Dhw (under "What do we need a deity for?"): For me mythology doesn't come into it, if by that you are referring to books like the Bible and the Koran.-Whateverist: No, I had something more like Joseph Campbell's take on mythology. Mythology and Jungian psychology may shed some light on the workings of the unconscious. I'm with you when it comes to holy books, although even these could be read intelligently as literature with subtle meanings rather than as explicit directions for currying favor with the head honcho so as to get invited to the big hereafter.-I had to google Joseph Campbell, but now I get your meaning. Of course psychiatry is supposed to shed light on the unconscious anyway, but myths and great literature ... certainly including the bible, which contains a wealth of insightful stories ... help to bring all the theories to life.
 
By coincidence, I've just received the latest Review from the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies ... an organization that constantly challenges the scientific establishment with controversial but usually well-written and well-researched articles on a wide range of subjects. Prefacing two reviews of books on different myths, and referring to various conflicting theories of chronology and catastrophism, Jill Abery writes the following, which is so relevant to many of our discussions that I thought it was worth opening a new thread:-
"The main area of weakness, to my mind, is the lack of attempts to distinguish the fine line that lies between the end of myth and the beginning of unassailable facts. This is the major problem for those who take the earliest documents into account, such as the biblical history in Genesis. However, it is not just a problem with the distant past, but also continues into the present. We like to say that we are now into the 21st century, as though we have entered an era of such a technological high point that the dark days of illogic and superstition are behind us, but nothing could be further from the truth. How many religions are still practised without any thought of assessing the actual facts behind their origins? How many conspiracy theories are believed because they make an exciting story in an entertainment-driven society? How many new myths have been invented, which appeal to those not overly given to a rational consideration of the facts? Even that supposed bastion of rationality, science, has been shown, in the realms of cosmology at least, and, recently, global warming, to be nothing better than a religion, with its own brand of inquisition to suppress unbelievers. So it is not just concerning the dim and distant past that we need always to be aware that we must actively seek the line between myth and fact."

dhw,
> "The main area of weakness, to my mind, is the lack of attempts to distinguish the fine line that lies between the end of myth and the beginning of unassailable facts. This is the major problem for those who take the earliest documents into account, such as the biblical history in Genesis. However, it is not just a problem with the distant past, but also continues into the present. We like to say that we are now into the 21st century, as though we have entered an era of such a technological high point that the dark days of illogic and superstition are behind us, but nothing could be further from the truth. How many religions are still practised without any thought of assessing the actual facts behind their origins? How many conspiracy theories are believed because they make an exciting story in an entertainment-driven society? How many new myths have been invented, which appeal to those not overly given to a rational consideration of the facts? Even that supposed bastion of rationality, science, has been shown, in the realms of cosmology at least, and, recently, global warming, to be nothing better than a religion, with its own brand of inquisition to suppress unbelievers. So it is not just concerning the dim and distant past that we need always to be aware that we must actively seek the line between myth and fact."-This corresponds smashingly with the post I sent towards my friend Kent, that suggests that we all choose our mythologies of choice...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

I'm with you when it comes to holy books, although even these could be read intelligently as literature with subtle meanings rather than as explicit directions for currying favor with the head honcho so as to get invited to the big hereafter.[/i]
> 
> 
> "The main area of weakness, to my mind, is the lack of attempts to distinguish the fine line that lies between the end of myth and the beginning of unassailable facts. This is the major problem for those who take the earliest documents into account, such as the biblical history in Genesis....... Even that supposed bastion of rationality, science, has been shown, in the realms of cosmology at least, and, recently, global warming, to be nothing better than a religion, with its own brand of inquisition to suppress unbelievers. So it is not just concerning the dim and distant past that we need always to be aware that we must actively seek the line between myth and fact."-Another commentary on science, religion and myth, as presented in the Bible, both OT and NT. "Orthodox Christians broadly agree about how to read the gospels. But there is no consensus about how to read Genesis."...."We see rival theological commitments, rival understandings of how to read Genesis."-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576514580247803932.html?KEYWORDS=John+Wilson