Towards a
PolyTheology:
Developing a Neopagan Theology
.Copyright1990-1997 Lilinah biti-Anat, except where
noted. All rights reserved.
Towards a
PolyTheology:
.Copyright1990-1997 Lilinah biti-Anat, except where
noted. All rights reserved.
INDEX
What Is Theology? an Introduction
Ethics - Systems of Social and Personal Behavior
Theology is not the mere quoting of scripture to tell you the word of god, although that may be what some fundamentalists do. Literally it is "a (rational) discourse concerning god," from the Greek theos( god) and logos (discourse or reason). The Christians are not the only ones to carry on such a discourse. As theologia, it began at least with the ancient Greeks, with such people as Hesiod, with his collecting and organizing of myths, and continuing with philosophers like Aristotle.
Thomas Aquinas distinguished between truths of faith and truths of reason. Other thinkers bound philosophy and theology tightly. Still others saw theology as quite separate from philosophy. Protestant theology tends to rely less on reason than Catholic theology and more on faith, scripture, and revelation. Natural theology is considered to be a theology which rests on reason rather than revelation.
Even within one single sect of Christianity, not all theologians agree on all the issues. Judaism has its theology and, just like Christianity, answers to the basic questions will vary from one branch to another (Orthodox, Chasidic, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or Renewal). Islam is primarily divided among the Sunni and the Shi'a along issues including those of theology. Buddhism as well has its many ways with differing issues. Theology in any religion remains an on-going discourse.
In traditional theology, there are three basic arguments for the existence of god/ the deities:
Many Neopagan creation stories fit within the cosmological argument, often including "The Star Goddess" as the first cause, moving from a oneness, monism, to a duality, a male and a female deity, to a plurality of being, all the deities and worlds and beings.
Ontology as a philosophy regarding the knowledge of being, asking "what is the nature of being?", is quite alive, however. What IS the nature of being? Neither scientists, philosophers, nor theologians have even come close to resolving this, and the discussion remains lively, particularly among scientists.
In contrast with theology and cosmology, ontology can be considered the universal doctrine of being, theology the doctrine of absolute being, and cosmology the doctrine of finite and relative being
As science has developed, the credibility of both teleology and the teleological argument have been greatly reduced.
Answers like this drive Fundamentalists of any religion wild, for they have their answer either in their holy book or told to them by their teachers or preachers. For any larger religious community, however, this is a matter of discussion with no absolute answer accepted by all. This is as true of Christians as it is of Neopagans. The individual congregant may not have the same understanding as other congregants nor as the minister of the congregation. The ministers of one sect of Protestantism may have a different understanding from the ministers of another. Catholicism sees things differently from Protestants, and there is really no absolute unity of position even among Catholic theologians.
Perhaps many will, however, agree that it is difficult to PROVE the existence of a Divine Force, Energy, or Being. We can look at the Universe, or as some have it, the Multiverse, and say that some force or principle much greater than humanity brought it into being and causes it to continue to be and to change. Whether it is sentient, conscious, or willful is another matter.
The Gaia Hypothesis, held as a Belief by some Neopagans, says that the Earth is a unique organism behaving as a single organism, and perhaps suggests consciousness or sentience on some level, which among some Neopagans is held to be at a fairly high level. This attitude can be extended out to include the entire universe. For others the issue of sentience, consciousness, or will is moot. Things just BE and we are all part of BEING, not even necessarily separate from it, our unique individuality an illusion. This attitude is highly influenced by Hindu and Buddhist thought. Some Neopagans hold to the absolute existence of their deities as unique and distinct from humanity and not dependent upon humanity. Still others feel that deities are human intellectual or psychological constructs to deal with issues that are greater than the scope of the individual human.
What is important here is not to find THE answer, but to give the issue consideration and thought, and at least come to some position as an individual. Naturally, this position can change as an individual's life experiences change.
Seems to be rather left out of Christian discussions of Theology, since their god is assumed to exist a priori. But it was of concern to the ancient philosophers and still concerns us today.
Some forms of Neopaganism include a theogony, a story of the coming into being of the deities. These stories vary from tradition to tradition. Often they begin with undifferentiated energy which gradually takes on form, becoming the originator, usually a goddess, called in a number of traditions the Star Goddess. She brings forth, in some manner, at least one other deity, usually a god, with whom she has sex and from their union eventually come forth the rest of the deities and the cosmos.
Refers to the accounts of the origins of worlds, and applies equally to the speculative accounts of modern astronomers and the mythical accounts of various cultures, including the Bible.
As differentiated from ontology, cosmological analysis seeks to discover what is true for this world, and ontological analysis to discover relations and distinctions which would be valid in any world.
The philosophy of cosmology may include the contingency, necessity, eternity, limitations, and formal laws of the world, as well as questions of human freedom and the origin of evil
Currently the chief cosmologists are scientists - astronomers, theoretical physicists, and mathematicians - speculating on the origin and development of the universe as well as its present structure.
