In message http://
EvC Forum: Why This Belief? -->
EvC Forum: Why This Belief?
BostonD writes:
To me information is reliable if it can be deduced logically and is supported by evidence that is tangible.
I don't mean to pick on BostonD. I've seen this sort of sentiment expressed before by many people on this forum. But I do want to discuss something that I've been pondering for a while, and this was the quote that set me off. It is off topic to the original debate, so I'm trying to open a new topic.
I've been reading Armstrong's _Battle for God_. She discusses what she believes to be a fundamental distinction between types of knowledge: mythos and logos.
Mythos is myth. "The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal."
"Logos was the rational, pragmatic, and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function well in the world."
She notes that during the Englightenment and the creation of the modern Western culture logos eclipsed mythos, made it seem useless. Logos (harnessed by the scientific method) was so powerful, so good at what it did, that it seemed possible to do away with Mythos completely. Notre Dame turned into a "Temple of Pure Reason" would be an example of that, as the Englightenment took a turn for the bizarre.
The EvC debate is a reaction to that; whereas the enlightenment replaced mythos with logos in the modern world, fundamentalists (of all religions) try to replace logos with mythos.
Many scientists try to keep clear the distinction between logos and mythos with the difference between the Supernatural and the Natural world; Philosophy of Science people with the difference between Ontological Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism. And yet, in the popular conscienceness, we have ended up with a society that views logos and mythos as at war with each other.
Is this a valid distinction in ways of thinking, between myth and reason? If the distinction is valid, is it important? Should we say that the two are different and both are important, and should not interfere with each other? How did we end up with a society where the two often are seen to be at war with each other? Is this "war" detrimental to society and the individual?
Chris
™ Version 4.2