I submit that much of our world view hinges on what we believe about ancient writers.

If you accept the modern western culture's view of ancient writers, that they had less understanding of the world around them than we do. So their writings are more supersitious and are the ramblings of backwards people who made up things to explain what they didn't understand. Then you have a tendency to disregard the scriptures or at least sections in the Bible. You are more likely to accept evolution. You are more likely to accept doctrine that is more recently formed. And you are more likely to accept that morales can change over time. Because we live in a more enlightened age, and we understand things better than our ancestors.

I for one contend with this point of view. I think it is an arrogant point of view that our ancestors were dumber than we are. In fact, I submit that those who believe they are superior and wiser to our ancestors, are actually the more foolish ones who have less understanding of how things really are.

First, I believe in the accounts in Genesis as history - not mythology. Secondly, although I disgard over cultures creation mythologies in favor of the Genesis account, I accept most of what ancient writers were saying was happening to them at the time they were recording their histories. Although we would use different terminology to describe many of the events that they were recording the essence of the events I accept as history.

For example, when ancient historians write about and drew dragons and sea serpents, I accept the accounts to be reasonably accurate. Of course, we would call them dinosaurs instead of dragons and sea serpents today. Just accepting these particular accounts, eliminates evolution as a viable theory.

I also accept that there were giants and sons of deities, who were great mighty men. And that the gods granted people great powers from time to time. The scriptures describe the same thing, the children of God (angels) took daughters of men and had giants and mighty men. David fought one of them, Goliath. Also, people like Samson, Moses and Elijah were given great powers. I would except that He was working in similar ways in cultures all around the world.

When some rulers claimed to be children of the gods, which many of their people accepted. I don't think it was because the people were stupid, I think I was because those types of events happened and the rulers were powerful, so to the people it was a real possibility.

Many of what we refer to as supersitions, like setting up idols and sacrificing to them to get better crops, etc., I don't believe were supersitions at all. I think powerful beings, the sons of God appeared to people and had idols made after their appearence. They also ruled cultures by fear, they would cause terrible things to happen to groups of people if they didn't worship and sacrifice to them.

In the same way supernatural things were regularly being recorded, and I believe our ancestors had enough understanding to distinguish between the natural and the supernatural.

In fact those who are now suggesting that we don't have evidence of supernatural occurances, or that God or the gods interact with mankind overlook the fact that the majority of the writings in the history of mankind are reports of the very occurences they say we have no evidence of. To not believe that supernatural occurences happen and that God and the gods interact with mankind is perhaps the most arrogant position a person can take. Because the majority of people in the history of the world report that they have seen miracles and have interacted with supernatural or spiritual beings. To take this stance is to say that they know better than the majority of people who have ever existed.

Why has the modern western culture concluded that the ancient histories are mythology rather than reality?

07-07-2003 @ 12:28 AM post located here
trueseeker:

Why has the modern western culture concluded that the ancient histories are mythology rather than reality?

Not modern western culture, but modern scholarly consensus which is built on a more rigorous methodology than hearsay. And it's because the myths full of nonsensical, clearly mythologised accounts which can't possibly have happened. Caesar Augustus born of a virgin? I think not. Atrahasis/Gilgamesh surviving a global flood? I think not (oops, Noah did that). Remus & Romulus being raised by wolves? I think not. Gods impregnating humans? I think not (oops, fallen angels did that). All nonsense of course.

If you want to believe that there's a historical core to every story, then you should either read Rene Girard or get yourself properly acquainted with how fanciful some of the tales really are. Do you think earlier civilisations were incapable of mixing fact and fiction or legendary development that we can still see today? If you want to rescue your Bible, it would help you a whole lot more to get a more nuanced reading of it rather than applying a simplistic reading to everything else you see.

A Christian poster at II wrote the following:

The only thing I demand in such situations is that the reader see how from an Xian perspective the whole story is plausible, rational, and (this is the crux) that understanding the text requires a bit more than picking up the book, sitting in your armchair, and 'comprehending' the words. Put differently, the biggest question begged in this forum is not over the authority of Scripture, but the presumption with which many afford their interpretations of the text.

