A Myth is not a hoax, nor is it irrational or stupid.

[patcox2]

A myth is usually an imperfect perception of a truth, presented in narrative form. Its power usually lies in the fact that it does depict a universal truth, even if the narrative used to present the truth is a fiction.

Aesops fables, for example, are true, despite the fact that animals cannot talk or walk on their hind legs. Likewise, many religious beliefs contain truth, despite that the narrative is fictional.

Truth and reality are not always synonymous. Art is irrational.

The black and white depiction of the world as a struggle between the perfect goodness of "reason" and the evil stupidity of "religion" is just wrong.

[trotsky]

1. A clarification.

Myths *can* depict a "universal truth," but not always. Sometimes a myth is just a story.

[ashmanonar]

25. sometimes they are...

but more often they are teh last remnants of a forgotten experience. most people in the world, i'll bet, don't have extragenetic memory leading back to the discovery of fire; but most have a myth of someone giving them fire/showing them how to make it...what do you wanna bet that the myth is the last bit of memory about that event, the finding of fire?

[UdoKier]

2. Good post! Expect many flames...

From believers in religious myths that expect those myths to be treated as though they were FACTS...

[Stop_the_War]

3. Oh no, now we are going to have the "oh i'm oppressed christian" threads..

oh puh-leeze
:eyes:

[skids]

17. Try to foment some unity.

If the Christians on this board are getting the impression that they are beset upon, then please try to view that as a problem that needs addressing from all sides.

We should attempt to be inclusive. Those that hold grudges for bad experiences with religion in the past would help our cause by being tempered, those who hold no grudges and just like to say it like they see it should continue as they are with perhaps a shade more tact and sensitivity and not expect their fellow DUers to grow Vulcan ears overnight, and the Christians among us who feel attacked would help our cause by growing themselves some thicker skin.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[jdj]

29. you can't be a christian without a persecution complex.

that's why Jesus is their home-boy, (that bloody dude up on the cross)

Victimization and martyrdom are central to christianity, without them, it would be Buddhism.

I can't respect any christian who whines on DU, all I have to say is "your identity has been stolen, and people worshipping your God are trying their damnedest to blow up the world. If you really are a Christian, you should be way more worried about them than me."

[skids]

30. Aww, I got flamed and missed it.

Darn. Do I get any kind of points for being the parent of a "last straw" post?

[porphyrian]

4. A myth can be irrational and stupid.

You say yourself that art is irrational. If a myth is a form of art which is poorly executed and senseless, it can also be stupid, thus invalidating your initial claim.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. What happens when adherents of the myth no longer remember that

it is "imperfect"?

[goodhue]

6. I hear you.

However, myths certainly can be irrational, not that there is anything wrong with that. As you say, "Art is irrational."

[JitterbugPerfume]

7. myth has the power to shape our lives

Read Joseph Campbell

he rocks

[Bridget Burke]

22. Yes! Myth & legend are wonderful fields of study.

Joseph Campbell rules. (I've always preferred the Jungians to the Freudians.) Learning about myths can give insight into psychology, literature & history.

However, myths should not be confused with "facts." Science class & History class are down the hall, in a different classroom.

[Blue-Jay]

8. I believe that Apollo drives his fiery chariot across the sky daily.

Neither irrational nor stupid, right?

Myths are all eventually disproven by science.

[BlueEyedSon]

13. No blues-harp-squirrel today?

[enki23]

9. what is "a universal truth?"

.

[ashmanonar]

28. something that the people who believe in it

think is universal. "god exists"...this is a "universal truth"...bc the people who believe in it automatically assume that everyone else assumes that god exists, when this isn't the case.

i suppose i could have come up with a better analogy, bc i think it's one of the less effective ones...but i can't think of any right now.

[GiovanniC]

10. You Are Correct... A Myth Cannot Be Stupid or Irrational

HOWEVER, the people who believe them might be.

[Minstrel Boy]

11. precisely, and thank you.

Myths have power. To read them literally, is to misread them.

[sans qualia]

12. Religion and reason are not comparable

A religion is an ideological system. Reason is the human ability to make inferences. That said, it is true that the two are not always compatible, since a religion may purport to contain certain truths that one can rationally disprove.

That said, it is not the case that all religious thought is irrational. Also, in my mind, there is nothing inherently wrong with taking a position contrary to reason, if doing so serves some greater purpose.

[Walt Starr]

14. BINGO!

Too many people put a negative connotation on the term.

