mibby529

Yes, I believe Asatru uses scientists as their apologetics, or I should say, the Asatruar and the scientists had similar goals - to prove that Caucasians had been in North America before American Indians. How did they go about this? Relying on "mongoloid" features versus "caucasoid" features. Now, "racial" categories are arbitrary, and "mongoloid" is generally assumed to be Chinese, not Umatilla. So "mongoloid" features are out.

Heathen Dawn

The job of the apologist is to defend the faith. Defend from what? In the case of the monotheistic insanities, the faith must be defended from the lack of synchronism with reality, viz, theodicy, God's omnibenevolence. In the polytheistic religions, divine sovereignty is shared by a balance of deities, which can explain the Problem of Evil away.

The bigger the lie (and that means monotheism) the more defence (apologists) it needs. Non-Abrahamic religions are closer to the truth, so they need less apologetics.

Perchance

Hi Aerik,

Yes, I suppose it will probably depend on how long the religions continue- whether they continue to intrigue people, or whether they turn out to be a kind of twentieth-century fad. If they continue to be essentially the same into the middle of the next few centuries, then they will have to cope with new discoveries in science in the same way other religions do. These discoveries might support them, and might not.

Since science continues to expand into the ground that supernaturalism formerly occupied and evict religion, I suspect that Wicca and similar religions (if they survive) will have to evolve explanations if they are to survive.

-Perchance.

Perchance

Hi mibby,

I haven't heard anything about this. I have heard some Asatruar groups accused of racism, but not usually concerning American Indians. Since the Asatruar focus is so much on "worshipping the gods of their ancestors" and reviving the worship of the Nordic gods as it once was, some groups feel that only white Nordics should follow Asatru. This usually brings them into conflict with African-Americans. I've never heard of a case where an American Indian wished to be part of an Asatruar group and was rejected, though I suppose it could happen.

-Perchance.

Perchance

Hi Heathen Dawn,

While polytheistic religions might have an easier time with the Problem of Evil, I don't think they're completely off the hook. After all, there are other problems, like: Does the supernatural really exist, and do the gods really exist, and why do some people feel a lot at, for example, Wiccan events while other people feel nothing, and do the dictates of the religion really make sense?

I don't think one religion necessarily has more of a monopoly on truth than any other. After all, while I don't particularly like Christianity, especially the fundamentalist branch, I don't think that the Christian God really makes less sense than the Goddess. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being doesn't seem to make much sense to me; on the other hand, the notion of the universe being intelligent doesn't make much sense to me either, much less that form having a female gender.

Of course, there are so many different neopagan groups, all with differing grips on "truth" and "reality" and what this and that means, that one could easily say some conception of the Goddess is correct. It depends on what one means by truth, I suppose

-Perchance.

ps418

You need to get your facts straight Mibby. There are no 40kya "Indian skeletons" at Monte Verde. In fact, there are no human skeletal remains at all at Monte Verde. The age of the oldest occupation level is also in doubt. There is no concensus that there is any 40kyr occupation layer to begin with, although a 12.5 kyr level there is widely accepted as the oldest demonstrable archaeological site in the Americas.

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Heathen Dawn

</strong>

Yes, most modern pagan religions have taken the road of symbolism and allegory - no literal gods anymore. Literal polytheists are today few and far between. I see it as a healthy exchange between naturalism and paganism. Naturalism and theism are polar opposites, but naturalism and paganism can live together if more emphasis is put on "poly" than "theism".

</strong>

I think a single male god makes much less sense than a male god and female goddess together. The conception of such a god is someone growing bored out of his mind, having nothing to do but reward and punish people all day long - what the monotheistic monster really is. I can believe neither in a god alone, nor in a goddess alone, but only in both together. Then again, I don't believe in them literally, I see them as symbols for the All (=Nature).

</strong>

Speaking about "having to make sense" and "being real" is, I feel, a carry-over from fundamentalism (or reaction thereto). Fundies are so bent on the black/white, all-or-nothing view of "literal truth or bust" that they have to defend everything to the last. What I like in paganism is that I can accept the gods as symbols for emotion's sake and still be a metaphysical naturalist - having my cake and keeping it too.

</strong>

Paganism is non-credal, non-dogmatic, therefore non-apologetic (for the most part, of course). For example, brighid takes part in pagan rituals in a wiccan coven and they don't care she's an atheist; and the wiccans on the mailing list I've recently joined don't care about my being a metaphysical naturalist either. There's no business of soul-saving in paganism, therefore no fervent apologetics like you find in monotheism.

