Why the Christian creation myth

[Abraxos]

@AnotherAtheist

What is your actual intentions here? Because it seems you're shifting the goal post to now wanting physical proof of the Creation account? Or proof or justification of Jesus being a reasonable and rational reason to believe in the Bible and therefore the creation account? I'm not trying to be rude but just trying to ascertain your argument so I can answer it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

@AnotherAtheist

What is your actual intentions here? Because it seems you're shifting the goal post to now wanting physical proof of the Creation account? Or proof or justification of Jesus being a reasonable and rational reason to believe in the Bible and therefore the creation account? I'm not trying to be rude but just trying to ascertain your argument so I can answer it.

I would like to know if anyone is able to justify a claim that the Christian creation myth is more likely to be true than the Bushongo creation myth.

There have been replies that have addressed this. E.g. a claim that the Christian religion is more popular and dominant over the Bushongo religion; e.g. Bushongo's are more likely to convert to Christianity than Christians are likely to convert to the religion of Bumba. I haven't addressed that yet, so I'll say that religions becoming dominant appears to be for reasons of geopolitics (such as invasion and conquering countries), economics, and unexplained preferences of rulers (e.g. Christianity in England), rather than any evidence that it's due to actual truth of the beliefs. Hence, I don't think that's a significant argument.

Other people have quoted the Bible, saying it's 'powerful' etc. Though, this is a bit circular as if The Bible is not true, then it can't support itself; so, you can't prove The Bible with The Bible.

There was an interesting post saying that the original Hebrew of books that became The Bible don't actually support the current Christian (literal) creation myth. I've done a bit of background reading on that, and it appears to be an important and pertinent point.

The question I ask is important, I believe, because often Christians will position the argument as being science/materialism versus Christianity, with no alternatives. Such that disproving science/materialism therefore proves Christianity. As is often pointed out (similar for Pascal's wager), that's not the case. There are a lot of alternatives. Both in terms of other claims of the supernatural, and also material explanations different from current theory. This thread is just one way of looking at that larger picture.

 

[Abraxos]

@AnotherAtheist

In general, as I have said before Christendom is made up of many parts and it's true that the picture is much broader that would amount to having to go through other aspects of the Christian faith to understand the question of why. All of Christianity as ranged as it is are nonetheless intertwined with each-other either deliberately or unintentionally. The Biblical creation account/myth is no exception.

You believe using the Bible to justify the Bible is circular? I disagree. The best approach is to treat the Christian scripture as a secular scholar would treat it: as any other historical document from antiquity as well as other non-Christian sources and how they line up, especially in regards to Jesus Christ.
Also there have been many archaeological discoveries that authenticate the Bible, so to treat it as circular reasoning is a false statement.
When you accumulate these many "little pictures" and piece them together, the bigger picture ultimately ends up being about Jesus' death and resurrection.

From a scientific standpoint on the evidence that the Genesis creation account is likely true really goes back to a much broader and different discussion dealing with Noah's flood and the theory of evolution. If Noah's flood is true and the theory of evolution can be falsified then the viability of the Biblical creation account being a historical narrative goes up by perhaps 20 to 45%. To others it's a good enough reason to ground their faith in the Biblical creation account as being likely literally true.

 

[Sanoy]

There is nothing explicitly contradictory with Genesis 1 and our current understanding of the earth and the order of it's life forms. There are implicit contradictions depending on your knowledge and interpretation of Hebrew grammar/culture/tradition however there are no explicit contradictions that I have seen.

Perhaps you know the Bumba language better than I do but at least from your description it appears to have explicit contradictions with observable facts. However that said the Bumba account does have advantages over the popular scientific models of creation. Namely it doesn't lack a frightening amount of Aristotelian causes. If we are talking about which model is more likely, the Bumba, or the popular scientific models, I would say the Bumba is more likely because it has something whereas the popular models violate the axiom, "out of nothing nothing becomes".

 

[Speedwell]

There is nothing explicitly contradictory with Genesis 1 and our current understanding of the earth and the order of it's life forms. There are implicit contradictions depending on your knowledge and interpretation of Hebrew grammar/culture/tradition however there are no explicit contradictions that I have seen.

Perhaps you know the Bumba language better than I do but at least from your description it appears to have explicit contradictions with observable facts. However that said the Bumba account does have advantages over the standard scientific model of creation. Namely it doesn't lack a frightening amount of Aristotelian causes. If we are talking about which model is more likely, the Bumba, or the standard scientific model, I would say the Bumba is more likely because it has something whereas the standard model violates the axiom, "out of nothing nothing becomes".

The standard model does not propose that something came from nothing. It merely professes ignorance on the point.

 

[Sanoy]

The standard model does not propose that something came from nothing. It merely professes ignorance on the point.

I meant it as standard "model" not "standard model" I changed it to "popular" to avoid confusion.

 

[Strathos]

For style and imagination, the Scientologist mythology is hard to beat, so one presumes there's more to 'deeper meaning' than that.

When you can't come up with a better spaceship than a 60s passenger jet, imagination is hardly the word I'd use to describe your story.

 

[SolomonVII]

Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred to (or is more likely to be true than) the creation myth of the the Bushongo people, which says that the lonely God Bumba had a terrible stomach ache one day and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and the earth?

In the one case, creation is an act of love.
In the other, it is an act of expulsion of all that is vile and revolting.

Since people supposedly are part of this world, which myth better describes your existence in this world?

