The Allure of Paganism — Clearing up Some Misconceptions and Stereotypes

[Debater Slayer]

Being a supporter of the New Atheist movement in a lot of its criticism of certain kinds of dogma, I couldn't help but notice a tendency to overlook or forget the existence of a different kind of theology from monotheism and Abrahamic theology: Paganism. And when it is not overlooked, I have seen it dismissed both by religious and non-religious people as insignificant or superstitious.

In most parts of the world, the dominant religion is either Christianity or Islam. Most cultures have therefore become Abrahamic-normative; a lot of people, both theists and atheists, view the word "religion" as synonymous with "monotheism" or "Abrahamic religions." Popular critics of religion like Dawkins and Hitchens have constantly focused on the Abrahamic religions first and foremost and sometimes on Eastern religions second, like Hinduism. I have yet to see any significant tackling of Paganism from any of the more well-known critics of religions like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

One of the main reasons Paganism is casually dismissed by most people in my culture is the misconception that it is idolatry/idol worship. Likewise, another misconception repeated by many theists and anti-theists alike is that all Pagans believe in literal multiple deities. In reality, a lot of Pagans merely believe that the gods and goddesses are mental archetypes symbolizing different aspects of human consciousness and experience. Furthermore, for many Pagans, spirituality is tied to connection with nature and exploration of one's self, not idol worship.

Another misconception is that the "magic" Pagans speak of necessarily entails belief in the supernatural. Like the gods and goddesses, a lot of Pagans regard magic as an act of exploring and manipulating various aspects of psychology. So when I use the word "magic," for example, I don't mean, "Summoning literal demons and believing that they can make me fly and do cool tricks." Instead, I mean, "A process of exploring my mental processes and manipulating them to my satisfaction and spiritual fulfillment."

When someone speaks of religion as if it were limited to monotheism and Abrahamic faiths, I can't help but note that they are ignoring Paganism, with its lack of centralized dogma, scripture, and religious authorities like prophets and popes. This, to me, is the allure of Paganism.

 

[George-ananda]

New Atheism likes to shrink the playing field to positions it is familiar with debating. As a believer in non-dual Hinduism, I never get the feeling these New Atheists even understand what non-dual Hinduism says. Their comments never seem to apply to what I think. They are at their best in debating fundamentalist types and young earth creationists but are in over their heads with more sophisticated belief systems.

It sounds like you are saying the same thing as me in regards to paganism.

 

[Riverwolf]

Perhaps, just say, mental, whatever, instead of 'demons', etc, then?

No. Too mundane. Such words are good for speaking in the vernacular of psychology, but they're terrible for effectively communicating the full depth of our actual experiences.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Being a supporter of the New Atheist movement in a lot of its criticism of certain kinds of dogma, I couldn't help but notice a tendency to overlook or forget the existence of a different kind of theology from monotheism and Abrahamic theology: Paganism. And when it is not overlooked, I have seen it dismissed both by religious and non-religious people as insignificant or superstitious.

In most parts of the world, the dominant religion is either Christianity or Islam. Most cultures have therefore become Abrahamic-normative; a lot of people, both theists and atheists, view the word "religion" as synonymous with "monotheism" or "Abrahamic religions." Popular critics of religion like Dawkins and Hitchens have constantly focused on the Abrahamic religions first and foremost and sometimes on Eastern religions second, like Hinduism. I have yet to see any significant tackling of Paganism from any of the more well-known critics of religions like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

One of the main reasons Paganism is casually dismissed by most people in my culture is the misconception that it is idolatry/idol worship. Likewise, another misconception repeated by many theists and anti-theists alike is that all Pagans believe in literal multiple deities. In reality, a lot of Pagans merely believe that the gods and goddesses are mental archetypes symbolizing different aspects of human consciousness and experience. Furthermore, for many Pagans, spirituality is tied to connection with nature and exploration of one's self, not idol worship.

