The Solution to the Problem of Monotheism
“Atheism is an extreme solution to the problem of monotheism.”
That is pretty much all I have to say about atheism, not being an atheist myself. I don’t think atheism is an unexpected or surprising solution to the problem of monotheism. After all, it is monotheism that gave birth to modern atheism, which was not apparently much in evidence in polytheistic times. In other words, monotheism is its own worst enemy.
“True religion is religion that works/is true for you.”
This is my view of “truth” in religion. There is no capital-T truth, a fact recognized and embraced by polytheism, which is by its very nature diverse. At the same time, this search for a capital-T truth has done nothing to unify people (even of the same purported religion) or to translate across cultures. Polytheism, on the other hand, IS a means of translation. People could see in each other’s gods their own gods in a way that monotheists cannot identify their one god. It’s an irony: the many bring unity while the one brings division.
It is interesting that the coming atheist advertisements on New York subway walls brings such protest. And it’s all from monotheists. I don’t know any polytheist who is offended by atheism, but monotheists really get their undies in a bunch. One comment I saw recently was that these atheist advertisements are a form of intolerance, that atheists are the truly intolerant ones in the equation. Apparently, it’s permitted for monotheists to express their belief, but it’s somehow intolerance to express disbelief? It makes no sense, but then, that can be said about monotheism in general.
If I had an advertising budget, I’d be advertising polytheism – Paganism as ethnic religion. Why? Because it’s a moderate solution to the problem of monotheism. It was not atheism that monotheism attacked, but polytheism. Polytheism exists outside of monotheism, and precedes it. It in no way requires the presence of monotheism. It is not the absence of or the rejection of monotheism. It is simply of itself a belief in the many, from long before anyone thought to substitute a “one.” But if you look at atheist rhetoric, and I’m not speaking just of published literature but of atheist remarks published on social networking sites, websites, blogs and forums, most of it is directed AT monotheism, and at Christianity in particular. And this is not surprising, as I said above. Monotheism gave birth to atheism, after all. And atheism, while in general a rejection of any kind of belief in a divine, was originally a specific rejection of Christianity.
From the perspective of a polytheist like myself, that’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Reject all gods on the basis of a bad relationship with one? That’s like swearing off all women because of one bad dating experience. It’s not women on the whole that are bad, but one woman. Similarly, it is not all gods who are bad, but one (or more precisely, the beliefs associated with that one). So, as I said, polytheism is a moderate solution to the problem of monotheism. Simply because monotheism doesn’t work doesn’t mean that polytheism can’t. It’s a legitimate alternative, one which was largely eliminated through centuries of persecution BY Christianity for the simple reason that it DOES work. The efficacy of polytheism is beyond question and in fact is proven by the great lengths to which its Christian persecutors went to destroy it.
Polytheism worked then, and it can work now. If Christianity does not work, there is no need to take an extreme solution and reject the divine altogether. For that reason, I would see polytheism advertisements as a public service, a sort of “Hey, wait! Don’t reject the divine altogether without looking at some reasonable alternatives.” That is the reason I established Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org). I do believe very strongly that polytheism is true religion (it works). It works for me, it works for others, and it can work for you. I am not opposed to atheism. People should be free to believe or not believe as they choose, but I think something is lost when people are not even aware that there are choices. Christianity did its job too well and people too often see only two choices: Christianity or bust (atheism). Or if they find an alternative it might be an Eastern/oriental one, excluding any possibility of religion traditions in their own culture (Heathenism, Hellenism, etc). I think it’s our duty as polytheist to make these options known.
I’m not out to recruit anyone. I’m not out to proselytize. You won’t find me going door to door or standing on a street corner talking about “developing a relationship with Thor.” That doesn’t mean I won’t do what I can to make people aware of the customs and traditions of their ancestors. It’s their birthright, and it’s been stolen, and they have a right to know about it. If you don’t know all your options, it’s rather difficult to make a good choice. I think I owe that much to the memory of my ancestors and to my gods.
Besides which, atheism can’t offer anything polytheism can’t: an absence of religious division and holy wars. Remember, polytheism is original religion, and it worked. It worked so well Christianity surpassed Hitler’s genocide to eradicate it. Must be pretty worthwhile then, huh? I think so. If you want a corrective, reboot to the original factory settings: polytheism.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson is the author of A Heathen’s Day, which since 2005 has addressed the life and thoughts of a modern day Heathen. He maintains a second blog, Digital Gods (www.digital-gods.com) which focuses on polytheism for the digital age. He is also the founder of the Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org) which is dedicated to the study and support of Paganism as ethnic religion. 
