Talk:Religion and mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 23/9/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] NPOV - POV arguementation

If anyone has any specific complaints about the quality of article, then post them here. Because the one who added the npov tags did not bring forth any arguements I'm going to remove the tags. If specific arguements arise I'm welcome to restore the npov tags. Androg 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial

It seems to me that this article about the difference between religion and mythology should not exist. In this sort of logic there could be articles like "Religion and Sorcery", "Mythology and Magic" and so on. There are people that certainly can relate Sorcery to Religion saying that religious rituals are forms of sorcery or people that relate mythology to religion saying that certain stories or events are described to make us believe about God. I consider religion as matter of faith and revelation wich has nothing to do with allegory, prose or paranormal and supernatural beliefs. Mythology in religion seems to me as a poetic form of describing a certain excepcional event, fact or moral. Mythology in primitive or pre-scientifical societies was made to explain the order of Universe or natural events like rain or disease. Science has it´s own "mithology"; in fact, no one can proove the Big Bang. But this discussion is endless (and interesting) because we cannot determine or have any absolute resolutions about the beggining, meaning and end of all things, therefore, this article does not contain information but opinion or belief and should not exist and both questions should be dealed separate.I finish saying that The Monster of Loch Ness is also a myth.--Fpenteado 01:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit for NPOV

I think that in the re-write you'll have to take into consideration that for many religious people "Mythology" has absolutely no conscious bearing on their religion whatever. You might write the article in such a way that you call all of those people "ignorant" or mistaken. Or, alternatively, you might try to account for what gives rise to their understanding of the relation between Religion and Mythology. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

For some religious people, "Mythology" may have absolutely no conscious bearing on their religion whatever. That is a subjective opinion that an individual can make. Others differ in that. The connotation that the word "Mythology" is a bad thing or a good thing is subjective (eg., making choices about how to allocate meanings to some data).
If you believe that an article should call people "ignorant" or mistaken, then we would have to disagree. I believe that an article should just state the facts of the subject objectively. As to the suggestion for accounting for what gives rise the relation between Religion and Mythology, that could be covered in the similarities section. JDR 18:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Could you list exactly why the POV tag is there? A list of your objections could be good. If not, then the tag should be removed. JDR 18:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that I did, at the top of this article.
These aren't "subjective" opinions more than ours are. The definition of a "myth" is given, and the religious view of these people is that it does not describe their religion. It is in fact what their religion teaches. IZAK has discussed this regarding Orthodox Judaism. Another user has said the same thing with regard to Assyrian Orthodoxy. "Mythology" does not underlie their religion; it is the wrong category to apply - according to them. Mythologists have a different opinion.
Now here we come along and create articles and categories that actually dogmatically assert that they are objectively incorrect, and relegate their objections to a mere scruple, a subjective conflict of perceptions. You don't like the word "ignorant", but this evades the fact that you are calling them ignorant by the things that you assert as "fact" (which is, after all, a POV). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Not really ... a bulleted list would be nice.
How about these ...
  1. "subjective" opinions
  2. Article titles
  3. definition of a "myth"
  4. terminology
Now ... I'll addree them here ...
  1. Made a whole section on this.
  2. The titles of the articles are mainly objectively correct and NPOV. Your religious POV (eg., Orthodox Presbyterian Church elder) seems to cloud your view of the title.
  3. The religious views of a people (any group current or historical) is thier mythology.
  4. I'm not calling them ignorant. The terminology objections are doubts about the subjective conflict of perceptions. That is a POV and it is now covered in the article in a NPOV fashion. The terminology that are asserted are common knowledge.
As to your other comments: Mythology does describe a religion (true or untrue). It may be a fact what a religion teaches it's followers. But those outside the religion don't see it as a fact of reality. Varying views, varying mythologies. "Mythology" does underlie religions; it isn't the wrong category to apply to them.
If you could source the opinion of a reliable mythologist, I'd be in favor to include it. JDR 20:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you name a "myth" where "Trinity" is the subject of the narrative? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Trinity". The Encyclopedia Mythica Online has this in the "Other mythologies" section. JDR 18:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
No - not a mythologist who lists the Trinity as a "myth"; I mean, a myth - the explanatory story, the traditional narrative in which the Trinity appears. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Trinity is an element (eg., the deity) of the Christian catechism (eg., christian mythology) that God exists as three persons. JDR 20:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia must not dogmatically assert, suggest, or massage the reader into believing that the correct way to look at all religions is in terms of mythology, when those religions dogmatically assert that this is not the correct way to look at their religion. And you are really stretching the meaning of "myth" to the breaking point, when you apply it to a doctrine, or a doctrinal summary. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that your copyedit was pretty good Mkmcconn. Congrats. JDR 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. And thank you for letting me pull you aside to discuss this. I still have a problem with the use of Myth as a category; but perhaps you would be interested in looking at the discussion on Category:Christian mythology, where a categorization scheme is being worked out, that is sensitive to issues raised on this page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I might not be a registered user on wikipedia, but I am studying theology and therefore also mythology. Now... I don't mean to be offensive, but I honestly think that Mark here doesn't understand what mythology is (considered to be). And thus he's constantly trying to argue against it.

