I think it's worth considering creation myths side by side because they all sound about equally improbable to me.
Which of these is correct? None of them, of course; none explain readily-confirmable scientific phenomena like the age of the universe or the past existence of the now-extinct dinosaurs. They are myths, attempts to explain things to the listener's emotional but not intellectual satisfaction. The emotional resonance of a particular myth has a lot more to do with your own cultural background than it does to objective reality.
oh this again.....
ReplyDeleteAs we become more technilogical in our knowledge, we find thatmany of our beliefs are really unfounded. An example would be using leeched or blood-letting for medicinal purposes. I think the ancient Norse guys asked the same questions we do today; where did we come from, what is our purpose. And yet today, we still don't have nay answers. BUT! We now 'understand' things better. Well, we think we do. Learning is an evolving process (I like that word, really). But to discount any explanation because you don't agree is not good philosophy.
I think the ancient gods were just trying to quiet the offspring when asked 'where did the world come from?' Same as kids today asking 'Why' to every answer you give them. It's essentially like saying 'Go away kid, you bother me.' 'Here I am!' was lonely so he split himself in half??? Sounds a lot like 'Go away kid, you bother me.' I don't that seriously and I think the 'Here I am!' guy did either....
I was eating and typing fast while here at work; please excuse my peanut butter stained and incorrect language....
ReplyDelete