the qualifcations of mythology versus religion

[robtex]

Wikipedia defines mythology as, "A study of a particular culture that it believes to be true and that features a specific religion or belief."

source,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

If, in religion proof of existance of the God's spoken about are unattainable how is religion different then mythology?

 

[jewscout]

IMPO

the difference between religion and myth...a myth is a religion no one believes in (or is generally not accepted by the mainstream anyways...i mean what's the difference between a religion and a cult except for the way that a society views that group)

 

[Jaymes]

There is no difference... mythology can become religion if someone believes it.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

take Jedi's for example....

 

[michel]

I suppose if you want to be purely factual, sice religion is "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power", the immpossibility of proving the existance of a divine power makes Religion mythology in the eyes of a non-believer.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religion is "the impulse for cohesion and meaning" [Yi-Fu Tuan, "Humanistic Geography", Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 66, No. 2: 266-276]. Myth is a resulting unverified and unverifiable narrative.

 

[robtex]

I suppose if you want to be purely factual, sice religion is "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power", the immpossibility of proving the existance of a divine power makes Religion mythology in the eyes of a non-believer.

Michel, that was a confusing post. If I could be so bold could you rephrase or elaborate on that?

I thought the qualifer was the time frame as opposed to the ablity to assess the belief structure. What I mean is that a mythology is a religion that is no longer practiced. Bluntly put, "dead religions." Ones that existed in some culture but than for whatever reason, are no longer practiced by anyone. If that is so, would the qualifer than be belief itself? If there is no belief in a belief does it become a mythology ? And if a mythology, say like some forms of paganism, get a new breath of life by avid readers does it cease becoming a mythology and revert back to a religion?

 

[michel]

Deut, you confuse me now; I thought I remembered you telling me some time back that definitions from the online etymology Dictionary were to be taken as a common source;religion http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300. myth http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth 1830, from Gk. mythos "speech, thought, story, myth," of unknown origin.

Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]​

In answer to both you and Rob, I think my answer was correct, depending on the above two definitions.
Please, somebody tell me what is going to be a mutually acceptable source of the meaning of words? We have to be talking the same language if we are going to debate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut, you confuse me now; I thought I remembered you telling me some time back that definitions from the online etymology Dictionary were to be taken as a common source; ...

I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense to me other than as a tautology. In any event, I believe that I have noted more than once that meaning is not constrained by etymology. Perhaps you could simply suggest (a) what in my comments you found objectionable, and (b) why.

 

[michel]

I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense to me other than as a tautology. In any event, I believe that I have noted more than once that meaning is not constrained by etymology. Perhaps you could simply suggest (a) what in my comments you found objectionable, and (b) why.

I found nothing whatsoever objectionable in your comments - I am very sorry if it came across that way; I was trying to find out, from you, if there is a source that we can all use that would ensure that we all 'talk the same language' .

I find it hard to debate if we understand different things from the same words. I was hoping that we could use a source accepted by all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find it hard to debate if we understand different things from the same words. I was hoping that we could use a source accepted by all.

Conversely, debate can be precluded by definition. For example, if I restate the OP as:

Given 'myth' as 'dead religion', what is the difference between ...​

In other words, issues are sometimes debatable precisely because cultural phenomena are nuanced and poorly captured by etymology and dictionary entries.

Be that as it may, in my opinion the difference bewteen religion and myth|theism the the difference between cause and effect.

 

[michel]

You see, Rob, this is the problem; you define mythology as "a religion that is no longer practiced"; my 'take' on mythology is :-" a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something ".

Using Deut's definitions in post #6, I would have to agree with Jensa, there is no real difference.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Using Deut's definitions in post #6, I would have to agree with Jensa, there is no real difference.

Reread post 6.

 

[michel]

Religion is "the impulse for cohesion and meaning" [Yi-Fu Tuan, "Humanistic Geography", Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 66, No. 2: 266-276]. Myth is a resulting unverified and unverifiable narrative.

Well, I understand (I hope correctly) that Religion is the motivation for those who seek unity and 'a raison d’être ' - which I suppose you would qualify as an 'unnecesssary need for reassurance', while Myth is a resulting unverified and unverifiable narrative.

Both strike me (from a purely unemotional and logical stance) to be equally unnecessary.

 

[Voxton]

Mythology is a religion's third stage.

Cult -> Religion -> Mythology.
Birth -> Life -> Death.

I'm not sure how accurate my quote is, but the excellent novel, Scepticism, Inc. states that the difference between a cult and a religion, is how many nutters believe in the bullsh!t it peddles -- if there are just a few nuts, it's a cult. If there are a lot of nuts, it's a religion.

 

[robtex]

You see, Rob, this is the problem; you define mythology as "a religion that is no longer practiced"; my 'take' on mythology is :-" a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something ".

Using Deut's definitions in post #6, I would have to agree with Jensa, there is no real difference.

Michel, that is wikipedias definition not mine, but I concur with the definition they presented. I liked them cause they are a really unbaised source on things.

I don't think a belief structure can be in current practice and be qualified as a mythology. I thought they were more or less "dead religions" in the same way that languages that are no longer spoken are dead languages.

What is curious though, is the qualifications of religions and mythologies are the same, both unevidencable faith, but while mythology is unilaterally rejected by all (a dead religion) religions still practiced today are held with less scrutiny than mythology

The constrains, taken on faith, are identical--presupposed but unquantifable, but religion is weighed and measured and the mythology cast out without equal .consideration.

So it makes me ponder what differentiates the two other than time line and why one is accepted on faith while others are rejected though they have equal credence to the ones currently practiced.

Was and is religion, being prefected, in allure over time or like Deut says, it is impulsive in nature and a pattern of the major belief sturcture non-existant when constrasted to the mythologies of yesteryear?