And I agree with this to a large extent: The Judeo-Christian interpretation need not be a simplistic, practically self-parodying one, and Christians should work on more sophisticated readings. Then we can mutually enjoy the world in which your spiritual forefathers lived. Elsewhere on this board, I've pointed to the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pius XII, and I think it would be a much more fascinating world to explore once the shortcomings of ancient (or modern) civilisations are recognised and critiqued, and then move on to more interesting issues.

Joel

I think Michael Horton in his book Covenant and Eschatology hit hte nail on the head it is because of philosphical a prioris, namely neo-Kantian that the noumenal world is sealed off from the phenomenol world. Then you add the critiques of Feuerbach and Schleiermacher which lead to relious experience becoming a personal event thus God is closed out of the universe and we are left with merely subjective feelings about hte "Noumenol". Then add a little Hegel and you get monism that reduces everything.

You add all this and thus the scholars role becomes a Butmanian demythologizing and we are left much poorer for it. Notice this is all based on Enlightment and Romantic reconstructions of reality.

GP

Well, I won't comment on the existence of supernatural beings or interactions involving gods and men. But I would like to note that you Christians are just as guilty of "arrogance" as skeptical naturalists.

You are claiming that almost all of pre-Christian culture was duped into believing that what they worshipped and adored were Gods when actually they were fallen angels or other demonic powers and that the real truth only became available to men living after the time of Christ. You also believe that they were wrongly reporting that Marduk or Baal or whomever created the universe.

You also arrogantly claim that all Muslims living now, (that's almost one billion people) are wrong, and have been tricked into believing that Muhammed was a prophet and that Jesus was not divine.

Seems pretty arrogant. How could one billion muslims who are alive now, plus all the billions who have lived since the 7th century A.D. be wrong? And yet you arrogantly believe they are in error when they report that "Muhammed is the true Prophet of God."

Maybe you should be a little more consistent.

trueseeker:

I think it is an arrogant point of view that our ancestors were dumber than we are. In fact, I submit that those who believe they are superior and wiser to our ancestors, are actually the more foolish ones who have less understanding of how things really are.

Couldn't your point of view also be viewed as arrogant? You are claiming that the ancient writer(s) of Genesis believed Methuselah lived 969 years. Did they really believe he lived 969 years, or were the grossly exaggerated lifetimes in Genesis a literary device the writer(s) employed to mark time back to the beginning of civilization?

I think the latter explanation is far more likely and conveys a deeper appreciation for the ancient Hebrews than trying to force them into a modern fundamentalist view of the literal exactness of their writings. Actually, if you put their exaggerated lineages on a timeline they get pretty close to our modern achaelogical knowledge of the time of beginnings of civilization in Sumeria. Pretty impressive, huh?

Jerry

chsalvia,

It was my intention to imply just the opposite, not that they were ignorant, but that they did understand what they were seeing. Whether we would call them fallen angels or demons makes no difference, they were gods to them, and to us now for that matter. Much greater in presence, might and power, and able to do supernatural things. If their gods told them that they were the greatest god and had created the world, I doubt that many of them would have contested them.

Of course, we who claim to be Christians believe that we serve the greatest God the God Who created all the other gods and the universe. I will grant you that from an outside point of view it may appear arrogant that we believe the God we have interacted with and choosen to follow is the correct one to follow.

However, Muslims, and most people from every culture through out the history of the world, including today believe that a one true God or the gods have and do interact with mankind in supernatural ways. A great number, if not the majority of people who have ever lived claim to have personally interacted with the gods or seen supernatural occurances. What I was referring to as arrogant is to just dismiss all of these eye witness accounts in favor of a, "I doubt that supernatural things really happen or that supernatural beings really exist," personal feeling. As if their feeling is greater evidence than all the reports through out history.

Of course, we who claim to be Christians believe that we serve the greatest God the God Who created all the other gods and the universe. I will grant you that from an outside point of view it may appear arrogant that we believe the God we have interacted with and choosen to follow is the correct one to follow.

