Creation Myths Of The World

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Mythology
  3. » Creation Myths Of The World

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

boagie
 
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 12:42 pm
Hi Everyone,Smile

It has been said the all life is mythologically compelled,so much so that I believe every people/civilization has its own creation myth,and the similarities between them are remarkable,mainly because while the environment that these verious myths originate from are different,the common psychology of humanity is the common ground which takes on the form of similar mythological symbols.It was pointed out to me that Judaism is an acception too this generality,Judaism having no creation myth,that is not entirely true,the creation myth of the Jew is not of the physical world but of the creation of a people called Israel.How many people out there know of other creation myths,perhaps from your own origins or of peoples/civilivations that strike you as particulary interesting.


Often myths have a history,an evolutionary development, so while you may be looking at a myth who's origin is apparently from a herding/hunting culture as with the plains Indians, beneath the apparent, if you look closely, you can discern that once these people were of a planting culture from some of the symbology which is carried over.Just as with Christianity there are indications of previous influences from former cultures,former mythologies.The most apparent influnence of course is that of Judaism but then what influnences were fundamental to the formation of Judaism.This evolutionary development,and fact that nothing develops in isolation,can be applied to these creation myths I believe,what do you think?
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 01:50 pm
@boagie,
Creation Myths

Hi all,Smile

What conclusions might one draw from these few examples of creation myths,there are many many more where these came from.
Chinese


In the beginning , the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up and formed the heavens, the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth. Pan Gu stood in the middle, his head touching the sky, his feet planted on the earth. The heavens and the earth began to grow at a rate of ten feet per day, and Pan Gu grew along with them. After another 18 thousand years, the sky was higher, the earth thicker, and Pan Gu stood between them like a pillar 9 million li in height so that they would never join again.

When Pan Gu died, his breath became the wind and clouds, his voice the rolling thunder. One eye became the sun and one the moon. His body and limbs turned to five big mountains and his blood formed the roaring water. His veins became far-stretching roads and his muscles fertile land. The innumerable stars in the sky came from his hair and beard, and flowers and trees from his skin and the fine hairs on his body. His marrow turned to jade and pearls. His sweat flowed like the good rain and sweet dew that nurtured all things on earth. According to some versions of the Pan Gu legend, his tears flowed to make rivers and radiance of his eyes turned into thunder and lighting. When he was happy the sun shone, but when he was angry black clouds gathered in the sky. One version of the legend has it that the fleas and lice on his body became the ancestors of mankind.

The Pan Gu story has become firmly fixed in Chinese tradition. There is even an idiom relating to it: "Since Pan Gu created earth and the heavens," meaning "for a very long time." Nevertheless, it is rather a latecomer to the catalog of Chinese legends. First mention of it is in a book on Chinese myths written by Xu Zheng in the Three Kingdoms period (CE 220-265). Some opinions hold that it originated in south China or southeast Asia.

There are several versions of the Pan Gu story.

Among the Miao, Yao, Li and other nationalities of south China, a legend concerns Pan Gu the ancestor of all mankind, with a man's body and a dog's head. It runs like this: Up in Heaven the God in charge of the earth, King Gao Xin, owned a beautiful spotted dog. He reared him on a plate (pan in Chinese ) inside a gourd (hu, which is close to the sound gu ), so the dog was known as Pan Gu . Among the Gods there was great enmity between King Gao Xin and his rival King Fang. "Whoever can bring me the head of King Fang may marry my daughter, " he proclaimed, but nobody was willing to try because they were afraid of King Fang's strong soldiers and sturdy horses.
The dog Pan Gu overheard what was said, and when Gao Xin was sleeping, slipped out of the palace and ran to King Fang. The latter was glad to see him standing there wagging his tail. "You see, King Gao Xin is near his end. Even his dog has left him," Fang said, and held a banquet for the occasion with the dog at his side.