Hraf,
Hey man, long time no post!
You know I had to comment on this. I don't believe atheism is immoderate, and I don't really think that such a thing as *what* you believe being subject to moderation so much as *how* you believe.
Though I suppose if you believe a particular thing, it could be difficult to NOT be immoderate in how you believe it. It's difficult to not be immoderate in an all-or-none belief system. I agree. But I believe atheism has a better chance of moderation than monotheism.
I think you're right in that many atheists (in the West, at least) feel that since they are atheists, they must necessarily be non-religious. This would not be the case if religion were looked at as a part of culture, or as part of identity, or as a practice which brings about some kind of greater understanding for the practicioner (or some combination of the three, as in my view). The "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" for me, is not only throwing out the belief in divine beings but also throwing out the practices associated with worship which may be beneficial for me.
Blot has many benefits besides the stated purpose of giving to the Gods in friendship, that the Gods may give back to us. There is a clarity of understanding, an affirmation of the importance of reciprocation, and a binding of community. All of which, I believe, can be achieved without belief in the Gods, but must be achieved with proper performance and observation of the ritual.
The idea that "you must believe or else everything you do is useless" is what turns a lot of atheists off to religions in general. Why is credulity my ticket to ride? Why can't it be my willingness to obey the rules of practice?
As an example of a non-Christian religion, Eastern Buddhism or Shintoism or the folk tradition of the Chinese does not demand that I believe in any particular thing, but only that I observe the proper decorum when it comes to ritual.
What I believe about the ritual is up to me, but what I do is constrained by custom or by rules of good practice (like in meditation). Results may vary, but no one places emphasis on credulity in order for anything to work.
And that's where I think a lot of new atheists get things wrong with regard to pre-Christian polytheistic religions, incidentally. the coin of the realm isn't belief but deed.
I think atheists could get a lot of fulfillment from our ancestral traditions. Regardless of whether or not we believe in any Gods. And we can still be of great service to our communities.
I'm not very knowledgeable about this topic, but I find your posts fascinating. I like this post's focus on moderation and find that a major flaw for me with contemporary religion. Many sects seem to demand tolerance for their group but are unwilling to offer the same to others' viewpoints.
Ben, I should have known this would bring a comment from you. But you know something, I didn't even think of you as I wrote this, and you know why? I don't think of you as an atheist.
Honestly, I think of you in relation to Christopher Walken – you are a genre unto yourself. I do not know any other atheists like you. Have never met another "you" even in a less complete version. You may, but I haven't. You're my only exposure to an atheist who believes in cultic practices. And you know that I have great respect for you.
And I don't disagree with you on some points here. I agree that atheism does have "a better chance of moderation than monotheism." Absolutely it does.
As you know, I admit that polytheists believed something, but that the focus is not on belief but on the cultic acts meant to honor the gods, ancestors, spirits. And absolutely ancient religion was tied into culture, society, and even politics and I absolutely do not believe that you have to believe certain things or that the acts performed are useless. Religion is true because it works. Whatever you happen to believe (or not believe) while you perform those acts is less important than the acts themselves.
"I think atheists could get a lot of fulfillment from our ancestral traditions. Regardless of whether or not we believe in any Gods. And we can still be of great service to our communities."
Absolutely. I agree 100%.
Thank you, Patricia. That bothers me too, and again with this subway advertising thing…these same critics who oppose atheist advertisements as belligerent or hateful or what have you, would never consider banning Christian ads. Different set of rules and that results in hypocrisy.
If one can advertise, any can advertise and to put negative motives down to the other group is just more "other" manufacturing. I suppose here the Hebrew writers of the Hebrew Bible would say atheists are "whoring after nothing" rather than "whoring after foreign gods." Either way, it's condemnation, and we all know from which direction that condemnation is coming.
Personally, I think if one group has the right to advertise, all groups do. Same with religious symbols on government property. I personally think little of Christianity – you can read my opinions hereMy Opinion of Christianity I and here My Opinion of Christianity II and of course here Crap Sandwiches but I support the rights of Christians to practice their religion to the extent it does not keep me from practicing mine. And that, of course, is a problem, since Christianity has the "Great Commission" which has been used to force belief while polytheism, as Jan Assmann argues, is a means of translation, an "ecumene of nations." In other words, I can let them exist, but the conservatives, at any rate, cannot let me exist – or atheists.
