• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When gods are nature...

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
... is it proselytizing to encourage others to study and appreciate nature/gods through the sciences, the arts, and life experience?

On occasion, I ask myself this question. I'm a Pagan Druid. For me and others on similar paths, that which is worthy of worship - the gods - is the world and the universe and everything in it. In my professional life, it is part of my job to serve as a science advocate, specifically for the earth and life sciences which are a major source of knowledge and inspiration in my religion (aka, science is the study of the gods). Is this, in effect, proselytizing? Why or why not?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
In my professional life, it is part of my job to serve as a science advocate, specifically for the earth and life sciences which are a major source of knowledge and inspiration in my religion (aka, science is the study of the gods). Is this, in effect, proselytizing? Why or why not?
No -- because it's more akin to semanticide?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
... is it proselytizing to encourage others to study and appreciate nature/gods through the sciences, the arts, and life experience?

On occasion, I ask myself this question. I'm a Pagan Druid. For me and others on similar paths, that which is worthy of worship - the gods - is the world and the universe and everything in it. In my professional life, it is part of my job to serve as a science advocate, specifically for the earth and life sciences which are a major source of knowledge and inspiration in my religion (aka, science is the study of the gods). Is this, in effect, proselytizing? Why or why not?

Let me ask you this question, as it might help set the parameters of the discussion: is there any behavior someone can ever engage in that you wouldn't consider somehow religious behavior? If so, what are some examples?
 

siti

Well-Known Member
... is it proselytizing to encourage others to study and appreciate nature/gods through the sciences, the arts, and life experience?
I don't think it is 'proselytizing' to encourage anyone to study and appreciate any subject...'proselytizing' is more about trying to persuade others to change their view so that they have the same appreciation of the same 'nature/gods' that you have.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't think it is 'proselytizing' to encourage anyone to study and appreciate any subject...'proselytizing' is more about trying to persuade others to change their view so that they have the same appreciation of the same 'nature/gods' that you have.
It's straight up part of my job to recruit (i.e., convert) students into STEM majors. I'm not particularly aggressive about it because that's not my thing - if a student wants to major in business or something I support that in full - but it is totally part of the advocacy work I do.

It's interesting to think about what we do and don't view as conversion is impacted by what mainstream culture does and doesn't consider "religion." When I started my job some years ago, I would jokingly talk to friends that I was basically getting paid by the state to be a Pagan preacher... except they'd never characterize it as such because of the way this culture understands religion. :laughing:
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
To me, no, because I don't conflate the concept of respect and appreciation with worship and deification. So, to me, you'd have to be encouraging me to view nature as gods and worship it to be proselytizing.

There are certainly people who think that I'm a part of their faith whether I like it or not. There's even some Christians who think that if you're being compassionate and aiding fellow humans you are Christ-like and thereby Christian. If I tell them I do not, in fact, identify as Christian and I would appreciate not being called one against my will, they won't because that's the decent thing to do. But if they ask me to help in similar goals of aiding the poor and weary, etc, I'd be happy to. Similarly, I'm happy to help environmental studies and applications of those studies 100%, even if I don't see nature in the same way you might.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Let me ask you this question, as it might help set the parameters of the discussion: is there any behavior someone can ever engage in that you wouldn't consider somehow religious behavior? If so, what are some examples?
It's a surprisingly difficult and interesting question.

At the end of the day, something is "religious" because it's called such by someone. Language and words in general are something of a construct, though they can mean very specific things within the context of a particular individual or culture.

For me, going to church - something typically considered a "religious behavior" - wouldn't be a religious behavior. It doesn't connect to my deeply-held values or practices; I'm a Pagan and a Druid who doesn't have any significant connections to churched religions. I would be an outsider, a visitor, a guest. It wouldn't be a religious action for me. But change the context to going to a nature preserve? That does connect to my deeply-held values and practices and would be a religious action or practice for me. So what does that mean, when gods are nature and then what religious action looks like?

