Talk:List of creation myths

RfC: Rename Article

To solve the problem of edit warring and griping about content, just rename the article from "List of creation myths" to "List of creation stories". The article itself uses both terms so there is no loss of accuracy. For those who hold the story to be dear and true, the term "story" is less confrontational than the term "myth". -- Avanu (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no "problem of edit warring" to speak of. The most common term is "creation myth". This is an encyclopedia where people come to look up topics in a free encyclopedia. Wikipedia should aspire to be the resource for readers who come here to look something up, readers who want to know more about something or have specific questions - and it's a disservice to them to obfuscate or perpetuate misinterpretations. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No - Myths are not simply stories but sacred stories intended to have some sort of religious or philosophical truth. As FisherQueen explains at NPOVN, her seventh-grade students know this, it's not highly academic. Even if it was highly academic, as Professor Marginalia points out, this is the place to educate people on concepts, especially once such as this that do not require our readers to have a PhD to grasp. The "edit-warring and griping about content" was one POV-pusher who didn't understand WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As you yourself point out, calling a widely-held belief a "myth" is something that is easily misinterpreted as an insult. This name change doesn't take anything away from the article, but drops the most contentious word from the title. You cannot avoid the layperson's definition of "myth" (link) which implies falseness, even if the academic definition supposedly doesn't have any pejorative connotations. -- Avanu (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Evolution, liberal, conservative, communist, Muslim, and Christian all have lay-connotations (especially in the US) that no academic would support, but we give those terms the academic treatment because we're supposed to educate the ignorant instead of give in to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You educate and you speak their language at the same time. This isn't required to be either/or. It is simple to both educate on the more academic terminology while still using the commonly understood terminology. -- Avanu (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So, wait, we're going to correct the common misconception that myth means false story, explaining that it means sacred story, by not using the word myth in the article title? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No. We aim for correctness, not political correctness. A myth is a myth is a myth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. A myth is a myth, and it is very clear what is and isn't a myth. Some people also tell their children about Santa Claus and the stork from Paris, and we will never equal validity to that stuff and the real thing. Babies are born because a man and a woman had sex, Santa Claus is the parents, and life evolved during millions of years Cambalachero (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Maybe in Simple Wikipedia, but this is the grownup version and we should use grownup terminology. Besides the fact that this is indeed a list of creation myths, not just stories that someone wrote about creation (renaming would mean we'd be including best selling stories about creation, etc). We don't ban photos of Mohammed here either. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nope. a13ean (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The articles linked from the list - and the list introduction, to a lesser extent - explain the term by expounding its context. "Myth" in this sense isn't exclusive jargon, or a "term of art", or an insult via the back door. It's common English usage, and a colloquial use of the same word as "falsehood" doesn't justify a change of title, exemption for particular or favoured cases, or a wholesale deletion. (It just occurred to me that the logical onward step from the proposed change would be removal of all derivatives of "myth". Such as "mythology". We've many, many articles on that... and many categories). Haploidavey (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

> Will those who are against renaming this one please go to Genesis creation narrative and have that one renamed? Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not to put too fine a point on it, all creation myths are myths in every sense of the word: they are not literally true. If that upsets some people that the scientific community thinks that way, so be it. It's nothing new and they should not expect anything else. WP doesn't cater to religious beliefs, nor is it censored because of religious or any other objections. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Really? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to do an RfC to rename that article Genesis creation myth, I'm all for it, but right now I have enough battles to contend with to take it on. I'm sure that name is a compromise that was hammered out over a long and bitter battle, as evidenced by the talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I find it really unfortunate that there is continued pressure to move these types of articles away from the scholarly terminology towards more politically correct wording. I opposed changing Genesis creation myth to Genesis creation narrative about two and a half years ago as well, and would gladly see it moved back if possible. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. For reasons outlined above. Scholarly terminology should be kept over political correctness.--SabreBD (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. These are all myths until there is evidence for any of them at which point they no longer become myths. Simples. Almufasa (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

More support for renaming the article

The following is from the NPOV noticeboard concerning listing biblical creation as a myth. (bolding added later) In hindsight I think that renaming is better than deletion, and that there are other creation stores also involved. But deletion would still be plan B.

