Myths and religion

[Az]

There is a lot of anger over referring to religions as myths. A suggestion to those that choose to use the myth reference. A myth refers to the backstory of a particular belief. However it carries with it the suggestion that the story is fanciful and untrue. The stuff of dreams. Now you may in fact believe a religion to be just this but its adherants do not. It is disrespectful to the believers to simply state that their beliefs are myths. You are not going to convince anyone by telling them flat out that they are wrong. Its not the way the mind works. It takes time and effort to change beliefs. More so than can be done in the middle of an anger filled debate.

Yes they may very well believe in lies. They may very well be deluded. But so too may we be deluded. Telling us so will not change our position. We wish to be treated with respect then we must give respect. This is simply the way discussions are carried out. We disagree on many things. If we wish to even have the chance to present our case we have to show respect to those we wish to help(and vice versa).

[TrogL]

1. The distinction between myth and religion

is that religions deals with the numinous.

Incidentally, this is also the distinction between coincidence and synchronicity.

[Az]

5. Most uses of words are seldom of the dictionary def

When a person uses a word their intent may not be recieved. For both the originator and the recipient bring their own conceptions to the table. In public forums this effect is far more difficult to account for than in more erudite enviroments. Thus efforts must be taken to take these into account.

[Walt Starr]

17. This is why I make my statement thusly

[papau]

35. I love to be in charge the definitions - even better than the axioms

Because then I do not need to discuss "faith"

You just have to accept my definitions.

On faith.

And then say faith is not the same as belief.

And Belief in God is special because we define a term "metaphysical" to describe it.

Sorry, Walt - but play your silly game and feel happy about the "this not a putdown but you believe in myths" posts at someplace other than a Democratic Party web site.

Please.

[Walt Starr]

41. Please, go look into mythology.

Myth is a positive word, not a negative word.

[papau]

44. I agree "myth" is can be just a word - indeed positive - but not as used

at DU.

peace

:-)

[Walt Starr]

47. Please remember, Papau

I am a very religious man, so much so that I sought and achieved the status of an ordained priest of my faith.

When I state irrefutably that all gods are myths by defnition, I include my own Goddess and God.

[papau]

57. 19 years in the Society of St Vincent -guess that makes me a religious man

It doesn't of course -

but I am.

And I accept that you are also.

But words have effects based on context --- and at DU there is no reason to discuss "myths" except to put down believers in God. A C S Lewis attitude is just not possible to convey in a post.

And why would one want to - this is a political site.

peace

:-)

[Walt Starr]

63. "Fairy tales", yes. "Myths", no.

Fairy tales intimate a pretty specific genre of mythology, originally associated with the Celts, the Fey Folk of the Sidhe, and the Tuatha De Danaan (children of Dana).

So I could accept somebody claiming my religion is based upon fairy tales because, for a good portion of it anyway, it is. Ceridwen and Cerrnunos are two of my most favorite aspects of The Goddess and The God, and both are Celtic in orgin. Brigid and Nuada are another two of my favorites, both Celtic in origin. Of course, claiming that Saint Brigid is based upon fairy tales would be an accurate representation because when the Celts were assimilated into the Christian faith, the Goddess Brigid was canonized because it was impossible to demonize it (such as was done with Pan of the Greek mythos or Lucifer of Italian origin).

Claiming Christianity is based upon fairy tales is an insult both to Christianity and to those Pagan belief systems that actually have some basis in fairy tales.

But when you come down to it, all religions are based upon mythology regardless of the specific genre (or subgenre if you will) of mythology. Mythology is independent of fact. Myths do not require being factual. The power of myth lies in the ability to stimulate the human psyche.

[papau]

71. We agree - indeed the similiar threads in each areas "myths" makes

one wonder if there is a "uber-mind" - but that may be getting too close to the word God for some ... :-)

It's been fun Walt - but if I do not get a project into Fed Ex by 7 tonight I have to live on Social Security - not a pleasent thought!

:-)

till later

:-)

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. You still won't see it

We see the terms as the same. How can you not understand you are offending the crap out of a bunch of people?

[Walt Starr]

No comment

:shrug:

***

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. Probably the first post

I can't argue with you about.

[rini]

108. Myth

what I think of myth and religion is imaterial. If someone believes something that is their choice and they should not be slighted for these beliefs. Take a course at the university for nit-picking arguments.

[TrogL]

117. C. S. Lewis and Christianity

Mere Christianity is an excellent viewpoint (with some flaws, see below) on the true conservative approach (as opposed to Freeper) to Christianity. His argument is forceful and well thought out.

Wierdly enough, it falls apart when he attempts to approach homosexuality as he wallows in logical fallacy.

[maha]

115. There are nontheistic religions.

Buddhism specifically teaches that nothing is numinous, or else that everything is.

The notion that "myths" are invalid because they are not literally true is peculiar to the modern period. Premodern people did not worry about whether a myth was literally true or not; rather, the point to myths is that they are representative of truth; they can provide a context to the way we experience our lives.

[vi5]

2. Myth is defined as...

"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."

I don't see why that doesn't fit as a description of religion.

[greyl]

6. Yeah, it reminds me of that "niggling" controversy

from a couple of years ago.

[chiburb]

32. Do you mean "Niggardly"?

A real word (even Bill Gates spellcheck approves!) that someone took offense to?

[greyl]

34. Ah yes, that's what I meant. :) Thanks!

No wonder I couldn't find who said it when I did a websearch.