I create this thread mostly to serve as a challenge to get folks thinking about what it means to be religious, and what it means for some behavior to be religious. It's complicated.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
proselytizing
I think you're asking a linguistic question. If I say to someone "try the cake. It's totally yummy", that's not proselytizing. If I say "the thing I really like about my religion is" that to me is not proselytizing. If I say "stop being a member of another religion or atheist and adopt my faith or you will go to hell", that is over the line.

When I was in college, I took a biology course. The instructor was so in love with biology that I fell in love with it as well and almost changed my major". Was that proselytizing? I think so. But it was not in the "I *KNOW* the TRUTH and you are ignorant and should believe me" sense.

One other point:

science is the study of the gods
I would word that as "science is the study of the universe God created". And you are not advocating for either a pagan or monotheist view but for the value of science. So my answer is "no" - you are not proselytizing.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
To me, no, because I don't conflate the concept of respect and appreciation with worship and deification. So, to me, you'd have to be encouraging me to view nature as gods and worship it to be proselytizing.

This is an interesting one, because for Pagans, it is typical to care a lot less about what is "believed" compared to what is done. I know I've said more than a few times I couldn't care less whether someone uses a word like "gods" (or "worship") or not if, when I look at what you're actually doing, you're being of service to something greater than yourself and giving thanks. The labels don't matter so much for me. Which then begs the question - since the labels don't matter, wouldn't encouraging, say, environmentally responsible behavior take on a different tone, religiously speaking? And is it not viewed as religious mostly because we live in a culture where what "religion" looks like is permitted to be defined mostly by Abrahamic traditions? Gets me thinking sometimes.

There are certainly people who think that I'm a part of their faith whether I like it or not. There's even some Christians who think that if you're being compassionate and aiding fellow humans you are Christ-like and thereby Christian. If I tell them I do not, in fact, identify as Christian and I would appreciate not being called one against my will, they won't because that's the decent thing to do. But if they ask me to help in similar goals of aiding the poor and weary, etc, I'd be happy to. Similarly, I'm happy to help environmental studies and applications of those studies 100%, even if I don't see nature in the same way you might.
Yup, I aim to be respectful of that sort of thing. In my head, basically anyone and everyone is serving the gods in some capacity, whether those words are used or not. But that isn't how they tell the story, and that's cool. Just today I was catching a story on how our governor turned down food assistance for poor children (I know, gross). I thought to myself "golly, I'm not even Christian and I'm more Christ-like than this lady... as a Pagan!" :laughing:
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I think you're asking a linguistic question. If I say to someone "try the cake. It's totally yummy", that's not proselytizing. If I say "the thing I really like about my religion is" that to me is not proselytizing. If I say "stop being a member of another religion or atheist and adopt my faith or you will go to hell", that is over the line.

Yikes! So for you, you'd make a distinction on how threatening or aggressive the action is, for it to be called proselytizing? I'm not sure I agree - I'm aware of missions, for example, that are basically acts of kindness that, through that, serve as vehicles for conversion - but we can probably more or less agree that the really aggressive stuff is definitely crossing a line.

I would word that as "science is the study of the universe God created". And you are not advocating for either a pagan or monotheist view but for the value of science. So my answer is "no" - you are not proselytizing.
Yes, in your theology there is a distinction between "creator" and "created." But there is no such distinction in my theology or for other polytheists, pantheists, and/or animists. It muddies the waters a bit, so to speak, when the world is full of gods and spirits rather than creating a clear separation between the two.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Yikes! So for you, you'd make a distinction on how threatening or aggressive the action is, for it to be called proselytizing? I'm not sure I agree - I'm aware of missions, for example, that are basically acts of kindness that, through that, serve as vehicles for conversion - but we can probably more or less agree that the really aggressive stuff is definitely crossing a line.
I went to the dictionary: Proselytize comes from the noun proselyte, meaning “a new convert,” which in turn ultimately comes from the Greek prosēlytos, meaning “stranger” or “newcomer.” When proselytize entered English in the 17th century, it had a distinctly religious connotation and meant simply “to recruit religious converts.” This meaning is still common, but today one can also proselytize in a broader sense—recruiting converts to one’s political party or pet cause, for example.

