This has always puzzled me: What’s the diffirence between, say, the myths of Zeus and those of the Aztecs, and the beliefs of Christians and Muslims today? I have a book of mythology which lists the stories of Hinduism and Buddism as myths, which I thought was somewhat insulting.
To us atheists, nothing.
Myth becomes religion when it is used by the State to justify its own kleptocratic means.
That is, religion is initially created or developed from myth to serve the State’s mission of getting the greater populace to transfer food/goods/other forms of wealth to the ruling class(es).
This can be done by the ruler claiming provenance from God, or by setting up a parallel ruling class (priests) to administer the religion.
You’ll want to be reading “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared Diamond to get the expanded version of this argument.
Best,
- Christian
A mythology posits some supernatural form of history, but does not necessarily prescribe a specific way of life. A religion may include a mythology, but is mainly about directing its adherents’ lifestyles.
Exactly, cmkeller. Judeo-Christianity has its own myths, eg. the story of Adam and Eve … While some practicioners insist that the myths are true, many are content to treat them as allegories or parables. Likewise, I doubt too many Hindus or Buddhists will defend the historicity of many of the myths behind their religions. To refer to the stories that lie behind the religion as myths is not necessarily insulting, although in the case of a central dogma (eg. the historicity of Jesus Christ or of Mohammed), it may be.
I don’t think there’s a factual answer to this that can be accepted as true by most people. I’ll move this to Great Debates.
I would say that myth is religion that is no longer believed in.
My two cents on this is that the answer lies somewhere between Meatros’s and cmkeller’s replies. An atheist will refer to the ascension of Christ as a myth, a Christian probably won’t. They’ll probably both refer to the story of Persephone as a myth. But in general, I think “myth” refers more to a story than an entire religion. Thus, “mythology” can be used to refer to a series of myths associated with a particular religion. For example, greek mythology refers to the collection of tales that describe various aspects of the greek polytheistic religion. Christian mythology refers to the group of stories that are presented in the Bible. The question, then, is what separates a myth from historical account? We know there was a Jesus, we know he died on a cross. Nobody denies that (or if they do, no one takes them seriously). So is the story of the crucifiction a myth? My take on it is that if you’re refering to only the historical (ie, non-religious) aspects of the story, it’s not a myth. Once you include the bit about the Resurrection, it becomes myth.
We can also just go with the dictionary definitions for each:
Myth: 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.
Mythology: A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.
Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
And there’s one other pseudo-flippant definition: It’s a myth if you don’t believe it and want to piss of those who do. I know people who like to call Christianity a “myth” just to get a rise out of Christians.
Jeff
My two cents on this is that the answer lies somewhere between Meatros’s and cmkeller’s replies. An atheist will refer to the ascension of Christ as a myth, a Christian probably won’t. They’ll probably both refer to the story of Persephone as a myth. But in general, I think “myth” refers more to a story than an entire religion. Thus, “mythology” can be used to refer to a series of myths associated with a particular religion. For example, greek mythology refers to the collection of tales that describe various aspects of the greek polytheistic religion. Christian mythology refers to the group of stories that are presented in the Bible. The question, then, is what separates a myth from historical account? We know there was a Jesus, we know he died on a cross. Nobody denies that (or if they do, no one takes them seriously). So is the story of the crucifiction a myth? My take on it is that if you’re refering to only the historical (ie, non-religious) aspects of the story, it’s not a myth. Once you include the bit about the Resurrection, it becomes myth.
We can also just go with the dictionary definitions for each:
Myth: 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.
Mythology: A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.
Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
And there’s one other pseudo-flippant definition: It’s a myth if you don’t believe it and want to piss of those who do. I know people who like to call Christianity a “myth” just to get a rise out of Christians.
Jeff
cmkeller has provided the best answer, so far.
To state it a bit differently, mythology is the expression of a truth understood by a people in story. In the U.S., we have two popular myths that support our self-identity as rugged individualists: the myth of the expert marksmen of the War for Independence beating back the hordes of disciplined British troops and the myth of the cowboy riding about like a knight errant. Each has some small kernel of fact at the core, but each is an expanded story that taps into our beliefs about ourselves, expressing what we believe is a truth about the American character. (Note that unless one equates nationalism and religion, there is no religious message in these myths.) Similarly, regardless whether the Sinai event or the Crucifixion and Resurrection are historical events, they are still myth in that they express a truth that is held by many people in story form. (I.e., even if those stories are historically acurate, they are still mythology for the way that they are used to express common beliefs.)
A religion is the organized way in which people express their belief in the supernatural (including both the liturgy or worship used to express adoration in common and the moral rules that are expected of the members of the group because of the relationship to the perceived supernatural).
While there are certain aspects of the development of religions and states that follow the pattern described by Bjorn240, not all religious experience is constrained by those actions (and that description ignores both the groups who are too small to have evolved into kleptocracies and groups who have grown large enough to develop pluralistic attitudes toward religion).
As to the OP, specifically, I would have no trouble with a book that described the mythology of Hindus, as long as it noted the mythological aspect of Christian belief. A book that says “They have myth while we have religion” is probably too biased to be of much benefit.