[carolinayellowdog]

80. A DC local govt. official was forced to resign

after using it in financial context

[Walt Starr]

7. Another defintion is

a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.

Since there has never been any verfication for the existance of any of the over 4000 gods that have, at one time or another in human history, been alleged to exist, all gods are myths by definition.

In fact, that single statement is the only factual frame of reference applicable to all religions and the lack of religion and as such, puts all relgions and the lack of religion on equal footing. Without such a frame of reference, some religion or other will claim more or unequal validity.

[damnraddem]

46. The word 'myth' as used colloquially is seen as negative.

Thus, it may be politically-counterproductive to use it when speaking of someone's religion. We now see the Roman gods as myths; but it would have been politically counterproductive (and perhaps a bit foolhardy) to say so to Caesar.

[Walt Starr]

99. In my religion, I use the Roman or more accurately the Greek deities

as the aspects of My Goddess and my God.

Hecate evokes incredibly powerful imagery for many people of my faith.

I rarely use the Roman names, although I would stand up in defense of the Latin God of Light, Lucifer. Aradia as the Daughter of Diana is also very powerful imagery for us and has it's basis in the mythology of the Italian peninsula, but I digress.

Are you somehow saying my religious beliefs are less valid than yours? The statement I make is the great equalizer. Must I become PC and alter it to say, "The existance of any of the over 4000 gods that people have claimed to exist during the time that man has made such claims is unverifiable.", or is my statement somehow unfactual?

Tell me, I really would like to know. Making a claim that somehow the basis of your religion is more valid than the basis of mine, while not offensive, is demonstrably arrogant, IMO.

[TahitiNut]

88. "logos" and "mythos" are the paired paths to Truth

The trouble comes when they are treated indistinguishably. A myth can be True without being true, while a fact can be true without being True. :shrug: Read some Karen Armstrong.

[goddess40]

3. Do you refer to other religion's beliefs as myth?

That could be the litmis test. I refer to all religions not just a select few.

[damnraddem]

58. That's good. But the negative effects will still follow from so doing.

People will see your calling their religion a 'myth' as an attack on THEIR religion, not as even-handed discussion of all religion, including your own. This is the political point: don't use a term that will insult unless your intent is to insult. If your intent is to insult, then by all means, go to it -- but expect to face the consequences.

[dofus]

4. I only refer to religion as a myth

when speaking to someone who does not accord my non belief with respect. Which, sadly, is a lot of believers.

[Walt Starr]

9. Religion cannot be myth

Religion can be verified to exist, unlike the gods associated with religion.

[ComerPerro]

15. Ok, thats a good point

But I like to phrase it this way:

Whats the difference between organized religion and a cult?
The number of followers.

[Walt Starr]

21. Actually, by defnition

All religions are cults.

Now the more modern assocaitions with the word "cult" will make that offensive to some, but I oftne will refer to my religion, Wicca, as a matrifocal sex cult. It's an accurate statement and factually represents Wicca for what it is. I consider most forms of Christianity to be androcentric death cults, but that's probably just me. I don't generally flaunt that statement.

[ComerPerro]

24. "matrifocal sex cult"

Sign me up

[Walt Starr]

29. To me, sex is the highest form of worship

Engaging in the act which brings forth new life, what can be more spiritual than that?

And focussing on the sex which is that which brings forth new life, how can one NOT worhsip that?

[Az]

36. Sex was an early primary influence on religion

In fact early Christian sects (according to the Romans) partook in various sexual rites. Sex creates a profound change in the neural chemical reaction that creates a change is selfawareness. This ties into the studies that demonstrate the creation of religious experience by shorting out portions of the brain that govern identity and self. This is a way to attain communion with god/the universe/reality/etc.

[Walt Starr]

49. This is also why ritual use of natural substances is so pervasive

in cultures throughout the world. Peyote use is only one example.

[Az]

64. Exactly

It is interesting to study the experential religions vs the intellectualized ones. The Roman pagan gods were more a intellectualization of the human condition. Their stories acting out the learned aspects of our own nature. Their codes becoming the moral laws of the land. Thus the reason people were made to swear to the gods. It was in fact an oathe to the moral code of the society. Which was of course problematic to the newer religions that could not swear to these gods.

The experential religions would actually seek to form a communion with the god. These would entail bachanels and other rites that would drive the participants into states of mind that created the sense of being in touch with the "other". Prayer, meditation, offerings, and other practices are the remnants of these rites. Experential religions are very difficult to dislodge because the participants know they have had contact with the unknowable. All the facts in the world will not disuade such a belief in one go.

[SlutBunwalla]

8. Reposting a reading suggestion from the other thread--

That GMA segment wasn't quite as fundie-centric as the original poster implied.

It dealt as much with humanity's search for meaning in life as it did with whether or not we're "hard-wired" for religion (be it Christianity or any other belief system).

The idea is also not a new one--French anthopologist Rene Girard has written extensively on the almost universal occurrence of this in human society; the best of his books is Violence and the Sacred, (published about 30 years ago, and still in print) and one I highly recommend to both believers and non-believers. It is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read (and I've RE-read this one several times).

Girard details at length the human need to "create" a god or gods (talks about everything from the Greek pantheon to Christianity and beyond), and the purpose that serves in society. He does this not from a pro-religion or anti-religion standpoint, and is careful to point out how certain aspects of this very human tendency can be extremely destructive.

