Religion and Myth

Great Debates
21

Given the broad range of religious myth that is truly believed, today, (to say nothing of the vast range of secular myths that are believed), this statement is without a basis in fact.

It is also true that there are a number of religions with no living adherents for which we have no myths. A clear example is ancient druidism. We have several stories that may have been a part of their mythology, now corrupted, but there is no clear evidence of their actual beliefs carried forward in story. Similarly, a few details are known of the religion of the Etruscans, but no clear mythology has come down to us.

22

Ummm, why bother? Given the OP, I think that using a definition that actually indicates the relationship between religion and myth promotes the discussion better than a definition that myth is “all that silly stuff people used to believe.”

23

People who are so literal minded that they misread sacred texts as historical accounts of facts and events strive for faith, which means they lack faith, hence a comprehension of what religion is. These people are a genuine threat to civilization these days.

To acknowledge that religion is based on myth is to acknowledge the meaning of faith, and faith itself is the only conceivable proof of God’s existence, as I think it was Kierkegaard who said.

24

But I think that you can safely extrapolate far enough from

to include the idea that, if indeed the Etruscan religion(s) did pass down stories of supernatural creation, preternatural acts and/or encounters with half men/half platypus oddities, then, yes, those stories and tales would qualify as myths.

Of course, I’m taking it on assumption that happyheathen wasn’t limiting myths just to faded religions and was just pointing out that adherentless religions are (as far as I know) relegated to mythological status.

25

However, his statement (and similar statements in other threads) was the opposite of your assumption.

Without story, myth does not exist. Therefore, a religion of which we have knowledge, but from which we have inherited no stories, has not “become” a mythology. It has become a dead religion.
Similarly, a religion that expresses belief through story is actively using myth, so it will not “become” a mythology–it already uses mythology.

Mythology is one of many human endeavors that are used by religion. (Others include ritual, theology, prayer, and so on.) Mythology is also used by other non-religious social structures, so that it is able to stand outside the realm of religion. Claiming that unbelieved religions “become” myths simply misses the point that they are not the same thing.

26

I believe like others that some people take religon to so much of an importance that they “know” it is real. I am a Taoist my belief was spawned in myth but the main works of my belief basically suggest how to live. I believe that in this world today people are mistaking their “holy” works and seeing them at literal we have fundimentalism all over the place and its not just the muslems the christians are doing it too. Here in the south to even suggest you are not christian is like asking to be burnt at the stake. All beliefs are good but dont take the myths literally.

27

The titles of a couple of Joseph Campbell’s works tell much of the message he was conveying: The Hero with a Thousand Faces and The Masks of God. What he was saying is that if you look at all the myths around the world there are certain common threads that will always be found. The stories are different but the message is the same. These themes are not passed around, but instead are buried in our subconscious, which makes them common to everyone. Much of the misunderstanding is caused when we look outside instead of inside ourselves for the answers.

:wink: [sup]Religion is the myth of society, dreams are personal myths[/sup]

28

Now that is a myth if I ever saw one. :wink:

29

Not entirely true, I believe; one could, for instance, propose the exsitence of an Etruscan god (to continue to use, of course, the culture you brought up as an example) without attaching any stories. If the god didn’t exist, then he/she/it would be, by definition of ‘myth’ in Dictionary.com, a myth.

Stories aren’t the sole factor in determining myths, although they seem to be the most often used factor.

As of right now (in the midst of writing this thread), I’m not aware (or simply don’t remember) of any abandoned religion that didn’t incorporate stories of either supernatural being or events. Which is to say that, true, although we may not have any stories of the Etruscan religion floating about, I feel it’s not far-fetched to extrapolate from the overwhelming evidence of known dead religions that the Etruscans incorporated mythology into their religion.

I’m not so sure in this case. Not that I’m saying you’re wrong, of course, but I’d rather see happyheathen come clear this one up. Just from reading his post in question, I feel as if he wasn’t claiming that only faded/dead religions were myths, thus effectively leaving out secular and modern myths.

