See: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/02/dangers-posed-by-comparative-mythology.html Dangers posed by comparative mythology theories which are camouflaged ‘race’ studies
The arguments of the above URL are continued.
The key danger of Witzel's book is that religious myths are put together in a cut-and-paste job -- with a number of footnotes, nothing original here -- and presented in an academic 'tome' as historical facts.
Tracing the origins of mythologies is a bogus attempt to trace the peoples' history.
Not unlike the attempt to trace history of languages to trace the peoples' history. One is called mythology studies and the other historical linguistics. It is good that many academic institutions have closed down 'historical linguistics' projects.
It is now time to close down 'mythology studies' projects.
When apples and oranges constitute the edibles in the myth basket, it is stupid to cite the myths of origins of apples and myths of origins of oranges. It is mischievous to claim a common origin of both the apple and orange myths as though they are historical events which can be sequenced in space and time.
This is where the mischief begins, in the spurious correlation of myths with history. Be it krakatoa super-eruption, be it continental drift resulting in an imagined 'lost continent'.
The danger with apples is that Eve is likely to be tempted. The danger with oranges is that they will be peeled for academic self-gratification.
Failure by the academe to challenge such spurious correlations shows scholarship at its damning worst -- with lack of integrity and without an iota of ethical social responsibility.
A good example can be cited which occurred in recent times.
When Hindus opposed biblical indoctrination being pushed by various church groups, then the American academia ganged up with the churches. This was to be expected as American professors such as Wendy Doniger and Stanley Wolpert believe that religious myths are historical facts. For example, labeling themselves "South Asia experts", both of them are known to have pushed a date of 52 CE for the alleged arrival of the alleged Saint Thomas into India. That is pure fiction.
Not ONE American professor has challenged the propagation of such fictional claims as historical facts. Says a lot about the quality of scholarship in American academe.
At first the theory of dispersion was based on the idea that Noah cursed Ham that his tribe would serve the tribes of his other two brothers and blessed his other two sons that their tribes would expand. Then people like Max Muller were the "radicals" who gave up on the race theory. However, their "bold" theories were also within the biblical framework and they fitted their theory in line with the story of the Tower of Babel. In fact, the search for a single language is based on the search for the language before the confusion of the tongues.
Debating the topic when it is really based in the bible is as stupid as debating whether the earth is flat. Some academics collude with a church, attack Hindus for opposing the textbooks teaching the bible as historical fact, and then make a bogus claim of anti-creationism. Witzel colluded with the church in Colorado and changed the Coloarado Church Wikipedia page to hide the fact that they were Christian fanatics.
Harvard Donkey Trial *was* about opposing religious indoctrination in textbooks. Oposition from the academia occurred *because* Indian parents in California opposed the teaching of nonsense like "Moses saw a burning bush in 1290 BC" and how Jesus was resurrected. Additionally, the chapter on Hinduism too is based on biblical ideas as the belief in AIT *is* due to its biblical basis. There were claims about a horse flying to Jerusalem. Or how the LORD made the wheels fall off the chariots (definition of miracles).
Harvard Donkey Trial is similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial. Both lawsuits were against biblical indoctrination and on one side were those opposed to such indoctrination and on the other were church groups and people affiliated with churches.
Charles Munger, Jr. started off with a one-point agenda to get the idea that "Jews killed Jesus" into textbooks.
There is a pattern here of carrying out the church's agenda. This pattern, or academic template, or agenda-driven architecture of chronology or comparative studies, results in books claiming to trace the origins of world mythologies.
If Harvard Donkey Trial is an example to go by, one can also experience the dangers posed to children of gullible communities to be told of the origins of their respective myths. This ain't no academic scholarship. This is abject lack of social responsibility of the academe.
So, US academe will do well to close down mythology study projects which are not driven by compassion or founded on ethics but turn out to be motivated drivel to publish or perish, in a vacuous rush to claim false contributions to knowledge. The victims are the students.
Ur-Myth of Witzel is a chimera or a chameleon (to use mixed metaphors) that adds no light to the darkness of the academe. Chimera is a single organism composed of genetically distinct cells. Chameleon is a clade of lizards which changes color to suit the clime and locale.
If Gondwana is Africa and Laurasia is Europe, positing such false entities is nothing but racism cloaked in a tome jumbling up genetic, philology or geology footnotes. One could be homo erectus and the other neanderthal. Who knows? Does Witzel know?
Go study, starting with the white skin of the neanderthal which has been identified with clear signs of genetic markers and skin color.
So, the moral of the story: anecdotal evidences do not a history make. There is a Tamil proverb: kurangin kaiyil poomaalai (rough trans. 'flower garland in the hands of a monkey')
So, the key question: what is the contribution to knowledge of the mythology origins drivel presented as historical facts?
