Could Pagan "nature worship" actually destroy nature?

[Riverwolf]

I am a former Pagan.

That doesn't mean you understand it. After all, one Pagan is not like unto another, so thinking that all Pagans practice and believe as you once did is misunderstanding.

 

[Riverwolf]

Paganism I believe is a false religion

It's not even a single religion; it's an umbrella term for many religions.

I, an Asatruar, am a Pagan. Kemetics are Pagans.

Asatruar are not Kemetics.

It is a deterioration of the primordial religion that prevailed before the Fall of Man (which is to say, before the separation of human consciousness from its Source; the word "before" referring to an archetypal priority not priority in linear time).

IOW, metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

In the primordial religion, which is based on the metaphysic of pure virgin nature rather than religious doctrine, God was seen in everything -- in earth, sky, moon, sun, ocean, etc.

"Pure virgins" cannot produce children, and remain as children for all time: innocent and carefree, but also ignorant, wild, and naive.

You also seem to be talking about animism, which is still very much alive in many forms of modern Paganism.

But due to the Fall of Man, these symbols degenerated into uncomprehended idols or "gods"; while the Creator of all things, no longer a vital presence in the lives of men, faded into a distant memory.

Hardly. There's still a Source, and always has been: Northmen called it the World Tree.

A period of spiritual darkness descended upon humanity, lasting for many generations... until at last God revealed Himself to us in the form of the revealed religions.

Far as I'm concerned, the "revealed religions" are just the product of some trickster gods joking around, looking to stir up what was then the status quo.

The rebirth of Paganism is thus a regression of the human species which can only serve to pave the way for the religion of the Masih ad-Dajjal in these latter times of the Kali Yuga...

...latter times of the Kali Yuga? Okay, if you're going to start talking about that, you better start knowing what you're talking about: the Kali Yuga is not due to end for another 40,000 years (give or take a millennium), and started relatively 5000 years ago. It's just getting started.

'Course, that depends on whether you actually accept the Puranic doctrine of the Yugas.

 

[McBell]

The problem with internet forums in general is that most of the members are casual readers who want to voice their opinion on everything but lack the knowledge or mental capacity to comment on anything except the most superficial aspects of the topic at hand. The present discussion offers a perfect illustration of this phenomenon.

I agree.
You have thoroughly demonstrated it in this very thread.
Now that you have been pointed to fatal flaws of your OP and subsequent comments, one wonders if you are going to practice what you preach...

 

[Wolke]

Mestemia,
The above comments merely deal with the dating of the kali yuga, semantic disputes over the word "Pagan", personalisms, a couple of disagreements on the nature of the primordial religion, etc. -- nothing to do with the substance of my argument, which concerns the possible dangers of nature worship upon the cosmic environment. To reveal a "fatal flaw" in an opponent's argument, you would have to contradict the premisses of that argument, or reveal a logical error in the derivation of the conclusion from the premisses. It's not enough to cherry-pick extraneous or parenthetical statements which have no impact one way or the other on the argument itself. If you think that the dating of the kali yuga or a semantic quibble over the word "Pagan" somehow exposes a "fatal flaw" in an argument that deals with the worship of elemental spirits and its effects upon the cosmic environment...well, the most charitable conclusion I can draw from this is that you're not reading any of my posts, but only reading the rebuttals.

Riverwolf,
- We are indeed approaching the end of the kali yuga although it may be a far way off on the scale of our short lifespans. But this is a digression.
- By pagan religion, I meant pagan religion as such, as distinct from the primordial religion from which it is descended... There is a diversity of Pagan religions, and then there is Pagan religion as such... just as there are religions, and then there is religion as such.
- The primordial religion is not a form of paganism. Paganism is a later development. But if the word "Paganism" is so special to you, and you wish to use it in a sense the encompasses both the primordial religion and Paganism proper, then you can have it. Substitute my every instance of the word "Paganism" with the definition I have assigned to it. It doesn't change the fact that there's a real distinction between Paganism and the primordial religion, by whatever names you prefer to call them.
- Yddrassil does not symbolise the Absolute; it symbolises the harmony within the created order, not anything transcending it. But if you are correct, northern European paganism should be classed as a primordial religion. I won't argue this point because it is irrelevant.
- I never claimed or implied that all Pagans have the same beliefs or religious practices. The unity is one of common origin (in mythic time, not necessarily historical time). All forms of paganism are in essence degenerations of the primordial religion.