Yes...from an "outside point of view" (you mean objective point of view?) it does seem arrogant. Because you are claiming that all the multitudes of people who believed that Zeus or Amun or Ahura Mazda was the greatest God were blatantly wrong, whereas your particular God is actually the real greatest God of Gods.

Of course, I understand your point. You are making a distinction between those who dismiss supernatural events in general as unhistorical and those who accept the possibility that supernatural events do occur and have been accurately reported through history. You then conclude that those who dismiss the possibility of supernatural events are arrogant, because they think they know better than all the billions of people who believed otherwise.

But this seems to me like an arbitrary dichotomy. Why not make a dichotomy between Zoroastrians and non-Zoroastrians to try and show that non-Zoroastrians are arrogant because they dismiss the claims of Zarathustra as false when thousands of Iranians believed them to be true. Or why not make a dichotomy between Muslims and non-Muslims to show that all the people who dismiss the claims of Muhammed as false are arrogant because billions of Muslims believe otherwise.

See how this works? Why make a dichotomy between two particular opposing beliefs, i.e. supernaturalism and naturalism, to show that one is arrogant because one dismisses the beliefs of others? You can do the same thing with any opposing beliefs. The only unique characteristic of your particular dichotomy is that the two beliefs you have juxtaposed are more general.

A person believes what they believe because of life experience and their own subjective inclinations. Not because they somehow think they are better than everyone else.

And finally, a word or two about the modern idea that our skepticism is "superior" to our superstitious forefathers.

I would certainly never claim that our forefathers were "stupid." Quite the contrary, some of them were geniuses beyond compare in the modern world. The person who first thought of the wheel for instance, I think, should be on the same level as Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

However, and this is a big however, I do also think that modern man has earned the right to be skeptical of certain ancient claims. Not because modern man is somehow intrinsically superior to ancient people, but because modern man has the benefit of new knowledge and new experience. We know for a fact that our newly acquired technological and scientific knowledge, for example, gives us insights that our predecessors were lacking. The invention of the car, space shuttle, microprocessor, etc. all show that modern man has acquired more knowledge than his predecessors, and therefore is in a position to judge some of the claims of his predecessors and dismiss them as false. In other words, when it comes to knowledge, we are NOT on equal grounds with our predecessors. We are superior. And this is not an arrogant statement, it is simply an observation. We understand certain things that our predecessors did not have the opportunity to understand - especially things that relate to the operation of the natural world.

So I think we are certainly in a position to dismiss certain claims as false because we are looking at the situation from a higher plane of knowledge. A plane that, thanks to our predecessors, we enjoy the privilege of being on.

We should be grateful to those who came before us, not look down upon them. However, we must also realize that humanity has been wrong about many things - and we realize that now. Two hundred years from now, our superiors in knowledge will look back on us and correct our mistakes. (Hopefully.)

When we look at Medeival medical textbooks, we realize that information about the four humors and other such ancient ideas are wrong, because we are looking back from a higher plane of knowledge. For centuries, millions and millions of people believed that the kidneys produced emotions and the sun and stars revolved around the Earth. But you would say we are arrogant to dismiss those beliefs as false? This is not arrogant - it is called progress and it is our right and privilege to correct the mistakes of our forefathers. Otherwise, we would never get anywhere.

Actually my opinion is that the pre-flood people were on a higher level of knowledge and intelligence than we are currently. Much of that knowledge was lost in the flood, then it was spread thinner when God confused the languages at the tower of Babel. After which great civilizations sprang up around the globe, but eventually inevitabily less advanced cultures conquered the more advanced ones and destroyed their liberaries, etc.. Only over the last few hundred years have we been starting to get back to the knowledge that was once possessed by man and lost.

Yes, I do believe that the ages recorded in Genesis are correct, and people who lived 900 plus years were much smarter than we are now.

GP,
Excellent deconstruction of the deconstructionists (note: I'm using the term in the general sense not the literary sense).

