Is myth any less valuable a tool for living than science?

[Dunemeister]

"Myths" are not true or false. Things are true or false as compared to myths. Every society, including our modern western secular one, is organized around myths, which demand loyalty to certain symbols, around which we organize our praxis. Such myths include "the American Dream," and the myth that "science has stripped away the veil of superstition and is bringing us enlightenment." That last one is important for many on this thread. Although science isn't religion as such, it sure seems as though myths about science govern the lives of many -- especially atheists -- and appears to serve the same function for them as more traditional myths. So it seems that even for the dyed-in-the-wool atheists, myths are a necessary resource for living.

 

[Willamena]

I think myths are interesting and may convey some greater meaning, just as any fiction may, but exactly what are they useful for? That is, what are the things you can do with myths that you can't do without them?

How do those things compare to the things you can do with science and technology that you can't do without them?

A man with the authority of "wisdom" once said: Myths are metaphors to communicate human experiences that cannot be adequately shared using descriptive language. It includes the stories that became the foundations for religions (though the two are distinct), as well as music, painting, sculpture, poetry, and any other creative art form.

Science and technology cannot represent my experience of science and technology. Myth could, if I was creative enough to ponder a suitable story. I would write my story on my fancy word processor, but neither the electronic document nor the machine that creates it and transmits it over the whole world are idea the contained in the story.

 

[Magic Man]

"Myths" are not true or false. Things are true or false as compared to myths. Every society, including our modern western secular one, is organized around myths, which demand loyalty to certain symbols, around which we organize our praxis. Such myths include "the American Dream," and the myth that "science has stripped away the veil of superstition and is bringing us enlightenment." That last one is important for many on this thread. Although science isn't religion as such, it sure seems as though myths about science govern the lives of many -- especially atheists -- and appears to serve the same function for them as more traditional myths. So it seems that even for the dyed-in-the-wool atheists, myths are a necessary resource for living.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is mythical about "science has stripped away the veil of superstition and is bringing us enlightenment"? And how do you think myths about science govern the lives of many, especially atheists?

 

[Smoke]

A man with the authority of "wisdom" once said: Myths are metaphors to communicate human experiences that cannot be adequately shared using descriptive language. It includes the stories that became the foundations for religions (though the two are distinct), as well as music, painting, sculpture, poetry, and any other creative art form.

We agree on seeing myth as art and art as myth, but I think when it comes to quantifying the usefulness of art as compared to science, we're getting onto shaky ground. it might be that the utility of art isn't really the kind of thing that can be quantified.

 

[Willamena]

So it seems that maybe meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Properly understood, everything is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not saying that myth is worthless. Myth is art, and furthermore it's art that has endured because it was valuable and meaningful to generations of people. But the question in the OP wasn't whether it was valuable or meaningful, but whether it was a valuable tool for living, and specifically, whether it's a less valuable tool for living than science.

We can readily see the uses -- and the dangers -- of science, and I think we can say that there's not really any replacement for it, but it's harder to say exactly what the uses of myth are, and to quantify their value as compared to science.

If myth is useful for reaching a deeper understanding of, say, the inner self or the human condition or some other such thing, can we say that it's every bit as useful as psychology, or sociology, or philosophy? I'm not at all sure we can. I tend to think that despite its undeniable value, its uses are largely subjective and hard to describe, whereas the uses of science are objective and obvious.

Depends on what you consider "living," I suppose. Is living feeding yourself and having a ceiling over your head, things and circumstances that might change tomorrow, or is it found in the more permanent circumstance of conscious being and emotional relation to the world around you (including food and ceiling) that persists until you "die"?

 

[tomspug]

Most definately, science is far more valuable than myth.

You try building a computer with myth.

Try using a computer to establish "truth" or "law".

Not that this is my viewpoint, just thought I'd offer a counter-argument.

 

[sojourner]

We agree on seeing myth as art and art as myth, but I think when it comes to quantifying the usefulness of art as compared to science, we're getting onto shaky ground. it might be that the utility of art isn't really the kind of thing that can be quantified.

