BDS

It's quite obvious, cap'nkirk, that you don't understand anything I've said.

The distinction (and difference) between myth and fiction is obvious; I've stated them already; there's no need to repeat them. It's also obvious that you never read (or didn't understand) Lewis Carrol's logic puzzles. Read them. Maybe then you'll understand my point.

In any event, is a degree in English Literature (with an emphaisis on the novel) no different from a "degree in make believe"? Both theology and English literature are "humanities", and their study is valid (philosophic definition) whether or not that being studied is "true" (whatever that means). To suggest otherwise is to retreat to a dogmatic, antiintellectual position.

As far as my point about witch burning being "phyrric", I have no idea what you assume my position is, but my point was quite clear, and I have little doubt that you misunderstand my position. However, your misunderstandings are so blatantly willful that there seems little point in attempting to explain them away.

Biff the unclean

I've read them and I can't believe you keep missing kirks' point as he has made it about as clear as is possible. The correlation between myth and fiction is obvious

BDS

You're right. The correlation between myth and fiction is obvious. So is the relationship between (if you remember an earlier post in this thread) dogs and cats. They're both mammals, after all. I'll spell my position out very clearly:

Differences between myth and fiction: 1) Myth = purported to be true. Fiction: admittedly made up. 1) Myth = traditional story passed down from generation to genration. Fiction = Often invented by one person (although not always).

Of course there are also similarities: 1) Both are stories. 2) We moderns think both are untrue. 3) Both are forms of literature. etc. etc.

However, there are also similarities between myth and history: 1) Native speakers don't differentiate between the two kinds of stories (although they do differentiate between myth and fiction). 2) Both are reputed to be accounts of past events. etc. etc.

Does the fact that there are similarities between myth and history lead us to say "myth is history"? Do the similarities between prose and poetry lead us to say, "Prose is poetry"? Of course not. So why should the similarities between myth and fiction lead us to say, "Myth is fiction"?

Also, why is this point so difficult for Biff and capnkirk to understand? It's tiresome to keep repeating the obvious.

As far as Lewis Carrol's logic puzzles, they serve to show that logic is merely a tool which can be applied to nonsense just as easily as it is applied to reality. In formal terms, logic speaks to the validity of an argument, but not to it's truth. Lewis Carrol's conclusions are valid, and logically sound, but they are obviously nonsensical, derived from false premises. One could say the same about, say, Thomas Acquinas.

Biff the unclean

You're right. The correlation between myth and fiction is obvious. So is the relationship between (if you remember an earlier post in this thread) dogs and cats. They're both mammals, after all. I'll spell my position out very clearly:
Except myth and fiction are not like dogs and cats, they are like Goldens and Labs

Differences between myth and fiction: 1) Myth = purported to be true. Fiction: admittedly made up. 1) Myth = traditional story passed down from generation to genration. Fiction = Often invented by one person (although not always).
Myth often originated by one person who knew full well that it wasn't true. The gullibility of the audience does not cause fiction to cease being fiction.
When panic hit because Orson Wells broadcast The War of the Worlds it did not cease being fiction.

Of course there are also similarities: 1) Both are stories. 2) We moderns think both are untrue. 3) Both are forms of literature. etc. etc.
That's right, stories that are untrue are fiction.

However, there are also similarities between myth and history: 1) Native speakers don't differentiate between the two kinds of stories (although they do differentiate between myth and fiction). 2) Both are reputed to be accounts of past events. etc. etc.
The gullibility of the audience does not cause fiction to cease being fiction.

Does the fact that there are similarities between myth and history lead us to say "myth is history"? Do the similarities between prose and poetry lead us to say, "Prose is poetry"? Of course not. So why should the similarities between myth and fiction lead us to say, "Myth is fiction"?
Because they are exactly the same thing. A story whose author based it on his imagination and not on fact.
Where as all of your other examples require the person making the correlation to be mistaken.

Also, why is this point so difficult for Biff and capnkirk to understand? It's tiresome to keep repeating the obvious.
Oh don't worry about us getting tired repeating the obvious to you. We haven't given up hope that you will come around.

As far as Lewis Carrol's logic puzzles, they serve to show that logic is merely a tool which can be applied to nonsense just as easily as it is applied to reality…
Sigh, and you don't even get the irony.

Tyler Durden

That was my point - it takes intelligence, reasoning, creativity, and insight to be able to succeed in theology, at least as an academic. Which is why i wasn't willing to fall in lockstep with the herd and ridicule theology as make-believe. If it's make-believe, then anybody can get a degree in theology. Right?

