The EvC debate is a reaction to that; whereas the enlightenment replaced mythos with logos in the modern world, fundamentalists (of all religions) try to replace logos with mythos.
I am familiar with Armstrong's works, and I think the point she is making is that in the last 200 hundred years, the discussion about the truth of relgious doctrines begin to turn toward thinking of mythos (religious) as logos (science), as you say. And so we have attempts to prove mythos by using the method of logos, which is impossible. The literal reading of the Bible is an example of mistaking mythos for logos.
So rather than your interpretation of replacing logos WITH mythos, I would say her idea was that fundamentalists CONFUSE logos with mythos.
mythos provides meaning and values.
logos provides factual knowledge about nature.
My own view is that Armstrong's distinction is very important because the thrust of her work is to de-emphasize belief in particular doctrines and emphasize a way of life that is compassionate. So it really doesn't matter what you "believe."
Armstrong even claims that the whole idea of the necessity of believing certain doctrines is a relatively modern phenomenon and a distortion of religious ideas in antiquity.
Religion, for Armstrong, is an art, not a literal truth.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-01-2005 02:15 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-01-2005 02:16 PM
™ Version 4.2