I think I was running out of space there so I'll just add this here: I support the rights of Christians to eat their crap sandwiches. It's just that I prefer a different diet, and demand the right to eat what I want.
I apologize in advance for what may turn out to be a rather lengthy comment.
I venture to suggest that another possible model of a solution to the problems (plural) of monotheism might start from the fact that monotheism (the belief in only one God) is not, in itself, the root of the problems. Rather, the root of the problems is, in my view, the element of intolerance of other religious views. To a large extent, this intolerance is based on a model of truth that cannot stand when applied to issues of ultimate reality.
Since at least the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, our model of truth has been one that is based on contradiction and exclusion. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, in the same way. Truth is either-or—either this or not this. It cannot be both. For something to be true, it has to be, in its domain, the only, the absolute truth. Its truth value is demonstrated by showing how it excludes all other alternatives. So, if our God is the one and only God, then all other belief systems are wrong ipso facto, per se, and across the board.
This model of defining truth by exclusion is open to criticism on numerous grounds, and particularly in view of the way that final, absolute judgments break down in the face of new discoveries in science and new insights from other cultures. An alternative model of truth is one that is relational rather than exclusionary. I have read that the Duala people of Cameroon say that, to make oneself understood, two sounds are needed. The Taoist principle of yin-yang is a model of this dynamic coincidence of opposites that makes up all reality, and particularly ultimate reality.
[continued below]
Wow, Makarios. You have the same low regard for brevity I do!
Seriously, I like long posts and comments. Just as more is always less, less isn't always more. Depends entirely on what is said and you make some good points.
"I venture to suggest that another possible model of a solution to the problems (plural) of monotheism might start from the fact that monotheism (the belief in only one God) is not, in itself, the root of the problems. Rather, the root of the problems is, in my view, the element of intolerance of other religious views."
I do think that monotheism is itself the root of that intolerance of other religious views. It is the distinction between "true" and "false" in religion, the constructed other, that gives rises to that intolerance. I know some scholars argue that intolerance is not inherent in monotheism, I'm with the scholars who believe it is. Because the minute you say there is just one god, you denounce all the others. This doesn't happen with polytheism (cosmotheism as Jan Assmann calls it) because by definition all gods exist, even the god the other guy is saying is the only god.
When I speak of a solution to monotheism I am talking about a solution to that "constructed other" that resulted from the creation of monotheism, the end of plurality and diversity and the attack on other gods.
I agree with you that many Christians today are interested in pluralism. Some of them are not even what conservatives would even call Christian: they believe in reincarnation and multiple paths to "salvation" and so forth. These people still consider themselves Christian, however. I do think the hard-liners are in a minority but unfortunately they are well-funded and very vocal and the "silent majority" is called that for a very good reason. I don't recall any Christian moderates speaking up against Sarah Palin's witch-hunting pastor. Can you imagine a 21st century American president or vice president having a pastor who is an actual bona fide witch-hunter?
There will always be, I think, an element of monotheists who subscribe to that idea of the "other" and to a capital-T truth to which all must be made to subscribe. They will never forget the Great Commission. God told them to do it. The current Pope holds to the view that this "Truth" trumps free choice and that free choice without that "Truth" is an illusion. None of us are safe from that sort of thinking.
And I wanted to clarify as well, since I'm not certain I made the point well enough, that I see modern atheism as a "repudiation" of monotheism, while polytheism, coming as it did well before any ideas of monotheism, is not. Modern atheism relies on monotheism; polytheism does not. The true corrective to this attack on diversity and pluralism is the original default setting.
Obviously, that won't happen. The entire world will not go back to polytheism. Extremist forms of monotheism are just as unlikely to go away.
Like you, I'm a believer in religious pluralism. Even where I decry Christian practice and belief, I don't deny them the right to hold those beliefs. I've made my own opinion of Christianity abundantly clear here and I won't pretend to think otherwise now. But pluralism means accepting other points of view and other religions, and it also means at least trying to co-exist. That I'm willing to do. The conservative Christians I run into are not.
As I argued in my recent post on extremism, you can't have a dialogue with extremists because they won't compromise. We can have dialogues, the rest of us, though I've noticed that most "interfaith" efforts are between various forms of monotheism (typically Islam, Judaism, and Christianity). There may be others that include polytheism or atheism, etc, but if so, I don't hear anything about them.
Makarios,
I'm sorry to say that I disagree with your point of view on truth in several different places. Number one seems to be a contradiction. Kind of like the one in Star Wars when Obi Wan tells Anakin, who has now turned to the Dark Side: "ONLY A SITH SPEAKS IN ABSOLUTES".
