Very good. Though I find it hard to be quite so certain of the details, even if he existed, though I accept that he probably did, or may even have been a fusion of several people's stories, with some myth borrowed from older religions thrown in for good measure.

Works for me, makes better sense than anything else I've come across.

Yes but that misses an all important point, that. "this story can help ease some of the natural fear of bodily death." And. "a ploy for criminal extortion" Are not mutually exclusive. Indeed they are very much mutually complementary, and mutually dependant. Metaphorically , if you wish to get someone to take poison, you sweeten it with honey. Of course religions which offer to mitigate against irrational fears, will be the haunt of criminal extorters, and every other sort of criminal, because what better selling point could you have. The criminal will always grab the honeypot.

The advertising industry sells you a car by suggesting that it will make you attractive to other, (Nice.) people if you buy it. And that is how religion, which is only the advertising industry without a material product, sells itself. But even worse, the advertising industry does all it can, as in this example, to make being alone seem unnatural and something to be feared, it sows the idea of loneliness as the ultimate in failing. So that not only can it sell its products, (Cars and others.) by not only suggesting that it will attract people to you, but also thereby by offering to abolish the artificially exaggerated fear of loneliness it does its best to create. So it is that a lot of the fear of things like death, loneliness and guilt, are artificial products of religion in the beginning. And there is therefore, little net gain, in its posing as having the monopoly on mitigating fear, even maybe an overall loss.

Secondly. "scientists are afraid of, or confused by, metaphor, " Really Skado, this has to be the most laughable statement of all the straw-mannings ever made. Apart from the crude and obvious refutation, that science is full of metaphor, and is often, in things like quantum physics and cosmology little but metaphor. Yet more importantly, a metaphor stands or falls by the truth or falsehood that it explains, why would any honest person have any difficulty with any way of expressing a truth. The technique whether literal or metaphor used to express an idea is totally irrelevant to whether that idea is true or not. The defence of religion on the grounds of metaphorical, not literal is quite pointless, since many of the metaphors are, just as, or even, far more, horrible and criminal than the literal interpretation. At best it is beside the point, a mere smokescreen.

@Fernapple
That H.sapiens is a storytelling animal is just an observable fact. I can’t imagine how a story could be constructed such that it couldn’t be used for ill by those so inclined. This necessitates personal discernment. Life is dangerous. There are no guarantees. Our options are to pick cherries or to go cherryless. ( That’s a metaphor. ) ( Not to be taken literally. ) ( Not intended for misuse by the ill-intentioned. ) ( Not responsible for the inevitable aforementioned misuse. ) ( Stories happen. )

@skado To quote. "I can’t imagine how a story could be constructed such that it couldn’t be used for ill by those so inclined." Sorry but the so called "argument from personal stupidity", is just about the lowest fallacy of them all, you really have reached rock bottom now.

@Fernapple
Please instruct me. How would such a story be constructed?

@skado OK, anyone in his right mind would say he could not be bothered, but it is cold and dark out, and I can't get to the library this week.

Do you remember when I did a short, and probably not very good deconstruction of the Oedipus myth, in the Religious Naturalism group ? The bit about the Furies being metaphorical representations of guilt.

@Fernapple
Sounds familiar, but I don’t recall the details.

@skado Well the details are not that important, but to be brief. An innocent bystander asked what it meant that myth can be said to be metaphorical. And I used as an example Oedipus, and how he was tortured by the goddesses know as furies, for his supposed crimes, especially patricide and incest, despite the fact that he only committed those crimes accidentally. Which at first seems strange, because, why would supposedly all knowing goddesses, torment someone, when they would surely know that he was innocent. To which the answer is that the goddesses are of course not literal, all seeing, thinking beings, but most likely just metaphors, probably maybe, for the emotions of guilt and remorse, which often afflict us irrationally even when reason would say that we have nothing to be sorry about.

Which is proved at the end of the story, when the Furies, are ordered to stand down, after Oedipus agrees to stand trial , and is forgiven by a jury of his fellow humans and the goddess Athena, the goddess of reason. Meaning that human compassion and reason can sometimes abolish unjustified guilt. Remember now ?

