Quintessence and Debater Slayer: on Paganism

[Debater Slayer]

Another friend of mine, @Quintessence, and I have agreed to start a thread here to discuss Paganism, its various beliefs, and the application of the label "Pagan."

This thread will involve me asking her a lot of questions, since I'm interested in exploring Paganism more at the moment.

Let's do this, Quint! I will post a question soon.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Okay, first question: Is it possible for an atheist who absolutely doesn't believe in any god or gods and who also adopts a scientific materialistic worldview to be a Pagan? If yes, how so? If not, why not?

Your turn, @Quintessence. (Just tagging you to make sure you get a notification of this message.)

 

[Quintessence]

Yup, I got it.

One of the blessings (or problems, depending on how you look at it) with the contemporary Pagan movement is that it is a very broad religious demographic that encompasses a startling array of paths. At times, it can feel like that breadth renders the term nearly meaningless, and it's not uncommon to see people who identify as Pagan arguing about it. If we're purely observation about it - if we look at the people who self-identify as Pagan and examine where they stand on various issues - non-theism does have a presence, as does scientific materialism. That said, it is a marginal (and at times marginalized) sector within the contemporary Pagan umbrella, and there are some who reject non-theism as belonging at all.

Some of this negative response, I would surmise, has to do with the history of the movement. The presence of non-theistic Paganism is a relatively new thing within the movement, perhaps a reflection of the overall uptick in non-theism in the Untied States. Previously (and today still), the movement is dominated by theisms of various flavors, though these theisms often look very different than the familiar forms of Western culture. It seems to me that as the movement is maturing, it's able to engage theology more and more on its own terms instead of from a perspective biased by and informed by the expectations of classical monotheism. Certainly the rising Polytheist demographic is indicative of that, and in a sense, the non-theist Paganisms are too.

As for my personal take on the notion of non-theistic flavors of Paganism? When I read things by writers who identify this way, and how they think about the gods, what I see are people who still haven't managed to cast off Western, Abrahamic notions about the gods and embrace what that word can mean outside of those traditions. As someone who personally struggled very hard with that early in my path, I sympathize with it. And given all the ire and anti-theism thrown about in various conversations, I can hardly blame anyone for wanting to distance themselves from god-terminology. I did too. I look at them, and to me, they're basically theists who haven't decided that they can call those things they are worshiping "gods." If they have a practice, I'll respectfully acknowledge their presence within the umbrella. Beliefs aren't the focus of these paths after all. There's a ton of ideological disagreement within the Pagan umbrella. It's practices - the doing stuff and having one's religion being one's way of life - that characterizes it more. If someone has no practice at all, then I would call into question their affiliation with the movement (unless they're new... we all start somewhere and often that is with lots of book learning and less of the doing stuff).

Was that long-winded? It probably was.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yup, I got it.

One of the blessings (or problems, depending on how you look at it) with the contemporary Pagan movement is that it is a very broad religious demographic that encompasses a startling array of paths. At times, it can feel like that breadth renders the term nearly meaningless, and it's not uncommon to see people who identify as Pagan arguing about it. If we're purely observation about it - if we look at the people who self-identify as Pagan and examine where they stand on various issues - non-theism does have a presence, as does scientific materialism. That said, it is a marginal (and at times marginalized) sector within the contemporary Pagan umbrella, and there are some who reject non-theism as belonging at all.

Some of this negative response, I would surmise, has to do with the history of the movement. The presence of non-theistic Paganism is a relatively new thing within the movement, perhaps a reflection of the overall uptick in non-theism in the Untied States. Previously (and today still), the movement is dominated by theisms of various flavors, though these theisms often look very different than the familiar forms of Western culture. It seems to me that as the movement is maturing, it's able to engage theology more and more on its own terms instead of from a perspective biased by and informed by the expectations of classical monotheism. Certainly the rising Polytheist demographic is indicative of that, and in a sense, the non-theist Paganisms are too.