At midnight when all was quiet and Fang was overcome with drink, Pan Gu jumped onto the king's bed, bit off his head and ran back to his master with it . King Gao Xin was overjoyed to see the head of his rival, and gave orders to bring Pan Gu some fresh meat. But Pan Gu left the meat untouched and curled himself up in a corner to sleep. For three days he ate nothing and did not stir.

The king was puzzled and asked, "Why don't you eat? Is it because I failed to keep my promise of marrying a dog?" To his surprise Pan Gu began to speak. "Don't worry, my King. Just cover me with your golden bell and in seven days and seven nights I'll become a man." The King did as he said, but on the sixth day, fearing he would starve to death, out of solicitude the princess peeped under the bell. Pan Gu's body had already changed into that of a man, but his head was still that of a dog. However, once the bell was raised, the magic change stopped, and he had to remain a man with a dog's head.
He married the princess, but she didn't want to be seen with such a man so they moved to the earth and settled in the remote mountains of south China. There they lived happily and had four children, three boys and a girl, who became the ancestors of mankind.

Choctaw


At the beginning there was a great mound. It was called Nanih Wiya. It was from this mound that the Creator fashioned the first of the people. These people crawled through a long, dark cave into daylight. They became the first Choctaw.

Comanche


One day the Great Spirit collected swirls of dust from the four directions in order to create the Comanche people. These people formed from the earth had the strength of mighty storms. Unfortunately, a shape-shifting demon was also created and began to torment the people. The Great Spirit cast the demon into a bottomless pit. To seek revenge the demon took refuge in the fangs and stingers of poisonous creatures and continues to harm people every chance it gets.

Digueno


When Tu-chai-pai made the world, the earth was the woman, the sky was the man. The sky came down upon the earth. The world in the beginning was a pure lake covered with tulles. Tu-chai-pai and his younger brother, Yo-ko-mat-is, sat together, stooping far over, bowed down by the weight of the sky. The Maker said to his brother, "What am I going to do?"

"I do not know," said Yo-ko-mat-is.
"Let us go a little farther," said the Maker.
So they went a little farther and sat down to rest. "Now what am I going to do?" said Tu-chai-pai.
"I do not know, my brother."

All of this time the Maker knew what he was about to do, but he was asking his brother's help. Then he said, "We-hicht, we-hicht, we-hicht," three times. He took tobacco in his hand. and rubbed it fine and blew upon it three times. Every time he blew, the heavens rose higher above their heads.

Younger brother did the same thing because the Maker asked him to do it. The heavens went higher and higher and so did the sky. Then they did it both together, "We-hicht, we-hicht, we-hicht," and both took tobacco, rubbed it, and puffed hard upon it, sending the sky so high it formed a concave arch.

Then they placed North, South, East, and West. Tu-chai-pai made a line upon the ground. "Why do you make that line?" asked younger brother. "I am making the line from East to West and name them so. Now you make a line from North to South."

Yo-ko-mat-is thought very hard. How would he arrange it? Then he drew a crossline from top to bottom. He named the top line North, and the bottom line South. Then he asked, "Why are we doing this?" The Maker said, "I will tell you. Three or four men are coming from the East, and from the West three or four Indians are coming."
The brother asked, "Do four men come from the North, and two or three men come from the South?"

Tu-chai-pai said, "Yes. Now I am going to make hills and valleys and little hollows of water."

"Why are you making all of these things?"
The Maker explained, "After a while when men come and are walking back and forth in the world, they will need to drink water or they will die." He had already made the ocean, but he needed little water places for the people.

Then he made the forests and said, "After a while men will die of cold unless I make wood for them to burn. What are we going to do now?" "I do not know," replied younger brother.

"We are going to dig in the ground and find mud to make the first people, the Indians." So he dug in the ground and took mud to make the first men and the first women. He made the men easily, but he had much trouble making women. It took him a long time. After the Indians, he made the Mexicans and finished all his making. He then called out very loudly, "People, you can never die and you can never get tired, so you can walk all the time." But then he made them sleep at night, to keep them from walking in the darkness. At last he told them that they must travel toward the East, where the sun's light was coming out for the first time.