- - -

I'm an atheist and consider creationism to be incorrect, doubly so if taken literally. But Wikipedia is no place to be taking value-judgement swipes at something that is a core religious belief of hundreds of millions of people. The common meaning of "myth" includes "false". A list article that dominoes into editors taking value-judgement swipes at widely held religious beliefs should either leave off highly controversial classifications, or have the whole list article deleted. I suspect that the latter is the better remedy as such a list inherently pejorative, and inherently the value judgement of the editors, even if they can find cherry-picked sources that promote their same value judgement. Wikipedia is for covering things, not inventing value-judgements on them. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So go ahead and start an AfD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll post something to this effect on the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

- - - - -

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If we check the way that the mere rename proposal is being received, here and in the noticeboard, I think there won't be a snowball's chance in hell of getting a better consensus in an AFD, so you should not bother with it. Cambalachero (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Too bad. You would think that sometimes common courtesy would be enough. -- Avanu (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There are down sides to both formulations: myth and story/narrative. "Sacred narrative" or "sacred story" are far less offensive to believing readers, and as clear as "myth", in most instances. I would like the believing reader to read what we have to say. While we use "myth" when we could as accurately use "story" or "narrative" we are reducing the likelihood of believers engaging with our text, and so we fail rhetorically, and we impede the foundation mission. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this is not what you intended, but the implications are too close to the idea that a "spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down" as I see it. I reject any implication that it serves the mission of the project to patronize or "re-educate" any of its readers, including believers. Wikipedia should serve those who desire to be knowledgeable and should resist any temptation to build views/converts via any wp-culture spin. Creation myth is the most relevant (and common) academic and general use term for this subject. To take this:

A creation myth (or creation story) is a cultural, traditional or religious myth which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation myths are the most common form of myth, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation myth is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths—that is they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness."

and revise it something along the lines of this:

A creation story (or creation myth) is a cultural, traditional or religious story which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation stories are the most common form of story, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation story is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical stories—that is they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.

and to my ears, it sounds like wikipedia either just belched this up last minute and lamely attempted to put a shiny polish on it to disguise the fact they failed to read the homework assigned, or it did read the assigned material and now is insulting me aka "the wikipedia reader" by translating it to baby talk. I think it's critical that we maintain faith in readers. I prefer we assume if they're here, they've asked some kind of question. And that they be given a straight answer-not a wikimediated answer. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "story" in most instances there, though "narrative" or "sacred narrative" would be perfectly suitable. Something like this:

A creation narrative is a cultural, traditional or religious story which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation narratives are the most common form of myth, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation narrative is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical stories—that is they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the comments denigrating the proposed name change as being things like baby-talk, political correctness, failure to educate the reader are all based on the starting premise that the editors here decide that all of the items listed here are false and then to "educate" the reader to what we just decided by classifying these beliefs as false. That is not how Wikipedia works. And fighting for unneeded terminology that unnecessarily and actively "kicks" other people's beliefs is unnecessarily nasty and POV. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true and a cheap shot, imo. All it takes is a quick skim of the references cited to confirm "myth" is the proper term per sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's what it ultimately comes down to, sources. The academic secondary sources use the term "myth" to mean a sacred story, not a false story. To continue to insist that myth in this context means false story is POV-pushing an outright error against the sources. An error or misconception, no matter how commonly held, should not be included especially if the academic sources say otherwise, or else we need to nominate this article for deletion. Drawing from that article for parallels, I've had to explain even to some Catholics that the Immaculate Conception refers to the birth of Mary, not Jesus. Should we simply redirect that article to Virgin birth of Jesus because most people don't understand historical Catholic doctrine? A lot of anti-evolutionists I talk with often say "well, evolution is only a theory." Should we redirect theory to hypothesis because a lot of Americans do not know what the word "theory" means? No. Wikipedia does not give in to common stupidity, it tries to fix it, and explaining that "myth" means "sacred story" is not going to happen without using the M-word. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

