Is religion a kind of mythology, or the opposite?

Question

Can we define religion as "the mythologies that don't assume they are mythologies"?

First, mythology is the oldest way of describing Nature. Polytheisms, extant or extinct, usually know|knew their mythologic nature. Thus the usually pacific and prolific relationships between many different polytheistic people (between many amerindian tribes, or between old indians and chinese, for instance).

Since many gods exist in such mythologies, for "my gods" to exist it isn't necessary that "your gods" don't exist.

Then monotheism comes to the picture. It claims to itself the status of "truth". For "my God", the "only god" to be correct, any other gods must be false. Isn't it a completely new concept? Isn't it a mythology, like any other, with the main difference of not accepting to be called like that? Doesn't it come wrapped in an unprecedented layer of lie (deny every other myth, except itself)? If so, how can we call all of them the same?

A: call both "mythology", and monotheism/religion a subset of all existing mythologies. B: call both "religion", but polytheism/mythology a subset of all existing religions.

Looks like the choice between A and B is entirely dependent of what you believe|think? Or is there a rational, concrete, least prone to doubt or attack, way of choosing?

Since polytheistic mythologies are much older and geographically more widespread, to me sounds natural that some modern so-called religions derived from them, and not the opposite (as some believers have already tried to convince me).

So, "religion" and "mythology" are synonyms? Or one is a subset of the other? If so, which is a subset of which?

Answer 1

The correct answer is B:

B: call both "religion", but polytheism/mythology a subset of all existing religions.

There are several established and historical religions which are polytheistic. Notably, in modern times, some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism), and Shintoism (the traditional religion of Japan) among others are recognized by scholars, practitioners and governments as formal religions. They all contain some elements of religion: Scripture, deities, a creation story, a set of moral rules, a priesthood, etc...

Looks like the choice between A and B is entirely dependent of what you believe|think? Or is there a rational, concrete, least prone to doubt or attack, way of choosing?

This is incorrect: Although there is no formal strict definition of religion, as mentioned earlier, several polytheistic belief systems are officially recognized as being religions by both scholars and governments.

When defining a category, it is possible to define it in two ways:

• Either by having a strict set of rules for what belongs in that category and what doesn't.
• Or by having a set of prototypes and examples of what a member of that category looks like, but without any clear set of features separating the member from the non members. Wittgenstein popularized this notion of family resemblance.

Based on family resemblance polytheistic belief systems definitely fall under the category of religion.

Moreover, polytheism and monotheism are both forms of theism, coming from the Greek word theos meaning 'god'. If you want an irrefutable argument that polytheism is a subset of religion, then you might say that any form of theism is a religion, although not all religions are theistic.

---

As a historical aside:

Then monotheism comes to the picture. It claims to itself the status of "truth". For "my God", the "only god" to be correct, any other gods must be false. Isn't it a completely new concept? Isn't it a mythology, like any other, with the main difference of not accepting to be called like that?

It should be noted that most scholars believe that monotheism evolved from polytheism in a more gradual way than what you describe. Monotheism (and more specifically Judaism which is the source of most other monotheisms) is thought to have grown out of henotheism. Henotheism is when one worships only one god, but believes that other gods exist, or at least that their existence is possible. It is speculated that the Jews progressed from "there are many gods, but we only worship Yahweh" to "Yahweh is stronger and than all other gods and he will be angry if we don't worship him alone" to "Yahweh is the only god". In the Bible says more than once that Jews are forbidden from worshipping other gods - because Yahweh is a jealous god. If these other gods didn't exist, why be jealous of them or worry about them at all?

Christianity and Islam, then picked up on this concept and extended to mean that worshipping more than one god at once is somehow evil.

Answer 2

I think that myth, true myth, is religion in the only form it could be passed down. And I find Josef Pieper takes this view of Plato "n examining the ‘accepted’ scholarly interpretations of the myths, Pieper succeeds in establishing the case for a truth, found particularly in the eschatological myths, that is not reducible to the rational truth normally sought by philosophers. While it is not purely rational truth, it is not inferior. It is different. It stems from tradition, which reaches back to the ultimate beginnings of man’s existence – back into our pre-history and to events of which, naturally, we have no experience. The only access we have to this truth is through ‘hearing’ (ex akoés), which is not dependent on mere ‘hearsay,’ but which, in Pieper’s interpretation, reflects the handing on, in stories, of what the gods first communicated to man about the creation of the world and about the afterlife. These truths are to be found – long before the New Testament (or even the Old Testament) – in the myths of a variety of civilizations and give evidence of an extraordinary consensus: that there was a creating hand, that primeval man incurred guilt in the eyes of the gods; that he could be saved; that there is an afterlife in which man is rewarded or punished; that he can undergo a kind of purgatory for lesser offenses; and that in the afterlife he can dwell with the gods.

What is the basis for accepting such truth as is contained in the myths? No purely rational argument will suffice. What man cannot experience himself he either tends to reject or, if he accepts it, he does so on the authority of another – ex akoés. Even before – or even without – Christian revelation, men have based their lives on a conviction, for instance, that there is an afterlife. They have this conviction not from experience or from some rational philosophical argument. They have it on the basis of ‘belief.’ With the coming of Christian revelation, the logos, or word, of the myth is seen – to the believer – to be the Logos of the New Testament. But even here the ‘belie ver’ can depend neither on purely rational argument nor on satisfactorily verifiable fact. He has only – belief."

And how else could the Creation in Genesis -- all happening with no human witness but conveyed to a human-- how else convey it?