The Indians then came out and searched for the light, and at last they found light and were exceedingly glad to see the Sun. The Maker called out to his brother, "It's time to make the Moon. You call out and make the Moon to shine, as I have made the Sun. Sometime the Moon will die. When it grows smaller and smaller, men will know it is going to die, and they must run races to try and keep up with the dying moon." The villagers talked about the matter and they understood their part and that Tu-chai-pai would be watching to see that they did what he wanted them to do. When the Maker completed all of this, he created nothing more. But he was always thinking how to make Earth and Sky better for all the Indians. Smile
 
Peter phil
 
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 04:17 am
@boagie,
Human beings seem to have an insatiable desire for myth-making. What these examples show is that, unlike his animal ancestors, early mankind responded imaginatively to his environment, constructing creative scenarios which offered an explanation for the origin of the world they inhabited, expressing their values and sense of wonder at the astounding fact of existence.

Peter
 
boagie
 
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 08:20 pm
@Peter phil,
Peter wrote:
Human beings seem to have an insatiable desire for myth-making. What these examples show is that, unlike his animal ancestors, early mankind responded imaginatively to his environment, constructing creative scenarios which offered an explanation for the origin of the world they inhabited, expressing their values and sense of wonder at the astounding fact of existence.

Peter


Hi Peter!Smile

Your comments are very true, humanities concerns reveal a common psyche for we experience the world much alike. Just as these myths fitted the knowledge of the world that they had known, any new myth for the future must be able to incorporate the science/knowledge of its time. The spectactular findings of astronomy and physics today might be the meat of a new myth, perhaps a creation myth. Any new myth that is to inform our humanity must in the future be global, have more to do with the future, and the wonder of the cosmos than instructions from the past.
 
Peter phil
 
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 09:37 am
@boagie,
Yes, Boagie. I share your interest in what a myth appropriate to our times would be like. It would have to be different from or in addition to the facts which have been accumulated by science since it would express and dramatise our values and whatever sense of significance we are able to achieve, but it would have to be consistent with the facts of the universe as revealed by our scientific knowledge.

Peter
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 06:57 pm
@Peter phil,
Peter wrote:
Yes, Boagie. I share your interest in what a myth appropriate to our times would be like. It would have to be different from or in addition to the facts which have been accumulated by science since it would express and dramatise our values and whatever sense of significance we are able to achieve, but it would have to be consistent with the facts of the universe as revealed by our scientific knowledge.
Peter


Peter,Smile

Whatever is impressed upon the mind that is so great as to become the centre of that minds focus, is thus capable of becomeing that minds new myth. Things are changeing fast on the tecnological front, so much so that the new information/s, new machines and toys keep us pretty much scattered with no ability to pull all of this diversity together into anything meaningful. Alas, these are interesting times, wonder opens out to us on a daily bases, so too the impending dangers of our over stress environment. Perhaps the drama of trying to suvive while the earth is trying to cleans itself of humanity might give birth to a renewed respect, and thus the Gaia principle [the princple of the planet as a living organism]. Whatever the new myth it will have to involve a global community, there are no others we might direct our hostilities towards, today that is suicide, we know what is beyond that next horizon, no undiscovered lands remain to us, the new frontier, is the cosmos.
 
Peter phil
 
Reply Tue 11 Sep, 2007 07:51 am
@boagie,
Thanks for that reply, Boagie.

I'm thinking not so much about technology (though our prosperity depends on it) but about the knowledge of how the universe works which has been built up by astronomy, physics, Evolution, etc. Any modern myth would have to be consistent with these truths.

I am coming to realise that myths are not held on the same basis as facts (whether facts of science or of everyday experience). This is because myths express our values and incorporate our quest for significance. I have difficulty in conceiving on what basis myths are held. I know the basis on which facts and generalisations based on facts are held (that they can be relied on for predicting future events) but I am uncertain of the way in which a myth can be said to be true - especially if it appears to make statements of fact which contradict our other knowledge.