For example: "I think that in the re-write you'll have to take into consideration that for many religious people "Mythology" has absolutely no conscious bearing on their religion whatever."

Ok, lets cut it simple - Show me a religious person for whom there are no "stories" or "narratives" which carry an important sacred meaning. Heck, one could not be a christian or jew or muslim, if he didn't believe in different narratives! The very story of Christ is a myth. It's part of the christian mythology, if we apply such a system of terminology.

Every religious person carries at least some sort of narratives with him through which he "sees" the meaning of the sacred. That's mythology in action in a religion.

Now... maybe there are such for whom there are no narratives, but they definitely are not - could not be! - part of any official churches in the world!

All in all - again - show me a religious person for whom there are no narratives - in other words myths.

Til then your arguements claiming that the article is wrong are simply NOT valid.

-- Androg.

Uh-huh... And if you water down the word "myth" to mean only "any narrative that supports a belief structure", then by that token, it would be equally valid to say that the Big Bang, Evolution, and the Documentary Hypothesis are all "myths" as well... Because they are all just hypotheses and origin-explanations believed by a limited number of people, that have never been, and could never be, conclusively proven... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone can find understanding, meaning or how to live one's life in the theory of Big Bang, then yes - for him that is a myth indeed. Notice that I use the myth strictly as something which helps a person to develop his life, as something on which one relies in his developments in the life.

Not "any theory/idea/whatever which can't be proven to last bit" can be counted as a myth in this sense. Big bang, or Darwin's theory are not myths in this sense. I don't think I know anyone who finds "personal life development" through those...

Basicly, for those not dealing with mythologies actively in their lives I suggest watching a nice interview-documentary "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth". Although strongly based on his own personal views, Campbell there nicely explains how myths "work" even in today's everyday life.

(Ok, made myself an account now.) -- Androg 00:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


-- Ok, because of no further counter-arguements I have removed the tags questioning the neutrality of the article. If you disagree with this decision then discuss the subject HERE! Androg 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need more sections

This article is woefully incomplete. How can you discuss "Religion and mythology" without having a section explaining the etymology of "myth" as it is used Biblically to mean fable, and without clarifying that that dictionary definition is still the popular usage of the world, as opposed to the academic? This article takes only the definition it likes, and ignores the other, precisely the reason why the academic usage is problematic. Codex Sinaiticus 18:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Addressing "myth" as it is used Biblically should be covered in the Religous views section. (now done) The addressing the religious and academic view is NPOV. It doesn't ignore any view, but put the terminology in context. I'm removing the tag. JDR 18:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I also put in the "This is a popular usage in the world." JDR 18:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Would you take some time to include those balancing factors, so that the disputed tag can be removed as soon as possible, Codex? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll try when I get a chance, but in the meantime if I don't get to it, by all means, start without me! Codex Sinaiticus 18:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud... this Codex guy spent ages trying to redefine myth to meet his Biblical understanding of the word (and specificually that it never, ever could be applied to anything in his religion)... the last thing we need is him pushing his POV here any more than he already has, as his attempt to modify the definition on the myth and mythology articles failed spectacularly because people who understood the definition were there to stop him. DreamGuy 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The above is a perfect example of the sort of ad hominem argument / personal attack that wikipedia could really do without. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mystery religion" POV

To describe Christianity as a Mystery religion immediately conjures connections with the POV that Christianity is a form of Gnosticism, or that it is the product of the same stream of mythos as that from which Gnosticism arises. This highly speculative and contrarian view is very emphatically not the way that Christianity views itself; and it is also not a sustainable perspective on Judaism or even Islam at all, in my opinion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The term is bolded in the Mystery religion article. Mabey that should be changed. I did rv it here and made an open wlnk to revealed religions. JDR 18:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French revolution and academics

The statement "There may actually be ample precedent and justification for such a view. For example, a similar statement was made by the 'academics' at the time of the French Revolution, fostering a climate in France where even speaking of the Bible as anything but a myth came to be viewed as treasonable." sounds right, but it needs a citation. I'll look around for one. JDR 05:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelists?