I used it as an example, in part, because the story was the one which was first used as an example for me when at about twelve - fourteen and I was first inducted into the metaphorical cult.

But now to the point. Which is that the themes of crime, innocence and guilt, are though not the only ones in the Oedipus myth. I cherry picked. There are others as well. One of which is that of royalism, and the view that Oedipus has a special destiny because of his birth. It even leads to his personal guilt bringing a curse down upon his city. And the theme of royalism is one of the most popular in all mythologies, perhaps the most common of all.

There may be several reasons for that, but it is certain that if there were, and there certainly were, some people who gained and won more than their natural fair share, in the aftermath of the mismatch. As there began to appear new hierarchies, far exceeding those of purely natural communities. For even though most of humanity may have lost much when the mismatch took place, there were no doubt a small even tiny few who won big time. Then the principle of the winners write the history, also applies in that, the winners write the myth too. And there is no doubt that the halls and courts of the kings and early tribal leaders, were the main places that myths were propagated and the main places that people went to hear stories, especially the important prestigious stories, so that the stories would have to match the wants of the winners, and bolster their ill gotten gains, to best win a hearing. Since not only do winners have the most means to write the history/myth, but those whose winnings are least justified and most excessive, are also those most motivated to preach and write.

And that is also why the cherry picking fallacy, (Which you claim not to understand either, though it is well within the capacity of a ten year old.) maters. Because cherries if you want cherries then it is well to remember, cherries are sticky and dirt clings to even the good ones, which is why you wash them .

@Fernapple
That’s a very long-winded way of saying that stories cannot contain valuable wisdom. Is that what you believe?

@skado No, exactly the opposite, you miss my point entirely. Stories can contain valuable wisdom, can bring comfort and can be beautiful and they often do all three.

What I am saying is that. Firstly, they can also, and equally, be used to mislead, and indeed that while they and metaphor work very well for wisdom, truth, comfort, and beauty, it is in their nature that they work equally well for crime and evil. So that they are a natural choice of media for those of criminal intent.

As you say humans are story telling animals, but we are also story listening animals, we have a thirst for stories, both to enjoy them and to enjoy the passing on of them. And that is perhaps the greatest problem of the mismatch, because when we first started telling stories, we created a tool/weapon to which natural evolution, which has no foresight, had given us no natural defences. So that the, would be criminal, at all levels of society, found they had a powerful weapon, to which humans had no answer, with which they could beat humanity into any form of abject slavery and unnatural submission.

And we are such story addicts, that we will even show the greatest gratitude to the pusher who gives us the best and most stories, even if they take everything we have. As long as they continue to give us a regular fix.

Yet secondly, and even more importantly, and this is the hard bit, which seems at first counterintuitive. It is the seemingly best stories, the ones with the most truths, the most wisdom and beauty, that often conceal the most harm.

Because if the criminal wishes to hide some poison in a story, or wishes to use a story to manipulate humans to unnatural ends, then they will always choose naturally the best and most desirable stories, if they do so deliberately though that is rare. Because there is a natural economic force at work, where the story teller will always adjust the best stories that are most liked, to suit the desires of the most dangerous person, (The biggest criminal.) listening, that is cultural evolution at work. That is why the great stories which offer the greatest comforts, are the ones to be most wary of. And that is why for example. Oedipus and most other examples of the ever popular "hero myth" almost always includes the royal part, as well as the idea of destiny, especially future destiny, as a justification for leadership, however bad.

@Fernapple
What’s the solution?

@skado As with any problem the main solution is accepting there is a problem in the first place. This is the familiar first stage for any addict. Before you can start on any cure you have first to admit that you have a problem, which needs facing. And that applies to the human race and its addiction to the gifts of trash culture, just as much as to the alcoholic and heroin user.