Here's a link to the book on Amazon (complete with a few excerpts):

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801822181/qid=1063127590/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-0870924-4847810

And those (both religious and atheists) who would think of myths in any derisive way, would do well to remember not just Campbell and not just Girard, but also the great historian Thucydides, who makes a fascinating argument about the relevance of myth to human history. You can find a few tidbits here:

http://www.janus.umd.edu/May2001/Melson/04.html

This is fascinating stuff--I just wish those among us, no matter your beliefs, could be a tad less reactionary on the subject, and consider some of these ideas. We humans are interesting critters, and there's something deep within how we tick that leads to a search for meaning.

[Walt Starr]

11. The Power of Myth

Perhaps my favorite book of all time, by Joseph Campbell (actually, Bill Moyers interviews with Joseph Campbell).

Loved the PBS series, too!

[greyl]

26. Joseph Campbell - "The Power of Myth" plus

all of his work actually, is great.

This problem stems from the two opposing definitions of "myth":
"Bullshit that lots of people used to believe" and "stories about the wisdom of life".

Religion can be called "myth" in a respectful way.

[Walt Starr]

31. We should reclaim the power in teh word myth

Mythology has had a huge impact upon civilization throughout the ages. We need to use the term "myth" more often. Human existance would not be what it is were it not for myths.

[greyl]

33. Woah, that can be taken different ways. ;)

"Human existance would not be what it is were it not for myths."

You mean like the central myth to our culture that "The world was made for man and man was made to rule it"?

[Walt Starr]

45. Not really so

I do not accept that central myth. In fact, my relgiious faith denies any creation myth. We have a birth myth.

In other words, The Goddess and the God made love and The Goddess gave birth to The Universe out of that love.

That is not a creation myth. There was no creating done by a single deity. There was love shared by two deities and the Universe is the result of that union so that part of The God and part of The Goddess exists within all that is.

I recognize that for the myth that it is, but it is no less valid than to say that in the beginning, The God created the Heavens and the Earth. I connect better to the birth myth than I ever could to the creation myth.

[greyl]

51. Ya, I said "central myth to our culture" though. :)

That's a fact, no comment about your worldview at all.

[Walt Starr]

53. True, but not all accept that within out culture

and acceptance of that as a central myth becomes less each year that passes because religions other than the one that myth is central to become more populated within out culture.

That is not to say that it won't remain the central myth for some time to come, just that its importance lessens to a degree each day.

[greyl]

59. It's not simply a religious myth though.

It's 10,000 years old and so deeply held, that the vast majority of people can't even recognize it in themselves. They just live it out.

(btw, I'm coming from a Daniel Quinn, Jared Diamond, David Suzuki pov.)

Nice tangent we've created, eh? ;)


edit: My point was that, that is one particularly dangerous and destructive myth - hence not all myths are beautiful.

[ComerPerro]

10. If you read the Bible

Then could you please explain to me how it does not come off as a myth, or a series of fables?


I consider all religions to be myths.

I think this is better than considering one religion to be God's word, and all others to be sinful, blasphemous lies.

[Walt Starr]

12. I consider no religions to be myths

I consider myth to be the basis of all religions, though.

[ComerPerro]

25. I think that is what I was trying to say

When I say "myth", I am reffering to the stories on which religious beliefs are founded.

[Walt Starr]

52. And that is the beauty of myth

It is not important whether the myth is factual or not. What is important is the idea being expressed via the myth.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. You consider

Now be considerate and don't use the term myth when referencing my beliefs or those of others here.

[ComerPerro]

22. I don't just attack religion for the hell of it

I was just outlining my take on it.

If someone is a devout Christian, I only take exception to them when they either
a) contradict their own beliefs
or
b) mock and ridicule others with a different religion as heritics

[Az]

18. To us it comes off as myth

That is not the question. We have clearly established that we do not believe these stories or find serious flaws within them. The issue at hand is how to talk to people that do believe these things in such a way as to open a real dialoge. It matters little if you are right if no one will listen to you.

[Walt Starr]

23. I can see where stating religion is a myth can be offensive

It's also not factually accurate. Even stating bluntly that all gods are myths can come off wrong, but stating all gods are myths by defnition is pretty clear. You've stated that gods fit one or more of the defnitions of "myth".

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. Both are equally offensive

As is the fact that this fucking debate is still going on because you are being so stubborn. This debate got one thread pulled. Shooting for two?

[Mandate My Ass]

106. My "god" resides in each living human being

Whenever somebody calls another human being a piece of garbage that needs to be disposed of in the most cruel and inhumane way possible, I am profoundly offended. That hasn't stopped you from celebrating the death of my "god" repeatedly and insensitively in many many threads here.

[greyl]

28. So basically, understand your opponents lack of knowledge and

don't be a dick! :)

[Bridget Burke]

20. "Orthodoxy is my doxie....

"Heterodoxy is the other fellow's doxie."

[Blue_Chill]

13. Thank You Az

as always you have shown yourself to be a fantasitc example for the atheist community.

[Brian Sweat]

16. You will not convince someone period.

If you try to convince someone that something as personal as their religious beliefs are incorrect, you will receive stiff resistance. The best thing to do is respect their beliefs and not try to interfere.

[Walt Starr]

27. Stating that gods are myths by defnition is not stating that they ar wrong

It is merely stating that the existance of that for which they may or may not have faith in is unverifiable.

