Paganism: the natural state of being?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

For most of last year I closely involved in a working Pagan group, and had a lot of very interesting and strange experiences (and was even kicked off another so-called philosophy forum for trying to discuss them). To try and sum up what Paganism is, it’s a recognition that everything is magical, and imbued with limitless potential. It is a reverence for life, and the life force, in all its forms. It is a kinship with nature and the cycles of time, of birth, growth, death and rebirth. It is a freedom of spirit, without dogma or rules.

The monotheistic cults, starting with Judaism, then Christianity, and then, most especially, Islam, have sought to remove magic from our lives, and to control our every though and action. They do this by suppressing all that is natural. It’s no surprise that these in turn have bred atheism, nihilism, and solipsism. All of these are the logical progession from monotheism. Instead of a worldview that had countless different gods and goddesses, all essentially human and emotionally real, they reduced it to one, unknowable figure. Atheism simply subtracts one from that, leaving nothing.

Monotheism and atheism are two sides of the sme coin, so very different in attitude to Paganism in all its infinite diversity.

2

I don’t know how being of one of those views of another makes a difference to one’s day to day life.

3

The universe is alive with magic. This is the basic worldview of Pagans. It is liberating and exhilerating.

4

I think using the word magic might put some people off. Because most people have a view of it such that they immediately write it off as nonsense. I’m sure what you’re saying makes sense in some way, but the words…I dunno…

5

I choose the word magic very deliberately. It is that thing that plays on the emotions, and is not ruled by logic at all. It is that thing that makes us feel, rather than merely think. It is that that gives us all that makes life worthwhile.

6

Maybe most people are walking through a dull, modular universe of interchangeable non-living parts and stochastic processes, an ever increasingly meaningless slouch towards the grave.
Or a manic version, one step ahead of overwhelming terror.

7

How spirit-crushingly awful.

8

I think logic inevitably rules everything. It’s all self referencing and universally applicable. That’s not to say that one thing or another does or doesn’t exist or is or isn’t real, but I’ve just got this crazy idea that if you can describe something, then you can quantify it, and if you can quantify it then you can understand it in varying contexts, and if you can do that then it’s logical…or something like that.

9

One can use different words to classify states of ecstatic being, for sure. I’m not anti-logic. It is very useful, in its place.

10

I know.
There is some scientific support for you OP. It seems to be innate that we ascribe consciousness emotions etc to not just other humans or even other animals but to many things including everything and then plants and stones are mountains and lakes…
Things seem rather animistic to me.

11

Animism is the original way of looking at the world for all humans, no matter where they happen to be. It is our natural state.

12

Hello Maia (reminds me of my daughter’s name)

—For most of last year I closely involved in a working Pagan group, and had a lot of very interesting and strange experiences (and was even kicked off another so-called philosophy forum for trying to discuss them). To try and sum up what Paganism is, it’s a recognition that everything is magical, and imbued with limitless potential. It is a reverence for life, and the life force, in all its forms.
O- I have in my mind the movie Avatar.

— It is a kinship with nature and the cycles of time, of birth, growth, death and rebirth. It is a freedom of spirit, without dogma or rules.
O- So there is no wrong way of doing it?

— The monotheistic cults, starting with Judaism, then Christianity, and then, most especially, Islam, have sought to remove magic from our lives, and to control our every though and action. They do this by suppressing all that is natural. It’s no surprise that these in turn have bred atheism, nihilism, and solipsism. All of these are the logical progession from monotheism.
O- I think that it boils down to the question. Religion, even paganism, are a response to a question which frames the possible answers. How you see the world is the question. If positively, then paganism as you describe it might be the response. If negatively, then monotheism in the modality you mention might be the response. However Maia it isnt that simple. Ever heard of henotheism? And besides that there are many more. Monotheism might be an evolution, along rational lines, of some form of paganism, like henotheism. The very constant preocupation with accusations of this sort reveal an uneasy conscience with a very real and current influence. Then there is also the division between popular and elite monotheism, meaning that there are differences between how monotheism is theorized among elites and how it is practiced. Christianity owes it’s existence to this diversity.

— Instead of a worldview that had countless different gods and goddesses, all essentially human and emotionally real, they reduced it to one, unknowable figure. Atheism simply subtracts one from that, leaving nothing.
O- Unknowable? That is not entirely true. At the limits of reason some things are evidently unknowable. Even paganism addressed the question of whether what is real is rational. The question arises in Greece long before it was monotheistic.
Scepticism is also a responses that originated in pagan Greece and not just after monotheism made it possible.

— Monotheism and atheism are two sides of the sme coin, so very different in attitude to Paganism in all its infinite diversity.
O- Yes, but don’t confuse their origin or you might miss something: empathy. Don’t overstate the virtues of paganism because them, in the spirit of triumphalism, you may become just like those you dislike.

13

To say that there is no “wrong” way of practicing Paganism misses the point. It’s an attitude, and if you haven’t got it, then you’re not a Pagan.