Peter
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 11 Sep, 2007 08:39 am
@Peter phil,
Peter wrote:
Thanks for that reply, Boagie.

I'm thinking not so much about technology (though our prosperity depends on it) but about the knowledge of how the universe works which has been built up by astronomy, physics, Evolution, etc. Any modern myth would have to be consistent with these truths.

I am coming to realise that myths are not held on the same basis as facts (whether facts of science or of everyday experience). This is because myths express our values and incorporate our quest for significance. I have difficulty in conceiving on what basis myths are held. I know the basis on which facts and generalisations based on facts are held (that they can be relied on for predicting future events) but I am uncertain of the way in which a myth can be said to be true - especially if it appears to make statements of fact which contradict our other knowledge.Peter


Hi Peter.Smile

It has been said that the struggle between science and Christianity is not really a conflict between science and Christian dogma but a struggle between the science of two thousand years ago with the science of the day. Christianity is a closed system, it cannot learn, cannot change, indeed it sees this possiablity as its death, which in my opinion, would be correct.

Joseph Campbell [a renouned scholar of comparative religions and mythologies] once said, "All Life Is Mythologically Compelled", so there is not a hostility towards mythology itself. There is, and I feel it myself, a hostility towards sacred ignorance, a hostility towards something now proveing to be pathogenic, as Christianity in defense of itself is doing in its attack on science and reason itself.

It has also been said religion is misenterpreted mythology. Mythology is often interpreted as the other man's religion. Mythology though seem less powerful if it is not believed, indeed if it is not believed it remains mythology, only for the believer does mythology become religion, and as misinterpreted mythology, it is answerable to no one, to no thing, but its own circular arguments.

There are generally two interperations of a given myth that are possiable.There is the literal interpretation,which takes or misinterprets all the symbols and metaphors in the concrete.The other possiablity is a mystical interpretation,which reads these symbols as going beyond the word,interpreting them as connotations, generally quite the opposite of literal interpretation.

Our quest for meaning is indeed the viable seed which looks for fertile ground, and Christianity was that at one time, as was the Greek pantheon of gods and the whole historical evolutionary development of the gods theme. Man will always quest for meaning to his existence. Where man cannot find truth in fact, he will create reality from fiction,once his fiction is the reality of his mind, he is said to be a Christian----to be fair, a believer of whatever.
 
Peter phil
 
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 06:52 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:


It has also been said religion is misenterpreted mythology. Mythology is often interpreted as the other man's religion. Mythology though seem less powerful if it is not believed, indeed if it is not believed it remains mythology, only for the believer does mythology become religion, and as misinterpreted mythology, it is answerable to no one, to no thing, but its own circular arguments.

There are generally two interperations of a given myth that are possiable.There is the literal interpretation,which takes or misinterprets all the symbols and metaphors in the concrete.The other possiablity is a mystical interpretation,which reads these symbols as going beyond the word,interpreting them as connotations, generally quite the opposite of literal interpretation.

Our quest for meaning is indeed the viable seed which looks for fertile ground, and Christianity was that at one time, as was the Greek pantheon of gods and the whole historical evolutionary development of the gods theme. Man will always quest for meaning to his existence. Where man cannot find truth in fact, he will create reality from fiction,once his fiction is the reality of his mind, he is said to be a Christian----to be fair, a believer of whatever.


Thanks for this posting, Boagie. It has helped to clarify my thoughts in an area I struggle with: in what sense can a myth be said to be true when its literal statements do not correspond to facts on the ground? I presume we are talking about figurative or poetic responses to myth and I can certainly go along with that. There is the problem, however, of myth continuing to be taken literally by some people (as the Adam and Eve story is still taken literally by a surprising number of Christians). I am not sure how it is possible to guard against such interpretations. This problem is well-known to ironists: no matter how outrageous an irony is, there will always be some people who take it literally.

