So that's what mythology means

by Krauze

After Professor Mirecki at Kansas University announced that he was planning a course teaching intelligent design as mythology, his provost had to issue an official statement, explaining that the term "myth" should not be taken as an "affront", but as "the common use of stories or rituals to symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion". However, Professor Mirecki is also faculty advisor for the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, which sells this t-shirt on their website:

Mythical creatures

I'm looking forward to Professor Mirecki's course on how Frankenstein's monster is used to "symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion".

(HT: Steve Jones)

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Friday, November 25th, 2005 at 7:37 am and is filed under Humor, Intelligent Design, Paul Mirecki, The Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/so-thats-what-mythology-means/trackback/

34 Responses to “So that's what mythology means”

KC Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Hi Krauze,

Don't you think Frankenstein's monster symbolizes man's desire to be God by attempting to create life?

KC

Comment by KC — November 25, 2005 @ 9:54 am

MikeGene Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 10:01 am
The back of the shirt should read, "Open Minded and Proud." LOL

Look, I suggest Prof. Mirecki wear this shirt while handing out his decorated syllabus. It might help to gather some more money for his organization that is "devoted to advancing a nonreligious worldview." Secular fundies evangelize the campus. After all, is there a reason why Mirecki would refuse to wear his group's shirt in class?

The serious thing here is that the Provost has egg all over his face. The Provost said:

It is unfortunate that the course title's reference to "˜mythologies' has been misconstrued. The terms "˜myth' and "˜mythology' are common in the academic study of religion and not an affront.

Yet the Professor said:

"The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category "˜mythology,'" Mirecki wrote.

Sorry Mr. Provost, but do you have any evidence that the title of the course has been "misconstrued?" Can you please return to the microphone?

As for Prof. Mirecki, why would anyone continue to trust his use of this term, even in apparently "academic" contexts? Could the academic usage be a "Trojan horse" for the popular usage?

Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 10:01 am

TomG Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 10:30 am
I wonder if in this class they'll mention that Galileo was suppressed (supposedly) for religious reasons. I wonder if in this class they'll mention that in this class they're also effectively letting ID be decided in a religious forum.

Comment by TomG — November 25, 2005 @ 10:30 am

BrianH Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 11:22 am
I'm sorry, the connotation of myth does not and never has just meant "story", it means "false story."

I'm tempted to, if possible, sit in on this class sometime as I'm very near Lawrence.

Comment by BrianH — November 25, 2005 @ 11:22 am

Benjii Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Why didn't he put Darwinism on the list?

Comment by Benjii — November 25, 2005 @ 12:39 pm

Lutepisc Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Shouldn't "Piltdown Man" be added to the list of mythological creatures on the t-shirt? This one, of course, sprang from the Darwinian narrative, which is as capable as any other of creating symbols which give meaning to its core beliefs. I should think that a professor of religious studies would be well aware of this dynamic. Ian Tattersoll, Curator of the American Museum of Natural History, is quoted as saying, "in paleoanthropology, the patterns we perceive are as likely to result from our unconscious mindsets as from the evidence itself."

Prof. Mirecki's course would be enriched by including this perspective. I trust he's open-minded enough…

Comment by Lutepisc — November 25, 2005 @ 3:56 pm

Joe G Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
KC:
Don't you think Frankenstein's monster symbolizes man's desire to be God by attempting to create life?

I think it shows man desire to regenerate "dead" tissue. To me it showed man's drive to "step up to the plate" and search for answers.

But anyway- when did "God" reach "creature" status?

It's people like this that do Kansas more harm than if ID were mandated…

Comment by Joe G — November 25, 2005 @ 4:00 pm

KC Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Joe G writes:

It's people like this that do Kansas more harm than if ID were mandated…

People like…who?

Comment by KC — November 25, 2005 @ 4:42 pm

KC Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Just a quick aside, the subtitle of Mary Wolstonecraft Shelley's novel is "The Modern Prometheus", and the epigraph is from Milton's "Paradise Lost":

Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould Me man?

Plenty of mythical roots and allusions to chew on. It would certainly fit into Mierecki's course, considering the parallels between the Prometheus legend and the Fall.

Comment by KC — November 25, 2005 @ 4:58 pm

Art Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
LOL, KC. Joe G apparently is as opposed to literature as he is science in schools.

Ayways, nice points about Shelly, Frankenstein, etc.

Comment by Art — November 25, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

MikeGene Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
KC, are you going to work your way through the rest of the list? Or better yet, what is the atheist group trying to say with its t-shirt?

Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 5:52 pm

KC Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
KC, are you going to work your way through the rest of the list?

I suggest you ask Krauze that, since it was he who brought up this particular example.

Or better yet, what is the atheist group trying to say with its t-shirt?

Wow, Mike, do you really need help figuring that out?

Comment by KC — November 25, 2005 @ 8:26 pm

Krauze Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
Hi KC,

"I suggest you ask Krauze that, since it was he who brought up this particular example."