 

[Riverwolf]

Riverwolf,
- We are indeed approaching the end of the kali yuga although it may be a far way off on the scale of our short lifespans. But this is a digression.

Only if a single sip of a full cup of water can then mean the cup is almost empty.

There's merit in the almost full/almost empty dichotomy when the water level is about half the volume of the cup, but not when it's 7/8ths the volume of the cup.

- By pagan religion (singular), I meant pagan religion as such, as distinct from the primordial religion from which it is descended... There is a diversity of Pagan religions, and then there is Pagan religion as such... Just as there is a diversity of true religions, and then there is religion as such.

I see. Should have made that clearer.

- The primordial religion is not a form of paganism. If the word "Paganism" is so special to you, then you can have it. Substitute my every instance of the word "Pagan" with the meaning I have explicitly assigned. My point is that there is a real distinction between paganism and the primordial religion, by whatever names you wish to call them.

There's no evidence that there was any unity in ancient religions. There's no unity in any religion nowadays, let alone 10,000 years ago.

- Yddrassil does not symbolise the Absolute; it symbolises the harmony within the created order,

Same thing. Absolute = harmony/connection of all things.

not anything transcending it.

There's no evidence that there's anything that transcends the universe.

- I never claimed or implied that all Pagans have the same beliefs or religious practices. The unity is one of common origin (in mythic time, not necessarily historical time). All forms of paganism are in essence degenerations of the primordial religion.

You're saying it, but have not demonstrated it. Therefore, I have no reason to take it seriously.

Especially speaking of some kind of distinction between "mystic time" and "historical time." What does that even mean? Why the distinction? Speaking in metaphors is all well and good when writing poetry and stories, but in debate, it has no place. You must speak precisely. So, what do you mean by "mystic time"? Because as far as I can tell, it's just more mystic mumbo jumbo designed to sound deep and mystic without actually being so (a common trait I often see in modern pseudo-religions.)

 

[Quintessence]

Since the elemental spirits connect nature with the Creator of all things, I think it is wise to inquire as to what effects the worship and invocation of these beings might have upon the natural order.

Sure, from the perspective of your theology and metaphysics. By all means, pontificate the implication of the question from your own perspectives. Understand that there are few, if any Pagans (contemporary or otherwise) that are going to share this theological and metaphysical perspective. As we reject the premises, there is little wisdom to be gained for us aside from understanding your personal map of the territory.

It is educated speculation based upon true religion in the light of traditional metaphysics.

What is "true religion" and "traditional metaphysics," in your opinion?

The thread title is an open question; it is not intended to be construed as a definitive statement of fact.

Perhaps, but I think it's pretty darned clear that you have a hostile attitude towards Paganisms and have already made up your mind about the issue. And while it may be educated based on whatever you think this "true religion" and "traditional metaphysics" is, it seems grounded in a poor understanding of Paganisms.

It is a deterioration of the primordial religion that prevailed before the Fall of Man (which is to say, before the separation of human consciousness from its Source; an event in archetypal not linear time).

As Riverwood has observed, we don't know what the heck you're talking about with this unified "primordial religion." There's no evidence for it. What there is evidence for is a multitude of diverse animistic/polytheistic (aka, Pagan) traditions worldwide. I don't have a problem with you creating a pseudo-historical mythology to buttress your metaphysical worldview, but don't expect the rest of us to take it at face value.

But due to the Fall of Man, these symbols degenerated into uncomprehended idols or "gods"; while the Creator of all things, no longer a vital presence in the lives of men, faded into a distant memory.

