All of these narratives .... speak of growth, a growth that in most cases leads them away from a Pagan identity (or at least a displacement of Paganism as their core religious affiliation). Someone “outgrowing” Paganism (or hyphenating their Paganism) seems almost like a cliche nowadays, and it makes me wonder if we are alienating some of our more skeptical and philosophically-minded adherents in ways we don’t realize?
(My bold)
I have bolded the hyphenation part because I consider myself a pagan-atheist, yet have been told by both pagans and atheists I cannot be. Surely a belief system that inherently has pantheons can't be considered appropriate for a person who knows that gods do not exist? But as a listener of the podcast put it:
I can no longer label myself as a pagan. Doing this felt amazingly liberating. Who would have thought? Now this wasn’t necessarily a rejection of Paganism. I still find great value in many things deemed Pagan. This was just a moving forward from the need to put myself in a “box” that was stifling my growth.
I do not consider that labelling myself 'pagan' stifles me or puts me 'in a box'. In fact, it makes it easier for me to describe my beliefs than calling myself pagan-atheist, due to the confusion I noted above. I have posted before on my LJ that there are atheists with sympathies that lean towards certain religions. Mainly western religions of course (I have never met an atheist Muslim for example) but Buddhism seems to be particularly well set up for us non-believers. It is a matter of time whether those atheists return to those religions or whether they are consistent in their lack of belief, but it does seem to me that not all atheists are antagonistic towards their old faiths. (Yeah yeah, I know I have been a thorn in the side of nearly every pagan forum I have ever belonged to. I like to think that was because it was the people I considered stupid, not the religion they are part of).
I am currently reading Experimental Magic by J H Brennan. There is always a danger when psychologists get hold of magic, mainly because they assume it can all be answered by Jung, but Brennan seems to be a particularly enthusiastic proponent of that idea. He quotes a lot of Jung, I know that! His attitude towards Gods, for example, is that they are 'dominants of the collective unconscious which exhibit a numinous, awe inspiring quality'. Um, no. I am bang alongside the idea of the collective unconscious, but in a way that all entities are equal. When we 'inhabit' our bodies, there are no 'dominant' entities. I cannot think of one example of humankind I would have considered awe-inspiring or numinous. I use those terms for natural phenomena - rainbows, lightning, astronomical stuff etc. Consider the Resurrection for example. The way I read it (and I will admit to being a little hazy here), Jesus was seen by one person before he was raised to Heaven, and she admitted to not seeing him clearly. If we go by Occams Razor, which is more likely? His body was removed from the cave by his followers, or he came back to life then ascended on high?
But I digress. (I have no problems admitting that there were prophets. Unfortunately each religion tried to turn them into profits). According to Brennan, Jung stated that it is a fruitless business denying the reality of gods when you could better spend your time studying certain forces which behave exactly as the gods are reputed to behave. I think either Jung or Brennan got the wrong end of the stick here. If man made god (or gods) in his own image, then the forces aren't behaving like gods. The gods are behaving like the forces. You can't blame someone for coming up with Zeus, but you can roll your eyes when someone states that thunderstorms are still caused by him.
And this is why I still have that nugget of paganism. I believe that there are no gods, but I can see why pagans think there are. What I consider numinous and awe inspiring now tends to be what would have been considered a god millenia ago, or at least a proto-god. In my opinion it is highly unlikely that a natural force is driven by part of the collective unconscious. Therefore, as I tend towards a belief in the non-existence of a god or gods, but am fine with the existence of natural forces, I guess I will have to remain an atheist. Luckily most of my pagan friends seem to tolerate that, but it is by no means universal. I think Jason may be overstating it when he says on the Wild Hunt blog that "it makes me wonder if we are alienating some of our more skeptical and philosophically-minded adherents in ways we don’t realize" but I do agree that paganism, a religion that should embrace shades of grey more naturally than others, has become a little bit more 'black and white' than it was when I started showing interest back in the 80s. I don't know if that is the way things just are these days, but it is something to consider.
Oh, and we have been told we can go home again due to the boiler playing up. It's a hard life here sometimes.
- Mood:
thoughtful
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Comments
I think it's easy to mistake atheistic treatment of religion as some kind of bitterness towards it, but - and this may sound a bit harsh - once one stops treating religion with the reverence and the insulation from criticism it usually receives, it becomes abundantly clear how ludicrous most religious belief is and how poorly people of faith can act towards others on the basis of religion.
