Difficulties when it comes to Polytheism and me.

[CogentPhilosopher]

The thing that annoys me is that at one point I had a bit of hope in the whole paganism thing. I am a spiritual person or I at least feel the pull of spirituality very strongly but I've not really been able to justify any spirituality on a rational level. Sure Jesus may sound nice but when I look at the evidence I find it neigh impossible to believe he was divine and his mere existence is in question for me.

You could maybe say the gods are abstract concepts that our ancestors simply added stories too based on their experience but of course there is no real evidence to back up the gods being anything other than imaginary. It's the same thing when people say they have experiences and that is why they believe. It's not really a very good reason to actually accept these gods exist.

If they are just mere constructs we can use to communicate ideas then I have to admit I instantly loose all interest in the concept and find them pretty pointless. Maybe it's just because I don't value humanity as a whole very highly but the idea of using these silly stories to communicate something that you could just use reality or you know.. Your own big boy/girl words to communicate sounds masturbatory at best.

I'm not even saying it's not possible that these spiritual experiences mean something but what is more likely. That you believe something and were looking hard enough that something appeared or that the gods actually singled you out for some sort of revelation?

Maybe this goddess I like so much named Athena is actually out there but thus far she hasn't given me any real reason to believe in her.

Sam Harris is an outspoken atheist that talks about spiritual experiences.

Seeing the beauty in a waterfall, a moonlit beach, a galaxy.

Could these things be described as spiritual? How you define spiritual determines the answer.

 

[SomeRandom]

I have the same problems as you do. Growing up in the West, especially, you are taught not only rational inquiry from a young age, but how to specifically counter Christian apologetics. So from the onset it's almost like religion is set up in this dichotomy of rational vs faith. We are rational, we want to be logical. Therefore faith has to be unreasonable and thus contrary to our precious logic.
But much like say art, things that move us emotionally aren't always rational. We are not robots, we feel things that are often illogical.
You seem to be moved by meditation and other religious activities, but why does there have to be a god behind those activities?
Buddhists aren't religious per se, I mean some sects might be. But there is not really a "God" in those traditions.

God in say some of the Eastern traditions aren't always the equivalent concept of the Abrahamic version. A literal being. A guide, a creator, something to worship. There are other interpretations. Energy, matter, spirit etc.
Religious activities aren't always about venerating any God. Hell the Jain religion is actually compromised of atheists (more or less.) They reject the idea of a creator God, but they have temples and spiritual rites and rituals all the same.

It depends on how you view the definition of God, I suppose.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

I have the same problems as you do. Growing up in the West, especially, you are taught not only rational inquiry from a young age, but how to specifically counter Christian apologetics. So from the onset it's almost like religion is set up in this dichotomy of rational vs faith. We are rational, we want to be logical. Therefore faith has to be unreasonable and thus contrary to our precious logic.
But much like say art, things that move us emotionally aren't always rational. We are not robots, we feel things that are often illogical.
You seem to be moved by meditation and other religious activities, but why does there have to be a god behind those activities?
Buddhists aren't religious per se, I mean some sects might be. But there is not really a "God" in those traditions.

God in say some of the Eastern traditions aren't always the equivalent concept of the Abrahamic version. A literal being. A guide, a creator, something to worship. There are other interpretations. Energy, matter, spirit etc.
Religious activities aren't always about venerating any God. Hell the Jain religion is actually compromised of atheists (more or less.) They reject the idea of a creator God, but they have temples and spiritual rites and rituals all the same.

It depends on how you view the definition of God, I suppose.

Well yeah we aren't robots. It's not that it has to be purely rational but there has to be a reason to start on a path or to take it seriously. Some Buddhist especially Vajrayana or Mahayana I would qualify as more religious than say Theravada Buddhism. Vajrayana is closer to some old hindu sect than Buddhism in some of it's beliefs. But then even in Hinduism we have things like Charvaka and Samkhya. I won't lie I couldn't remember how to spell samkhya.

Ajita Kesakambali is one of my favorites actually. AT least what I know of him.