Reddi, why do you feel that evangelists need to be picked out as being of particular interest? All that an evangelist is, is someone who explains religious beliefs to others. The evangelist represents the larger group of "religious people", the people who, like him, hold those beliefs. It makes the sentence read strangely to have "evangelists" positioned as the typical group represented, when all that person is a typical representative. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, an evangelists is a particular example. Add others if possible. An evangelist conducts preaching and/or proselytizing of Christian Gospel. Why do you feel that evangelists need be removed as a particular example? JDR 16:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It just sounds funny to my Christian ear, to have "evangelists" picked out this way. They are not the source of these beliefs, but the communicators of it. They are not even usually in a position of articulating the belief in a scholarly sense, over against those who oppose - that is an apologist.
Also, the word has specific, exclusive reference to Christians; whereas the paragraph represents more than Christian religious belief. When you say "such as", to pick out the most representative example, and your choice directs you to "evangelists", it indicates that you are speaking generally but thinking specifically. Again, it sounds funny and slightly confused. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Putting in the wlnk to denote an example of any individual conduction any form of preaching or proselytizing of religous nature. The word, by extension from the specific reference to Christians, has other connotations (a reason for a wlnk to the article; eg., any form of recruitment or spreading-the-word for a group or movement seen as ideological or committed). I am not sure if non-Abrahamic religions have a similar form of proselytizier (and if they do if there is a nice short term for them).
The phrase "such as" picks out an example, that's it (a list of other examples could be good). I'll see if I can find more to add to the types of people.
I would say that the apologist wlnk was a good addition. JDR
'Evangelist' to my ears refers to 'Evangel', another name for the Gospels, ie the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that tell of Christ's life, and the Gospel he preached. So an 'Evangelist' is someone who specifically teaches from these four books, right? Codex Sinaiticus 23:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
That also is a proper use of the word. John the Evangelist, is the writer of the Gospel of John. Here though, Reddi is trying to give examples of the sort of people who might raise the objections mentioned. He lists "evangelist" because it suggests that the reason these people might object, is because they have an interest in promoting exclusive belief in their religion. The choice he's made stumbles though, over issues of typical use. If a (evangelical) Christian were to make a list of those who might object, he would not (typically) put evangelists in that list. Apologists, pastors, priests, spiritual guides, rabbis, seminary professors, writers, any of these would work better than "evangelist" - because, contrary apparently to Reddi's perceptions, within evangelical culture evangelists do not have this typifying function of defending against perceived attack (except where "evangelist" is just another name for one of those others, as in Restoration Movement traditions). Of course, any evangelist might have to do the work of an apologist - but apologist is specifically the term he is looking for.
Except, apparently, what Reddi wants is a "wink" that implies that the main reason somebody would want to object, is to win others over by claiming the uniqueness of their religious belief. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to give examples of the sort of people who might raise the objections mentioned. Apologists is already cited. Mabey pastors, priests, rabbis, seminary professors, spiritual guides, and some religous writers. Also, non-Abrahamic examples need to be sought out (like figures in the Native American population ... mabey Shaman?). (I'll put in some of these into the article.)
What I would like included are examples of religous individuals that would object (other than the "main defender" [eg., apologists]). Some evangelists, especially the televangelists (a sub-category of evangelists), do defend against perceived attacks and would take such use of terminology as an attack on thier religion (as I have heard them say). As to the reason why somebody would want to object to such use, I am not sure. Your proposition that win others over by claiming the uniqueness of their religious belief is possible.
BTW, "WLNK" is shorthand for "wikilink" (wlnk). [I think that you tooks that as 'wink']
Sincerely, JDR 17:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
PS., If the terminology of the Abrahamic mythologies are changed ... the same should be done to the Native American mythologies.
I was being cute about wlnk. It was a bad joke, implying bad faith on your part.
A number of us have agreed with your point about other articles categorized as mythology; however, as you have pointed out, the word does not always have the negative connotations that it has based on the New Testament definition. We don't want to force our scheme on a community, as though we know better how your narratives should be categorized in a neutral fashion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article quality