Ah, so you're a fan of the tried and true "Paganism is idol worship" argument. How delightfully quaint! And a surefire sign of someone who doesn't understand Pagan theology and is instead judging it through a deeply tinted lens. Gotta love that ethnocentrism!

You claim that nature is "everything", but this is an error; for Nature is Substance. Hence, to say that Nature is everything implies either that everything is Substance, which is to deny Essence, or implies a misidentification of nature with Essence, which is to confuse Substance with Essence.

No, it's not an error, and no, it doesn't necessarily carry one of these two implications. Statements like this are exactly why I get the sense that you don't understand Paganism. For one, when many Pagans say nature is everything, they are not implying nature is just "physical stuff" but that all things are natural regardless of whether or not it is "physical stuff." Perhaps more importantly, many if not most of us are not substance dualists, especially not in the fashion supposed by typical Western religious thought. Typical Western metaphysics puts this giant wedge between material substance and the gods/spirits, which is reinforced by doctrines that demand transcendence. Paganism just does not see things this way. If any distinction between matter and spirit is recognized, the idea that gods/spirits must be wholly transcendent is rejected.

But wait... you're a very insistent substance dualist, I gather. I am "confusing" things, right? Sure, fine. You can have your metaphysics, and we'll have ours. Don't expect me to believe that you understand Paganism when you keep distorting it through that deeply tinted lens.

The elemental spirits are not Substance but eternal essences which in relation to man are "personified" or incarnated in the world in which we live. They hold a very powerful position within the hierarchy of being that has God at its apex. If they should exalt themselves as gods instead of glorifying and submitting to their Creator, why wouldn't this introduce an imbalance in the cosmic order?

Sure, I imagine this is quite the conundrum for you. Meanwhile, we Pagans who already recognize our gods as gods and who reject your one-god idea don't see any issues here.

You say they won't succumb to that temptation, but you have no way of knowing this.

Pretending for a few seconds that I accept your metaphysics - which I don't - I do actually know that my gods can't succumb to temptation. They're not capable of experiencing the affect of temptation to begin with. There is no evidence that me giving thanks to Sun Spirit (or just the sun for you, I suppose) for its warmth and light in any way influences it. And if I claimed otherwise, I'd hope you'd call me on having a serious mental illness and delusions of grandeur. It doesn't rise and set faster, it doesn't give off more or less radiation. if I'm stupid enough to go outside in the middle of the afternoon without wearing sunscreen, it will still burn me. It keeps doing what it does in complete ignorance of me even existing. This is so for most of the gods I honor. They're not human, and they're not subject to human emotional responses or drives like "temptation" or "care." There are a handful of gods I honor that are more human-like and do experience human-like emotional states or responses, but for the most part? My gods are straight-up various aspects of reality: not human, and not subject to human emotions, drives, or needs.

Pagan nature worship may be a perfectly harmless activity in itself, but with our very limited knowledge of the ways of the elemental spirits, and in the light of the revealed religions which have been sent to us from heaven to remind us of God, we must regard all "nature worship" as a potential danger of cosmic proportions.

Do you also regard every single human being on the planet as a potential danger of cosmic proportions because they might someday become an terrorist that releases a chemical weapon and kills half of the global human population? Just curious.

It can only serve to please the vanity of nature spirits, who may or may not respond to such flattery.

Relationships involve two entities. Aren't you forgetting the human half and what the point of religious worship is to them? Could it be things like cultivating positive emotions like gratitude, respectfulness, and awe? Could it be things like finding a place of comfort and understanding in the world or a sense of personal purpose that works for them? Golly, gee, imagine that!

I do not look down upon Neopagans. I consider them as my misguided fellow men who have been lead astray by ideas that are aesthetically attractive but spiritually vacuous.

I beg your pardon, but how is regarding us as "misguided" and calling our ways of life "spiritually vacuous" and claiming we're a "false religion" anything other than "looking down" on us? I really have a hard time believing you're blind to how utterly condescending and hostile that is.

Just because you are a pagan does not mean that you are a better authority on paganism than anyone else, or that anyone who rejects your religion has no understanding of it.