My initial response was from what bugs me. Strictly speaking, though, you are correct.

n your theology there is a distinction between "creator" and "created."
Actually that is not my theology just my rewording of what you wrote. Personally my perspective is close to advaita and would word it as "science is the study of God's great dream'". This is based on how in a dream we experience all sorts of situations with many different people but when we wake up, we know it was only a dream and that I was all the characters, buildings etc all the time. But that does not at all mean I dismiss science as meaningful. I find scientific knowledge as highly meaningful.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is an interesting one, because for Pagans, it is typical to care a lot less about what is "believed" compared to what is done. I know I've said more than a few times I couldn't care less whether someone uses a word like "gods" (or "worship") or not if, when I look at what you're actually doing, you're being of service to something greater than yourself and giving thanks. The labels don't matter so much for me. Which then begs the question - since the labels don't matter, wouldn't encouraging, say, environmentally responsible behavior take on a different tone, religiously speaking? And is it not viewed as religious mostly because we live in a culture where what "religion" looks like is permitted to be defined mostly by Abrahamic traditions? Gets me thinking sometimes.


Yup, I aim to be respectful of that sort of thing. In my head, basically anyone and everyone is serving the gods in some capacity, whether those words are used or not. But that isn't how they tell the story, and that's cool. Just today I was catching a story on how our governor turned down food assistance for poor children (I know, gross). I thought to myself "golly, I'm not even Christian and I'm more Christ-like than this lady... as a Pagan!" :laughing:
Yep, and I'm sure despite recent changes I still view religion through an Abrahamic lens first just because cultural upbringing is a *****, but I definitely have a much wider scope than it used to, so what is and isn't proselytizing has to also be more individual intent based, as well as based on how the recipient views it to some extent. Language is give and take.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It's a surprisingly difficult and interesting question.

At the end of the day, something is "religious" because it's called such by someone. Language and words in general are something of a construct, though they can mean very specific things within the context of a particular individual or culture.

It's true that language is basically an invention and of course varies by culture and region and so on. But within an established language and culture, words generally have a known and shared meaning. When someone decides, for whatever internal reasons, to just go and arbitrarily start using a word in a way no one else does, people are going to understandably be confused and go..."uhhh what are you talking about?"

For me, going to church - something typically considered a "religious behavior" - wouldn't be a religious behavior. It doesn't connect to my deeply-held values or practices; I'm a Pagan and a Druid who doesn't have any significant connections to churched religions. I would be an outsider, a visitor, a guest. It wouldn't be a religious action for me. But change the context to going to a nature preserve? That does connect to my deeply-held values and practices and would be a religious action or practice for me. So what does that mean, when gods are nature and then what religious action looks like?

I think the rub here is that most English speakers mean something beyond "deeply held values and practices" when it comes to religion. It entails a certain type of worldview, usually supernatural, that answers questions about why there's something rather than nothing, what our purpose and meaning of our existence is, and how we ought to behave. So some deeply held value, like empathy for example, isn't really religious per se to most people. It could be part of a religious worldview, but it doesn't have to be.


I create this thread mostly to serve as a challenge to get folks thinking about what it means to be religious, and what it means for some behavior to be religious. It's complicated.

I appreciate the challenge!
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It's straight up part of my job to recruit (i.e., convert) students into STEM majors. I'm not particularly aggressive about it because that's not my thing - if a student wants to major in business or something I support that in full - but it is totally part of the advocacy work I do.

It's interesting to think about what we do and don't view as conversion is impacted by what mainstream culture does and doesn't consider "religion." When I started my job some years ago, I would jokingly talk to friends that I was basically getting paid by the state to be a Pagan preacher... except they'd never characterize it as such because of the way this culture understands religion. :laughing:

Interesting.

I'm involved in STEM outreach myself - educational robotics for kids - and at times in the past, I worried that the program's emphasis on science, critical thinking and testing hypotheses could be construed as pushing the kids involved away from whatever religion they were being raised in.
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
... is it proselytizing to encourage others to study and appreciate nature/gods through the sciences, the arts, and life experience?

On occasion, I ask myself this question. I'm a Pagan Druid. For me and others on similar paths, that which is worthy of worship - the gods - is the world and the universe and everything in it. In my professional life, it is part of my job to serve as a science advocate, specifically for the earth and life sciences which are a major source of knowledge and inspiration in my religion (aka, science is the study of the gods). Is this, in effect, proselytizing? Why or why not?