As for my personal take on the notion of non-theistic flavors of Paganism? When I read things by writers who identify this way, and how they think about the gods, what I see are people who still haven't managed to cast off Western, Abrahamic notions about the gods and embrace what that word can mean outside of those traditions. As someone who personally struggled very hard with that early in my path, I sympathize with it. And given all the ire and anti-theism thrown about in various conversations, I can hardly blame anyone for wanting to distance themselves from god-terminology. I did too. I look at them, and to me, they're basically theists who haven't decided that they can call those things they are worshiping "gods." If they have a practice, I'll respectfully acknowledge their presence within the umbrella. Beliefs aren't the focus of these paths after all. There's a ton of ideological disagreement within the Pagan umbrella. It's practices - the doing stuff and having one's religion being one's way of life - that characterizes it more. If someone has no practice at all, then I would call into question their affiliation with the movement (unless they're new... we all start somewhere and often that is with lots of book learning and less of the doing stuff).

Was that long-winded? It probably was.

Nope, not long-winded. I like the detail.

What are the practices that distinguish a Pagan--even a non-theistic Pagan--from a non-Pagan? In what way is Paganism supposed to change a person's way of life if they are to be accurately labeled a Pagan?

 

[Quintessence]

What are the practices that distinguish a Pagan--even a non-theistic Pagan--from a non-Pagan?

I should probably preface by saying I presume this discussion is going to be about contemporary Paganism (also sometimes called Neopaganism, modern Paganism), rather than historical or indigenous Paganisms (e.g., the polytheistic religions of ancient Greece or indigenous religions of the Americas, for example). That said, a work that crosses the spectrum, is Michael York's attempt a few years back to pin down common threads that run through all types of Paganism (more or less). It's been quite a while since I have read his work, though. I've got some stuff back home I may pull up to supplement what I post up here off the cuff. Before any of that, I'll note it's a bit difficult to frame the first question in the way you have - to ask what is and isn't Pagan - because various beliefs and practices are shared across many religious demographics. It's not like Paganisms "own" it, of that makes sense? Instead I'm going to describe some of what is typical in contemporary Paganism, and may be things done by other religious demographics.

I started developing a bullet list, but as I was writing it, all the points started mushing together, so let's try approaching this another way. I think the main thing worth emphasizing is that contemporary Paganisms are experiential religions. It is an expectation, if not a requirement, to directly experience and interact with the gods (or just call it nature, if one prefers). As a direct consequence of this, the diverse theologies and beliefs various Pagans adopt directly stem from their experiences of the world around them. This isn't a religious demographic of faith and belief other than trusting one's own senses and sensibilities. The creation and enactment of rituals is a major way Pagans create experiences and develop relationships with various aspects of the world around them. The wheel of the year - an eight-fold set of holidays based on seasonal/solar cycles - is one example of such rituals. It could also be leaving a simple offering at a shrine dedicated to one's gods or sacred things. The arts are a common venue too - there's a lot of creative people within the movement writing songs, crafting sculptures, doing theatrics. One also must mention the undercurrent of mystical practice that Pagans use to experience things: meditation, energy work, journeying, divination, spellcraft, etc. Interpretations about how all that works will vary, but it tends to be there in some form or another.

In what way is Paganism supposed to change a person's way of life if they are to be accurately labeled a Pagan?

That's a tricky question, given the nature of the movement; there's no authority that decides what is "accurately labeled a Pagan." Further, people come to the movement for different reasons and thus different paths they wish to walk. How it changes them will vary from person to person. Some might be attracted to Paganism because of its magical side, and adopt a way of life that emphasizes their personal power and ability to make positive change in their lives. Others might really like the nature reverence, and adopt a way of life that focuses on living simply or even environmental activism. It looks different depending on the person. I don't think there's one way it is "supposed to" change us. It can take us in the direction we need to go. It's flexible like that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I should probably preface by saying I presume this discussion is going to be about contemporary Paganism (also sometimes called Neopaganism, modern Paganism), rather than historical or indigenous Paganisms (e.g., the polytheistic religions of ancient Greece or indigenous religions of the Americas, for example). That said, a work that crosses the spectrum, is Michael York's attempt a few years back to pin down common threads that run through all types of Paganism (more or less). It's been quite a while since I have read his work, though. I've got some stuff back home I may pull up to supplement what I post up here off the cuff. Before any of that, I'll note it's a bit difficult to frame the first question in the way you have - to ask what is and isn't Pagan - because various beliefs and practices are shared across many religious demographics. It's not like Paganisms "own" it, of that makes sense? Instead I'm going to describe some of what is typical in contemporary Paganism, and may be things done by other religious demographics.

