We don’t look for any truth other than that which can be proven through facts and experimentation. There is no physical evidence that God exists, so some take the approach that since it can’t be proven that He does, then he automatically doesn’t. Right or wrong in this illustration, even the theist views things in this same way.
This is most clearly shown when it comes to myth.
We hear the stories of the Greek gods, and sort of laugh them off as fantasy. We know now that the cosmos wasn’t created during a battle between a sky-god and an enormous serpent. The story is obviously false.
The problem, though, isn’t that we have since come to see the story as false. The issue here is the fact that we make an illogical leap from saying a story isn’t true to because it isn’t true, it is of no legitimate value. This is the way in which we tend to understand myth, regardless of your religious persuasion.
But this is not at all what myth is. Myths may be false, but, as we saw last time, it wasn’t in the historical accuracy of the story but in the telling that the stories took on meaning. But we have removed them from this context and sought to prove their historical accuracy at the expense of any truth the ancient stories may have imparted. We have become so hell-bent on proving or disproving the stories of others that we have stripped them of all value. And because they are of no value to us, they must have no value to anyone else. In fact, in many cases, we mock those who see any value in the stories that aren’t our own.
So, what is it that gives myth value? In what context does a myth move from being a potentially false story to being a life-giving, true one? Or is this even possible anymore?