Religion v. Myth

stellaluna said:
I wonder why some religions die out when scientific evidence piles up while others do not.
Click to expand...
The question sort of assumes that the scientific evidence lead to a religions downfall, I doubt that is true.
I hold, like most here, that science and religion is two very different things. The how/why that was alluded to earlier. But the "follower" of each can still get destructively caught up in trivialities. If, for instance, a christian church decides to hold a thing as true beyond all reason. Like homosexuality leads to natural catastrophes. Then it is likely that that church will die on that hill. BUT I don't consider that Religion, per say. Religion is not just a collection of norms and stories. Religion carries deep insight into what it is to be human.
Rant over.
 
As science plods on, unless we get evidence of raising the dead, prayers healing the sick, a supreme consciousness... Religions will continue to have issues, the philosophies could hang on.
 
Arif Ghamiq said:
And therein is the line - Myth isn’t rooted in or based on fact.
Click to expand...

Thomas said:
Maybe not, but it is based on experience
Click to expand...

Augustine seems to base the entire story of Adam and Eve on historical fact - at least according to the last line he tags onto the end of a long list of various symbolic interpretations:

"No one can stop us from interpreting Paradise symbolically as the life of the blessed; its four rivers as the four virtues . . . the fruit of the trees as the character of the righteous; the Tree of Life as Wisdom . . . . We can also interpret the details of Paradise with reference to the Church, which gives them a better significance as prophetic indications of things to come in the future. Thus Paradise stands for the Church itself . . . the four rivers represent the four Gospels; the fruit trees, the saints; and the fruit, their achievements; the Tree of Life, the holy of holies, must be Christ himself . . . . and there may be other more valuable lines of interpretation. There is no prohibition against such exegesis, provided that we also believe in the truth of the story as a faithful record of historical fact."
(City of God 13.21)​

Were myths understood as historical facts by the ancients? Perhaps it's a mixed bag: some did; some didn't.
 
Last edited:
A Cup Of Tea said:
The question sort of assumes that the scientific evidence lead to a religions downfall, I doubt that is true.
Click to expand...
Thinking about it, I'm inclined to agree.

I think this is a kind of 'faith' statement from non-religious types, who believe it to be true, but have never questioned or tested it.

A Cup Of Tea said:
Religion carries deep insight into what it is to be human.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Certainly science is also offering staggering and profound insights into human nature, statements that are themselves the cause of wonder — my favourite being we are actually made of 'star dust' — but such musings themselves are actually 'outside' science, as it were. The facts that science provides are just that, facts, what we make of those facts is something else.
 
Ahanu said:
Augustine seems to base the entire story of Adam and Eve on historical fact ...
Click to expand...
Seems so ...

Ahanu said:
Were myths understood as historical facts by the ancients?
Click to expand...
From quite early on there were discussions about the historicity of the Creation account. Some of the Fathers believed in the literal, whilst others believed in allegory, but generally all agreed that the message encompasses a truth that transcends the facts.

Again, like the delusion and irrelevance of the science v religion debate, the myth v fact debate misses the essential point. Myth isn't about historical truths or empirical data, and never was. Myth is the fruit of the contemplation of the human condition.

The Christian faithful, for example, are not required to believe in the literal historicity of the Creation narrative. What we are called to believe is the spiritual message — man is a created nature, that creation is essentially good, that pride led to the fall — and that was always the heart of the narrative, rather than what particular shade of green the leaves were on the trees ...

The scribes knew that, too. Thus there is one tree in the midst, then there are two, and the literalist gets caught up in the question, and the scribe smiles at his childishness ...

Again, echoing ACOT, I think this whole dependence on empirical data as the sole determiner of truth is a modernist fallacy, a sideshow by non-believers to validate their own arguments without their having actually validated the statement itself. Without it, they lose a substantial amount of what they perceive to be an infallible argument
 
Thomas said:
The Christian faithful, for example, are not required to believe in the literal historicity of the Creation narrative.
Click to expand...
Again, I'd say this is the leading downfall to Christianity in the US the requirement for children to believe this very thing without question. It made me distrust everything else heard from the pulpit. That was in the 60's and 70s in a doazen different churches in half a dozen different states literally coast to coast and from Florida to Alaska... I kept searching till the 80s before I gave up all together...

And Catholics here OMG as a kid I watched them get hauled around by their ears by nuns and their stories of getting scripture drilled into them by rulers horrified me.

