Good stuff. Some of my thoughts:
The problem that is created lies within the subjectivity of the words, since anyone can interpretate any concept diffrently based on his own understanding of the world.
Can't we overcome this 'subjectivity' by clearly defining what words mean and agreeing on those definitions? For example:
Someone can ask: What is life? There is not an objective answer to that.
What about "the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual"? That seems like a reasonable definition of 'life' to me.
Ofcourse, you can argue that everyone has his own interpretation of what the words making up that definition in their turn mean, such as 'existence' and 'individual'. But again, I don't think that's an insurmountable problem. People can use their reason and abstract thinking to arrive at definitions they can all agree on.
So as much as we want to deny it, common myths and fantasies float around our everyday life like ducks in a pool. So why haven't we been able to get rid of them or atleast minimize the inevitable drawbacks that they come with? (fanatism,genocides, etc)
As you stated yourself, clearly these shared stories and myths have had a very useful purpose in the development of mankind. So why should we get rid of them? Why not just do our best to distinguish good 'common beliefs' from bad ones?
Unless ofcourse you believe that their is no 'good' or 'bad', 'right' or 'wrong'. Which a postmodern idea I don't subscribe too myself.
By using our logic in combination with science we can atleast understand (or think we can) how our mind works. Based on what I have already explained it is almost impossible to get rid of our cognitive creations and even if we did then we would have to face our experiential part.
Doesn't science fall under these 'cognitive creations', as you defined them? Isn't that basically one way of looking at the world that a bunch of people decided on was a good idea?
What I think you're trying to say is, that we should rid ourselves of superstition and tacit assumptions. Which is the basic tenet of humanism. Welcome to the club!
Thank you for your quick and insightful response!
About your first comment: I completely agree,but I tend to be skeptical about the possibility of two individuals reaching at an agreement for a common definition simply because you can never be sure about the other person's motives,experiences, knowledge.(But in the end I also believe my approach tends to be quite absolute and holistic, so dont bother haha)
About the second comment: I think it depends from whose perspective you examine the issue. As an entire human race improvement strategy your suggestions are more than enough. But what happens when we are looking at it from a quite narrow POV like the one of the ruling elite? Does their survival depend on our blind belief in these stories? ;)
I do believe that there is right or wrong and good or evil but at the same time I reject them as pure human constucts. (But I would like to explain my whole ''amazing'' theory before judging so let's not do it here haha)
About your third comment: No comment. I got wrecked. :D