Are Myths Valuable?

[Alan V]

I think there's a variety of beliefs some atheists operate on, that resemble myths, regardless if they are true or not, such as the view atheism is a matter of honesty and truth, and religion as delusions, and untruths. The view of disbelief as something worthy of being spread, encouraged endorsed, to rid ourselves of the stains of religion. The God Delusion, that End of Faith,  the underlying motivations that are being peddled, the sort of heroic scientist, the idea of objective man, the removed observer, observing reality for what it truly is, are all parts of this mythology. It's not all the mere expressions of facts, but the selling of a story, a narrative however loosely formed it may be.

I remember both The God Delusion and The End of Faith as making a whole series of arguments, not all of which I agreed with. People are allowed to make arguments even if we don't agree with them.

Summing them all up as competing mythology is judging them by theistic standards.

[brewer]

Don't stories need to fade into the fog of time to be reborn as mythology?
Who can think of a recent myth? (not to be confused with local urban legend)

How about slender man? And the place that two young girls took the myth.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It is a source of amusement to me that so may people take their own myths as factual accounts, but the myths of other people as ethical lessons at best and as a lot of preposterous lies at worst.  For instance, to a Christian, Jesus walked on water - no allegory, no moral instruction (or if there is any, it is beside the point).  Jesus of Nazareth actually, physically walked on the surface of the Lake of Galilee.

On the other hand, Heracles didn't actually slay the Lernaean Hydra - the story is meant allegorically about overcoming seemingly insurmountable difficulties.

I find this adorable.

Boru

[Alan V]

I think the real dilemma is, some people's inability to recognize that it's "poetic" truths, that are really worthy of the title "truth".

Absent of that we might as well just call things, useful, rather than truthful.

Atheists tend to overemphasize the importance of recognizing scientific facts, when in reality such facts are among the most superficial and shallow things we hold.

It is true that atheists and theists have entirely different definitions of, and standards for, truths.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think the real dilemma is, some people's inability to recognize that it's "poetic" truths, that are really worthy of the title "truth".

Absent of that we might as well just call things, useful, rather than truthful.

Atheists tend to overemphasize the importance of recognizing scientific facts, when in reality such facts are among the most superficial and shallow things we hold.

It is true that atheists and theists have entirely different definitions of, and standards for, truths.

Fair point.  Theists never let mere facts stand in the way of truth.

Boru

[Alan V]

It is true that atheists and theists have entirely different definitions of, and standards for, truths.

Fair point.  Theists never let mere facts stand in the way of truth.

Boru

Many theists believe there is one overarching dogma by which they can accept or reject facts. We see this tendency among Republicans too. Everything must accord with dogma. No facts stand on their own.

[Acrobat]

I think there's a variety of beliefs some atheists operate on, that resemble myths, regardless if they are true or not, such as the view atheism is a matter of honesty and truth, and religion as delusions, and untruths. The view of disbelief as something worthy of being spread, encouraged endorsed, to rid ourselves of the stains of religion. The God Delusion, that End of Faith,  the underlying motivations that are being peddled, the sort of heroic scientist, the idea of objective man, the removed observer, observing reality for what it truly is, are all parts of this mythology. It's not all the mere expressions of facts, but the selling of a story, a narrative however loosely formed it may be.

I remember both The God Delusion and The End of Faith as making a whole series of arguments, not all of which I agreed with. People are allowed to make arguments even if we don't agree with them.

Summing them all up as competing mythology is judging them by theistic standards.

Im saying they utilize much of same functions of myths, and not commenting on whether the arguments are true or not.

Those functions are less about the facts being presented but the sort of narrative that houses them, the elements that inspire atheists, to come out the closest, embrace the sort of clarity of their perspective, recognize the deception and delusion of others, motivate them to gather together, establish communities, in opposition to what they perceive as the dark forces of religion, embrace certain sets of heros perceive certain types of villains, the peddling of certain values, etc

[Alan V]

I remember both The God Delusion and The End of Faith as making a whole series of arguments, not all of which I agreed with.  People are allowed to make arguments even if we don't agree with them.  

Summing them all up as competing mythology is judging them by theistic standards.

Im saying they utilize much of same functions of myths, and not commenting on whether the arguments are true or not.

Those functions are less about the facts being presented but the sort of narrative that houses them, the elements that inspire atheists, to come out the closest, embrace the sort of clarity of their perspective, recognize the deception and delusion of others, motivate them to gather together, establish communities, in opposition to what they perceive as the dark forces of religion, embrace certain sets of heros perceive certain types of villains, the peddling of certain values, etc

So are you saying people will always act by myths, no matter how rational they pretend to be?

[DLJ]

...
Jung thought that by examining ancient myths, one may find profound truths concerning the "inner reality" of the human psyche. Do you agree with Jung here?
...

Nope. Because Jung did not understand what human psyche actually consists of.

However, he was on to something, kinda, from an anthropological perspective, in that moral events (from which lessons can be learned) have three sources (which brain chemistry will not distinguish between):
1. Current sense data
1.1 Physical
1.2 Logical
2. Stored sense data

Examples:
1.1 Observation of a live event e.g. seeing someone being attacked (or hearing it).
1.2 Observation of a fictional event e.g. in a movie, play or book.
2. Feelings of guilt over e.g. not protecting someone being bullied at school.

Note that the latter may surface years after the event and may be misremembered or indeed may be a false memory.
Note also that second-hand live events, e.g. watching the news, could be included in 1.1 or 1.2 (depending on whether it's fake news or not) but human psyche, at the physical layer, initially does not care... it's just stimulus.

Myths would be in 1.2. i.e. 'the moral of the story'. But they would only be of use as thinking tools if they are relevant to a current situation. This is why one can read a story many times over many years and draw out (notice / will be alerted to) different morals at different times (or none at all). They need a baseline for comparison.

So, yes, myths are valuable and truth (source/reputation) is irrelevant.

One can get as much if not more moral stimulus from reading A Song of Ice and Fire as one can from reading a history of The War of The Roses.

Did we require Jung's ideas to get to modern Information Governance Theory? Not so much.

[Acrobat]

I think the real dilemma is, some people's inability to recognize that it's "poetic" truths, that are really worthy of the title "truth".

Absent of that we might as well just call things, useful, rather than truthful.

Atheists tend to overemphasize the importance of recognizing scientific facts, when in reality such facts are among the most superficial and shallow things we hold.

It is true that atheists and theists have entirely different definitions of, and standards for, truths.

Atheists and Theists brain share billions of years of development in common. To think that their brains recognize reality (truth) much differently, as the result of a few years, or decades of religious vs non-religious development, is just non-sense. 

Theist and atheists may share a variety of different beliefs, but how their biological brains acquired them, are more likely to have much more in common, than not.

---

Im saying they utilize much of same functions of myths, and not commenting on whether the arguments are true or not.

Those functions are less about the facts being presented but the sort of narrative that houses them, the elements that inspire atheists, to come out the closest, embrace the sort of clarity of their perspective, recognize the deception and delusion of others, motivate them to gather together, establish communities, in opposition to what they perceive as the dark forces of religion, embrace certain sets of heros perceive certain types of villains, the peddling of certain values, etc

So are you saying people will always act by myths, no matter how rational they pretend to be?

I’m saying is that reason/rationality is a slave to ones passions, myths are what house these passions.