The Truth of Myth
Myth, as defined by Frank S. Frick in “A Journey through the Hebrew Scriptures,” reads as follows:
“…myth makes reference to a story that narrates profound truth in story form, the kind of truth that escapes scientific or historical documentation. In this sense, then, myth provides one of the most penetrating ways of talking about the meaning of life, about the relationships between human beings, and about the relationships between God and persons. Myth is a specialized kind of metaphor, a story about the past that embodies and expresses truths about a people’s traditional culture” (Frank S. Frick, A Journey through the Hebrew Scriptures, A completely rev. and expanded 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003. Page 108.)
Frank S. Frick’s definition is one of the best I have ever encountered. It’s too bad that a proper understanding of myth is not emphasized in contemporary spirituality. A proper understanding of myth would go a long way towards the establishment of a “middle ground” in the present debate regarding science and spirituality.
For example, the debate constantly raging between evolutionists and creationists regarding the value of the Genesis creation story (or any other creation story for that matter) is unfortunate not only for the people who compose the two warring sides and waste their enormous personal talents and energetic possibilities upon faulty arguments based upon a literary or personal misunderstanding of myth, but also for debate’s spectators who may become apathetic or lost as a result of the debate’s obvious bitter tone and technical and partisan-laden jargon. Meanwhile, the universal truths of myth are lost in the tempestuous fray. Innocent bystanders continue to wrestle with natural questions concerning love, peace, anger, desire, hate, joy and reconciliation while the two sides argue over peripherals. These innocents are also left with an instinctive need for social interaction and harmony that goes unfulfilled. We are all distracted from the big and complex universal truths that exist just beneath the surface of our sacred stories, and the difficult ideological, moral, economic, and/or racial separation that exists between human beings continues to be perpetuated in the name of misunderstood myth. These issues still rage on looking for a solution and because we find no solution they go on manifesting in our real-time lives. Yet, there is no universal answer provided them. Why? The universal answer, which is displayed throughout all of our history’s scared myth(s), has become the collateral victim of a partisan debate built upon a total misunderstanding of myth, meaning, and the purpose of spirituality and, perhaps more importantly, its relationship to the scientific and anthropological advancement of human beings. This collateral victimization of myth itself has thoroughly damaged our very human process and method of imparting knowledge concerning the big questions we all have concerning life (e.g., love, peace, anger, desire, hate, joy, reconciliation, etc.). It’s hard to be human without an understanding of such things.
HUMAN BEINGS = EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US
Related posts:
Shawn,
I’ve had many debates about the nature of myth. And while the basic idea of myth can become a complex and powerful way to tell a story, we take great risk in reducing our Creation story to a myth. Because once we reduce it to a myth, we strip it of its actuality, making history a fantasy with a lesson to tell.
And this is the dark side of myth. Behind myth is also the idea that it is untrue in a specific sense. That the meaning of it is strictly the metaphor and not the actuality.
One of the reasons I don’t share the idea that the Creation story is a myth is because the story itself doesn’t treat it as such. It sees it as an actual history.
Food for thought.
Much love
Jonathan
Hi, Jonathan. Thanks for your thoughts; food for thought, indeed.
Yeah, we probably are parked on two different approaches to the texts. My interpretation of the creation story isn’t built upon the idea that what we have in them is actual history. For example, I don’t believe that if a camera existed back then that we could have recorded the events as described in Genesis 1-3 on film. What I think we have there is the story that is the product of a particular people living in a particular time doing what all people do, that is: story telling (myth-making) in effort to make meaning of existence. That said, I still think there is truth inherent to the story, I just don’t need the talking snake, or Garden, or Adam and Eve to be historical realities, no more than I need Icarus and his wax wings and reckless spirit to be actually realities to find deep truth in that story.
I think that the need for this sort of historicity is the source of tension between science and faith. I think this tension is relieved by a good understanding of myth and leads to a spiritual marriage of science and faith that I honestly have no idea how to arrive at otherwise.
Furthermore, I’m not sure how we could look at these texts and reconstruct a past reality. I’m speaking, of course, from a purely postmodern position on history. History is a tricky thing. I think the attempt to establish historicity by pointing to the historicity established within the texts themselves makes history even more tricky, in a circular sort of fashion.
