Henke 2022by

Where did I Say that I Was Referring to Greek Mythology?

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I said the following:

“In his second essay, Lundahl (2022b) complains that when I rank a supernatural event as ‘highly unlikely’, I’m taking my worldview ‘as a test of historic facthood.’ Actually, I’m ranking supernatural events as highly unlikely because I see absolutely no evidence of the supernatural. I think that it’s far more probable that someone just made up the supernatural story and that enough gullible people believed it, so that it was recorded for future generations. Recently, I saw TV “prophets” frequently making demonstrably false prophecies about covid disappearing in March 2020 and false claims of miraculous healings and other miracles. In recent history, Joseph Smith Jr. made numerous well-documented false prophecies. Ancient people also made up numerous far-fetched stories about gods and goddesses that few people now believe and no one should believe. I have seen no evidence that magic existed in the past any more than it does in the present. I don’t see any evidence to believe any of these present and past miraculous stories, including Genesis 3. So, Mr. Lundahl, I challenge you to refute my worldview by giving me the evidence of the Talking Snake that I’ve been asking for. In contrast, we have plenty of artifacts and videos of WWII and even a few WWII veterans are still alive. My dad experienced that war. WWII deserves a high ranking based on the evidence, the Talking Snake does not. Theology and political and personal desires have no role in judging the validity of history.” [my emphasis]

As I indicated in my last essay (Henke 2022bx), Lundahl (2022L) gives a very long and rambling reply to the above single bolded sentence from Henke (2022b). Lundahl (2022L) now continues commenting on this one sentence from Henke (2022b):

“Now, see again how Henke introduces the topic of ‘Greek mythology:’

(6) Kevin R. Henke: ‘Ancient people also made up numerous far-fetched stories about gods and goddesses that few people now believe and no one should believe.’

It's a sweeping statement. No difference is made between Ouranos and Gaia (where the stories are indeed about gods and goddesses in the main) and heroic legend, which being mainly about human actors (though seen as interacting on some planes with gods and goddesses) are seen as having human observers. I don't feel like taking Ulysses' word for his men being literally turned into pigs or Hercules' for getting down to Hades to fetch Cerberus, but their shooting of the wooers or killing of a lion had human observers apart from themselves. Indeed, Henke will not believe a place was infested with a hydra and I will believe it was a demonic manifestation, and we will disagree there, but so much could be explained by things both Henke and I believe possible, there is no reason to disagree with his descendants later returning to the Peloponnese and becoming kings of Sparta. Except in Henke's case, he thinks it's an argument that his birthmyth is impossible (which as it stands I agree it is, in some parts, though the snakes could have been brought by demons who also helped his tiny hands tie them in a knot) and involves false deities (which I agree are false) and a false explanation of the Milky Way, and being lumped together with Hesiod's Ouranos and Gaia thing.”

No, I did not necessarily introduce the “topic of Greek mythology”!! As I previously stated in Henke 2022bx, as a geologist, I was actually thinking of the Hawaiian volcano goddess Pele when I wrote the bolded sentence in the above quotation from Henke (2022b). Lundahl (2022L) just incorrectly assumes that I was limiting the discussions to Greek mythology. This is not a good bias on his part. If he wants to extensively discuss mythology, he needs to broaden his view of the topic because there are many more myths in the world than just those that came from his unjustifiable Western bias for ancient Greece and Rome. In particular, the central topic of this debate is Genesis 3, which is in all probability a myth from ancient Middle East.

Nevertheless, just because some stories only involve human “observers” and plausible-sounding events, such as shooting wooers or killing lions, that does not mean that these stories happened. Works of fiction and mythology do not necessarily involve gods, goddesses, or anything supernatural. Again, the first response to any claim, whether it involves the supernatural or not, should be skepticism. I need to immediately see some evidence before a claim can be elevated above “plausible” at best on my Henke (2022b) scale for ranking the probability of past events. Thus, while claims about the ancestors of Spartan kings might be plausible, I still need evidence before I can place any confidence in these or any other stories.

Lundahl (2022L) is correct that I would identify any stories involving hydra as likely myths, unless of course, someone actually produces a hydra or good evidence of one. The myth explanation for the hydra stories is the most probable explanation. Nevertheless, I find it disturbing that Lundahl (2022L) would even consider it appropriate to invoke demons as an explanation for hydra or other far-fetched stories. Again, where’s Mr. Lundahl’s evidence that demons exist? Why should he automatically invoke a supernatural cause for any story when it’s far more likely that someone just made it up?

Again, Lundahl (2022L) is making the wrong distinctions. Instead of dividing these unreliable ancient stories into “divine myths” and “heroic legends” categories as he does in Lundahl (2022a), elsewhere in Lundahl (2022L) and in some of his other essays, he should be dividing them into likely history based on archeology and other external evidence, plausible history and likely myth. Mr. Lundahl’s approach to evaluating these stories for historicity is all wrong.