Seabhag:

The problem with believing in a mythology instead of fact is that you have no footing to say that your belief is any more accurate than someone else’s.

The real problem here (and most religionists do this too) is in thinking that religion is something that you “believe in”. I don’t think this actually makes a lot of sense. Religion should be something that you “do”.

For the same reason, I have a real problem with asking if a religion is “accurate” or not. The only thing that I can positively claim about my religion (apart from, say, that it exists!) is that it works for me.

Mythologies are excellent resources to investigate how our ancestors attempted to explain the world without a mechanism like science.

I don’t propose to go over this again, but mythology has other important uses. As objects of study, they reveal something very deep about human psychology. Moreover, mythology has the power to inspire in a way that fiction which doesn’t model itself on mythology cannot.

Did you ever wonder why there are a lot of scenes from classical mythology in Renaissance/Baroque art, even though nobody actually believed them? Archetypes are powerful.

That, in my opinion, when applied to religion/mythology is horse shit.. We don’t go on a (or shouldn’t) psychic’s imaginings of how a crime took place.

I don’t think anyone claimed we should. But that’s surely beside the point: we’re not trying to catch a criminal here.

Oh, and a psychic’s imaginings aren’t “mythology”. I don’t want to knock imagination, because it is important, but mythology is far greater and more noble than mere imaginings.

What I mean by “bringing into focus” is… OK, the example I used previously is satire. Take, for example George Orwell’s Animal Farm. On one level, it’s obviously untrue: There are no talking animals. On another level, it’s a deeply true story about certain events in the history of the Soviet Union. And at yet another level, it’s a deeply true story about the general corrupting nature of power and the fragility of idealism.

If you were reading a retelling of the facts of the history of the Soviet Union, you might pick up on nuances, but then again, you might not. By telling a fictional story, you have a better understanding the point that Orwell was trying to make.

That’s why art can reveal different kinds of truth than dry fact.

To use mythology as a basis for living your life would be like believing that Atlantis really existed because a fictional character in one of Plato’s accounts describes hearing the legends of Atlantis.

Do you really think that a bunch of historical facts is what is required for “a basis for living your life”?

That side track taken; I’m going to assume that the mythology you pride yourself in believing is the Christian Myth.

There you go with the “belief” again. I think that to understand liberal religion (in my case, Christianity), you really need to drop any preconceptions you have about what religion is.

That is, that the Bible is literal and records what actually happened.

If that were true, I’d call it “history”, which I did not.

Maybe I can make this a bit more concrete. Let’s suppose that the Genesis creation story were literally true. We both know it’s not, but let’s suppose it for the sake of argument.

My response to this is “so what”. What good does this knowledge do me? Essentially, none. If I want to know the history of the Earth, I can look at the Earth. Having it in ancient written form won’t change a thing.

So even if it were true, its only use today is as allegory, as parable, as mythology.

And no, it’s not just my mythology that this is true of. As I said earlier, the only thing I can positiviely claim about my religion is that it works for me. Your mileage may vary.

Once it is no longer preferable to kill someone of a different belief system because you are totally right about your belief system and they are leading people to Hell (or Hel, or whatever your version of the ‘bad’ afterlife is), I think we’ll see a change in wars etc. [...] The belief in the afterlife is exactly why a mythology/religion is so dangerous.

I don’t believe in “hell”. In fact, I don’t believe that a place of eternal punishment for humans is actually mentioned in the Bible at all. (You disagree? Feel free to prove me wrong, but it’s not a discussion that I want to waste a lot of time on.)

In the church I grew up in, I didn’t hear the word “hell” mentioned once. And now that I think about it, I can’t recall very much, if at all, on an afterlife. Sermons tended to concentrate on what was relevant here and now, which, surely, is far more useful.

Pseudonym, for all your attempts to come off as a liberal Christian; you sound more like the dominionists I grew up around, and less like the ‘liberal Christians’ I’ve heard tell of.

Now that I’ve explained my beliefs a bit more, do you still think that?

I’ll grant that the technical definition of mythology includes things that might have a basis in fact somewhere in the past. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are a perfect example. Troy really did exist. Did Athena and Poseidon actually exist? Probably not. The problem with mythology is that while it isn’t always false it’s rarely close to the entire truth.

For example, the Native American legends of Raven were an attempt to explain the fickleness of nature. While Hephaestus was the Greek’s way of explaining volcano’s.

