2

Can we define religion as "the mythologies that don't assume they are mythologies"?

First, mythology is the oldest way of describing Nature. Polytheisms, extant or extinct, usually know|knew their mythologic nature. Thus the usually pacific and prolific relationships between many different polytheistic people (between many amerindian tribes, or between old indians and chinese, for instance).

Since many gods exist in such mythologies, for "my gods" to exist it isn't necessary that "your gods" don't exist.

Then monotheism comes to the picture. It claims to itself the status of "truth". For "my God", the "only god" to be correct, any other gods must be false. Isn't it a completely new concept? Isn't it a mythology, like any other, with the main difference of not accepting to be called like that? Doesn't it come wrapped in an unprecedented layer of lie (deny every other myth, except itself)? If so, how can we call all of them the same?

A: call both "mythology", and monotheism/religion a subset of all existing mythologies. B: call both "religion", but polytheism/mythology a subset of all existing religions.

Looks like the choice between A and B is entirely dependent of what you believe|think? Or is there a rational, concrete, least prone to doubt or attack, way of choosing?

Since polytheistic mythologies are much older and geographically more widespread, to me sounds natural that some modern so-called religions derived from them, and not the opposite (as some believers have already tried to convince me).

So, "religion" and "mythology" are synonyms? Or one is a subset of the other? If so, which is a subset of which?

Rodrigo
  • 1,440
  • 12
  • 25
  • 1
    I'm not really seeing a question about philosophy here. Can you make clearer what your question about philosophy is? – virmaior Nov 06 '15 at 22:23
  • Isn't philosophy the "love/pursuit of knowledge"? Isn't knowledge also the proper use of names? If monotheism -- the institution that dominates most aspects of western life -- is "truth" of if it's a "myth" isn't of philosophical concern? – Rodrigo Nov 06 '15 at 22:26
  • 1
    This SE is not for doing philosophy but rather for asking questions about philosophy, for instance, trying to understand what a particular author is saying. – virmaior Nov 06 '15 at 22:28
  • "Ask questions about philosophy" is the same as "do philosophy" to me. It's all searching for knowledge. Perhaps you're a little too restrictive on your definition. And not every question on the site are about authors, are they? Perhaps your restrictive view is just another layer of monotheistic defense, I've noticed that's very common, not only here, but among most western philosophers as well. – Rodrigo Nov 06 '15 at 22:34
  • Most English-speaking philosophers are atheists (roughly 80%). But no, "ask questions about philosophy" is no more identical to "do philosophy" than "ask questions about biology" is identical to "post pictures of cats." Knowledge comes in many shapes and sizes, but the SE model is to have each SE focus on one. – virmaior Nov 06 '15 at 23:19
  • @rodrigo: philosophy has been defined as the pursuit of knowledge; and over Millenia there is a substantial amount of scholarship that has accumulated in that pursuit ... – Mozibur Ullah Nov 07 '15 at 00:02
  • @DavidBlomstrom I've seen the living mythologies of some Amerindian peoples, and there's no blind faith there as there is in religion. The point is that they know it's a mythology, and they know what does it serve for. A good definition of religion to me is "a mythology that won't admit it's a mythology" (which seems to be basically monotheism). – Rodrigo Aug 21 '17 at 12:42
  • @DavidBlomstrom I'd say animism is like the idea of "life after death". Many mythologies have it, but in very different ways (you may reincarnate as a person, or as another animal species, or you may go to purgatory, or heaven, or hell, or your individuality may disappear in Nirvana, or we may never know what happens, and like Confucius, just don't speak about it). Though I don't know how different lines of animism could differ from each other, but I'm almost sure they do (diversity is the rule in biology and culture, after all). – Rodrigo Aug 21 '17 at 18:01
  • 1
    "Polytheisms, extant or extinct, usually know|knew their mythologic nature." -> Is that so? Do you have any source for this? – phresnel Jun 26 '19 at 06:18
  • @phresnel I first learned it directly from some of the indigenous peoples in Brazilian Amazon. Later I saw it as the basis of many sacred books, such as Buddhist, Daoist, Confucionist and Hinduist ones, which at no point require that they "hold the one and only Truth of the entire Universe", as implied in any monotheism. Their recognition of being partial (as all human knowledge) lead this groups to a much more pacific existence than their monotheistic counterparts. And no, I don't have a single source for all this, though the authors I've cited in my answer may help you. – Rodrigo Jun 26 '19 at 15:14

2 Answers2

1

The correct answer is B:

B: call both "religion", but polytheism/mythology a subset of all existing religions.

There are several established and historical religions which are polytheistic. Notably, in modern times, some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism), and Shintoism (the traditional religion of Japan) among others are recognized by scholars, practitioners and governments as formal religions. They all contain some elements of religion: Scripture, deities, a creation story, a set of moral rules, a priesthood, etc...

Looks like the choice between A and B is entirely dependent of what you believe|think? Or is there a rational, concrete, least prone to doubt or attack, way of choosing?

This is incorrect: Although there is no formal strict definition of religion, as mentioned earlier, several polytheistic belief systems are officially recognized as being religions by both scholars and governments.

When defining a category, it is possible to define it in two ways:

  • Either by having a strict set of rules for what belongs in that category and what doesn't.
  • Or by having a set of prototypes and examples of what a member of that category looks like, but without any clear set of features separating the member from the non members. Wittgenstein popularized this notion of family resemblance.

Based on family resemblance polytheistic belief systems definitely fall under the category of religion.

