I don't think there is any world view clash here.
You wrote: "You have precisely the reaction that many students give when faced with the
assertion".
I perceived this wording and analogy as disparaging and contemptuous. As far as "facts" go, the fact is I did perceive it that way.
Your assertion, your big claim, that "the theory of evolution amounts to mythology" remains to be substantiated.
This was the initial "bone of contention" and this issue, the real issue, remains unaddressed.
Maybe we can move to the real issue of sorting myths, mythology from knowledge.
This does have a bearing as regards the forum's topic.
The last sentence makes little to dismiss the general perception I have of contempt and disparagement on your side.
What exactly makes you think that "Some of the ideas may be new to [me]"?
Please explain.
Many thanks.
Well
I tend to think that myth can be defined through lexical and linguistic features and its contents.
I'm not sure "use" whatever that means is a secure or necessary criterion.
What's the need for a "functional" extrinsic definition of myth?
I tend to think that an internal and intrinsic definition is possible.
In all cases, I'm not ready to buy the idea that "Myth isn't so much about content, but use."
This claim stands completely unproved, as far as I'm concerned.
I must say that for the time being there is little clarification in sight, on several counts.
Who is "our" for example?
Please explain.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.