[Az]

15. You presume it has power

There are myths that are not propogated. There are myths that teach nothing.

A myth may be loaded with tremendous insite or it may be a grasping attempt to explain the world in absense of any real knowledge. Do not presume just because its a myth it is valuable. Conversely do not dismiss something that is a myth as useless because it is not the truth.

[Blue-Jay]

16. Can somebody relate to me a "reasonable" myth?

Before you reply, please look up the definition of "myth".

[skids]

20. I don't know the full origin...

But a popular myth often integrated into fictional material is the logic puzzle where two entities, one which always lies, one which always tells the truth, are provided as a means to discerning a binary answer to an unknown. Usually this is framed as two guards in front of two doors, one which leads someplace desireable, the other which leads someplace undesirable. I am sure you must have encountered this in some form.

This is a reasonable myth. It teaches a logical process. It is most certainly not true in detail, but the end truth which it conveys is a provable mathematical construct.

If myths were useless and unreasonable, so would be fiction. Do you see no use for fiction?

[BlueEyedSon]

27. That's not a myth, it's a parable.

[skids]

32. I'm sure it was a myth at some point.

Technically parables teach morals, not logic, but even granting you that, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the narrator purveyed the story as a truthful account of a mythological figure's activities, then it is a myth. This is likely to be the route through which this construct made it into so much modern literature. I don't have the time or interest to dig into its roots, however.

[Blue-Jay]

34. No.

A myth is generally a story originally intended to ascribe some sort of meaning/reason to a scientific fact (theory) that has yet to be discovered. It's pre-science or pseudo-science or pure bullshit.

A parable is a story that is intentionally fictitious, the underlying meaning being a means to teach logic, human nature, or morality.

There is nothing wrong with a parable/fable when the intent is to make one think more in depth about the greater good. It is truly an art form, with the intention of being more memorable to people in general. A "myth" is an attempt to explain that what cannot be explained according to what has been proved by the scientific method.

In other words:

parable = worthy allegory
myth = worthless bullshit

[skids]

39. All well and fine for a scientist...

But not everyone has the background be so analytical. I'm not saying here that they don't have the potential, just that they have a long road ahead of them. Also that just indiscriminately blowing up myths by bashing them over the head repeatedly may not be the most helpful way to proceed.

A "reasonable" myth is like a rule of thumb. It is a way to compress the fruits of advanced knowlege into a primitive mindset, to use extreme terms. There aren't many of them, compared to those that are destructive. But to say they are "worthless bullshit" en masse is a sweeping generalization. (Or, to phrase it in terms you might relate to: you have no proof, scientific or otherwise, that *all* myths are worthless bullshit. That's a personal myth of your own construction which you are holding to for some reason.)

The word myth has never had an entirely negative connotation as you seem to ascribe it. In fact, it is a regular practice for town planning boards to openly foster a myth of community identity, and even refer to it as such, in a positive light, and there is signifigant evidence that doing so is often crucial to the quality of life in a community.

Leaving aside questions as to whether it was beneficial -- we won't know that for decades -- would the first Mars explorations have happened if the public hadn't thought there were "canals" there?

Myths are also useful long after they have ceased to be believed, because of their persistance as fictional art that gives us a common folklore to draw on to aid conversation.

Could you express the concept "Herculean" in four syllables without the myth?

How many early aviators were instigated to think about flying machines by Icarus?

So I ask again, do you "myth busters" think fiction is useless too?

[noiretextatique]

18. not all art is irrational

and some myths aren't based in truth, imperfectly perceived or otherwise. but, i do agree with your last statement. black/white thinking doesn't reflect the truth of a very colorful world.

[The Magistrate]

38. The Best Art Is, Ma'am, In My View

Because humans are not particularly rational....

[noiretextatique]

47. touche, sir...however

humans like order and structure...even in their art. perhaps the best art is that which is structured...and irrational, or rational and unstructured. the art that moves me appeals to my heart and my head. i love words, so when i read a what i consider a good book, i am not just moved by the words, i am moved by the way the writer chooses and orders those words, and by the way she structures the story. while i agree with you that humans aren't particularly rational, i do believe art is probably the most rational thing we do :7

[The Magistrate]

19. Several Points, Mr. Cox

First, and perhaps most important, you are quite correct that ascribing good to reason and bad to religion is a dubious enterprise. Both are mental tools, and as with any tools, have been used to effects both good and ill. Reason, applied without restraint, and particularly applied to a poor base of knowledge, has done easily as much damage as any theology.