Mythologies are excellent resources to investigate how our ancestors attempted to explain the world without a mechanism like science. However, Pseudonym you said:

The purpose of representational art is not to depict nature “accurately” in the sense that a newspaper report or a biography is “accurate”. It’s meant to bring certain details into focus in a way that an “accurate” representation can’t.

That, in my opinion, when applied to religion/mythology is horse shit.. We don’t go on a (or shouldn’t) psychic’s imaginings of how a crime took place. Instead we should use DNA evidence, and well tested forensics skills to determine ‘whodunit’. The only purpose for mythology is to understand how our ancestors used to explain the universe and teach their children how to get along with others. Representational art still represents reality, myth and religion only do as we use them to understand how our ancestors saw the world. Beyond that they are useless as a way to see ‘truth’.

To use mythology as a basis for living your life would be like believing that Atlantis really existed because a fictional character in one of Plato’s accounts describes hearing the legends of Atlantis. We know enough of geology, history, etc to know that the odds are very high that Atlantis as described by Plato didn’t exist (there’s some who think his time/distance scale’s could have been off and he was referring to the downfall of the Minoan civilization). But this force of 10 million strong, as described in Plato’s Timaeus, probably didn’t attempt to invade Europe in 9500 BC.

That side track taken; I’m going to assume that the mythology you pride yourself in believing is the Christian Myth. That is, that the Bible is literal and records what actually happened. What is it that compels you to believe such fantasy? There is a great lack of historical and archaeological evidence that important events actually happened. The Exodus has little evidence for it; the events ‘recorded’ by the Gospel writers aren’t recorded by any other historian living in the time (that I know of). Instead of revealed truth, Christianity at its core if all about control and domination.

Christianity explicitly teaches that we are not curable, or at least not in this life.

There’s another problem with your belief system Pseudonym. What about all the advances in ethics and morality in the last few hundred years? (Decrease in racism, end of slavery in many countries, equality of women etc). These were, and in some cases still are, resisted by Christian Churches who use the Bible to prove why what they believe is correct. Humanity is growing up and soon, I hope, as religion loses it’s stranglehold on people’s minds we will see a decrease in crime and violence. Once it is no longer preferable to kill someone of a different belief system because you are totally right about your belief system and they are leading people to Hell (or Hel, or whatever your version of the ‘bad’ afterlife is), I think we’ll see a change in wars etc. Then once a better understanding of neurochemistry is understood we’ll be able to help people who have imbalances that drive them to commit other crimes. Mythology holds no such promise, except in the afterlife that it provides no evidence for. The belief in the afterlife is exactly why a mythology/religion is so dangerous. The sheeple are told that this life doesn’t really count except for obeying the priests/pastors/leaders/authorities and ‘building up treasure in heaven’ where the real life begins. Check out the Rapture Ready forum sometime if you want to see a bunch of people who hate life (but still don’t want to ‘die’) and are only living to see God come back and take them away.

Here’s what I see believing in a Mythology as being like. Belief that Homeopathy works. A single substance diluted down to the point where there’s no way to tell if there’s actually any of that substance left in the solution you are drinking. Truth/Fact in mythologies are like that substance diluted down 30,000 or more times. There may have been a truth that you can dig out of it. But the odds are pretty low and in the case of homeopathy you have a simple solution of water. In the case of Mythology you have the untruth left and worshiped. Not just worshiped, but belief in that untruth without evidence or fact to back it up is promoted and held to be the highest good. This is what led to 9/11, the murder of abortion doctors, the Crusades, the war going on in Sri Lanka, the great jihad directed against the enemies of Islam. This is what also drives the dominionists I grew up around to desire a way to take over the country and force everyone who doesn’t believe the way they do to either submit to their theocratic rule or leave.

Pseudonym, for all your attempts to come off as a liberal Christian; you sound more like the dominionists I grew up around, and less like the ‘liberal Christians’ I’ve heard tell of.

I think the sooner that the bandage is pulled off the wound of religion and exposed to the light of fact and truth the sooner that humanity will be able to grow up and leave such infantile belief systems in the past. When no mechanism for understanding the universe is available I can understand believing in mythology, but when that mechanism is available it, to me, reeks of deliberate ignorance. A desire to stick one’s fingers in their ears and shout “La-La-La I can’t hear you”. Why a person would want to cripple their understanding of the universe and its wonders doesn’t make sense to me. But then I never understood the believers when I was raised by them and they attempted to indoctrinate me (some of it took and I’m still working that crap out of my system).

