• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Please Define "Religion"

Then it is your position that objectively false beliefs are not a requirement to achieve the *purpose* of social cohesion. Yes?

You don't need "objectively false" beliefs. Objectively false is quite a high bar though, as long as you are sufficiently flexible with doctrine religions wouldn't meet this bar.

But let's use most probably false.

Is "all men are created equal" objectively/most probably false? Are any animals "created equal"?

That leaves us with what is objectively true and subjective values. My position would be that subjective values are neither true nor false, but are preferences of an individual influenced and informed by a wide variety of factors. If 2 or more individuals agree on a particular value, that agreement is not a fiction in and of itself. Would you agree?

Again, it is not the value that is the fiction, it is the narrative used to justify and support the ideology that underpins the whole value system and allows it to be transmitted and maintained over long periods of time

It is the why not the what.

If you are like a kid and keep asking the why, why, why here the narratives come into play, both explicit and ones we've internalised.

To high a bar to clear, ever? Objectively false beliefs are required by all human beings indefinitely into the future?

They are not "required", but humans aren't rational and have neither the time nor the cognitive ability to not get suckered by all kinds of false information.

If a specific false belief is not required, can an objectively false belief be modified or changed to better suit the needs and requirements of the society that is dependent on the false beliefs?

You mean like how secular humanism is, to a significant extent, Christianity minus the god bits?

Change some untrue beliefs into a different kind of untrue belief?

Why do you think saying "we no longer believe in the supernatural stuff that underpinned all this, but we'll just make up some other reasons why we should still believe them" constitutes some kind of important progress?
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Here we are at cross purposes again. I do not acknowledge a binary approach to understanding narrative, with truth on one side, and myth - indistinguishable from all other fictions - on the other. This allows for little nuance or ambiguity, with regards either to what is meant by truth, or by myth. In my philosophy, which I consider fully compatible with logic, reason, and modern scientific enquiry, there are no absolutes and can be no certainties.

Truth, like reality, is ellusive and can only ever be approached or perceived obliquely or indirectly. We cannot look directly at the sun, or we would be blinded. That's both a metaphor, and a literal truth; mythologies are full of the former. It is not false to say Icarus flew too close to the sun, and fell to earth, because the story of Icarus is a myth predicated on nmetaphor, at the core of which are universal truths about the human spirit. To fully understand the truth within the myth,incidentally, it's necessary to acknowledge that befrore he fell to earth, Icarus also flew. Which happens to be the first line of a poem (Failing and Flying) by Jack Gilbert. If the foundational premises of Greek mythology were false, would a 20th Century poet be finding meaning there? seems unlikely.

I and others like me do not see reality as elusive, that it is instead, fixable, understandable. Where you see there being no absolutes and no certainty, I and others like me see that knowledge about the world is built or accumulated in stages, with any knowledge held with varying degrees of confidence. So, unlike having no confidence in any of it, we can become quite certain of some things and continue to build our understanding from there, every growing our body of knowledge. I think from the historical record this approach appears quite successful to me.

You say that you do not see myth as indistinguishable from all other fictions which seems to me you are happy to place all of literary or artistic fiction under the same general category, yet keep myth separate and distinct. Perhaps it is different in that despite being fiction, there is some significant number who do not recognize or accept it as such. And certainly, holding a myth as true or real changes ones behaviors in a way different from fiction that is accepted as such by all. Is this really what we want, though? If it is acceptable to create artificial abstract constructs of reality and have them be true, how is such a construct to be challenged or amended? Certainly not on the grounds that it is fiction for now nothing can be fiction. Reality is whatever we say it is, whatever we believe it is. Now we can fill this abstract artificial construct of reality with abstract entities of limitless quantity and ability and who can question, who can challenge, for there is no standard, no firmament upon which to judge or evaluate any of it.

