Mythology, pt 2: What? How?

   Bravely split off this post into its own entry, to avoid blogstrain/postfatigue on yesterday's post. This is it.

   In a theory that I invented just yesterday, which initially had nothing to do with anything but now realize would be beyond perfect to bring up here (though it may still be a bit rough around the edges), I, um, posit, that religion has two faces, like a coin does: remove one, the other ceases to be, because there's no such thing as a one-sided object. Both sides of the coin must support each other, each side explaining aspects of the other.

   One side of the coin is the mythological aspect of the cosmology: creation, eschatology, history, characters, the mechanisms of the universe. Stuff that can be observed, and therefore proved or disproved. The other face of religion is the part that dwells in the metaphysical, and it is the theology, the doctrine, the what who why how of God. Science, I think what it is, comes in and disproves mythological aspects, and then laughs and says it's disproved all of religion, rather than marred one face of it. Sometimes one or both sides of the coin may be misunderstood, mistrusted or even disliked, and changed, which completely alters the entire cosmology: easy variability. Good religion doesn't need that, and the differences between good and bad Science and good and bad Religion are one and the same.

   Back to "easy variability," then. Remember the Greek mythographers hypothetically B.S.ing their way through the Persephone myth back there? After an explanation like that, they'd probably laugh because their view on how seasons work is obviously the correct one since they've got science and observable reality on  their side, "proving" their story correct (which would be, um, correlation and causation swapped, or sommink.) Sometimes observable reality can be used to bolster false mythology, legitimizing it in one sense while actually making it falser. (An illustration in progress; Gunnerkrigg Court FTW!) It's the same (very, very awesome) process that leads to weird bits of pseudoscience like the Ptolemaic model of the solar system-- "oh, retrograde motion of the planets even though orbits are clearly circular and not at all elliptical? Well, then, it must be that the planets and Sun aren't actually revolving around the Earth but around weird invisible bits of Science that are themselves revolving around the Earth! Haha, genius." (...I wish I had the capability to make this stuff up. You want to know what's truly rad, though? The Tychonic system. Anyway.)