See, you say that "exclusionary model" of truth can't stand with respect to questions of ultimate reality, isn't that excluding that model from the question of ultimate reality? Such that any answer provided through that model would have to be false?
Just seems to me that ultimately these relativistic models (or "relational", it's the same thing) break down rather quickly on their own assumptions.
I say that certain religious beliefs are more likely to break down into fundamentalism than others. I think there are certain branches of religious belief where if you accept most of their assumptions, you can't help but fall into some kind of fundamentalism. However, this does not necessarily mean that everyone who is in a particular religious group holds to all the assumptions in the group.
Like, if I accepted that people were either headed to a place of eternal rewards or torment, and that their belief in the bodily resurrection of the Son of my God (who also IS my God) is the only thing that can save them from this place of torment, then it would be very hard for me not to go around trying to warn people about that.
I'm sure the fact that people accept some things as true and some things as false has to do with fundamentalism too. If we accepted all things as true, then it would be very hard for us to say that someone was wrong about something, right?
But again, this throwing the baby out with the bathwater thing really keeps coming up. If we all believed that everything is true in a sense and false in a sense we would get absolutely nowhere.
I mean, think about it: say we've got scientists working on a vaccine (if we even got that far, right?) and one of them says that it works, and the other says that it doesn't work. Well, they're both right in a sense and wrong in a sense. So you should take the vaccine, or shouldn't take the vaccine… See where this goes?
And I wonder, where did you get the idea that "exclusionary truth" was under attack from the discoveries of modern science? Modern science is made possible by excluding some explanations as untenable, and exploring those that show results in order to make true claims about the universe. I don't see what's relational about that.
I don't want to pre-empt Makarios' response, Benjamin, but I wanted to thank you for bringing up the truth aspect of Makarios' earlier comment because I didn't respond to that at all, unintentionally.
Ah, epistemology—the search for the truth about truth. Eventually, all models of truth ground themselves on the rocks of self-reference and paradox. How does one demonstrate that the typical Western model of truth, based on exclusion and contradiction, is the only valid one in all domains? If you apply that model itself, then it’s circular reasoning that proves nothing. But if you apply some other model, then you’ve disproven what you set out to prove.
I did not intend to suggest that a relational truth model, or any model, is the only valid one, or a necessary, sufficient, or appropriate one, in all domains. I do, however, point to other available models that are commonly applied in other cultures in some domains. One of those domains is that of matters relating to the Ultimate, where, because of our finitude, our capacity to conceptualize or express what we’re dealing with must perforce be inadequate. In the end, all of our discussion of Divinity must be in symbolic terms, and no symbol can ever be fully representative of that which it symbolizes.
Or, to use a couple of crude analogies—the Western model of truth may be a good hammer, but it is not the only tool in the box, and it is not necessarily a good screwdriver for unscrewing the inscrutable. And the higher over your head you try to nail down a point, the more likely you are to hit yourself on the thumb.
[Continued below]
[Continued from above]
As for the science piece, I was alluding to what has been called quantum metaphysics, or quantum mysticism. To my admittedly untrained mind (I never got beyond the basics of quantum physics, and I barely passed that), many of the theories and propositions of modern physics read as much like Zen koan as they do like classical science; and the publication of books about the Tao of physics and dancing Wu-Li masters indicates that I am not alone in this.
However, nevertheless, be that as it may. . . .
Hrafnkell wrote:
But pluralism means accepting other points of view and other religions, and it also means at least trying to co-exist. That I'm willing to do. The conservative Christians I run into are not.
A couple of thoughts from me on this. First, my own understanding of pluralism goes beyond mere acceptance and peaceful coexistence (or, as Paul Knitter has called it, “indifferent tolerance”). I agree with Diana Eck (some of whose work appears on the Harvard project website) that pluralism involves energetic engagement with diversity as well as active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. If we accept that no one religious tradition possesses all truth, then it behooves us to seek to learn from our brothers and sisters in other traditions.
Second, I agree that many conservative Christians are not interested in this sort of interchange. Believing that they are possessed of the full, ultimate, and definitive truth, they feel that they have nothing to learn from anyone else. Or, as you say, you can’t have a dialogue with extremists. Not only can’t they compromise, they won’t even listen.
And don’t get me started on Sarah Palin or the pope. Please.
