The Gods: Real or Archetypes?

[Podo]

I have spent a lot of time lately looking into Heathenry and all of its various aspects. A common thread I notice is that heathens seems divided on the nature of the gods. Do they exist and not care about us? Are they real in an extra-dimensional sense? Are they actual physical beings you can speak to? Are they archetypes that exist to explain aspects of the human psyche? It seems like if you ask ten heathens, you get eleven different answers.

So let's talk about it. What do you think about the nature of wights, gods, and other supernatural beings?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Marking this for later; got work soon.

 

[Holdasown]

Personally I believe the gods exist as individual beings. They obviously don't exist on Earth. I believe Midgard and Earth occupy the same space and that the gods can assess Earth spiritually. I believe the dead and other spirits can move around these planes. The wights here on Earth are indigenous to Earth. I also believe other gods access Earth via their worlds. That is why all faiths started regionally.

 

[DanishCrow]

Most heathen reconstructionist organizations allow a wide leeway in interpreting what the gods mean. Here in Denmark we have atheists who see the gods as Jungian archetypes who can be emulated on the far side, and people who go full-on anti-modern literalist at the other far side. Most fall in between.

I also think the gods exist, and that their realm exists in what could be summed up as a parallel dimension: They exist in their own world, which they can come forth from at our rituals, and which those of us who practice norse animism, can access through trance states.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

If people experience gods, and are even possessed by them, it's much simpler to assume that the gods are real than to think up some convoluted explanation in terms of archetypes. When I encounter a fox, I assume it's a fox. If I encounter a god, I assume it's a god.

I'm not aware of anyone having an archetype theory before 20th century new-agery, or outside the West. Wikanesque paganism has been described as religion for people who don't want to have to believe in a religion. Archetypism is just part of that.

 

[DanishCrow]

Well, I have experienced the gods, and so I am biased - but I would be given to think that, for instance, atheists and others without a direct connection to the spiritual could be drawn to pagan archetypes because they are old as time itself and offer what is needed to get by in life.

 

[Podo]

If people experience gods, and are even possessed by them, it's much simpler to assume that the gods are real than to think up some convoluted explanation in terms of archetypes. When I encounter a fox, I assume it's a fox. If I encounter a god, I assume it's a god.

I'm not aware of anyone having an archetype theory before 20th century new-agery, or outside the West. Wikanesque paganism has been described as religion for people who don't want to have to believe in a religion. Archetypism is just part of that.

That's because the archetype theory is the product of expanded psychological and scientific understanding that didn't exist in the ancient world. It is a new method of interpretation because we didn't have the tools to see it as an option in the past. It is a way of explaining gods and powerful entities that is observable and somewhat repeatable, considering the very real benefits of ritual, as well as humanity's massive susceptibility to the placebo effect. Both of these things are testable processes that work, but can not empirically be attributed to a deity; any direct relationship between ritual and deities is, so far, empirically unprovable. Anecdotal evidence is fine on an individual level, I guess, but it isn't proof.

Well, I have experienced the gods, and so I am biased - but I would be given to think that, for instance, atheists and others without a direct connection to the spiritual could be drawn to pagan archetypes because they are old as time itself and offer what is needed to get by in life.

This pretty much sums up my view of it, yes. It's a philosophical framework more than an actual physical thing.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

That's because the archetype theory is the product of expanded psychological and scientific understanding that didn't exist in the ancient world. It is a new method of interpretation because we didn't have the tools to see it as an option in the past.

And that's an example of what's called Urdummheit: the belief that we are wiser and the ancients were ignorant. Jugian psychology is not science and there is no evidence for the existence of archetypes.

… any direct relationship between ritual and deities is, so far, empirically unprovable. Anecdotal evidence is fine on an individual level, I guess, but it isn't proof.

"Anecdotal evidence" is a put-down phrase used by scientists to deal with evidence they don't like from people they don't accept. To say that experiencing a deity is not empirical evidence is simply to redefine the word empirical. Get a god book on epistemology and consider the Principle of Credulity

 

[Podo]

And that's an example of what's called Urdummheit: the belief that we are wiser and the ancients were ignorant. Jugian psychology is not science and there is no evidence for the existence of archetypes.

The ancients were ignorant, though. Not in a general sense, but as a species we have more knowledge now than we ever have had, by virtue of being around longer. The vikings were more advanced than civilisations that preceded them, as well, and we currently will be surpassed by those that come after. I also never said that archetypes were observable, they're just a modern psychological interpretation of deities and belief.

"Anecdotal evidence" is a put-down phrase used by scientists to deal with evidence they don't like from people they don't accept. To say that experiencing a deity is not empirical evidence is simply to redefine the word empirical. Get a god book on epistemology and consider the Principle of Credulity

Empirical evidence is evidence that can be repeated, observed, and measured. If Zeus appears in your kitchen and makes you a sandwich, you have experienced something that is empirically true to your perceptions. Nobody is arguing that. If you were to then go tell someone that Zeus made you a sandwich, however, that person would rightly need proof before believing you. Empirical proof is distinct from empirical experience. You ("you" being anyone, not specifically you) can experience something very real, but still lack the necessary empirical evidence to prove it to others. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

And if I told you that my garden is visited by foxes, would you refuse to believe me until I produced evidence? And what evidence? As well as the Principle of Credulity, we have the Principle of Testimony. Putting it crudely, both experiences and reports of them are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. If someone reports an experience, the evidence required is naturally proportionate to the likelihood of the claim and the reputation of the claimant. Unless the claim is improbable on the basis of our knowledge or the circumstances, or the claimant is known to be delusional or dishonest, it's more likely to be true than false.

