Paganism as a Philosophy? (Atheistic/Non-Theistic Paganism)

[Toten]

Do you think Paganism could be applied in a non-theistic sense, as one would a philosophy? It's something I've thought about quite a lot recently. All forms of Indo-European pagan religions, ie Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Roman, Greek, all share many traits and similar worldviews (from a philosophical standpoint).
Would you consider someone who was Atheistic with a Pagan philosophy and practiced Pagan traditions or advocates the spread/revival of Pagan traditions a Pagan?

 

[Aštra’el]

Of course pagans needn't be theistic. My spiritual-religious system is designed in a way that it's culture and Weltanschauung, even its gods, can be perceived and experienced by theists and atheists alike.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you think Paganism could be applied in a non-theistic sense, as one would a philosophy? It's something I've thought about quite a lot recently. All forms of Indo-European pagan religions, ie Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Roman, Greek, all share many traits and similar worldviews (from a philosophical standpoint).
Would you consider someone who was Atheistic with a Pagan philosophy and practiced Pagan traditions or advocates the spread/revival of Pagan traditions a Pagan?

I don't agree.
I don't think paganism is or was considered or proclaimed as philosophy.
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

Sorry, wrong thread.

 

[Toten]

I don't agree.
I don't think paganism is or was considered or proclaimed as philosophy.
Regards

Well I didn't mean proclaiming it as official now or in history, but for an individual to practice paganism as a philosophy/lifestyle?

 

[lovesong]

There are philosophies within Paganism, but Paganism is not a philosophy in itself. I say this because of how varied the philosophies and worldviews are within various Pagan faiths, there really is no concept or philosophical principal that all Pagans agree one. Not all Pagans honor femininity, take great care of the earth, practice pacifism, or hold charity high on their priorities. The only potentially universal Pagan ideas are perhaps to find happiness and stay true to the self, but even that could be challenged by some more conservative reconstrutionist faiths that value the community over the individual. So yeah, without any philosophical stances that all, or even most, Pagan faiths can agree on, I see no way that there could be some kind of Pagan philosophy, faith-specific philosophy, sure, but not for Paganism as a whole, it's much too varied.

 

[Iti oj]

Do you think Paganism could be applied in a non-theistic sense, as one would a philosophy? It's something I've thought about quite a lot recently. All forms of Indo-European pagan religions, ie Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Roman, Greek, all share many traits and similar worldviews (from a philosophical standpoint).
Would you consider someone who was Atheistic with a Pagan philosophy and practiced Pagan traditions or advocates the spread/revival of Pagan traditions a Pagan?

Ive done it.

 

[Cassandra]

My view:

We basically have two kinds of religions. We have religions that rely heavily on theory (philosophy, ideology, theology). For instance in Abrahamic religions everything begins and ends with beliefs. You must believe in their God as the only one. Behavior is ruled in prescribed ways and judged by morals in the book. Follow the book, obey the written laws and you are "good". Disobey them and you are "bad", reject hem and you are "evil".

We also have religious traditions that rely heavily on ethical conduct. Ethical conduct does not rely on following written law, but is based on upholding mostly universal values. The most important value is not hurting other beings unnecessarily. In these religions people are free in their ideas, beliefs, but they must abide by the traditions that are translations of values a people want to uphold.

In the Far East this is called "dharmic" religions.
Nature Religions are dharmic religions.

For instance when the Pagan Meccans threw Mohamed out of town after years of fruitless proselytizing (Only his wife and a handful of direct family members followed him), it was not because he spread the idea of one God (They could not care less about what and how many Gods someone choses to worship), but because he attacked the ancestral traditions. For instance no Pagan will accept that he is forced to revere ancestors of a foreign people in stead of his own, or is forced to change his own community for some sect like community.

When Christians went to Mexico and gave statues of Jesus and Mary to the Aztecs, the Aztecs thanked them and gave the statues a place in their temple with the other Gods. If these foreigners say they are powerful Gods, lets add them to the collection and please them, no problem. When the Franciscans found this out, they went on a murdering frenzy, because for them it was sacrilege. There is deep divide between the two kind of religions, that is not ideas, but mindset.

Paganism is about upholding traditions of the ancestors. It is about communities of people that share the same tradition, often blood ties, but it can also be cultural ties based on language. It is about small local communities.

There has been done research about what makes people happiest. It turns out that people living in small communities in rural settings are happiest. That is how evolution taught us to live for millions of years and living with people we share a lot of things with makes us the happiest. All these fancy philosophies are nice thoughts, but do not really contribute to happiness.