With regards to Dr. Horton's book, I think it is his best and most scholarly to date!

Today @ 09:24 AM post located here
Belteshazzar:

Couldn't your point of view also be viewed as arrogant?

No, it's humble to let the text teach you, rather than impose and air of superiority, generated by chronological snobbery, on the text. But then we already know about Beltie's existentialist tripe about how one interpretation is as good as another (except, horrors, one that accepts what the authors intended, as determined by grammatical and historical context!).

You are claiming that the ancient writer(s) of Genesis believed Methuselah lived 969 years. Did they really believe he lived 969 years, or were the grossly exaggerated lifetimes in Genesis a literary device the writer(s) employed to mark time back to the beginning of civilization?

The text itself is written as historical narrative. Calling them "grossly exaggerated lifetimes" blatantly begs the question. Luke treated these people as real ancestors of Jesus Himself. Josephus even accepted the chronology at face value, and he was far closer to the time and culture than a modern critic like Beltie.

I think the latter explanation is far more likely and conveys a deeper appreciation for the ancient Hebrews than trying to force them into a modern fundamentalist view of the literal exactness of their writings.

Rather, it is you who imposes modern evolutionary ideas on the text instead of letting it speak for itself. E.g. you arrogantly think that long lifespans are impossible, even for people with far lower genetic load, so you use that to dismiss the plain meaning of the text. Yet we know so little about aging. See Living for 900 years?

Actually, if you put their exaggerated lineages on a timeline they get pretty close to our modern achaelogical knowledge of the time of beginnings of civilization in Sumeria. Pretty impressive, huh?

Pretty unimpressive to make bald assertions.

Socrates:

But then we already know about Beltie's existentialist tripe about how one interpretation is as good as another (except, horrors, one that accepts what the authors intended, as determined by grammatical and historical context!).

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? I never said one interpretation is as good as another, I said that is the logical conclusion of Sola Scriptura. I am not a Sola Scripturist, I believe there is only one authoritative interpretation by the Church established by Christ himself.

The text itself is written as historical narrative. Calling them "grossly exaggerated lifetimes" blatantly begs the question. Luke treated these people as real ancestors of Jesus Himself. Josephus even accepted the chronology at face value, and he was far closer to the time and culture than a modern critic like Beltie.

Okay, if you want to believe that Methusaleh lived 969 years, go ahead.

Rather, it is you who imposes modern evolutionary ideas on the text instead of letting it speak for itself. E.g. you arrogantly think that long lifespans are impossible, even for people with far lower genetic load, so you use that to dismiss the plain meaning of the text. Yet we know so little about aging. See Living for 900 years?

Sure, if you want to convince the whole world that Christianity is populated with complete fundamentalist idiots, then go ahead, keep repeating this tripe.

Jerry

07-05-2003 @ 09:12 PM post located here
trueseeker:

I submit that much of our world view hinges on what we believe about ancient writers.

If you accept the modern western culture's view of ancient writers, that they had less understanding of the world around them than we do. So their writings are more supersitious and are the ramblings of backwards people who made up things to explain what they didn't understand. Then you have a tendency to disregard the scriptures or at least sections in the Bible. You are more likely to accept evolution. You are more likely to accept doctrine that is more recently formed. And you are more likely to accept that morales can change over time. Because we live in a more enlightened age, and we understand things better than our ancestors.

I for one contend with this point of view. I think it is an arrogant point of view that our ancestors were dumber than we are. In fact, I submit that those who believe they are superior and wiser to our ancestors, are actually the more foolish ones who have less understanding of how things really are.

With all due respect, I think you've conflated a lot of different issues here that really ought to be considered separately. I shall try to tease them out and then address them separately.

Did the ancients have less of an understanding of the world than we do? Yes! No ancient culture had sufficient knowledge to build the sort of technology we take for granted today. We've never unearthed any Roman ICBMs or Mayan computers or Sumerian supercolliders, and all of the extant documents from these cultures clearly show that they weren't anywhere close to grasping such concepts as modern atomic theory. That being the case, it's unlikely in the extreme that ancient cultures had a firmer grasp of the nature of the universe than we do.