[Az]

30. The effect on the listener

Consider your goal. Are you simply trying to be right or are you trying to convey an idea to someone? When approaching someone you have to think about how they are going to hear what you say. The goal hopefully is to convey knowledge to them. If it is parsed in such a way that they are going to reject your ideas then you have failed.

This is not necissarily about being right or wrong. This is about the Art of discussion. The flow of ideas. It is about how the mind works and not taking the mind into consideration is a sure route to failure.

[Walt Starr]

38. But myth is not a negative word.

Look at the etymology. Myth, from the Greek mythos which more or less means study.

I understand that some may not be well read , but really, if one is to enter into an intelligent discussion, one should recognize one's own limitations be it with grammar, spelling, vocabulary, or any other such deficiency.

When I demostrate the irrefutable fact that all gods are myths and why, it really is no longer open for debate unless somebody is capable of verifying some god's existance at which point faith becomes obsolete and all relgions unassociated with the verified deity become invalid.

So long as there is no verification for the existance of any god, all relgions, and the lack of religion, are equally valid.

On top of that, myth plays such an important role even in looking at the history of just the United States. There are so many myths associated with teh founding fathers that theirs is an existance that begins to transcend reality into mythology. Washington did not chop down a cherry tree, yet the allegory associated with that event is what is really important.

Nope, myth is a positive word and I will always use it as such.

[bloom]

61. you really are being stubborn

to insist that "myth is a positive word and I will always use it as such." when obviously it is NOT positive to many.

It reminds me of the Evil discussion. Some people feel free to call others evil and it doesn't necessarily mean that much. And you can look up the definition and it can apply to lots of people. BUT it is a charged work - and when you notice what synonyms are related - you see more of the connotations that people give it. Like demonic and such.

Think of George Bush calling Iraq, Iran and Korea "EVIL". He could have argued the definition like you are doing. But - WE knew the connotations. Same thing here.


_____

Definition: EVIL

1. morally objectionable behavior
2. the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world"
3. that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare
4. having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force"
5. tending to cause great harm
6. morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
7. having the nature of vice

Synonyms: atrocious, bad, black, corruptive, dark, demonic, depraved, despicable, devilish, diabolic, diabolical, evil-minded, evilness, fiendish, flagitious, grievous, harmful, heinous, hellish, immoral, immorality, infernal, iniquity, injurious, malefic, maleficent, malevolent, malign, mephistophelean, mephistophelian, monstrous, perversive, satanic, sinister, ugly, unholy, unworthy, vicious, vile, wicked, wickedness

Antonyms: good, good, goodness

[Walt Starr]

66. Apples to oranges

Myth is to evil as fish is to bicycle.

[bloom]

69. that may be

but the argument of definition and the positive and negative understanding of the words - is the same.

[Walt Starr]

75. Not really

There is no positive connotation for "evil", ergo, your analogy cannot stand.

[bloom]

83. yes

there is just negative or negative in an inflamatory way - that's true - but the point is the underlying message that is not necessarily included in the definition. But you probably understood that. You're just enjoying the argument.

[Walt Starr]

96. I disagree

Due to the inherent limitations of language, the definitions of the words used are all we have to formulate the basis of understanding.

If one is unsure of the connotation of a word used in a statement on a message board, one really must look up the definition.

[bloom]

103. lets look at the Thesaurus Terms

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/


I've separated them - positive and negative and neutral

positive: ancient wisdom, archetypal myth, archetypal pattern, common law, custom, history, imagery, lore, Marchen, Mishnah, mystery, racial memory, Talmud, tradition, traditionalism, traditionality, vision,

neutral/unrelated : Western, Western story, Westerner,

negative:adventure story, allegory, apologue, apparition, bedtime story, brainchild, bubble, canard, chimera, cock-and-bull story, concoction, creation, delirium, detective story,epic, extravaganza, fable, fabliau, fabrication, fairy tale, falsehood, fancy, fantasque, fantasy, fib, fiction, figment, folk motif, folk story, folklore, folktale, forgery, gest, ghost story, hallucination, horse opera, idle fancy, illusion,imagination, imagining, immemorial usage, insubstantial image, invention, legend, lie, love story, maggot, make-believe, mystery story, mythology, mythos, nursery tale, parable, phantasm, phantom, prevarication, romance, saga, science fiction, shocker, sick fancy, space fiction, space opera, Spiritus Mundi, story, Sunna, suspense story, tall tale,thick-coming fancies, thriller, trip, untruth, vapor, whim, whimsy, whodunit, whopper, wildest dreams, work of fiction

______________

On the face of it - the definition: a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people] - could be fine.

But when you consider the Thesaurus Terms - it seems pretty obvious that people could be offended. The meaning is made more clear through the associated words.

______________


Personally - I consider myself neutral. I don't think either side should attack the beliefs or non-beliefs of the other. I see you as the one attacking.

You seem to enjoy the whole myth part of religion. I think that's great. But you also seem to insist on ramming it down everyones throat.

[Walt Starr]

104. I still disagree

No time right now, have to catch the train, but I'll be back later tonight.

[Walt Starr]

111. I would agree with you had I stated

God is synonymous with myth. Then the thesaurus would be applicable. I did not, however, state that. I stated that all gods are myths by definition. Only the dictionary applies to that statement.

[Az]

76. It really doesn't matter if you are right

If no one is listening to you. This goes to the goal you set for yourself. Are you arguing with yourself or are you trying to talk to someone else? You have to be sensitive to how your audience is recieving the information. They may be receiving it wrong but does hammering on them help you make your point any better? It merely angers them all the more. You may have to moderate your terms and find ideas within their mental constructs that can be used to show them the path you wish to present.

