Difference between revisions 714604 and 714615 on metawiki

This page is for discussion of [[w:folklore]], [[w:religion]], and [[w:mythology]].

=== Use of the words 'Myth', 'Mythology', etc. ===hi,k

The word 'myth' has several meanings in the English language.  Probably the best place to find out these meanings is to consult [http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=myth a dictionary].  One meaning, roughly, has it that a myth is "a story that express the religion, beliefs and morals of a culture" and another meaning is roughly "a story that is false or made-up".  The boundary between the two meanings is unclear.

(contracted; show full), especially in ''Birth of Tragedy'', seems to consider Christianity worse or more degenerate; see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_to_avoid Words to avoid]), think that from a religiously neutral point of view the stories of these extant religions are not a fundamentally different phenomenon from those stories that we do call myths.

Seven options have been proposed so far, by various people, for using the terms 'myth', 'mythology', etc., on Wikipedia:

=== 
Use of the words 'Myth', 'Mythology', etc. ===

The word 'myth' has several meanings in the English language.  Probably the best place to find out these meanings is to consult [http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=myth a dictionary].  One meaning, roughly, has it that a myth is "a story that express the religion, beliefs and morals of a culture" and another meaning is roughly "a story that is false or made-up".  The boundary between the two meanings is unclear.

Some argue that only relatively rarely is "myth" used in such a way as not to imply or suggest that the stories of a culture are in any way dubious.  They argue that typically, the "myth" is used specifically to suggest that the stories are not to be relied upon as true, though, for all we know, they might be true. Other people disagree with this, and say that "myth" is frequently used ''without intending to make any judgement about the truth or falsehood of the myths,'' although sometimes the mistaken impression is given that such an intention exists.

In English, we normally reserve the terms "myth" and "mythology" for the stories of the ancient polytheistic religions (such as those of Greece or Rome), which have few or no followers today. Except in some academic and critical contexts, we generally do not call the stories of Judaism, Christianity or Islam "myths" or "mythologies."  Many people, though maybe not all (e.g. Hegel seems to consider Christianity different because of its resemblance to "philosophy" and Nietzsche, especially in ''Birth of Tragedy'', seems to consider Christianity worse or more degenerate; see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_to_avoid Words to avoid]), think that from a religiously neutral point of view the stories of these extant religions are not a fundamentally different phenomenon from those stories that we do call myths.

Seven options have been proposed so far, by various people, for using the terms 'myth', 'mythology', etc., on Wikipedia:Option 1 ===

Call the stories of the ancient polytheistic religions "myths" or "mythology"; do not use this term for the stories of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other extant religion of any significant size.  (So we might continue to call Greek and Roman stories "myths" even if a tiny minority of neopagans claims to believe the stories are true.)