There is even Acosmism (from Greek "a" no, not, and cosmos, world) in which Hegel posited that the world is unreal and that only God exists. This actually fits, to some extent, various forms of pantheism and even Buddhism, although for Buddhists there is no being which is god; rather, there just the ultimate oneness of all. And while there are deities, the deities, too, devolve into the prime oneness.
Ethics comes from a Greek term ethikos, from ethos meaning "custom" or "usage." Moralis was introduced by Cicero as the Latin equivalent, although there is considered to be some difference today between ethics and morality. In general, ethics is understood to concern acting in terms of the good and the right. This begins a series of arguments concerning the definitions of and origins of these terms and behaviors.
As usual, there are no simple approaches to the issue, and no simple answers. Neopaganism proposes some guidelines, but leave most decisions up to the individual. Since once again there are no absolutes, Fundamentalist Christians will often claim that Neopagansim has no ethical teachings. This is untrue, as the issues of ethics have never been resolved in any absolute way by philosophers of any culture or theologians of any religion.
Among the issues under consideration are:
The problem here is that for many Christians and Moslems there is an absolute evil, usually called Satan or the Devil. But the relationship of Evil to God and to humanity varies from one sect of Christianity to another, depending on whether one accepts free will, predestination, etc.
Moreover, the existence of an Absolute Evil is NOT common to all, or even most religions. That it does not exist in Neopaganism is no "error" on the part of Neopagan theology. It could, perhaps, be pointed out in arguments with Christians, that the Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus do not believe in absolute evil. This won't matter much to a Fundamentalist, but it puts Neopagans in "good company."
Developing through philosophy and religion, one arrives at a number of ethical systems. One arrives at systems of Normative Ethics, designed to provide guidance in making decisions concerning good and evil, right and wrong, and systems of Meta-Ethics, analyzing the logic of usage with respect to "good" and "evil," "right" and "wrong." Most ethical philosphers have combined the two into their systems, but as ordinary Neopagans, we may be most concerned with the issue of Normative Ethics.
The ancient Greeks concerned themselves with good, distinguishing between intrinsic goods, which are those things good in themselves, and intrumental goods, which have their value in making possible another good.
Good extends beyond "what ought to be done in the way of conduct where the actions of individuals intersect." Not only does it include those actions, but extends into the aesthetic, that which deserves to be appreciated and the true, that which deserves to be believed.
The Greek philosophies concerned themselves also with the summun bonum, the highest good, but they do not all agree on what this is. For Aristotle, it was eudaimonia, happiness; for the Epicureans, pleasure (which has a rather specific definition within their philosophy), and for the Stoics, serene resignation. For the Confucians it is li, translated as propriety or good manners. For Christians it is agape, love.
The right is often considered to be "what ought to exist in its own right," while good is "what one ought to do." Right has also been related to both reason and eternal law, and is sometimes considered to be Objective.
For some modern ethicists, good derives from attitudes of approval in society, while right derives from attitudes of disapproval, such as prohibitions. Good is sometimes considered to include such qualities as creativity, pleasure in the sense of satisfaction and fulfillment.
Within an ethical theory either good or right will usually dominate.
(2) (a) When the good is considered to be the key to ethical behavior, the ethical theory is characterized by value fulfillment, right becomes one aspect of that fulfillment, namely the set of obligations to others which must be respected in reaching the good. These theories are termed either Axiological, stressing their value aspect, or Teleological, stressing their orientation to final goals.
Teleological Ethics analyzes the right in terms of the ends of actions. The emphasis is on the consequence likely to flow from a decision. Since the good is an end to be achieved, teleological ethics may be said to be the approach to ethics which evaluates the conduct in terms of its likelihood to produce good.
(2) (b) When the right is considered to be the key to ethical behavior, the ethical theory is oriented to the ideas of obligation and duty, centering around the statement of principles of behavour, rather than, as in the former case, in the tracing of consequences. These theories are termed either Deontological, stressing obligation, or Formalistic, stressing principle.
(3) Both good and right can be viewed as either objective, standing for a real factor in things, or subjective, simply standing for a human proposal, thus Ethical Objectivism or Ethical Subjectivism.
(3) (a) Those which regard the good and/ or right as objective may be further divided. This division turns on the epistimological question of how the good and right are known. Those who claim that the good and right can be known as natural objects are known, and that empirical verification is possible in ethics, are called Ethical Naturalists. Those who claim that the good and/ or right can be known only by a special intuition are called Ethical Intuitionists.
(3) (b) Those whose theories hold that ethical terms do not stand for anything objective may be called Non-Cognitivists, since for this group ethical terms and judgments stand for emotions, attitudes, proposals, recommendations, etc. The Non-Cognitivists can be further subdivided. Those who ground ethical terms in emotions expressing attitudes of approval or disapproval have been called Emotivists. Non-Cognitivism in which the attitudes of the group determine the meaning and the force of value terms may be called Cultural Relativism, or Ethical Relativism.