In "An Intelligent Person's Guide to Modern Culture" Roger Scruton writes: "In myth we seem to confront a story which asks to be believed, without being believed as true; a metaphor that we re-enact in the literal language of our own emotions." He seems to be making the same point as you, that the literal meaning of the myth should be disregarded in favour of deeper figurative meanings which appeal to our unconcious responses. My doubt about this is that, for many people, appreciation of the figurative meaning depends on their taking the story literally.

Peter
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 08:50 am
@Peter phil,
Hi Peter,

I think all the myths of verious religious traditions can be said to be true, when read mystically, or in the poetic sense, for all speak of one great mystery. In the Upanishads it states,"The Truth Is One,The Sages Speak Of It By Many Names." The Adam and Eve myth is indeed a good example, a literal interpretation shows us a child like tale, where the symbols are taken as concrete and historically true. Many people would throw it out, but if it is read in the mystical sense, the metaphors and symbols are not concretised and so you are not asked to embrace the absurd. I am not a master of interpretation, but take the sense of the concept of Eden, Eden is non-duality there is no sin because their is no other. The apple you might say is the apple of duality, the knowledge of duality is the knowledge of good and evil. Today the talking snake would be interpreted as an metaphor for an aspect of ones psyche. In the east the focus is on the oneness of things, with Christianity the focus is on the duality, yet the way back to Eden is non-duality. There is a certain portion of the population, and I think it is a considerable portion, that are literally taken by the fantastic. They come to an emotional belief without evidence, in some cases it seems that it is a prerequisite that there be no foundational evidence in order to believe-----------go figure!

The myth is instructional is a sense, it is a guide pointing out the land marks by those whom have gone before us, like I said, they are all true these myth, you just have to read them correctly to see beyond the apparent concrete interpretation. We are in a type of free fall today, Christianity really does not cut it for most people, yet we do need that informing myth to instruct our humanity. It is a uneasy time, the instructions need updated, a new myth is required if we are to survive. Yes the real power of myth is when it is taken literally, as such it is religion.The premises of a religion need to be corelated to the reality and knowledge of the present, when this occurs it is not difficult to embrace that knowledge and even some extended speculation. I think history shows us that mythology/religion is a necessity of humanity, the expression of humanities pysche grounding itself.Today is history unfolding itself,there is much material for a grand rich new mythology in the discoveries and realities of the present.We need a new myth of wisdom,because independent reason does not carry the day for the population at large,for that we need the vehicle of a new myth.



The Ten Commandments Of Reading Myth Smile [Joseph Campbell]


[SIZE=+2]1[/SIZE]
Read myths with the eyes of wonder:
the myths transparent to their universal meaning,
their meaning transparent to its mysterious source.
[SIZE=+2]2[/SIZE]
Read myths in the present tense:
Eternity is now.
[SIZE=+2]3[/SIZE]
Read myths in the first person plural:
the Gods and Goddesses of ancient mythology
still live within you.
[SIZE=+2]4[/SIZE]
Any myth worth its salt exerts a powerful magnetism.
Notice the images and stories
that you are drawn to and repelled by.
Investigate the field of associated images and stories.
[SIZE=+2]5[/SIZE]
Look for patterns;
don't get lost in the details.
What is needed is not more specialized scholarship,
but more interdisciplinary vision.
Make connections;
break old patterns of parochial thought.

[SIZE=+2]6[/SIZE]
Resacralize the secular:
even a dollar bill reveals
the imprint of Eternity.
[SIZE=+2]7[/SIZE]
If God is everywhere,
then myths can be generated
anywhere, anytime, by anything.
Don't let your Romantic aversion to
science blind you to the Buddha in the computer chip.
[SIZE=+2]8[/SIZE]
Know your tribe!
Myths never arise in a vacuum;
they are the connective tissue of the social body
which enjoys synergistic relations
with dreams (private myths)
and rituals (the enactment of myth).
[SIZE=+2]9[/SIZE]
Expand your horizons!
Any mythology worth remembering
will be global in scope.
The earth is our home
and humankind is our family.
[SIZE=+2]10[/SIZE]
Read between the lines!
Literalism kills;
Imagination quickens.
 