Beyond this, "myth" is not a single concept, and difherent sorts, which have different degrees of validity, ought to be distinguished. There are some myths which embody historical memory, transmitted orally. These may be viewed readily as having some truth at their basis, though not sufficient for a modern historian to use them as more than an indicator of broad outlines: the old Sagas cannot really be used to construct a history of pre-literate Scandanavia, for example, nor could even Chronicles and Kings be used to construct a reliable history of the ancient Hebrews. Then, there are myths which certainly embody truths of human behavior, and these are both valid and timeless in their application: Homer's tale of Troy would serve as an excellent example. Finally, there are myths which represent attempts to explain the workings of the natural world around us, and these are wholly false, though in defense of their authors, it must be acknowledged they had no real information available yet to understand the processes they were trying to decribe; creation tales, the various dieties of rain and grain and fertility, the whole body of magical practices aimed at maintaining the routine functions of the universe, fall into this category. It is regretable that this last class has very often served to enrich and maintain controlling elements of a society, and where the self-interest of the promulgators can be so readily discerned, some suspicion as to motive is justified.

[patcox2]

23. Could the flood be the receding of the glaciers?

And the expulsion from eden the radical climate change that affected north africa and the middle east at the end of the ice age?

I am fascinated with the possibility that oral cultures may be able to transmit, albeit very very very badly, some memory of the deep past.

Or did the israelites in bondage in babylonia just take a shine to the Epic of Gilgamesh? But then, wait, if we use the babylonian influence to explain the tales of the flood, then we are confirming the tale of the baylonian captivity.

It is said that the australian aborigines may have oral traditions tens of thousands of years old.

But anyway, yes, not all myths embody truth, I was actually thinking of the ones which illustrate traits of human nature and the experience of existence, perceptions, justice, these are all shared by most people across cultures and times.

Personification seems the biggest flaw of myths regarding nature and the creation, but personification doesn't make something wrong, necessarily.

To me "god said let there be light" and "the big bang happened" are pretty much equal in the end. The first just personifies the second. Certainly each statement leaves exactly the same number of questions unanswered. What is god, where did he she it come from? Where did the incomprehensibly compressed matter which rapidly expanded to form the big bang come from? What force, process, law caused it to rapidly expand? When the universe is compressed to a point, what surrounds that point, where is it, what is its milieu? If the universe in fact is finite and curves back around, then what exists outside that finite universe?

How can forever "Be?" Can something infinite in fact be said to "exist" in the sense that humans perceive and understant existence? Ever notice that inherent in the human concept of "is" is some sense of limits, to "exist" something must "be," to "be" it must be definable, to be definable, something must have boundaries, and to have boundaries, it must be finite.

Anyway, in light of the manifest and inherent impossibility of a finite bag of nuerons which is only temporarily and sporadically chemically and electrically active actually "comprehending" the universe, the difference in meaning between the two statements is so imperceptibly tiny as to be meaningless. Its like asking whether a dog or a cat is smarter. Neither is very smart. The "rational" are exactly one divided by infinity more "right" on the topic than the supersititious.

[The Magistrate]

33. My Guess, Sir

Is that a shine was simply taken to Gilgamesh. It is very common for the people of a hinterland to draw their cultural motifs from the sophisticatec centers they adjoin, and bump up against in various ways. The disparities in prosperity and power enjoyed by the center confers a great prestige to its ways, and imitation is seen as the surest way to a similar state of luxuriancs.

Tha Babylonian captivity is no myth; it is a well recoirded episode, but it is often mis-interperted. Babylonian rulers followed a tried and true method for securing conquests: they removed the elite of the conquored people, depriving them of their natural leadership, and created a new elite of their own favor in the place, whose situation depended on their loyalty to Babylon, as the populace would, at least initially, view them as traitors. Only a very small proportion of the populace, accordingly, was carted off from Judea, but this did include almost all of what we would call today its intellectuals.