[Walt Starr]

81. The problem is that a kneejerk reaction

prompts other kneejerk reactions in return.

Thanks Az. I see where you are coming from, but it's a two way street and requires an understanding of the language used.

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. Too bad you don't try to understand it

You are offending people in almost every post on this topic, yet you persist.

[Solomon]

39. Too bad that those who would have you respect their beliefs

are constantly trying to interfere with your beliefs. Sometimes you have to refer to a belief as a myth in order to defend yourself. In other words, if they leave me alone, I leave them alone. But when they try to convert you, all bets are off.

[papau]

50. A reasonable approach - indeed the approach taken by God believers

at DU - in general.

peace

:-)

[Brian Sweat]

89. You are correct.

I don't try to dissuade people from their beliefs, but if they try to convert me, I can be a real smart ass.

[bloom]

19. C.S. Lewis -from the essay "Myth Became Fact" (1944)

?The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens--at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle. I suspect that men have sometimes derived more spiritual sustenance from myths they did not believe than from the religion they professed. To be truly Christian we must both assent to the historical fact and also receive the myth (fact though it has become) with the same imaginative embrace which we accord to all myth. The one is hardly more necessary than the other.?

**************************

from a letter of September 22, 1956

. . . a good myth (i.e. a story out of which ever varying meanings will grow for different readers and in different ages) is a higher thing than an allegory (into which one meaning has been put). Into an allegory a man can put only what he already knows; in a myth he puts what he does not yet know and cd. not come by in any other way.?

**************************

from An Experiment in Criticism (1961)

1. Myths "always have a very simple narrative shape."

2. Myths are "extra-literary."

3. "The pleasure of myth depends hardly at all on . . . suspense or surprise. Even at a first reading it is felt to be inevitable."

4. We do not project ourselves into the characters of a myth.

5. Myth is always "fantastic."

6. The experience of myth may be "sad or joyful but it is always grave. . . . awe-inspiring. . . numinous. It is as if something of great moment had been communicated to us."


http://www.montreat.edu/dking/lewis/MYTH.htm

[papau]

42. And Lewis is correct - in context "myth" is not a putdown

But in DU threads it is.

It only is used at DU to say I am smarter than you in yet another way.

Immature, silly, not "proveable" (God, I would like to get these kids into a class in logic).

But have at it -

I need to get back to politics.

:-)

[bloom]

55. Oh, I understand what is going on

"It only is used at DU to say I am smarter than you in yet another way."

I just thought it would be fun to google - GOD, myth, fact - and see what I came up with. C.S. Lewis is a well-respected theologian and I thought it interesting what he wrote about myths. In light of the conversation....

[Walt Starr]

56. Myth does not go to "provablity"

Only verification.

[papau]

65. "provablity" vs "verification" - versus

reasonable assumption

versus adequate review of all possiblities

and some of the above are words that I have agreed - because of my profession - to be sued on !

Fun with words - but words do have consequences - tone and context affect meaning. And in Science it is only in Math - where one must on faith - defined as definition - accept a certain starting point - can one "prove" anything.

An interesting question, IMHO, for another forum, is whether or not a Stat "verification" or "proof" is really a verification or proof. Happiness is keeping the legal folks at bay by quoting "authority" like Investment Statistics for Actuaries!
http://soa2.syn.net/Stats/stats_employee.html
where one can explain that the historical series of S&P 500, Wilshire 5000, Russell 2500, NCREIF Property, MSCI World and MSCI EAFE, the variety of Lehman Brothers bond indices,Treasury rates and yield spreads for various classifications of bonds all have meaning that provides verification - or is it proof - that one is reasonable - in your assumptions and conclusions.

Not that the above "actuarial" book does or should- but it keeps the legal types at bay - Belief discussion does not have a book that scares away any challenge! :-) And tone can not be conveyed in a post.

peace

[Walt Starr]

74. Anything is possible

Not much is verifiable.

An no god has ever been verified or else there would be but one religion in the world requiring no faith.

[chiburb]

62. Excellent post, Bloom...

Perfectly in context of what Walt has been saying all along, here and in the locked thread. I can see where the believers like Muddle may experience #6 (the last sentence in your post) and Walt would never deny him or Chill or anyone that experience. All Walt is doing is asking (well, demanding) them to admit that myth created their religions (which are QUITE real). The reason this is so frustrating is because so many believers cannot articulate the whys and wherefores of their beliefs, or separate the myth-origin from what eventually evolved into their Sunday practices.
Walt admits to his Sunday practices being based on myth. Why is it so hard for the others to admit it too?

(I have NO ax to grind either way.)

[Walt Starr]

82. Not really "Sunday practices"

More like Seasonal and moonphase practices.

But I get your drift. ;)

[chiburb]

85. I was going to say Halloween...

But was afraid you'd be offended! :-)

The rest of my post was fairly accurate though?

[Walt Starr]

94. Nahhhh, Samhain is my favorite Holy Day of the year!

REally looking ofrward to it this year too as this is the first year my wife and I will celebrate it in our own house!

[Walt Starr]

97. BTW, I forgot to say

the rest of your post was spot on.

:D

[qb]

37. How should an unbeliever refer to elements of another's religion?

I could just refer to "Jesus" or "God" with no further qualification, but that would imply belief on my part, which is untrue. I could qualify the reference by saying "whom I don't believe exists/existed", but that is essentially calling it a myth (it is also annoyingly wordy).