This article seems to suffer from a distinct lack of organisation, as well as some questionably relevant stuff. I've removed some of the wrong definitions, but we seem to have sectiosn that go into Norse myth, and then ends up discussing the similarities of Christian rituals with the rituals of other organisations of the time, without really explaining what this has to do with mythology. Needs a big tidy. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. Distinct lack of organisation? I would think that this is a 'work in progress' ... being a relatively new article.
  2. Questionably relevant stuff? Please specify.
  3. Wrong definitions? How so ... have you looked up the defintions? That is what they state.
  4. Section crossover? They are distinct sections ... The discussion of the the similarities of rituals in ancient mythologies and current mythologies should be seen as different topic (and this is why there is another header) from the prior general discussion of "Religion and mythology".
  5. Explain what this has to do with mythology? The ancient religious orders and modern religous orders share common features. Both type of mythologies have common rituals and/or beliefs; and, there are differences between ancient orders and modern ones.
  6. Needs a big tidy? Please state the exact conerns. I'd be willing to discuss it and put it in. JDR 17:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC) (PS., the Buddhist view and the Native American views [ie., non-Abrahamic views] should be included in this article.)
I would agree with the idea this article needs some work, particular areas that I was confused by enough that I couldn't decide what the article was trying to say include:
'From this perspective, Story (Myth), figures prominently in most religions and belief systems, and specific mythologies are tied to at least one religion.'
'Simplification of cultures and time periods by eliminating detailed data remain vulnerably delicate or flimsy in this area of research.'
'Duplication being done by Christians and Pagan bidirectionally, coincidentally or directly outright.'
The similarities bulleted list seems to be making an assumption that I missed - it talks about both, for example, without specifically mentioning two items - is it supposed to be referring to Abrahamic religions and Paganism again? If so this impression is lost as one of the points higher in the list refer to Hinduism, seeming to broaden the dialogue into a more general comparision.
Of course that also has a problem because it mentions a Hindu practise, but doesn't specifically match the practise to another religion. The same is true of Baptism on the next line, I know from common knowledge baptism is used in Christianity, but it doesn't specify what other religions also perform similar rituals (I seem to remember some Indian's practised something similar in the Ganges from a documentary I saw a long time back, but would have to confirm what religion that was, it could even been a localisation of christian beliefs for all I remember).
In general what is the particular reason for talking about Similarities and Contrasts of religions between each other (sometimes specifically Abrahamic and Pagan religions) in this article when it is supposed to be about Religion and mythology? Shouldn't this sections expand on how the terms religion and mythology either overlap (in similarities), or in contrasts were they are different from each other?
Some of the other areas of the article seem to be fairly solid, but these two sections particularly seemed to be a bit off the point and hard to read. I don't really know enough about this to want to step in particularly on a contested article, so will leave it to someone else who has the time to be bold. Sfnhltb 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

A myth, according to Webster, is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon: parable, allegory." The rest of the definition also implies a certain unverifiable or imaginery nature.

While your discourse on the 'academic' nature of the topic is well-written, we must remember that most readers of this article will still, primarily, read the word "myth" to mean what was noted above. With this in mind, there should, perhaps, be two brief mentions: the first, being the difference acknowledged within a religion between canon and myth (that which is scriptural, and those stories that have grown outside of scripture); the second, a specification that since academically 'myth' as a term applies to the nature of the story and the meaning thereof, meaning that, in some cases, the same event can be both factual and mythical. For example, the trials and sentencing of five of the Apostles are retold in the Talmud and other documents, making portions of Acts factual by most current conventions. We could go so far as to mention the references to Jesus, but as these are under such heavy dispute, I think it would be better left out.

Will this calm all the critics? No..nothing will. I do, however, believe they are warranted for such a broad-view discourse on the topic. I welcome your response.

Peace! Jarrod Jabre 22:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this article created?

Having read the article, I'm left wondering why the original author created it. What point was he/she trying to make, what information needed to be conveyed? Because I can't honestly see how anything can be written here that can't be written in quite separate artciles called religion and mythology. What's the point in drawing them together like this? PiCo 12:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering the people involved and the content, looks to me that the article was created to push a certain viewpoint. I really see no point to this article either as it currently stands. DreamGuy 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The point is to explain how these topics compare, how they differ, and how they relate to one another.Goldenrowley 05:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THIS ARTICLE NEEDS REFERENCES!!!