And the second part of the solution is, as always for any problem, hard work. Because the real failing behind every bit of unquestioned culture, is laziness. It is the easy lazy search, for easy answers, that drives belief in every fake story, whether the wisdom of the great political leader or movement, the word of a literal god, the wisdom of a sage, the blind faith in technology, and yes, the belief that answers are handed down from our heritage, developed by some pseudo magical form of cultural evolution, which some how gives solutions to modern problems, unheard of in the past, yet still in perfect tune with todays ideals. ( Sorry to be long winded, but I had to put that one in especially. You know why. )

But the hard work emerges naturally from the first stage, when once you accept that there are no easy answers, and that you are prepared to put up a fight against perhaps the second greatest force in human life, laziness. ( Some would add, fear, but fear only exist if you are too lazy to face it down, so the same thing really.) Then it follows that hard work is all you are left with, by default.

And yes in all probability there is so much hard work to be done, even in that first and most needed of things education. So that, we will probably not get anywhere near half way through before extinction comes. But if that is so, then, so be it, the effort is its own reward, in that at least it takes away fear, and gives self respect. While without it there is only the first and none of the second.

@Fernapple
No, I really don't "know why". If you're suggesting that "the belief that answers are handed down from our heritage, developed by some pseudo magical form of cultural evolution, which some how gives solutions to modern problems, unheard of in the past, yet still in perfect tune with todays ideals." characterizes my position, please accept this notice that it does not.

But to get back to the point at hand, on the one hand, I think I hear you saying that we should not trust generational wisdom, while on the other hand acknowledging that generational stories do contain wisdom. I think you're telling me that we should start every life from zero knowledge and reinvent the wheel every generation. Am I getting that right? Surely I have misunderstood. If that were the case we would still be living in caves.

You acknowledge that there's potential for both good and bad uses of stories, but... what? we should throw the good out with the bad and start from scratch every generation? Something else? Help me out here.

Of course we have to recognize the problem first, and of course we then have to do the work of educating ourselves ( closer to my own position ) but from what pool of knowledge? Just our own direct experience? Or our own experience plus the experiences of members of our own generation? No generational wisdom allowed?

@skado With regard to your first paragraph. If that does not characterize your position, then you will need to seriously amend they way that you present your position. Because everyone else thinks that that is your position, including me. Who has studied it perhaps more than anyone on this site. For if your presentation is that misleading, then you have a very serious problem with your use of the language and the basic social skills behind that.

Para two, is a total logical fallacy, since "do not trust" does not logically lead to abandon and start from zero, and reinvent the wheel. Why would anyone think it did ? And you contradict this yourself anyway by saying that my own position includes "on the other hand acknowledging that they do contain wisdom".

I do not trust, leads not to abandon, but to, repair, clean and service, and/or make only limited use of in safe situations, accept risks, and most of all, label as dangerous as a warning to others. The point is that my position is a, none absolutist, one, and I know that none abosultism is difficult. Indeed the failing to understand any none absolutist arguments, is exactly one of the, main problems of fearful laziness I spoke of, as characterizing religion. It is hard to pick middle courses, find nuance, be selective and to make difficult value judgements, of course. So that it is easy to forgive those who take the lazy course of absolutist positions. From the one extreme of the religious, I need only one book and it is is all true, to the other absolutist extreme of relativism, that there is no objective understanding.

"Should we throw the good out with the bad." ( Jesus ! Should I even bother to reply to a logical fallacy that glaringly obvious, that it is usually quoted as a logical fallacy. ) Why on earth would anyone throw out the good with the bad ? I know that I may have given cause for misunderstanding earlier by using the cherry picking metaphor. But that metaphor does not mean , and never has to most people, you have to take the bad with the good. It means, picking out the best cherries putting them on top, and then using that as evidence that the rest of the tub is full of good cherries.

Yes human culture does evolve over time, yes some of the early bits which evolved first are core, but there are not many of them, and they are for the most part nearly banalities. Which could yes perhaps be reinvented by each generation, because they should not take long, though there is no need. Because while early people were just as intelligent as us, just as moral and caring and just as engaged with many of the same core problems. They were also just as stupid as us, just as corruptible, and just as decadent when they could get away with it, and much less well informed about their world, and so perhaps even more prone to make mistakes. While evolution, especially cultural evolution, does not always have to lead to answers which fit with modern liberal humanitarian values anyway, quite the opposite.