The flood epics had been incorporated in Hebrew myth long before this. The effect that the sojourn in Babylon seems to have had is two-fold. First, it solidified a rather unique idea in the ancient world, that the misfortunes of a people could be proof of a diety's power, rather than of its weakness. Most people had always taken the view that a contest between peoples was a contest between their dieties, and that in it, that which went down to defeat was the weakest, and the victory was owed by the victor to the greater strength of their diety. Accordingly, the dieties of victorious peoples spread far, and those of defeated peoples were eclipsed. The idea that a people was defeated because its own diety was so angry with it, that it raised up another people against its own, which came to dominate Jewish thought on the subject, gained its dominant status in this episode. Second, it is most likely that it was here the idea the diety of the Hebrews was a universal god-head, and that there were no other dieties at all, probably arose. Connections of this idea with Ahnknaton and Aton are spurious, in my view. Babylonian priests seem to have maintained an inner doctrine that all the various popular dieties were really aspects of and emanations from a central anf universal diety, and this idea can be clearly traced in post Babylonian Jewish theology.

We are in agreement that personification is the greatest flaw in many of the old stories, and your comparison of the creation tale of Genesis and the mathematical conclusions of modern physics is an apt one. The other difference is that, at least for those able to follow the mathematics (which, sadly, excludes me to the status of a gape-jawed peasnt), the former can be considered to rest on proof, and not mere assertion. Further, those who assert it do so with an open acknowledgement of provisionality, recognizing that some future scholars may well find a better interpertation of the evidence at hand than they have done themselves. That element, too, is missing from the assertions of a creation myth.

[patcox2]

41. I debate only one point, learned Magistrate

That the mathematical/rational view alone is provisional, which I take to mean, mindful of its limits. There are those who understand that mythological/religious beliefs/explanations are only metaphor, representing inherently limited understandings and presentations of truths that may be beyond the limits of human comprehension. That is the state which most higher theologies regard as "enlightenment," the acceptance of the limitations of the knowledge of ultimate truth. Like you, I am relatively ignorant of the higher math necessary for a true understanding of state of the art cosmology. But, the fact that the vast majority of people are likewise incapable of grasping the specific mathematical bases of the current theories in no way detracts from their validity. In a similar way, the fact that most religious adherents do not grasp the ultimate agnosticism which is a large part of current (state of the art, as it were) higher theology, can in no way invalidate that theology. I have studied, formally and informally, physics and cosmology, and I have also studied academic theology as taught in liberal protestant and catholic seminaries (I have clergy in my family, I have borrowed and read their old textbooks). I have made the close acqaintance of a practicing theoretical physicist, and of several ordained priests of the episcopalian variety. They perceive no great inconsistency between their respective fields, and I likewise see no inconsistency, on those higher levels. A friend who attended catholic seminary and worked at the vatican once related to me that in a theology course at the vatican the professor stated that the incontrovertible discovery of the bones of Jesus would mean nothing, that a literal beleif in a literal resurrection, is not a prerequisite to christian belief, because in the end, the theology accepts that the resurrection story itself is a metaphor for enlightenment (I am probably inacurate in some nuance, but that was the gist). So I was bold enough to put this story to the priest who married my wife and I, and he laughed, and said "of course, thats what they teach us all in seminary, but you're not supposed to tell the congregation that."

Does this mean these priests are hypocrites? I don't think so. It is as unreasonable to expect the person of average ability to master the nuances of higher theology as it is unreasonable to expect everyone to be able to understand the higher math behind the latest cosmological theories. But I find that the greatest mistake of so many "rationalists" is that they don't even know that they don't really understand the physics they have only read of in popularized versions, and on the other side of the spectrum, many of the religious don't understand that their literalist beleif in doctrine is extremely limited, so much so as to be a perversion.

In short, I think those who believe religion is a final unquestionable answer to the ultimate questions are as wrong as those who belive science can answer the same questions. Those who beleive science and religion are opposed and incompatible ferquently have a simplistic and uninformed understanding of both religion and science.

[The Magistrate]

46. That Is A Fair Point, Sir

Buddhism, after all, is certainly a religion, but has no doctrine of god-head whatever.

My only quarrel may be a sort of quibble to some lights, but it does seem to me that person, such as one of the priests you spoke with, who believes the resurrection of the Christ is a metaphor, while he may be a man of deep faith and devoutly religious, really ought to view himself as something other than a Christian. To an unbeliever, at least, he would seem to be denying the most central element of the Gospels.

"If Christ be not risen, then is our faith in vain."

[papau]

26. Well said - I was LOL at the idea that "history" was truth - indeed we

need a few good Greeks - etc. - to discuss what is truth!

But "myths which represent attempts to explain the workings of the natural world around us, and these are wholly false" sounds a bit too certain for my tastes.

I agree in general with everything you wrote - I guess I am just not as certain about some things!

