Please enlighten me. If she did not believe what she said as literal truth, then what was she trying to say? And why did she not say what she meant? Is it possible that you mean to say her whole speech was an act to communicate a deeper message? A secret message that only pagans understand? Or do you mean to say that this woman had social (or other reasons) to believe this, and she promoted that it didn’t matter what she believed because it didn’t conflict with her scientific life? Or do you mean that she was encouraging the separation of science and religion by making herself an example of how irrationally stubborn people can be, making it too difficult for science to ever eradicate any false religion because it’s “the opium of the people”? Is that what you mean by the “evolutionary function of a creation myth”? How could it play any role in evolution? Were you there during this event, or do you know something I don’t?
I have no idea who Zenkat 2 is, much less the original pagan panelist, but here are some plausible suggestions about what she might have been thinking:
She was trying to say that her story about the Primordial Cow was the most emotionally satisfying story currently available on the topic of “where do we come from?”
She did not explicitly describe her story as false because this makes a story less emotionally satisfying.
She believed that telling false stories as if they were true is not necessarily a mark of an inferior scientist—some people can effectively compartmentalize, and it would be reckless to insist (without evidence) that all such people would be more productive if they forced themselves to adopt rational modes of thinking in all aspects of their life.
Creation myths could be a common but accidental byproduct of the evolutionarily advantageous ability to develop stories (improves communication), the urge to complete stories (improves curiosity), and the urge to build community (i.e., the relevant in-group shares a common origin and should act like kin; improves cooperation). Alternatively, the cooperation-improving function of a really good creation myth might be part of the cause of its ubiquity.
Please enlighten me. If she did not believe what she said as literal truth, then what was she trying to say? And why did she not say what she meant? Is it possible that you mean to say her whole speech was an act to communicate a deeper message? A secret message that only pagans understand? Or do you mean to say that this woman had social (or other reasons) to believe this, and she promoted that it didn’t matter what she believed because it didn’t conflict with her scientific life? Or do you mean that she was encouraging the separation of science and religion by making herself an example of how irrationally stubborn people can be, making it too difficult for science to ever eradicate any false religion because it’s “the opium of the people”? Is that what you mean by the “evolutionary function of a creation myth”? How could it play any role in evolution? Were you there during this event, or do you know something I don’t?
I have no idea who Zenkat 2 is, much less the original pagan panelist, but here are some plausible suggestions about what she might have been thinking:
She was trying to say that her story about the Primordial Cow was the most emotionally satisfying story currently available on the topic of “where do we come from?”
She did not explicitly describe her story as false because this makes a story less emotionally satisfying.
She believed that telling false stories as if they were true is not necessarily a mark of an inferior scientist—some people can effectively compartmentalize, and it would be reckless to insist (without evidence) that all such people would be more productive if they forced themselves to adopt rational modes of thinking in all aspects of their life.
Creation myths could be a common but accidental byproduct of the evolutionarily advantageous ability to develop stories (improves communication), the urge to complete stories (improves curiosity), and the urge to build community (i.e., the relevant in-group shares a common origin and should act like kin; improves cooperation). Alternatively, the cooperation-improving function of a really good creation myth might be part of the cause of its ubiquity.
Thanks
In case it isn’t clear, you’re asking questions to someone who posted a comment 5 years ago on Overcoming Bias. Don’t expect a response.
And hasn’t commented since, at least not under that username.