Of course not, but you haven't demonstrated much understanding of Paganisms either. I think Riverwolf put it nicely:

Understanding Paganism through the lens of Abrahamic religions is not understanding Paganism.

And at this point, I think I have to ask an important question. What are you defining Paganism? You're making a lot of observations about "Paganism" that just don't stand up to scrutiny, so by this point I'm wondering if we're even talking about the same thing. Or of this "Paganism" you say you were involved in is at all representational of the community.

 

[Riverwolf]

And at this point, I think I have to ask an important question. What are you defining Paganism? You're making a lot of observations about "Paganism" that just don't stand up to scrutiny, so by this point I'm wondering if we're even talking about the same thing. Or of this "Paganism" you say you were involved in is at all representational of the community.

I'm starting to wonder if he's actually talking about the New Age movement.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm starting to wonder if he's actually talking about the New Age movement.

How so?

I guess I'd find that ironic, because the perspectives he's presenting strike me as pretty New Agey themselves in that they're a Christianized interpretation of Paganism - which is as far as many New Agers get.

 

[Riverwolf]

How so?

Mostly because he called Asatru "primordial", which he distinguishes from Paganism. That makes me wonder if he regards other Pagan reconstructionist/revivalist religions as "Primordial", or if he specifically means things like New Age or Wicca.

I guess I'd find that ironic, because the perspectives he's presenting strike me as pretty New Agey themselves in that they're a Christianized interpretation of Paganism - which is as far as many New Agers get.

Indeed.

 

[Wolke]

Riverwolf,
- I spoke of mythic time, not "mystic" time. Let's put it this way instead. A mythological symbolism that conveys a metaphysical truth is truer than an historical event deprived of symbolism. Truth consists not in the bare fact itself, but the effectiveness of the symbol as a vehicle for conveying metaphysical truth. It is metaphysical truth that matters to me, not worldly phenomena.
This is not to say that history cannot also be woven of symbolism. The comparison is only between mythological symbolism and an "exact" historicism deprived of symbolism. When metaphysical truths are conveyed through history, which in Judaism begins at Sinai, in Christianity begins with the New Testament, and in Islam begins with the life of Mohammed, then history is true and real; otherwise myths are truer than history.
- I have great respect for Norse mythology, but with our limited knowledge it is difficult to determine if it is a genuine representative of the primordial tradition, or a Pagan deviation. If if it is truly a primordial religion, my main problem with it would be that it is not a living tradition. A living tradition is not a reconstruction from scattered fragments, but an entire revelation from Heaven. Also, as Cutsinger has pointed out, one of the criteria of a true religion (as distinct from a philosophy) is that it gives its adherents a means of overcoming or extinguishing their egos so as to become participants in the being of God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Asatru lacks this essential element.
- "There's no evidence that there was any unity in ancient religions." We can pursue this digression if you wish, but perennialists would disagree. I am interested in metaphysics and mythology, not historicism.
- The Absolute (God) is necessary Being, which is Infintite and perfect. Its harmony and perfection are not restricted to the phenomenal level.
- "There's no evidence that there's anything that transcends the universe." There is the evidence of the awakened intellect, direct evidence, which is the only real evidence. The intellect coincides in its essence with knowledge of the transcendent.
- I am not New Age. I am strictly traditional and orthodox in my religious beliefs.

 

[Sees]

As far as Asatru and mysticism, understanding the names is a big part. The book Masks of Odin has some "out there" Theosophy concepts scattered all around, but in my opinion it's a very good start to seeing some deeper parts of the tradition.

Like all mystic, graduated knowledge it's not readily apparent. Some things are in plain sight like all of the Christmas trees in homes around the world representing ye older heathen Yggdrasil showing interconnectedness and interdependence. In my opinion it is not only as pure or "primordial" as any indo European religion, but probably the most.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not. But I do find it funny that many who "worship nature" would display that on one of the biggest hazards to nature in the world. I found it humorous. I know quite a few and would I be wrong to assume that the nature worshiping neo-pagan religions such as wicca or Druidism are not more consistently environmentally friendly?