Another misconception is that the "magic" Pagans speak of necessarily entails belief in the supernatural. Like the gods and goddesses, a lot of Pagans regard magic as an act of exploring and manipulating various aspects of psychology. So when I use the word "magic," for example, I don't mean, "Summoning literal demons and believing that they can make me fly and do cool tricks." Instead, I mean, "A process of exploring my mental processes and manipulating them to my satisfaction and spiritual fulfillment."

When someone speaks of religion as if it were limited to monotheism and Abrahamic faiths, I can't help but note that they are ignoring Paganism, with its lack of centralized dogma, scripture, and religious authorities like prophets and popes. This, to me, is the allure of Paganism.

I dont know what a new atheist movements and not in the context of the OP. I do thing many atheist in general are smothered with abrahamic religions that its hard to make a distinction between "I dont believe in deities" vs "I dont believe in the abrahamic deities" existence.

The former incorporates all gods metaphoric, symbolic, to anamorphic. While the later isnt atheism. Its just saying what deities they dont believe without mentioning deities theybmay believe in in one definition or another.

I also think the word paganism has been completely tarnished. I dont like the word because it isnt a word pagans gave themselves. All pagans from all around the world most likely (and those who fit the descriptions in your OP) rather be called by family name, tribe name, name from their nationality, or personal name (or so have you). Anyone can revere nature, be polytheistic, and so forth and not be pagan. In my personal opinion, one calls themself a Pagan, like Catholic, Suni Muslim, etc thats an identity that is personal and expresses who they are. Like a family name.

Thats just in general. I see people calling themselves pagan (little p) as good like calling oneseld n/ as good. The latter is part of my culture; so, its not generalization just distasteful.

I think we can start desolving pagan and atheist stereotypes if we "can" (in a dream world now) educate others what these words mean **to the people who identify with them** not by what they read or watch on tv.

That and I just feel words will always be misused. Education is the only way I can think of helping that and listening to the people who identify as Pagan not what the book says.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Likewise, another misconception repeated by many theists and anti-theists alike is that all Pagans believe in literal multiple deities. In reality, a lot of Pagans merely believe that the gods and goddesses are mental archetypes symbolizing different aspects of human consciousness and experience.

Another misconception is that the "magic" Pagans speak of necessarily entails belief in the supernatural.

I think we need to be clear about what we mean by paganism. As Margot Adler wrote (Drawing down the Moon), one of the oldest traditions in Wicca is appropriating anything that can't run fast enough to escape! One of the things appropriated is the term pagan. If you look on the internet, posts about paganism are usually about Wicca or its offshoots. But if an anthropologist writes about pagans in Africa or an historian about pagans in antiquity, that's not what they mean.

The millions of pagans in China, Japan, Africa, etc (like those in the Ancient World) do not believe that gods are archetypes. If you count Hindus as pagan (as many Hindus themselves do), neither do they. When I worship the gods tonight, I'll not be worshiping aspects of my self — I leave self-adoration to the atheists.

Nor do pagans (as opposed to neopagans) normally practice magic. Magic in the Golden Dawn / Thelema / Wicca sense is largely an invention of the Middle Ages. Chinese magicians admit its possibility in theory, but rely on spirits in practice (Eva Wong: Taoism). Similarly the Greek mageia was simply a foreign word for quasi-religious practices felt to be disreputable (Sarah Johnston: Ancient Greek divination).

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Honestly neo-pagans to not cause many problems in society so there is little reasons to worry about them.

Also many of these "new atheist" seem like Atheism+ 2.0 and im not supporting that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

New Atheism likes to shrink the playing field to positions it is familiar with debating. As a believer in non-dual Hinduism, I never get the feeling these New Atheists even understand what non-dual Hinduism says. Their comments never seem to apply to what I think. They are at their best in debating fundamentalist types and young earth creationists but are in over their heads with more sophisticated belief systems.

It sounds like you are saying the same thing as me in regards to paganism.

Might be worth noting that one of the mistakes attributed to new atheism is over-generalization, and focus on particular aspects of theism or particular religions at the expense of others.

