Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 12:45am:

Empathy is the sine qua non of morality.

To be sure, (nearly) every society that has ever existed had (at least at some time) a cultural heritage that part of which was founded on myth and the supernatural.

That these myths are tenacious or serve a utilitarian purpose, does not necessarily make them true nor, even, is it necessary that people believe them to be true to have the same effect as if they were.

Few, if any, Jews would consider themselves de-Judaised as a consequence of accepting that the myth of Moses is just that, a myth. So the story of Exodus, post-acceptance, continues to be the founding myth of the Jewish people, defining who they are and their relationship to their perceived homeland.

God stories don’t have to be true to have the same effect as if they were. Yes, one who disbelieves the proposition that god exists, can agree that adherence to a religious idea may serve a desirable utilitarian purpose… Without having to agree that the myth is any less a myth.

And, of course, the great advantage to the disbeliever in his disbelief is that he can, in the words of Paul himself, ‘put away childish things’ if and when he decides that the myth no longer serves a useful or positive purpose in his life or the life of the society it once served … In the same way that Greek gods were consigned to myth and history… Which is not to say that anyone would deny that the Greek pantheon defines what it means to be Greek, disbelief in its objective reality notwithstanding.

Just as you say your kids enjoy mythical stories without the need to believe they are true.

All they need to learn is how to suspend incredulity to enjoy the tale and, to have a healthy mind, remember to (and be encouraged to) re-engage their instinctive skepticism when the tale is told.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 12:30am:


You'd have to read the Silmarillion.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 8:34am:


Is this true?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/


There is more than a whiff of the naif about all this 'it's just...' and 'all they need to learn is...' stuff.

To my mind the difference between atheism and religion is similar to the difference between journalism and literature, a police report and a great story telling.

Would you say that for example, Dostoyevsky's The Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov is not true? Or that Beethoven's Spring Sonata is not true? Hope is not true? Love? They certainly don't have the kind of truth qualities that you keep presenting because, to begin with, they are not 'factual'.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/grand.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAcWGVC4Nqc


On the other hand, you have the proverb that says no-one can lie as well as an eyewitness. Facts are always filtered through some non-factual motivations and world view. You have to be very, very naive to think that facts simply 'are' and that you are actually guided by them in their pure objectivity.

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

Or Gimpel the Fool.

Good old Gimpel... Believed everything whether he actually believed it or not

All right for fools, I guess... Who aren't troubled by the need to question anything.

Look at this and tell me there is no god!!!



Or this:



No natural selection or survival of the fittest can inspire these.


Where do you put this stuff? A beautiful lie? That would be so banal that even athesists would shrink from uttering it without an ironic smirk....