I think that if any history can be found in the texts – or the whole Bible for that matter – then it will be found in all the things the texts don’t actually say. For example, I talked about the evolution that is found in the gospels concerning eschatology. Now, the gospels don’t come right out and say, “The people writing this stuff have been working out their thoughts on eschatology as they go along and everything is subject to change.” No. This sort of evolution is only found by comparing and contrasting what one gospel literally says to what another literally says. We look for human development in the overarching themes of the gospel texts (deconstruction?). Then we piece it all together and what we find might be history, but then again only loosely so because history, once again, is a tricky thing.
So, all that said, I think that if you want to approach the creation story as history, then that’s fine. It’s all interpretation. I just take a different approach to it.
Much love to you too, my friend.
I think your comment about your above beliefs being the only way to reconcile science and spirituality is the key Shawn.
How much science do you actually know ?
And how much scientific interpretation do you take on faith ?
I would also say that defining the word ‘myth’ in different ways and including different writings in that definition means that people will always talk past eachother as they cannot agree on what they are talking about.
I know a lot about science.
How much science is taken on faith? None that I am aware of, abucs. There are theories, but even scientific theories are prefaced upon methodology that has little to do with faith.
That said, I think faith is important, obviously. I also think that it should be – and in fact is – separate from science, unless of course, you’d prefer a witch doctor to your family doctor, for example.
I think science and faith could compliment each other; I just don’t think they should be syncretized.
The reason i write Shawn is that we should be mindful of science, and the interpretations of science, which are of course two vastly different things.
There is an interpretation of science which dates back to the 19th century which comes out of an atheist philosophy.
That philosophy interprets science in the materialistic way. That is, there is nothing except matter (including energy) and laws. This actually is counter to the traditional Western science of Newton, Gallileo, Mendal, Bacon etc which ‘discovered’ various fields of science and/or developed scientific thinking.
The ‘founders of Western science’ all held that the reason there was such a thing as science was because of an inteligent law giver, and they proceeded from that viewpoint and of course have all given us the benefits of that thought.
Some people view a materialistic interpretation of science as science itself when really it is no more than a 19th century atheist philosophy. Such people who accept such a worldview are then obliged to view everything around us in such a worldview.
I am assuming that you have this worldview and are similarly trying to reconcile ’science and the Gospels’. ???
I would submit that you are really trying to reconcile a 19th century atheist philosophical interpretation of science with the Gospels.
Perhaps you should consider other interpretations of science that may not be irreconcilable with the Gospels.
Personally, myself having come from a position of accepting the materialistic interpretation of science, and having a scientific background, i have given up that position as i think it is scientifically untenable. (which i can elaborate on if you like)
Still, this interpretation is popularised as not only the best interpretation of science in the media, but in fact, science itself, which is clearly a distortion.
P.S. When i ask how much science do you take on faith, if you think the materialistic interpretation is science itself, then of course your answer will be none, science isn’t taken on faith. My point is that perhaps your underlying assumptions of science are taken from the materialistic viewpoint that is only one interpretation, and thus you may in fact be taking a lot of that interpretation on faith – without realising it.
Thus it may be that your interpretations of science, rather than science itself are being taking as faith. Then it is understandable that you look at the Gospels as some wacky idea that needs to be ‘cleaned up’ to fit science (i.e. the 19th century atheistic interpretation of science).
Regards.
abucs, with all due respect, I’ve heard this line of argument a thousand times. I respect it, because I respect the person making the argument, but it is just a weak argument. I honestly have no desire to engage in this sort of argumentation anymore. So, I’ll simply say if that is what you choose to believe and express, then fine. Go right ahead. I simply believe that a science not based upon materialism (or atheism, for that matter) not only exists, but also is far removed from the realm of faith. If you think otherwise, that’s fine, but do remember that the next time you take your children in for immunization shots (just an example).
You also wrote the following: “I am assuming that you have this worldview and are similarly trying to reconcile ’science and the Gospels…’”
You assume that I’m doing this thing, but I’m not. I have no interest in reconciling science with the gospels. I do, however, have interest in finding a happy place wherein science and spirituality can co-exist without damaging the other for the sake of the other. I think that place can be found if myth was properly understood and practiced. That’s my point in this post. I have no idea where you stumbled upon the idea that I want to reconcile science and the gospels. I also would add that I have no interest in reconciliation for the sake of a thin authority. Said differently, I need not reconcile the gospels with science because I see no need to make the Gospels the final authority for everything.
I don’t see the Gospels as the final authority for everything either.
And i’m not sure what you’re comments on immunisation means.
I just personally think that people who have the philosophy of a materialistic science, don’t really know science. Or they base their science on thinking that is 40 years out of date. That has been my experience. They also assume that Christians somehow are on another planet when it comes to science.
