"A myth is a sacred story from the past. It may explain the origin of the universe and of life, or it may express its culture’s moral values in human terms. Myths concern the powers who control the human world and the relationship between those powers and human beings. Although myths are religious in their origin and function, they may also be the earliest form of history, science, or philosophy… "
Sounds a lot like religion to me. Admittedly, religion generally goes beyong a simple myth in that religion has artifacts and rituals, but other than those bells and whistles, how do religion and myth differ?
and then there’s the dictionary definition of myth: (from dictionary.com)
myth n.
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).
It seems tto me that religion is simply the belief in a particular myth. And I certainly don’t doubt the importance of myth to humankind (see J. Campbell). So it’s fine with me if people want to believe in myths. Just please don’t go about infecting other people with your affectation.
First, religion does not equal myth, if only because there are myths which are not religious - e.g. George Washington and the cherry tree.
Secondly, most - probably all - religions do involve myths.
Thirdly, as the definitions you have selected make clear, myths do not have to be untrue. If a story serves to “delineate the psychology, customs, or ideals of society” then it becomes a myth, whether it is true or false in a literal sense. The story of Hugh Latimer saying to Thomas Ridley (as both were burned at the stake for professing protestant beliefs) “Be of good cheer, master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out” is an example of a religious myth which is literally true.
Hence to describe a particular religious text or story as a myth is not necessarily to say that it is untrue. If what you want to say is that it is untrue, just say that it is untrue. You weaken, rather than strengthen, that position by describing it as a myth instead.
Myths can occur in many groups, not limited to religious ones.
Religion is the way the people organize their belief in the Divine so as to be able to pass on that belief to later generations. It can encompass myth, philosophical theology, ritual, rules, Scripture, and a great many other methods of preserving and explaining that belief.
The myth vs. religion dichotomy gets unfortunate reinforcement from St. Paul’s mockery of the Ancient Greek myths. By the first century, the older Greek religion(s) had been under siege from the rationalists as well as “upstart” religions such as Mithraism and, later, Christianity and Zoroastrianism. These assaults were not “bad” things, but as the Greek religion receded from general acceptance and promulgation in society, fewer and fewer people maintained an awareness of the stories in the context of the belief. So when Paul blasted the stories as silly, people looked on randy Zeus going about impregnating women as a bird or a shower of coins and said, “Yeah. They’re silly.”
Tuckerfan’s observation is certainly a valid one from the perspective of people (biblical literalists come to mind) who hold to the factual truth of their stories while pointing out the improbabilities of the other group’s stories.
Anthropologically, however, myths are pretty pervasive in all societies–and as I noted in the other thread, they are not myths if they do not express truth. (Of course, since we are examining belief, one person’s truth is likely another person’s silly story.)
Sadly, I’ve no idea. Someone else posted that on these Boards, perhaps they’ll be kind enough to reply here with the answer.
Personally, I think that all religions should be treated as myths. Not because I think that they are invalid, but because all of them admit that it is impossible for mere mortals to know the mind of god/the gods. Every religion that deals with a god/gods/goddess/goddesses states, unequivocaly that it’s impossible for mortals to see the true form of a diety and remain sane. This tells me (and sadly, few others) that what is true for one person, is not necessarily true for another and that both versions are equally right and wrong.
If you read much of Campbell, you come to a great appreciation of the value of myth. A bunch of white, blue, and red bunting put together in a particular pattern physically comprises only a bit of cloth – but what it stands for has led men to risk and sometimes give their lives for it. There’s a cleared area at the southern tip of Manhattan where a couple of buildings used to be. It looks little different from any other excavated demolition site – but for the last fifteen months it’s come to mean something special to people.
I don’t have to read the story of Adam and Eve and the snake as some sort of literal history to appreciate the significance of it. I once said to a fundamentalist friend on this board that even if the words of Genesis 1 described the actual literal truth of what happened one week in October 4004 BC, it was written as a myth. That’s the genre of writing it is, not what its truth value is. And the early chapters of Genesis say a lot about human nature in a very small compass, but depending on mythical imagery.
If you have an inconceivably magnificent God, it’s a part of what makes humans human that they will focus on some element of that God and anthropomorphize Him – and in doing so, create myths for themselves.
I think there is far more truth in Oedipus Tyrannos than in Freud’s book about that play, regardless of what may or may not have happened in Thebes about 1000 BC.
That annoys me as well. Both parties fail to recognize that “religions being based upon myths” does not equate to “religions being based on lies”.
It is my opinion that the literal truth of a religion is not as important as its metaphorical underpinnings, conveyed through the mythologies that make up said religion.
I would say that, generally, religion is active and myth is passive.
I think of a painting.
Myth is the background, the setting, probably very rich in detail.
Religion is the ritual set of actions being performed in the foreground by the “religious” person or persons. The observance of the actions “manifests faithful devotion to an ultimate reality, or deity”, to quote a dictionary.
Both can be, and usually are rich “in metaphorical underpinnings”, to quote JustPlainBryan. And, perhaps like JPB, I believe that these metaphors are where the power to entrance and capture, to enlighten and comfort reside in both religion and myth.
The contemplation of metaphor can lead to new and enriched understanding of ourselves and our world. I wonder how much further a disciplined approach to contemplation of metaphor can take us?
Just a side comment, that something being a “myth” does not mean it is untrue or should be ignored. For example, Abraham Lincoln has mythic stature in U.S. politics and history.
HH, thank you for your expertise. I think those of us who have participated in this thread so far, believer and non-believer alike, have sedulously made the distinction between “myth” as a pejorative meaning “the junk those other idiots believe that I don’t” and “myth” as a meaning-and-symbolism-laden genre of discourse used to elucidate things that are subconsciously felt rather than rationally deduced.
But you may be right – including the myth of philosophic materialism.
Hmmm… perhaps reading Joseph Campbell should be required reading for this thread. Based on my reading of Campbell several years ago, I believe that what he says is that the power of religion is in the belief or the symbols of believe that evolved out of the stories that have been passed down through the ages. Taken one step further, that it doesn’t matter whether the belief is true fact or myth. So maybe it really comes down to a chicken or egg issue. Who came first? God or man. I think that it could have been man. If you take metaphysics out of the question, it must certainly be man. Don’t you all think?
Just clear up the amphiboly by equivocation. Words like “myth” and “utopia” have meanings that span the spectrum. And some even have opposite meanings. What does this statement mean: “Mr. Smith’s work was sanctioned by the committee.”?