Two ethical principles are often stated as being part of Wicca and are cited by many Wiccan-influenced Neopagans, who are not necessarily Wiccans in the true sense of the word. These two principle are commonly known as The Wiccan Rede and The Law of Threefold Return.
A Formalistic Ethic, The Wiccan Rede may be considered to be akin to the so-called Golden Rule, most commonly stated as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Rede is sometimes couched in a long doggeral poem, designed to be easily memorized. At its core it says, as long as it harms none, you may do what you wish to, frequently put "An it harm none, do as ye will."
Most commonly this idea seems to apply first to humans, and harming another human is considered to be unethical by the standards of most Neopagans, whether out of dislike, anger, or vengence. Some Neopagans stretch this to include animals and become vegetarians (eating eggs and a variety of dairy products) or even vegans (eating and using no products of animal origin whatsoever).
Hot debates arise in the Neopagan community regarding the ethicality of hunting, meat eating, using or wearing leather or fur. Another "hot" topic is whether soldiering and fighting of any sort, even in self-defense, are correct according to the Rede. Some Neopagans stress a stand of non-violence beyond that practiced in the political arena. I think i would be safe in saying, at least, that MOST Neopagans agree that there is no need to hunt rare or endangered wild animals just for their furs, and that such behavior is unethical. Those who do not eschew fur and leather will get theirs from animals raised by humans for this purpose or from animals common in the wild, such as most species of deer.
A Teleological Ethic, the Law of the Threefold Return probably has relatively recent origins - most likely derived from Theosophy of the latter quarter of the 19th century, which brought some elements of Hindu though and belief, including but no limited to Chakras and Reincarnation, into Western, European society. There is no hard evidence of this so-called law existing before that time in Western philosophy, religion or folklore. It reinforces the Wiccan Rede in that it states that whatever [behaviors, energy, magic] one does will return to one three times as strong. This is meant to deter doing any unethical behaviors or harmful magical acts. Many Wiccans hold this belief as do most Wiccan influenced Neopagans, whether they are actually Wiccans or not. Not all traditions of Wicca or of Witchcraft hold this belief. As i said, it is basically a reinforcement of harm none, for it suggests that if one does do harm, one will feel that harm three times over. In some Neopagan traditions, this appears as The Law of Tenfold Return, but this is less common than Threefold.
First propounded by Joseph Fletcher in Situation Ethics, published in 1966, its position is that any action may be good or bad depending on the situation. What is wrong in most situations may sometimes be right if the end it serves is sufficiently good. There is also a school of Christian situationism which turns on agape, a love characerized by "thankfulness." An example may be murder - this is considered wrong, but if someone is tryng to kill you and the only way to prevent this is to kill them, one is in such a situation. If one feels one's own life doesn't matter and ethical principles matter more, one is not a situationist. Perhaps an even stronger example would be a situation in which someone is trying to kill your small children. Most parents would consider doing whatever is necessary to protect their young. Another situation may be theft - this is considered bad. But if the choice is stealing some food or starving to death, one may find oneself stealing. Living is a greater good for most individuals than obeying an ethical principle.
Situation ethics is a principle underlying many Neopagan decisions. Other than the two "laws" stated above, there is no well-developed ethical code within Neopaganism like the "Ten Commandments." Much teaching is presented on a case-by-case basis. Stress is placed on the responsibility of all individuals for our actions, and that we will each experience the consequences of our actions. Of special concern is the use of magic. When is it permissible to do magic involving people other than the magic worker? Is a particular type of magic NEVER to be used? Or is it perhaps only suitable in extreme situations, when one is willing to bear the attended threefold return, because the end good as a whole is more important than consequences to the individual magic user? For every act of magic, the magic-worker must consider this.
Sin is a theological concept, not an ethical concept. Most religions do have concepts of right and wrong, a system of ethics. But the concept of sin is distinguished from a moral wrong in that, while the latter is committed against humans, the former is a transgression against God.
Of course, the issues of right and good, of wrong and evil, concern Neopagans. But as sin does not exist within Neopaganism, this is an issue which does not really need to be deeply addressed by Neopagans, except to understand it as a concept. In fact, the concept of sin also does not exist within MANY other religious systems.
One must beware, however, when reading translations of the works of other religions, for often the word "sin" is used to translate a concept which is really somewhat different, and while a "wrong" or "error of behavior", it is not identical with "a transgression against God." The use of this term reflects the religious beliefs of the translator and not necessarily the system presented in the text.
The concept of Original Sin is entirely unique to Christianity. The idea is that humans are born in a state of sin because of what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Even. It did NOT enter Christianity with Christ. Early Christians were without this concept. Nor have all Christians since Paul accepted the doctrine of Original Sin. Obviously, this is not an issue for Neopagans, except, again, in dialogue with certain Christians.
What is Polytheology?
What is Neo-Paganism?
