say, “Hey, your theory is false.” Popper was correct in his early days — it is a metaphysical theory.
Brilliant!
“It’s a world of laughter, a world of tears;
It’s a world of hopes and a world of fears
There’s so much that we share that it’s time we’re aware…” 
After all, the fundamental things apply, as fourteen billion years go by!
[BTW, envision yourself viewing a porn video, of a young, attractive person (age, sex, and personal characteristics ad lib to your taste), masturbating to cheesy music in the background. Now, slowly, recognize the background music, and realize it’s an instrumental of that Whitney Houston song.*]
- I am not responsible for new monitors, keyboards, etc., from those imbibing as they realize the point to this anecdote.
Sounds like complete bullshit to me.
T. Rex, I.i: “And Marc Bolan did write ,‘You’re like a hub-cap diamond star halo’, and verily the tribes of men did marvel, for they saw that he was like unto a Jeepster for their love. And lo, they went forth, and quoth unto the gathered people, “Telegram Sam, you’re my main man.”, and yea, men saw that the prophet Bolan spoke sooth, and did reply in turn, “You can’t fool the children of the Revolution.” But David Bowie waxed wroth at this, and grew sore jealous of the worship at the Temple of Bolan. And with bitterness in his heart he smote Bolan down with a purple Mini, in which he caused Bolan, lured by the honeyed wiles of a temptress, to drive into a tree. The people grew dismayed at this, yet the serpent Bowie soothed them with honeyed words, saying, “Turn, and face the strain. Ch-ch-ch-changes.” And the people, growing fickle, did clasp the false prophet Bowie unto their bosom.”
Visions of “a young… person… masturbating” to a song about children? Oh man, this thread’s got locked-and-disappeared written all over it now.
That was pretty good. 
Young attractive adult was implied – and there’s a different point to that song than the “I believe that children are our future” couple of lines – which is what makes it ridiculous in the context I described it.
I should also point out that he made the initial statment in 1976, and the recantation in 1978. He was born in 1902, so he was like 76 when he recanted, but a sprightly 74 when he initially spouted off.
I just love this bit
I believe this is called projection.