I agree that it is not false to say Icarus flew too close to the sun, but it is a fiction. There is a distinction, and it appropriate and reasonable to recognize that distinction. The world of abstraction is boundless, and in pure abstraction, anything goes. So with abstraction, we have a whole host of tools available to express our thoughts and ideas in creative ways, metaphor being one such tool. Yet the abstractions themselves are not physical things bound to the laws of nature, they are not real in that sense. What is false then, is to consider such abstractions as real in this sense of the term, and that is what is problematic.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
" What about the term 'theism'. "

Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Skepticism etc and the like are the terms of Philosophy, not of the truthful Religions; instead we use Believers and Non-believers, please. Right?
Regards
Isn't it more appropriate if they (the followers of Atheism and the likes, "none"-ism/ianity) have to make long discussions among themselves they visit and participate in the following Forums/sub-forums, please, namely:
(Theological Concepts
  1. Theism
  2. Non-theism
  3. Monism
  4. Deism
Non-Theistic/Non-Religious Beliefs DIR
  1. Atheism DIR
  2. Agnostic DIR
  3. Humanism DIR
Philosophy )

Right?

Regards
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
If you need Matthew to make your point, that shows the bias against tradition is your faith, as I said.
Besides Matthew 15:9 also try Mark 7:7 in connection to Isaiah 29:13.
Jesus often prefaced his statements by the words, " it is written....." meaning he logically based his teachings on what was already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures (OT)

Not against tradition or customs as Jesus taught, but tradition/customs being taught as being Scripture when Not found in Scripture as being in Scripture.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Besides Matthew 15:9 also try Mark 7:7 in connection to Isaiah 29:13.
Jesus often prefaced his statements by the words, " it is written....." meaning he logically based his teachings on what was already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures (OT)

Not against tradition or customs as Jesus taught, but tradition/customs being taught as being Scripture when Not found in Scripture as being in Scripture.
Please explain Isaiah 29:13 in your own words as it relates to tradition. Thank you,
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I and others like me do not see reality as elusive, that it is instead, fixable, understandable. Where you see there being no absolutes and no certainty, I and others like me see that knowledge about the world is built or accumulated in stages, with any knowledge held with varying degrees of confidence. So, unlike having no confidence in any of it, we can become quite certain of some things and continue to build our understanding from there, every growing our body of knowledge. I think from the historical record this approach appears quite successful to me.

You say that you do not see myth as indistinguishable from all other fictions which seems to me you are happy to place all of literary or artistic fiction under the same general category, yet keep myth separate and distinct. Perhaps it is different in that despite being fiction, there is some significant number who do not recognize or accept it as such. And certainly, holding a myth as true or real changes ones behaviors in a way different from fiction that is accepted as such by all. Is this really what we want, though? If it is acceptable to create artificial abstract constructs of reality and have them be true, how is such a construct to be challenged or amended? Certainly not on the grounds that it is fiction for now nothing can be fiction. Reality is whatever we say it is, whatever we believe it is. Now we can fill this abstract artificial construct of reality with abstract entities of limitless quantity and ability and who can question, who can challenge, for there is no standard, no firmament upon which to judge or evaluate any of it.

I agree that it is not false to say Icarus flew too close to the sun, but it is a fiction. There is a distinction, and it appropriate and reasonable to recognize that distinction. The world of abstraction is boundless, and in pure abstraction, anything goes. So with abstraction, we have a whole host of tools available to express our thoughts and ideas in creative ways, metaphor being one such tool. Yet the abstractions themselves are not physical things bound to the laws of nature, they are not real in that sense. What is false then, is to consider such abstractions as real in this sense of the term, and that is what is problematic.


Knowledge can be acquired collectively, and established by consensus, sure. Shared convictions can be credible, and they can be arrived at through rigorous application of reason and observation. Still, there can be no certainties, only degrees of probability. Quantum physics tells us that much;

“When an observation is made on any atomic system that is in a given state, in general the result will not be determinate, ie., if the experiment is repeated several times under identical conditions several different results will be obtained. It is a law of nature, though, that if that if the experiment is repeated a large number of times, each particular result will be obtained in a definite fraction of the total number of times, so that there is a definite probability of it’s being obtained.”
-Paul Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics

Meanwhile, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle establishes as a general property of reality, a limit on how much can be known regarding multiple characteristics of a given entity. The more precisely we identify the position of an entity, the less precisely we may identify it’s speed; and so on. Thus, there is a limit up to which we may determine physical variables, a limit generally identified in quantum physics as the Planck constant.