30

Oh, I’m sure that he would label all current religion as myth, as well. :wink:

However, I would hold that for this discussion, that is not the most appropriate definition of myth.

The actual question was “how do religion and myth differ?”

If we hold that myth is simply old tales that no one continues to believe, then the question is pointless. Religion is currently believed; myth is not.

However, I would hold that a better definition of myth, in this context, is the one I posted earlier (or any of the similar definitions that others have posted): that myth is story that provides meaning to a belief. In this context, we should understand that secular myths are every bit as valid and real as religious myths and that the particular age of a myth is irrelevant.

Regarding the Etruscans: I did not say that they did not use myth. (I suspect that all religion uses myth.) However, I would still hold that story is a key element to the definition of myth (as it should be defined for the purposes of this thread) and that refering to Etruscan religion as mythological would be a use of the word that differs from the use implied in the OP.

(As to definitions: happyheathen and I might both agree that the Gospels are myth–but I suspect that we would be conveying very different ideas with that statement.)

31

Cool. I’s down wit dat.

32

Good (whatever is currently believed :slight_smile: )

Yes, the Gospels are myths, the Souix resurrection story is a myth, every religion that has ever existed, or will ever exist is a myth - stories used to illustrate a common bond (yes, I’ve read Campbell).

My point vis-vis religions-as-myths is not that “religions are garbage”, but that "one religion may well be as useful as any other at the time and place it exists/existed.

I also doubt that any belief system has ever risen to the level of “religion” without employing mythology - hell, the mythology of the schoolyard is large enough to support an entire cosmology!

As to the OP (how do mythology and religion differ?):

Religon uses mythology to define and differentiate itself. Religious mythology typically explains the existance of the universe and man’s proper role therein. Most religions don’t seem to be able to limit themselves to just that, but then go into great detail as to how human society is to be ordered - in some cases getting into extreme minutia.
(But, when referring to “Greek Mythology”, “Norse Mythology”, “Egyptian Mythology”, most folks are speaking of “dead religions” - thus my point that all religions will end up in that “mythology” bin)

33

Is cold, hard science free from mythology? From Newton’s Apple, Stadonitz’ dream of benzene, and the life of dinosaurs and long-extinct animals condensed in cartoon form, I say not.

34

Uh, I’d have to quibble with that. I’d say that there is truth in it only to the extent that it models objective reality and enables the community to deal with that objective reality.

To illustrate my point on a purely secular, cultural level, the idea that firstborn children must be sacrificed to the volcano god is valid on any level only to the extent that it puts a common-consent mythical validity over the idea that “we’re living on a small island and must practice careful population control.”

Obviously, from the point of view of us theists (the whole gang of us), any myth to be useful must have reference to the real and true God and to none of those mockeries that them heathens worship. (I am of course quite consciious that that distinction will not be shared by all, and if we start identifying who is that one true and real God, adherents to the view start dropping off like flies.)

And, of course, that definition is explicitly not intended by me to restrict one’s conception of what myths have appropriate reference to God to those that constitute the Christian belief set, of whatever variety you care to identify. Most evangelicals, for example, will find no edification in the story of Francis and the birds, or his encounter with the Wolf of Gubbio.

I think a large part of why New Age ideas, woolly as they are, have taken root is because the Christian and Jewish myths have ceased to have any appeal to much of the modern psyche. And that is irrespective of whether they model spiritual or historical truths – they must also do it in a way that resonates with the persons expected to hear and respond to them. This is a large part of why His4Ever’s insistence on Christ’s payment in blood for the sins of the many has received such negative reactions here – that idea is one that is repellent rather than appealing on an unconscious level to most of us. Yet we see the closest parallel in modern fiction, Frodo’s self-destroying journey to Mount Doom, as high tragedy.

I am firmly convinced that the next decade will evolve a new myth–set, based on actual historical events to come but representing deeper and more resonant needs in humanity.