When you say sources say something is a "myth" which "something" are you referring to? But either way, with the biblical creation story as an example, I'm sure that there are zillions of referrals to it in references. I'm going to make a reasonable guess that only a minority use the (in this case) pejorative "myth" noun. And that a majority use less pejorative terms like "story". Finding a source is requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion. So finding a source that uses the pejorative term is not grounds for forcing it in, particular when it violates WP:nopv regarding wording. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

When I say "myth" I mean "sacred story," not just "story." Also, you have yet to demonstrate that myth has a pejorative meaning in the academic world.

• The Oxford Companion to World Mythology describes the Genesis creation story as a myth.
• This theological work by a Catholic priest is titled "Genesis Myth Of Manifold Meanings."
• "The Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis."
• "Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction" by Lawrence Boadt says "...Genesis 1-11 is indeed a different type of literature--myth" (p.107).
• "Tree of Souls:The Mythology of Judaism" discusses Genesis at length.
• "A Dictionary of Creation Myths" also discusses Genesis, calling it a "demythologized myth" because it doesn't concern ritual (though still is still a sacred story and concern cosmogony).
• "Genesis" by Athalya Brenner, Archie Chi-Chung Lee, Gale A. Yee refers to the work as a myth.
• "Biblical And Classical Myths: The Mythological Framework Of Western Culture" discusses Genesis at length.
• "Myth" by Laurence Coupe discusses Genesis as a myth.
• "The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge Or Response?" features the essay "The Poetics of Myth in Genesis."

Myth is accepted by academics as meaning "sacred stories" such that theologians apply it to Genesis without any sort of negative connotation. I didn't even have to whip out C.S. Lewis, Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, or Joseph Campbell. Either put forth some evidence that this is not the academic understanding of the word or quit trying to censor the article because of an erroneous understanding of the word. We do not allow young-earth-creationism to taint our articles on evolution with their common misunderstanding, it's the same principle here: academia (including anthropologists, folklorists, and theologians) uses the word "myth" to mean "sacred story" without judgement of truth or falsehood. Some people not knowing what they're talking about when they misuse the word myth is no reason to change the M-word. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, "myth" is not a pejorative. It's a genre. Myth. What is it? [1] Professor marginalia (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the ANYBODY here who questions that the common meaning of "myth" includes "falsehood"? North8000 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

*points to above sources and authors* It is a misunderstanding of the term, the way a lot of people get "evolution" and "atheism" mixed up, or "Islam" and "terrorism" mixed up. It's a mistake, and it's not a mistake that Wikipedia should perpetuate. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

On your "points to above sources" item, I never said that your definition does not exist; you are saying that mine does not exist. So re-proving that yours exists is not responding to the conversation. On your "misunderstanding" statements, huh?:

• Random House dictionary definition of "myth" : "An imaginary or fictitious thing or person. His account of the event is pure myth"
• Random House dictionary definition of "myth": "Any invented story, idea or concept"
• Random House Dictionary definition of "myth": "An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution

Shall I find and list a dozen more? The definition of which you speak also exists, but the above three are not only not "false", they are the common meaning of the term. And "fictitious", "invented", "imaginary" and "false" are certainly pejorative when referring to someones deeply held religious beliefs. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ian, what about people who mix up "myth" and "myth"? This isn't about someone confusing two different words. I'm not even proposing that all occurences of 'myth' get replaced. I'm simply suggesting that the article acknowledge that not all of these items are considered 'myths' via the common understanding of the word 'myth'. I'm not understanding why there is such a resistance to an easy and very minor change. It seems that most of the editors above acknowledge that "sacred story" and "myth" mean the same thing in academia. Yet those two terms are definitely not synonymous in plain language usage. Is there not a place for conveying things in a way that seeks to educate and avoids offense? -- Avanu (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt what "myth" means in anthropology. Equally, there is no doubt it carries the meaning "fictitious", "invented", "imaginary" and "false" in common usage. Ian and the professor need to acknowledge the latter if they wish to be taken seriously in this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? "If I want to be taken seriously?" I've done considerable work on this-including getting my hands on the most solid references I could find (3 or 4 dozen references). And that's what I take seriously--accurately, straightforwardly representing the content from the best sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You've demonstrated that you take this issue seriously. I can't take you seriously, though, while you fail to concede that the general reader is going to read "myth" as "false". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you take me seriously is irrelevant to the issue before us, isn't it? You and I and every other editor volunteering here-we're all supposed to take the sources seriously. And of course I don't concede that the "general reader" is going to conclude "myth" means "false". A) It's not the #1 definition-even in Random House. It's #3. B) I assume that the "general reader" ~reads~ and the article doesn't say that "creation myth" means "creation falsehood". Myth is the term Britannica's used forever without any evident uproar over it. C) I assume the general reader would be insulted at the notion wikipedians have so little faith in its readers it gives them an "adulterated" version of topics "for their own good". I am a "general reader" and that's how I'd feel. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So, let's not take each other too seriously. (And I mean that as a bit of humor with the intent lead us to cooler heads.) However, I do have a question. Is this supposed to be a scientific article or just a general article? The reason I ask is because it seems that some of our editors are insisting on a very scientific approach to this article, while it seems others are more concerned with a general audience. -- Avanu (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a scientific article. It's a list of creation myths. The creation myths article hasn't got a scintilla of "science" in it. So I don't know what you're talking about. There is no scientific content here whatsoever. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please pardon me. I was referring to the combination of anthropology and folkloristics and so on. I presume anthropology is a science, while the study of stories would be related to literature. Let me rephrase. ***RESTART*** Is this supposed to be a academically-oriented article or just a general article? The reason I ask is because it seems that some of our editors are insisting on a very academically-oriented approach to this article, while it seems others are more concerned with a general audience. (Does this make more sense, Prof?) -- Avanu (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That is helpful. Here's my attempt to explain what I think Wikipedia's about. I think it's a community project bringing a free content / free use encyclopedia to the internet that extends no-strings attached (few anyway) access to the information and content. I do not see it as an agent in any kind of Cultural Revolution to upend academic expertise. It's about providing good information sans pay wall, imo. I don't understand the notion that a "general audience" would come to wikipedia just to confirm everything they know is 100% true. I never look up stuff on here that I think I already know. I look up stuff I don't know. I appreciate the objective of telling it straight because there's no efficiency, as far as I'm concerned, with getting information for free if it's worthless. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You and I are in agreement wrt our mission. I am concerned about the readers who simply won't read an article that describes their truth as false. They're roughly equal terms; one of the terms though, "myth", carries a meaning, the connotation "false". I think science does find, correctly, that religion is mostly very false indeed. And I have no problem whatever with us saying religion is a pernicious poison, personally. I think you'll find we do. Simply by reporting the truth. We are opening the blinds on the nearest we have to truth, for humankind, and it does not show religion in a good light.

Using a word that certainly, unambiguously, always implies "false" in common parlance, when there are a couple of others that describe the subject ("story", "narrative") without that connotation, is telling the reader, in Wikipedia's voice, that the story is false.

Personally, I believe that's the case. I don't, though, believe it's Wikipedia's place to do that. It feels a bit like OR on a very big scale, indeed. Can you see the problem I see? I just don't think it's our job to make that call. I honestly think that's something we should leave to our reader. (I do think we should treat all sacred foundation narratives in this way. Presently, a fair bit of the bible foundation narrative is presented as narrative, while those of most other traditions are called myths.)