What is Polytheism?, Some Definitions
Beyond Polytheism
Theology is defined monotheistically as "the field of study, thought, and analysis concerning the nature of God, His attributes, and His relations to the universe and humans in particular." More broadly it is the study of divine things or religious truth, usually a specific form or system as expounded by a particular religion or denomination. These explanations of doctrines, practices, and beliefs may or may not be as actually practiced by the majority of a religion's members, but reflect the intellectual speculations of trained clergy and theologians.
Polytheology, then, is the study of the religious thought of Pagans and their deities. It can encompass monotheism, since the god of a particular monotheism can be discussed as other deities are. This paper focuses on Neo-Paganism. While polytheology is not yet a recognized field, as more Pagans become accredited scholars, we can create a true dialogue among religious thinkers and create a REAL theology which is more than monotheistic.
I do not pretend here to develop one true right and only way (OTROW). Rather i am attempting to present a spectrum of thoughts and ideas. Neopaganism is a many splendoured thing, it doesn't take one shape or form. In fact, many Neopagans actively participate and practice several different spiritual paths.
I am open to discussion of these issues and am considering starting a Pagan PolyTheology E-List. If you are interested let me know. E-Mail lilinah@grin.net.
According to Diana Paxson: "A useful term for the faith we practice is "The Old Religion," which includes both the uninterrupted tribal religions of native peoples all over the world, and contemporary attempts to recover native traditions interrupted by Christianity, and to combine religious elements from a variety of sources into a faith suitable for our pluralistic society. The various traditions of the Old Religion share a belief that Divinity may be worshipped in many forms and addressed by many names; that the physical world is as holy as the spiritual realm; that humankind should live in harmony with nature; and that magical or sacramental practices are effective. Most of these traditions also believe that both women and men have spiritual power, and that individual inspiration is as valid as inherited traditions.
"An additional characteristic of the Old Religion is that its symbols are imprinted in the collective unconscious, and many of its practices come from the most instinctive levels of the mind. This gives us an advantage in recovering our traditions, since some material can be accessed by developing channels of communication between the conscious and unconscious minds. Our sacred book is Nature Herself. We are at a disadvantage when discussing with people whose sacred authority is the written word, for those are the people who have written most of the books by which people judge religion. Much religious writing assumes the inherent primacy of monotheism and masculinity, and the inherent inferiority of the physical world. Without allowing ourselves to fall into the opposite trap of assuming that everything monotheistic and male is bad and everything female or polytheistic good, our study of the history of religion must be informed by intuition, and we must read as much, written from as many points of view, as we can."
Used with permission
In a discussion of polytheology, we need to define a number of terms which have been applied to religious beliefs over the course of time. I begin with animism because it is sometimes cited as the most "primitive," or primal, spiritual/religious belief system.
[The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged] 1. the belief that natural objects, natural phenomena, and the universe itself possess souls. 2. the belief that natural objects have souls which may exist apart from their material bodies. 3. the doctrine that the soul is the principle of life and health. 4. belief in spiritual beings or agencies. [from Latin = anim(a) air, the breath of life, spirit, soul]
[Webster's New World Dictionary] 1. the belief that all life is produced by a spiritual force that is separate from matter. 2. the belief that natural phenomena and objects, as rocks, trees, the wind, etc are alive and have souls. 3. the doctrine of the existence of soul as independent of matter. 4. a belief in the existence of spirits, demons, etc.
According to E.B. Tylor, an early anthropologist, inside the ordinary tangible body there is a normally invisible, normally intangible being; this is known as The Doctrine of Souls.
Cultural Variations: (1) people have 2 or more "souls" [NOTE: these 'souls' may be of different types, as in Egyptian, Jewish, and Norse cultures]; (2) some people have more souls than other people; (3) extra souls can be acquired.
[Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon]: "Animism is used to imply a reality in which all things are imbued with vitality. The ancient world view did not conceive of a separation between 'animate' and 'inanimate.' All things from rocks and trees to dreams were considered to partake of the life force. At some level Neo-Paganism is an attempt to reanimate the world of nature; or, perhaps more accurately, Neo-Pagan religions allow their participants to reenter the primeval world view, to participate in nature in a way that is not possible for most Westerners after childhood. The Pagan revival seems to be a survival response to the common urban and suburban experience of our culture as 'impersonal,' 'neutral,' or 'dead.'"
[The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged] the attribution of consciousness to inanimate objects and natural phenomena. [from Latin = animat(us) filled with breath or air, quickened, animated] [NOTE: this is often the definition 'popularly' given for animism]
According to Marett, another early anthropologist, to distinguish the concept of a life force from a soul. This concentrated life force gives certain objects, animals, and people extra-ordinary powers independent of the power derived from souls and gods. This power can be called mana (a generalized, supernatural force or power, which may be concentrated in objects or persons). It can relate to non-religious or quasi-religious beliefs. This is related to hylozoism which perceives a life-fource in all things, although not a soul.