But does this mean that the ancients were dumb, superstitious people? Not at all! To be sure, there were indeed ancient people who were dumb and superstitious-- just as there are modern people who are dumb and superstitious. But there were also plenty of very intelligent people living in ancient times. Take Imhotep, a Third Dynasty Egyptian high priest whose treatises on medicine contained primitive, but medically accurate, treatments for over two hundred ailments, as well as medically accurate diagnostic procedures and a correct description of the functions of the circulatory system and the vital organs. Not bad for somebody living in 2600 BC! Or take Euclid (born 325 BCE), whose Elements formed the foundation for the discipline of geometry, and had more cultural influence on subsequent generations than even the Bible. Or how about his contemporary Eratosthenes, whose "Sieve of Eratosthenes" is still used in today by mathematicians doing research into number theory, and who was the first man in recorded history to make a reasonably accurate measurement of the size of the earth. In the ninth century CE, there was Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, who founded the modern discipline of algebra, and who created the system of number writing that eventually replaced Roman numerals in Western culture. And so forth.

The only real difference between modern-day societies and ancient societies is that we've had more time to accrue and organize knowledge, make new discoveries, and create technology based on that knowledge. Imhotep couldn't possibly have invented laser eye surgery, for instance, because he did not have access to lasers, or even to the knowledge required to build one. But that doesn't make him dumb, nor does it take away from his many great achievements. Similarly, al-Khwarizmi likely could not have arrived at Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, as Gödel's thinking came about as a result of a system of formal reasoning that hadn't been invented in al-Khwarizmi's time. But this doesn't dim the light of al-Khwarizmi's genius. We got to where we are today because of the achievements of men such as Imhotep and Euclid and Eratosthenes and al-Khwarizmi. To paraphrase Newton, we see further only because we are standing on the shoulders of giants-- giants who, as it happened, were born into what we now call "ancient societies".

In light of this, we see that there are two mistakes we could make. One would be to abandon modern knowledge and embrace ancient wisdom just because it was ancient. That would be a mistake, because we have access now to knowledge and wisdom undreamed of by the ancients. The other would be to ignore the writings of the ancients simply because they are ancient, which would undercut much of our own intellectual history. Both of these are mistakes. Instead, we should recognize that we are indeed better informed about reality than the ancients were, while simultaneously recognizing that it is precisely because of (some of) the ancients that we have become as well informed as we are.

Now, you claimed that people who "look down" on the ancients are more likely to accept evolution. I have no idea whether there's actually any causal connection between looking down on the ancients and accepting evolution, but it certainly isn't the case that people accept evolution simply because it's newer than creationism. Most people who accept evolution do so because they feel that this is where the evidence points. Whether or not this is the case is open to discussion (needless to say, I think this is the case), but if you ask 100 people who accept evolution why they prefer it over creationism, I very much doubt that any of them will reply, "Because it's newer."

On a related note, you speak of people who look down on the ancients as being more likely to accept newer doctrines. It may well be true that those who dis the ancients are more likely to prefer newer ideas, but people who respect or even revere the ancients are also often suckers for the latest fad. Take the early Christian church, for example. They all had great respect for the writings of their ancestors, and they certainly weren't paragons of modernistic rationality. Yet, they readily accept the new doctrines preached by Jesus. The same happened in the early days of Islam. And nowadays, there are plenty of Christians with a deep respect for ancient writings (or at least those ancient writings that they consider orthodox) who have no problems accepting recently formed doctrines. So I think the claim that people who look down on the ancients are more likely to accept newer doctrines is misleading at best.

(snippage)

For example, when ancient historians write about and drew dragons and sea serpents, I accept the accounts to be reasonably accurate. Of course, we would call them dinosaurs instead of dragons and sea serpents today. Just accepting these particular accounts, eliminates evolution as a viable theory.