I started developing a bullet list, but as I was writing it, all the points started mushing together, so let's try approaching this another way. I think the main thing worth emphasizing is that contemporary Paganisms are experiential religions. It is an expectation, if not a requirement, to directly experience and interact with the gods (or just call it nature, if one prefers). As a direct consequence of this, the diverse theologies and beliefs various Pagans adopt directly stem from their experiences of the world around them. This isn't a religious demographic of faith and belief other than trusting one's own senses and sensibilities. The creation and enactment of rituals is a major way Pagans create experiences and develop relationships with various aspects of the world around them. The wheel of the year - an eight-fold set of holidays based on seasonal/solar cycles - is one example of such rituals. It could also be leaving a simple offering at a shrine dedicated to one's gods or sacred things. The arts are a common venue too - there's a lot of creative people within the movement writing songs, crafting sculptures, doing theatrics. One also must mention the undercurrent of mystical practice that Pagans use to experience things: meditation, energy work, journeying, divination, spellcraft, etc. Interpretations about how all that works will vary, but it tends to be there in some form or another.

Interesting. Now I'm curious, though: as a scientific materialist, I absolutely don't believe in "energy work," divination, or spellcraft, yet you said (if I understood you correctly) that non-theists could adopt Paganism too. How do the two statements mesh together?

 

[Quintessence]

Interesting. Now I'm curious, though: as a scientific materialist, I absolutely don't believe in "energy work," divination, or spellcraft, yet you said (if I understood you correctly) that non-theists could adopt Paganism too. How do the two statements mesh together?

A couple of points.

First, the practices you listed are not incompatible with scientific materialism depending on what one believes about them. I've actually been tossing around creating a thread called "Divination - Not What You Think" that directly addresses this. I'm just not sure I want to wage that battle right now, because there are so many misconceptions about various "occult" practices (for lack of a better term).

Second, the practices one wishes to adopt to experience and relate to the world (aka, the gods for some) can and do vary among Pagans. It's entirely possible to pick meditation as a way of connecting to things and not do anything else beyond that. That said, the way I am understanding those practices I listed, it is pretty difficult to practice Paganism without (at least in form) doing all of those things. Again, this is where what one believes about it becomes important.

To translate some of this stuff into "scientific-materialism" language:

• Meditation = learning how to consciously control your focus and attention
• Energy Work = learning to tune into and be aware of your intuition
• Journeywork = using your imagination as a tool for work and for play
• Divination = enhances awareness of inner dialogue and introspection
• Spellcraft = goal-setting techniques to make desired changes in your life

Don't have to believe anything "supernatural" about this stuff to do it. I don't.

 

[Debater Slayer]

A couple of points.

First, the practices you listed are not incompatible with scientific materialism depending on what one believes about them. I've actually been tossing around creating a thread called "Divination - Not What You Think" that directly addresses this. I'm just not sure I want to wage that battle right now, because there are so many misconceptions about various "occult" practices (for lack of a better term).

Second, the practices one wishes to adopt to experience and relate to the world (aka, the gods for some) can and do vary among Pagans. It's entirely possible to pick meditation as a way of connecting to things and not do anything else beyond that. That said, the way I am understanding those practices I listed, it is pretty difficult to practice Paganism without (at least in form) doing all of those things. Again, this is where what one believes about it becomes important.

To translate some of this stuff into "scientific-materialism" language:

• Meditation = learning how to consciously control your focus and attention
• Energy Work = learning to tune into and be aware of your intuition
• Journeywork = using your imagination as a tool for work and for play
• Divination = enhances awareness of inner dialogue and introspection
• Spellcraft = goal-setting techniques to make desired changes in your life

Don't have to believe anything "supernatural" about this stuff to do it. I don't.

Another question: Why would one describe these things using Pagan terminology (e.g., "divination" and "spellcraft") if they can be described in "vanilla"/neutral terms?

 

[Quintessence]

Another question: Why would one describe these things using Pagan terminology (e.g., "divination" and "spellcraft") if they can be described in "vanilla"/neutral terms?

Fair question, and one I've wondered myself, albeit phrased a little differently. Framing things in "mystical woo-woo" terms is not unique to contemporary Paganism. It is partly a legacy of the sources contemporary Paganism developed from and has borrowed from, which includes Eastern mysticism and Western occultism.