BTW, when people profess belief in their religion, they are in effect stating that my beliefs are false. I accept that they are free to express their beliefs as they see fit.

I suggest a little thickening of the skin.

[bloom]

48. ?their beliefs??"others beliefs", "your beliefs"

...it doesn't seem that difficult... to refer to them as such without using emotionally charging words.

[damnraddem]

40. I agree that whether one is a believer or a nonbeliever, ...

referring to someone else's religious beliefs as a myth is an insult. Do I ever do it? Yes -- when a religiously-based belief directly contradicts what is known about nature, as when Creationists (big-C for science deniers) insist that the universe is only 6000 years old. That is a myth, and I so state. On the other hand, a religious belief that the universe, however old it is, however it developed, was created by a supernatural being -- that is a religious belief, basically untestable by science. I don't call that a myth. It's just a belief.

[papau]

43. I agree - and you must be correct if I agree! :-)

IMHO most folks at DU share your opinion.

peace

:-)

[carolinayellowdog]

54. The problem is when myth is taken as history or science

Hi Az,

When the classic myths were created, science didn't yet exist and the notion of objective, scholarly history was far in the future. There were just stories that gave life meaning, and they functioned quite well. Over many centuries, science and history emerged with much more precise, empirical notions of truth, giving rise to struggles with religion over matters like evolution and heliocentrism. Now the problem is not that myths are regarded as true by their adherents, but that they are accorded scientific and historical truth. This is quite anachronistic. Karen Armstrong devotes a lot of discussion to the conflict between mythopoetic truth and scientific/historical truth in The Battle for God. You wrote:

>There is a lot of anger over referring to religions as myths.

Christians are understandably angry if people refer to Jesus as a mythical being; he was historical. (Most educated Hindus probably don't mind Krishna being called mythical, but I digress.) OTOH Christians who get angry when people refer to things like e.g. Gospel birth narratives as mythical, when all reputable scholars treat them as nonfactual, are fundamentalists. They accord scientific/historical credibility to material that simply does not merit it. The same kind of Hindus are willing to accord historical status to myths like Rama's birthplace. Back to Christianity-- any Christian who doesn't agree that contemporary scholarship has a very hard time sorting out the mythical from the historical elements of Christian origins is simply ignorant.

>A suggestion to those that choose to use the myth reference. A myth refers to the backstory of a particular belief. However it carries with it the suggestion that the story is fanciful and untrue. The stuff of dreams.

And a lot of times anti-religious people use the term in a very broad brush way, e.g. calling Jesus mythical, which only muddies the waters.

>Now you may in fact believe a religion to be just this but its adherants do not. It is disrespectful to the believers to simply state that their beliefs are myths.

Fair enough, but is it disrespectful to say that while we cannot know for sure, certain elements of their beliefs have more of the characteristics of myth than of history?

>Yes they may very well believe in lies. They may very well be deluded.

I doubt that many of these stories were told as deliberate lies, but as illustrative narratives by people who didn't have a very clearcut notion of historical truth.

My own experience is of being on the receiving end of tremendous disrespect and personal antagonism from believers, merely for *questioning* the historical truth of some of their beliefs, even while going out of my way not to attack them. But then on the other hand I certainly have witnessed anti-religious folks who go out of their way to attack believers in the harshest and broadest terms.

CYD

[papau]

84. Well said "carolinayellowdog"

Not a word that any should disagree with.

As to the one question you ask "Fair enough, but is it disrespectful to say that while we cannot know for sure, certain elements of their beliefs have more of the characteristics of myth than of history?" - this comes down to the point one is trying to make -- indeed an important point if you are using the belief to plan a dig,

but only a discussion of what is available to support some point - and a discussion of whether or not it does support the point - in your belief system in other context. Indeed a what is verification or proof and how much of whatever is needed to justify your belief discussion

Characteristics of myth more than of history is quite valid - one disagrees as to importance. And one may disagree as to what makes a story more one than the other. But certainly a valid topic and respectful phrasing.


:-)

peace

[starroute]

101. The intermingling of myth and history is built into Christianity

I suspect this is what all these arguments at DU have really been about. The atheists and the believers have been relatively tolerant of one another's positions. It's where Jesus is concerned that the fur really starts to fly.

The problem lies in the statement that bloom quoted from C.S. Lewis: "The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens--at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences."

This claim of Jesus being myth and history at the same time was the primary grounds on which Christianity asserted superiority over the pagan religions it replaced. It was a claim that educated Romans and even many Gnostics found laughable -- but it exerted a great attraction for the masses of Roman citizens, who had never gotten their heads around the subtleties of neo-Platonic philosophy. It held out the promise that salvation might be based neither on behavior nor on understanding, but solely on belief -- and any Joe Six-Pack could manage that.

The result is that Christianity, unlike the other great world-religions, isn't really a Path -- it isn't based on following the teachings and example of a particular prophet or law-giver. (Granted, there have always been followers of the Way of Jesus who have taken Christianity as a Path, but they have been a small minority, most often burned as heretics if they were taken notice of at all.) Instead, it's a belief-system.

Christians absolutely have to believe that their primary sacred story is both mythically and historically true. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Christians. But non-Christians just as absolutely have to deny the central tenet of Christianity -- they have to assert that Jesus was a man but not a god, or a Jewish rabbi who got adopted as the divine being of a Greek mystery cult, or a purely mythic figure who never existed at all.