As for the involvement of polytheists in interfaith relations, I believe that you may be unduly pessimistic. Take a look at the pics on the Harvard website. You are aware, I presume, that Circle Sanctuary is actively involved in interfaith activities, and that M. Macha NightMare (for example) is an active participant in the Marin Interfaith Council. Check out the various websites of the United Religions Initiative (they have a circle in Muncie, by the way). There are at least three Pagans (Angie Buchanan, director of Gaia’s Womb, Andras Corban-Arthen, a director of the EarthSpirit Community, and Phyllis Curott) on the Executive Council of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. And, of course, one of the organizations that spearheaded the “Wiccan pentacle quest” was Americans United, whose members are chiefly from the “mainline Protestant” churches.
I’ve gone on too long again. Sorry. I’ll wrap it up with this: please don’t judge all of us by the worst of us. The common ground is there, and I believe that it’s worth exploring.
Makarios, I'll again set aside the debate on truth and let Benjamin continue to engage you on that front (I think I've made my own views clear enough in the past that I'll stay out of it as long as I can – besides which I like watching intelligent people debate/discuss).
As for pluralism, I'm very much afraid that an interactive pluralism between polytheism and monotheism is problematic, and here is my reasoning. I know there are moderate Christians (probably more every day) who are capable of docking their thought-world with another but look at the back-lash we are seeing – the Pope seeking angry and intolerant Anglicans to return to the birth-place of Christian intolerance, the so-called Religious Right in the US a very loud and very wealthy and influential minority – the forces of Reaction in full defensive mode. Look at TheocracyWatch.org if you want to see what a close call we had under the Bush Administration with theocracy in this country.
I'm with Jan Assmann on polytheism being a means of translation between cultures. The gods of polytheism can translate across cultural boundaries and thereby overcome ethnocentrism. But monotheism…as Assmann says, "false gods don't translate." As Assmann says of monotheism, a new type of religion, "It no longer functioned as a means of intercultural translation; on the contrary, it functioned as a means of intercultural estrangement. Whereas polytheism, or rather "cosmotheism," rendered different cultures mutually transparent and compatible, the new counter-religion blocked intercultural translatability" (Moses the Egyptian 1997:3).
(continued next comment)
(continued)
I liken it to the problem of trying to fit a square into a circle. There is a lack of translation. I think the problem is less for polytheists: we can at least admit YHWH exists (and it doesn't bother me if they want to insist Jesus is the same as YHWH – I think it's silly but that's their business) but Christianity officially, as monotheism, cannot accept any god outside of itself. If it does, it is no longer monotheism.
Granted, there are Christians who do acknowledge what they call "lesser" gods but I'm afraid that isn't going to further any efforts towards translation, belittling the gods of polytheism. And of course, a great many Christians either say they are demons, dumb idols, or that they don't exist as anything other than figments of imagination.
I would like to see such a world as you describe, Makarios. One of the reasons I made this blog and mosmaiorum.org was to get Paganism as ethnic religion "out there." Make people aware of it. People fear what they don't understand. If they see that Pagans are just people like themselves, who happen to believe different things, they'll have a lot less to fear. And I think we need a lot more of this, not only of Pagans trying to share what they are (and it can still be dangerously publicly – look at me going by my alias here because I've had Christian haters track down my home address and send me hate mail…most Christians don't have to worry about that).
Here is an example of historical efforts at the kind of interactive pluralism you are seeking: Pagans of all sorts, including my Norse ancestors, were perfectly willing to at least pay lip-service to the idea that the Christian god existed. No, no, the Christians said, you can't do that. ONLY our god exists. You must renounce yours! I'm afraid that attitude is still all to prevalent today. I've seen it, I've been exposed to it personally, on a number of occasions.
And yes, you lay out some good examples of interfaith cooperation that do include Pagans or Pagan organizations. But look at THE group – the Faith Based Initiative and Obama's "supreme council" – nearly all conservative Christians who have ties to or are themselves part of what can only be described as hate groups. I don't mean to be unduly pessimistic. I hope for the same thing you do. But my experiences are different perhaps. I've had to live in a state of fear that somebody would find out I was Pagan and I'd lose my place to live or my employment, and I've been personally confronted by outraged Christians that I could believe what I believe.
So I see things perhaps being more problematic than you do, and I think as a culture we are balanced on the tip of a knife right now, with a conservative Christianity that has more than a toe-hold in our national government and in many state governments, and a President who is unfortunately far more kissy-kissy with them than it seemed he would be.
And again, moderate Christian outrage is far too infrequent in the face of some of the outrageous claims and behavior from their extremist coreligionists. The silent majority needs to break its silence if we're going to get around this particular corner.