And evolution does not move at an even pace. Just as technical evolution has moved faster in the last two hundred years, perhaps more than in the last two hundred thousand. Yes we still use ships, they are a core technology invented thousands of years ago, but no body seriously proposes, that we should still row them with galley slaves. So too has, or at least should, cultural evolution, especially as the problems of the mismatch have advanced and grown ever faster too, needing more and new answers to new problems. So yes, by all means let us celebrate the fact that, for example, the golden rule goes back for millenia. But what does the golden rule say about the environment ? For that and a hundred thousand other problems, perhaps most of them, you need a modern morality. Which you do not have to invent anew. ( Another absolutist statement. ) No, because it is a task started already, albeit only in the last few centuries at most, but started.

Finally to return to the cherry picking metaphor again. Yes you can pick out really good cherries and put them on the top of the box, and say here is the wisdom of ages, is it not great. But if you do that, you are still teaching respect for the box, and the brand name on it, and making the belief that the box is nothing but good fruit. So that those who really want the rotten fruit, and the dross, will certainly find it, and then they will display that and say. "See here is really good fruit, it must be so, because it comes from a box with a good name, and people like Skado say it is a good brand." So that you end up living in a country, where things like racism, misogyny, extreme nationalism, and violent abuse of political and social minorities, are all justified by reference to ancient authorities, from sources like the Bible the Koran Tora etc. . Which must be good and true, because people like Skado and a hundred thousand would be populist leaders say they are.

@Fernapple

If I’m not sure I understand, I like to ask questions for clarification. And it appears to me that you have clarified that your non-absolutist position does not rule out that in some cases or to some degree “…the belief that answers are handed down from our heritage… which some how gives solutions to modern problems…” is not unfounded.

Do I understand that correctly?

@skado Yes that is quite correct. There is quite a lot of heritage which is useful, even today, and often it is of value around core issues. Because of course, core issues are generally, though not always, addressed first in every situation.

But there is also a lot which is bad and not useful, most especially since the narratives of another age are designed to create a social understanding, suited to the imagined social model of that day, as desired by the social elite of that day, which certainly won't be ours, or those of any other day or location.

( And note, “desired” by the social elite, who controlled the narrative, not necessarily the best for the social elite, who may have been no better at judging what was good for them than anyone else, then or now. And certainly not for the whole of society outside that circle.)

To take as an example the one that I know best, the Bible. ( Being a product of a Christian school in the UK, where the separation of church and state does not exist.) Perhaps the biggest part of it, is simply dross, of no value then or now, the accumulated sludge of an unauthored book, mashed together over generations by editors and/or scribes too lazy, or greedy for earnings, to delete. The next biggest part, is things which may once have been useful, but are irrelevant to any other age or culture. Such as the family tree of Jesus, which may have been of interest to prove his decent from David, when a literal claim to the real political throne was still an issue, but is long since of no use, and you would be hard pressed to find more than the most banal of metaphors in it.

And that is easily equalled in quantity by the parts which are bad. Which are of two forms, those bad even in their day, ( You have to remember that the Bible editors used many sources, it was not all high philosophy, much of it was taken from the Fox News of the day. ) and those which would be ill of use today, or in any other age.

Perhaps the smallest part, indeed only a tiny part, is the bits which are of universal and good value, in any age. Such as the golden rule or some of the laws, and some of the mythic elements read as metaphor, but the good bits are so few, it is hard to think of much. But what is all important, is that most of the good bits are banalities anyway. The golden rule being a perfect example, since it exists in one form or another in virtually every culture, and would almost certainly exist in ours today without any need to inherit it.

To return to one of my earlier metaphors, you sail I believe. Can I ask two questions. Firstly, does your boat have a rudder or rudders, and are not rudders and steering oars wonderfully ancient technology, dating back even into prehistory ? And I presume that since it is good to respect ancient designs and heritage, you also had your boat fitted out with benches for your galley slaves ? Let me answer, no, for you. You or the builders, cherry picked the good and relevant traditional bits and left out the bad, and you, or the builders also started with a new design.