I looked through this article, and I saw almost zero endnotes. A good article should have endnotes scattered thickly throughout the text. Could anyone add them? --Phatius McBluff 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. I want you to know I really like the way you rewrote the paragraph that I found controversial in a new way. In case you want to participate, there is a lively and active discussion about the topic of this article on the talk pages of Wikiproject Mythology and Wikiproject Religion. [1]Goldenrowley 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DISPUTE

I would like to dispute this entire article, if I may be so privleged. It is one sided, extremely patronizing, and meets every definition of the word "POV Pushing", making one wonder why it exists at all. It seems only one side of the coin is welcome here, although much more could be said than was recently excised on the subject of historical abuse of the term mythology. Please be patient and allow for due process without playing judge jury and executioner for one in your life and dismissing these objections out of hand. 70.105.50.115 13:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be more precise. To what, specifically, do you object? What changes do you propose? This is not a dispute, this is a blanket attack of the article with no reasons given. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, for one example it cites as one of the supporting definitions of classicist Robert Graves the opinion that 'myths' are "whatever religious or heroic legends are so foreign to a student's experience that he cannot believe them to be true." This would seem to lend support to the later statement 'The relationship between religion and myth depends on what definition of "myth" one uses.' With definitions such as Graves', the subjective nature of the term rings out loud and strong. But this is seemingly ignored in the following unique commentary and analysis, and instead we are told "Significantly, none of the above definitions imply that myths are false." Who thinks up this stuff? Til Eulenspiegel 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, Til, was that you editing anonymously, or someone else?
Ok, that one is clearly a contradiction within the article, which is an accuracy not a POV issue. Perhaps the sentence was placed before the Graves definition; I'm not going to dig through history to find out, lets just fix it. The statement is inaccurate, or at least very arguably inaccurate (the argument could be made that many true things are very hard to believe, but that doesn't make them less true.) I have removed the sentence pending outcome of this discussion, as it does not damage the flow of the rest of the paragraph. We can leave it out, or rework it.
Thoughts? Feedback? Objections? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, thanks for correcting my not-so-little error there. I wrote the "relationship between" section, and I also added the Graves quote. I'll have to be more careful later. However, in defense of the article as it currently stands, I agree with KillerChihuahua that that error (now corrected) doesn't affect the actual point being made: nowadays the scholarly use of the word "myth" usually isn't derogatory. (I'd argue this even in the case of Graves's definition: he isn't a Greek pagan, so of course he doesn't believe Greek myths are true; that doesn't mean he's trying to insult Greek paganism by calling its stories "myths".)
As for the recent removal of much of the text in the "Opposition to categorizing all sacred stories as myths" subsection, I did most of the removal. I'm sorry if this makes the "Religious views" section seem unbalanced, but we can't put up unreferenced material to achieve balance. All claims on this or any other article should be referenced, as most of that stuff wasn't. Also, much of what I removed didn't explain its own relevance to the issue being discussed. I mean, yes, the Soviet Union did persecute religions, but what does that have to do with religious individuals opposing the word "myth"?
If I'm completely missing the point of this charge against the article, please let me know. --Phatius McBluff 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Concur completely on that section; I removed it entirely[2]. The Soviet Union addition had nothing to do with myths, as you accurately note. The French bit did, but "for a time speaking of the Bible as anything except a myth came to be viewed by authorities as treasonable." was fact tagged since February, with no sources being offered. If it is to be in the article, it needs a source.
It seems the accuracy about definitions has been resolved, are there other objections or problems with the article? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, KillerChihuahua. Also, I'm anticipating an objection to what I just posted above, so I'll make a preemptive defense now.
One might say, "Yes, Graves didn't exactly mean to insult Greek paganism by calling it "myth". But by using that term, as he had defined it, he clearly did imply that he didn't personally believe in Greek paganism. Thus, anyone who calls (say) Christian stories "myths", and uses Graves's definition, is claiming that he doesn't believe in Christianity. That's a perfectly legitimate personal belief, but it becomes POV when we build it into an article. Hence, entitling an article Christian mythology implies that it's common knowledge that Christianity is false. That's an insult to Christianity."
This objection works only if we've accepted Graves's definition as the official definition on Wikipedia. We have not done so. Right now, unless specificity calls for a different definition (see Legend for an example), Wikipedians pretty consistently use "myth" to mean "traditional story" or "sacred story" -- not "false traditional story" or "false sacred story". I realize that there are some exceptions (some of the most inexcusable are in the Christian mythology article). However, we users had better get our act together and start using "myth" without the implication of falsehood if we're going to have articles like Christian mythology at all. --Phatius McBluff 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
To discuss the last point I mentioned above, please see 2 discussions on the talk page for Wikipedia's "mythology project":[3][4]