I don't know who this "we" is, but "I" wouldn't call them dinosaurs, because dinosaurs were long extinct by the time humans (let alone sailors) came on the scene. However, I wouldn't hesitate to call them komodo dragons or giant squid or something of that sort. And even if they actually were dinosaurs, that doesn't disprove evolution; it merely disproves the claim that dinosaurs are extinct. Clearly, one can accept these ancient monster stories without invoking dinosaurs or abandoning mainstream biology.

On the other hand, it's also worth asking just where these ancient historians got their information on dragons and sea serpents. Did they see these things firsthand, or obtain them from the reports of the others? If the later, did the others witness them firsthand, or were they passing on what they'd heard from others? How much distance is there between the historian and the people who allegedly witnessed these monsters? Might the original eyewitnesses have had reason to exaggerate their story when telling it to others? Can we guarantee that the story wasn't embellished as it travelled from the original eyewitness to the historian who actually wrote it down? These questions are important, because even if dragons and sea monsters really exist, it doesn't follow that every claim to have seen one is accurate.

You seem to think that there are only two choices-- believe everything you read in ancient documents, or dismiss ancient documents entirely in a fit of hubris. But that's not how real historians operate, and it isn't how we should operate either. When an ancient writer claims that a supernatural event occured, there are actually several possibilities, such as:

• The writer was deliberately lying in order to further his agenda.
• The writer was writing a fictional document, which would have been understood by his contemporaries as a story and not an actual event.
• The writer was duped by somebody else into thinking that a supernatural event occured, and is relaying the false report because he (mistakenly) believes it to be true.
• The writer mistook somebody else's fictional storry for an actual event.
• The writer was recording a legend which had evolved over a period of time.
• The writer relayed a report that accurately describes a genuinely supernatural event.
• The writer relayed a report that accurately describes an event which was believed to be supernatural by the writer and/or his contemporaries, but which in reality was a natural event.
• The writer was using a metaphor which would have been understood as such by his contemporaries, but which appears to be a supernatural event to us because we don't have the necessary cultural context. (Imagine how a future historian might view us upon reading a story which described the weather using the phrase "raining cats and dogs".)

The above is not an exhaustive list, but it's enough to show that your view of historical method is extremely limited. There are more ways to interpret an ancient document than credulous belief and arrogant rejection, and only a careful examination of the evidence can decide which interpretation (if any) is the most accurate one.

(more snippage)

In the same way supernatural things were regularly being recorded, and I believe our ancestors had enough understanding to distinguish between the natural and the supernatural.

Your belief is demonstrably false. I can think of any number of things that were once thought to be supernatural, but are now recognized as natural occurences. Plagues, comets, earthquakes, floods, epilepsy, lightning, schizophrenia, volcanoes, sandstorms, birth defects, drought, the motion of the sun and the moon and stars, and so forth. Even things like losing a war to a militarily superior army was seen as a supernatural event in some cultures. So no, I don't for one minute believe that our ancestors could reliably distinguish between the natural and the supernatural. Even if the supernatural exists, ancient cultures clearly weren't very skilled at distinguish the natural from the supernatural.

(...)

To not believe that supernatural occurences happen and that God and the gods interact with mankind is perhaps the most arrogant position a person can take. Because the majority of people in the history of the world report that they have seen miracles and have interacted with supernatural or spiritual beings. To take this stance is to say that they know better than the majority of people who have ever existed.

And what is wrong with claiming to know better than the majority of people who have ever existed? Provided the evidence is there to back up the claim, there's nothing arrogant at all about this. For example, the majority of people who have ever existed believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. I believe that the earth is round, and that the earth revolves around the sun. Does that make me arrogant, or simply better informed?

Gordon Freeman
(who wonders how history might have turned out if the Romans had really had ICBMS)

Now first of all I didn't read all of the posts and I hope you don't mind me jumping in the middle. But it seems that from what I read, the debate seems to stem from being able to view a particular text objectivly, but is that possible. Are we are trying to "get back" to the authors original intent? First of all this assumes that a person can get a "god's eye view" about things in history. This just doesn't seem possible. We are all placed within a particular context that we come at issues from. For christian the both the hebrew scriptures and christian scriptures are going to have huge implications on how one views history, and especially their particular narrative. But someone else that is not from that tradition is going to view history differently. However, neither party is going to be able to get to "the fact of the matter" because each is biased in a particular way.

