It can but it doesn’t have to. I don’t think the polarizing is necessary.
There are elements of fact in fiction and elements of fiction in fact. Hyperbole, stereotyping, these things create mythologies of groups of persons who only exist fictionally, but appear to exist in reality.
For pragmatic purposes, we engage in new mythologies regularly.
For example: in Physics, they deal in points.
Where’s a point? What’s a point? It’s a mythological thing. Points don’t exist.
Neither is there a truly two dimensional object in the Universe that I’m aware of. They’re mythologies, convenient fictions that make it easier to do the mathematics.
Being mythologies does not make them bad things.
They’re useful mythologies.
I think the implication of unreal to myth needs to transform and be replaced with metaphorical assumptions. Much of myth is metaphor. Every “thought experiment” is metaphorical – it’s not real.
It’s a change of approach. I want to see reconciliation between divisive groups and i believe it’s possible.
I expect I’d get resistance from ALL sides. But I see no reason why you can’t reframe every religions systems as having metaphorical, practical applications. I also see no harm in reframing every scientific explanation and “outing” their metaphorical and, indeed, mythological components