[W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Eastern and Western Thought] from Greek pan and psyche, meaning everything is possessed of soul. Although there is a distinction between possessing soul (panpsychism) and possessing life (hylozoism), in paractice this division is difficult to maintain. Early Greek philosophers viewed matter as intrinsically active, some (Thales) even held that all things are full of gods. Aristotle is on the line between panpsychism and hylozoism.
Giordano Bruno, in the late 16th C., "advanced the first clear theory of panpsychism. For him the basic unit of reality is the monad, animated with its own energy. Souls and gods are likewise monads, and the innumerable worlds of the universe ar interpreted in organic terms, as having lives of their own." "Campanella [in the 16th and 17th C.] presented the notion of a graded reality from matter to God, yet each level has to some extent the qualities of knowledge, power, and love." Numerous theologians and philosophers, such as Leibnitz, Goethe, Schopenhauer, William James, and A. N. Whitehead have followed the discussion with such notions as: "all of nature [is] alive, even if slumbering on its lower levels; but all levels of nature are directed toward consciousness" (Schelling); and "the world is characterized throughout as a throbbing will, more or less informed by awareness, depending on the level of reference" (Schopenhauer).
[The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged] 1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and [humanity] are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature. 2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine which identifies the universe with God.
[Webster's New World Dictionary] 1. the doctrine or belief that God is not a personality, but that all laws, forces, manifesta tions, etc. of the self-existing universe are God; belief that God is everything and everything is God 2. the worship of all gods.
[Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon]: "For many Pagans, pantheism implies much the same thing as animism. It is a view that divinity is inseparable from nature and that deity is immanent in nature. Neo-Pagan groups participate in divinity. The title of this book implies one such participation: when a Craft priestess becomes the Goddess within the circle. [The ritual act of] "Drawing down the Moon" symbolizes the idea that we are the gods, or can, at least, become them from time to time in rite and fantasy "
[W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Eastern and Western Thought] "Pantheism in the West arose in the context of philosophical speculation, rather than in the context of religious practice." The term was first introduced in 1705 by John Toland. The term has been "applied to a variety of positions where God and the world are held to be identical." Pantheism is distinct from Panentheism, in which "the world is regarded as a constituent of God but not identical with Him." Some form of Pantheism has been a part of the philosophy and theology of the ancient Greeks, the Jews, Moslems (especially in Sufism), and Christians, and continues to develop in the 20th Century. Reese breaks Pantheism into several basic schools, which can be intermingled or broken down further. His basic pattern include:
Not in my dictionary. Literally: "all within God"; all things make up God; every thing exists within the Divine." And that Divinity is both immanent and transcendent.
[Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ: the Healing of Mother Earth and the Coming of a Global Renaissance]: "Divinity is not outside us. We are in God and God is in us. That is the unitive experience of the mystics East or West. Its technical name is panentheism, which means that "God is in all things and all things are in God" This means that it is not theistic, which envisions divinity "out there" or even "in here" in a dualistic manner that separates creation from divinity."
[W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Eastern and Western Thought] "The view that all reality is part of the being of God, as distinct from Pantheism which identifies God with the total reality." The term was first used by Krause (1781-1832) who said that "God includes in His being, while transcending them, both nature and humanity." Thus "the world is a finite creation within the infinite being of God; and that the whole is a divine organis so constituted that higher organisms have lower organisms as their constituents."
Some Panentheists combine Panpsychism, such that "ever entity [is] sentient to some extent, and exist[s] as a component in the life of a more inclusive being. The series ends with the Divine Being whose constituents include all of reality. Just as a cell has a certain freedom within the body, so we hve a certain freedom within the Divine Being." (Fechner) For A.N. Whitehead, in whose metaphysics feeling is spread throughout a reality interpreted in organismic terms, "Deity is dipolar, both absolute and relative, and man's immortality is his continued reality within the consequent nature of God."
Some friends of mine describe a way of conceptualizing the difference between pantheism and panentheism as follows: visualize two circles, one, a blue circle which represents the World/ Cosmos/ Universe; the other a yellow circle which represents the Divine/ God. In pantheism, the blue circle and the yellow circle unite to form one green circle; in panentheism, the blue circle and the yellow circle overlap, with the blue unified within the yellow and appearing green, but the yellow circle extending beyond the circumference of the blue one. Everything is within the Divine or part of the Divine, but the Divine is greater than or more than all of creation. (Thanks, Paul and Michele)
Both terms came into common use in the 17th century. The Deists believe that God created the world and then had little or nothing to do with it. Theists believe that God created the world and remains involved with it. The contrast between Theism and Pan-Theism is that in Pantheism deity, identified with the world, is wholly immanent, whereas in Theism deity is both transcendent and immanent. Some Neopagans believe that the Divine is both immanent and transcendent. Therefore some neoPagans are actually THEISTS, conforming to the modern so-called dipolar theism which posits a balance between transcendence and immanence, absoluteness and relativity, in the conception of deity.
[The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged] the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods [and/or goddesses].
[P.E.I. (Isaac) Bonewits, Real Magic]: A style of religion in which the theologians claim that there are many deities, of varying power, and many lesser spirits as well, all of whom are considered to be "real" and to be worthy of respect and/or worship.
[Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon]: "The idea of polytheism is grounded in the view that reality (divine or otherwise) is mul tiple and diverse. And if one is a pantheist-polytheist, as are may Neo-Pagans, one might say that all nature is divinity and manifests itself in myriad forms and delightful complexities. On a broader level, Isaac Bonewits wrote, "Polytheists develop logical systems based on multiple levels of reality and the magical Law of Infinite Universes: 'every sentient being lives in a unique universe.'" Polytheism has allowed a multitude of distinct groups to exist more or less in harmony, despite great divergence in beliefs and practices and may also have prevented these groups from being preyed upon by gurus and profiteers."
"In beginning to understand what polytheism means to modern Neo-Pagans we must divest ourselves of a number of ideas about it mainly, that it is an inferior way of perceiving that disappeared as religions "evolved" toward the idea of one god."
Another view is that Polytheism, at its simplest a belief in many deities, is a way of personalizing and personifying the many and varied energies in the cosmos, and of acknowledging this personification and personalizing. Pantheism and Panentheism are ways of relating to everything as divine. We tend to anthropomorphize the Divine, since as humans it is often easier to relate to it clothed, somewhat, in our own form. While we do not forget that our goal is integration, polytheism breaks the ONE into smaller parts to deal more easily with various aspects of the whole when we need to concentrate on specific energies and manifestations of energies, on specific aspects of life. The deities can be considered as actual beings or as symbols. Since they are facets of a larger whole, no single deity is necessarily dominant.
[ Henge of Keltria, a Druidic organization] "We see Deity in many different aspects, both male and female. These different aspects of Deity each represent different aspects of life, nature and the seasons. We use appropriate aspects of Deity in rituals and in our lives to help us maintain contact. The idea that these aspects of Deity are separate from each other is called polytheism (many Gods). The idea that these aspects are part of a larger whole (often called the unmanifest and sometimes God) is called pan-polytheism. In Keltrian Druidism, we see both polytheism and pan-polytheism as valid views of Deity."
[W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Eastern and Western Thought] from Greek "a" (no, not) and "gignoskein" (to know). Coined by T. H. Huxley (1825-95), it refers to the position of suspended belief. It can be applied to ANY proposition for which the evidence is insufficient for belief, not only a suspension of belief in a god. Even among the ancient Greeks, Protagoras held that with respect to the gods he had no way of knowing that they exist or not. Some Neopagans are agnostics.
[The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged] 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God or [deitie]s. 2. disbelief in the existence of God or [deitie]s.
[W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Eastern and Western Thought] "The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being. The term has frequently been applied to those who disbelieve in the popular gods." In a polytheistic world, it has been applied to monotheists. In a monotheistic world, it has been applied to pantheists."
"There exists a long tradition of those who have believed that religion rests on superstition." This was true of certain ancient Greek philosophers, 17th century philosophers, as well as 20th century philosophers and scientists, and is not limited to Western thought. Religion can be viewed as a tool to control the masses
Some Neopagans are atheists in any of several ways.
SOME OTHER TERMS NEOPAGANS USE
We Neopagans are quite sincere about our spirituality. However, we still have time to look at ourselves with a sense of humor. Among terms we may apply to our polymorphous approach to religion are AtheoPagan and PolyAtheist.
Although our spirituality keeps us in touch with Nature, we are not Luddites, seeking to destroy technology. While some of us live in rural regions or the wilds, many of us live in urban and suburban areas and, as you can see here, use computers. Therefore, another term we use is TechnoPagan, to indicate a Neopagan with an especial interest, personal or professional, in technology, particularly computer technology.
Andraste, a Neopagan and Wiccan friend, pointed out to me two possible forms
of Paganism:
A third possibility which comes to my mind is that:
In fact, contemporary American Neo-Paganism can encompass atheists who perceive a universal principle which doesn't have to take a particular deity form, nor include sentience, consciousness, or will; monistic pantheists, who see the divine as permeating everything in the universe; monotheists, such as Gavin and Yvonne Frost of the Church and School of Wicca, or some feminists and others who practice Goddess-monotheism; duotheists, such as many in British Traditional Wicca groups who worship one God and one Goddess who may each have several different aspects; polytheists, who believe in the literal existance of their many deities; henotheists, who, while acknowledging the existence of other deities, chose to focus their devotion on one in particular, such as members of the Ancient Egypt oriented Church of the Eternal Source and some practitioners of Afro-diasporic New World religions such as Loucumi, Santeria, Vodou, Candomble, Macumba, Umbanda, Quimbanda, etc.; those influenced by Jungianism, who see the deities as useful concepts rather than actual realities; and a surprising number of humanists, agnostics, and even atheists. An individual may practice several of these, and there are Neo-Pagans who are concurrently practicing Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sufis, or on other spiritual paths. Neo-Pagan polytheism can include them all.