People from the same cultural background understand each other better and appreciate each other better. They feel closer and closer bonds make people feel more secure, more at home, more grounded, and happier.

The philosophical religions are really mass religions. Because they are idea (book) based they can be spread all over the world, just like science theory. Many people today understand religion as ideas some prophet spread. What they call "the truth". For Pagans truth is a personal affair.

Abrahamists can live Dharmic as well. In fact most of "the flock" in local communities try to live their lives in a social way in their community, without even being aware what is in the book. Religion for them is just a denominator that more or less replaced their original allegiance to their ancestors. This new allegiance can be so strong that people from the same family but with different allegiance will fight each other, or avoid each others company. For a Pagan that is absurd.

Pagan religion is "the old way". Abrahamic religion is what replaced it when urban mass society came up. Now in the West Abrahamic religion is again replaced as people find new allegiance more based on individual traits, habits, interests. But many also feel lost in modern mass society. A human being needs a sense of belonging, and Pagans rather than some artificial construct want nature based belonging, like connection to the land, to the ancestors, to the people, to the culture.

If you still have a real close family you are blessed. A family that loves you, that takes care of you, that regularly meets and socializes. But this kind of thing is weathering away in modern society. In many American households people no longer eat together and live separate lives under the same roof. Parents are called upon to have a few hours "quality time" with their kids every month. No wonder social contacts are getting more superficial (social sites).

No, Paganism is no "weltanschauung". Nowadays it is mostly like-minded people seeking allegiance in shared traditions. Trying to revive some of that old feeling. This connection to Nature, the Land and one's People. Back to original culture away from this consumerism, ruthless market competition and media brainwashing. Looking for something that is more "real" than the idea worlds that we are made to swim in so we behave like loyal ants in the big anthill.

I think there is some reconciliation between a religion like Catholicism and Pagans because Catholicism did allow a lot of Pagan traditions to survive in some form and now Catholicism itself feels under threat from these aggressive Juda-Christian proselytizers who turned Christianity in a pseudo Jewish sect in which everthing Pagan is evil and Roman Catholicism is painted as a Pagan evil. It is true that Catholics have a more Pagan Dharmic mindset than protestants and Jews with their "sola scriptura" and legalistic mindset. Catholicism also is more about upholding values, rather than obedience to written law. I have always felt emphasis on morals easily creates ruthless people who abide by the law and see that as a Gods permission to every other evil that is not forbidden.

 

[Quintessence]

Been muddling over how to respond to this thread, as this is a subject that can be... touchy.

Perhaps the simplest way to address the question is to point out that attempts to include atheism in the framework of Paganism is characteristic of the contemporary Pagan movement, or Neopaganism. It is also largely a product of contemporary Paganism arising in a cultural environment where ideas about gods are constrained by classical monotheist and Christian theology. There are other factors too, but this is certainly the major one. I'm hoping that as contemporary Paganism matures, it'll shed that influence of the overculture more and more. But it's hard, and it takes time. To me, Paganism proper is explicitly polytheistic. That's how it was for our ancestors, and I feel that's how it should be for us, too. Our job is to de-brainwash ourselves from the narrow confines of monotheist thought that has dominated for centuries and remember what it looks like to be a polytheist again.

 

[Cassandra]

To me, Paganism proper is explicitly polytheistic. That's how it was for our ancestors, and I feel that's how it should be for us, too. Our job is to de-brainwash ourselves from the narrow confines of monotheist thought that has dominated for centuries and remember what it looks like to be a polytheist again.

My view,

True, but not polytheistic in the way monotheists define polytheism. Basically polytheism is to monotheism what free market is to monopoly. In a free market you have many parties offering and asking, but that does not mean you have to buy a product from all, several or even one. Some people do not buy the product at all. In a monopoly situation you only have the choice between buying or not buying from one party.

In the same way in monotheism you only have believers and non-believers (non-buyers). All non-believers are treated the same. In polytheism people can worship as many or as little Gods as they like. No one cares as long as they respect the choices of other people.

When Christianity entered the Roman empire it was not rejected for its beliefs, but the constant attacks of Christians on other religions and open disrespect for peoples traditions. Pagans rejected the intolerance of Christians. Sadly this intolerance is baked deep into Abrahamic religions, who made it into unchangeable Godly commands to condemn and even persecute the traditions of Pagans.

