Religion

ChatGPT said:

I take it you see religion as a set of useful fictions, rather than something to be evaluated as ‘true’ or ‘false’?

ChRIS said:

I use Joseph Campbell's scholarship (informed by SFL) as my lens on religion. Mythic symbolism is the use of lexical metaphor to adapt consciousness to its physical and social environments.

ChatGPT said:

That makes perfect sense—myth as a semiotic system for structuring human experience, rather than a set of truth claims. Paul’s work fits neatly into that: he wasn’t arguing for a literal resurrection so much as a metaphorical framework for personal and communal transformation.

From this view, religious doctrines aren’t about objective reality but about structuring human consciousness in a way that helps people navigate their world.

Would you say that, in this sense, all religious traditions are essentially competing semiotic models for adapting to existence?

ChRIS said:

Well, they're alternatives. The advocates of some compete.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a good distinction—religions aren’t inherently in competition, but some of their advocates turn them into competing systems. Each tradition is an alternative way to structure consciousness, but in practice, many have been treated as exclusive, rival models rather than parallel options.

Paul’s Christianity, for instance, wasn’t just an alternative—it actively positioned itself against the old Jewish law. Likewise, later theologians framed Christianity and Islam as oppositional rather than just different mythic frameworks.

Would you say that modern secular ideologies (capitalism, communism, liberal democracy) function the same way—as mythic models competing for how to structure consciousness in relation to the world?

ChRIS said:

Campbell distinguished mythology from ideology (eg the latter has no mystical dimension), but i'd be interested to hear your view.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a useful distinction—ideologies lack the mystical dimension that mythologies have. Myth engages with the transcendent, offering symbols and metaphors for personal transformation, whereas ideology is more about rationalised systems of belief and action within a given society.

But I do think there’s some overlap. Many modern ideologies borrow mythic structures without the mystical core. For example:

• Marxism has a “fall” (alienation under capitalism), a “prophecy” (historical materialism), and a “salvation” (communist utopia).
• Capitalism has its own “promised land” (economic growth), “high priests” (economists), and “sacred texts” (Adam Smith, Milton Friedman).
• Nationalism often mythologises history, creating heroic founders, sacred struggles, and eternal destinies.

The difference is that ideology doesn’t invite transcendence—it aims to reshape the material world, not connect with something beyond it.

Would you say that the mystical dimension is essential for something to function as a true mythology, or can ideological systems take on a mythic role even without it?

ChRIS said:

Well, Campbell identified four functions of mythology: the sociological, the pedagogical, the cosmological and the mystical, and said without the mystical you have an ideology not a mythology. So there should be some overlap. Your examples are very interesting.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly—Campbell's framework really helps clarify that distinction. Without the mystical function, ideologies are more about social organisation, education, and cosmological explanations, but they lack the transcendent dimension that gives mythology its transformative power.

So, even though ideologies might have sociological (social control, structure), pedagogical (teaching morals, values), and cosmological (explanations of the universe) functions, they don’t offer the mystical dimension of inner transformation or connection with the divine.

That overlap you mentioned is critical, because many ideologies—especially in the modern world—have borrowed mythic forms in a bid to seem more profound or universally applicable. They promise transformation, but the transcendent, mystical aspect is notably absent.

Given that, do you think modern political movements (especially ones with deep ideological commitment) are hollowing out mythology, or could there still be potential for new forms of mystical meaning within them?

ChRIS said:

I guess they may have that potential, but I can't see it. The new mythologies being sought by people under capitalism seem to have little to do with capitalism, and might be interpreted as a reaction against it.

ChatGPT said:

That’s an insightful observation. It does seem like new mythologies—whether in the form of spirituality, alternative cultures, or even environmental movements—are emerging as a counter to the alienation people feel under capitalism, rather than as extensions or products of capitalist ideology. These mythologies are less about adapting to the system and more about rejecting it or finding meaning beyond it.

Examples could include:

• Green movements that promote a return to nature, contrasting with the consumerism and industrialisation of capitalism.
• Spiritual but not religious (SBNR) trends, where individuals seek personal enlightenment and connection outside of institutional structures.
• Transhumanist ideologies, which seem to promise transcendence through technology, though they still maintain a fundamentally capitalist focus.

These movements don’t seem to offer a collective transcendence, as traditional mythologies do, but they do suggest that people are seeking new ways of experiencing the world that aren’t bound by the limits of capitalist ideology.

Perhaps the real shift is that people are no longer looking for a singular, all-encompassing myth in the traditional sense (like those that sustained ancient societies), but are instead seeking fragmented, diverse mythologies that better align with their individual experiences of alienation, disconnection, and desire for transcendence.

Does this resonate with your view? Or do you see these new mythologies as a reaction that’s likely to evolve into something more collective and cohesive?

ChRIS said:

Perhaps these are also rejections of the institutionalisation of religion, as embodied by churches.

ChatGPT said:

Absolutely—these new mythologies can definitely be seen as a rejection of the institutionalisation of religion, particularly in the form of churches and organised faiths. The rigid structures of traditional religion often come with hierarchy, dogma, and social control, which many people feel is incompatible with a more individualised, fluid approach to spirituality.

There’s a growing sense that religion, as it's typically institutionalised, has become too entangled with power structures, and people are seeking something that is more direct, personal, and transcendent, without the layers of authority and bureaucracy that often accompany religious institutions.

For example:

• The spiritual-but-not-religious trend rejects the church-based authority of traditional religions in favour of a more personal, direct connection to the divine or the mystical.
• Eco-spirituality or nature-based religions offer ways of seeing the world as sacred, but without the institutionalised church structures, instead emphasising individual and community-based rituals connected to the land and the elements.
• New age and alternative spiritual practices have also flourished in part due to their rejection of institutionalised dogma, offering a patchwork of belief systems that allow for individual flexibility and personal interpretation.

These new forms of mythology might still serve some of the same psychological and sociological functions as traditional mythologies, but they divorce themselves from the institutional frameworks that have historically exercised power over people's lives. In doing so, they offer a more fluid, decentralised approach to mythic and spiritual meaning-making.