I have been known, cough, to snark at religion, but given religion was never forced down my throat and I never felt compelled to profess belief in it or accord with religious standards of morality I bear no bitterness towards it whatsoever.
I have no problem with people using a religious paradigm to think about the nature of the Universe provided that they recognise it's merely a manner of conceptualising it (q.v. Einstein/Spinoza's God) and still basically view the universe as being as described by science.
I think it's easy to mistake atheistic treatment of religion as some kind of bitterness towards it, but - and this may sound a bit harsh - once one stops treating religion with the reverence and the insulation from criticism it usually receives, it becomes abundantly clear how ludicrous most religious belief is and how poorly people of faith can act towards others on the basis of religion.
..and given that this treatment is jarringly at odds with the prevailing standard, it becomes easily possible to view this as some kind of anger, whereas in reality it's merely continuing the rationality normally extended to any aspect of life towards something that isn't usually seen in that light.
In certain threads on religion-wank posts someone will always post 'in before the atheist apologists', but it is true! We aren't all angry at religion. I reserve my anger for the people who practice it.
Also, why do people always reference Dawkins every time atheism comes up? I can name many high profile atheists who are much more considered and moderate - Sagan, Clarke, Fry etc. It's like me referencing the Westover Baptist Church on a thread about Christianity, or Kevon Carlyon on a thread about paganism. It annoys me that non-atheists only see the anger, or assume anger where there is none.
People, whatever their beliefs and having arrived at a certain view of something due to their own life experiences, will look for evidence that confirms their worldview and not look for evidence that contradicts it. Generally people aren't looking to construct a rational, balanced view of the world, they're seeking to validate their views. Ignoring evidence that blares "YOU ARE WRONG" is a psychological defence mechanism for self-esteem, in short.
Add to that the willingness of most people to view things in a very discontinuous, homogenised, separated way (i.e. "all people-of-a-certain-kind are/believe X, Y and Z and only X, Y, and Z") and you end up with people willing to take the very worst examples of any movement and assume them to represent the movement in its entirety.
I see it with everything: people opposed to feminism will always bring up Solanas, those opposed to eugenics always bring up Hitler - the real poster boy for the anti-atheist types is Stalin, regardless of the fact that he wasn't nearly as monstrous towards religion as they like to make out. He was certainly no saint, but again, it's a matter of assuming the worst and not looking for evidence to the contrary.
And fwiw, I quite like Dawkins. I feel his anger and ridicule of religion is wholly justified, although I do have to wonder about its net effect. Roaring at people isn't generally a good way to make them listen; quite the contrary, usually.
(sorry about numerous edits)
Edited at 2009-01-06 01:45 pm (UTC)
I have never had someone throw Stalin at me in an argument or debate. Lucky really because I don't know much about him apart from 'what everyone knows'. My problem with Dawkins is that he is antagonistic, and not only towards Christianity. Sometimes things are hard to explain empirically or using scientific methods. I am one of those people who believes that the mind affects a lot of us in ways that we can't explain, or at least explain now, but Dawkins basically states that if it doesn't have a provable physical cause, it's rubbish.
He did a couple of programmes about Complementary therapies a few years ago. I agree with his conclusions about them totally (I mean, homeopathy??) but as part of one programme he tested 4 diviners. I do a spot of divining for shits n giggles, but it can be a very succesful way of finding things. Now, his test relied on hiding the water samples and the diviners trying to find it. Of course, all but one were totally unsuccessful. BUT Brennan theorises in Experimental Magic that a large component of divining is based on the mind and gives the example that he gave 3 novices a set of divining rods each then imagined a pot of water somewhere in the room. 2 of them were successful in finding the imaginary water, while the third stated she didn't believe in thought forms. Make of that what you will. Brennans experiment was certainly more sympathetic, but how did the students know where he imagined the water?
Sometimes these things aren't easily explained in measurable ways. Absence of evidence does not always mean evidence of absence. But in the case of religion it is logical (and therefore easier for me) to assume that gods do not exist.
"... but Dawkins basically states that if it doesn't have a provable physical cause, it's rubbish."
For those who like to throw out such arguments, you have Carl Sagan to thank for the wonderful counter that "Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence."
Just because you cannot prove something to be true does not mean that it isn't so. Personally, I describe myself as "spiritual but not religious" with a healthy nod towards Eris and Discordia. I am firmly of the belief that Science will never explain everything and that other trains of thought may help in the discussions of those things that cannot be empirically measured.