So much for science, which at the quantum - ie fundamental- level, is held to be indeterminate and probabilistic. As for myth, narrative, legend; true stories, fantasies, fabrications, and so on: I come from a land of mist and water, where everything is indistinct, where form looms out of the fog, and where, in the words of our greatest poet and dramatist, all that is solid;

“is melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all that it inherit, shall dissolve…
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.”

Most certainly, or perhaps most probably, nothing is fixed, form and order are always in flux, and what we call knowledge is really only our best approximation.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Knowledge can be acquired collectively, and established by consensus, sure. Shared convictions can be credible, and they can be arrived at through rigorous application of reason and observation. Still, there can be no certainties, only degrees of probability. Quantum physics tells us that much;

“When an observation is made on any atomic system that is in a given state, in general the result will not be determinate, ie., if the experiment is repeated several times under identical conditions several different results will be obtained. It is a law of nature, though, that if that if the experiment is repeated a large number of times, each particular result will be obtained in a definite fraction of the total number of times, so that there is a definite probability of it’s being obtained.”
-Paul Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics

Meanwhile, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle establishes as a general property of reality, a limit on how much can be known regarding multiple characteristics of a given entity. The more precisely we identify the position of an entity, the less precisely we may identify it’s speed; and so on. Thus, there is a limit up to which we may determine physical variables, a limit generally identified in quantum physics as the Planck constant.

So much for science, which at the quantum - ie fundamental- level, is held to be indeterminate and probabilistic. As for myth, narrative, legend; true stories, fantasies, fabrications, and so on: I come from a land of mist and water, where everything is indistinct, where form looms out of the fog, and where, in the words of our greatest poet and dramatist, all that is solid;

“is melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all that it inherit, shall dissolve…
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.”

The problem is that if I believe only the objective matters, I start with GIGO, because that it matter is subjective.
But for some people that doesn't matter, because they are objective, rational and have the objectively correct way of understand the human life.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Fiction is never held as "immutable truth". It can only be held to represent an immutable truth. That is the defining difference between fiction and non-fiction: the representational vs the non-representational. And representational literature (fiction) requires interpretation. The characters and events have to be allowed to stand as archetypes for real kinds of people and events. And in doing so they can then illuminate the truth of the real better than reality itself, can.

Which is why fiction is very often far better at illuminating reality and truth than reality itself is. But none of this can work unless we allow the fiction to represent reality. And then "declutter" it for us.

I do not disagree with the above as it relates to literary fiction that is presented as fiction and is received as fiction. When all parties agree it is fiction, then of course it will not be held as immutable truth.

To "believe a myth" is not a myth is to deny it the ability to do what it was intended to do: i.e., represent the truth of reality, as opposed to alliterating it.

Apologies, but I do not understand what it means to alliterate the truth of reality.

I agree that myth broadly has an intended purpose, to eliminate the unknown and unknowable and thereby assuage the fear of it.


However, humans are rarely mentally articulate enough to consciously recognize these sometimes subtle differences in methods of conveying the truth. Which makes for a discussion on the subject to very often become "talking past" each other. Recognizing the difference between the representation and the represented is not something the average person is going to be able to do, consciously, and even fewer are going to be able to articulate that difference in a conversation.

It doesn't mean they don't know the difference between fiction and fact, or myth and history. It just means they can't articulate it for you.

The problem here is that not all fiction represents truth or contains truth, which seems to be the claim. Let me amend that by saying it does not always represent external truths or objective truths. Fiction will always reveal something about the creator, and the way an individual interprets and internalizes a fiction reveals something about that individual.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...

The problem here is that not all fiction represents truth or contains truth, which seems to be the claim. Let me amend that by saying it does not always represent external truths or objective truths. Fiction will always reveal something about the creator, and the way an individual interprets and internalizes a fiction reveals something about that individual.