Do you consider yourself a revolting fleck of vomit, or do you consider yourself as a being that has meaning and purpose and who is loved?
In a world in which what is unknown will always be greater than that which is known, truth is most adequately defined as what works.
The evolution of our bodies has prepared us for survival in this world, and so has the evolution of our truths.
What increases chances for survival is more adequately adapated to the reality of this world, and is therefore true in that sense.
If you think that believing yourself to be an unwanted fleck of god vomit better prepares you to survive and pass on your genes to the next generation, then that is of course your choice.

The Christian creation myth is not frivolous though. Through believing in it, and all the meanings that it has given to people as they go about their lives, societies have thrived and prospered and grew for thousands of years now.

When it comes to creation myths, that is the most useful means of discerning truth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When you can't come up with a better spaceship than a 60s passenger jet, imagination is hardly the word I'd use to describe your story.

That is a bit weird, but has a certain surreal style. But mad though it is, the whole thing is far more imaginative than, for example, biblical Genesis.

 

[Strathos]

That is a bit weird, but has a certain surreal style. But mad though it is, the whole thing is far more imaginative than, for example, biblical Genesis.

Are you considering that in context of the time they were written?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you considering that in context of the time they were written?

No; just from the POV of a contemporary believer. But there are plenty of other weird and imaginative origin myths that didn't catch on widely. So maybe style & imagination are not sufficient for a deeper meaning for many people, or that they can get deeper meaning without high levels of style & imagination.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I have a strong belief that creationists frequently avoid questions by changing the topic.

Also I have a very strong belief that Atheist/non creationists are afraid to go off topic, not at all because going off topic is a problem, as I can prove you have done several times already on this very thread, but because you know as well as I do, the alternatives to creation are so much more far fetched and you would rather not get into that.

I have no intention of "changing the topic", just answering it/helping you understand our reasoning for going with creationism...something that is very much on topic..

This is why I ask a completely reasonable and as on topic a question as other comments here. You compared creationism with whatever that was, now may I compare it to your alternative to help make my point, and help to answer your question? But I do understand if you can see whats coming, and why you would need to play the off topic card in order to evade answering..it is very convenient right about now.

 

[Speedwell]

Also I have a very strong belief that Atheist/non creationists are afraid to go off topic, not at all because going off topic is a problem, as I can prove you have done several times already on this very thread, but because you know as well as I do, the alternatives to creation are so much more far fetched and you would rather not get into that.

I have no intention of "changing the topic", just answering it/helping you understand our reasoning for going with creationism...something that is very much on topic..

This is why I ask a completely reasonable and as on topic a question as other comments here. You compared creationism with whatever that was, now may I compare it to your alternative to help make my point, and help to answer your question? But I do understand if you can see whats coming, and why you would need to play the off topic card in order to evade answering..it is very convenient right about now.

But the comparison being drawn is not between creationism and whatever AA believes, but between creationism and the Bushongo creation story. What AA believes is irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the comparison being drawn is not between creationism and whatever AA believes, but between creationism and the Bushongo creation story.

Plus a moving goalpost.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Deemed off topic

 

[Speedwell]

See, some of us see a purpose for the question that may not be evident to others like yourself, so we try to cut between the bull and try get to the meat of the issue.

If that turns out not to help an OP, or to even be a wrong assumption, what harm? OT happens all the time on most, if not every thread, and is often welcomed by even the OP. When posters get extremely restrictive, and considering the circumstances here, they themselves having gone OT on this or other threads with no problems at all, I think the resistance has nothing to do with OT. Common sense.

You may not understand the purpose of my question, but that doesn't mean it's OT, or even that it's not. If you can't just lighten up, maybe you have an agenda... I mean was the question really that scary?

So you think he is trying to trick us somehow? What would be the harm in entering into the discussion as framed? If he has a secret agenda we can just ignore it. He's certainly not going to turn me into an atheist.

 

[Rodan6]

My faith in God is great. It is powerful because I have no fear of the truth. The gift of the Son is the Spirit of Truth and as this Spirit dwells within me, it kindles my thirst to learn about Him and His universe. Instead of fearing evidence that challenges our understandings, we should rejoice that our eyes are opened to new and wondrous aspects of our Father's plans.
Our loving Father in heaven has created an evolutionary plan for our world. Primitive people believed in such things as the creation story (and should not be ridiculed) because they lacked understandings gleaned from our modern light. God reveals all things to us when we are ready to learn each and every question. I observe that God has revealed many things to the scientist according to his disciplined adherence to his scientific method--despite the fact that many would deny Him. The Master taught "Seek and ye shall find". God blesses with revelation all who seek truth without regard to their race, sex, or faith.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you think he is trying to trick us somehow? What would be the harm in entering into the discussion as framed? If he has a secret agenda we can just ignore it. He's certainly not going to turn me into an atheist.

I'm sorry, you question is off topic and we clearly cannot have that.

 

[SolomonVII]

But the comparison being drawn is not between creationism and whatever AA believes, but between creationism and the Bushongo creation story. What AA believes is irrelevant.

If the question is sincere, and the two creation myths are being considered as possibly true by an atheist with an open mind, then he is part of the conversation too, and what he believes is as pertinent as what anybody else believes.

 

[Speedwell]

If the question is sincere, and the two creation myths are being considered as possibly true by an atheist with an open mind, then he is part of the conversation too, and what he believes is as pertinent as what anybody else believes.

Perhaps so, but to regard his silence on the matter as as evidence of some sinister hidden agenda seems excessive.