Its like writing save the trees on paper.

I sometimes get pagans come to me and say 'I'm a lover of nature'.

Oh really? Says I. So you love tornadoes, earthquakes, viruses, diseases, plagues, typhoons, hurricanes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions? Things that can kill thousands of people and wipe away entire cities?

Oh no, I don't love those.

No such thing as a 'nature lover'.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia,
The above comments merely deal with the dating of the kali yuga, semantic disputes over the word "Pagan", personalisms, a couple of disagreements on the nature of the primordial religion, etc. -- nothing to do with the substance of my argument, which concerns the possible dangers of nature worship upon the cosmic environment. To reveal a "fatal flaw" in an opponent's argument, you would have to contradict the premisses of that argument, or reveal a logical error in the derivation of the conclusion from the premisses. It's not enough to cherry-pick extraneous or parenthetical statements which have no impact one way or the other on the argument itself. If you think that the dating of the kali yuga or a semantic quibble over the word "Pagan" somehow exposes a "fatal flaw" in an argument that deals with the worship of elemental spirits and its effects upon the cosmic environment...well, the most charitable conclusion I can draw from this is that you're not reading any of my posts, but only reading the rebuttals.

And yet here you are nit picking the semantics of my post instead of the meat and potatos of my post.

Seems you are intent on demonstrating your hypocrisy and not the fact that your OP has flaws.

Which is likely why no one is taking your flawed OP seriously.

 

[Quintessence]

I sometimes get pagans come to me and say 'I'm a lover of nature'.

Oh really?

Yes, really. Some of us don't whitewash our gods, you know. Yes, I really do honor and revere aspects of reality that happen to kill humans.

 

[outhouse]

No such thing as a 'nature lover'.

Sure there is.

One can love nature, and not love the negative aspects.


Really your line of reasoning here is a little absurd don't you think?

 

[Yadon]

Those in the Neo-Pagan world who are attracted to the worship of elementals and nature spirits instead of the Divine Spirit may actually be seducing and corrupting those spirits, even if, to begin with, they are basically benign, or neutral.

From my understanding, this comes from a perspective that sees beings below a much more powerful being. How could a low being, made logical and rational, ever choose powerless humans over an extremely powerful deity? That aside, in most theologies such entities have no freewill to defy their creators/masters.

Also it occurs to me that such beings would quickly adapt, or just ignore them. Perhaps some would become gods, matching the descriptions they give them. But does that really matter? If such beings have freewill to do so in the first place, their creator obviously wanted them to do whatever it is they wished.

So I see very little issue with this.

I don't buy a single word of that spiritual nonsense regarding nature.

Spirits do not exist scientifically, thus you have no scientific data to suggest damage of any kind.

This makes post like this rather redundant, doesn't it?

I would like to make a small correction. You can't say something "does not exist scientifically", that statement is somewhat nonsensical. How does something existing scientifically differ from it existing in reality? Because the way it is stated, makes it sound like it doesn't exist until it is known. Which from an idealistic standpoint, might be true. But I take it that you are a materialist and realist. So being a realist would imply the stance of saying that what exists is there independent of what people know or think.

I take it you meant to say that "There is extremely little evidence for spirits by scientific standards." That would be a more truthful statement by any measure.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, really. Some of us don't whitewash our gods, you know. Yes, I really do honor and revere aspects of reality that happen to kill humans.

I seem to remember in some previous post you said you believed in things that were real?

 

[4consideration]

I sometimes get pagans come to me and say 'I'm a lover of nature'.

Oh really? Says I. So you love tornadoes, earthquakes, viruses, diseases, plagues, typhoons, hurricanes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions? Things that can kill thousands of people and wipe away entire cities?

Oh no, I don't love those.

No such thing as a 'nature lover'.

I think it is entirely possible for a person to hold a perspective of nature that includes love for all processes that are necessary for nature to operate as nature.

