A few days ago, I start rereading my copy of Karen Armstrong’s study on the origins of religious fundamentalism. I’ve never read the whole book and was curious about her take on pre-modern religion. Her fundamental argument is centered round two concepts: mythos and logos. These are mentioned at least once a page. Before discussing the concepts, I wanted to express my unease with the concepts.
I am not well read into religious studies. Therefore, I can’t assess the methodological value and status in current academic debate. Are these terms still in use, or are they considered outdated? And if so, is that because the use of the concepts leads to (methodological) problems? My main cue is the reference she uses: “Devotional Language” by Johannes Sloek. This is a translation of the original Danish “Det religiøse sprog” published in 1981, at the time of writing more than fifteen years old! I refuse to believe that more recent literature on these important concepts exists.
Armstrong introduces mythos and logos to explain premodern spirituality. She argues that it is impossible for us, living in the modern age, to understand what religion meant for a pre-modern. In earlier times mythos and logos were connected and both deemed indispensable, but modern man values logos over mythos.
Mythos was used to provide meaning to life. Therefore the whole concept of “truth” as we know it, is alien to it. Explaining the miracles in the Bible doesn’t belong to the realm of mythos. Mythos is closely related to ritual, as it involves the experience of the myth. Only through the ritual connected with the myth, the celebrant can relate the meaning of the myth in his or her own life. The Jews when celebrating Passover, they are engaged in ritual activity. They connect the hardship they experience in real life with the hardship of the people of Israel during its time in Egypt. The liberation from the farao and the struggles in the desert must therefore not be understood as history but as a means to provide meaning to life. Mythos is essentially conservative and backwards looking. However, looking to what lies behind, will not help you in your life of everyday.
That’s where logos is introduced. Logos is practical and is forward looking. It is essentially the inverse of mythos. Without mythos, we couldn’t have a meaningful life and without logos we couldn’t function in normal day-to-day life. The thing about modern society is that it values logos more than mythos. Science taught us to value and to trust logos and scientific truth. As a result, mythos is virtually ignored and religion is looked upon through the lens of logos. Thus religion, the domain of mythos par excellence, looses the capability to provide meaning to man. This sense of loss of meaning and a dominant position of logos can lead to fundamentalism.
Tags: Armstrong, Battle for God, book, Religion, review
