If religion was the ancient's way of understanding the world around them...

[Wannabe Yogi]

then how come it doesn't make more sense?

For example, if the ancients didn't understand that Earth revolves around the Sun, why invent a fantastic notion of a gian Scarab beetle moving it about? Why not simply admit ignorance on the subject and try to understand it through observation and applied reason? If I were an ancient, I wouldn't understand that Earth moves around the Sun, so instead I might make the erroneous claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Sure it's wrong, but it fits limited observation... later cultures may then think, "Ah, I see why they came to that conclusion...".

I see this In a whole different way.

The term "myth" today in popular culture is used to refer to a false story. In the 19th century western scholars believed that science made myth obsolete. Mythology is just a primitive cultures ( the language it self reeks with white supremacy and colonialism ) idea of an explanation of the cosmos.
When we understand science any right minded person will drop mythology.

In the 20th century this all changed.

Great thinkers like Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Claude Levi-Strauss and Mircea Eliade all started to believe that Mythology is more about patters of the mind, finding transcendence, and creation of mental health then primitive science. The same Ideas in mythology shot up all over the world it is a part of the human thought process. By getting rid of myths we make ourselves a little less human.

In fact many like Mircea Eliade attributed modern man’s anxieties to his rejection of myths and the sense of the sacred. Non-impacted indigenous cultures have a lot less problems with mental Health then we do.

Joseph Campbell believed that insights about one’s psychology, gained from reading myths, can be beneficially applied to one’s own life.

Just as an example if you look at Indian Mythology you will find very complex ideas of morality and philosophy explained in the most simple way. An uneducated village peasant could grasp the most difficult and complex philosophy that college graduates in philosophy can have problems with understanding.

 

[kai]

Please humor me while I give it another try. What Atran is saying is something along these lines: Humans have evolved various psychological traits that amount in practice to an innate, genetically based predisposition to see deity in things and events. Wilson is arguing for something similar, although the two disagree on some interesting points.

I have probably just muddied the waters by trying one more time to summarize their points of view. I think I could do it if I had a few pages, but getting at the gist of it in a few words is proving to be difficult for me.

do you think we have to personify things? if the ancients were trying to understand thunder they had to personify the explanation , kind of like someone had to be doing it? storms and earthquakes or wind and rain --someone was behind it.

 

[Sunstone]

do you think we have to personify things? if the ancients were trying to understand thunder they had to personify the explanation , kind of like someone had to be doing it? storms and earthquakes or wind and rain --some was behind it.

I think we have a very strong tendency to personify things.

 

[kai]

I think we have a very strong tendency to personify things.

yes cars ,boats, pets, even natural phenomena.

 

[Makaveli]

Rational thought did not exist; the stories were fanciful and pleased the plebs.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

For example, if the ancients didn't understand that Earth revolves around the Sun, why invent a fantastic notion of a gian Scarab beetle moving it about? Why not simply admit ignorance on the subject and try to understand it through observation and applied reason?

Understanding through observation and applied reason isn't the strong suit of the vast majority of people, ancient or modern - however, coming up with fantastic stories to explain simple everyday occurrences is (e.g., I heard a floorboard creak upstairs - there must be a ghost in the house).

 

[Nepenthe]

Understanding through observation and applied reason isn't the strong suit of the vast majority of people, ancient or modern - however, coming up with fantastic stories to explain simple everyday occurrences is (e.g., I heard a floorboard creak upstairs - there must be a ghost in the house).

This reminds me of how the Egyptians- an otherwise extremely accomplished ancient culture- placed such a great emphasis on the heart as the organ that connected the body's channels (metu): that is the emotions, intellect, memory, soul, etc. The brain's importance was never understood despite the (now) obvious connection between head injuries and behavior. The Greeks, mainly due to Aristotle's influence, also disregarded the brain and favored a cardiocentric notion of human cognition.

Following on Sunstone's books I'd also suggest E.O. Wilson's Consilience, and Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue. And anything by Jared Diamond, particularly Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond also wrote a great review of Darwin's Cathedral in the NY Review of Books (it'll cost ya 3$ to read though), but his excellent lecture I've posted before is worth your time too imo: Jared Diamond lecture on the evolution of religion - Boing Boing

 

[linwood]

Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson

DAMMIT!