I had to leave
Grrrr.
OTOH, my gods don't expect me to go around trying to persuade other people to worship Them, so a lack of evidence isn't really a handicap.
I'm leaning toward the idea that whatever divinity there is in the Universe reveals itself to people in the way that is best suited for each person to relate to. Even if that means that some people wind up as atheists.
I'm not a Jung fan when it comes to deity, I've always tended towards hard polytheist. (It amuses me that I first came across J H Brennan with his GrailQuest fantasy gamebooks though!) I can see where you're coming from with pagan-atheist - most people have the problem that they assume you're trying to say both, whereas you're actually saying one modified by the other. You're not claiming to be pagan AND atheist in the same contradiction as a Christian/Atheist, it's more like "Pagan without recognising the divinity". Which by many people's definition isn't pagan... but that shouldn't be a problem because you're using a new term.
Interesting!
I like Wildhunt, too. Must look for other decent pagan blogs.
I saw your post earlier. I can see what Jason is saying on Wild Hunt - there seems to be only one place to go for pagans who aren't as 'evangelical' as others would like these days, but I don't agree. I think you can be a pagan without having to practice daily. If you have been pagan long enough, there are hard habits to break anyway. I can't help but notice the change of the seasons, how trees leaf and blossom, what the sea sounds like and so on. These are things I won't be giving up any time soon. But I can't then place a spiritual explanation behind any of it. These things just happen.
they assume you're trying to say both, whereas you're actually saying one modified by the other.
Exactly. And also, the priorities change from day to day. I don't mean that one day I will believe in gods and the next day I don't. It's more that one day I recognise the essential power of the universe more than the next. I figure slapping a name on it and summoning it when I want something done is almost disrespectful.
I have an ambivitant attitude to divinty. I don't believe any entity is on the whole stronger than another, including animal and human. Natural forces are simply natural forces. Although some can be modified by our perception of them. By those definations I would I suppose be an athiest.
However I do believe in magic or perhaps it would be better to call it the paranormal I also have a flexible attitude towards 'gods'. Do they exist? I'm not sure, but they sure do act like they do on occasion. Is that our/my perception of them? Did we created them? Did we shape natural forces into our cultural expectations? I'm still not sure!
Does it matter whether I'm sure or not? Nope, it doesn't. What matters, is what I believe is possible. Well in the realms of magic that is.
I still find everything (and I mean everything) magical though. As a friend said once, you either believe magic is everywhere or you believe it's nowhere. Is he right? No idea!
Some days I come to very different conclusions to the next. I might be considered a bit of a flake but I think it's because I have an open mind and am willing to consider and explore other view points.
And yes I agree with you Brewhex on the slapping a name on something and then summoning it to do your bidding is possibly disrespectful. I work by the premise if you wouldn't treat your friends that way, why treat anything else that way?
As a friend said once, you either believe magic is everywhere or you believe it's nowhere.
He is wrong. If we take Clarke's assertion that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic to a lesser technology, then we can aver that the more technological we become, the less it seems like magic. However, stating that science has all the answers is as bad as stating that only religion has all the answers. Basically, even when we know it isn't caused by imps or demons and we have the textbook open in front of us, it can still be magical.
I.E. there's no special caveat that you have to be from a lesser thechnologically advanced society. Even to a highly technologocial society, I'd say that another new quantum leap in tech will appear magical to all but the most jaded of those people. The first motor cars must've seemed magical, even to those who lived just around the corner Ford's factories on first appearence. Of course, for the wazzy-ooh-isn't-that-shiney-and-magical effect to last, you have to keep an air of mystery about what it it does and how it does it, arguably.
Fairy nuff.
Agreed!
I think my father is still hoping I'll "grow out" of paganism and back into christianity ten years later. Haha.
And your comment is quite eloquent. A personal belief system is actually, you know, personal. My post explains mine, your comment explains yours. :o)
Lol, keep hoping My Dad and Your Mum.
Yep, that is silly, Thunder is send by Jupiter.
What is interesting in a non-interesting kind of way was we just had this convo. at the REAL forum I go to and most people did a check and said " Nope, not a pagan according to how they seem to present themselves now" - even the ones with deistic belief systems that would be labeled 'pagan' . And these are all people I met on pagan forums.
Odd, that.