And yet somehow these sins of the new atheists are placed at the door of atheism and atheists generally.

It's more than a little ironic...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Being a supporter of the New Atheist movement in a lot of its criticism of certain kinds of dogma, I couldn't help but notice a tendency to overlook or forget the existence of a different kind of theology from monotheism and Abrahamic theology: Paganism. And when it is not overlooked, I have seen it dismissed both by religious and non-religious people as insignificant or superstitious.

In most parts of the world, the dominant religion is either Christianity or Islam. Most cultures have therefore become Abrahamic-normative; a lot of people, both theists and atheists, view the word "religion" as synonymous with "monotheism" or "Abrahamic religions." Popular critics of religion like Dawkins and Hitchens have constantly focused on the Abrahamic religions first and foremost and sometimes on Eastern religions second, like Hinduism. I have yet to see any significant tackling of Paganism from any of the more well-known critics of religions like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

One of the main reasons Paganism is casually dismissed by most people in my culture is the misconception that it is idolatry/idol worship. Likewise, another misconception repeated by many theists and anti-theists alike is that all Pagans believe in literal multiple deities. In reality, a lot of Pagans merely believe that the gods and goddesses are mental archetypes symbolizing different aspects of human consciousness and experience. Furthermore, for many Pagans, spirituality is tied to connection with nature and exploration of one's self, not idol worship.

Another misconception is that the "magic" Pagans speak of necessarily entails belief in the supernatural. Like the gods and goddesses, a lot of Pagans regard magic as an act of exploring and manipulating various aspects of psychology. So when I use the word "magic," for example, I don't mean, "Summoning literal demons and believing that they can make me fly and do cool tricks." Instead, I mean, "A process of exploring my mental processes and manipulating them to my satisfaction and spiritual fulfillment."

When someone speaks of religion as if it were limited to monotheism and Abrahamic faiths, I can't help but note that they are ignoring Paganism, with its lack of centralized dogma, scripture, and religious authorities like prophets and popes. This, to me, is the allure of Paganism.

DS, are you theistic or atheistic?

 

[Debater Slayer]

DS, are you theistic or atheistic?

I'm definitely an atheist. To put it simply, I think that the probability of the existence of dragons or the Loch Ness Monster is the same as or even greater than the probability of the existence of any god or gods.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm definitely an atheist. To put it simply, I think that the probability of the existence of dragons or the Loch Ness Monster is the same as or even greater than the probability of the existence of any god or gods.

Cool. I dont much care either way, but it helps me understand how you are connecting with paganism.

 

[Riverwolf]

The millions of pagans in China, Japan, Africa, etc (like those in the Ancient World) do not believe that gods are archetypes. If you count Hindus as pagan (as many Hindus themselves do), neither do they. When I worship the gods tonight, I'll not be worshiping aspects of my self — I leave self-adoration to the atheists.

That also tends to be the case when it comes to those of us who practice either a reconstruction or revival (there's a difference) of historical polytheist religions.

I don't view the Gods just as archetypes. Sure, they can be that, but not all of them are. Earth certainly is NOT an archetype. I also don't believe Woden, Freya, etc. to be merely archetypes, but actual forces.

An example of a God who is an archetype (and nothing more) would be Cthulhu. Cthulhu is a fictional being created by one H.P. Lovecraft, and has absolutely no physical existence whatsoever. However, as an archetype, Cthulhu has found life as a context for crushing existential dread, the type that threatens mental stability.

 

[Mindmaster]

Paganism is not addressed because the four-horseman type atheists are largely the Rush Limbaugh's of their skeptical perspective. Being a pagan doesn't mean that they necessarily have any points to discuss with you -- few of us deny science for example, or believe that creation as defined by a two-thousand year old holy book is real. If we believe in gods then it is because we have experienced them in some way directly -- we haven't trusted anyone else to come to that idea, but rather out life experiences have born that out to us. Again, this is something they rather avoid tackling... And, for a sensible reason...

