Vivandall.. .
Member
Is there any evidence that suggest greek mythology is real?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you are saying greek mythology is fake then?Just because it is mythology does not mean it is necessary fake imo,it is just a word place on by other people,that being said I am not exactly a believer in greek mythology just asking if there is any evidence.Er... what do you mean by "real?"
As far as I'm concerned, if you can experience it in any fashion whatsoever, it is real.
I suspect you mean "real" in the extremely narrow empirical naturalism sense of the term. Honestly, I find that to be a really silly question to ask about any mythology. Mythology is not nor was ever intended to be descriptive of reality in the sense of empirical naturalism. Mythology is storytelling. It's like art. Asking if mythology is "real" is like asking if the subject of an abstract painting is "real." It misses the point entirely.
So you are saying greek mythology is fake then?Just because it is mythology does not mean it is necessary fake imo,it is just a word place on by other people,that being said I am not exactly a believer in greek mythology just asking if there is any evidence.
It would be appropriate if you'd define what you mean by 'evidence'.^People believing in the Gods has authentic experience,for example?
So you are saying greek mythology is fake then?Just because it is mythology does not mean it is necessary fake imo,it is just a word place on by other people,that being said I am not exactly a believer in greek mythology just asking if there is any evidence.
-If there are no empirical evidences,then does it have any other types of evidence?
-So you mean they only exist as symbols and even for the believers they do not think the greek gods literally exist?
-If there are no empirical evidences,then does it have any other types of evidence?
-So you mean they only exist as symbols and even for the believers they do not think the greek gods literally exist?
No, I'm saying it's mythology.
Mythology = sacred stories of truth and meaning for a culture's peoples.
Mythology =/= lies, falsehoods, fake.
By and large, mythology is simply not intended to be taken with the kind of literalism you're probably demanding of it by asking if there is empirical evidence of it's "truth." Mythology speaks its truths artfully, through poetry, allegory, metaphor, etc. I would also bear in mind that Pagan gods are immanent, not transcendent. They're typically personifications of various aspects of reality that pervasively influence human existence. So in a sense, if you want "evidence" for the existence of Demeter, look at agriculture, because there she is.
You mistakenly call them "only" symbols. Symbols are extremely powerful. They are transformative. They move someone to a new level of awareness. They change someone from inside. They allow them to see beyond the narrowly defined limits of their lack of imaginations.-If there are no empirical evidences,then does it have any other types of evidence?
-So you mean they only exist as symbols and even for the believers they do not think the greek gods literally exist?
You mistakenly call them "only" symbols. Symbols are extremely powerful. They are transformative. They move someone to a new level of awareness. They change someone from inside. They allow them to see beyond the narrowly defined limits of their lack of imaginations.
To demand empirical evidence of a symbol, or to them dismiss it as "only a symbol" when such a challenge is met with empty hands (it's an inappropriate question to begin with) is to betray a subtle form of literalism itself. Like those who mistake the symbol as a sign, those who reduce the symbol to a literal object, those who believe in a literal Ark that carried all the worlds animals, a literal god who literally controls the literal forces of nature, those who demand or seek for evidence to either 'believe' or 'disbelieve' are themselves literalists, they are thinking exactly the same.
I think it's much more appropriate to say "only literalism" than "only a symbol". Literalism is what is lacking, what's behind the curve, what is missing the truth of the symbol.
I think you may enjoy this essay. Though the context is Biblical literalism, it directly applies to your question. From the essay:
"But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination -- or lack of imagination -- pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science -- and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics -- is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mind-set. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general. Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically".
Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance
God is a metaphor for that which within us is God. To know ourselves truly, is to know God. You cannot evaluate critically what is transcendent to reason. You simply fall into it. You simply dance it.But it means I see the source of the wisdom as human, with all that entails (fallibility, for one thing), and would critically evaluate whatever learning I gathered from what I read.
God is a metaphor for that which within us is God. To know ourselves truly, is to know God. You cannot evaluate critically what is transcendent to reason. You simply fall into it. You simply dance it.
Absolutely. Not a word I disagree with. Preaching to the choir.But I don't think we can best know ourselves by blindly following the metaphorical wisdom of other humans. I think the journey to enlightenment lies within, and all that we gather from outside ourselves (including allegory) are tools.
People will always take metaphor and reduce it to a matter of literal understanding. They do so for a simple reason. They haven't yet developed "as if" thinking. They are concrete-literal in whatever they see. "I just don't get it" is the sort of response to metaphor. If it's not factual, it has no value. It doesn't register. Changing the symbols to new symbols will not change the underlying inability to access them.Useful for some, perhaps all, but commonly discarded, misunderstood, or poorly applied.
True, and I agree. Studying postmodernist thought, myth studies, ethnography, semiotics, etc, gives an underlying rational structure as to how these things operate. Engaging directly with them however is quite different. That requires not just learning the mechanics of the steps of a dance and then moving your feet as instructed. It is taking the structure of dance, and inhabiting it with the freedom of expression from within. Then, you are dancing.For me...at least...it is the application of reason that allows me to best understand the tools, the symbols, and draw on the gathered wisdom of those who came before. To stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.
Don't limit yourself. To be serious though, I'll make a suggestion. Practice meditation. What you find in there is self-knowledge, self-awareness. And this is for me where symbolism truly plays a role towards that end. It is though the symbol, that you open what has always been there within. It is through the symbol, you experience that, know that, and become that. Symbols are to move you to a new level, a new depth. Once that move occurs, the symbols are complete.To be fair, I've been accused of being an overthinker, and what I am seeking (and have increasingly found, although it's never as constant as would be ideal) is self-confidence, understanding of myself and my place in the world, and calmness/peace. I'm probably not going to end up dancing naked around a may pole.
Me? A form of popular entertainment.Ok,what do you guys think about horoscopes?