Peter phil
 
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 07:57 am
@boagie,
Smile Thanks for this, Boagie. I found it very helpful. You are obviously right: myths only do their job if they are read in a manner which can be characterised as imaginative, figurative, poetic, mystical. Those who insist on the literal truth of mythical stories are woefully missing the point. It is clear that the inclusive, cross-cultural approach to myth which you and Campbell take is the effective antidote to such parochial literalism.

Peter
 
Teena phil
 
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 04:52 pm
@boagie,
I pretty much agree with what you've said.

Seems like belief systems began to form as soon as humans were developed enough to have fears, curiousity, desire to affect things in some ways. So you had the spirits, the shamans, certain rituals designed to please the spirits.

The rest is just up to evolution. Of course its natural that there are traces of other/previous religions/myths as peoplee migrate & mix in. Just like with language and other traditions.

Personally I view religion and mythology as the same thing. The only difference is that the 2 are viewed differently. One is currently accepted & the other dismissed.
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 10:33 pm
@Teena phil,
Teena,Smile

"Personally I view religion and mythology as the same thing. The only difference is that the 2 are viewed differently. One is currently accepted & the other dismissed." quote

I remember the late Joseph Campbell stating this as one defination of mythology, "Mythology is the other man's religion."Very Happy
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 14 Dec, 2007 05:12 pm
@boagie,
I very much like the post-modern philosophical concept of the metanarrative, which most obviously includes myths. But more than myths it has to do with themes by which peoples/places/periods identify themselves. The mentality in this 'war on terror', i.e. the idea that the world has changed since 9/11/01 constitutes a new metanarrative in our society; the Biblical stories constitute an older metanarrative.

Metanarrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:05 am
@boagie,
Whow man.. Just gotta say: great disscussion.. I read the whole thing.. Razz

Ofcourse religions work because people are scared of what comes beyond what they know, beyond death is a pretty big seller for most religions and people both wish and hope that if they act as that myth says they should it will let them live on forever, which ofcourse isn't the case simply because the thought of something that supernatural is bizzarr.

But as I understand it Christianity isn't meant to be about the son of god but simple astronomy. And as the time ages acctually changes (you know the earth axel moves slightly all the time and we move through the starsigns "capricorn" I think one is called in english and so on) and these time ages last for about 2150years and the people who wrote the bible is verry aware of this because the one age we are in now (the fish/es) acctually ends at about the year 2150 so our year counting started once we enterd our time age. Jesus also says in the bible "I will be with you until the end of time" but I've been told that this is a missinterpetation and it should be "I will be with you until the end of age" or in other words, until the end of this age, when a new "god" or "son of god" should rise.. In other words: it's just about 142 years until we need a new myth so maybe we should get started? Wink
Boagie why don't you create one and then we can help spread it? Wink (joking ofcourse, I wouldn't help you spread it... Razz )
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 11:26 pm
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Whow man.. Just gotta say: great disscussion.. I read the whole thing.. Razz

Ofcourse religions work because people are scared of what comes beyond what they know, beyond death is a pretty big seller for most religions and people both wish and hope that if they act as that myth says they should it will let them live on forever, which ofcourse isn't the case simply because the thought of something that supernatural is bizzarr.

But as I understand it Christianity isn't meant to be about the son of god but simple astronomy. And as the time ages acctually changes (you know the earth axel moves slightly all the time and we move through the starsigns "capricorn" I think one is called in english and so on) and these time ages last for about 2150years and the people who wrote the bible is verry aware of this because the one age we are in now (the fish/es) acctually ends at about the year 2150 so our year counting started once we enterd our time age. Jesus also says in the bible "I will be with you until the end of time" but I've been told that this is a missinterpetation and it should be "I will be with you until the end of age" or in other words, until the end of this age, when a new "god" or "son of god" should rise.. In other words: it's just about 142 years until we need a new myth so maybe we should get started? Wink
Boagie why don't you create one and then we can help spread it? Wink (joking ofcourse, I wouldn't help you spread it... Razz )


wizzy,Smile

:)Interesting perspective of the topic Wizzy, but I think things are still changeing a little to fast to be mythologized, confusion, alienation and fear seem to be the bread and butter of the modern man/women today. When one does arise I think it will be of one people, the people of the world, and our environment will be sacred-------that is, if we do not perish first.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 07:25 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
wizzy,Smile

