Perchance

Hi Kathall,

I, too, have heard of this attitude (and saw quite a bit of it at the undergraduate school I went to, which was very small and very liberal). I understand the reasoning behind it, but object for three reasons:

1) I think it steps dangerously close to divisiveness, not just diversity. In my eyes, at least, it's only a short step from, "I am worshipping Nordic gods because I am Nordic. Others can worship their own gods," to, "I am worshipping Nordic gods. Go away." Admittedly, the racism I saw went pretty much the other way ("We are African-American, doing African-American things. Go away.") But I think it is the outer edge of an attitude that needs to be watched, lest it become dangerous.

2) I think it exemplifies an irritating attachment to the past. I meet and have met a lot of people who are obsessed with what their ancestors hundreds of years ago were or did, or where they lived. I can't understand it. Why get all indignant about what your ancestors suffered, rather than what you have suffered? I can understand someone who objects because someone else has made racist comments about him or her. I can't understand people who are still angry that their ancestors were brought over as slaves, or angry because the English abused them in Ireland, or angry because they believe that their ancestors were crushed by Christians hundreds or thousands of years ago. It prompts hatred where no hatred needs to exist. Neither the people who feel injured nor the people they blame experienced that pain; their ancestors did. And while they may believe they feel just as their ancestors did, can they really know? I think this belief only makes sense if one posits some kind of "spiritual" connection between a descendant and an ancestor, which, as a non-believer, I am extremely skeptical of.

3) This belief is rarely even applied logically. I had a friend who is one-sixteenth Cherokee (at least so she says) tell me last year that she felt a connection to all her murdered ancestors, and that she would often lie awake at night crying and imagining that she felt axes cleaving her body, or a baby torn from her breast. However, when I inquired as to whether the "white" parts of her conflicted with her "Indian" part, the only response I got was a blank stare.

People seem to pick what parts of their heritage they're going to pay attention to, at least in America, where so many people are of mixed heritage, and they seem to pick the part that's most "oppressed" or "interesting" or "cool." For example, my mother's side of the family is from Ireland and Wales. Does that mean I should worship the gods of the Celts? But my father's side of the family is Polish and English, and both my grandparents were devout Catholics. (My father has hated the Catholic Church ever since he can remember, and walked away from his upbringing as a teenager). Should I be Catholic? Should I be Anglican? What heritage do I pick?

People make their own sense out of it, which is fine; but I distrust it when they start wanting to apply it to everyone else, and I roll my eyes when someone tells me I should worship the gods of my ancestors. I am far more interested in what I have made of myself, rather than who gave me my eyes and hair and skin tone. I can't change my genetics; but I can control and change the way I react to the world and my life and the present. And those things have led me to become a non-believer. I do not think that I should be required to change my choice, or to keep silent when another person insists that a claim I find ridiculous is true, simply because it would make other people more comfortable.

Whew. Long post. Hopefully it does get the point across.

-Perchance.

Perchance

I'm listening.

Hmmm. Okay. I thought something like that might be going on, based on your earlier comments

I admire you if you can do it. I think it's extraordinarily hard to do it correctly. And in the past, it has always seemed to me as if the emotional has trumped the logical, rather than the other way around. I've had theistic friends who succeeded for a long time in accepting the science in science class, and keeping their religion at home, but eventually the religion overwhelmed them and got into everything. A Mormon friend of mine who basically stopped talking to me after she found out that she couldn't convert me started complaining about every statement about Mormons in our history book. "That's biased!" "They didn't mention x!" Being a Mormon became the most important thing in the world to her; it ruled everything she thought, said, did, and accepted. I grew extremely wary of her.

If the balance tips, then I think logic should be the victor in the conflict. And, as I noted above, I don't really see the need to preserve religion, even for emotional reasons. I think plenty of wonder and joy can be found in science and the natural world.

But, of course, you may have different needs.

A few questions here (not meaning to be nosy; I'm just curious):

1) Do you think more pagans hold your attitude than believe in the Goddess as a literal being? I rarely see so open a statement.

2) Do you think paganism will eventually eliminate other faiths? Yet another reason I am so uncomfortable with the writing of feminist Goddess-worshippers like Starhawk is that many of them envision a world where Paganism, if not the only faith, is the dominant one. I think that would be as bad news for non-believers as Christianity triumphing. As I've said before, I think the safest world for non-believers would probably be one of many, many splinter faiths, which is one reason that the religious scene in America encourages me so.

While I can appreciate a lot of the philosophy and ideals of paganism, and I love the music and poetry, I am still wary of the theistic part. And if "paganism joining with naturalism" meant the idea of logical explanations would be sacrificed to the magickal, I would grow even more harshly critical.