First, dictionaries are compiled from how a word is used, so if people use a word “incorrectly” a lot, that’s a new meaning.

Exactly; which is why I referenced the “technical”, literary use of the word, not the popular usage.

Secondly, that doesn’t actually conflict with what Mike said. The purpose of representational art is not to depict nature “accurately” in the sense that a newspaper report or a biography is “accurate”. It’s meant to bring certain details into focus in a way that an “accurate” representation can’t.

A good portrait need not be an accurate likeness. And good mythology need not be accurate history.

Fantastic analogy Pseudonym. Mind if I borrow it?

That doesn’t stop me observing that the purpose of religion does appear to be a political (and therefore a control) thing.

There’s something to be said for the argument that religion and politics have a lot in common: They bring out both the best and worst of humanity.

Darryl:

This is the most damning indictment of religion–it is impotent. It cannot cure us of sin. How can a symptom of a disease be its cure?

Christianity explicitly teaches that we are not curable, or at least not in this life.

I’ve got to disagree with that – this is from disctionary.com: “based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity;”

Two comments about that.

First, dictionaries are compiled from how a word is used, so if people use a word “incorrectly” a lot, that’s a new meaning.

Secondly, that doesn’t actually conflict with what Mike said. The purpose of representational art is not to depict nature “accurately” in the sense that a newspaper report or a biography is “accurate”. It’s meant to bring certain details into focus in a way that an “accurate” representation can’t.

A good portrait need not be an accurate likeness. And good mythology need not be accurate history.

I also grew up in a secular country – I am British.

So you grew up in a country with an established church.

That doesn’t stop me observing that the purpose of religion does appear to be a political (and therefore a control) thing.

Politics isn’t always about control either. But for what it’s worth: For every anecdote there’s an equal and opposite anecdote.

Not to mention that the technical (i.e. literary) definition of the word is not at all synonymous with “untrue” or even “unhistorical”.

I’ve got to disagree with that – this is from disctionary.com: “based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity;”

Pseudonym:

Growing up where and when you did, I can understand that. I can imagine that people living in the US “Bible Belt” would feel the same. But I grew up in a largely secular country in a very liberal religion, so the “control” thing is not in my experience.

I also grew up in a secular country – I am British. That doesn’t stop me observing that the purpose of religion does appear to be a political (and therefore a control) thing.

The way I see it, religion is just another aspect of politics – a way to control people.

Growing up where and when you did, I can understand that. I can imagine that people living in the US “Bible Belt” would feel the same. But I grew up in a largely secular country in a very liberal religion, so the “control” thing is not in my experience.

Mike:

I’m going to go with “mythological”. Atheists and other Moderns tend to use that word as if it’s an accusation of some sort. And yet personally I see myths as deeply meaningful and powerful. Not to mention that the technical (i.e. literary) definition of the word is not at all synonymous with “untrue” or even “unhistorical”.

You got it, and for exactly the right reasons, too.

Just to prove my liberal credentials: There’s one black word on the image that I not only agree with, but am positively proud of. Want to guess which one it is?

I’m going to go with “mythological”. Atheists and other Moderns tend to use that word as if it’s an accusation of some sort. And yet personally I see myths as deeply meaningful and powerful. Not to mention that the technical (i.e. literary) definition of the word is not at all synonymous with “untrue” or even “unhistorical”.

On the contrary, I’m arguing that the reason they exploded is because of British colonisation and the reaction to it, not religion. To find the real answer, you need to look back to Oliver Cromwell and beyond.

The way I see it, religion is just another aspect of politics – a way to control people. In the case of Ireland, the Protestants objected rather less to the control from England than the Catholics – if that doesn’t make it a religious conflict, I don’t know what does. The reason the British army was sent to NI in the sixties/seventies was originally to protect the Catholic population from Protestants.

Just to prove my liberal credentials: There’s one black word on the image that I not only agree with, but am positively proud of. Want to guess which one it is?

I can’t particul;arly see any words to be proud of, but my guess would be “Obedience”. Blind obedience can (not always, but sometimes) lead to things like the German concentration camps… “I was just following orders.”