Finally (I promise!) just to clear up my own approach to Christianity here and the apparent discrepancy between that and my hope for an interactive pluralism, I don't think we can just agree to forgive and forget. The truth needs to come out first. What I refer to is the long history of Christian distortion of the historical record designed to legitimize its own beliefs and actions on behalf of those beliefs and also to de-legitimize Paganism.
Unfortunately, the facts about Pagnism cannot be unentangled from these lies without exposing the lies, which is invariably seen as an attack on Christianity. I've been asked by other Pagans, even lectured by them, about my approach. Pagans don't attack Christianity! My response is that the historical record is the historical record, and the pious history of Christianity and Judaism, "history as it should have been" needs a corrective.
Among the major problems in this regard are the myths of persecution. There is no real evidence of Pagan persecution of Christianity. There IS, however, abundant evidence of Christianity's persecution of Paganism. These comment boxes are inadequate to the task to which we are putting them so I'll leave off here.
Makarios,
I am sorry to say, again, that you have failed to convince me of your point of view. You say that the exclusionary method results in a contradiction when trying to explain itself, but I can't see how. I provided you with a concrete example of how relativism contradicts itself and has to include, at some point, a bi-conditional statement about truth. Namely, that all statements are relative, except for the statement that all things are relative.
You haven't shown how, if at all, this "exclusionary" model of truth, in which some things are true and some things are false.
And I believe that epistemology is the search for knowledge about knowledge, not about truth. I think Heidegger argued about that in his Introduction to Metaphysics: that questions of Being, Time, or Truth get caught up in Epistemology (which is a question about how we know these things rather than what these things are). Insofar as I understand that, I agree with Heidegger. Epistemology is not a question about truth, but how we know truth.
And along with this discussion of the ultimate, Makarios. I did actually qualify and say that you have excluded what you have called the exclusionary model from the discussion. You excluded it using the very same logic that calls for its incorporation.
And that was a crude analogy, because a worldview, like the Western Worldview, is not a tool but an entire toolbox. It's full of useful tools like a hammer, a screwdriver, and nails. The reason we know these tools are useful is because they have been tested against other tools over and over again and refined to the point where we know that we can use them for various purposes.
The toolbox you are proposing has tools in it which may or may not work, as they have not been tested against other tools, and if they have, they were not rejected because they did not serve their purpose. So we've got tools like a samphlange, a spazzwazzler, and a hurdygoo. No one really knows what these tools do, and that doesn't really matter. The point is that we have a lot of tools.
This toolbox would inevitably be larger than any other toolbox, and invariably would contain more tools, and its also inevitable that at some point, one of these tools is going to work as well as a hammer, or a screwdriver, and produce something worthwhile. But then you'd have to throw that tool back in the toolbox as being just as good as all the other tools, since there's simply no way to exclude any other tool as not suited for that job.
An example I'll use is religious revelation versus scientific method.
Sure, if you read over some holy books, you'll inevitably find a passage or two which gels with what we've been able to discover through scientific scrutiny. Say enough stuff, and eventually you might inadvertently say something true. Does this prove that your religion is right? That religious revelation is the way to go, because sometimes it produces true statements?
I would say no, because revelatory religion has no way of evaluating those statements. How could you? You'd just have to come up with more revelations. Since it doesn't come from human reason, there's no way to use rationality to discern true statements from false ones. So we're left, again, with a toobox in which we don't know whether or not our tools are going to be useful to us.
With Western thought (which has echoes in Hindu, Chinese, and Japanese thought) there is a tradition of rationality and, as you say "exclusionary" truth. This was born in Pagan times, by the way, so why Pagans struggle with this I have no idea. Plato and Aristotle were born and died 100% Pagan.
Secondly, with regard to your discussion of quantum physics.
I kind of knew you were going to go here. Sorry to play the mental chess, but this is a move that people arguing for a "relational" model of truth usually make. It's made to quantum physics. Frankly, most of the time it is a disingenuous move because not a lot of people understand quantum physics comfortably. So the hope is to kind of lose them in the woods, so to speak.
Not saying that's what you're doing, just saying that's commonly how the game is played. It's very frustrating.
Quantum Metaphysics and Quantum Mysticism is based upon the same thing: the urge to mystify the masses. It's the blind leading the blind. Or the foolish leading the fools.
The basic idea of Quantum Physics is that on the very very very small level, some interesting things happen:
1) Many of our typical assumptions about our world no longer hold.