-Perchance.

mibby529

I'm more referring to the Asatru Folk Assembly in particular. Their claim to having been here before Indians is clearly racist, and in fact was never mentioned in Norse tradition at all, any more than the story of Yakub the Mad Scientist (Nation of Islam) can be found in the Qu'ran.

Straight Hate

Perchance,

Point coming across loud and clear! I can really see no fault in what you speak (hell, I agree with it), but it nevertheless has me somewhat bemused, because aside from my usually progressive beliefs, tradition in regards to family heritage seems to be a a hangup of mine. Hehe, now it's time for another round of busting my brain to see if I can somehow justify those feelings. :0)

In my understanding, much of the 'Norse tradition' is simply a mish-mash of various articles - I don't think anyone makes a serious claim that it's a comprehensive document.

Second, I think you're stretching it a bit in playing the 'racism' card. Just the opinion of this whitey.

Perchance

Not too loud, I hope. I didn't mean to sound like I was shouting .

</strong>

Well, you know your own mind best, of course. I certainly didn't mean to sound as if I were dictating to you; if I did sound that way, I apologize. I was just explaining why I object to the statement.

I should probably add that, perhaps contrary to the tone in some of the posts I've put on this thread, I don't hate Paganism or Neopaganism or those who practice them; I just don't give them any more credence than any other religion, even though I would like it if they were true. As a non-believer, all theisms are equally incomprehensible to me, though I like some of the ideas behind Neopaganism. It just got singled out because of the topic of the thread.

:somewhat hauling the thread back on topic:

Does anyone who's Pagan here (or anyone else) think that the defense some Neopagans mount against Christians counts as apologetics? I can't tell you how many Neopagan websites I've run across explaining that, no, they're not devil-worshippers, or detailing court cases in which Christians and Neopagans clash. Do the careful separations of themselves from Satanists and Christians that some Neopagans perform count as apologetics? ("Apology" meant "defense" originally, after all).

-Perchance.

mibby529

Even YOU have to admit that an unfounded claim to having been here before the oldest inhabitants of an area is racist. In fact, the Boers made a similar (equally unfounded) claim in South Africa.

Heathen Dawn

</strong>

You're telling me! The moment people start talking about "sephirothic spheres" and "chakras" and all that yang, I have red lights buzzing all around...

</strong>

Theists (and that includes Mormons) are not good examples, because theism can't live with naturalism. Naturalism simply cancels the basic tenets of theism. Paganism has an outlet in its liaison with naturalism: being nature-based. For Christianity (Islam etc) to be correct, scientific claims have to be wrong. Not so paganism, which can live quite happily with the (inherently pantheistic) theory of evolution.

</strong>

My main concern is that logic and emotion should never be at war with each other. The times in my life when I was wholly logical or wholly emotional were my worst. There should be peace between the two. Neither logic nor emotion should be the victor; the conflict needs to be resolved. And I believe in paganism it's possible to do so.

</strong>

But my religion IS based on science and the natural world! It's just that bare-bones, Dawkinesque science doesn't have emotional appeal, and leaves you with an empty feeling, so I added paganism onto it. My anti-model for someone who becomes so obsessed in logic and logical thinking is Richard Dawkins, who keeps harping on about how the Universe is nothing but an undesigned slough of blind pitiless indifference. Yeah, yeah, we know all that! So what are you gonna do afterwards? Dawkins doesn't have anything to offer for that need.

</strong>

I think so. The ones I know have expressed similar beliefs. As I said, it's quite hard in our day and age to be a literal polytheist. Evidence is against this just as it is against literal monotheism.

</strong>

I don't know. I don't even have a guess. All I can hope for is that paganism will eliminate monotheism, that great bane of mankind's existence.

</strong>

Yes, you're right. Power corrupts. Still, pagans of olden days, such as the Greeks and Romans, were eager to let different gods and religions exist in their states. Paganism, unlike monotheism, has a tendency to accomodate diversity.

</strong>

Me too. But I would really like monotheism to go down the gutter of history. Monotheism of any form - even a relevantly tolerant monotheism like Sikhism or Baha'ism. The worship of the single god is quite hurtful to me.

</strong>

As long as they distinguish between the literal (the truth of naturalism) and the symbolic (the gods and goddesses and spirits), I feel quite safe. Harm only happens when people no longer distinguish between fact and fantasy.

Perchance

Again, just a curious question:

Do you treat all magickal claims (or claims of direct intervention by the goddess/divine duo/whatever) the same way? Or do you allow a leeway as to what could be real and what couldn't?

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying Pagans are not theists, or that your particular version of Paganism is not theistic? Earlier, when you talked about how you remained a religious man and how religion was necessary for your emotional satisfaction, I thought you were using religion in its traditional sense- focused on the worshp of a deity. Are you using it in another sense here?