35

I’m tired, so, as usual this will be short…

I consider “truth” and “religion” as being separate and distinct entities - a religion can exist as long as it cannot be disproven - one creation story is as good as another - until somebody says that the universe is 6000 years old, and (largely) accepted “reality” holds that is is “billions and billions…”.
That kind of conflict tends to upset the religious equilibrium - when we found out that there really wasn’t a big, muscular guy holding the earth on his back, the firmament shook. When we discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, the RCC took a hit.

Your point of the “new-age” proto-religion is, in my never-exactly-humble opinion, exactly what I’m talking about - the theory of a Supreme Creator (even without the thunderbolts) no longer resonates with a sizable portion of the population, so new (or old) concepts are emerging to explain the nature of the universe, and humanity’s proper place therein.
So begins a new religion (or “cult”, if the larger population views them as a threat).

Maybe “Religion Evolves”? :slight_smile:

p.s. - this heathen “worships” life, not God(s)

36

Interesting post, Happyheathen.

If you mean a percentage or two as being a sizable portion, then I think that a sizable portion of the population has always been atheistic. Plus, I’m not at all sure that humanity’s place in the universe is a relevant matter for faith, since a man’s tenure with the universe is gravely brief.

Which brings me to what I thought was interesting.

Life, when used to mean metabolic organisms, seems like an awfully trivial thing. I’m trying to form a mental image of your “worship” metaphor being applied to rotting meat. What do you mean by “life”?

37

Throughout this thread, the word “religion” has been used to denote some kind of abstraction that is unfamiliar to me. There is a new definition of that word being used here.

Now I see why. Doctor Goo Fee set up the topic that way. (S)he (sorry I dont know your sex, I’m a newbie.) (S)he gutted religion right out of the gate, removing 95% of what religion is.

Here’s a quote:

Doctor Goo Fee
“…religion generally goes beyond a simple myth in that religion has artifacts and rituals, but other than those bells and whistles, how do religion and myth differ?”

Artifacts and rituals = Bells and whistles? No way! These things are trivial only if you dismiss them a priori as ungenuine and ineffectual. And you’re leaving out daily practices and actions, altogether.

“Religion”, as used here, is referring largely to a set of beliefs, and nothing more. It is as if you have never known any of the many fine people who truly are participants in an actual religion, nor read biographies of them.

Webster (1968…maybe that’s my problem…old dictionary!)
Webster 1968: religion (1) The service and worship of G-d or the supernatural

How many posts have involved WORSHIP and SERVICE in connection with religion? Very few, for one reason… well, let me wait on the reason.

Webster 1968: religion (2) a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices

PRACTICES!

I have seen many Christian people*, and Jewish people*, who live their entire lives within a set of principles that guide their every choice and action. Religion is not only the principles, but it’s also the actions themselves, by definition!

*(I’m so certain there are other religions with committed believers pursuing the Lord daily, and I’m just not familiar with them.)

But eviscerating the meaning of the word is the only way to compare religion [one of the greatest social mechanisms] with myth [a component of religion, which is also a component of many other social systems].

===

Loose ends:

How many posts have involved WORSHIP and SERVICE in connection with religion? Very few, for one reason: I dont know haha.

There are those folks who would like to invalidate religion in general by debunking the myths of a religion, or of religions. As a kid, I learned that this country was founded on the principle of telling the truth even when it is against self interest to do so. Is that principle of courageous honesty less valid if the George Washington cherry tree story never really happened?

38

Sometimes called “lifeforce” - the spiritual component of the meat. Some have decided that this component is immortal, I’ve decided , while it isn’t immortal, it is something to ponder.

Rogg - We are discussing religious beliefs - I think we are all aware that religious practice involves specialized spaces, rituals, incantations, etc. (feel free to jump in, Poly :wink: ), but here, we are comparing/contrasting religious beliefs and myths.

39

Lib, he’s talking about the spirit, not the atoms! ( G, D & R – but given the context, I just had to say it!! ) :slight_smile:

40

G, D & R ? (L, D, & R I could guess, but…)