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center
February 5, 2014.
The arguments of the above URL are continued.
The key danger of Witzel's book is that religious myths are put together in a cut-and-paste job -- with a number of footnotes, nothing original here -- and presented in an academic 'tome' as historical facts.
Tracing the origins of mythologies is a bogus attempt to trace the peoples' history.
Not unlike the attempt to trace history of languages to trace the peoples' history. One is called mythology studies and the other historical linguistics. It is good that many academic institutions have closed down 'historical linguistics' projects.
It is now time to close down 'mythology studies' projects.
When apples and oranges constitute the edibles in the myth basket, it is stupid to cite the myths of origins of apples and myths of origins of oranges. It is mischievous to claim a common origin of both the apple and orange myths as though they are historical events which can be sequenced in space and time.
This is where the mischief begins, in the spurious correlation of myths with history. Be it krakatoa super-eruption, be it continental drift resulting in an imagined 'lost continent'.
The danger with apples is that Eve is likely to be tempted. The danger with oranges is that they will be peeled for academic self-gratification.
Failure by the academe to challenge such spurious correlations shows scholarship at its damning worst -- with lack of integrity and without an iota of ethical social responsibility.
A good example can be cited which occurred in recent times.
When Hindus opposed biblical indoctrination being pushed by various church groups, then the American academia ganged up with the churches. This was to be expected as American professors such as Wendy Doniger and Stanley Wolpert believe that religious myths are historical facts. For example, labeling themselves "South Asia experts", both of them are known to have pushed a date of 52 CE for the alleged arrival of the alleged Saint Thomas into India. That is pure fiction.
Not ONE American professor has challenged the propagation of such fictional claims as historical facts. Says a lot about the quality of scholarship in American academe.
At first the theory of dispersion was based on the idea that Noah cursed Ham that his tribe would serve the tribes of his other two brothers and blessed his other two sons that their tribes would expand. Then people like Max Muller were the "radicals" who gave up on the race theory. However, their "bold" theories were also within the biblical framework and they fitted their theory in line with the story of the Tower of Babel. In fact, the search for a single language is based on the search for the language before the confusion of the tongues.
Debating the topic when it is really based in the bible is as stupid as debating whether the earth is flat. Some academics collude with a church, attack Hindus for opposing the textbooks teaching the bible as historical fact, and then make a bogus claim of anti-creationism. Witzel colluded with the church in Colorado and changed the Coloarado Church Wikipedia page to hide the fact that they were Christian fanatics.
Harvard Donkey Trial *was* about opposing religious indoctrination in textbooks. Oposition from the academia occurred *because* Indian parents in California opposed the teaching of nonsense like "Moses saw a burning bush in 1290 BC" and how Jesus was resurrected. Additionally, the chapter on Hinduism too is based on biblical ideas as the belief in AIT *is* due to its biblical basis. There were claims about a horse flying to Jerusalem. Or how the LORD made the wheels fall off the chariots (definition of miracles).
Harvard Donkey Trial is similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial. Both lawsuits were against biblical indoctrination and on one side were those opposed to such indoctrination and on the other were church groups and people affiliated with churches.
Charles Munger, Jr. started off with a one-point agenda to get the idea that "Jews killed Jesus" into textbooks.
There is a pattern here of carrying out the church's agenda. This pattern, or academic template, or agenda-driven architecture of chronology or comparative studies, results in books claiming to trace the origins of world mythologies.
If Harvard Donkey Trial is an example to go by, one can also experience the dangers posed to children of gullible communities to be told of the origins of their respective myths. This ain't no academic scholarship. This is abject lack of social responsibility of the academe.
So, US academe will do well to close down mythology study projects which are not driven by compassion or founded on ethics but turn out to be motivated drivel to publish or perish, in a vacuous rush to claim false contributions to knowledge. The victims are the students.
Ur-Myth of Witzel is a chimera or a chameleon (to use mixed metaphors) that adds no light to the darkness of the academe. Chimera is a single organism composed of genetically distinct cells. Chameleon is a clade of lizards which changes color to suit the clime and locale.
If Gondwana is Africa and Laurasia is Europe, positing such false entities is nothing but racism cloaked in a tome jumbling up genetic, philology or geology footnotes. One could be homo erectus and the other neanderthal. Who knows? Does Witzel know?
Go study, starting with the white skin of the neanderthal which has been identified with clear signs of genetic markers and skin color.
So, the moral of the story: anecdotal evidences do not a history make. There is a Tamil proverb: kurangin kaiyil poomaalai (rough trans. 'flower garland in the hands of a monkey')
So, the key question: what is the contribution to knowledge of the mythology origins drivel presented as historical facts?
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center
February 5, 2014.