:)Interesting perspective of the topic Wizzy, but I think things are still changeing a little to fast to be mythologized, confusion, alienation and fear seem to be the bread and butter of the modern man/women today. When one does arise I think it will be of one people, the people of the world, and our environment will be sacred-------that is, if we do not perish first.


Perhaps you're right that we are moving to fast for a new religion but might that not also be a good thing?
I see it as ludacris to follow any religon's laws because they where created from 2500 to 1500 years ago, they couldn't possibly have seen what the world would be like now, and it's not adjustible when they say things like "gods words last for ever".. For example the U.S Constitution can be changed because your founding fathers knew the one thing that everybody should know; that they can't know everything. They didn't know what the people would need in 10,50,100 or 1000 years, therefor they didn't make laws that couldn't be changed. But when all major religions said that "we know best" by making unchangeble laws, they proved according to me that they where full of themselves and shouldn't be followed...

Ofcourse, alot of people probably want religion because they feel empty and helpless with out the idea of a invisible man who keeps an eye on them, so it might do a little good.. What do I know?

Anyways I also agree with you that we should start thinking of ourselves as 'people of the world' instead of the people of a nation and fight pollution but think about who is against stop using oil and coal as energy sources and think about why, things will become clearer of who the real enemy of the world is... "Don't mind the people behind the curtain"...
 
boagie
 
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:31 am
@Wizzy,
Wizzy wrote:
Perhaps you're right that we are moving to fast for a new religion but might that not also be a good thing?
I see it as ludacris to follow any religon's laws because they where created from 2500 to 1500 years ago, they couldn't possibly have seen what the world would be like now, and it's not adjustible when they say things like "gods words last for ever".. For example the U.S Constitution can be changed because your founding fathers knew the one thing that everybody should know; that they can't know everything. They didn't know what the people would need in 10,50,100 or 1000 years, therefor they didn't make laws that couldn't be changed. But when all major religions said that "we know best" by making unchangeble laws, they proved according to me that they where full of themselves and shouldn't be followed...

Ofcourse, alot of people probably want religion because they feel empty and helpless with out the idea of a invisible man who keeps an eye on them, so it might do a little good.. What do I know?

Anyways I also agree with you that we should start thinking of ourselves as 'people of the world' instead of the people of a nation and fight pollution but think about who is against stop using oil and coal as energy sources and think about why, things will become clearer of who the real enemy of the world is... "Don't mind the people behind the curtain"...


Wizzy,Smile

:)We think a great deal alike, I find nothing in your statements to take acception to. It does seem however that humanity can not act in a reasonable manner in the face of a pending global disaster, the disaster has to be upon us, as it apparently is now. Necessity will forge the new mythology from the rubble of environment chaos you might say. What is that old saying, "You don't know what you got until its gone." Interesting times --------no?
 
ogden
 
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:33 pm
@Peter phil,
Peter wrote:

I'm thinking not so much about technology (though our prosperity depends on it) but about the knowledge of how the universe works which has been built up by astronomy, physics, Evolution, etc. Any modern myth would have to be consistent with these truths.

I am coming to realise that myths are not held on the same basis as facts (whether facts of science or of everyday experience). This is because myths express our values and incorporate our quest for significance. I have difficulty in conceiving on what basis myths are held. I know the basis on which facts and generalisations based on facts are held (that they can be relied on for predicting future events) but I am uncertain of the way in which a myth can be said to be true - especially if it appears to make statements of fact which contradict our other knowledge.


