Myths to Live By, it Is Clear

¶ … Myths to Live by, it is clear that Joseph Campbell believes in the evolution theory as opposed to the creation story in the Bible. He seems horrified at both a mother and teacher trying to teach a little boy that the myth is true to the exclusion of scientific evidence (4). The author goes on to explain the misconceptions existing about the earth from the Middle Ages onward, in order to demonstrate that none of these were proved correct. He also addresses the religious issue (8), relating that many different cultures have similar myths to the ones in the Western world. Nonetheless, the author warns against failing to recognize these myths for the value that they do hold for humanity. Myths, while not historically accurate, are yet a creative part of society that teaches morals and values (12). These do not have a place in science, and should not be confused with facts. The author's thesis is that nobody knows everything about the nature of the universe, but that it is good to study it and learn more (3).

I am in agreement with the author. He appears to be very open-minded regarding not only science but also towards religion. Whereas most people tend to steer towards either the religious side or the scientific side when it comes to the evolution theory, Campbell appears to consider both for the benefit they hold for humanity. I therefore believe that it is possible to recognize the use of science for humanity and for the sake of learning while maintaining a religious outlook for the spiritual value it holds. Indeed, even scientific discovery can be combined with the religious experience to give the inquisitive mind a fulfilling experience.

Science has taught humanity many things. Human beings appear to be made to question and learn things. Scientific discovery is therefore one of the great gains of the human spirit. Science has therefore meant much to the world in terms of medicine, food provision and transport. Science is indeed inseparable from our way of life today. Regardless of how desperately people try to separate science from their lives and their religious beliefs, this will never be possible, because science is responsible for almost every aspect of life.

In the workplace for example, computers, air-conditioners, telephones, and cell phones are all the result of scientific development. To completely shun science in favor of religion would have to mean giving up the comforts of daily life. In the home, televisions, refrigerators and toasters are also part of scientific development and few people would like to go back to the time before the microwave oven.

The point is that, while it is understandable that extremely religious persons feel threatened by discovers relating to the history of earth, it is unrealistic to discard all the evidence that has been gathered in favor of a fairly childlike belief. The inventions on earth thanks to science should be proof of the viability of the scientific method. Thus, unless those persons who favor the biblical view are themselves scientists who can prove or disprove current discovery, they should not be so quick to judge.

In terms of religion, those who are against evolution and scientific discovery appear to believe that there is only one correct way to view the world in terms of spirituality. The very diversity found in the world today should be proof that no such single-minded view is viable. In my view, there can be no right or wrong in terms of religion. Each person has unique needs and requirements from their spirituality and should therefore not be forced to have only one single view.

I do not really understand why religious people feel threatened by scientific discovery, since I feel that this can be combined with religion to enhance the religious experience. Similarly, I feel those scientists who feel that their discoveries disprove the existence of God are equally foolish. I think that scientific discover does exactly the opposite. Campbell himself, while leaning towards favoring the scientific side, does recognize the importance of religion in society, and also the fact that not everything about the universe has yet been discovered. He does not discard the belief in God as foolish.

I therefore believe in an integrated view. A limited view also limits potential, and I do not think that especially a person's religious views should be limited. For myself, I prefer to be open-minded about everything, and to test everything before discarding it as false. The mother and the teacher in the reading were singularly close-minded, and I admire the boy who preferred to discover things for himself.

The author is right: at the basis of religious intolerance, whether of science or other religions, is fear. This was the basis of the Spanish Inquisition and other such religious atrocities as well. People fear what they do not know, and science specializes in discovering what is not known. I do not think there is any reason to fear science or the benefit it can hold for humankind. Nor do I believe that it is necessary to discard religion.