--Phatius McBluff 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It still doesn't seem accurate or to blatantly ignore the pejorative history of the term, or pretend it never had one and is now in 2007 suddenly "innocent" of all innuendo. There are many sources throughout history that can be shown of people using it in a pejorative manner in a definition that matches Graves' definition; and there are also sources that can be found quoting those who have objected to this. All it takes is a little looking. The fact that it is still used as a pejorative today every bit as much as it was in the French Revolution, or at any other time is truly alarming, and we should not pretend it has gone unnoticed here; for example, just search out all the instances of 'myth' 'mythology' on this internet discussion of less than a month old, that are obviously, in the context, nothing other than pejorative: Professor compares Bible to Mein Kampf. That kind of talk is certainly a POV, but should probably be described as such neutrally rather than what sometimes seems like overt sympathy from the 'establishment' of this project, that tends not to be exactly user friendly. 70.105.50.115 17:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that the term still has pejorative connotations. And that's why a consistent use of non-pejorative definitions on Wikipedia (with the unavoidable result that Christian, Muslim, etc. stories will end up being categorized as "myths") is so necessary. We must educate the public about the scholarly use of terms, precisely to avoid disputes like this one when the public reads "real" (non-Wikipedia) scholarly writings. For instance, Wikipedia articles on science don't use the word "theory" in its popular sense of "guess" or "mere hypothesis"; they use it as it is used by the scientific community: to mean a hypothesis that has been empirically verified. --Phatius McBluff 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, that's why some users have been working on this info box
Articles about Mythology:
In its broadest academic sense, the word "myth" simply means a traditional story, whether true or false. (—OED, Princeton Wordnet) Unless otherwise noted, the words "mythology" and "myth" are here used for sacred and traditional narratives, with no implication that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false.
which we hope will calm the critics. --Phatius McBluff 18:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Graves' definition is the only one that makes sense. One person's "mythology" is another person's way of life and firm belief. A students views of what not to believe depends on his experience. Given that his quote alone is good evidence of the subjectiveness of the label 'mythology', it does not make sense to use it where there is any significant disagreeing pov, only in those cases where there is no disagreeing pov, eg. Norse myths - even the thousand or so practitioners of Norse religion today apparently do not claim the Eddas are sacred or true, so there is no objection in that case. On the other hand, many religions like Bon (Tibet) are significant enough to warrant escaping having their texts and firm beliefs labelled "Bon mythology". When "myth" is thus in the 'eye of the beholder' anyway as Graves suggests (thus explaining why there are so many conflicting definitions for it) it's just better to reserve it for those cases where there is no serious objection from a large living group or organization. Til Eulenspiegel 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
First: Actually, yes, Asatru people do think the Norse myths are sacred and true. They believe that "that the Eddas, Myths and Norse Sagas are the divinely inspired wisdom of [their] religion".[5]
Second: Isn't that slightly circular reasoning? Graves's definition is the only one that makes sense if you start out by defining a myth as a story which the speaker does not regard as true (= Graves's definition). Words are just words. They mean what their users define them to mean. If the professional folklorists define a myth as a sacred story about the creation of the world, then that's what the word "myth" means when used by folklorists; it makes no sense to say that that isn't what the word "really" means because others use it differently.
Of course, for reasons addressed in the "Opposition to categorizing all sacred stories as myths" section, members of certain religions (particularly Christianity) may feel offense at the use of the word "myth", even when it's carefully defined. But this isn't the same thing as saying that the word "myth" is offensive because it necessarily means such-and-such. The word "myth" doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Frankly, I think we're getting nowhere here. I'm starting to feel that we should remove or rename the Christian mythology article if it's going to cause so much trouble. Do the same for articles on the sacred stories of other "living" religions if you want to. (I'd point out that Hindus don't have a problem with classes on "Hindu mythology" being taught at UC Berkeley.) If it's just a PC matter of avoiding the stigma surrounding the word "myth", then I guess I'm not going to argue against it; I'm just not passionate enough about this (frankly exhausting) argument.
However, whatever we end up doing with the religion articles, please remember one thing: If we do end up removing references to "mythology" from articles on "living religions", then we must not do it because of claims about what mythology "really" is. There's absolutely no scholarly consensus on the proper use of the word "myth"; it doesn't "really" mean anything.
To see what I mean, consider the word "bitch". That originally meant "female dog". However, it now has less pleasant connotations. Hence, an encyclopedia article on dogs might avoid using the word "bitch" because its mere use might offend people even if the writers strictly define how they're using it. But the reason can't be some argument about what bitch "really" means.
--Phatius McBluff 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The Graves quote is jarring, but I was not going to say anything till you braught it up. It should be acknowleged but it's not the only definition. Now I cant beleive today's idea to entirely scrap "christian mythology" article. I'll go over and see if I can find the sentence on that page and fix it right now. This is a public forum its not easy to keep all articles coherent, but that does not mean its run by Stalinists or an elite people. Goldenrowley 07:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think each of the mythology definition quotes Graves should be dated, because at Wiktionary I learned that its important to date each definition, the meanings of words change over time, sometimes radically sometimes more organically. I think this will help if we put them in date order. Goldenrowley 08:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another accuracy / neutrality dispute

