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

[Runt]

I'm curious as to how we're defining "science" and "myth".

By "science" do we mean the scientific method? The body of knowledge the scientific method gives us? The technologies developed as a result of this body of knowledge? The collective sum of all of the above?

By "myth" do we mean religious stories about gods, goddesses and other spiritual entitles and the relationship between these, people and the world? Or, more simply, do we mean all stories told by cultures to illustrate who humans are, what our place in the world is, and how best to live in the world with one another?

Given ALL of the possible definitions, I still think myths are valuable, although I think science is more valuable. Both appeal to a different kind of logic; myths have been said to contain a sort of poetic logic which speaks well to the human condition. Some people respond better to truths in art than they do to cold hard facts. Others respond better to rigorous thinking and scientific truths better than they do to art. Because all people are different, and because knowledge can be imparted in a wide variety of ways, some of which are more effectively conveyed to some people than others, I think myths and science are both valuable ways of imparting knowledge. However, science is more straightforward, precise and verifiable, and therefore I consider it superior.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did science teach us morals?

You really don't want to go there ... :no:

 

[NIX]

My whole life is a myth. And that is a truth.

I could exist without science, but without the myth that is my life (story)..... no.

*Nixxie*

 

[Dunemeister]

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?

Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify. I guess what I really meant to call out was the modernist myth of increasing enlightenment through rational processes, the so-called pinnacle of which has been science. The modernist myth is that humans, by force of reason, can chase away the shadows of religious superstition (that is, religious belief) and create something of a universal utopia. That rationalist dream has motivated a great deal of modern secular society, and it's behind the ravings of Dawkins et al against religion. Dawkins and co. are simply frustrated and perplexed by the persistence of Christianity and other religions in the face of what they consider to be shining light of science, which is supposed to have dispelled such ideas to outer darkness. Science has supposedly dispelled the notion that there is a creator, that humans have souls and so forth. They myth of science is that it has the power to displace religious faith.

I don't have a great deal of time to write a more coherent answer, so I hope that suffices for the time being.

 

[Wandered Off]

However, science is more straightforward, precise and verifiable, and therefore I consider it superior.

It's the same for me. I am less comfortable with the various interpretations needed for making sense of myths. To me, it comes off as an extra layer of obscurity. I'd rather just get the succinct, condensed life lesson we're supposed to glean from each one and bypass all the speculation and interpretation, but that's just a better fit with my learning style.

 

[Dunemeister]

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

No. Myths embed the truth. It's a category mistake to ask whether a myth is true. It's the standard against which truth claims are measured.

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

Yes. For instance, the Genesis myth tells me that God orders the chaos. Chaos/evil does not have the last word, but God can and does bring order out of chaos. I didn't know that before confronting the myth. Before confronting the Genesis myth, I thought that chaos was at the foundation of everything and would eventually take over. Now I know better.

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.

Yes, but that doesn't entail that aesthetic claims have no truth value. There are better and worse interpretations of works of art. To interpret Michaelangelo's "David" as a random hacking is a mistake. To call it disgusting and gross is a radical misperception. To call it meaningless is even worse, displaying blindness.

 

[Dunemeister]

Given ALL of the possible definitions, I still think myths are valuable, although I think science is more valuable. Both appeal to a different kind of logic; myths have been said to contain a sort of poetic logic which speaks well to the human condition. Some people respond better to truths in art than they do to cold hard facts. Others respond better to rigorous thinking and scientific truths better than they do to art. Because all people are different, and because knowledge can be imparted in a wide variety of ways, some of which are more effectively conveyed to some people than others, I think myths and science are both valuable ways of imparting knowledge. However, science is more straightforward, precise and verifiable, and therefore I consider it superior.

Myths tell you what counts as a "cold, hard fact." If science is the art of finding the cold, hard facts, our myths (or the myths governing science) tells the scientists when they've been successful.

 

[Willamena]

It's the same for me. I am less comfortable with the various interpretations needed for making sense of myths. To me, it comes off as an extra layer of obscurity. I'd rather just get the succinct, condensed life lesson we're supposed to glean from each one and bypass all the speculation and interpretation, but that's just a better fit with my learning style.

There is only one significant interpretation needed for you to make sense of myth: yours.

(Granted, this is mine.)

 

[Willamena]

Yes. For instance, the Genesis myth tells me that God orders the chaos. Chaos/evil does not have the last word, but God can and does bring order out of chaos. I didn't know that before confronting the myth. Before confronting the Genesis myth, I thought that chaos was at the foundation of everything and would eventually take over. Now I know better.

I won't tell Discordia if you don't.

 

[Smoke]

Yes. For instance, the Genesis myth tells me that God orders the chaos. Chaos/evil does not have the last word, but God can and does bring order out of chaos. I didn't know that before confronting the myth.

Nor do you know it now, though you believe it.

 

[Random]

I don't think it is but I'm interested in other peoples views.

I agree with you, it isn't any less valuable a tool for living than science. Myth is invaluable in a way that science is not, actually. For the soul of a great man has never been found in the examination of nature, the animals or the rocks. The physical world and the study of it reveal our limitations and potentialities; myth reveals another world, which offers us the chance to overcome those limitations and actualize the potential of our being/species.

 

[Wandered Off]

There is only one significant interpretation needed for you to make sense of myth: yours.

True, but for me, simpler is better, with less chance of missing something. We already by nature of how we process information symbolically have barriers to understanding direct experience. Further complicate that by the fact that we communicate symbolically. To then add yet another layer of non-literal interpretation just seems to needlessly increase the chances for misunderstanding, at least for me.

 

[Father Heathen]

Myth, if acknowledged as parables, metaphors and analogies, can contain valuable wisdom. But if touted as authority and literal truth, it can be a vile poison.

 

[Dunemeister]

It's the same for me. I am less comfortable with the various interpretations needed for making sense of myths. To me, it comes off as an extra layer of obscurity. I'd rather just get the succinct, condensed life lesson we're supposed to glean from each one and bypass all the speculation and interpretation, but that's just a better fit with my learning style.

This is a good point. Modern western folk aren't as used to being explicit about the mythic underpinnings for their lives. As a result, we've generally lost the tools by which we can order our lives rationally around myths. We prefer "the bottom line", the Coles Notes version of the "meaning" of the myth. We want the moral, the lesson, not the myth. We see the myth as embedding meaning in a crude fashion. It's not as elegant as simple didactive phrases.

I'd contend, though, that by reducing our "learning style" to mere didactic expression, eliminating poetry and other artistic expression (such as myths), we impoverish ourselves. We attenuate our creativity and spontanaeity. (That's part of why I prefer liturgical churches over evangelical ones, but that's a thread for another day, yeah?)

 

[lilithu]

Science addresses how but not why.
Myth addresses why but not how. (unless you're a literalist, but I'm not)

Myth is about meaning.

As Einstein said:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

Science addresses how but not why.
Myth addresses why but not how. (unless you're a literalist, but I'm not)

Myth is about meaning.

As Einstein said:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Why does there have to be a why? =)

 

[UnTheist]

Why does there have to be a why? =)

There doesn't have to. But some would like to address the why

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

There doesn't have to. But some would like to address the why

What I mean is: why assume there IS a why?

Please tell me if I'm being annoying. =P

 

[UnTheist]

Because some people assume, or would like to assume, that there is a why, and then address said why.

It's that simple, I think.

 

[lilithu]

Why does there have to be a why? =)

Hey, if you're satisfied with no "why" more power to you. For me, "why" is what gives life meaning.