I find the idea of a "nature lover" revering and loving nature in the largest possible context simple enough to understand -- and I do think that an actual nature lover can include, even those parts that are not personally affection-producing, harsh and outside of one's sphere of personal experience preference -- with an understanding that real life includes a lot that we don't personally like, or feel good about -- but seems to still be necessary for existence. To only include the softer and more pleasant side of nature is to pick only what one likes, and ignore the rest. I don't think everyone has to do that -- even if you have met some people that do.

The way I see it, it is far more likely there are some people that actually do think/believe in such a way, than it is likely you have enough information about what approximately 8 billion people on the planet think and feel about one particular subject. I don't see how you can really have enough information to justify that such a person, with such beliefs, does not exist.

 

[Mycroft]

I think it is entirely possible for a person to hold a perspective of nature that includes love for all processes that are necessary for nature to operate as nature.

I find the idea of a "nature lover" revering and loving nature in the largest possible context simple enough to understand -- and I do think that an actual nature lover can include, even those parts that are not personally affection-producing, harsh and outside of one's sphere of personal experience preference -- with an understanding that real life includes a lot that we don't personally like, or feel good about -- but seems to still be necessary for existence. To only include the softer and more pleasant side of nature is to pick only what one likes, and ignore the rest. I don't think everyone has to do that -- even if you have met some people that do.

The way I see it, it is far more likely there are some people that actually do think/believe in such a way, than it is likely you have enough information about what approximately 8 billion people on the planet think and feel about one particular subject. I don't see how you can really have enough information to justify that such a person, with such beliefs, does not exist.

I don't really see things like ebola and typhoons as necessary to my existence. On the contrary I find them to be antithetical to my longevity indeed. Try asking those poor people in Pompeii who got roasted by the volcano: Hey, Isn't nature wonderful?

How many pagans rejoiced at the wonder of nature after Hurricane Katrina?

Point is, i've never met someone who loved all of nature. Yet the phrase 'I love nature' is fairly substantive and seem to imply that they love all things in nature.

 

[4consideration]

I don't really see things like ebola and typhoons as necessary to my existence. On the contrary I find them to be antithetical to my longevity indeed. Try asking those poor people in Pompeii who got roasted by the volcano: Hey, Isn't nature wonderful?

How many pagans rejoiced at the wonder of nature after Hurricane Katrina?

Point is, i've never met someone who loved all of nature. Yet the phrase 'I love nature' is fairly substantive and seem to imply that they love all things in nature.

The point I was trying to make is that I think that a person can love and respect nature as a whole -- without liking every action, and without feeling pleasure over events that are obviously painful -- and hold it within a context that sometimes even "bad" events hold some positive elements, sometimes learning experiences -- at the same time as being awful.

If you have children, you may note that it is totally consistent with one's love for them to at times still love them -- while disliking certain behavior (even feeling like you can't stand certain behavior) and seeking to correct that behavior. The behavior may be something that cannot be supported or allowed because it is destructive or in some way dangerous.

I contend that it is the love context for one's children (or anyone) that provides a larger perspective for seeking overall well-being in the long run, and sometimes actually puts a person in the position of having their child yell "you hate me, you don't love me" for not indulging their childish wishes of the moment, and a willingness to be disliked by them in the moment -- because one sees something even more important, like going for supporting the greater overall good for them.

To me, the idea of love as being only an emotion, and only demonstrated by someone indulging the other one's wants and preferences -- I think is a childish view of love.

I think what you may be assuming people to mean by "loving nature" is that they would have to like and feel good about all aspects of it, in order to love it. I disagree.

(BTW, hopefully without getting too far off on the subject, while I do not identify as a pantheist, I think at least in this regard, I hold a similar perspective of the subject. I lived in the N.O. during Katrina. It was awful -- both meanings. It was heart-breaking, sad, terrifying, devastating, etc. In the months following it, after the weather was clear and the rest of the experience was continuing, I had some of the most beautiful human connections with people that I would not have had, had that event not occurred. If I was to say that event was "all bad", it would be a lie for me.)