One thing I would bear in mind is that others who practice these things would not describe them in the way I just did because of their worldview. I presented things in this way because it's how they might be understood through a paradigm of scientific materialism. There are other ways of thinking about it, alternative paradigms to approach it from; in at least some of those, what you consider "neutral" terminology would not be correct terms. It's interesting you describe the paradigm of scientific materialism as "neutral." I would call into question the very existence of such a "neutral" - and suggest that what we perceive as "neutral" is a reflection of our own default assumptions about reality. That I don't recognize a "neutral" at all is likely a reflection of my ability to paradigm shift. I'm one of those really odd people who can wear the "scientific materialist" hat at one moment, and the "mystical woo-woo" hat in another (among other hats). I find many perspectives useful for different purposes. And that perhaps brings me to a salient point here...

A major reason to use "mystical woo-woo" terms to describe these things is the aesthetic, the artistry, the theatric. When I'm practicing my religion, the hat I wears is often not the "scientific materialist" hat for one simple reason: other hats are far superior for maintaining a sentiment of enchantment, of wonder, of magical awesome. The way we choose to label experiences can enchant them or disenchant them; make them wonderous and magical or extremely boring and blasé. I use mystical terminology because it's awesome and fun and enchanting and... well... not boring. It helps me be mindful how awesome and amazing the world is and how chock full of magic it is. How things are not "just" or "mere", but super awesome amazing spectacular!

I mean, which of these makes a more engaging story:

"Love is just chemicals in the brain" (scientific materialism) versus "Love is an affinity between souls" (mystical romanticism)

It's a matter of aesthetic preference. I find both stories interesting, and simply cannot imagine limiting myself to one or the other. Why pick one way of looking at the world or one favorite color when you can taste the rainbow!

(cue Skittles commercial)

 

[Debater Slayer]

Fair question, and one I've wondered myself, albeit phrased a little differently. Framing things in "mystical woo-woo" terms is not unique to contemporary Paganism. It is partly a legacy of the sources contemporary Paganism developed from and has borrowed from, which includes Eastern mysticism and Western occultism.

One thing I would bear in mind is that others who practice these things would not describe them in the way I just did because of their worldview. I presented things in this way because it's how they might be understood through a paradigm of scientific materialism. There are other ways of thinking about it, alternative paradigms to approach it from; in at least some of those, what you consider "neutral" terminology would not be correct terms. It's interesting you describe the paradigm of scientific materialism as "neutral." I would call into question the very existence of such a "neutral" - and suggest that what we perceive as "neutral" is a reflection of our own default assumptions about reality. That I don't recognize a "neutral" at all is likely a reflection of my ability to paradigm shift. I'm one of those really odd people who can wear the "scientific materialist" hat at one moment, and the "mystical woo-woo" hat in another (among other hats). I find many perspectives useful for different purposes. And that perhaps brings me to a salient point here...

A major reason to use "mystical woo-woo" terms to describe these things is the aesthetic, the artistry, the theatric. When I'm practicing my religion, the hat I wears is not the "scientific materialist" hat for one simple reason: other hats are far superior for maintaining a sentiment of enchantment, of wonder, of magical awesome. The way we choose to label experiences can enchant them or disenchant them; make them wonderous and magical or extremely boring and blasé. I use mystical terminology because it's awesome and fun and enchanting and... well... not boring. It helps me be mindful how awesome and amazing the world is and how chock full of magic it is. How things are not "just" or "mere", but super awesome amazing spectacular!

I mean, which of these makes a more engaging story:

"Love is just chemicals in the brain" (scientific materialism) versus "Love is an affinity between souls" (mystical romanticism)

It's a matter of aesthetic preference. I find both stories interesting, and simply cannot imagine limiting myself to one or the other. Why pick one way of looking at the world or one favorite color when you can taste the rainbow!

(cue Skittles commercial)

Thanks. That helps clarify things.

I just don't know if my significant respect for Paganism means I can adopt the label. I find scientific materialism (AKA "boring materialism" ) to be way too rational to drop, but I also feel drawn to Paganism. I'm literally looking for any small reason to push me toward becoming a full-blown Pagan (albeit without belief in any gods). That's how much I respect it.

 

[Quintessence]

One small reason? "Because I want to." That's all it needs to be. Where it goes from there (or doesn't) is up to you. Don't have to drop the paradigm you have. Might (or might not) adopt some others along the way. Also, up to you. Explore. Listen. Follow what inspires.