Anyway, can I point you to m:Talk:Wikimedia_Medicine? We're trying to decide on a vision statement, mission statement and aims. You may find it interesting to watch the birth of what I believe is a very exciting project. If it does interest you, I'd like to hear your thoughts. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Parenthesis 11:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If we're honest, some folks are fighting for assigning the "myth" word to these beliefs because they KNOW that the common meaning of "myth" is "false" and want to make that slam, and then using the other more esoteric definition of myth to defend that by saying the "myth" doesn't means false. BTW, I am a scientific atheist, and believe that if every issue is pursued to it's bitter end that science debunks religion. I choose not to pursue that nasty clash, and believe that there is no reason for volleys in that nasty clash to be fired in Wikipedia in places where there is no usefulness in doing so. Such as by stating that peoples core religious beliefs are false by calling them "myths". North8000 (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Great way to WP:AGF in the first two lines. I'm a Christian who sees Genesis and evolution as the same thing from two different vantage points, I'm not pushing for "myth" as a slam, I'm trying to prevent common misunderstanding from taking over the academic use of a term, as as any of use would have no problem doing with the articles on evolution or Islam. Dictionaries are tertiary sources that are focused on the common use of the word rather than it's academic meaning. Reliable sources specialized in a subject naturally take priority over sources that are not focused on a subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I just said "some" folks and left it at that vagueness. Not intending that towards you, but it was based on experience here and elsewhere. On your "same thing" the more power to you; I have tried to do the same. I don't agree that a more esoteric/specialized academic meaning should take precedence over the common meaning, much the less the "steps beyond that" that you are arguing for which is that the common meaning should be ignored. I think that I've said and explained my main points. I'm going to try to sit back a bit on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Common usage is not a 'misunderstanding'. Academics use the word 'theory' much differently than common people. This leads to stupid endless debates because the common understanding is that a theory is a guess, not a fairly certain thing tested by experimentation. You have the same sort of problem here. You want to 'kick against the pricks' of the common understanding as if the academic minority definition will supplant the majority definition. I suppose anything is possible, but it is fairly unlikely. And doubly so if you simply expect people to know your definition, rather than explaining it to them. And while North8000 should have made sure and stay on a discussion of content only, we can all clearly see from the comments on this Talk page, that some people feel this proposed change is giving in, dumbing down, hiding the truth, and allowing the uneducated to win. I think sometimes a person can have too high an opinion of themselves once they know something. Socrates was thought to say that his knowledge amounted to nothing (compared with what he didn't know).

The point is, if you want our readers to deeply understand your definition, take a moment to explain yours in contrast to theirs. To simply assume they should be using your definition or they're dumb is just silly. -- Avanu (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit late for this discussion but the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary gives the following two definitions of myth. The primary definition is:

1. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

The secondary definition is:

2. A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.

From my understanding, the phrase "typically involving supernatural beings or forces," a criterion also used by Henri Frankfort in his scholarly discussion of mythopoeic thought, is a useful one to distinguish myth from non-myth. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm elsewhere occupied lately but this discussion seems slowed enough for me to see a constructive response to the "pernicious poison" idea. I admit that there are editors that try to exploit the "common meaning of "myth" is 'false' and want to make that slam". I know. I see it too. But this is the internet-and it's REPLEAT with people who are "wrong". So what? Tune it out. Wikipedia isn't about annihilating all the wrong people who lend input on the internet. It's about providing solid, useful and therefore valuable content for free on the internet. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Images (or rather, image)

As Cynwolfe points out on my talk-page, the list is illustrated by just one image, Michaelangelo's "Creation of Adam". The use of this solitary image, top page, seems problematic (for a host of reasons not entirely unrelated to discussions above). At the very least, it seems WP:Undue, and should either be removed, or included as one among many creation-myth images from different religious traditions. Thoughts? Haploidavey (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of it. It's just a List and we don't need it to accommodate a gallery of images. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the image link (the image should however not be deleted as it's linked by many other articles). 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a lead image. The MoS strongly encourages a lead image. The Creation of Adam is probably the most iconic creation myth image there is, which is why I think it is an appropriate lead image for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"The MoS strongly encourages a lead image." Can you wikilink this guideline? I should think they're difficult to pull off appropriately (just dealing with NPOV alone, as well as many other reasons) in List pages. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