Great thread! I really like what has been said so far, so the following is mostly a reiteration with a few new thoughts:

Scentific truths are not without value-laiden influences. Not that we should abandon the ideal of scientific objectivity, but should realize that what we hold as "concrete" is at best usefull, predictable, and reliable; and at worst false (myth). Scientific inquirey (and interpretation of results)always express values of significance. The truth/facts of any theory is only as good as it's supporting data. When the theory persists, or makes conclusions beyond it's support, it is not much more than a myth. Theories or beliefs (scientific or religious) that are unfalsifyable, although usefull, can sometimes be missrepresented to be infallible fact.

The only support for unfalsifyable propositions is rationalization, the bread and butter of philosophers;).

I agree that:

1. Myths may be valuable to convey abstract truths, but should not be touted as scientific facts, and cannot be valid while in contradiction to scientifically supported emperical data.

2. Scientific theories/facts should not be touted as more valid than thier supporting data, and are allways subject to new data, and therfore fallible.

3. We need a new paradigme of thought, beyond religious misticism.

4. Science, though not without subjectivity and error, could be the metanarative that can get us beyond mysticism.

It makes me think of Einstien's desire for a unified field theory. A theory that explains everything. Obviously there is a great tendency (value) for humans to answer all questions, creation being one of them. Inferance is one of our greatest attributes, so long as we don't misconstrue the value, or become entrenched in our inferences.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 05:56 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Wizzy,Smile

:)We think a great deal alike, I find nothing in your statements to take acception to. It does seem however that humanity can not act in a reasonable manner in the face of a pending global disaster, the disaster has to be upon us, as it apparently is now. Necessity will forge the new mythology from the rubble of environment chaos you might say. What is that old saying, "You don't know what you got until its gone." Interesting times --------no?

Boagie

It seems as we do think alot alike, while I don't know the age different I do belive that it's atleast some age differece - when most people on this site seems to be sofisticated adults with wifes, children and a volvo.. (little joke there about stereotypes) while I'm a 19year old student once convicted for assault - is allways impressive to see just how alike people can be, nomather where they come from or how old they are.. just wanted to point that out to explain how different I feel from most people here.. Wink

I feel like most people doesn't understand how real certain things are, drivers who hasn't been in a car accident allways seems to think "well that can't happen to me" yet, it's likley that it will. Therefor great issues like the enviorment doesn't appear as real to most people untill it's upon them, and as it's closing in fast now, more and more people are starting to see the problem.

I firmly belive that we have to start taking action for our own sake and our childrens sake but the methods that alot of enviormentalists use, just as alot of animal activists, are the wrong way and doesn't seem to help the problem at all. You can't just demand that we should stop using something like coal and oil to get our houses warm and our lights working, try to find a better option instead of just demanding us to stop using it.
For instance: we have other means of getting energy such as wind power and solar-power, while they are both great in theory, they are hard to use practical. Here in Sweden, we use waterpower and nuclearpower while waterpower are effective and easily gaind, it destroys nature and floods which is a pitty and nuclear have gotten a horrible name from Ternobyl and enviromental activists I think it should be used to stop our worst problem today, global warming, then we can start thinking about the problem with radiation.

And lets not forget that the first ever waterfueled car is comming on the market soon, although to outrageous prices and in few numbers, it's atleast a start.

Wheter or not a new religion is going to come with the struggle for nature is hard to even speculate in when atleast me wouldn't like to call any nature-based "religion" for "religion" when my definition of religion or mythologi would go something like:
A great lie and/or illusion of supernatural powers and empty promises of things to come
But as you should be aware of by now, I'm pretty oppose religion Wink

But we might get a new "profet" kind of fella from this, wounder who that could be? Somebody totaly unknown perhaps? Or a celebrity? Or maybe even a politician?

But yes, interesting times to live in, as most have been Wink
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Mythology
  3. » Creation Myths Of The World
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 05:36:30