It is sort of like denying a persons happiness is real with the caveat that you have never experienced it yourself. I have no doubt many of them are aware of the trouble this sort of argument brings. (There is no winner, basically...) They naturally hope it would go away, and the discussions will come to the standard talking points so they are easier to deal with.

Perhaps a more perplexing idea would be that the average atheist can't see how you go from there to theism of some form. Well, that is this experience element -- most pagans come to their religion merely by a love of lore initially. As a product of many years, this becomes something more... But, it is not so much a belief is it is the result of a journey. A proper pagan basically draws the experience of their religion to them by study, practice, and even initially some sheer pretending... This fantasizing is ultimately the catalyst and what makes it all go. This is sort of a peak event, and what does it matter of the rationality of it then? The value is an aesthetic question, or the object of extreme apprehension... But, you can't fear something that isn't real... At least in some way...

 

[Milton Platt]

New Atheism likes to shrink the playing field to positions it is familiar with debating. As a believer in non-dual Hinduism, I never get the feeling these New Atheists even understand what non-dual Hinduism says. Their comments never seem to apply to what I think. They are at their best in debating fundamentalist types and young earth creationists but are in over their heads with more sophisticated belief systems.

It sounds like you are saying the same thing as me in regards to paganism.

I am an atheist, which is merely a lack of belief in supernatural deities. And I am perfectly willing to let you establish a scientific basis for your beliefs. Let's go....

 

[George-ananda]

I am an atheist, which is merely a lack of belief in supernatural deities. And I am perfectly willing to let you establish a scientific basis for your beliefs. Let's go....

Some things are beyond our early 21st century science. Our senses and instruments have limited reach but I believe human consciousness in its transcendental states can go where science can not at this time reach.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

100% agreed, but there's something that's very important to add, specifically with regard to this section:

One of the main reasons Paganism is casually dismissed by most people in my culture is the misconception that it is idolatry/idol worship. Likewise, another misconception repeated by many theists and anti-theists alike is that all Pagans believe in literal multiple deities. In reality, a lot of Pagans merely believe that the gods and goddesses are mental archetypes symbolizing different aspects of human consciousness and experience. Furthermore, for many Pagans, spirituality is tied to connection with nature and exploration of one's self, not idol worship.

It cannot be overstated that hard polytheists are (an increasingly prominent) part of the pagan community, and we aren't stereotypical idol worshippers either. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, polytheism never meant believing statues to be literal gods. Glycon was allegedly a literal snake claimed to be a god in Roman times; he was widely viewed as a hoax promoted by a false prophet at the time. A common view was that deities inhabited statues, but no one actually believes statues to be gods. The map is not the destination.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think we need to be clear about what we mean by paganism. As Margot Adler wrote (Drawing down the Moon), one of the oldest traditions in Wicca is appropriating anything that can't run fast enough to escape! One of the things appropriated is the term pagan. If you look on the internet, posts about paganism are usually about Wicca or its offshoots. But if an anthropologist writes about pagans in Africa or an historian about pagans in antiquity, that's not what they mean.

Given the absence of historical lineages and a body of ancient Pagan texts, I regard all modern Paganism as neo-Paganism.

 

[Maponos]

I really don't like it when people speak for all pagans/polytheists.

I believe that there are indeed multiple deities and spirits that embody ideas or rule over places.

Nature, to me, is just nature. There are spirits in nature and there are spirits in cities and homes. Certain parts of nature are more sacred than others just as some places that have been built by people are more sacred than other places that have been built.

Magic is the unseen force in reality. It is the spiritual energy that is inherent in everything. It's the Psyche, if you will. There's a Japanese term for it that describes it very nicely. It can be manipulated, interacted with and give rise to entities. It's like the atom of reality.

Polytheistic faiths did indeed have some dogmas and rules (though they most often weren't strictly enforced). We even had prophets (in the form of sybils/oracles/seers). There are even deities who punish moral crimes.