Yet I have to return to another of my earlier metaphors. If you pick the best cherries out of a box of bad fruit, and put them on top, then that is fine. But if you then say to others that you can trust the whole box, because it is a good brand name, here are the cherries to prove it. ( You can say this is a good idea from Christianity, OK but then you must never even imply that that means Christianity is good. ) Then you do the greatest possible harm, not just to your own reputation, but society as a whole. Because you teach, mindless respect for the brand name by so doing. And mindless respect and the fake authority of labels, is exactly what every criminal in the world wants. The criminal wants that, to prove things like racism, misogyny, class, abusive capitalism etc. etc. Because that is the ONLY resort, the criminal has. You can not justify such things by reason, evidence, appeal to natural moral instinct, even ad populum, the criminal can not use any of those. Which is why there is such a deep unbreakable and natural marriage between religion and crime.

Yes, you can say that the good cherries are valuable, and that sometimes it may be needful as a shortcut to teach things mindlessly and uncritically, because it is easier for some. But since the cherries inherited across ages are by nature universals, or we would not still see them as good, they are also by nature mainly banalities, easy to teach if the criminals did not get in the way. Which is why the so called moderate fundamentalist division, is a complete none runner. Because the moderates create the mindless respect in the first place that is the fundamentalist criminals greatest tool, they provide the water in which the fundamentalist swims, and the tools, props, the recruiting ground and the support network those criminals need.

I go further, and am happy to make a case for the idea, that the correct usage of the word religion, is as a synonym for the fallacy of proof by authority. And who would want to use fallacy except the criminal.

@Fernapple
I know a filibuster when I see one.

@skado This is very serious and I promise not a word of it is extra. But, ok would you like me to make it really simple. Two short paragraphs.

@Fernapple

You are free to beat the wind any time, anywhere, Fern. It has nothing to do with any position I hold.

@skado Oh it has everything to do with your position.
Here in very simple terms, that most six to eight year olds usually understand, perfectly easily.

Para. 1

If you see something which appears good, and offers some good things, it is still not wise to trust it, because that is no proof that it is wholly good, or even mainly good. And indeed the better it appears to be, and the more good things it seems to offer, the more you should distrust it, because that probably means it is designed to please, to often hidden purpose. This is the basic wisdom traditionally taught to most six to eight year olds in the form of. “If a man you do not know offers you sweets on the street, do not trust him. No matter how good the sweets.” And religion often seems to offer everything you could want, from clear moral guidance to comfort for loss, and community, etc. etc. Which is why you should be very wary of it.

Para. 2

Now the important bit. It is also most dangerous, unkind, irresponsible and often cruel, to teach other people, even adults, to trust anything and ever put caution to one side. Just it it would be a bad parent who said. Make sure you ask for really good sweets.

There, most six to eights have little problem understanding that, why you struggle is still a mystery to me.

@Fernapple
Brilliant portrait of your personal psychology.
Has nothing to do with me.

Sorry to have to break it to you, Fern, but...
You don't get to determine what my position is.
Repeating a lie ten thousand times doesn't make it true.

@skado Thank you for. "Brilliant portrait of your personal psychology." I am happy with my personal psychology, and its close attachment to enlightenment and modern philosophy.

Sadly though if I don't know what your position is by now, given that I am about the only one left this site who after a long time, who shows any interest in it. I was sure it was. "I do not believe in god, but I do think that religion is a force for good in the world and should be supported." If not then you are very bad at explaining it, which makes me wonder why you bother.

Nor, I think should I. Time to stop responding to your posts and be more upfront, I like my last comment, I think I will start by posting it.

@Fernapple
Don’t waste your time worrying about why I bother. Just get out there and set the world straight. You can do it!! Go Fern go!
Please… just… go.

Sounds as plausible as anything else.

That is all very true, and if you had stopped here, I would not have had to write all the above.

Frodo lives, lol..

I used to worship Ben & Jerry, but that was before my double bypass surgery……