Fair enough. But myths are not factual and therein lies much of the confusion in terms of responding to them. Greek mythology offered many truths but they did not represent a factual account of reality. It is the assertion that "there is a higher power" as a factual statement that sets off alarm bells. Such an assertion has no factual basis and thus no material basis. Hence, for some, a lie.
Myths may be unproved. They may be unprovable. But why assume that they are not factual, or at least have some factual basis? One example: In the dim past people of several cultures believed that gods, or some supernormal people, mated with humans. Were these ancient people simpletons? Or could they have observed something, some fact, which motivated such belief? I don't know, but I'm not going to call them liars.
I listen to way too much Coast to Coast.
I think I know what you mean.
I would agree that many myths resulted from observations that might have seemed superimpressiv and the human desire to explain them.
Think volcano, lightning, rainbows, shooting stars... The list is endless.
So religion was the next best thing to science, but only because they did Not have the means yet to investigate proper.
Today we know exactly how those things I listed came about and they seem still impressiv and spark the Imagination, but none of us would call those phenomenons magic or devine.