Science begets technology (at whatever level). Technology keeps us alive. But art is what we stay alive for.

 

[Smoke]

Try using a computer to establish "truth" or "law".

But can you use myth to establish "truth"? Objective truth?

Does myth really tell you anything you don't already know?

Myth -- all art -- requires interpretation, I think, or at least perception. The viewer/reader/listener is part of the creative process, so the the experience of art is different for each person who experiences it.

 

[rheff78]

It all depends. Do you want something that is unchanging or something always contradicting itself? Science has had an inordinate amount of "truths" that have been disproven time and again. So, how do you just apply science. It's kind of a lie when you think about it. And is a lie what we really want to teach our children?

 

[Willamena]

But can you use myth to establish "truth"? Objective truth?

You can use it to learn and express 'truth' about 'Objective truth'.

Though all the maps of blood and flesh
Are posted on the door
There's no one who has told us yet
What Boogie Street is for
(Leonard Cohen)

 

[sojourner]

But can you use myth to establish "truth"? Objective truth?

Does myth really tell you anything you don't already know?

Myth -- all art -- requires interpretation, I think, or at least perception. The viewer/reader/listener is part of the creative process, so the the experience of art is different for each person who experiences it.

Why does myth have to tell us something we don't already know? is it not enough to take our understanding of what we already know deeper, so that it is integrated on a more basic level?

 

[rheff78]

Just an edit here, I do believe science has it's place. I'm not one to totally dis-regard science, but I don't believe we should use science ONLY.

 

[sandandfoam]

But can you use myth to establish "truth"? Objective truth?

This might only be me, but I have no experience of objectivity. I see science put forward as objective all the time but I just cannot seem to get my head past subjectivity. For me, everything, including any 'truth' seems subjective.
I imagine objectivity is something along the lines of what the Buddhists are talking about when they get onto transcending the self. Either that or it's an illusion.

 

[Smoke]

It all depends. Do you want something that is unchanging or something always contradicting itself? Science has had an inordinate amount of "truths" that have been disproven time and again. So, how do you just apply science. It's kind of a lie when you think about it. And is a lie what we really want to teach our children?

Personally, I prefer a provisional "truth" that is subject to correction than an absolute "truth" that may bear no relation to reality and is not subject to correction.

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

It all depends. Do you want something that is unchanging or something always contradicting itself?

It's no good being unchanging if you're wrong.

 

[crystalonyx]

"Myths" are not true or false. .

Depends on what myths you are talking about, many are blatantly false.

 

[Smoke]

Why does myth have to tell us something we don't already know? is it not enough to take our understanding of what we already know deeper, so that it is integrated on a more basic level?

Of course that's enough. But if you want to compare the utility of myth to the utility of science -- and I think it's a mistake to try -- it's hard for me to agree that taking "our understanding of what we already know deeper, so that it is integrated on a more basic level" is a more pressing need than food, shelter, and clothing, especially since that deeper understanding might be approached by means other than myth.

 

[tomspug]

But can you use myth to establish "truth"? Objective truth?

Does myth really tell you anything you don't already know?

Myth -- all art -- requires interpretation, I think, or at least perception. The viewer/reader/listener is part of the creative process, so the the experience of art is different for each person who experiences it.

Myth doesn't teach you what you already knew. Myth teaches you what you didn't know you already knew!

 

[Smoke]

This might only be me, but I have no experience of objectivity. I see science put forward as objective all the time but I just cannot seem to get my head past subjectivity. For me, everything, including any 'truth' seems subjective.
I imagine objectivity is something along the lines of what the Buddhists are talking about when they get onto transcending the self. Either that or it's an illusion.

If all our perceptions are mythical, though, it's meaningless to compare myth to anything else.

 

[rheff78]

Personally, I prefer a provisional "truth" that is subject to correction than an absolute "truth" that may bear no relation to reality and is not subject to correction.

Well, to each his own. But I don't think science have ever considered anything it proves or dis-proves a "provisional truth" otherwise there would be no reason to prove anything. It is an ever-changing process. I guess I prefer to place my faith in stability, rather than an ever changing constant.