PROS:
*This is the usage that most people will be expecting and familiar with; some people find calling the traditional stories of extant religions "myths" to be jarring.
*Few people are likely to be offended by calling the stories of the ancient polytheistic religions "myths" or "mythology"; some people may be offended by the use of those terms to describe the stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, even if we explain to them that we are using it in a neutral sense.
*People will be expecting to find the stories of the ancient Greek and Roman religions under the name "mythology."  (They won't expect to find Bible stories under "Christian mythology," for example.)
CONS:
*This perpetuates bias in favour of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, against ancient polytheistic religions; perpetuating such bias would not appear to be NPOV
**Reply: this seems to me a misunderstanding of what "[[neutral point of view]]" means.  Writing from the NPOV means writing so as not to make the text suggest that any ''extant'' views might be any more likely than any others, or in other words, letting people make up their own minds as regards ''extant'' views.  Who cares what people believed 2500 years ago, if no one has such beliefs now?
***Reply: well, it appears to me that some modern Pagans do in fact believe in these myths. They generally don't mind calling them myths, but that is because: (a) for Pagans, the term 'myth' lacks a lot of the negative conontations that the term has for the wider community; and (b) most of them don't interpret the myths in a literal manner (though many ancient Pagans didn't interpret their myths in a literal manner either; and likewise many Christians have given non-literal interpretations to their myths.)
****Reply: show me ''evidence'' that some neopagans actually believe the old myths.  Frankly, I find the very suggestion very hard to swallow.  Of course,hellopoo is cool
*****The Findhorn community in Scotland seems to preach the literal existence of Pan. Search for Findhorn or Ogilvie Crombie.
I could always be wrong.  Moreover, I do not agree that there are any significant number of people who use "myth" with ''no'' connotations whatever of judgment about their veracity.  The ''point'' of using "myth" 
(or "legend") rather than "story" is ''precisely'' to present a story as dubious at best.  Give us evidence, please, that the word is ''ever'' used differently (other than by you).
*****C.S. Lewis springs to mind. Look for a book of essays that bears the title ''God in the Dock'' if you want a specific reference. --[[Dan]]
*****You want evidence? Try a dictionary: "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon" (Merriam-Websters Online, myth, sense 1a). If my usage is in the dictionary, it has to be used by someone other than me? And compare that definition to "story" -- "story" is clearly a much more general term. ''Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'' is a story, but it isn't a myth. Why? Because its not traditional, and it has never been claimed to be historical, and it does not "unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". The ''point'' of using "myth" rather than "story" is ''precisely'' to present a story which is traditional, obstensibly historical, and expresses the worldview, practices, beliefs, morality, etc., of a people.
******Reply: I'm not very impressed with your dictionary definition even as support for your case.  Just look at the definition you cite!  You seem to have missed the word "ostensibly": myths are ''ostensibly'' historical, but (the implication is) they very well might not ''actually'' be historical.  Moreover, interpreting dictionary definitions is not an exact science; often, to fully understand the meaning of a word in use, you must examine ''several'' of the senses listed.  Also, you can ape me all you like re the point of myth, but that doesn't make your case any stronger: the inclusion of the word "ostensible" undermines your attempted cleverness.  :-)
*******The word "ostensibly" does not mean "apparently but not really". It means simply "apparently". Something can be both obstensibly true and in fact true. In order for something to be classified as a "myth", it must have been claimed or presumed to be historical. It may or may not in fact be so. You may say the implication is being made, but no such implication is contained in the definition of "ostensible". Yes, to fully understand the way a word is used, you must look at several senses; but a sense is a separable meaning -- when a word has multiple senses, it can (and most of the time is) used in only one or some of its senses. Finally, I admit dictionary definitions are not an exact science, but do you have any better proposal for determining what the word means, other than your own opinions or impressions?
*Calling the stories of the ancient polytheistic religions "myths" may be interpreted as a judgement on our part that these stories are false or ought not be believed; whatever our individual views on their truth or falsehood, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to tell people which religious tales they are to believe or disbelieve
**Reply: this seems to be another misunderstanding of the meaning of "NPOV."  Since no one does, in fact, believe those old religious tales, it is '';totally uncontroversial'' to let Wikipedia say imply, by the unqualified, straightforward use of the word "myth," that they're false.
***Reply: Can you be certain that not one person today believes them? And it is not "totally uncontroversial" to imply them to be false -- I, for one, am strongly opposed to doing so, and I'm sure several other people are as well. An encyclopedia should not be in the business of telling people which religious beliefs are true and false -- that applies both to currently popular religious beliefs, like Christianity, and no longer popular religious beliefs, like the ancient Greek and Roman religions. And an encyclopedia should treat all religions equally -- it should not imply that Christianity is more likely to be true than any other religion. Calling ancient Pagan stories myths, but refusing to call Christian stories myths, implies that Christian stories are more likely to be true or somehow more valid than Pagan stories, which is something a lot of people would disagree with doing.
****Reply: ''Sure,'' we should make sure that people who think that Christian stories are no more than myths are registered as "myths" ''in the opinion of people like you and me.''  I agree, that's very important to state, in some appropriate place.  But we should not ''title articles'' so as to reflect ''this view,'' when (1) there's no '''evidence''' that anyone (or any significant minority of people) still believes old Roman myths, while (2) we ''know'' that there are quite a few Biblical literalists.  Listing Bible stories as "stories" is the most neutral way to bill the Biblical stories, because it allows us to maintain the stories are false while some others (a very small number, granted) can maintain the stories are true.  It's ''not'' prejudicial in the ''least'' to make a distinction between ''extant'' religious stories and ''extinct'' religious stories.  It's ''insulting and biased'' to pretend that the distinction doesn't exist, though.
*****Reply: First of all, I never said they are "no more than myths". I said they are myths, and that they may well be true myths. Personally, I think some of the stories are true, others are false -- but even the ones I believe to be true I would still call myths. And how is it insulting and biased to treat all religions equally, regardless of whether they are currently popular or not? If anything, I think it is insulting and biased to give the implication that some religions are more likely to be true than others. Wikipedia should remain religiously neutral, and avoid wherever possible implying any religion is more likely to be true than any other, even if that religion is currently more popular.