An image of a particular creation myth adds nothing of value to the list, violates NPOV and stirs up inevitable drama. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. You're very alone with your opinion, Rreagan. Please self-revert. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Gravitational Causation

Per WP:SOAP. Not a serious request. Editor unwilling to provide to provide reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sources for question </nowiki></nowiki> --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Does Hawking's popular belief that gravity caused (created) the universe qualify as a creation myth? And if it does should it be added to this list? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC) This is not remotely a correct representation of Hawking's theories. And no, a scientific theories is not a "cultural, traditional or religious myth which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world", but rather a conceptual framework that is compatible with our observations and allows us to make testable predictions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Some modern secularists, mostly in academia, have been teaching, with a traditional method, big bang theory as an origin story, telling stories that require the laws of physics, and thermal dynamics to be defied (the supernatural). Perhaps Hawkins theories were not written to be an origin myth, but can't it be said, a popular myth has risen from the teaching of Big Bang Theories? My litmus test for proposed Big Bang Myth: 1. Is said myth a story told traditionally? Yes 2. Does said myth pertain to early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon. Yes 3. Does said myth involve supernatural beings or events. Yes (defying the laws of physics is super natural) By definition the big bang theory(or model) is a myth. Remember not all myths are untrue. The word ‘myth’ derives from the ancient Greek word muthos, which meant simply an ‘utterance’ or a ‘traditional tale’. And these utterances, or traditional tales – usually concerning Gods and heroes – were generally considered to be true stories. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC) No. Scientific theories are per definition not talking about the supernatural - see Methodological naturalism. The "laws of nature" are not prescriptive, but descriptive. If certain observations don't agree with them, we modify them accordingly. That does not mean the old versions are useless - we still use Newton's laws of motion and gravitation, although we know that they are, strictly speaking, wrong for nearly all situations. No physicists claim that the big bang "defies the laws of nature and thermodynamics". Instead, they try to explain a phenomenon we don't understand perfectly. I have the strong impression that your understanding of both the scientific method and of current theories of the origin of the universe are not quite in agreement with the general state of the field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC) I propose adding a sub section "Secular" under "Basic Type" and listing "The Big Bang Theory(When the prevailing cosmological model is believed in as proven fact.)" --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC) perhaps adding http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743 as a ref. This news story explains that the next generation of cosmologist have a model that proves the Big Bang to be not more than a mirage from collapsing higher-dimensional star. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Other widely believed secular theory's could also be listed here. Many people did and may still believe in fundamental Darwinism, even though Charlie had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of yet more recent developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift. Shouldn't the erroneous belief in his theory as fact also be listed as an origin myth. So long as a myth still means a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. (Perhaps noting that it is not a typical myth, yet still a myth.) --[User:Kaptinavenger|Kaptinavenger]] (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC) I also under stand not wanting to list every scientific theory of origin that may exist, but the Big Bang And Darwin have developed quite the cult followings. Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory and according to this poll http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/poll-pits-creationism-against-evolution "The number of people who believe in the Darwinian version of evolution with no input from God, however, has been on a slow and steady increase over the past 15 years. In late 1999, Gallup found 9% of people believed humans evolved without any help from God. That number now stands at the aforementioned 19%" Thus 19% of people believe in a theory as fact that even Darwin thought absurd. ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2015. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2185#Darwin_1423-04_334 --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC) I am opposed to adding a scientific theory backed up with a vast body of evidence into the list of creation myths. —Torchiest talkedits 10:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Do you mean you oppose listing Darwinian Evolution in particular or any secular origin view. As "vast body of evidence" can apparently also mean "overwhelming evidence to the contrary". Be sure to check out "Imaginary Time" and the laws of Physics--End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Kaptinavenger, citing Darwin out of context and without understanding is not helping your case. Darwin is making an rhetorical point by saying something seems absurd and then showing that contrary to first impressions it is indeed very plausible. This misuse of eye evolution is a standard creationist canard that has been debunked time and time again. See [2] or [3] for a more eloquent video discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC) I Believe