2) We do not have the means by which to conduct experiments on this level, so as of right now the mathematics have gotten ahead of the experimental data.
3) However, that math works out. It's able to make predictions in the real world that hold true. Not all equations work on this level, some do, and some don't. So it's not a free for all.
You can still say things on the quantum level that are true, and some things that are false. And there are some spaces in there where it is still up for debate whether or not we know how to ask the true/false questions, but it's coming along. As we get a clearer picture of it, and our picture is pretty clear now with String Theory and M-Theory and all that, we'll be able to ask those questions.
So in the end, I don't think that the "exclusionary" model is out. The problem with Quantum Physics is that we haven't yet been able to come up with some of the questions.
If you want to read mysticism, you've got more than enough there to work from. There's plenty of huckster and frauds who want to capitalize on Quantum Physics. There are also real scientists that work with Quantum Physics (Brian Greene being my personal favorite writer on this subject) who care about getting you the most clear understanding about what it is that's going on with that.
In the end, the real scientist wants the layman to be clear and comfortable with their understanding of quantum physics. And a fraud wants you to be more confused. It's the same game that's been played on people since the Socrates railed against the Sophists.
And one last thing, to Hraf, have you noticed that among the Pagan community in general there is a strong reaction against reason or Western thought?
I'm convinced it's because we've been brought up to believe that Western logic and reasoning is Christian, and that our reaction against Christianity turns into a revulsion with Western logic and science.
But isn't that just a product of cultural conditioning? We've been convinced that Pagans MUST stand opposed to logic and reason because that belongs to Christianity and Islam. If you look at it, though, the very tools that we reject were developed BY PAGANS!!!
It's like we can only be Pagan insofar as Christians have defined Pagans. We're supposed to be children. Uneducated, unrefined, children. And many of us have bought it. It's high time we took our Western legacy back.
Don't you think?
@ Hrafnkell, I take your point regarding Assmann on polytheism, and you will get no argument from me. Looking over the thread here (and you’re right about the limitations of the comment boxes), it seems to me that we’re on the same page in many ways. Both of us are believers, in principle, in religious pluralism, for example. And, like you, I realize that there are a good number of hurdles to be jumped, and fences to be mended, before most Pagans will feel able to trust most Christians. Fair enough. I suppose that a good part of my interfaith effort ought, in fact, to be directed towards educating my own coreligionists. Gandhiji once remarked, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
At the end of the day, if we are going to have a culture in which people of all religions, as well as people of no religion, can find common ground and work towards common goals, teaching one another and learning from one another, all the while celebrating their diversity, it will not be because the leadership structures—political, social, or religious—decide that it should be so. It will happen because, on the “ground level,” reasonable people of good will are prepared to engage one another respectfully and thoughtfully. I believe that we’ve made a start here. I look forward to continuing.
@ Benjamin, I believe that I may have expressed myself poorly. At no time did I intend to suggest that the prevalent Western model of truth should be discarded across the board. What I would propose, however, is that other models (or, perhaps, other definitions) of truth may do a better job in domains in which there is an uncaused cause, or in which Divinity can be at one and the same time both transcendent and immanent, both three and one. For aesthetic reasons if nothing else.
Way o/t. May I share with you, perhaps only half in jest, a brief quotation from the Principia Discordia?
Greater Poop: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
Makarios, I agree that it will have to be change initiated from the "bottom up" and this is, in fact, what I think we're seeing when Christians adopt ideas of reincarnation and other paths to salvation and even acknowledge that other gods might exist, because once you've moved beyond the box monotheism creates for you, all sorts of things are possible. The old expression, "the genie is out of the bottle" comes to mind. This is what the Yahwists in ancient Israel were battling and this is what modern Christian conservatives are now dealing with as well.
I just wanted to say this with regards to epistemology (how do we know what we know?): I believe there is an objective reality out there, a "really real" if you will. I believe we all access this objective reality through the filter of our senses, input Reason tries to sort out and understand. We are not all going to see the same thing because our filters are different (influenced by culture, religion, and so forth) and so that old saw, "perception is reality" has some truth to it. I also wanted to say something about "certainty" because "certainty" is a very powerful concept. Voltaire is supposed to have said, “Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous” and Bertrand Russell observed that the quest for certainty is an intellectual vice. And you notice, of course, that religious zealots have an abundance of certainty and no knowledge of any perceptual filters – and not much Reason besides. I found, in that regard, another quote I like: Anthropologist Ashley Montagu is supposed to have said (and I haven't tracked down the veracity of the quote), “Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.”