Here is test for you. Find a thing as independent of your brain and describe it and use instruments on it. Now do the same with truth.
Truth is not external or objective. It is subjective in you as a first personal cognitive standard. I just have another one as mine.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
In an academic sense, any category is an abstraction that has been created to aid us thinking and organizing our thoughts and ideas about a particular thing or subject. Such categories are not immutable and only have value if they continue to be useful.

Just because someone or someones created all the categories you vaguely reference, it does not mean they cannot be evaluated and questioned as to their continued utility.

Whatever categories your are hanging on to above may no longer have value or reflect an up-to-date understanding of the subjects.

My utility is not yours and in reverse. And utility is first person subjective and not external to brains or objective.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
...
Thus, there is a limit up to which we may determine physical variables,
...

Which simply leaves us to say that beyond such point, such limit to our perspective, we must say we simply do not know. It does not provide license to then make it up.

So much for science, which at the quantum - ie fundamental- level, is held to be indeterminate and probabilistic.

Probabilistic does not mean unknowable. As a matter of fact, to understand the probabilities one must understand the boundaries and parameters of the systems. We still do know something.

As for myth, narrative, legend; true stories, fantasies, fabrications, and so on: I come from a land of mist and water, where everything is indistinct, where form looms out of the fog, and where, in the words of our greatest poet and dramatist, all that is solid;

“is melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all that it inherit, shall dissolve…
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.”

A poetic representation of the eventual heat death of the cosmos then?

Most certainly, or perhaps most probably, nothing is fixed, form and order are always in flux, and what we call knowledge is really only our best approximation.

Yes, the cosmos is in constant motion, constant change. It does not mean we cannot understand the rules that govern this constant motion.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
The problem is that if I believe only the objective matters, I start with GIGO, because that it matter is subjective.
But for some people that doesn't matter, because they are objective, rational and have the objectively correct way of understand the human life.


Yes, and the educated modernist is convinced, in the words of Leo Tolstoy, that “he is standing at a summit never previously reached by humanity, and that each step forwards…raises him to yet greater heights of enlightenment and progress.” But to me, this is hubris.

Even the most enlightened of humans are often feeling their way through a bewildering and ever shifting landscape. To dismiss as superstitious nonsense the insights and recorded experience of those who came before us, simply because they thought the sun moved round the earth, is foolishness predicated on unjustifiable arrogance. The educated man or woman of today may know a handful of facts about the composition of the stars and the arrangements of galaxies, but does he or she know as much as Ovid or Virgil, or Shakespeare or Milton, about the storms that trouble the human soul, or the earth’s hidden melodies which may soothe it?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Isn't it more appropriate if they (the followers of Atheism and the likes, "none"-ism/ianity) have to make long discussions among themselves they visit and participate in the following Forums/sub-forums, please, namely:
(Theological Concepts
  1. Theism
  2. Non-theism
  3. Monism
  4. Deism
Non-Theistic/Non-Religious Beliefs DIR
  1. Atheism DIR
  2. Agnostic DIR
  3. Humanism DIR
Philosophy )

Right?

Regards
Is it?

I would think not. Emphatically not, as a matter of fact.

Theism - particularly proselitist theism, and all the more so the forms of it that expect children to be born believers - has a very demanding duty to sustain its claims.

Theists should not expect to be protected from questioning and challenges. If anything, they have a duty to expect and accept that questioning.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I do not disagree with the above as it relates to literary fiction that is presented as fiction and is received as fiction. When all parties agree it is fiction, then of course it will not be held as immutable truth.
But fiction is never presented to us as fiction. We are always expected to set aside the non-factual aspects of the story to allow it to function as a representation of truth. No where in the Iliad does it tell the reader that it is a fictional representation. At no point do any of Shakespeare's characters turn to and remind the audience that he or she is just an actor playing a role for them. To do that would destroy the representational potency of the story. And such representational mechanics can be very subtle, or very overt, or even complicated combinations of these. While the audience can likewise allow themselves various degrees of believability, from a child that becomes fully engaged to an adult "critic" that remains distanced from the 'illusion' being generated before him.