There doesn't have to be a god behind these activities but it seems to me at least for some of these activities it's at best silly. Why pray to Athena or use her as some sort of mythological figure representing humanity if she is not actually there? That seems silly to me and that is what I have a problem with.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Sam Harris is an outspoken atheist that talks about spiritual experiences.

Seeing the beauty in a waterfall, a moonlit beach, a galaxy.

Could these things be described as spiritual? How you define spiritual determines the answer.

I don't know if I can relate to seeing the beauty in a waterfall or anything like that. I have really weird things that move me and that usually doesn't come into the picture. I don't really care for Sam Harris but that isn't the point. Well don't care for isn't the right way to say it more a long the line of hate.I can't stand listening to the man talk just like I can't stand hearing Richard Dawkins speak. Hitchens I can listen to but that is about it from what I've heard.

You know I don't look at the galaxy or space with any real awe or reverence. I don't really see it as beautiful or really all that amazing. Usually when I say this people think i'm just ignorant of how grand the scale is ect. I'm not, it just does nothing for me. Art generally doesn't move me either but things like meditation can.

This isn't my first rodeo with all this. I've been looking for a spiritual experience since I left islam and haven't really been able to find anything that satisfies. It comes down to giving up on principles or living unsatisfied in certain areas so you know, that is how it goes unfortunately.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well yeah we aren't robots. It's not that it has to be purely rational but there has to be a reason to start on a path or to take it seriously. Some Buddhist especially Vajrayana or Mahayana I would qualify as more religious than say Theravada Buddhism. Vajrayana is closer to some old hindu sect than Buddhism in some of it's beliefs. But then even in Hinduism we have things like Charvaka and Samkhya. I won't lie I couldn't remember how to spell samkhya.

Ajita Kesakambali is one of my favorites actually. AT least what I know of him.

There doesn't have to be a god behind these activities but it seems to me at least for some of these activities it's at best silly. Why pray to Athena or use her as some sort of mythological figure representing humanity if she is not actually there? That seems silly to me and that is what I have a problem with.

Do you have to pray to anything?
In my tradition prayer seems to be a chance to socialise and catch up on the latest goss from the nosy aunties. Or an excuse to have free dinner, if one is a hungry atheist. Some people take it seriously, others are more "meh" about it.

By the way you spelt samkhya right.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are gods to be believed in? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[David T]

Spend some time reading JC himself I better watch the videos of him being interviewed. The mind is a funny thing, so easily confused by it's own creations. I am refering to is joseph campbell. I would also look a lot more closely at JC' s relationship to ed RIcketts, who was a marine biologist and a major reoccurring character in Steinbeck writings. He is Doc in cannery row.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I don't know if I can relate to seeing the beauty in a waterfall or anything like that. I have really weird things that move me and that usually doesn't come into the picture. I don't really care for Sam Harris but that isn't the point. Well don't care for isn't the right way to say it more a long the line of hate.I can't stand listening to the man talk just like I can't stand hearing Richard Dawkins speak. Hitchens I can listen to but that is about it from what I've heard.

You know I don't look at the galaxy or space with any real awe or reverence. I don't really see it as beautiful or really all that amazing. Usually when I say this people think i'm just ignorant of how grand the scale is ect. I'm not, it just does nothing for me. Art generally doesn't move me either but things like meditation can.

This isn't my first rodeo with all this. I've been looking for a spiritual experience since I left islam and haven't really been able to find anything that satisfies. It comes down to giving up on principles or living unsatisfied in certain areas so you know, that is how it goes unfortunately.

I have really strict principles and I am a naturalist.

I don't see why you don't like Harris and Dawkins though. They are not my favorite Horsemen but they still have some good things to say.

I would recommend looking at the arguments of Daniel Dennet, he comes from a philosophy background and uses more nuanced arguments.

 

[Quintessence]

That is at least part of the reason why if they are just stories used to communicate ideas I find the whole exercise pointless at least for me.

Aren't you telling a story right now? Communicating ideas right now?