Perchance

Hi Heathen Dawn,

I suppose I have a problem understanding why the "theism" part needs to exist at all. Why does nature need a justification? Why does the world need a divine creator/pair/creatress/team behind it?

Humans might have psychological needs that religion fits quite well, but I have yet to see any evidence that the world "needs" an explanation.


But why does one pair make more sense? Is it because we must conceive of all of nature as coming from sexual reproduction?

Again, this seems to be privileging the human imagination and what makes humans comfortable over what we actually see around us, and what science tells us. I have no problem with individuals treating the gods as personal symbols; but when these symbols get applied to "explain" the natural world, then I falter in my understanding.

Hmmmm. Okay. Apparently you misunderstood what I was saying. I meant that I didn't find either the Christian God or the Goddess in accord with scientific and logical truth. The Christian God's properties can be logically argued against- the whole "Can he make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" and so on, etc. And science has yet to prove the gender of a rock or a stream or a bit of soil, for example. This is why it seems silly to me to say that the universe is female. On what logical basis? I see this as an attachment to logical and scientific thought, not fundamentalism.

Again, I'm not disputing that it may make sense to some people, or that it may fulfill emotional or psychological needs. But I don't think paganism is more than religion; that is, I don't think it is the ultimate truth about the universe.


It depends on the group. I suppose I may be prejudiced, because when I started reading about neopaganism I slammed straight into authors like Carol Christ, Marija Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, and Starhawk, who often promote a "female way of knowing" that is supposedly outside "Western logic," or blithely revise history so that all the cultures before the Indo-European "invasion" were Goddess-worshipping, protective of women, peaceful, perfect, vegetarian, and utopian.

To me, deciding to abandon logic and hare off into intuition is dangerous, unless the person doing it possesses such a perfect balance of mind that he or she can accept the importance of intuition only in his or her own head, and apply logic outside it. Insisting, for example, that all of history is a vast patriarchal conspiracy to keep women tied to the ground seems to be ignoring history and logical arguments in favor of the psychological and emotional needs of a very small group. When neo-paganism starts insisting that it be taken as "truth," then I have the same problems with it that I do with monotheism, and it starts veering towards apologetics.

-Perchance.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Straight Hate

Amazing thread!

Perchance:
Not disagreeing, but elaborating: The position I often heard was one more of multiculturalism - that each ethnic/racial group should revive/reconstruct their own ancestors' beliefs because it would make more sense to do so. I value and respect native spirituality, and what it means to that group, but as a non-aboriginal, the idea of adopting those beliefs doesn't appeal to me when considering that I have my own religious roots.

As for you, Mibby, you seem to be taking quite an exception to a belief that is largely unheard of in our society. I'm curious - why?

Heathen Dawn

Perchance,

I have to say, though we seem to be in disagreement, I actually agree with your opinions about religion and logic. You're right about having no need to justify nature, and I too think naturalistic pantheism (God = Nature) is more a word-game than anything concrete. But that's exactly the point! I'll explain:

My mental life is divided into two tiers: logical and emotional. The logical tier is the one that knows perfectly well that nature is all there is, prayer has no effect, worshipping nature is a senseless and irrational activity, witchcraft is bullshit, and so on. But I do not live on logic alone. I'm very much an emotional person, and that's where the emotional tier comes in. When you say talking about God and Goddess, or worshipping nature, is illogical, then I agree with you. Religion comes in at the point where logic is not enough. It is, I admit, quite a delicate strain, to try to balance the logical with the emotional, but I have to do it, because I want to lose neither logic (thus becoming superstitious and led by gurus) nor emotion (thus feeling empty and unfulfilled).

When I say "Goddess bless", it does not mean I believe 1) Goddess exists or 2) my words can actually change fate. In our day and age, where naturalism has taken hold, it is impossible to believe in those things. However, I don't have to believe. I am of the opinion that paganism, unlike monotheism, is in quite a good position to form a symbiosis with naturalism (whereas monotheism must needs be at war with naturalism). Let Christians and Muslims defend their faiths against the truth of metaphysical naturalism; I, as pagan, see no need to beat what can be joined.

(edited to fix a typo)

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Heathen Dawn ]</p>