Biblical mythology is not a different kind of story, it just has a different kind of audience. The truths being represented by those myths are so important to some people that they will not disengage from their 'suspended disbelief'. As they would and do with other forms of fiction. There are also a lot of people who fear that if they consciously accept that the story is representational, that it will somehow diminish the idealized truth that the story means to convey. They would much prefer to just pretend, in their mind, the story is factual than deal with the idea that the ideological truth it conveys to them might be false.

It's all a lot more complicated than just stating that myths are fictional. Because being factual never had anything to do with them being truthful to begin with. And although factuality may be a very big deal to you, as a philosophical materialist, it's not that big a deal to a lot of other people.
Apologies, but I do not understand what it means to alliterate the truth of reality.
How is it that poetry can say so much more with so few words as compared to prose? It's because the words are chosen and arranged far more carefully, and because attention is being given to the rhythmic cadence and oral sounds of the words when spoken (even if just verbalized in the mind), and these additional contexts are being used to add crucial information to the definitions and arrangements of the words being used. Mythology is somewhat like poetry in that the language and imagery being used to tell the story are very carefully selected to convey additional and crucial information along with the events of the story. Numbers in mythology, for example, often convey special meanings. So do names and certain kinds of creatures. Myths are loaded with symbolic details that are as important to the ideological truth being conveyed by them as the words themselves, are, to the story.
I agree that myth broadly has an intended purpose, to eliminate the unknown and unknowable and thereby assuage the fear of it.
Just as that would be a very cursory and shallow definition of the function of religion, it is likewise a very cursory and shallow definition of the function of myth. There is far more to both of them than just dealing with the fear of the unknown. But it is true that people fear the unknown. And that they will sometimes prefer an illusion of knowledge over their lack of it. But then this goes for all kinds of humans, including the "scientism" crowd that prefers their illusion that science is somehow giving them knowledge of and control over the unknown.
The problem here is that not all fiction represents truth or contains truth, which seems to be the claim.
It both does and doesn't. That's why it's effective. It has to contain enough truth for us to follow along with whatever scenario it's offering us, but not so much that it cannot rise above the reality we already know and experience (or it becomes pointless).
Let me amend that by saying it does not always represent external truths or objective truths.
There are no "objective truths". Truth is a subjective ideal. What you keep insisting on calling "objective truth" or objective reality is just a subjective ideological consensus. And that's all well and good, and very useful, too, but it's not what you think it is, and it's not what you claim it is.
Fiction will always reveal something about the creator, and the way an individual interprets and internalizes a fiction reveals something about that individual.
Absolutely. And that is the wonder and power of art. Through it we get a glimpse into each other's experience of being. And that's as much truth as any of us are ever going to get.

I like mythical stories, but I understand that they take a lot of work to interpret them properly. They were not created just to entertain us, as so many other stories are. They were created to try and illuminate universal ideals. Also, keep in mind that most mythical stories were not developed by one person. They were developed by many people telling and retelling them over time until they became the best representation of the most universally recognized ideal within them. For that reason alone I find them fascinating.
 
Last edited:

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You don't need "objectively false" beliefs. Objectively false is quite a high bar though, as long as you are sufficiently flexible with doctrine religions wouldn't meet this bar.

But let's use most probably false.

Is "all men are created equal" objectively/most probably false? Are any animals "created equal"?

Both notions are false both in terms of the concept of being created and in terms of equality. But are those falsities a necessity?

What if we say, "By mutual agreement, all men should be treated equitably".

Again, we see "all men are created equal" as a value change, an evolution of thought from the concept that some men are greater than others and one ordained by god to rule them all. The culture at the time of this evolved value, however, had not moved past the need for an external universal source for the values adopted. This does not mean that this aspect can never evolve also.

Again, it is not the value that is the fiction, it is the narrative used to justify and support the ideology that underpins the whole value system and allows it to be transmitted and maintained over long periods of time

It is the why not the what.

