Re: Trust, Consciousness, Dennett, Lem: was: another new language to check out

Peter Bleackley scripsit:

> It has occurred to me recently (and appears relevant to this discussion)
> that atheists and fundamentalists have one important thing in common. Both
> are mythophobic - they hold that truth must necessarily be expressed in
> literal terms. The atheist, looking at certain passages of scripture, says,
> "I know that this is not a literal account of events, therefore it cannot
> be true." The fundamentalist, looking at the same passage, says, "I know
> that this is true, therefore it must be a literal account of events, and
> any evidence to the contrary is pernicious."
I think what you've demonstrated is that there are fundamentalist atheists.
Not all atheists are fundamentalists, however.

> I, however, not being
> mythophobic, say, "I accept the evidence, internal and external, that this
> is not a literal account of events, but I believe it to be divinely
> inspired nontheless. "
But do you believe that for reasons internal or external to the myth?

I find great value in myths, but I don't therefore think they are of anything
but human origin.  The experience of literature (and particularly the experience
of the creation of literature) shows that we are more than we know we are;
art is made by the total personality, not the conscious personality alone.

--
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com
Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out.  He wasn't home.
Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us.  He no show up.  Wednesday he
go to the ball game, and we fool him.  We no show up.  Thursday was a
double-header.  Nobody show up.  Friday it rained all day.  There was no ball
game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio.  --Chicolini