Belief-systems can be nasty things, especially when they get tangled up with religion. The fundies who want to impose their belief-system on the rest of us are a real menace today. But liberal Christians, who themselves have no use for the fundies, can still announce that they feel personally insulted whenever anyone questions their claim of myth-as-history and ask that such discussions be declared off limits at DU. And that in itself is part of the problem.

I understand it's a painful situation. But it seems very parallel to the situation with civil rights from the 1960s on, where white supremacists could be countered only by completely deconstructing the theoretical structure of racism. It isn't okay for white liberals to keep believing in secret that they're superior to blacks just as long as they don't discriminate openly -- and it isn't okay for Christians to believe they have an inside line with God not shared by the rest of the planet.

[carolinayellowdog]

105. But the specific mix varies continually

Starroute wrote:

>Christians absolutely have to believe that their primary sacred >story is both mythically and historically true. If they didn't, they >wouldn't be Christians.

But what is the "primary sacred story" and what are accoutrements that can be regarded as non-historical? From the first generation there has been tremendous diversity, on such crucial questions as the physical resurrection, the relationship between Jesus and God, and the authority of the Old Testament law.

I would say that Islam and Baha'i are far more committed to scriptural literalism because their scriptures are more recent; Hinduism and Buddhism less so than Christianity because their scriptures are older. Christianity isn't uniquely incompatible with scientific and historical truth; as world religions go it seems about average to me.

Christianity at least still has a creative ferment due to the ambiguity of its sources and the diversity of interpretations that inspired. I'm no Christian, but have ceased to think Christianity is any worse all told than religion in general. As the biggest religion, it's naturally the most diverse and perhaps has the widest range of peaceful (Quakers) to violent and evil (David Koresh.)

CYD

[starroute]

116. I don't see that degree of flexibility in Christianity

Christianity is unique among the major religions in one crucial regard. The others trace their beginnings to the teachings of an inspired prophet, but the teachings themselves are more important that the manner of their transmission. It is possible for a believer to have doubts about whether a particular prophet literally spoke with angels or was carried up to heaven, because those are just embellishments. The central point is whether the adherent accept the teachings as inspired.

However, in Christianity, Jesus is presented not as an inspired prophet, but as the Son of God. As a result, the miraculous trappings of the story are not incidental embellishments -- they are at the very heart of the matter. And the fact that Christians have at times engaged in complicated philosophical arguments about the precise mechanics of the situation does not alter that central fact.

The problem I see in this fusion of myth and history can be illustrated by something J.R.R. Tolkien says at the end of his essay "On Fairy-Stories." After going on for 70 pages about the wonder and enchantment of fairy stories, he concludes with a somewhat awkwardly appended epilogue, which states:

"It is not difficult to imagine the peculiar excitement and joy that one would feel, if any specially beautiful fairy-story were found to be 'primarily' true, its narrative to be history, without thereby necessarily losing that mythical or allegorical significance that it had possessed. . . . The Christian job, the Gloria, is of the same kind; but it is pre-eminently (infinitely, if our capacity were not finite) high and joyous. But this story is supreme; and it is true. Art has been verified. God is the Lord, of angels, and of men -- and of elves. Legend and History have met and fused."

I understand it might read differently to a committed Christian, but for me, this epilogue has always gone over like a lead balloon. It seems to completely undercut and delegitimate everything that has gone before. Fairy stories are like bubbles, of a peculiar delicacy that does not deal well with the intrusion of reality, and the last thing you'd want is for them to be proven "true." It takes all the fun out of them. Science fiction, for example, lost its "fairy story" aspect with the launching of Sputnik, and it has never been the same since.

It is precisely because we do not have to take fairy stories seriously in any real-world way that they free our minds to operate on an entirely different level of consciousness. Christianity came along at a moment in history when people were getting more literal-minded and were finding it difficult to maintain their faith in the ancient myths. It told its followers that it was still okay to believe in the old dying god myth, and that was enough to give it great power during a relatively mythless era. But if Christians themselves are now rejecting the mythic nature of their central story, the continuing power of the Christian religion would appear to be in doubt.

[Walt Starr]

102. I think Star Trek used a term that applies to Jesus

or Krsna, Muhammed (boy that one might spark some anger), or really most figures from mythology.

Mytho-historical figure


Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra

Unfortunately for too many people,...

Shaka, when the walls fell.

:)

[greyl]

60. To Recap: Speak with the language of your opponent & don't be a dick!

did I get it all? :)

[qb]

68. (rules only apply to atheists) - right?

[Blue_Chill]

73. Wrong

both sids should be respectful of eachothers beliefs. That does not however mean I got to respect a anti-theist that is on a religious insult rant. It just means that the religious on DU should not look down upon the atheist and vice versa. We should accept eachother and when we do bump heads do it respectfully.

[Walt Starr]

79. But that's a two-way street

Understanding that the statement was not an insult, nor intended to be an insult, goes a long way.

It's the difference between being reactionary and understanding and requires dialogue rather than kneejerking, on both sides.

[Blue_Chill]

91. Not our fault

When a group is attacked often, like the religious are on DU, you create a enviroment in which all words will be taken in for their most negative definition. When the anti-theists learn to control themselves "understanding the statement" will be possible.

Until then.....

[Walt Starr]

95. I am not an "anti-theist"

So why you would associate me with that term is byond me.