I also think such people’s ideas of what faith is, are so removed from what my ideas of Christian faith are, that we are not even talking the same language.
They seem to define faith as some sort of unintellectual frame of mind contrary to science. As a Christian, i think that sort of thinking misses the mark completely and is a total misunderstanding of things on so many levels.
So it is hard for people who think this way to even make sense to Christians because we define atheism, faith and science completely differently and we see the historical acheivements and shortfalls of all three completely differently.
To Christians, athiests take the scientific history and scientific thought proceses of Christians over the centuries and mix it with the 19th century atheist philosophies and then say that science and Christianity are at odds.
This doesn’t make sense to us. But if you believe that then you are forced to argue that the Gospels are myth and form your mind in a way that convinces yourself that they are myth. I think this situation is more closely aligned to the derogatory definition atheists give ‘faith’ than the actual faith of Christians.
To Christians, atheists are a latter day minority group who force themselves to see history and science in an incorrect light and who like to ‘enlighten’ everyone else about their thinking that we already regards intellectually flawed. I honestly don’t think that atheism has an intellectual base and is destined to stay a minority, incoherant and uncivilised view.
I say uncivilised because i don’t think atheism is strong and consistent enough intellectually to build a civilisation.
I am already happy that science and spirituality do co-exist quite peacefully. I see no probelms between the science we have created to understand the world, and the Christian mindset that produced that science in the first place.
If you wish to dialogue with Christians on this then you have to convince us that they don’t already co-exist. Not just don’t already co-exist but don’t overlap and re-inforce eachother and give us the best framework for understanding reality which we currently think is the case.
An atheist always wants to split western science and its underlying Christian thought processes and treat the two as polar opposites. That is only a minority philosophical position whose case has to be made by the atheist before dialogue can begin.
An atheist wants to assume the reality of faith as non-reason and a science of materialism and start the dialogue from there.
Your underlying assumption is that they cannot peacefully co-exist (or be reconciled ). That is the assumption that i think is wrong. And i think it is wrong on scientific grounds that can be demonstrated.
But it seems you are content to push ahead with a myth understanding of the new testament that itself i think stands on very shaky scholarly ground. In fact i think it is a very weak case. But which of course must be true if the materialistic philopshy is assumed.
If you do not wish to examine the critique of the philosophy of materialism and its scientific short comings then i don’t think you can ever really have meaningful dialogue with Christians, except those perhaps who don’t have a deep and thorough understanding of the issues to begin with.
Regards.
Let me be clear: I don’t view the Gospels in the same way as you do as regards authority. My use of the phrase “for everything” may have been a bit vague, but I assure you that I don’t invest the sort of authority into the Gospels that requires me to reconcile anything to them. Again, that’s an assumption you brought to the conversation. I just wanted to clarify.
Also, you write as if you think that i haven’t looked at the philosophy of materialism at all. You are mistaken. I did so during my undergrad work in theology and during my time in seminary. What I did mean to express is that I really don’t want to invest time and energy into an argument over this subject … again. You may feel free to think however you wish about it, I’m OK with that sort of thing. I just refuse to be mired in another debate about the subject with a person who has no other intention for such a debate save parroting a script. I think we have divergent definitions of “Meaningful conversations,” which I do love to have. :)
I will say this much, that the Bible – your authority, I venture – is full of science that doesn’t jive with whatever you would like to call the science we practice today. This is not reconcilable and I do not wish to argue about it, honestly.
I like to dedicate my time and energy to bigger and better things. Like myth and our human practice of myth.
Thanks.
Well, i have looked into materialism in my time during my science degree, during a scientific career of 15 years, during a life time love of science and now back at uni completing a Masters course. Any science i would present would be based on the best experimental results we have in the last century and so is definately the science we practice today. That is my main reason for becoming a Christian. The science of today is my authority Shawn. If you wish not to discuss that, well OK then.
I urge you to look more deeply.
Your contention i am parroting anything is unsubstantiated.
Your ‘better things to do’ quote i beleive is misplaced as is your contention of how much authority i give the Gospels. I haven’t said anything about that except that i don’t go along with the contention of the myth hypotheis as it too is largely unsubstantiated and very superficial and comes from a mindset that has first accepted materialism that i think is scientifically untenable.
It seems strange that you don’t want to discuss the scientific philosophy of materialism when that is the basis of what has formed so many of the Christian myth views about the New Testament that you have chosen to accept.