It seems to me that everything humans tell when they talk about the world they live in is a story in some fashion or another. It's a map of the territory; a narrative of the nature. The story is not the nature, but it never can be. There's always a layer of interpretation and bias that we map onto the territory of reality. For me, the question becomes how I want to draw the map today... and also what map works best for some particular purpose or goal.

Mapmaking activities and paradigm shifting is second nature to me, but I often forget that it isn't for others. I'm not sure how to teach someone else to do it, but it seems to me that learning how to draw a different map of the territory is the starting point (or put another way, learning to tell yourself a different story). It sounds like that's what is needed for you to reach this goal of yours - to remove the limits you currently put on yourself with your current map and draw a different one to use for this particular goal. Drawing a new map doesn't mean you get rid of the old ones either!

I don't know if any of this is at all useful or helps. I just know that for me, I had to tear down some boxes I was thinking in (and recognize the boxes were there!) to have things work out.

 

[LuisDantas]

There doesn't have to be a god behind these activities but it seems to me at least for some of these activities it's at best silly. Why pray to Athena or use her as some sort of mythological figure representing humanity if she is not actually there? That seems silly to me and that is what I have a problem with.

To the best of my understanding that is ultimately a matter of aesthetical compatibility. Some people work better with belief in some form of deity, others just do not.

That is probably a main reason why people often attempt to avoid discussing how much they actually believe in those existences.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

I have really strict principles and I am a naturalist.

I don't see why you don't like Harris and Dawkins though. They are not my favorite Horsemen but they still have some good things to say.

I would recommend looking at the arguments of Daniel Dennet, he comes from a philosophy background and uses more nuanced arguments.

Dawkins is just boring to listen to and politically I can't agree with him on anything. At least I can't agree with him on anything i've heard him say. Harris has promoted certain meditation centers and have general bothered me with his voice. They aren't saying anything new or unique either, so they lack style, they lack unique arguments they just aren't my kind of people.

I meant my principles relying on evidence and reason.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Aren't you telling a story right now? Communicating ideas right now?

It seems to me that everything humans tell when they talk about the world they live in is a story in some fashion or another. It's a map of the territory; a narrative of the nature. The story is not the nature, but it never can be. There's always a layer of interpretation and bias that we map onto the territory of reality. For me, the question becomes how I want to draw the map today... and also what map works best for some particular purpose or goal.

Mapmaking activities and paradigm shifting is second nature to me, but I often forget that it isn't for others. I'm not sure how to teach someone else to do it, but it seems to me that learning how to draw a different map of the territory is the starting point (or put another way, learning to tell yourself a different story). It sounds like that's what is needed for you to reach this goal of yours - to remove the limits you currently put on yourself with your current map and draw a different one to use for this particular goal. Drawing a new map doesn't mean you get rid of the old ones either!

I don't know if any of this is at all useful or helps. I just know that for me, I had to tear down some boxes I was thinking in (and recognize the boxes were there!) to have things work out.

I'm just saying if all you want to do is communicate ideas I don't see a point in bothering with all the mythology.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Are gods to be believed in? Somehow I doubt it.

At one point (depending on where you were) not believing in the gods or speaking against the gods was warrant for capital punishment. I'm pretty sure at least some of these societies took these gods very seriously.

 

[LuisDantas]

At one point (depending on where you were) not believing in the gods or speaking against the gods was warrant for capital punishment.

I see that as an example of a disease, not meant to be representative of valid religious practice.

I strongly suspect that full expectation of belief is no less than an aberration of religion. Few if any religion actually handles focus on belief at all well.

I'm pretty sure at least some of these societies took these gods very seriously.

Yes, that is the problem.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm just saying if all you want to do is communicate ideas I don't see a point in bothering with all the mythology.

May I ask what your understanding of mythology is? Or perhaps, in a broader sense, what your understanding of storytelling is?

There are many ways to answer that question, but for some reason this right here is coming to mind (Comic Books). First and foremost, storytelling and mythos is a way of communicating ideas. Maybe some people can learn physics well by memorizing dry, isolated facts or listening to some lecture from a talking head professor. Others will be quickly bored by that approach, and it won't reach them. By weaving the dry information into a fun story like Spectra does, you can communicate ideas to more audiences. Stories often make things more relatable and provide true-to-life context. Stories weave isolated facts and figures into something more - meaningfulness. Also, it's fun! It's entertaining! You can make art and theatre out of it!