A Pagan is free in his beliefs, but he should let others be equally free in his and her beliefs. That is where problem arises. Abrahamism teaches to openly express ones beliefs and openly reject other beliefs, and even go on a quest to change other peoples beliefs. Logically in return many atheists have taken on a similar aggressive behavior to religion in general, trying to disprove it and ridiculing it. For many atheists the difference between monotheism and polytheism is just the number of Gods worshiped, and it is equally nonsensical. They often base their bias of polytheism on what monotheism taught them.

This is a wrong idea. The Supernatural Abrahamic God and the Natural Pagan Gods/Spirits are completely different entities. And many Pagans did not even worship Gods as many see them today, but rather contented with creating harmony with the local Spirits. All spirits, the living and the dead, the kind and the dangerous spirits. Early Pagans did not seek help from powerful Spirits (Gods) but Ancestors. It is often the (mythical?) founders of a people that later became the creator God and Goddess. In counties like Thailand it is still normal that people pray to their ancestors to ask blessings and help in endeavors. After all what spirits are more caring for us than our own parents, grand parents, ancestors?

If an atheist does not feel a spiritual connection in some way, he will not feel attracted to Paganism. He will rather seek a modern life style based on what he beliefs is based on rational scientific thinking. Many atheists want to restrict themselves to what they consider proven, observable and factual. Pagans however are very much attracted to the often hidden sides of nature, the subtle, the nuances, the wondrousness that lies in a spiritual connection with what surrounds us.

Our ancestors were not afraid of new or different or foreign ideas, but they made up their own mind. One of the things they found when opening old graves in Sweden, is that they are all entirely different and share nothing in common, not even symbols. Every grave is a complete surprise and an expression of the personal beliefs and likings of the dead and his family. They show a wide variety of ideas about the afterlife. That is normal without religious doctrine that educates people in fixed ideas. In a way many modern atheists too were similarly indoctrinated through one-sided scientific education in fixed material ideas about the world without any room for the spiritual side.

It is not Paganism that rejects ideas, it is one-sided and restrictive ideas that reject Paganism. It is not Paganism that reject people for the number of Gods that they revere. It is often people that worship one God or zero gods that hold on to that fixed number. No Pagan was ever banned from his society because he did not believe in the Gods or the wrong Gods, but if he insisted on insulting or ridiculing them he would be outcasted. And not for ideological reasons either, but simply because they felt he was undermining the harmony that Pagans seek with all the spirits.

 

[lovesong]

Been muddling over how to respond to this thread, as this is a subject that can be... touchy.

Perhaps the simplest way to address the question is to point out that attempts to include atheism in the framework of Paganism is characteristic of the contemporary Pagan movement, or Neopaganism. It is also largely a product of contemporary Paganism arising in a cultural environment where ideas about gods are constrained by classical monotheist and Christian theology. There are other factors too, but this is certainly the major one. I'm hoping that as contemporary Paganism matures, it'll shed that influence of the overculture more and more. But it's hard, and it takes time. To me, Paganism proper is explicitly polytheistic. That's how it was for our ancestors, and I feel that's how it should be for us, too. Our job is to de-brainwash ourselves from the narrow confines of monotheist thought that has dominated for centuries and remember what it looks like to be a polytheist again.

I actually could not agree more, I'm just often afraid to say it outwards and admit publicly that I don't consider atheistic, monotheistic, explicitly new age, and even Wiccan forms of Paganism to be proper Paganism, because of potential public reaction. I don't know if you agree with those last two, but thanks for getting that mono/atheistic part out in the open, it needed to be said.

 

[Quintessence]

True, but not polytheistic in the way monotheists define polytheism.

Indeed, and that is part of the problem. Western culture is so stuck in the theologies of (mostly) Christian traditions, that when polytheism (or other theisms) are considered, they are understood from that vantage point instead of on their own terms. And it's quite the challenge to get outside of that box. IIRC, the term "polytheism" itself was created by monotheist traditions to describe outsiders, just like the word "pagan" was. Those traditions won the culture wars, so they get to set the vocabulary... for better or worse. Makes it harder to wrap one's mind around the cultures that lost the war when the very words we used are governed by the victors.

A Pagan is free in his beliefs, but he should let others be equally free in his and her beliefs. That is where problem arises. Abrahamism teaches to openly express ones beliefs and openly reject other beliefs, and even go on a quest to change other peoples beliefs. Logically in return many atheists have taken on a similar aggressive behavior to religion in general, trying to disprove it and ridiculing it. For many atheists the difference between monotheism and polytheism is just the number of Gods worshiped, and it is equally nonsensical. They often base their bias of polytheism on what monotheism taught them.

Hah, I notice this a lot too. Can easily poke around RF and find stuff just like this. Kinda drives me nuts, but I try to not let it get to me.