I had this very book in my hands at Borders yesterday but choose Jared Diamonds "Why is Sex Fun?"

I suppose I can`t really be blamed just look at the titles.
Which would you choose?

However while I`m not a big fan of Joseph Cambells ideas on religion for the most part he was a very respected source who did propagate the idea that religion was invented to answer the questions of our world.
He even deemed religion/folklore necessary for human progression of civilization.

I`ve not heard he`d been debunked.

I`ll have to check out Darwins Cathedral.

 

[Caladan]

then how come it doesn't make more sense?

The Scarab Beetle (constellation) pushing the Sun like a dung ball isn't meant to be explanation of "why the sun moves through the sky," but to symoblize "the sun moves through the sky." It's a portion of a much larger cultural narrative.

Willamena makes a good point. its a bit vain to say there is no sense out of ancient myths while ignoring the cultural and environmental context the myths were conceived.
for example, the Egyptians based a great deal of their mythology in the context of the Nile, as it was the main artery of the Egyptian civilization, cultural myths involving the fertility and the seasons played a role in a society which was dependent at large on farming.
further more some of the gods and goddesses were a symbolic personification of far more abstract concepts, such as Ma'at, who was represented as a goddess, but in the world of Egypt was the concept of balance and truth. the Pharaoh had to promote Ma'at through out his kingdom, at the end of the day, all the people of the social ladder had to promote Ma'at and order and bring stability to the Egyptian kingdom.
its a waste to read myths without their context, there are many factors involved, economy, society and community, the environment.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Rational thought did not exist; the stories were fanciful and pleased the plebs.

Many Myths are very rational. Its just modern people don't seem to understand how to make sense of them. We always seem to interpret them in the lowest possible way. Basically most people today are using a 19th century methodology for interpretation of mythology . That is steeped in colonialism and western supremacy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Many Myths are very rational. Its just modern people don't seem to understand how to make sense of them. We always seem to interpret them in the lowest possible way. Basically most people today are using a 19th century methodology for interpretation of mythology . That is steeped in colonialism and western supremacy.

What century's fictional methodology did you apply in interpreting the way modern people interpret myths?

 

[Herr Heinrich]

I see this In a whole different way.

The term "myth" today in popular culture is used to refer to a false story. In the 19th century western scholars believed that science made myth obsolete. Mythology is just a primitive cultures ( the language it self reeks with white supremacy and colonialism ) idea of an explanation of the cosmos.
When we understand science any right minded person will drop mythology.

In the 20th century this all changed.

Great thinkers like Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Claude Levi-Strauss and Mircea Eliade all started to believe that Mythology is more about patters of the mind, finding transcendence, and creation of mental health then primitive science. The same Ideas in mythology shot up all over the world it is a part of the human thought process. By getting rid of myths we make ourselves a little less human.

In fact many like Mircea Eliade attributed modern man’s anxieties to his rejection of myths and the sense of the sacred. Non-impacted indigenous cultures have a lot less problems with mental Health then we do.

Joseph Campbell believed that insights about one’s psychology, gained from reading myths, can be beneficially applied to one’s own life.

Just as an example if you look at Indian Mythology you will find very complex ideas of morality and philosophy explained in the most simple way. An uneducated village peasant could grasp the most difficult and complex philosophy that college graduates in philosophy can have problems with understanding.

You make some good points. The Heroic Cycle described by Joseph Campell can be applied to everyone's life. You can see the progression in normal peoples lives.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

What century's fictional methodology did you apply in interpreting the way modern people interpret myths?

In the 19th century many theories believed that myth was a obsolete type of thought, it was believed that myth was the best primitive man could do.That included all non white indigenous people at the time. E. B. Tylor interpreted myth as a way of seeing natural phenomena ( I believe that was because all people who were born before the age of enlightenment were to dumb to understand natural law.This was the views of Europeans of that day ) This way of thinking was both racist and wrong. And all to many of us exept it with out thinking.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

do you think we have to personify things? if the ancients were trying to understand thunder they had to personify the explanation , kind of like someone had to be doing it? storms and earthquakes or wind and rain --someone was behind it.