For example, I have read the works of Nancey Murphy, her stuff on the philosophy of science was just as good, if not better, than any other treatment i've seen so far. She is a professor at Fuller Seminary, and a great lecturer, so I've heard.

I would think my friend would beg to differ.

At any rate, I posed the same question to a colleague who is majoring in Mechanical Engineering - admittedly just to see if he would blow his top - but found his response surprising. He agreed on the grounds that theology would be much more difficult, because of its nature and the required understanding of multiple interpretations and perspectives, and a healthy memory of the enormous literature that spans thousands of years across many cultures.

If you're so confident, perhaps you need to hunt bigger game, and find yourself a tougher theologian.

As for your anti-philosophy rant, I see it as nothing more than a species of a category mistake. You mistake the rules or methods of a discipline capable of being applied to other fields of inquiry. Your complaint could be equally applied to the theoretical sciences of physics and mathematics. It is common knowledge that engineers routinely complain about their impracticality, or inability of instant gratification via immediate results. But this only demonstrates the limits of their patience, instead of the theoretical sciences themselves, or for that matter, philosophy.

Gurdur

And therein lies the rub.

It's not just being so "adamantly convinced of the correctness of their position", it's far more the fascinating overt and overtly uninformed disavowel of several categories of exploration ---- ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, etc. --- which is the interesting point.
Here we have several people proud of willfull ignorance of certain large fields dealing with human knowledge and exploration of the human psyche, and thinking that somehow their blatantly closed-minded opinions are somehow important.
Or, IOW, they're proud not to be freethinkers, and they claim to have a special hotline to "The Truth ®".
My goodness. Wouldn't they be happier on some fundamentalist board somewhere rather than here ?

sharon45

Where did you get this idea about myths? For one thing, many myths grow out of from completely different people and stories, then is often used built from all together or from selected parts.Yes, and apparently, neither did Carrol.

Gurdur

----> Nermal

Hiya Nermal, I wan't aware I was hitting you at all.
I went back right through the entire thread just to make sure.

What I find really peculiar is just how certain people behave in this thread --- they are committing the same faults they would happily accuse Christians of committing in any other context.
Tracking the posters here is about the only thing that makes it any fun; and what I find screamingly hilarious is how certain posters here would immediately denounce theists for being closed-minded, out of touch with reality, and for insisting on one particular absolutist version of "The Truth ®" --- and then they go and immediately do exactly the same themselves..
Heh, who do they think they're kidding ?

Celsus

Huh. An atheist whom I respect very deeply is currently pursuing a doctorate in theology. Isn't Richard Carrier doing one as well?

This thread has been nothing but depressing, thanks for nothing Hugo. Maybe we should compile a list of threads like this one and identify our overlapping dramatis personae:

The Bible is crap (what's the point of ancient literature?!)
split from: Disrespecting beliefs vs. disrespecting people (What's the point of being productive?!)
Proof: God = Nature (What's the point of mathematics?!)
This thread (What's the point of learning!?)
...

Oh on second thought, forget it. Godot, Gurdur, BDS, Tyler Durden, Hugo, thanks for reminding me that we aren't all insane yet.

Joel

Naked Ape

Shitty seems kind of harsh, they are both wacky notions that have had varying degrees of historical acceptance.
So how do you turn a shitty analogy into a strawman, what is the straw to shit ratio? I am sorry that capnkirk has been pissing in everyones cornflakes, but don't take it out on me. I am asking questions because I would like to understand why you seem to hold theology in such high esteem.
Chiropractic doesn't believe in all that immunizations can prevent diseases stuff, they believe that a few spinal adjustments can do the job better, not only that but it's really the vaccines that make people sick. I do not hold these opinions.
No, I'm an Oracle DBA, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. What do you do for folding money?
The underlying reality that I was refering to in my example was the fact the immunizations will protect a child from diseases better that a good bonecracking. What are your metaphysical beliefs about reality? Does it's name begin with naive too?
I am sorry if you thought that I was indicating that aquiring a degree in make believe would be easy, I imagine it would be quite difficult. It would be nearly impossible for me just to pretend to take the subject matter seriously, let alone spend several years of my life doing little else. Obviously people who want a degree in make-believe take that sort of make-believe very seriously and they must work very hard to get one. I asked my questions because you seemed to imply that the existance of these degrees somehow validated the subject matter, since you cleared that up after you unloaded your condescension, I have no further questions.

BDS I quite liked what you had to say on the subject.
Cheers,

Naked Ape