that devote fundamental Darwinists use the interpretation you have described of Darwin's words. And I would argue that your interpretation, is "absurd in the highest degree". --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC) I'd suggest that you either failed to read the rest of the paragraph you linked too, or you have a very unusual interpretation of the meaning of language. Also, "fundamental Darwinists" seems to be a rather unlikely group of people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Darwin made plain his words, Absurd as it may seem to those who blindly believe what he intended only as a theory. Also Fundamental Darwinists would be similar to Fundamental Christians in the literal and strict methods of interpretation. Fundamental is rather basic word. And would accurately describe say Richard Dawkins, in fact you can see, Dawkins, a devout Secularists teaches the very interpretation you have suggested in his book 'The necessity of Darwinism', if this interpretation is held by the most devote Darwinist, than it can be well assumed that this interpretation is as fringe as Dawkins Himself. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you should read scientific theory as mentioned above. A theory in science has a different meaning to the common meaning. Martin451 20:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Darwins at least two definition's of evolution are not scientific, by any standard. And Proponents of his theory's continue to compound the indictment by continually changing the definition. Its like Gay Marriage in the United States, I am not opposed to the gays doing whatever they want, or calling their relationship whatever they want, or getting equal benefits for being in a legal sexual relationship. But just because this court or that chooses for themselves to define Marriage to allow Gays into Holy Matrimony, does not change the definition of marriage. Words do have actual meanings. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC) That is science, you work and the theory, and change it as needed. Newton's theory of gravity was added to with general relativity, and latter the Higgs boson. Martin451 20:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC) I do not mean to be making an argument for or against Darwin's theory's the point is moot. I rather am asking can it be agreed that some people have taken (Darwin's) scientific theories to far, that they apply blind faith to scientific theory, thus Mythifying said theory. Although historically rare, it is becoming more common in modern times. See Darwinism, Secular religion, Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory --Kaptinavenger (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC) And if Darwin is to personal for Wikipedia, certainly you can agree that the Big Bang has be mythicized. And proven false. Surely you do not take Imaginary Time seriously. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC) What reliable sources consider these creation myths? Let's start with your sources, and see what we think of them. Do you have high-quality secondary and tertiary sources that discuss this? Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) try http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743 modern cosmological model proves big bang myth. And this because of the Bangs nature is only one of a myriad of such studies. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC) OK. I did. Nothing there about myth. Do you have any real sources, or are you just here to waste time? Guettarda (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC) http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/findings-from-our-latest-poll-2 - this article gives an example of the following of the big bang, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory - an article already explaining the Harmonization of Big Bang theory with several religions (because its a myth!), before it was proven, false, faux or not real. Similar to the theory of the Easter bunny, a myth, but about the creation. Google Imaginary Time or Laws of Physics --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC) http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qcreation.html here is a discussion at Stanford discussing big bang theory as myth, though not proving my point entirely, this article does explain the "Big Bang Myth" theory. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC) And here http://ibnlive.in.com/news/hyperblack-hole-may-have-formed-the-universe-study/422764-2.html the above science journal paper is used to describe the big bang as a myth. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC) To be clear Myth according to Myth a "body of stories which they tell to explain nature". --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC) First source: doesn't mention myths. Second source mentions and rejects the idea. Third source asks but doesn't answer the question. None of these are realistic sources. So, again, are you going to provide useful sources, or are you just here to waste time? Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC) I am simply proposing one Sub section, and one entry, on a list. Linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory an already existing article related to the topic of the list. your asking for more "Reliable Scources" as though a Science Journal, Stanford, CNN, and AP-GFK polls, are not reliable enough. This will be the best cited entry on the list. Though it makes scence seeing as it is the leading "Universe Starting Story" of the day. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC) More sources naming big bang as myth,</nowiki></nowiki> I'm not soap boxing, I didn't come up with the Idea. I am just asking of Wikipedia could list it, as it seems to be well understood. sorry, for my delay, I had to go to work. And the Big Bang is on page 31 of the Dictionary of Creation Myths ....</nowiki> its in the dictionary. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC) References