:shrug:

[greyl]

77. No.

But I get your poignant joke. :)

[reprobate]

67. I think Stephen Roberts said it best:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[Az]

70. Not to drop names

But Stephen was an old IRC friend of mine. We used to be ops on #atheism on the Dalnet circuit.

[papau]

72. Impressed !! But "dismiss" and "understand" are forever projects!

Thanks for re starting the thread.

It has been fun!

peace

:-)

[Liberal Veteran]

78. Personally, I think these kinds of debates....

...do nothing more than lend substance to the right wing argument that we are more obsessed with political correctness than communication.

There are a few people that wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves and cannot handle that some people view religion as nothing more than a series of rituals that sprang forth from a need to explain our world in supernatural terms.

Does anyone's faith require that someone else genuflect to that faith or acknowledge it's validity? My personal opinion, is no. If I call God a myth, it does not diminish your personal belief or relationship with God and I was brought up to believe that God to take up for himself. In other words, I have to respect the fact that you believe in God, but you should also respect that other people think it's a myth.

[papau]

86. The context is everything - political correctness means not being an ass

I agree with every one of your statements - except I do not agree to the implication that manners prevent communication.

[chiburb]

87. To answer your question, yes...

"Does anyone's faith require that someone else genuflect to that faith or acknowledge it's validity? "

The Catholic Church I was raised in demanded that it be recognized as the "ONE TRUE CHURCH". It went so far as to tell me my mother would go to hell because she was Protestant. Even gave me a 'sacred' medal to put under her mattress that would convert her while she slept (or fucked, they weren't specific on that).
I've many more examples, but you get the drift.
(I couldn't care less now.)

[Walt Starr]

98. If any have taken offense to any of the statements I have made,...

Please forgive me. It was a Myth-Gnomer.

:evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

107. Sounds like mythongeny to me.

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

109. ...

But so too may we be deluded.

Deluded by what? Lack of evidence?

[Astarho]

110. Someone once said

only other cultures have "myths" or "tales" we have "scripture" and "history".

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fescue4u]

113. This is the worst part about DU.

These religion threads. I get damn sick of people attacking religion here.

There are alot of very great things about this board, but it definitely has an anti-religion slant that I find very distasteful.

[youngred]

114. sometimes, but not here

I see a very well thought out, mostly open and free discussion. That may be the case at other times, but perhaps you should read this thread before condemning it

[Fescue4u]

119. I wasnt condemning the thread.

But commenting on the anti-religion slant that I have to go out of my way to ignore sometimes.

[youngred]

120. fair enough

and yes it does exist here, to a larger degree than the anti-atheist sentiment.

there are intelligent, open and great people on both sides, and blowhards too

[TrogL]

118. Maybe we should go a layer deeper

Myths and religions (I do make the distinction) various lesser structured forms of spirituality attempt to access the underlying architecture of reality - the Jungian archetypes.

I propose that (as certainly shown in this thread so far) an examination of the religions themselves, while interesting, fail to clearly resolve any issues. The same applies to surface analysis of the myths.

What gets more interesting (at least to me) is comparisons, especially where matches are found separated by intolerable space eg. pyramids in Egypt and South/Central America or monotheism in Ahknaten and found again later in the "people of the Book".

These are clear signs of the archetype.

Here's an analogy. Aliens look in our windows and see me watching TV. They look down the street and see my friend also watching TV. They notice it's the same program. Rather than chalk it up to concidence, they explore further and discover the electromagnetic TV signal.

In the same way, I believe myth, religion and spirituality taps into the "signal" of the archetypes.

[einsteins stein]

121. I want to know God's thoughts...

the rest are details...

[uhhuh]

122. Here's my take

As someone who would identify myself as a Christian, I heve never felt that my beliefs are threatened by someone calling what I believe a myth. This is because, whether they know it or not, they are missing the whole point.

I am a Christian because I have read the things that were put forth in the Bible and attributed to Jesus. I think the things he supposedly said were good and noble lessons for life. Whether he actually said them, or whether he was the literal chosen son of God is immaterial and not in any way I can see, provable. In fact, if any of the quotes by God or Jesus or any of the other figures in the Bible were provable, it would cease being a religion.

The power of myth lies in the truths that the individual takes from them, not in who said or did what on what day, and in what manner.

The point of religion, to me, is not to be right, but to strive to be fair and honest and good to others. I am in complete solidarity with any person of any faith or non-faith that hopes to achieve the same.

I love stories. I don't care if they are true. I only care if they speak to something (divine or not) in me that may lead me to appreciate others more and care for them in an unselfish way. That's what I get out of what Jesus may or may not have said. Who he was or wasn't means little to me.

I'm sure there will be those, both Christian on not, who will say that what I have said makes me not a Christian. I don't care. This is by belief. They have their own. That's cool. From my understading of religion, it is a declaration of faith. I have faith in the principles that appear in a book that in commonly referred to as the Bible. I don't know what percentage of it is true, and I don't agree with all of it. I have found a lot of good principles in its pages and have incorporated them into my life as best I could. I have flatly rejected others. I don't feel contradictory in the slightest since I don't feel required to believe it all if I don't agree with it.

I know a lot of fundies cherry-pick the bible to promote hate and intolerence. You may say that I am doing the same thing, but from another perspective. That is true, but I am not claiming that the whole thing is true and should be right for all people. I am stating that I find the most truth for me in the words that are attributed to Jesus. They speak to me in some fashion. I don't expect everyone to have the same experiences with them as I do. Frankly, it would be impossible.