Are fact and myth that different. Postmodern scholars say that they are not, it is another false dualism that modernity has left us with. When we begin to veiw history as a narrative then this dualism is gone, and we only veiw history through our particular community and take from it what we think is useful for the betterment of our community.

Pragmatist

Today @ 05:45 PM post located here
Pragmatist:
(...)

from what I read, the debate seems to stem from being able to view a particular text objectivly, but is that possible. Are we are trying to "get back" to the authors original intent? First of all this assumes that a person can get a "god's eye view" about things in history. This just doesn't seem possible. We are all placed within a particular context that we come at issues from. For christian the both the hebrew scriptures and christian scriptures are going to have huge implications on how one views history, and especially their particular narrative. But someone else that is not from that tradition is going to view history differently. However, neither party is going to be able to get to "the fact of the matter" because each is biased in a particular way.

I agree with your premises, but your conclusion is flawed. It is indeed the case that we all come to an issue with our own biases, but this does not in and of itself make it impossible to determine the truth about what an author originally intended when he wrote something. For one thing, it is possible to discipline yourself in such a way that the impact of your bias is minimized. For another, you can work with others who don't share your biases, in an attempt to develop a consensus. Such a consensus will be less likely to be influenced by bias, since the varying biases are likely to cancel each other out. Finally, you can develop and refine epistemological standards which minimize the influence of bias on one's conclusions.

The latter two techniques can also be adapted to help overcome another sort of bias-- namely, bias on the part of the authors of historical documents. For example, if three documentary sources from three radically different factions all agree on some issue, then it's more likely that their claim is factual and not just the result of their individuals biases. And just as you can develop epistemological standards to help overcome your own biases, so you can also develop standards to help overcome the biases of the original authors.

Now I'm not claiming that we're ever going to have 100% accurate knowledge of history. Most of history happened a long time ago, and much of the information and evidence left by historical events has been destroyed by the ravages of time. Nor do I claim that historical research is easy. History is hard work, and a particularly controversial issue can take years or even decades before it is resolved. (And that's assuming that there's enough information available to allow the issue to be resolved at all.) However, there's a vast difference between saying that historical research is difficult in practice, and saying that it's impossible in principle. The former claim is certainly true, but the latter certainly is not.

Are fact and myth that different. Postmodern scholars say that they are not, it is another false dualism that modernity has left us with. When we begin to veiw history as a narrative then this dualism is gone, and we only veiw history through our particular community and take from it what we think is useful for the betterment of our community.

Postmodern scholars are wrong. There is indeed a difference between fact and myth. It isn't always easy to tell which is which, but that doesn't make the dichotomy any less real, or the struggle to distinguish between the two any less necessary. And I don't see how ignoring the difference between fact and myth is going to help us better our community. On the contrary, it will make things worse, because without accurate knowledge about our world, we will be unable to predict the results of our actions, and therefore unable to guarantee that our actions will actually be helpful and not harmful. If you truly want to help your community, ditching postmodernism would be a great place to start.

Gordon Freeman
(who is strongly biased towards brunettes)

Gordon,

You have stated what I was trying to say, perhaps better than I did. Regular reports from various factions or non connected cultures that are similar shouldn't be simply dismissed as myth. These are the kinds of reports that I am suggesting should be considered history not mythology.

Numerous cultures report dragons and sea serpents and other monsters.

Numerous cultures report seeing and interacting with supernatural beings.

Numerous cultures report the gods interbreeding with humans and having extordinary off spring.

Numerous cultures report that God or the gods gave special powers to people, or enchanted items so that they had special powers.

Numerous cultures report that God or the gods caused supernatural occurances. Yes and even though many of them may have the appearance of natural events, that doesn't rule out that they may have been caused to happen supernaturally.

Such things that are common themes through out ancient cultures should not be dismissed lightly.