Henotheism is a stage in the development of monotheism from Paganism. An evolution along rational lines, perhaps, which is exactly the point, because Paganism deals with the irrational, whereas monotheism (and its offshoot atheism) seeks to suppress the irrational in favour of the rational.

The monotheistic god is by definition unknowable because no human can know what it is like to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. No doubt because such attributes are manifestly ridiculous.

Some of the Ancient Greek speculations were already an evolution towards rationality and monotheism. The obvious trouble is this: if monotheism is so good, why are there so many different versions of it that have spent the last couple of millennia slaughtering each other? Paganism, at its best, is tolerant of other varieties of Paganism, and will often incorporate them.

14

Hello Maia,

— To say that there is no “wrong” way of practicing Paganism misses the point. It’s an attitude, and if you haven’t got it, then you’re not a Pagan.
O- Sounds a bit like predestination but oh well…
If it is an attitude you either have or not then there is a wrong attitude and a right attitude, wouldn’t you say? How far from being without rules.

— Henotheism is a stage in the development of monotheism from Paganism. An evolution along rational lines, perhaps, which is exactly the point, because Paganism deals with the irrational, whereas monotheism (and its offshoot atheism) seeks to suppress the irrational in favour of the rational.
O- how does paganism deal with the irrational? Personally what I have read so far in this tread is not irrational. If it deals with emotions, far from what individualizes and near to what connects us, it makes rational assumptions about nature and getting closer to it.

— The monotheistic god is by definition unknowable because no human can know what it is like to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. No doubt because such attributes are manifestly ridiculous.
O- Yet such attributes are not a consequence of monotheism. Hebrew religion presents one god that is far from being omni-anything.

— Some of the Ancient Greek speculations were already an evolution towards rationality and monotheism.
O- Maybe.
But I see it rather as a movement towards atheism. Reason is an acid that burns either religious attitude. Reason is not the friend of monotheism. The arguments of reason can be used against paganism just as easily as monotheism, and before it a common defense is irrationality.

— The obvious trouble is this: if monotheism is so good, why are there so many different versions of it that have spent the last couple of millennia slaughtering each other? Paganism, at its best, is tolerant of other varieties of Paganism, and will often incorporate them.
O- War is not a necessary effect of monotheism, nor is peace a necessary effect of paganism. I think that monotheists can use god as a justification for their unrelated need for aggression. The Greeks possessed a common pantheon of gods and yet they battled each other. But maybe this new paganism doesn’t see war as necessary even of their gods and that is good. But the question has to be asked when war is a possibility and right now I don’t know of any pagan world powers. Otherwise, pagan tolerance and amicability, lack of war is merely a lack of means a lack of even the possibility of coordinated aggression.

15

It’s not predestination because attitudes can change. You can become a Pagan, or cease to be one. This is not a rule, just a way of understanding the world. A descriptive term, in other words. Your talk of “wrong” and “right” attitudes is missing the point, and is an attitude derived from monotheism, which judges people according to whether they have the “right” beliefs or not.

Paganism is irrational, which is its great strength. It is not derived from logic, but from feelings, not from holy, unchanging texts, but from an ever-changing song. It has no self-appointed prophets telling you what to do, and all Pagans are their own individual guides.

Monotheism in its evolved form attributes the 3 omnis to its god. In its early stages of evolution it still had the vestigaes of a Pagan outlook. Some types of it (e.g. Catholicism with its veneration of saints) still do, but these are the mere trappings of Paganism, without its essential core attitude.

Humans have always fought each other, but the difference between Paganism and monotheism is that the latter elevates war and slaughter to the status of a holy crusade against the infidel, and mercilessly perseuctes anyone who disagrees. Monotheism breeds intolerance, and a multitude of “one true ways” all at loggerheads with each other. Where there is one god, there can only be one truth, and one ruler:

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Factorem caeli et terrae, Visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
lā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh, Muḥammadun rasūlu l-Lāh.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer.

And woe betide if you disagree. This is what monotheism has done to us.

16

Hey Maia,

— It’s not predestination because attitudes can change. You can become a Pagan, or cease to be one.
O- OK. What changes your attitude? Your diet? So far this has been described as dealing with the irrational, which is fine, but now we are getting into the description of it’s actual dealings.

— This is not a rule, just a way of understanding the world. A descriptive term, in other words. Your talk of “wrong” and “right” attitudes is missing the point, and is an attitude derived from monotheism, which judges people according to whether they have the “right” beliefs or not.
O- So paganism is a way of understanding the world (attitude towards it?) which can change or not. If this is correct then there are attitudes which make a person a pagan while others do not. This is what can be categorized as right or wrong attitudes. It has nothing to do with a monotheistic coil, simply the way that the subject lends itself to be described. Judging is nothing more than categorization. If there are pagans and non-pagans then there is already there a judgment even outside monotheism.