:-)

[The Magistrate]

35. History, My Friend

Has been aptly described as just one damned thing after another....

[papau]

40. :-) - an excellent summary!

:-)

[ultraist]

36. excellent definition!

There are also modern cultural myths rooted in early myths that are created to promote a particular ideology. Just as ancient myths, they are based on imaginative thought opposed to logical thought.

http://www.mythandculture.com/weblog/2004/09/mythos-in-logos.html
Mythos and Logos--with these terms we denote the two poles between which man's mental life oscillates. Mythic imagination and logical thought are opposites. The former is imagistic and involuntary, and creates and forms on the basis of the unconscious, while the latter is conceptual and intentional, and analyses and synthesizes by means of consciousness. ( Wilhelm Nestle, From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought)"

Myths and mythos are a way of seeing the world, a way that is traditional and narrative, employing imaginative movement to give a sense of structure and meaning to life itself. Logos is a progressive, logical, mechanical means of viewing anything.

Some examples of modern myths we can identify in our culture include:
"Gays are pedophiles and recruit children."
"Gays are sinners."
"Gays are exhibitionists."
http://www.uugroton.org/myths.htm

"Women are evil."
Eve, is firmly entrenched in contemporary culture to such an extent that the view of Eve as the sinner who causes problems for men and for all of humankind pervades mental and cultural constructs. It is my argument that these shared constructs of Eve as Evil=Woman as Evil continue to support a view of women as abject-that is, whatever is deemed polluted, dirty, and sinful-to such an extent that violence rendered against women is often construed, consciously or not, as justifiable given the defiled status of women within cultures.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3732/is_200310/ai_n9332251

[Swamp Rat]

24. myth = female moth

:D

[jdj]

31. I think "reason" and "religion" both suck.

I've been equally condescended too by people claiming to be disciples of one or the other.

It's all varying shades of dogma for people who have no faith that there actually is a now and a reality within this moment that one can participate in without guidance from a book or a mauled saint.

[Blue-Jay]

37. "Reason" only sucks when one insists upon being unreasonable.

Dinosaur bones were put upon the earth to test our faith.

A reasonable, just, & loving God would not play with us that way. Therefore, the fundamentalist viewpoint is inherently flawed. (ie. "bullshit")

[patcox2]

42. Just and loving parents nevertheless give children the freedom

To make their own fate.

But the argument I am making is inherently flawed, because it accepts your premise of an anthropomorphic god. That is, the god you envision (just and loving) is a god which has human characteristics, is just a big superman in the sky, and because this god you envision obviously doesn't do what you would expect an all-powerful human of good intention to do, make everything all better for everyone, you reject your own conception of god.

But what you are doing is what I discussed above, personifying ultimate reality. the concept of god in hihger theology is unknowable, but one thing knowable is that God is not some Super Parent whose sole concern is to make your life perfect. That conception is the fundamentalist conception, simplistic and leading to error. So much atheism is based on a rejection of a conception of god which is inherently flawed.

The belief that one's own particular desires, one's own happiness, should be of great concern to a transcendant deity is hubristic in the extreme. That your perception of what is just and what is important in the universe should be identical to god's perception is absurd.

[Blue-Jay]

43. Perhaps I skim too much, my esteemed colleague.

Why should a myth be granted the same amount of gravitas as a scientific fact? That question has still not been answered to my satisfaction.

Maybe someone should consult the big face on Mars. He knows everything.

[patcox2]

44. My friend, a myth that contradicts scientific fact deserves no respect.

I believe myths useful only in their appropriate context. Scientific factis fact, myths are useful only in contextualizing and adding human meaning to facts. And they have their place in addressing issues that are beyond science. But I reject them where they contradict science or require a rejection of fact. The proper approach to myths is to understand that they are not literally true, but nevertheless in some contexts can illustrate truths. Like literature.

[immoderate]

45. "imperfect perception of a truth"

A kind of Rovian definition of a lie.

As an atheist, I see the value in fables, legends, and myths, beyond entertainment. What does a good story do?

If this is some tortured defense of religion though, you're going to have the biggest problem with the true believers, because if I read that correctly, you're saying, "Don't take it literally."

Which I already do.

--IMM

[mwb970]

48. I took a History of Religion course once...

One of the first things that the prof said was that although, colloquially, a "myth" is something that isn't true, from a religious point of view, a "myth" is the only thing that IS true.

Maybe it was the way he phrased it, but I've always remembered that.