Also, how is evolution pantheistic? I thought that pantheism attributed divinity, and sometimes intelligence, to the universe. Are you saying that evolution attributes divinity to the universe by default because it gives the "creator" role to the universe?

I think it's perfectly possible to settle the conflict in favor of logic without trampling emotion out of existence. I've found that my best times are when I keep tight hold of my emotions and allow my logic as much free play as possible. Keeping a balance, besides being hard to do at all times, may not always be appropriate. After all, if you had to evaluate student papers (as I have to do) and wanted to do it calmly and objectively, would you really want to give emotion free reign over half your mind?

Perhaps the dualistic divide between logic and emotion isn't as deep as it seems, and I'm just thinking that way because I've been conditioned to think that way. But I don't think that emotion needs to have a place, or that it necessarily needs different things to fulfill it than logic needs (at least not in everyone). I can get entertainment for both my mind and emotions by reading books, for example.


Do you think it leaves everyone with an empty feeling, though? Or just you? (That isn't meant as an accusation; it's just that this statement struck me as generalizing. I personally find the idea that nothing divine was involved at all in the beginning of the universe or the existence of life to be more wondrous than all the deities humanity dreams up).

What need? Do you mean an emotional need, or "what are you gonna do afterwards?" I think there's probably as many responses to it as there are individuals; it's just that people raised with theism often don't even get to the point of considering it.

Yet nature-based religions that are polytheistic fit in better with science and have no need of apologetics? Or were you talking more about pantheistic religions than polytheistic ones here?

Here's where we part company (sorry ).

Though I think Christianity is silly and illogical, I don't think it's evil. I think that it happened to become the conquering religion, and so the atrocities committed in the name of religion happened to be committed in its name. If any other religion had happened to win the war between faiths, and Christianity had remained a small cult or even died out, I think many people would have been cursing the "conquering" faith just as much as many people now curse Christianity.

Many people point to paganism's track record so far as evidence that it isn't as "dark" as Christianity... on the other hand, it hasn't been in existence nearly as long, and it hasn't become popular enough that its believers feel like a majority. I think that humans are (for the most part) humans, and what they make of their faith is what it becomes; they're not little robots programmed by the faith unless they've been severely indoctrinated and never had the opportunity to make a free choice. A world ruled by polytheism or pantheism wouldn't necessarily be better than a world ruled by monotheism, and I, for one, am not all that eager to see monotheism vanish, at least not suddenly. If it dies slowly out of existence, that is one thing; if it is hounded or battered or persecuted out of existence, then there is evidence that people are people and zealots are zealots, whatever their faith.

I also think there's a bit of a double standed applied (and I've been guilty of it myself, though I'm trying to stop) when minorities, such as non-believers or Pagans, get offended if a Christian says, "They should be wiped out of existence!" and then turn around and talk about wiping Christianity out of existence. At least, if people want to talk about wiping anything out of existence, they should grant their opponents the right to speak about them the same way.

That may have been true then (though I don't know enough Greek and Roman religious history to argue one way or the other, I think perhaps the Romans doing such things as leaving the religions of those they conquered alone might have had more to do with political savvy than religious tolerance). But modern Pagans are not ancient Pagans, with the possible exception of deeply committed Reconstructionists. Is it possible to resurrect that kind of attitude? Will just a set of beliefs really do it, or would one's whole mindset have to change?

Monotheism may well go down the gutter of history (interesting phrase ). However, as I said above, my opinion on it would be entirely changed one way or the other depending on how it left, if it simply decayed or was flushed. Monotheists don't have the right to force non-believers or Pagans to do anything, fine. But we don't have the right to force them to do anything, either. The standard has to be applied both ways, or it becomes hypocritical.

That's why I'm concerned about the amount of true "theism" in Paganism, and why I asked the questions I did about (your impression of) the community at large. Pagans might be allied to non-believers in some ways, but I don't know if it's a true alliance of melding beliefs and shared goals, or if there are literal Pagans out there who find non-believers as distasteful as monotheists find them.

-Perchance.

Heathen Dawn

I hold to metaphysical naturalism, the worldview that nature is all there is. That's for the literal part of my life, so that only what is natural is real. I treat all the paranormal claims of paganism as symbolic and belonging to an emotional rather than logical part of life.

Religion, for me, is in the etymological Latin sense of it re-ligio or "re-connection" with the whole. It need not involve worship at all, though I do worship nature. Worship in the utilitarian sense ("please the deity so that he shall bring favour upon you") is what I strive to avoid. For me, worship is the focussing of emotions upon the All, without regard to outcome. I have no promise from Nature to keep me alive tomorrow, nor do I believe my worship of her can cause her to do so.