It wasn't till I found new thought that I found there was an alternative.
 
wil said:
Again, I'd say this is the leading downfall to Christianity in the US the requirement for children to believe this very thing without question.
Click to expand...
Not according to the evidence. This Pew Report gives a fairly broad report. About half stop going to church because they ceased to believe in the elements of faith, rather than having to believe without question. Something like less than 20% say 'they came to dislike or distrust religious institutions or organized religion in general', but there's no mention of being required to believe without question, although no doubt some will come up with that if pushed....

wil said:
And Catholics here OMG as a kid I watched them get hauled around by their ears by nuns and their stories of getting scripture drilled into them by rulers horrified me.
Click to expand...
LOL, I know, I know ... it's all their fault ...

According to Pew, among those religious 'nones' raised in a religion (49%), the main factor is a lack of faith that led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention 'science' as the reason they do not believe (flawed reasoning) including one who said "I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles." which is another example of an illogical argument. Other references to 'common sense', 'logic' and 'lack of evidence' are equally founded on ... flawed logic ... go figure.

Of seven reasons listed why people don't believe, five were logically unsound, one was closer to the truth — 'I just realised ... I don't really believe' — and the seventh was a self-affirming statement which says nothing at all, really.

Other flawed arguments, 'More harm done in the name of religion than anything else', 'religion is personal', 'I'm open-minded', 'rational thought means religion goes out the window' etc., are all ill-founded but popular memes from the contemporary atheist debate ...
 
wil said:
What elements would they not believe? I am sure these elements are creation and flood and short earth and not the elements of compassion and good Samaritans.
Click to expand...
OK. Personally, I don't think so. There's no evidence of that on the Pew survey.

No-one is asked to believe in a literal account of creation anyway, except a few nut-cases or 'eyes wide shut' fundamentalists. Same goes for Noah and the flood, and for the short earth theory, so really those are invalid reasons when you ascertain the actual facts.
 
Thomas said:
Other flawed arguments,
Click to expand...

While I agree that some of these arguments are flawed, I also note that these are decisions of the heart more often than not, and the rational arguments are supplied after the fact.
 
Without "Religion" there is no meaning to life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bhaktajan II said:
With out "Religion" there is no meaning to life.
Click to expand...
The counter argument of the above is that "What ever I do = the meaning to life"

One argument subjective based on one's subjective whim,

The other argument subjective based on one's choice of an objective best case scenario.

What objective best case scenario does one religiously paint their actions on?
 
wil said:
Why does life need meaning?

What is the meaning that religion provides?
Click to expand...

This is a very good question.

A grand side note is that this wil's comment seems understandable to folks with diversions up the hoosegow.

Such questions may have never occurerd to Eskimos and Siberians and Hudson Bay and Amazonian and Congo and Austrailian natives and south sea islanders and appalachian teenagers during epochs prior to the last century.

We take for granted how boredom was a pleasing part of life once upon a time.
 
wil said:
Why does life need meaning?
Click to expand...
because of self worth. You have an ego therefore you are.

I post my statement [Without "Religion" there is no meaning to life.] to illicit any counter claim.

I already implied that "Why a Life has meaning" in my post, Without "Religion" there is no meaning to life.

To wit I proffered that w/o religion, one's own self-worth ego-borne persona is tantamount to a religious vocation by any other name.

I remind all that our modern day monkey minds are amused by many fleeting whims ---a short lived life that is amused with the mundane.

A 27 year old man [minus the first 5 years of youth and minus 9 years of sleep] had 15 years of waking hours to formulate the whole of the intelligence and social worth. Yet many of such are late bloomers to this. Yet profess highfalutin dreamscapes as holy grails.

Short lived high statistical chance of death, famine and mental & physical & monetary & emotional harm is REAL LIFE.

Now quickly Change the TV channel and you're all good.
 
wil said:
What is the meaning that religion provides?
Click to expand...
Repeat these rites (to stay linked and consistent).
Be forewarned of 10 primary trespasses (to avoid sins).
Accept that the Soul goes on after Death (to act for future gains).
Pray multiple times a day (to see our haplessness and the magnanimous mercy in every moment).

But this is for Simply Living and High Thinking Lifestyles.
 
How many meanings of life are out there?

If the Soul survives death and take a new birth [after death] in a new body life time after lifetime [samsara]...there is
an unlimited number of combinations and permutations of "meanings of life" to be experienced [if one was so inclined] Right?

Religion is for the acquisition of "artha, kama, dharma & [ultimately] moksha".

Moksha is of two kinds: a] impersonal [nirvana] and b] personal [return home back to Godhead's entourage and pastimes].
The first requires an acsetic path of prayer etc and b. req's love of Godhead.

Hare Krishna, boys!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top