But if you don’t want to discuss this, of course we can’t discuss it then. But it seems very strange that you refuse to discuss with anyone who wishes to disgree with you on scientific grounds and at the same time you hold a view which says Christian thought is unscientific and needs to be changed to ‘co-exist’ with science.
To me, (like many atheists), it takes the illogical position of thinking “science is on my side but i don’t want to really discuss it much” – better to talk to someone who doesn’t know the science and i can pretend with them that science is on the atheist side, when it clearly is not.
OK then, good luck then.
Regards.
abucks, or whatever your name is, I’m going to try to be brief.
1. It’s not at all that i don’t want to talk to someone who disagrees with me. I talk to people who disagree with me all the time. I have dear friends who disagree with me. I’m OK with disagreement. It’s just that I don’t want to spend my time and energy going around in cognitive circles with someone who pretends to want to have a discussion but in actuality is only here to prove his/her point or to try to make me submit to your way of thinking. And that’s just what you are trying to do and I am simply asking for you to not do that here.
2. How have i reached the above conclusion? Well, first of all, you took over my post’s discussion by charging me with materialism. It’s a materialism, I might add, that you link to atheism, which isn’t even a point in my post. I then told you that I am not a materialist. I also said that science is not based on faith and faith is not based on science. I said that i need not be a materialist to make such a claim. You disagreed and went off on some rants about classical atheism, the gospels, authority, and your awesome degrees. All the while you keep insinuating that I am wrong about claiming that there is such a thing as non-materialistic science that still doesn’t require faith and that it could coexist with faith if only the two sides would realize the importance and nature of human myth.
3. But now, you are proclaiming that you are in fact a student and proponent of a non-materialistic science and that it is your authority (even above the gospels). It seems to me that it is you that are trying to reconcile the gospels to rescue some sort of authority that they never possessed. In that your motive here is revealed, and like I said, I want no part of your attempt to convince me that the authority that you personally invest into these texts should be an invest I make too. Ultimately, that is what you are attempting here, and rather than waste all my time and energy arguing with yet another person who wishes to pad their own thin sense of self-security by imposing it on me, I’ve just decided to save us both some time and end that silly debate before it begins. I have already spent way too much time on this conversation, and no, I have no obligation to continue it.
This post is ultimately about the importance of myth and the human practice of myth. I urge you to look deeper into that subject, and perhaps you should look deeper into your bible texts, I’m quite sure there is a lot in there that you have yet to wrestle with, otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
So, to conclude, I’ll simply say that it has nothing to do with my not wanting to converse with people who disagree with me. My refusal has everything to do with not engaging people who have ulterior agendas built upon tired debates. There are more important things to spend our time and energy on …
For example, why don’t you busy yourself researching the gynecological views of the Bible, from the time of Genesis to the New Testament. I’m sure you will find a lot to sift through your obviously superior understanding of science. Let me know what you come up with …
Good luck to you too.
I see you are back to deleting posts again Shawn.
abucs: See: http://lofitribe.com/blog-comment-policy/
Luke directed me here:
Does a myth about Ganesh “narrate profound truth in story form” or how about from the Iliad or countless other myths. Does being a “myth” automatically buy it the “profound” rating? This is highly romantic and naive.
“One of the most penetrating ways to talk about the meaning of life”
It is valuable and use to be our only means until human culture advanced. But again, Frick is exaggerating.
Debating Creationists is NOT a waste of time. The ignorance that supports creationism also has been the same energy trying to stop honest inquiry for centuries. You underestimate the power of ignorance at the hands of governments.
You are wedded to the “Universal Answer” as if all myths are geared toward this. Myths have very diverse purposes — and all is geared to human communication and influence.
If we allow myths to be meaningful and inspiring without demanding that they be TRUTHFUL, then swords can be put down.
@Sabio: Hello! thanks for the thoughts! One question: Who is luke???
Sabio, you wrote: “Does a myth about Ganesh “narrate profound truth in story form” or how about from the Iliad or countless other myths. Does being a “myth” automatically buy it the “profound” rating? This is highly romantic and naive.”
I actually agree with you. I never said that I accept and assimilate all myth into my life and worldview. To do so would smack of ignorance. There are plenty of myths to which I don’t and could never ascribe. But, you are misisng the bigger point …
The “profound truth” that myth-making reveals is not in the myths themselves, because these myths should always be updated to satisfy our own need for historical and cultural relativity. The “profound truth” exists in the act of myth-making itself. We all extract meaning from existence in some narrative form or another. It is within that act – the act of myth-making – that “profound truth” can be experienced and realized.
And what is this “profound truth” … Well, you tell me.