You asked about evolution, how it is inherently pantheistic. Well, we all agree nature is the creation. Evolution has this deep theological meaning: since the elements of nature combine of their immament accord to form beings like us, it follows that nature is the creator as well. So the creation and the creator are the same, and that is pantheism. I think evolution is pantheism, which is why I can't accept any notion of compatibility between evolution and the Abrahamic creator-God religions.

From what you say about logic having a place, and emotion not needing a special place, it is obvious that we are of different characters. If I let logic have free reign, I strangle emotion, and vice versa. I need to give a half share to both all the time, otherwise I'm paralysed by deep depression. Richard Dawkins is my example of a person who strangles the emotions. Dawkins is the mirror of how I used to be, and why I dare not go back. The antidote to desiccated, bespectacled, all-logical atheism is paganism.

About Christianity (Judaism, Islam etc) being evil: I definitely hold so. First, because they are dictatorships: bent on obedience of the single monopolistic power, whereas polytheism shares the power among many. Second, and that applies to the Abrahamic religions, they are all made unclean by the Fall of their founder, Abraham. Abraham, according to the founding myth, was given a choice between sparing his son and slaughtering him for God - between morality and obedience. He chose obedience over morality, and all the Abrahamics hail him as their model. In Abraham's Fall the Abrahamic religions sinned all. By having the obedient, immoral Abraham as their founder, the Abrahamic religions are necessarily evil.

Perchance

So, you do propose a divide between the logical and emotional, keeping them in different parts of your life. All right. I had wondered. I was thinking more of a mind (and I have met people who have tried this, just not many who have kept the balance) that mingles logical and emotional in all its activities.

Nosy question time.

I've heard this philosophy before, from the CoG (Covenant of the Goddess). Do you consider that they are on the same track as you?

Then you worship for your own pleasure? All right, I can understand that. After all, I write for the pleasure of feeling joy touch me. I hang out here for the pleasure of debate and intelligent discussion. I go and take silly online personality tests for the pleasure of giggling at the results (all of which agree that I am too independent from any kind of connection, and am in fact a nasty competitive bitch ).

The usual context of worship to me implies not only ritual, but some kind of acknowledgment that the thing you're worshipping is "higher." However, while I love nature, I don't think it's "higher" than I am. It certainly does not display more intelligence or morality. And I do not fear it.

Stop right there.

Who's "we?" All pagans? All people? All non-Christians?

I don't agree that nature is the "creation." Created by what or whom? I will say that nature "began." I will talk about evolution. I don't think we can say with certainty yet where life came from (perhaps from lightning striking chemicals, perhaps from some off-planet "seed," perhaps from something else, perhaps from something we can't even imagine yet), or how the universe began. However, I think it highly unlikely that the answer will be found in a creator of any kind.

I realize you may not have meant this in the sense of creationism, but I think "creation" is an unfortunate word to talk about the process, because of its implications of (for example) bringing something out of nothing. Human artists do that. The universe (I think) did not.

Only if we give it such a meaning. I don't think anything that is not human-created has a meaning inherently.

"Accord" makes it sound like nature is intelligent or has a free will. Do you believe this? I don't.

Again...

If pantheism is a religious doctrine or ideology, then I fail to see how evolution, a scientific theory, can be considered part of it. Science and religion are divided, at least in most peoples' minds. They might be reconciled by an eccentric interpretation, but if so, it seems that you would have to be willing to reconsider your absolute bias against any reconcilliation between evolution and the monotheistic religions.

This seems to contradict what you said above, where you say some parts of your life are logical and some are not. Do you think you have, for example, an emotional investment in naturalism?

Never having read his writings, I can't say much about Dawkins. However, I think that he is probably as human as anybody else, and not just a caricature, so I'm having a little trouble understanding why you think he's an utter, "desiccated" atheist.

Well, that's fine. Like I said, I don't think an idea can be evil, any more than a gun or a cliff can. In fact, the more I read history and science, the more I lean to the idea of evil having no objective existence whatesoever. Kind of like theology .

It would still put gods in power over human beings, though; at least, literal polytheism would. Since I don't think it likely that most gods exist, I see no problem with admitting that man is the creator of the gods, and no reason to worship anything, even sky and moon and stars.

It almost sounds here as though you believe a literal Abraham actually existed and that the Biblical doctrine of the "sins of the fathers" passing to the sons is true. (I apologize if you don't believe that, but it did sound like it to me). If you stand outside the monotheistic religions and accept naturalism as true, why do you think this?

And, really, the kind of character a person has, while it may matter greatly to other people, has nothing to do with the ideas or arguments they originate; that's silly. Someone can be as pure as a unicorn in conception or as evil as Hitler in conception; if they originate logical arguments and ideas that make sense, than those can stand on their own.

-Perchance.