If an atheist does not feel a spiritual connection in some way, he will not feel attracted to Paganism. He will rather seek a modern life style based on what he beliefs is based on rational scientific thinking. Many atheists want to restrict themselves to what they consider proven, observable and factual. Pagans however are very much attracted to the often hidden sides of nature, the subtle, the nuances, the wondrousness that lies in a spiritual connection with what surrounds us.

A follow-up question about this that occurred to me. I'd generally agree that a sense of the numinous - a more theistic way of thinking - is important to Paganisms. There are many ways to get that sense of the numinous. Can't that be obtained through the sciences? Would that be part of this "philosophy of Paganism" the OP is getting at?

I actually could not agree more, I'm just often afraid to say it outwards and admit publicly that I don't consider atheistic, monotheistic, explicitly new age, and even Wiccan forms of Paganism to be proper Paganism, because of potential public reaction. I don't know if you agree with those last two, but thanks for getting that mono/atheistic part out in the open, it needed to be said.

Lol... thanks. I was (and still am) worried about making that post. Over time I've developed somewhat tighter standards for what I regard Paganism to be. I've become a bit more hard-lined about what theologies I'd consider to be Pagan, but it's also really important to consider the context of practice. Something I notice about atheistic Pagan writings is that they sound polytheistic to me but for whatever reason don't call themselves that. Again, I think this is because our understanding of theisms is so biased and constrained. As an example, I get the impression some believe that to be a card-carrying polytheist, you have to "believe in" the gods as "literal entities." Talk like that strikes me as a hangover from the overculture, because emphasis on faith-like "believe in" and mythological literalism comes to us from certain Christian traditions, yes?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I personally don't have a problem with it. They could be animists, for example, who have no use for deity concepts, however defined.

 

[Quintessence]

Others may disagree with this, but I'd classify animism as a type of theism. Animistic traditions basically venerate various aspects of the world, which is what any theology that emphasizes divine immanence does. That an animistic tradition might use the word "spirit" or "kami" rather than "god" strikes me as mostly a semantical/label thing.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Others may disagree with this, but I'd classify animism as a type of theism. Animistic traditions basically venerate various aspects of the world, which is what any theology that emphasizes divine immanence does. That an animistic tradition might use the word "spirit" or "kami" rather than "god" strikes me as mostly a semantical/label thing.

Yes; at the same time remembering that whether ancestors, spirits, kami, or gods, none are quite equated with the Abrahamic universal omnimax deity/ies. To begin with, animistic "deities" are immanent in the cosmos, whereas most versions of the Abrahamic deity seem to be transcendent in full or in part.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

Do you think Paganism could be applied in a non-theistic sense, as one would a philosophy? It's something I've thought about quite a lot recently. All forms of Indo-European pagan religions, ie Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Roman, Greek, all share many traits and similar worldviews (from a philosophical standpoint).
Would you consider someone who was Atheistic with a Pagan philosophy and practiced Pagan traditions or advocates the spread/revival of Pagan traditions a Pagan?

I do this, in some sense. I think many Pagan and polytheistic religions all make sense in philosophical terms, and I agree a lot with with them. But at the same time, I can't really force myself to believe in a divine presence outside of the world.

I tend to think of the gods as naturally occurring spirits who control our natural world. They aren't higher or lower than humans. They are our equals in a different form of existence. I call myself an atheist because I don't believe that any god has absolute control over every aspect of existence and I don't believe in any divine presence. I believe that the gods, like us, exist because they are allowed to exist, and they make the most of their existence, like many stable humans. I guess it's some form of polytheistic animism that I subscribe to, although I don't hold the gods to be higher than myself, because they are equal to humans as a race, and I'm still atheist, because I don't exactly worship them, I respect them like they are humans and a niche in nature. They can do things that humans cannot do, and vice versa. But just because they have powers over the weather doesn't mean they are above us. They are just balancing out our world. They might not exist literally, but there isn't proof of that. But they do exist in some form, spiritually at the least.

Philosophically, I tend to base my beliefs off nature, and because of this I don't mind someone describing my beliefs as "nature-based", because they are, in a more scientific way. But then again, the polytheist societies were the ones who gave the most sound and strong-standing scientific perspectives. They believed in both physical scientific nature and naturally occurring spirituality. And that describes me very well.

It sounds a bit complicated, and I can understand why someone wouldn't agree with me, but that's the best way I can describe what I believe from a Pagan lense. I also mix Paganism with other atheistic and non-thiestic beliefs and traditions, but for the sake of the topic I left those details out.