Moreover, polytheism and monotheism are both forms of theism, coming from the Greek word theos meaning 'god'. If you want an irrefutable argument that polytheism is a subset of religion, then you might say that any form of theism is a religion, although not all religions are theistic.

As a historical aside:

Then monotheism comes to the picture. It claims to itself the status of "truth". For "my God", the "only god" to be correct, any other gods must be false. Isn't it a completely new concept? Isn't it a mythology, like any other, with the main difference of not accepting to be called like that?

It should be noted that most scholars believe that monotheism evolved from polytheism in a more gradual way than what you describe. Monotheism (and more specifically Judaism which is the source of most other monotheisms) is thought to have grown out of henotheism. Henotheism is when one worships only one god, but believes that other gods exist, or at least that their existence is possible. It is speculated that the Jews progressed from "there are many gods, but we only worship Yahweh" to "Yahweh is stronger and than all other gods and he will be angry if we don't worship him alone" to "Yahweh is the only god". In the Bible says more than once that Jews are forbidden from worshipping other gods - because Yahweh is a jealous god. If these other gods didn't exist, why be jealous of them or worry about them at all?

Christianity and Islam, then picked up on this concept and extended to mean that worshipping more than one god at once is somehow evil.

Alexander S King
  • 26,984
  • 5
  • 64
  • 187
  • Which scholars and governments are you referring to? Maybe they're too influenced by western terminology? Daoism has two "sides": the philosophic/daojia and the religious/daojiao. Confucianism can hardly be called a religion. Buddhism, like most polytheisms, don't impose a believe-or-go-to-hell (with 3 main philosophies, China still has a rich diversity of familiar religions/mythologies). They're all more rational than just use fear of hell to force people to follow. We also need to see how hindus translate the world "religion", and how they called their own mythologies before the British Raj. – Rodrigo Nov 06 '15 at 22:19
  • What I mean is that monotheism and polytheism are so different phenomena, that I think using the same word to all of them more confuses than enlightens us. Unless you understand monotheism is a violent and imperialistic culture, so denounce them as mythologies has the benefit of slowing down their imperialistic hunger. Anyway, I noticed that most western philosophers always take the perspective of defending their own culture, many times not even noticing the destruction it causes. – Rodrigo Nov 06 '15 at 22:20
  • Also, if you think it's "correct" because it's of widespread use, than it was "correct" to say the world was flat when it was a widespread belief? – Rodrigo Nov 06 '15 at 22:22
  • 1
    You seem to be conflating Abrahamic monotheism with religion, but they are not the same. Hinduism is definitely a religion, not just a mythology, it involves worship, prayer, temples, priests, rules like "don't eat beef", etc...and although there is no threat of hell, there is a threat of being reincarnated as worm in the next life if one doesn't behave. – Alexander S King Nov 06 '15 at 22:55
  • Well, in definition A, Hinduism may be only a mythology, which is good. And since in Philosophy usually there are no "right" choices, your "DEFINITELY a religion" sounds misplaced. Mythology has worhship... rules, only lack faith as in "you MUST believe" (in the unbelievable!). Mythology (= Philosophy?) brings a natural causation, don't eat that because in the long run it will be bad for society. It'll seek the causes, it'll merge with science, not isolate from it. Today monotheisms don't seek, they avoid the causes. There's no discussion, no philosophy, different from polytheisms. – Rodrigo Nov 06 '15 at 23:28
  • Looks like you describe mythology as something dead, but it's way more alive than monotheisms, who are controlled from a single point (in space, sometimes, and in the philosophical space, most of the times). – Rodrigo Nov 06 '15 at 23:29
  • "any form of theism is a religion" This seems false, considering things like [deism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) and [classical theism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism). – user76284 Sep 16 '19 at 20:38
1

I think that myth, true myth, is religion in the only form it could be passed down. And I find Josef Pieper takes this view of Plato "n examining the ‘accepted’ scholarly interpretations of the myths, Pieper succeeds in establishing the case for a truth, found particularly in the eschatological myths, that is not reducible to the rational truth normally sought by philosophers. While it is not purely rational truth, it is not inferior. It is different. It stems from tradition, which reaches back to the ultimate beginnings of man’s existence – back into our pre-history and to events of which, naturally, we have no experience. The only access we have to this truth is through ‘hearing’ (ex akoés), which is not dependent on mere ‘hearsay,’ but which, in Pieper’s interpretation, reflects the handing on, in stories, of what the gods first communicated to man about the creation of the world and about the afterlife. These truths are to be found – long before the New Testament (or even the Old Testament) – in the myths of a variety of civilizations and give evidence of an extraordinary consensus: that there was a creating hand, that primeval man incurred guilt in the eyes of the gods; that he could be saved; that there is an afterlife in which man is rewarded or punished; that he can undergo a kind of purgatory for lesser offenses; and that in the afterlife he can dwell with the gods.

What is the basis for accepting such truth as is contained in the myths? No purely rational argument will suffice. What man cannot experience himself he either tends to reject or, if he accepts it, he does so on the authority of another – ex akoés. Even before – or even without – Christian revelation, men have based their lives on a conviction, for instance, that there is an afterlife. They have this conviction not from experience or from some rational philosophical argument. They have it on the basis of ‘belief.’ With the coming of Christian revelation, the logos, or word, of the myth is seen – to the believer – to be the Logos of the New Testament. But even here the ‘belie ver’ can depend neither on purely rational argument nor on satisfactorily verifiable fact. He has only – belief."

And how else could the Creation in Genesis -- all happening with no human witness but conveyed to a human-- how else convey it?

Hopppin Jane
  • 79
  • 1