In the larger contemporary American society which does not acknowledge multiple deities, polytheism has taken on different, although not unrelated, meanings. Chief among those "redefining" the term are Jungian phychologists and writers who espouse various aspects of Jungian thought. To oversimplify, Jungians break down the human psyche into archetypes, larger-than-life roles in which we may be casting ourselves (Mother, Father, Judge, etc.). They have especially taken the names of certain Greek deities to identify these archetypes: Athena, the masculine-identifying Daughter; Hera, the typical Wife; Demeter, the Good Mother; Dionysus, the party animal; Zeus, the stern Father; Apollo, analytical and unemotional; etc. There's no doubt that this is a useful system, and one to which many Neo-Pagans can relate, but do not mistake this application of Greek names for the deities themselves. Jungians are not describing with these terms the deities as conceived by the Greeks, and they are applying the terminology in a context which is not necessarily religious.
[David L. Miller, The New Polytheism]: "Polytheism is not just a matter of having many roles in the social order that each individual plays from time to time in his life. It is not that we worship many Gods and Goddesses (e.g., money, sex, power, and so on); it is rather that the Gods and Goddesses live through our psychic structures. They are given in the fundamental nature of our being, and they manifest themselves always in our behaviors. The Gods grab us, and we play out their stories.
"This means that the new polytheism is not simply a matter of pluralism in the social order, anarchy in politics, polyphonic meaning in language. The new sensibility is a manifestation of something far more basic. The Gods are Powers. They are the potency in each of us, in societies, and in nature. Their stories are the stories of the coming and going, the birth and death, of this potency as it is experienced. Our culture is apparently pluralistic; actually it is polytheistic."
Among people active in areas of feminism, the human-potential movement, liberal to radical politics, and other exploring processes, there is a accent on the acknowledgement of the multi-faceted quality to humanity, human culture, and human ideas, and the attitude that there need not be One True Right and Only Way to do or imagine anything. Some of these people, too, and many Neo-Pagans working with these ideas, use the term "polytheism" to express this attitude, even though they, too, are not necessarily applying it in a spiritual context.
[Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions]: Contemporary polytheism "recognizes that there are a variety of forces at work in human life and thought. One can be polytheistic without believing in gods per se. A person may be polytheistic in her or his political, social, and aesthetic attitudes simply by recognizing that several dynamics and sets of standards determine people's organization of their world. Monotheists are those among us who always want to 'get it together' - to decide on one overriding principle which will explain all life, all thought, all feeling. Monotheism becomes increasingly untenable as we recognize the rights of people to live out a variety of life styles under a variety of rules."
Index of This Page
Some Standard Definitions of Myth and Mythology
What Myths Do
But What is Mythology, Really?
MYTHOLOGY
[Webster's New World Dictionary] 1. the science or study of myths. 2. a book of or about myths. 3. myths collectively; especially, all the myths of a specific people or about a specific being.
The Bible is a Mythology - it fits definitions 2. and 3. above.
MYTH
[The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged] 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some superhuman being or some alleged person or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially a traditional or legendary story that is concerned with deities or demigods and the creation of the world and its inhabitants.
[Webster's New World Dictionary] 1. a traditional story of unknown authorship, ostensibly with a historical basis, but serving usually to explain some phenomenon of nature, the origin of [humanity], or the customs, institutions, religious rites, etc. of a people; myths usually involve the exploits of gods and heros.
The Bible contains Myths, as it fits the definitions of both dictionaries.
PANTHEON
[The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged] n. 3. a temple dedicated to all the gods. 4. the gods of a particular mythology considered collectively.
Myths the world over tend to express certain common themes: those relating to cosmogony, the creation of the universe or the earth with its solar system, humanity, plants, and animals, other aspects of nature, and the theory of their origin, as well as myths of a second creation following a disaster, frequently a flood; to theogony, the origin of the [deities] and their genealogy, especially the Great Mother, pairs of deities (often brother-sister/husband-wife), and triads with the addition of a child; to etiology, the study of causes and beginnings in general; and to the struggle between or among opposing forces, especially dualistic elements as good-evil, light-dark, or heaven-underworld. "From this rudimentary, elemental scientific approach to the world around [them], [humans] need for some control over [their] environment and existence led to a fundamental worship, frequently with the aid of shamans, priests [and priestesses], or medicine [people], and the propitiation of those who might influence [their lives] or [their] surroundings." (Rhoda A. Hendricks, Mythologies of the World, A Concise Encyclopedia) [i replaced man/men/him/his with humans/people/they/their and added priestess]
Myths are also shaped by personification, that is, the endowment of aspects of nature, inanimate objects, or qualities and abstractions with human form, attributes, and characteristics. This is closely related to anthropomorphism, the assigning of human shape, qualities, and concepts to a deity, animal, plant, or other object. "By means of deification, humans and personifications were elevated to the position of a deity." (Hendricks)
Other myths explain social traditions, customs, religious beliefs and practices, and the mysteries of life and death. "Most beliefs surrounding death show fundamental similarities in that the dead went to an afterworld, which might be an underworld beneath the earth, an island paradise, a [hall of heroes], or the moon, and a number of mythologies linked death to a cycle of rebirth, somewhat parallel to that occurring in vegetation Imagination, superstition, and embellishment mingle freely with observation." Some myths are used to teach; some are 'just' for entertainment and storytelling. Myths and legends pass from generation to generation, enriching the lives of all who listen, giving them value and a sense of security, and linking them with their ancestors before them, and wisdom heroic and divine. (Hendricks)
Samuel Noah Kramer said, in his introduction to Mythologies of the Ancient World: "Modern students of mythology disagree radically in their views of the nature, scope, and significance of the ancient myths. There are those who look upon them as trivial superstitious fairy tales of little intellectual and spiritual import - the infantile products of undisciplined imaginations and capricious fantasy. Diametrically opposed to them are scholars who believe that myths of the ancients represent one of the most profound achievements of the human spirit, the inspired creation of gifted and unspoiled mythopoeic minds, uncontaminated by the current scientific approach and analytic mentality, and therefore open and prone to profound cosmic insights which are veiled to modern thinking man with his inhibiting definitions and impassive soulless logic.