The definition given supposedly given as that of the 1830 Westminster Review is innacurate. I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume somebody got confused in his or her research. The definition we see there, "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon." is a recent definition written within the past 15 years by the OED. It isn't even the original definition the earlier editions of the OED gave with that quote. The actual words of the 1830 Westminster Review cited there in tell a far different story about its earliest cited usage, one which makes the context clear as being a synonym for "a story derived from a fable". So let's "bust" this "myth".
By the way, the so-called "popular" definition of "myth" as equivalent "B.S." is becoming more and more widespread in today's media as a buzzword. Did anyone catch just in yesterday's news, where a woman was claiming to be hassled at a security checkpoint at Reagan National Airport over a sippy cup. The airport actually responded by making a webpage showing the actual security footage of the incident, entitling the webpage, as it happens, "Mythbusters", with a detailed explanation of how they were "busting myths" by refuting the woman's claim that the security guards were out of line or unprofessional. Given what myth means in 2007 English, I would once again call for careful considerations of all the ambiguities of this scholarly term and think about all NPOV implications of labelling sacred texts of living religions as "myth". This is exactly why "sacred texts of living religions" and "myth" have always (at least in pre-wikipedia days) been conventionally considered as two completely distinct subjects in neutral discussions. Til Eulenspiegel 13:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel:

As I said above, I personally am not going to throw a tantrum if someone decides to redirect Christian mythology and Islamic mythology to "Christian traditional narrative" and "Islamic traditional narrative". And I'm painfully aware of the wide variety of scholarly definitions used in the discussion of myth.

However it is simply not true that "sacred texts of living religions" and "myth" have always been conventionally considered as "completely distinct" in scholarly discussions. Some examples of cases where they're not considered "completely distinct":

  • My Egyptology professor at UC Berkeley said that "myth" (sacred narrative) and "ritual" (sacred ceremony) are two major elements in religion in general.
  • Robert Segal, the Professor of Theories of Religion at the University of Lancaster, freely applies the term "myth" to the stories of living religions in Myth: A Very Short Introduction.
  • Mircea Eliade, a former Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago, uses the word "myth" when writing of Christian narratives (although he notes the "ambiguity" that, for many Christians, surrounds the term).
  • UC Berkeley teaches classes on "Hindu Mythology".
  • I myself have "facilitated" a student-facilitated course on "Mythical Thought", in which some of the readings being discussed were Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, African, and Australian Aboriginal religious stories. I can assure you that I didn't mean to insult any of those stories when I included them in the course reader.
  • Wiccans, Asatru, and other Neopagans (who are clearly "living" religions) freely -- even conventionally -- call their own sacred stories "myths".

Of course, you can say all these are examples of "non-neutral" discussions, but that would hardly be a constructive move. Can't we just say that there have been some genuinely neutral, non-derogatory contexts in which "myth" has been applied to living religions?

I realize that, no matter how we define "myth", there will always be readers who will be offended by the word "myth", because of some of its other uses. I freely admit that some of these negative uses occur even in scholarly contexts. However, that does not change the fact that there are numerous professional, scholarly contexts in which "myth" is defined in a way that has nothing to do with truth or falsehood; a prime example is the conventional use of the term "myth" among professional folklorists: "a sacred story about the origins of the world and natural phenomena".