******With your point that you maintain the stories may be true myths, you are missing my point.  My point is that by ''using'' the word "myth," ''most'' people (contrary to what you think) ''will'' understand you to mean "traditional story of dubious provenance."  That's what "myth" ''means.''  So you can maintain all you like that you believe in true myths, but that ''doesn't'' alter the fact that when you use such phrase--without qualification--as "Christian myth," you imply ''for most people'' that Wikipedia's official view is that Christian traditional stories are of dubious provenance.  ''That'' is insulting and biased.  There aren't any ancient Greeks around left to be insulted about their own religions!  You keep missing this point about the meaning of "neutral": "neutral" does ''not'' mean "taking no stand on anything at all."  If that were the case, no one could be neutral about anything.  "Neutral" means something closer to "taking no stand on anything that is ''currently'' controversial."  Something that was neutral 2000 years ago can be quite biased today, and vice-versa.
********I'm not saying neutral means "take no stand on anything at all". I am in favour though of being "religiously neutral", which means taking no stand on matters of religious belief. Telling people what religious beliefs they should or shouldn't have is not the job of an encyclopedia. That includes telling people not to have religious beliefs that no one alive today has. (And, you have so far provided no evidence that no one alive today does have these beliefs -- there are plenty of neopagans out there, many of whom would say they believe the myths of some ancient civilization or another.)
*******Do you recall that the original article which started this dispute explicity qualified that the word "myth" was being used in a completely neutral sense, with no implication about whether the story was true or false? If we explicitly state in the article that we are using it in this way, then no reasonable person should be offended. If they are still offended, it must be because they are not reading what we have said the word "myth" means. So, if we provide clear and appropriate qualification as to how we will use the word myth, then no reasonable person should interpret it as any judgement on our part that the mytth is dubious. ''That'' is not insulting and not biased. 
*Using different terms for the stories of ancient polytheistic religions on the one hand, and the stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (to say nothing of Hinduism or Buddhism) on the other, may obscure the similarities between the two phenomena, and makes a distinction which may not have any basis in the features of the stories themselves
**Reply: the notion that there are such similarities is bound to be somewhat controversial ''for some.''  In any case, it's exceedingly obvious that the way to point out such similarities is not simply to use the word "myth" to describe both sets of stories, and let it go at that.  It would be to investigate and report about what research has been done on "the mythology of extant religions."  Surely there's no reason to oppose formulating the point about the similarities in such a fashion?  Won't that make everyone happy?  (Still waiting for an answer to this.)
***Reply: well of course there are some very basic similarities. They all involve religious entities (gods, angels, demons, heroes, prophets, etc.), miracles, supernatural occurences. They all are used by their followers as inspiration for their religious practice. They express the religious beliefs of the people who originated them. They express moral teaching. And they all fit the definiton of myth contained in sense 1a of Merriam-Websters Online. You'd have to be blind to deny that these similarities exist. And these basic similarities can be pointed out very well by calling them "myths" (in sense 1a), since sense 1a of Merriam-Webster's captures reasonably well what the most fundamental similarities between them are.
****Reply: you completely missed the point.  Please re-read what I wrote.  I was not simply (or even at all) saying that there are not very basic similarities between extinct and extant religions' traditional stories.
* Presumably this option should be referring to any present-day religion, not just Judaism, Christianity or Islam?  Probably practically any "myth" ever invented is still believed by somebody.
** Reply: yes, it should be referring to ''any extant religion.''  What evidence do you have to believe that "practically any 'myth' ever invented is still believed by somebody"?  That sounds very unlikely indeed to me.
*** Reply: well, what about the stories of Hinduism? They are frequently called myths, and the whole body is often called "Hindu Mythology" and "Indian Mythology". And in fact Hindu stories are very similar to Greek, Roman or Egyptian stories.
**** Reply: I would say that, if the vast majority of Hindus do not in fact have any problem calling them "myths," with all of the baggage of that word (and I can understand how modern Hindus might indeed not have any problem with doing that)--then ''we'' might as well call them "myths."  In any case, we try to be respectful of their beliefs.  Why is that so difficult?  If they ''do'' have a problem with it, then that problem is easily solved by our having a [[traditional Hindu stories]] page, with some sentences, high up in the article, explaining that the stories are usually referred to as "myths" in English discussions of them.
* There would be difficulties when the myths from "ancient polytheistic religions" have been incorporated into a present day religion, e.g., would the idea of the "great flood" need to be omitted from Sumerian mythology article to avoid offending somebody who didn't want it described as a myth?
** Reply: I don't see what difficulty there would be with referring to the stories of extinct religion R as "myths" even if there are similar stories in extant religions.  Why should anyone complain?
*** No way am I an expert, but there seems to be a great deal of reuse of old material in "new" religions.  If Judaism became extinct tomorrow, we'd move their bible to mythology, but guess what, somebody's still using it.  Religion R may start out with "there is one all-powerful God" (or whatever) and members of extant religion S may say "religion R saw a small part of the truth.  why do you class it as mythology?"
**** Reply: well, I think we need more data from "new" religions here: what do those people ''actually'' believe, and in fact are there enough of them for us to really care?  (I'm not sure how many is "enough," no...)  But, yes, polite people generally do not refer to other people's religions as myth.  If you can find me a person who objects to our calling Greek, Roman, etc. myth as "myth," on grounds that extant religions have some similar stories, I'll be very impressed. -- Hey, Simon, you can have the last word.  I think I have made my point as well as I can make it.

=== Option 2 ===

Call the stories of both the ancient polytheistic religions, and of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, "myth". Explain clearly that we are using "myth" here 

PROS:
* Does not discriminate between ancient polytheistic religions, and Judaism, Christianity and Islam, nor show bias towards the latter
(contracted; show full)I wouldn't characterize those as NPOV phrases, but as vaguely qualifying phrases. 

... or as they're known in marketing circles, weasel words.


[[Category:Essays]]

I have the answer, and it is simple.  'Saga' can be used instead of myth (which does have certain connotations).  I don't find the same one with saga.