"There are whole schools of modern mythologists who argue that ancient myth is closely bound to rite and ritual; that myth was, as it were, nothing other than the "rite spoken"; and that myth and ritual were practically two sides of the same cultic coin. On the other hand, there are historians of religion who claim that the ancient myths were primarily etiological in character - fictitious tales evolved for the purpose of explaining the nature of the universe, the destiny of [hu]man[ity], and the customs, beliefs, and practices current in their days, as well as the names of holy places and out standing individuals.
"There are psychologists who see in the ancient myths depositories of primordial archetype motifs which reveal and illuminate man's collective subconscious. On the other hand, there are linguists and philologists who are convinced that myth is a "disease of language," the product of man's vain, futile, and misguided attempts to express the inexpressible and to verbalize that which is ineffable." (Kramer)
"Although a number of the more advanced tribes in the Americas recorded their mythology before the Spanish conquest, this information was almost totally destroyed by the invading Europeans, leaving only glyphs, as yet undeciphered, a paucity of written material in the form of picture writing, and an oral tradition to go by. Among the Teutonic peoples, Celts, and Slavs, the advent of Christianity relegated the mythology of their past to a position of little importance, setting down in writing myths and legends so mixed with other material and viewpoints as to change their whole complexion. The same process evolved wherever missionaries preceded the skill of writing or where that art was underdeveloped, as in Polynesia and Africa There is much waiting to be deciphered and translated, but new discoveries and continuing investigation by anthropologists, archaeologists, linguists, historians, and others constantly shed new light on the reconstruction of mythology." (Hendricks)
In fact, the functions of myth are quite similar to the functions of ritual. A myth can be a way to organize one's emotional responses to the world. One such sub-category, cosmogony, the creation of the world or the universe, which explains how everything or selected important things came into being, deals with the natural human wonder at BE-ing, IS-ness, and how we came to be here. A second related sub-category, cosmology, the order or organization of the world or universe, explains why or how things seem to work the way they do and/or how they fit together, and, of course, where humans fit in. The second major function of myths is as a way to achieve personal psychological coherence for the individual, creating internal order and/or integration.
And, on the larger level, myths explain and rituals help humans attain social coherence; that is, integration of the individual in society or of smaller societal sub-groups into the larger unit. Finally, through its storytelling, myths arouse other non-verbal senses and stimulate emotions and feelings; myths can give pleasure just for their own sake, without necessarily having obvious functions. Rituals, even non-religious or non-spiritual ones, can fulfill these human needs for explaination, definition, or integration.
"The ultimate purpose of myth is not to interpret reality but to create
it."
Bruce Berger, The Telling Distance.
O.k., i've presented a description of mythology rather than a definition of it. Probably the best definition i've seen yet comes from Mythography, the Study of Myths and Ritual by Willam G. Doty, on page 11, in his comprehensive working definition:
"A mythological corpus consists of (1) a usually complex network of myths that are (2) culturally important (3) imaginal (4) stories, conveying by means of (5) metaphoric and symbolic diction, (6) graphic imagery, and (7) emotional conviction and participation, (8) the primal, foundational accounts (9) of aspects of the real, experienced world and (10) humankind's roles and relative statuses within it.
"Mythologies may (11) convey the political and moral values of a culture and (12) provide systems of interpreting (13) individual experience within a universal perspective, which may include (14) the intervention of suprahuman entities as well as (15) aspects fo the natural and cultural orders. Myths may be enacted or reflected in (16) rituals, ceremonies, and dramas, and (17) they may provide materials for secondary elaboration, the constituent my themes having become merely images or reference points for a subsequent story, such as a folktale, historical legend, novella, or prophecy."
Of course, as an academic, Doty goes into great detail to define and describe each of the phrases or key words in parentheses.
