Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

I commented elsewhere that xians need first to show why their religion should not be treated as myth, why it is the exception. I note there was no response. As one definition of myth is of a sacred story about gods and their relatinships with humans, is not xianity be definition a myth, and therefore its key hero mythological?

Except xianity? Why might that be?

WishboneDawn

This is one christian that's not going to argue with you. I think our stories should be treated as myth and that myths get more respect and discussion then they currently do. There's a real conceit in secular and conservative religious circles that fiction is about lies.

gstafleu

Correct, the burden of proof is on the Xians. What is even more interesting is the atheist HJers. With any other myths, no non-believer would dream of arguing that one of the mythical characters was real, at least not without some pretty substantial evidence (much more substantial than we have of an HJ). Again, Xianity's hero JC is the exception here.

Why? Simple: cultural conditioning. Most people in the West have from early childhood on been brought up with stories about a Jesus who was constantly portrayed as historical. That kind of conditioning is very hard to break.

Taking my own example, before reading the works of Doherty and Price, I basically took an HJ for granted, as some type of charismatic priest. I never gave the issue much thought. For one thing, I'm not an Xian, so whether or not there was an HJ didn't really matter to me.

You need a wake-up call before the strangeness of this situation registers on the culturally befuddled brain!

Clivedurdle

I wonder if there has actually always been a very strong mythical understanding by xians, and it is in fact atheists who have muddied the water.

Tolkien and Lewis, both professors of English Literature where myth is the starting point of the subject, both produce wondrous xian myths - Lord of the Rings and Narnia.

(h seems to be sticking on this key board!).

Tolkien and Lewis are fascinating in being highly respected academicians and holding onto their beliefs. This tradition is followed by many xians - Houghton - chief climate change scientist an anglican for example.

Maybe there is not a contradiction between religion and science, but we are looking at well rounded humans, happy with myth and rationality, but the materialists keep on parroting - if you go down the myth route you end up on a slippery slope believing in god.

And the other result is the pentecostals and the fundis and islamicists, so stuck in myth they cannot see it!

But the atheist hammering away at what is thought to be supernatural - myth and supernatural are not the same - has possibly held people within their myths longer than they might have if myth had been recognised as it is and allowed to enable our creativity and inventiveness and find authenticity.

I am conscious I have not given clear examples of what I mean - that might be a result of us in the West being clumsy with myth - can anyone help?

WishboneDawn

That's true and a mighty useful role of myth is often to communicate simple ideas, common place ideas. Not explain the unknown or address the supernatural.

There's the secular myth of George Washington and the cherry tree. He chops it down, his mother asks who did it, he says, "I cannot tell a lie."

In a few lines the myth communicates a simple point about honesty and character, in that man and as desirable traits in general. I really can't think of a rational, factual explanation that would be as clear and powerful.

I don't know if that added anything Clive, just thought I'd mention that. This is a dificult discussion because I don't think there's really been a lot of discussion of this.

gstafleu

In a sense I think that is true. In the world of true believers, e.g. the kind of faith that was widespread during the middle ages, there is no real difference in the minds of the believers between what we now call myth and reality. Cognitively, those two have a large overlap. For the psychological backup of this statement I refer to The Corruption of Reality by John Schumaker. In that sense the difference we make these days between an MJ and an HJ is something that could only have become prominent as of the age of reason.

But that does not mean the distinction is just a bit of cultural relativism:
There most certainly is. Myth and faith have always been ways of explaining the world from a postulated platform. If observed reality clashes with faith, faith is supposed to win. That is why faith needs things like the Nicene creed: it states what you are supposed to believe, reality may not intervene.

This contrasts sharply with the scientific method. One of its most interesting rules is Popper's requirement of falsifiability. Not only do you have to show why your theory is correct (verifiability), you also have to indicate circumstances that would force you to abandon the theory as erroneous. Just compare that with inerrancy!


I think that unlikely. As Schumaker's book shows, the need for faith is something very deeply buried in the human Psyche. Examples I would give of this that are familiar to IIDBers are the discussions about free will that pervade the Philosophy forum, and the way some atheists stick to an HJ position in a way they would not do for any other myth.

When you deconstruct it, this "hammering away" is largely asking for verification and falsifiability, in other words trying to apply the scientific method to the myths of faith. Given the enormous success of the scientific method (we would for example not be communicating as we are without it), that is a valid endeavor.

WishboneDawn

Inerrancy is not the be all, end all of myth. There are a lot of us who gain a lot from myths without needing to believe in them literally. We can get beyond that idea. Can you imagine other uses for myths? Other ways they're relevent and meaningful?

dug_down_deep

I've got one: the myth of material reality -- that there are "things" in the universe rather than perception of energy patterns by limited human consciousness. This one is so ingrained that it often fools even the least "religious" of us all.

It seems our learned language, analogous to religious indoctrination, buries us deep within this one. Even noticing it, I am unable to construct the preceding paragraph without making use of it. I think this is why mystical talk tends toward the poetic. There is a need to transcend the language.

--doug

gstafleu

I wasn't saying a myth cannot be useful--I'm sure it can be. I was just pointing out the difference between how science tries to discover how the world works and myth just postulates it.