Mythologies vs Religions

[kingpengvin]

I'm reading the messages regarding inter faith inter racial marriages and one poster brings up that he does not understand why mythologies play such an important role in peoples choices who to marry. Another Poster takes this very personally as an attacker on religion.

So now I wonder what the heck is the difference between a religion and a mythology other than the fact not many practice the mythology anymore (I.e. there are few followers of Zeus these days).

Can a religion be considered a mythology or does the word myth carry far too much baggage with it.

[Abe]

Almost exactly the same question came up in a thread months ago, so in the interests of laziness I am recycling my reply from Science as Religion

Originally posted by Abe
Mythology I would describe as a body of myths. And a myth, of course, is a traditional narrative usually involving supernatural characters/forces and embodying ideas on phenomena (from explanations for the rain, to birth, to war, etc.).

Religion is a particular system of faith and worship with codified belief in a superhuman controlling power who must receive worship, obedience, or other attention from its followers.

For example, Christianity is a religion that contains many myths.

Myths are an attempt to make sense of the world around us, they frequently predate religion and, indeed, often give rise to it.

Since all religions are based on series of myths, it is tempting to call all religions mythology, but I think that fails to emphasize the codified aspect of religion, whereas myths are not necessarily codified.

When I was discussing the origin of Jesus Christ in another thread a certain poster known to be very religious and not always objective jumped on my head for referring to Jesus as a myth. Since no evidence exists to substantiate his existence, the Jesus stories and claims are myths, and not history, and my treatment of them was fair from a scholarly point of view. The only reason this poster could provide for his objection was that calling Jesus a myth was disrespectful to those who knew for a fact that he was real. While I have no desire to offend anyone, it strikes me that this sort of religio-protectionist approach to inquiry is too "politically correct" and far too biased.

So my answer to the "baggage" part of your question is that it depends on the person you are talking to, but objectively speaking there is no real problem in referring to religion as mythology (keeping in mind the caveat provided in the quote above, and provided you apply the label with care). I haven't really thought about this problem as concerns new religions, like that cagal Scientology.

[Dravin]

From Merriam Webster http:www.m-w.com

Mythology:
1 : an allegorical narrative
2 : a body of myths : as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : MYTHOS 2 <cold war mythology>
3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth
4 : a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something <defective mythologies that ignore masculine depth of feeling -- Robert Bly>

Religion:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Anyway, realistically there really isn't much of a difference but some words carry negative connotations, it's like calling somebody's belief in a religion a superstition, you aren't really using the word but in the mind of the receiver you are belittling something that is a substantial part of that person's life and in some case there identity.

Anyway, it never hurts to be polite and refer to Mythologies as Religion to spare somebody's feelings, nor referring to a biblical person as an "unsubstantiated historical figure" (I kid you not, I've seen the term used), but then it's like using Collateral Damage instead of saying, "How many unarmed people we killed." Dang, I'm rambling; forgive me given half a chance I tend to do that. Reminds me of the time when I...

Anyway, use the term you feel is best, anyone you offend should get over it in a rather small amount of time.

P.S. I know I basicly parroted Abe but a little redundacy never hurt anyone, to badly anyway.

[Dravin]

Ack... Sometimes confusion is a good thing if it lets you fix mistakes.

Ah, well I'm sure anyone reading should understand what I'm trying to say. *shrug*

[Phoenix Dragon]

Originally posted by Abe
When I was discussing the origin of Jesus Christ in another thread a certain poster known to be very religious and not always objective jumped on my head for referring to Jesus as a myth. Since no evidence exists to substantiate his existence, the Jesus stories and claims are myths, and not history, and my treatment of them was fair from a scholarly point of view. The only reason this poster could provide for his objection was that calling Jesus a myth was disrespectful to those who knew for a fact that he was real. While I have no desire to offend anyone, it strikes me that this sort of religio-protectionist approach to inquiry is too "politically correct" and far too biased.