Myth doesn’t HAVE to have the implication of “fictional”: it only came to because the most famous “myths” in the West were the Greek myths, which were seen as fictional. Seeing something as mythical can be seen as seeing it as sort of supremely important and paradigmatic of some deep truth, regardless of whether or not it is true. My trip to the bank today is true, but not particularly interest. But Promethesus’ dilemna and actions, while probably not true, do speak to important truths about the human condition.
Religions can include core mythical tales (regardless of whether they are true or not), though they don’t have to.
The difference between myth and religion is which side of the line you are sitting on.
If its your story that explains your worldview, then its part of a valid belief system, which includes religions.
If its someone else’s story that explains his or her worldview, then its a myth.
There is no objective place to sit. It is all relative.
cmkeller and Apos have given the strict, technical explanation, and tom~ provides non-religious examples.
Meatros has pointed out the common, popular* connotation.
So it is (like everything) heavily context-dependent.
jrd
I was going to give a wry, terse reply, but some of the more thoughtful posts above have inspired me to give it a little bit more thought.
I think ElJeffe has gotten the closest to how I see it.
Myths are old stories, which are frequently embellished or changed as they are re-told for new generations. Myths can be set in writing, but are often stories passed on by word of mouth, from parent to child or from leaders to the people they lead. Greek myths are a good example, and they form the basis for the Greek religion… but the stories themselves were not the religion, the stories were their way of passing on history, or information, or knowledge. Arthurian myth is another good example, but in that case it was never incorporated into a religion. Quite the opposite, in fact, as Arthurian myth has changed with the religious backgrounds of those who retell it. A myth may be entirely true, based on a true story, or may be entirely falsified.
Religions are organizations of people who believe in a particular deity and/or way of life. Religions often incorporate popular myths to give them more validity or make them more accessible to the people they want to address. The Greek polytheistic religion incorporated many of their stories, and obviously Christianity has incorporated many myths into its own pantheon. Note that this is not casting aspersions on either Christianity or the Greek faith… as I said above, the myths can be completely true or false, or anywhere in between. I just think it’s fairly clear that both incorporated myths that existed before the religion was established.
Oddly, Eve’s post is at least partially right… it was more along the lines of what I was going to say originally. The difference between mythology and religion is partially defined by whether people still believe it or not, and how that belief is organized and directed. It isn’t entirely true, though, as I can believe in a myth that is not a religion. Example… I do not believe in most of the Christian mythological pantheon, which is certainly a religion. I do, however, believe in many of the Arthurian myths, and those do not constitute a religion in themselves. So, belief does not completely define the difference between religion and myth, though it can sometimes help.
Like bibliophage said, there really is no factual answer to the OP, other than the obvious (and unhelpful) dictionary definitions… but there’s my perspective on the matter.
Actually, there’s a factual answer, and the dictionnary is exactly the tool needed to answer the question. Tomndebb explained it quite well.
The confusion of the OP comes from a common but innacurate acception of the word “myth” .
Probably true sometimes. But I’ve always suspected that the reverse is sometimes true as well. I can imagine that the first person who wrote a story personifying the forces of nature didn’t literally believe that there was, for example, an anthropomorphic Thor hurling a thunderbolt across the sky. It just seemed like a good way to express a mystery. The story was created as a myth (though I guess without being old, it couldn’t be a proper myth). Later it came to be believed by simple-minded folks who couldn’t come up with any better explanation, and so eventually became part of a religion.
As time goes on, cultures die out or change fundamentally, the stories that make up a religion may revert to the status of myth. I think this happens even before the religion dies out. Today many Christians take the stories of the Creation and the Flood as symbolic, or as myth, but they still hold on the religion.
Just a theory. Like Eve said, to some of us they’re the same.
Actually, I do not believe that is a matter of perspective. I definitely believe in the Crucifixion and Resurrection, but I still recognize that the story is Myth.
Hmmm Tom,
Your point (and that of Apos) is well made. But.
Do you think that your usage, technically correct though it may be, is consistent with real world usage of the word? If I, as a non-Christian, approached a random selection of devoutly religious Christians and characterized the Cruxifixion and Resurrection as “Myth” would I be warmly recieved for recognizing the importance of these stories to their worldview?
General usage implies that the story has been accepted as true without question while in reality is without basis. It is usually a judgement as to the literal truth of a story, not exclusively a comment on the value of a story in expounding a greater truth about a worldview.
General usage, especially among some Fundamentalist Christians, will follow St. Paul’s meaning of “silly stories that no one really believes.” In the context of the OP, I would generally opt for the anthropological definition. (I’ve given talks on scripture at various church functions, and this is usually my opening point–reclaiming the word to give it meaning.) It is true that one has to get in front of the discussion with an explanation, but there is not another word that really has the anthropological meaning conveyed by myth.
I’m sure that the book Sam Hell mentioned in the OP did not use the word in the strict anthropological sense. However, by allowing only the popular meaning to stand uncontested, we surrender a valuable word to the forces of ignorance.