Nandu, that is precisely what this thread is about.
However, it does not mean that some other story (for example, Creationism vs. Evolution) is not equally valid for a person whose personal narrative is more in sync with it.
Whether or not Creationsim is empirically correct, it is a critical assumption to those who cling to it. It is true in their narrative, and when stories conflict, most of the time it is extremely counterproductive to simply say, "You're wrong."
Indeed, in The Art of Discourse thread I said, years ago, that telling someone he or she is wrong is really an act of violence; you're attempting to undermine someone's construct of the world. That construct is a the story.
What makes this discussion so relevant to this site, is that conflict between Creationism and science is a conflict between disparate cosmologies. The Creationist is hanging on tooth and nail to... a story. The, what? Modernist? Is accepting the new story. Again, whether Creationism or evolution is empirically correct or not is beside the point. Anyone remember the BBS series Connections
? James Burke, in one episode said, "It didn't matter whether the earth was flat or not. Everyone behaved
as if it did."
As Schopenhauer said:
“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
So, we shouldn't hammer each other with our stories (that's when the moderator steps in lol!). We share them, and every so often we modify our own story based on what we hear from another's.
Sometimes, maybe most of the time, that takes courage.