This is called Mythopoeic thought, this theory has been completely torn apart by Robert Segal (King's College, University of Aberdeen.) Who sees this view as simplistic.

 

[linwood]

I see this In a whole different way.

The term "myth" today in popular culture is used to refer to a false story. In the 19th century western scholars believed that science made myth obsolete. Mythology is just a primitive cultures ( the language it self reeks with white supremacy and colonialism ) idea of an explanation of the cosmos.
When we understand science any right minded person will drop mythology.

In the 20th century this all changed.

Great thinkers like Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Claude Levi-Strauss and Mircea Eliade all started to believe that Mythology is more about patters of the mind, finding transcendence, and creation of mental health then primitive science. The same Ideas in mythology shot up all over the world it is a part of the human thought process. By getting rid of myths we make ourselves a little less human.

In fact many like Mircea Eliade attributed modern man’s anxieties to his rejection of myths and the sense of the sacred. Non-impacted indigenous cultures have a lot less problems with mental Health then we do.

Joseph Campbell believed that insights about one’s psychology, gained from reading myths, can be beneficially applied to one’s own life.

Just as an example if you look at Indian Mythology you will find very complex ideas of morality and philosophy explained in the most simple way. An uneducated village peasant could grasp the most difficult and complex philosophy that college graduates in philosophy can have problems with understanding.

This entire post echoes my education on the subject as well.

Whether I personally agree with every aspect put forth here is questionable as Cambell`s views have always stuck in my craw a bit.

I understand the point of this philosophy and it`s valid I believe.
However, I am of the opinion myth is more detrimental than beneficial.

At least within my culture.

 

[kai]

In the 19th century many theories believed that myth was a obsolete type of thought, it was believed that myth was the best primitive man could do.That included all non white indigenous people at the time. E. B. Tylor interpreted myth as a way of seeing natural phenomena ( I believe that was because all people who were born before the age of enlightenment were to dumb to understand natural law.This was the views of Europeans of that day ) This way of thinking was both racist and wrong. And all to many of us exept it with out thinking.

let me get this right , the idea that myths like Thor wielding his hammer and being the God of thunder, was used to explain Thunder etc because the Norse didnt understand natural law is racist and wrong?

 

[kai]

This is called Mythopoeic thought, this theory has been completely torn apart by Robert Segal (King's College, University of Aberdeen.) Who sees this view as simplistic.

i beleive Robert Segal is of the view that it would be "embarrassingly simplistic" to consider peoples "wholly mythopoeic"




Mythopoeic thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

However, I am of the opinion myth is more detrimental than beneficial.
At least within my culture.

I hate to say this but you might be right. Its not mythology it self that is bad. Its the way its followers want to turn it into to history and then force others to believe in it.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

let me get this right , the idea that myths like Thor wielding his hammer and being the God of thunder, was used to explain Thunder etc because the Norse didnt understand natural law is racist and wrong?

Kai, I hope you do not think I was calling you a racist!!! I am not and I am sorry.

I do not know anything about Norse Mythology. I have never been able to get past the idea of heaven (Valhala) being a place you go to fight, feast and F___ then start all over the next day. Maybe there is some meaning in this I do not know. There are also other Mythologys that are less Barbaric.

 

[linwood]

I hate to say this but you might be right. Its not mythology it self that is bad. Its the way its followers want to turn it into to history and then force others to believe in it.

Yes, that`s it exactly.

It`s not the mythology it`s how it seems to be perceived by many who seek to institute it into reality.

So then, Cambells argument that humans need a new mythology because the old one`s are detrimental today.

In my mind he sought to give another "better" perception to the masses while I don`t believe any perception of reality but materialism is healthy.

A "New False Perception" will lead to detriment as well in perhaps an entirely unforeseen manner.

I`d rather give the perception that any and all myth is just parable at this point.