Most people's immediate reaction when they see the word "myth" is to interpret it as "fictional." Though they commonly are so, something being a myth doesn't mean it's fictional (At least, in this sense. There are other meanings of the word in common usage that does mean fictional, which complicates the matter in regards to cultural myths and the like). And there have been some myths (Of the less-than-super-natural kind) that have later been discovered to be true, at least to some degree.

A myth is something that is strongly believed by some, regardless of any lack of evidence to support it (Or even evidence suggesting otherwise). Wether it's true or not seems pretty much irrelavant untill proven to be so.

Or at least, this has been my little bit of education on the subject, havn't looked into mythology too deeply

[tomndebb]

Myths are the stories that people tell to give meaning to the universe and identity to themelves.

For example, in the U.S., we have developed the myth of the cowboy, the rugged individualist, (who, in the movies, rides into town like a knight errant, righting wrongs). The reality is that most cowboys of the old west were fairly young kids who operated with a quite feudal loyalty to the ranch where they worked and who were quite capable of bullying or even murdering people who were "outsiders." The general facts of 19th century western society do not actually contradict the myth, they stand alongside it. The myth allows us to develop an outlook on the world.

At the time that Christianity was spreading into the Roman empire, the myths of the Greeks and Romans had become disconnected from their systems of belief. Paul, in his preaching, seized on that severed connection to point out the silliness of many of the stories (called myths) that no longer conveyed the beliefs of the people. Once he had ridiculed myth, the word took on his pejorative meaning until reclaimed by anthropologists in the 20th century.

Many people, unaware of the anthropological meaning, use it only to ridicule the stories as silly. If one uses the word outside the anthropological context, equating religion to myth is the same as declaring that religion is nothing but a collection of silly stories.

On the other hand, those who understand that all people develop myths to create context for the world do not give or take insult by the use of the word. If every word of the bible is literally true, it is still myth, because it expresses the truth of the world in story. If every story in the bible is invented fiction, it remains myth, because it provides context for the beliefs that people hold.

[happyheathen]

no difference, eye of beholder, mine is real, yours is fake - that sort of thing.

but, yes, the faithful can get indignant if you refer to their belif as a 'mythology'. I use 'faith' for a generic term for religions, dead and alive, large or small.

[LokiTheDog]

A quote from Joseph Campbell's "Transformations of Myth Through Time"

the most fundamental truths about the meaning of life must be conveyed by metaphor because they cannot be fully explained through logic. [snip] as anyone who has been involved in an attempt to explain the meaning of a great work of literature or art must realize. An explanation or a synopsis can never be substituted for the full work. For this reason, the texts underlying the world's major religions are mythic stories rather than logical essays.... [snip].... Theologians and others attempt to analyze and interpret these stories and images logically, but, as any examination of the history of such exegeses and the widely differing interpretations of the same image or story reveal, their success is limited at best since those logical interpretations can convey only a part of the whole truth of the story.

Basically, myths or mythology 'admit' to being metaphor, whereas religion claims to be absolute truth or fact. I believe that the world's religions are beautiful, as long as they are read as mythology. But when the stories start getting taken literally, and the politics get injected, and laws start getting 'handed down straight from god' it turns quite ugly.

In my opinion, religion can be defined as mythology that got twisted and warped by men seeking to subjugate other men. Rather than simply being stories to explain the world we live in, they become words to control people with.

Mythology = metaphor
Religion = politics
Way too general, but that's what it seems to boil down to in my view.

Generally speaking, there are a few universal myths that underly all the world's religions. Read Campbell's works for more explanation. It is this about religions that confounds me, that many of them say 'basically' the same thing, but the differences in the interpretations of the myths cause men to ignore the underlying message, and become willing to kill anyone who doesn't agree with their take on the image.

[taklon]

A religion is a religion until people stop believing, ie ancient Romans. What they had to them was a religion and to us is a set of myths. No doubt one day christianity will be a mythology too.