So, Til Eulenspiegel, I'm just asking ... Can't we at least agree that there are many scholars who apply the term "myth" to living religions without any intent to insult, and even without any insensitivity? (Whether these scholars should continue using the word "myth" this way, if they were fully aware of the full consequences, is a separate question.) If we can just agree on this point -- that there are some cases of genuinely well-meaning, not-intentionally-biased dialogues within academia in which "myth" is applied to living religions -- then I'll be satisfied. --Phatius McBluff 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Phatius, of course there are, no one is intentionally biased and I at least assume good faith. Good points about this article: it now presents pro and cons. I consider that non-biased dialog where both sides are developed and clarified and allowed to be presented. What you added recently on CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien is right on topic. Look at the number of their books sold, and the movies made based on their theories, the way they change our idea of myth and religion and it passes the test of word use notability (by far). Several ideas: (1) the article does not mention New Age as a religion. I wonder if we can add it and mention George Lucas and his mythopoeia (sp?) of Star Wars and "the force" (2) The thoughts of pro-Jewish writers seem a little weak now(as I dont know the notability of the two guys quoted) (3) As mentioned by Til E. Something about Google Hits can be added, but needs to be well written and needs to be about using the word in the context of religion...not on the topic of sippy cups. Goldenrowley 22:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Goldenrowley: (1) I'm totally in favor of adding info on New Age. Star Wars is a trickier matter. I know for a fact that Lucas called his movies an attempt to recreate mythological themes, etc.; however, I don't have at hand a source to cite for that claim. If you're going to write on Star Wars, be sure to find a source where Lucas himself explicitly states that his goal was to create a mythology. (I think you can find such a quote in an interview Lucas had with Bill Moyers. I'll see if I can find it on YouTube...) (2) I know those Jewish scholars I cited aren't well-known, but I think we should keep them until we find something better for Judaism. The whole discussion tends to be somewhat Christo-centric, and it's nice to mention views from a variety of religions. (3) Had you been discussing Google hit counts for "myth"? I guess I missed that part of the discussion. Anyway, I agree with you and Til E about adding something on Google hits. I think it's very pertinent. ... The only problem is, how are we going to document the Google hit count? --Phatius McBluff 23:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I just remembered an article I found[6] that's relevant to the "Star Wars mythology" concept. I don't think it's a sufficient reference for our main purpose of classifying Star Wars as modern "mythopoeia". But you might like to take a look at it.
I don't remember saying anything about Google Hits. How would anyone ever know how many thousand hits use a search term in a given sense? Google is fairly useless for such things...
The misattribution of the recent OED quote to 1830 is still a glaring misnomer / inaccuracy, but nobody commented on that. I guess I will go ahead and try to figure out the best way to fix it for accuracy. Til Eulenspiegel 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; I wasn't the one who put up the Westminster Review quote; that's why I didn't comment on it. (Actually, I hadn't heard of the Westminster Review till it was quoted in this article.) Anyway, back to Star Wars: for a good source, see this article[7], which provides a quote where Lucas says, "With 'Star Wars' I consciously set about to re-create myths and the classic mythological motifs..." The article itself is also an excellent example of the criticism that some have leveled against Lucas's (admittedly pompous) claims of mythopoeic inspiration. --Phatius McBluff 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Til E. I'd be fine with a correction to Wesminister. In fact, I'd be fine to replace it with any reuputable current dictionary source if Westminster was too obscure to find a copy. OED is reputable. Phatius - Thanks for the link on George Lucas! I wonder if he's serious about the religious aspect, it might be worth bringing up here otherwise maybe the quote belongs on the mythopoeia page(s).Goldenrowley 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you also read the 2nd article I mentioned, which disputed Lucas's claims of mythological inspiration? I think the vacuousness of some of Lucas's claims deserve mention too. ... Also, you might be interested in this article.[8] It discusses Star Wars' "mythological" aspects from a somewhat conservative Christian perspective -- and, on the whole, approves. I found it fascinating.
Sorry if it feels like I'm just dumping a lot of info on you for you to sort out. ... I just don't know the best way to integrate this info into Wikipedia. I was a bit surprised when you mentioned Star Wars on the Religion and mythology talk page; I also thought this was more a topic for Mythopoeic literature. --Phatius McBluff 04:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
NO need to apologize I incorporated your found references on Mythopoeic literature and it made a good addition there.Goldenrowley 06:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC) ...
I realize I may have confused artificial religion with real. O hope we resolved the POV dispute with all the recent hard work. Goldenrowley 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Source(s)

Here is a potential good looking source article: "Myth and Religion: The Same or Different? Evaluating the Good and the Bad" By William Doty, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at the University of Alabama and editor of Mythosphere.[9] Goldenrowley 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed a passage

Sociologists and historians of religion are not primarily interested in these stories for their historical value. They analyze religions in terms of the role which their stories and histories play, within the religious system. Histories and imaginative stories alike are treated as a body of myths, when they are regarded by a people as expressing profound truths. Describing the essential and traditional stories accepted as mysteries and historical narratives considered true is consequently just a tool for theological studies and study of the systems of common experience in general. Without necessarily speaking to the veracity of the faith's tenets or claims about its history, these mythological elements are studied for their mythic value. Sorry; I couldn't leave this passage in. It seems redundant: that is, it seems to be saying stuff that's already repeatedly covered nearby in the article (with a rather odd and unsupported emphasis on "sociologists and historians of religion"). Or if it isn't redundant, then I'm clearly not understanding it. Either way, it's unreferenced and worded confusingly. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)