In conclusion, polytheism is very supernatural and very mystical.

 

[Quintessence]

I dont like the word because it isnt a word pagans gave themselves.

Incidentally, "polytheist" is also a term that was placed upon groups by outsiders:

Polytheism is a term invented by monotheists, to describe others, whom they refer to variously as "pagans," "heathens," "gentiles," "infidels," and "idolaters," terms that often carry a heavy weight of condescension or disapproval. People who as a matter of fact worship many gods do not consider themselves "polytheists"; they worship their many gods, and only after encountering the censure of monotheists acknowledge or reject this very foreign concept. As Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit point out: "from the point of view of practitioners, anthropologists, or historians of different pagan religions, the very general category of paganism - a category that includes an enormous variety of religious phenomena - seems empty . . . The only perspective from which the category of paganism makes any sense is the nonpagan perspective..."

Quoted from: DuBois, Page. 2014. A Million and One Gods: The Persistence of Polytheism. Harvard University Press: London. p 20-21.
​

I'm more and more inclined to agree with the above assessment, and it has some interesting implications for the future of contemporary Paganisms. Some speculate that the movement will fragment within the next 100 years. I'm not so sure. I suspect that so long as the movement exists in a culture dominated by monotheistic religions, it'll retain some of its cohesiveness simply because there are so few of us. There are so few of us that we need to connect with like-minded people somewhere, and we're not going to find that as much within the monotheistic religions. We're willing to set aside some of the differences to connect... otherwise, these paths are quite lonely walks.

 

[Riverwolf]

Incidentally, "polytheist" is also a term that was placed upon groups by outsiders:

Polytheism is a term invented by monotheists, to describe others, whom they refer to variously as "pagans," "heathens," "gentiles," "infidels," and "idolaters," terms that often carry a heavy weight of condescension or disapproval. People who as a matter of fact worship many gods do not consider themselves "polytheists"; they worship their many gods, and only after encountering the censure of monotheists acknowledge or reject this very foreign concept. As Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit point out: "from the point of view of practitioners, anthropologists, or historians of different pagan religions, the very general category of paganism - a category that includes an enormous variety of religious phenomena - seems empty . . . The only perspective from which the category of paganism makes any sense is the nonpagan perspective..."

Quoted from: DuBois, Page. 2014. A Million and One Gods: The Persistence of Polytheism. Harvard University Press: London. p 20-21.
​

I'm more and more inclined to agree with the above assessment, and it has some interesting implications for the future of contemporary Paganisms. Some speculate that the movement will fragment within the next 100 years. I'm not so sure. I suspect that so long as the movement exists in a culture dominated by monotheistic religions, it'll retain some of its cohesiveness simply because there are so few of us. There are so few of us that we need to connect with like-minded people somewhere, and we're not going to find that as much within the monotheistic religions. We're willing to set aside some of the differences to connect... otherwise, these paths are quite lonely walks.

I'd like to stress, however, the importance of the fact that it's some of the differences. There are differences that we simply cannot set aside, especially in Heathenry, such that some Neopagan groups treat each other the same way they both treat Christianity.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

And I am perfectly willing to let you establish a scientific basis for your beliefs.

If I told you that some-one loved their children, would you expect me to establish a scientific basis for that belief?

Belief in gods, like belief in naked mole rats, is based on experience. In fact, more people have encountered the divine (49% according to one British survey) than naked mole rats. Some parts of science, however, are based on assumption. The arguments for the Big Bang assume two a priori principles, spatial uniformity and temporal uniformity, which cannot be tested — and the second of which has even been questioned by some physicists.

Given the absence of historical lineages and a body of ancient Pagan texts, I regard all modern Paganism as neo-Paganism.

The question of lineages is disputed — some claim a continuing tradition in parts of Greece and Italy — but lack of texts? With all the discussions of religion in the Greek philosophers and essayists, the references to it in poets and dramatists, the collections of hymns and prayers, etc, I'm knee-deep in them!