As one of those "Christians" who is capable of docking my thought world with others, I agree with the statement of pluralism must be engaged in, not just mere tolerane.
I remember I took a young friend of mine – a teenager to walk the outside Labyrinth at my church. In the very center of the Labyrinth is a tiny 4 inch square paver with english, greek, hebrew and chaldean inscribed on it that says in these languages "He is risen" My young friend was pagan and troubled by this, so as we sat there I pointed to the small stone and said "Here is Christ risen…here also is Osiris…Mithras…Odin…Cernunnos…the god that dies and rises every season with the Harvest." That made sense to him.
For me there is NO difference. And while for me I take great, great joy in my Episcopal church and identify as Christian, I don't see Christ as the reality and all the others as lesser, or reflections of…I see an equality that spans all time.
This is not truth you can hit with a hmmmer – may as well nail jello to a wall. I have had Heathens stay over in my home…we said Christian blessings over food and did a lighting of fire on my hearth for Bridget, and discussed Runes and Srripture verses…and it was all joy and delight. Each beliefs honored equally with deep respect, and nobody attempting to "convert" anybody. I have friends who are Episcopalian Priests, Wiccan and Voudon, friends who were into the Quabalah; one of my dearest friends in all the earth is an Atheist – she speaks of the joy of "knowing" that the great miravle of life ceases with the end of electical activity in the brain at death – for her this is reasuring and speaks of the natural order of the world.
What is truth? What is not truth? Ursula LeGuin made the point, in her book "The Left Hand of Darkness" in the words of one of her characters, that its not enough to turn around and go the opposite direction on a road…for you are still on the same road. You have to leave that route all together and go some where else entirely to effect true change. Truth and untruth are on the ends of the same road. True Pluralism is a different road, and one that can never be walked as long as we are slogging up and down the worn path between two opposing positions about truth.
Fairly metaphysical. (Literally – try reading new physics some time…truth simply goes out the window!( It takes a great deal of work, effort, self honesty and awareness to live in this world – the horizons are much wider and absolutes are not there to comfort us. But in the end there is a much higher truth…unity, respect and pluralism.
And dare I say it…
Love.
Oh, gods, the typos. Sorry people. It's late. Going to bed. Try to read what I meant and ignore the meandering spelling of that last comment!
I really like what you're saying here, and I'm truly pleased to have discovered this blog and also the Mos Maiorum site. Thank you for what you're doing on behalf of your Gods and the Gods of all peoples.
Edward Butler
http://henadology.wordpress.com/
Edward, I'd love to read your dissertation on Proclus. I did a paper in college for an undergraduate philosophy conference when I was at Hamline University called "Reditus: The Neoplatonic Path of Return" in which I argued against labeling Neoplatonism as mysticism (my professors were horrified that I'd left the "true path" behind. Unfortunately your link seems to lead me in an endless loop of mentioning the paper without actually providing access to it.
Makarios,
You've now really lost me, like right here:
What I would propose, however, is that other models (or, perhaps, other definitions) of truth may do a better job in domains in which there is an uncaused cause, or in which Divinity can be at one and the same time both transcendent and immanent, both three and one. For aesthetic reasons if nothing else
I think you're giving yourself a huge assumption: that there ARE such things as an uncaused cause, or that there is a Divine Being can be three and one. We'd have to assume that these things exist in order for it to be necessary to explain them.
If things don't exist, they don't require any further explanation.
And I don't understand why it's "for aesthetic reasons", is a world without a three in one god more ugly that a world without one?
Literally – try reading new physics some time…truth simply goes out the window!
No it doesn't. Just a lot of our assumptions about what that truth needs to look like go out the window. Or come in the window.
There are still rules, there are still things that are true and false in the very very tiny world of quantum physics, string theory, and m theory. There are mathematical equations that work and do not work to predict results.
So, I don't think any amount of Ursula K. LeGuin, though I really dig her stuff, is going to put the nail in the truth coffin. As if the truth had an expiration date…
Hrafnkell,
Sorry there was a problem downloading the dissertation; I've e-mailed it to you. Also, you were quite right about Neoplatonism being mischaracterized as "mysticism".
Great blogging, keep it up!
Edward Butler
http://henadology.wordpress.com/
fabulous source site! My partner and i am loving this!! Likely will come back again – taking you rss feeds also,
Steve, thank you. I’m glad you like it and find it useful. Just to warn you, the next 5-7 days will be pretty quiet. I’m going into the hospital for surgery and will be out of action for that time. But then I’ll be back with a vengeance.