Jerry_B said:
Eveyrone needs to remember that the mythology of a previously obscure semi-nomadic ribe of peoples from the Midle East is not the be-all and end-all of 'why and how we got here on planet Earth'. The fact that one form of it currently tends to dominate the mindset various people across the globe is entirely transitory
Mythology (and hence religion, atheism, rationalism - all of which require _some_ leap of faith) is very important in how people interpret evidence. however. In fact, as pointed out above, this article incorpoates its own 'narrative' which could become a mythology in time.
As Forteans (or people with an interest on Fortean facts) surely we should respect that there is a continuum something like
a) events which are fully explainable by today's orthodox science,
|
V
b) events probably explainable by current science but where the facts are insufficient/vague so the resoluliton between conflicting explanantions cannot be achieved (Jack the Ripper, most UFO's
|
V
c) The facts are broadly are accepted but the science has not yet quite caught up (ball lightning, SHC,
|
V
d) Vague or culturally affected perceptions of something which is too rare or ephemeral to yet have a scientific explanation (Ghosts, alien encounters, timeslips)
|
V
e) The wholly odd. (Mysterious Bouncing Boings, rains of specific creatures, etc. etc.
Surely what we should be doing (if anything) is weeding out mythology as explanation and trying to discover the true explanation - which may of course involve new learning, new science. Time slips, for example, if they exist, must surely be capable of scientific explanation, but we can barely attempt the explanation as yet, even though serious (but entirely theoretical) mathematical models exist which suggest the possibility. And sometimes, of course, we need to discard existing doctrine to get to the answer.
The common objection to Christianity these days is that it has been responsible for millions of deaths and vast suffering. Well, yes. But then so are guns. As the US gun lobby has it, guns don't kill people, people kill people. On the other hand Christianity was successful in moderating the behaviour of people when it preached tolerance and devotion (I put forward the cultural achievements of the Christianised Saxon peoples in England from about 750 to 1066 as an example of such a transformation). After all, what part of 'thou shalt not kill' is so hard to understand?
Unfortunatly all human belief systems are burdened with terrible consequences of past. That would seem to be the human condition - after all, Science got us the atom bomb and many another horror. Sure, it didn't necessarily mean to.