There wasn't anything "particular" about this example. I mentioned "Frankenstein's monster" simply because it was the first item on the list.

Originally, I took your post to be meant in jest, but now I have to ask you: Do you think that "man's desire to be God" is a religion, in the sense a professor of religion would use the word?

Comment by Krauze — November 25, 2005 @ 8:33 pm

KC Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 9:14 pm
Hi Krauze,

Originally, I took your post to be meant in jest, but now I have to ask you: Do you think that "man's desire to be God" is a religion, in the sense a professor of religion would use the word?

Why would you think my post was in jest? The Frankenstein story has, as I mentioned further down, a lot of religious aspects to it. The most obvious is the one I put forth first, that the monster symbolizes man's desire to be God. To be God is to have His knowledge, and that is specifically forbidden in Genesis, and punished by being expelled from Eden:

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Frankenstein, of course, is punished by the sufferings and crimes committed by the monster–his life is ruined as a consequence of his 'playing God'.

A similar tale is played out by Prometheus, who defies Zeus by bringing the gift of fire (a thinly-disguised metaphor for knowledge) to man and is punished.

So no, it was no jest.

KC

Comment by KC — November 25, 2005 @ 9:14 pm

Guts Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
KC:

Frankenstein, of course, is punished by the sufferings and crimes committed by the monster"“his life is ruined as a consequence of his "˜playing God'.

Yes and in keeping with the context of Krauze's post, I'm sure Frankenstein is feeling much better now that the Werewolf introduced him to Mother Goose, and they are now living happily ever after. That should be an interesting class.

Comment by Guts — November 25, 2005 @ 9:49 pm

Joe G Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 9:55 am
It's people like this that do Kansas more harm than if ID were mandated"¦

KC:
People like"¦who?

Mirecki and the people responsible for creating the T-shirt.

Then Art chimes in:

Joe G apparently is as opposed to literature as he is science in schools.

How do you figure? Was Franky created from scratch? No. Was Franky rejuvinated dead tissue? Why yes he was.

Comment by Joe G — November 26, 2005 @ 9:55 am

Art Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 11:27 am
LOL

So, Joe G obviously thinks the works of Shelley are bad for KS, and the blogmeisters here seem to agree. How about Irving? Is it dangerous to read him in hs or college? Does it damage the educational experience?

How about Homer, for that matter? What is "safe", if not classical works of literature as are represented on the t-shirt?

I've never appreciated the depth of antipathy among IDists towards classical literary works and a good liberal arts education. This thread has been rather revealing in this regard.

Comment by Art — November 26, 2005 @ 11:27 am

KC Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Some more musings on Frankenstein:

Frankenstein wasn't just interested in 'rejuvenating' dead tissue, he

succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life; nay, more, I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter.

Playing God:

All my speculations and hopes are as nothing; and, like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in an eternal hell. My imagination was vivid, yet my powers of analysis and application were intense; by the union of these qualities I conceived the idea and executed the creation of a man. Even now I cannot recollect without passion my reveries while the work was incomplete. I trod heaven in my thoughts, now exulting in my powers, now burning with the idea of their effects. From my infancy I was imbued with high hopes and a lofty ambition; but how am I sunk! Oh! my friend, if you had known me as I once was you would not recognise me in this state of degradation. Despondency rarely visited my heart; a high destiny seemed to bear me on until I fell, never, never again to rise.

And another Biblical allusion:

Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.

Comment by KC — November 26, 2005 @ 11:29 am

MikeGene Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Art:

So, Joe G obviously thinks the works of Shelley are bad for KS, and the blogmeisters here seem to agree.

Hold your fire, Krauze! If you dare employ critical thinking skills against Art, he'll begin to whine about being the victim of an Inquisition. http://telicthoughts.com/?p=38...

I've never appreciated the depth of antipathy among IDists towards classical literary works and a good liberal arts education. This thread has been rather revealing in this regard.

If Art really believes this, it is a sad commentary on his intellectual abilities. What I see is someone who is lashing out, and being unable to address the main point of this blog, seeks to direct attention elsewhere.

The T-shirt is missing another mythical creature "“ Art, The Objective ID Critic.

But please people, keep this quiet. The creature really believes he exists. And he get furious when people don't believe in him. LOL!!

Comment by MikeGene — November 26, 2005 @ 12:14 pm

MikeGene Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
KC,

No, I do not need help figuring that out. I'd like to see if you are willing to answer the question. Go for it.

Comment by MikeGene — November 26, 2005 @ 12:15 pm

Krauze Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Hi Mike,

"But please people, keep this quiet. The creature really believes he exists. And he get furious when people don't believe in him."

Considering Art's concern over the regards for classical litterature among ID supporters, I found this quote doubly fitting:

"Do you know, I always thought Unicorns were fabulous monsters, too! I never saw one alive before!"