 

[Podo]

And if I told you that my garden is visited by foxes, would you refuse to believe me until I produced evidence? And what evidence? As well as the Principle of Credulity, we have the Principle of Testimony. Putting it crudely, both experiences and reports of them are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. If someone reports an experience, the evidence required is naturally proportionate to the likelihood of the claim and the reputation of the claimant. Unless the claim is improbable on the basis of our knowledge or the circumstances, or the claimant is known to be delusional or dishonest, it's more likely to be true than false.

In the terms of foxes in your garden, it is far more likely true than false, absolutely. But Zeus appearing in your kitchen and making you a sandwich is not equally as probable as foxes running through your garden. I am not saying that it is patently impossible, but it is a huge deal less likely than a sighting of an animal that we as a species know exists in a physical sense. Likewise, many people's encounters with deities are improbable for a variety of reasons, mainly ones that you yourself have listed. That doesn't mean that all experiences are nonsense; quite the opposite, I think that most people do in fact know that if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. That doesn't make their experiences provable, though. A thing can be real and unprovable, especially in the context of explaining an experience to others.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

But my point is that not everything needs proof. The atheist brigade will tell you that the onus of proof rests on all positive claims, but if that were so, you'd be left with total skepticism.

When it comes to religious experiences, the question of consistency applies. If many, many people have experienced Asklepios or Vishnu in a similar way, then their experiences re-inforce each other. But Muhammad's claim to have recieved a divine relelation from the angel Gabriel is up against the fact that no-one else has.

 

[Sha'irullah]

To me they exist as real and tangible beings at times. Maybe I am so sure of this due to previous hallucinogenic trips I have had in the past but they are beings whose nature I cannot be sure of but I am positive they have true potency in our lives and world. At the same time I am confident our lives and existence are meaningless compared to theirs.

 

[Podo]

If many, many people have experienced Asklepios or Vishnu in a similar way, then their experiences re-inforce each other. But Muhammad's claim to have recieved a divine relelation from the angel Gabriel is up against the fact that no-one else has.

That's a very interesting point, and one that I'd not ever thought of before. It definitely goes a ways to explaining my discomfort with monotheism but relative openness to polytheism.

To me they exist as real and tangible beings at times. Maybe I am so sure of this due to previous hallucinogenic trips I have had in the past but they are beings whose nature I cannot be sure of but I am positive they have true potency in our lives and world. At the same time I am confident our lives and existence are meaningless compared to theirs.

Out of curiosity, what makes you confident that your experiences were real, as opposed to manifestations of your brain via hallucinogens in your system?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Out of curiosity, what makes you confident that your experiences were real, as opposed to manifestations of your brain via hallucinogens in your system?

What makes you think that the neurological signals in your brain are perceiving the world for what it is? Last I heard we cannot perceive particles on the atomic level with our own eyes and the claims a schizophrenic about his/her perceived reality can be just as credible in world events and correct reasoning as any other mind. Animals do not understand our society yet do they perceive the world wrong?

The gods are best described as constant and fully rational minds to me. I do not view them as archetypes wholly but they are archetypical minds and real minds nonetheless.

 

[Podo]

What makes you think that the neurological signals in your brain are perceiving the world for what it is? Last I heard we cannot perceive particles on the atomic level with our own eyes and the claims a schizophrenic about his/her perceived reality can be just as credible in world events and correct reasoning as any other mind. Animals do not understand our society yet do they perceive the world wrong?

The gods are best described as constant and fully rational minds to me. I do not view them as archetypes wholly but they are archetypical minds and real minds nonetheless.

Interesting opinion. Thanks for sharing.

 

[DanishCrow]

When it comes to religious experiences, the question of consistency applies. If many, many people have experienced Asklepios or Vishnu in a similar way, then their experiences re-inforce each other. But Muhammad's claim to have recieved a divine relelation from the angel Gabriel is up against the fact that no-one else has.

Many people claim to have been visited by Gabriel, and even Jahve himself. I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Many people claim to have been visited by Gabriel, and even Jahve himself. I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

So you can produce many people who have had an encounter with Gabriel, asked him whether he really relayed the Quran to Muhammad, and got the answer yes? Where can I read about them?

I'd have though it was obvious what I was getting at: the difference between unique claims and common experiences. But I'm not sure what this is doing in the Heathenry DIR!

 

[DanishCrow]

What makes you think you can read about them? A great deal of people claim to have talked to Gabriel. Elijah, John Dee, Anne Compton, Blavatsky etc. etc. Hell, have a guy who IS the archangel Gabriel:

Your 'consistency' is largely irrelevant, because it matters to the people who believe in it, and if that's not you, then you're not going to see it

It's relevant to heathens, though, because we have an ongoing dispute about if textual and archeological sources should weigh heavier than people who claim to have met the gods and powers, what is called 'unverified personal gnosis' by such skeptics and conservatives.

 

[Quintessence]

*** STAFF REMINDER ***

This is the Heathenry DIR. It is intended for use by those whose paths honor Nordic traditions. Respectful questions are permitted by outsiders, but please bear in mind Rule 10 here foreward in this thread. ​

​

10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums
Religious forums is structured to provide spaces for many different kinds of conversations. Different kinds of conversations belong in different areas of the forum:

1) Debates should be kept to the debate areas of the forums, including Religious Debates, General Debates, and Political Debates. Debating anywhere other than these forums may result in moderation. Same Faith Debates is governed by special rules described here. Only members of the specified groups(s) can participate in these threads.

2) All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there. ​

The staff more strictly moderate Rule 10 violations where there is some other rule violation involved, such as preaching in a DIR or trolling a political forum a member doesn't belong to. More benign violations may be subject to informal reminders or moving threads to the appropriate location.