If you are like a kid and keep asking the why, why, why here the narratives come into play, both explicit and ones we've internalised.

I don't see why the answer to "Why?" will never become, "because this is what we have chosen by mutual agreement."

Why do you think saying "we no longer believe in the supernatural stuff that underpinned all this, but we'll just make up some other reasons why we should still believe them" constitutes some kind of important progress?

I think it is important to not make up reasons at all, rather, we should acknowledge the fact that it is we who are making specific choices and it is we who are accountable, not some imaginary abstract construct that is immune to accountability.
 
Last edited:
Both notions are false both in terms of the concept of being created and in terms of equality. But are those falsities a necessity?

What if we say, "By mutual agreement, all men should be treated equitably".

Again, we see "all men are created equal" as a value change, an evolution of thought from the concept that some men are greater than others and one ordained by god to rule them all. The culture at the time of this evolved value, however, had not moved past the need for an external universal source for the values adopted. This does not mean that this aspect can never evolve also.

Here you are constructing a narrative, that these are desirable and constitute "progress" even if the vakues don't change at all, just the justification for them.

Why is this the case?

I don't see why the answer to "Why?" will never become, "because this is what we have chosen by mutual agreement."

Because that is not really the reason. They are chosen based on cultural traditions, and these are reliant on cultural narratives (myths) that outline what is desirable and what is not.

This is why certain values chosen in some societies and completely different ones favoured in other societies.

Culture is not transmitted and preserved simply by outlining a set of unconnected principle that people agree upon one by one. Beliefs 'cluster' based on identity - for example much of the US right tends to be low tax, anti-abortion, pro-gun and anti-vaccine for Covid, whereas European conservatives are mostly low tax, pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-vaccine.

If all you are saying is "these are our values because they are our values, how would you change values without cultural narratives that underpin the desirability for change?

How would you unite diverse people into a common identity?

How do you convince people to 'irrationally' go against their own interests for the common good?

I think it is important to not make up reasons at all, rather, we should acknowledge the fact that it is we who are making specific choices and it is we who are accountable, not some imaginary abstract construct that is immune to accountability.

But we are only making the choices because we have been conditioned to hold certain values that have been transmitted via myth.

Why should we not acknowledge this also?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Please explain Isaiah 29:13 in your own words as it relates to tradition. Thank you,
If we trace back to ancient Babylon we can see some religious traditions/customs come from ancient Babylon.
Customs/traditions that are independent from Scripture. Isaiah 29:9-14
Christendom (so-called Christian) still using their same centuries-old ideas repeating them endlessly as if Scripture.
As in Isaiah's day they use their tradition which is often borrowed from non-biblical sources.
In other words, to use teachings to fit the modern times over what Scripture teaches.
Backing back to Isaiah 28:8 fake/weed tares clergy's tables are full of vomit.
Thus, what such independent clergy promote really is spiritual bad or rotten food.
So, like the drunkards of Ephraim and Samaria instead of God's Word pouring out of their mouths, filthy vomit comes out.
Vomit splashed over everything and fake/weed tares clergy of today make the same mistakes as Ephraim and Samaria did.
Deceit is their shelter as per Isaiah 28:15 which is worse than physical sickness.
Even with the Mosaic Law animal sacrifices which became 'spiritually sick' by offering blemished or sick animals.
Those who did that made a mockery of the Law by their mere tradition/customs outside of the Law as if it was the Law.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
[QUOTE="Augustus, post: 7928749, member: 56037].....................Because that is not really the reason. They are chosen based on cultural traditions, and these are reliant on cultural narratives (myths) that outline what is desirable and what is not.
But we are only making the choices because we have been conditioned to hold certain values that have been transmitted via myth. Why should we not acknowledge this also?[/QUOTE]

I'd like to add to the ^ above ^ ' religious myth ' just taught as being Scripture when Not Scripture.
Jesus was exposing those religious myths taught by corrupted clergy - Matthew 15:9; Matthew chapter 23.
 
Top