"Well, now that we HAVE seen each other," said the Unicorn, "if you'll believe in me, I'll believe in you. Is that a bargain?"

"Yes, if you like," said Alice.

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Comment by Krauze — November 26, 2005 @ 12:32 pm

Art Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
If Art really believes this, it is a sad commentary on his intellectual abilities. What I see is someone who is lashing out, and being unable to address the main point of this blog, seeks to direct attention elsewhere.

LOL. Here's how Krauze segued into this discussion (IOW, "the main point"):

I'm looking forward to Professor Mirecki's course on how Frankenstein's monster is used to "symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion".

As the discussion has developed, we've seen that the full extent of understanding of the IDist of Frankenstein apparently does not extend beyond some vague recollections of a B&W movie that sent him/her scurrying under the covers. The contrast between the posts that address (and answer) Krauze's point and the replies is, um, revealing. If the blogmeisters' (and their cohort's) responses are examples of "critical thinking skills", I believe I'll do without.

Comment by Art — November 26, 2005 @ 12:57 pm

Joe G Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Art:
So, Joe G obviously thinks the works of Shelley are bad for KS

The thought never crossed my mind. Obviously only an agenda-driven irrational person would even suggest that I did.

by the union of these qualities I conceived the idea and executed the creation of a man.

But we know he pieced together a "man" from other (dead) humans. Is this what "God" did? Odd I don't remember that in Scripture.

Comment by Joe G — November 26, 2005 @ 1:18 pm

Guts Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Art:

As the discussion has developed, we've seen that the full extent of understanding of the IDist of Frankenstein apparently does not extend beyond some vague recollections of a B&W movie that sent him/her scurrying under the covers.

No, the main point was to illustrate what they really think "myth" means.
Perhaps "extreme ID critic's reading comprehension" should be added to the t-shirt?

Comment by Guts — November 26, 2005 @ 3:03 pm

KC Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 10:16 am
Tertullian considered the unicorn a symbol for Christ.

Comment by KC — November 27, 2005 @ 10:16 am

MikeGene Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Art:

LOL. Here's how Krauze segued into this discussion (IOW, "the main point")

Yes, and Krauze just explained. "There wasn't anything "particular" about this example. I mentioned "Frankenstein's monster" simply because it was the first item on the list." Is there a reason you ignored that?

As the discussion has developed, we've seen that the full extent of understanding of the IDist of Frankenstein apparently does not extend beyond some vague recollections of a B&W movie that sent him/her scurrying under the covers. The contrast between the posts that address (and answer) Krauze's point and the replies is, um, revealing. If the blogmeisters' (and their cohort's) responses are examples of "critical thinking skills", I believe I'll do without.

Do you have any evidence that the designer(s) of that T-shirt chose Frankenstein's monster with KC's points in mind? Nope. The T-shirt designer(s) apparently chose Frankenstein's monster because it was something that was a) well-known; b) an imaginary entity; and c) required the most number of letters.

The point here is that Mirecki has seriously undercut the explanation provided by his Provost. The e-mail does that and the t-shirt adds a little spice that illustrates it. What is truly revealing is how you would have us sidestep this serious point.

Comment by MikeGene — November 27, 2005 @ 12:14 pm

KC Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Trtlln cnsdrd th ncrn symbl fr Chrst.

Wow. You guys really have shown your colors now, editing my comment this way. Is that how this blog works????

Comment by KC — November 27, 2005 @ 6:59 pm

KC Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Hmmm….maybe you have a bug

Comment by KC — November 27, 2005 @ 7:01 pm

Guts Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Wow. You guys really have shown your colors now, editing my comment this way. Is that how this blog works????

That was me. Was testing the disemvoweler for troll behavior.

Comment by Guts — November 27, 2005 @ 7:04 pm

Krauze Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Hi KC,

"Is that how this blog works????"

No it's not. Our Unpaid Programmer implemented the feature and used your post as a test. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

Comment by Krauze — November 27, 2005 @ 7:07 pm

Guts Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
No it's not. Our Unpaid Programmer implemented the feature and used your post as a test. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

Unpaid ????? I'm outta here.

Comment by Guts — November 27, 2005 @ 7:08 pm

Krauze Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
Let me just add that one of the fringe benefits to being an Unpaid Programmer is that you get to install features that the rest of the TT staff hasn't requested.

Comment by Krauze — November 27, 2005 @ 7:11 pm

KC Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
That was me. Was testing the disemvoweler for troll behavior

No worries Sorry about the overreaction.

Comment by KC — November 27, 2005 @ 7:11 pm

Krauze Says:
November 27th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
"Unpaid ????? I'm outta here."

Uts-Gay, ixnay on the iscovery-Day Institute-way oney-may.

Comment by Krauze — November 27, 2005 @ 7:14 pm

You must be logged in to post a comment.

So that's what mythology means

34 Responses to “So that's what mythology means”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books