Religions sometimes gets criticized as being a "crutch" by naysayers. I find such demeaning terminology irritating, but there's a glimmer of truth behind that. Having some cohesive system of practice or way of life one follows acts as a support structure in times of stress. While I prefer to downplay it in my internal narrative, my interest in religion came after one of the worst experiences of my life. I needed to find myself after that, and embracing religion became part of the healing process. Since then, it's been something that's helped keep me resilient and positive in the face of adversity. Other things serve similar roles - good friends, fun hobbies, and the like. The more things that keep you grounded and connected... all the better, yeah?

 

[Debater Slayer]

One small reason? "Because I want to." That's all it needs to be. Where it goes from there (or doesn't) is up to you. Don't have to drop the paradigm you have. Might (or might not) adopt some others along the way. Also, up to you. Explore. Listen. Follow what inspires.

Religions sometimes gets criticized as being a "crutch" by naysayers. I find such demeaning terminology irritating, but there's a glimmer of truth behind that. Having some cohesive system of practice or way of life one follows acts as a support structure in times of stress. While I prefer to downplay it in my internal narrative, my interest in religion came after one of the worst experiences of my life. I needed to find myself after that, and embracing religion became part of the healing process. Since then, it's been something that's helped keep me resilient and positive in the face of adversity. Other things serve similar roles - good friends, fun hobbies, and the like. The more things that keep you grounded and connected... all the better, yeah?

Good points. I just feel like it might be irrational to adopt a label when I wouldn't know exactly how to answer if someone said, "What is Paganism?"

Like I said, though, I'm a hair away from adopting the label.

 

[Quintessence]

Given where you live in the world, you probably want to stay in the "broom closet" anyway or use other terms to describe your path. Although the term "Pagan" as a religious demographic is relatively normalized in the United States, there are still plenty of people for whom that word holds a very negative meaning. When I identified as a plain old "non-denominational" contemporary Pagan, I would typically describe my religion to others as "nature-based" rather than use the p-word. That would get across the core of my path better to an outsider anyway... as I'm basically a religious naturalist. I study the natural world, often through natural sciences and sometimes through folklore, and have a practice that celebrates the world I live in in a religious fashion. Even now, if I wanted to eschew the word "Druid" that's the way I would probably put it. But Druid is a much less barbed word than Pagan is.

All that said, I do understand the concern about being a recipient of questions. Speaking of which, now I have to ask. What does appeal to you about contemporary Paganism? What do you feel that would mean for you?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Given where you live in the world, you probably want to stay in the "broom closet" anyway or use other terms to describe your path. Although the term "Pagan" as a religious demographic is relatively normalized in the United States, there are still plenty of people for whom that word holds a very negative meaning. When I identified as a plain old "non-denominational" contemporary Pagan, I would typically describe my religion to others as "nature-based" rather than use the p-word. That would get across the core of my path better to an outsider anyway... as I'm basically a religious naturalist. I study the natural world, often through natural sciences and sometimes through folklore, and have a practice that celebrates the world I live in in a religious fashion. Even now, if I wanted to eschew the word "Druid" that's the way I would probably put it. But Druid is a much less barbed word than Pagan is.

All that said, I do understand the concern about being a recipient of questions. Speaking of which, now I have to ask. What does appeal to you about contemporary Paganism? What do you feel that would mean for you?

What appeals to me is what I mentioned before: the reverence of nature, the lack of dogma, and the ideological flexibility. Ultimately, the lack of dogma is what I respect most about it.

 

[Quintessence]

Reverence of nature was one of the major reasons I started focusing my attention on the movement as well.

There are some sectors within contemporary Paganism where you'll find dogmatic attitudes or approaches. I see it sometimes from reconstructionists in particular, or the folks who are aiming to recreate historical Paganisms in an authentic fashion. For some of those folks, there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to be authentic to those ancient traditions, and it can approach a sort of dogmatism. That makes sense given the goals of those paths. Even in those cases, I'm not sure such reconstructionists would regard their approach as incontrovertible in the same way that some Abrahamic traditions do. It's generally understood in Paganisms that the practices you do and beliefs you hold emerge out of your experiences, and that it doesn't make much sense for everybody to have exactly the same set of expectations for what they do. It's mighty difficult to connect with the world around you if you hand everyone a size nine shoe when some people's feet aren't going to fit well in that shoe...