As long as you aren't forcing them to deify nature as you do, it's not proselytizing imo, as teaching another to respect the same things you respect, and on the same level isn't the same as pushing for them to convert to a particular spiritual view.

But... if that attracts some to see things that way, than that's good too.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Interesting.

I'm involved in STEM outreach myself - educational robotics for kids - and at times in the past, I worried that the program's emphasis on science, critical thinking and testing hypotheses could be construed as pushing the kids involved away from whatever religion they were being raised in.
That depends on the parents etc. Some want their kids to follow blindly and get upset. Others want their kids to embrace critical thinking etc and are happy. You make the first set unhappy but make the second happy.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
... is it proselytizing to encourage others to study and appreciate nature/gods through the sciences, the arts, and life experience?

On occasion, I ask myself this question. I'm a Pagan Druid. For me and others on similar paths, that which is worthy of worship - the gods - is the world and the universe and everything in it....
Please explain what the word "god" means to you?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
It's a surprisingly difficult and interesting question.

At the end of the day, something is "religious" because it's called such by someone. Language and words in general are something of a construct, though they can mean very specific things within the context of a particular individual or culture.

For me, going to church - something typically considered a "religious behavior" - wouldn't be a religious behavior. It doesn't connect to my deeply-held values or practices; I'm a Pagan and a Druid who doesn't have any significant connections to churched religions. I would be an outsider, a visitor, a guest. It wouldn't be a religious action for me. But change the context to going to a nature preserve? That does connect to my deeply-held values and practices and would be a religious action or practice for me. So what does that mean, when gods are nature and then what religious action looks like?

I create this thread mostly to serve as a challenge to get folks thinking about what it means to be religious, and what it means for some behavior to be religious. It's complicated.


Ideally, would there be an element of reverence in everything you do?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Please explain what the word "god" means to you?
It's right there in what you quoted - that which is worthy of worship. Each person or culture sets their own parameters for what is and isn't deified , so what the standard of "worth" is will vary. One especially common take on it is worthiness stems from being that-which-is-greater or that, without which, nothing as we know it would be at all. While it is popular these days to attribute this to something "behind" or "above" nature, historically this was nature. And as a Pagan, I follow the tradition of understanding that the universe and everything in it is an interconnected, interdependent weave that is all sacred and worthy of worship (aka, all is divine). This is a lesson that emerges from studying sciences, honestly, especially ecology and environmental science. I came to my theological understanding and my religion largely through sciences (aka, gods are nature), and continued to be involved in science because of my theology and my religion (aka, to serve the gods).
Ideally, would there be an element of reverence in everything you do?
There was a job posting a month or so ago that circulated about internally at the office. Applying to it and getting that job would have put me up two pay grades. When I sat down and did a divination about it, what smacked me in the face is how sterile and boring that job would be compared to what I am doing now. That is, there would be no element of reverence or serving the gods I value most in that new position. The moment I recognized that, I realized I would hate it - and hate myself - for leaving what I do now for more money that I don't actually need. So while I'm not sure I'd say that everything I do needs an element of reverence, I do view religion as more or less inseparable from one's way of life as a whole. The way one lives should be an expression of who and what one is at core as much as possible, if for no other reason than it makes for happy, content, joyful living.
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
I follow the tradition of understanding that the universe and everything in it is an interconnected, interdependent weave that is all sacred and worthy of worship (aka, all is divine).
This the part I don’t get.
If all is sacred, does this make nothing profane?
If all is divine, does this render nothing earthly?

It’s like saying everything is “special” which renders the word “special” to the realm of “normal”.

If someone is in awe of nature, that’s great.
I don’t understand why there’s a need to then add another layer and declare it “divine” or “worthy of worship” and imply a religiosity to it.

Particularly when for the vast majority of people the concept of something being “divine” implies a “supernaturalness” to it, which is the part that deems it “worthy of worship”.

When in fact, you can’t get more “natural” than nature.

Perhaps you could help me understand this mindset.
 
Top