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

May I ask what your understanding of mythology is? Or perhaps, in a broader sense, what your understanding of storytelling is?

There are many ways to answer that question, but for some reason this right here is coming to mind (Comic Books). First and foremost, storytelling and mythos is a way of communicating ideas. Maybe some people can learn physics well by memorizing dry, isolated facts or listening to some lecture from a talking head professor. Others will be quickly bored by that approach, and it won't reach them. By weaving the dry information into a fun story like Spectra does, you can communicate ideas to more audiences. Stories often make things more relatable and provide true-to-life context. Stories weave isolated facts and figures into something more - meaningfulness. Also, it's fun! It's entertaining! You can make art and theatre out of it!

Alright lets try to say this in a different way. Why bother with the gods at all when you have comic books ect. Why be a pagan or use the gods specifically when any old story works just as well? You can attach meaning to literally anything and people do but what is the point in attaching meaning to specific gods as opposed to any other character in fiction?

It doesn't seem to me to be worth while to use the gods to explain things when we would have more modern or simply better stories to use.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Dawkins is just boring to listen to and politically I can't agree with him on anything. At least I can't agree with him on anything i've heard him say. Harris has promoted certain meditation centers and have general bothered me with his voice. They aren't saying anything new or unique either, so they lack style, they lack unique arguments they just aren't my kind of people.

I meant my principles relying on evidence and reason.

How are they in violation of that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Alright lets try to say this in a different way. Why bother with the gods at all when you have comic books ect. Why be a pagan or use the gods specifically when any old story works just as well? You can attach meaning to literally anything and people do but what is the point in attaching meaning to specific gods as opposed to any other character in fiction?

It doesn't seem to me to be worth while to use the gods to explain things when we would have more modern or simply better stories to use.

Because life can get pretty pointless and boring if you don't find ways to make it interesting. These ways vary widely among people.

 

[Quintessence]

Alright lets try to say this in a different way. Why bother with the gods at all when you have comic books ect. Why be a pagan or use the gods specifically when any old story works just as well? You can attach meaning to literally anything and people do but what is the point in attaching meaning to specific gods as opposed to any other character in fiction?

Because it's your preference to do so. You like it. Nothing more, nothing less. I believe @LuisDantas has already said something along these lines.

There are Pagans who do attach that meaningfulness to more contemporary figures. There are no rules about what you deify in polytheism, since nobody is going to tell you "but there's only one true god" and some such nonsense. You can deify and worship whatever is meaningful for you. Some are interested in working with historical pantheons. Reconstructionists in particular follow such paths. But not all of us do that. I don't. I'm not that interested in historical Paganisms, or trying to reconstruct them. By and large, I don't worship historical Pagan deities and I'm not an avid reader of the old lore. I dabble in it, but it isn't my thing.

My interest in Paganism stemmed from its nature-centeredness. So my focus is not in historicity, it's in worshiping and honoring nature and its various aspects... particularly what is local to me and I can experience on a day-to-day basis and develop a strong relationship with. The only historical Pagan reference I could have for that is Native American practices, and I don't feel comfortable appropriating their culture. So I am left with nothing and building my path from scratch. I may use gods from other historical eras or locations for inspiration, but ultimately I get more out of reading a book on natural history. I like science, and incorporate it frequently and deliberately into my path.

Maybe something like that would work for you, maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. Long and short of it is, working with historical Pagan gods isn't a requirement of polytheism. You get to pick your gods, and you can deify whatever you want to.

It doesn't seem to me to be worth while to use the gods to explain things when we would have more modern or simply better stories to use.

Explain things? That isn't the point.

 

[VioletVortex]

If Paganism appeals to you, then look at it from a non-literal, symbolic point of view. Don't worry about the line between atheism and theism. If I were to predict, I'd imagine you'd drift towards theism.