Secular Creation Myths

Time wasting

I propose listing "Big Bang theory" linking to Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory under sub section "Ex nihilo". The Dictionary of Creation Myths is already being used as source and Big Bang theory is listed on page 31, thus the already listed sources are sufficient. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) The Encyclopedia of Creation Myths discusses the Ex nihilo Big Bang theory Myth on page 240. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Ex nihilo --Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC) That's backwards though. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and various religions have tried to interpret it and make sense of it in the context of their own doctrines and myths. The theory itself is not described as a creation myth by any reliable sources I'm aware of. —Torchiest talkedits 15:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC) The sources listed on the Article list Big Bang Theory on Pages 31 in the Dictionary and 240 in the Encyclopedia, see the article and my proposal. If the provided sources are not reliable what is? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Here is an excerpt from page 240 of David Leeming's Creation Myths of the World: "Myths are considered truth by the cul- tures from which they first emerge·at least until they are exposed as myth. The big bang theory, the currently accepted creation story of our scientific culture, reflects our cultural priorities; it is a re- cord of our cultureÊs understanding of its own place in the universe and its sense of what the universe is. It depicts a world created in a few minutes in one great ex- plosion long, long ago. According to the theory, our solar system was organized by that explosion and has been expand- ing ever since. At this moment, we can see the moment of creation because the light from the first explosion reaches us now after a voyage taking 20 billion years. The big bang theory suggests that everything that exists has a common an- cestry in a single primeval event, the ulti- mate expression of an ex nihilo creation. See Also: Cosmic Egg in Creation, Creation from Chaos , Ex Nihilo Creation , Goddess as Creator, Sun in Creation. References and Further Reading Leach, Maria. The Beginning: Creation Myths around the World, 17–20. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1956. Leeming, David A., and Margaret Leeming. Encyclopedia of Creation Myths . Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1994. Revised as A Dictionary of Creation Myths , New York: Oxford, 1994. Lovelock, James. „Gaia: A Model for Planetary and Cellular Dynamics,‰ in Gaia: A Way of Knowing, ed. William Erwin Thompson. New York: Lindisfarne. 1987. S wimme, Brian. The Universe Is a Green Dragon: A Cosmic Creation Story. Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Co., 1984. " --Kaptinavenger (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Leeming's work lumps the Big Bang Theory in with religious myths. Taken at face value, this is a fringe viewpoint. --NeilN talk to me 05:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Can you offer a mythologist that takes a different perspective on proposed "Big Bang Myth" than Adam Leeming's, perhaps one Mythologist, that says, Neh? Why the funny hat?. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Leviathan listed in error?

I've removed the list item "Leviathan (Book of Job 38–41 creation myth)" at least for now because it appears to be in error. Yes, the creation and Leviathan are both mentioned, but not together, and those chapters don't seem to state that Leviathan was in any way a participant in the creation, or ever mention both in connection to each other. A variety of other animals are even discussed in between the two, such as the ostrich... if we are not willing to accept that there has been a topic change between discussing the creation and discussing the Leviathan then should we also assume that the earth was created from an ostrich? Not saying that no one has ever made the interpretation that something somewhere states the earth was created from Leviathan, but if so, it needs a different/more specific reference, because there doesn't seem to be anything in those chapters that would support the idea. 2600:1006:A10F:BD50:E148:B62F:DEDB:887D (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)