— Paganism is irrational, which is its great strength. It is not derived from logic, but from feelings, not from holy, unchanging texts, but from an ever-changing song. It has no self-appointed prophets telling you what to do, and all Pagans are their own individual guides.
O- So if I think that I am a pagan then I am?

— Monotheism in its evolved form attributes the 3 omnis to its god. In its early stages of evolution it still had the vestigaes of a Pagan outlook. Some types of it (e.g. Catholicism with its veneration of saints) still do, but these are the mere trappings of Paganism, without its essential core attitude.
O- The attributes are again conventions added to monotheism and not essential to it or it’s existence. I believe that this “attitude” you speak of might be present in some humans while lacking in others. It is then espressed in different ways. Even within monotheism the attitude you speak of has risen, for example in negative theology, an active abstenance from judging. A great majority of people need the reassurance of traditions, but monotheism does not force one to be unlike the pagan. The discourses of many monotheists, deemed heretical by the Church, seem to embody the attitude you describe, such as Spinoza. I keep making the point that monotheism is not equal to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, that these are perhaps evolutions or degenerations (pick one) and not what monotheism has to be. Look around you and you see people like Bob, Felix and Jayson who in my guesstimation possess some of that attitude that you described, at least in part.

— Humans have always fought each other, but the difference between Paganism and monotheism is that the latter elevates war and slaughter to the status of a holy crusade against the infidel, and mercilessly perseuctes anyone who disagrees.
O- Jesus said that if someone strikes your left cheek, offer him your right, to love your enemy. I guess he was a monotheist. That later kings and Popes distorted a message of peace and love is not a necessary effect of monotheism.

— Monotheism breeds intolerance, and a multitude of “one true ways” all at loggerheads with each other. Where there is one god, there can only be one truth, and one ruler:

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Factorem caeli et terrae, Visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
lā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh, Muḥammadun rasūlu l-Lāh.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer.

And woe betide if you disagree. This is what monotheism has done to us.
O- Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]
Jihad can be taken for a number of reasons but conversion of infidels is not one of them.
Paul also believed that his mission was to expose as many to the message but not to coerce anyone into believing for that was God’s Grace which could not be forced. There are of course strange passages that speak in favor of coercion, but the harmony they keep with the message of a Loving God is then forced.
I am not saying any of this to say that monotheism hasn’t been used to prop up autocrats, but that the very idea of one God does not automatically requires all out war. There are other, more benign forms of monotheistic evolution, including deism, which believed that nature was the only revelation and math, available to all who can reason, the only scripture worth reading.
When John says to Jesus that he saw a man driving out demonds in his name, and he “told him to stop because he was not one of us”, Jesus could have told John “good, for there can only be one message”. Instead he tells John NOT to stop him. It is not the message, or creed that unites God’s children but their justice, what they do for one another. Elsewhere it is said that God does not want burnt offerings but justice. In sum, I don’t think that the case is strong. Monotheistic aggression is not an imperative of monotheism itself, but a reaction to given circumstances and pressures, reactions that are human all too human, but not implicit in the belief in one God. Remember, I do not equate monotheism with Christianity. Christianity is merely a version of it. Nor with Islam nor with Judaism. Monotheism, if you wish, is also an attitude, and this attitude can take the form of reverence for the Universe and not simply in taking up arms against your neighbor. Even when these evolved monotheisms have done just that, their text argue against it, meaning that aggression against one’s neighbor, intolerance, is not implicit in their message.

17

One should judge something by what it does, not what it says. No matter how often monotheists and their texts claim to be peaceful, the reality is that monotheism has an inbuilt tendency to tell others what to do.

I can’t give you a good definition of Paganism to tell you if someone is, or isn’t Pagan. It is an instinctive thing. You either know you are, or you don’t. You can usually recognise it in others as well.

18

I have friends who are American native, druid and wiccan. I agree that their animism is a spiritual and practical belief. They are into ecology as I am. Their spirituality of life plateus, of directions and respect for organic and inorganic entities provides a sense of holism that traditional religions deny. It’s acceptance of our place in all that exists. It’s a basis of spirituality.

19

Hey maia

are you sure that tolerant is the right word…?

i mean i tolerate the cheekiness of my children to a point, and even my students misbehavior to a point, but then if it goes beyond the point of tolerance then i take steps to end it.

basically within the concept of tolerance is hidden the capacity to impose change, correction, if deemed necessary.

i dont see that capacity within paganism. unless of course magic is real, and pagans secretly rule the world.

which is my bone with magic in general. if magic works, then its not magic but simply another branch of science. if magic doesnt work, and work consistantly, in a repeatable fashion regardless of the magician… then well, its just psychic window dressing for the otherwise charismatically challenged.

perhaps it is only a reaction of my own sense of aesthetics but i view paganism, and all the rest of the magically inspired new age bagatelle as a retreat, a giving up.

20

Magic is simply a word to describe a state of mind. Instead of viewing matter as dead and lifeless, it recognises that everything has a life force, which can be communed with. This effects change, both in oneself and in one’s environment.