Beyond Faith. Beyond Fundamentalism.

Let’s start by acknowledging that the definitions are fuzzy.

There is no universally agreed-to definition of what a “religion” even is.

Spirituality” is just as indeterminate. So all we can do is look at religions of the world and try to identify the elements that compose them.

When I do that, I conclude that a religion, functionally, comes in three pieces: a cosmology, which is a description of the nature of the Universe which is subscribed to by adherents of the religion; a set of values which define what is Sacred, what is important, and how we should live; and a set of practices such as rites, holidays, traditions and other sacred activities which enact the religion in the culture which embraces it.

Much of the material available on this site is about the second and third elements: about Atheopagan values and principles and rituals and practices. But this post is about the first religious component: cosmology.

I don’t write about that much, and there is a reason for it: because Atheopagan cosmology is defined by the entire body of scientific knowledge, and stops right there.

When it comes to describing the nature of the objective Universe “out there” beyond our skins, what there is credible, verifiable evidence to believe, we believe. What there is only anecdotal, subjective, unverifiable, unrepeatable conjecture about, we do not.

This is not a radical proposal. It’s the natural conclusion of critical thinking and application of the scientific method. After all: in the entire history of humanity, no verifiable phenomena have ever—ever—turned out to be caused by supernatural causes like gods, spirits, fairies, prayer or magic, readily though we can imagine them. And science has again and again discovered their actual causes.

Ours is religion without faith. We don’t have faith because we don’t need it: we have evidence, and that’s enough. If new evidence comes along and the scientific consensus about the nature of the Universe changes, our beliefs about the Universe update accordingly.

Maybe someday there will be verifiable and credible evidence that invisible self-aware disembodied intelligent entities that are entirely undetectable by all the instrumentation of science nonetheless exist, and are influencing events here on Earth…even though there’s no evidence of any such influence, either.

I’m not holding my breath for it, but it could happen.

The point is that we have a standard for what we believe which accommodates new evidence, rather than having static beliefs in support of which we cherry-pick evidence in order to maintain those beliefs. Understanding that the human sensorium is easily fooled, we do not take subjective individual experiences, including our own, seriously enough to believe extraordinary claims on the sole basis of such experiences. Only scientific evidence-gathering, analysis and peer review.

Only that.

It’s not perfect, but it’s better than any other system we have for determining what is most likely to be a true description of the nature of the Universe. Others lend more weight to their personal and subjective experiences, or simply believe tales of gods as literal history rather than metaphorical myth. That’s all right for them; we just don’t think it accurately describes reality.

Now, does that mean that to Atheopagans, personal experience isn’t important, or meaningful? Of course not. Atheopaganism is all about creating meaningful personal experiences! Our standard for what we believe merely states that we can’t rely on subjective experiences to tell us factual objective truth about the nature of the Universe.

Since around 2000, there has been a movement within the broader Pagan community to advocate that, just as in Christianity and Judaism and Islam, a Pagan “must have faith” in literal gods in order to be a “real Pagan”. While this is silly on its face—when it comes to definitions, they don’t get much fuzzier than “Pagan“—it also flies in the face of the decades of participation in Pagan community by people who have never believed in gods, but have viewed them as ideas: as poetic cultural expressions invented by humans to put human faces on insensate forces and phenomena.

To be clear, not all of the so-called “devotional polytheists” take the unreasonable position that being a Pagan “demands” that one believe in invisible intelligences with magical powers. There are plenty who do not, and I want to emphasize that.

But those who do—who claim, for example, that you are “doing it wrong” if you don’t believe in “divine energy”, or who argue that Nature-centered Paganism “isn’t Pagan“, or that “naturalistic Paganism is an oxymoron“—are, in my opinion, a threat to core Pagan values of diversity, tolerance and inclusion.

They are what we said could never happen, back in the 1980s when I first became a Pagan: they are Pagan fundamentalists.

We used to joke about it. But here it is.

Fundamentalism is dangerous. It does not belong in a diverse and creative community. It leads inevitably to purges, divisions, purity tests and social cruelty.

When I entered the Pagan world in 1987, one of the things I was impressed by early on was the level of tolerance for diversity of beliefs and practices. We were a weird and woolly bunch and we liked it that way. Some embraced every flavor of supernatural “woo” imaginable. Others like me were scientific rationalists celebrating the Sacred Earth. We got along, circled and shared community together. When we did have conflicts, they weren’t about someone “not belonging” for believing the “wrong thing”.

I am happy to share rituals with Pagan theists. Their thing isn’t my thing, and I’m not going to invoke their gods in my rituals, but we share far more in common than renders us distinct. It is more “Pagan” to accept that we are all making our ways on our own religious/spiritual paths according to what works best for us than it is to arbitrarily declare who may and may not wear the label “Pagan”.

In fact, I would argue that we should err on the side of inclusion. If someone wants to call themselves a Pagan and participate positively in our community, I say we should let them. There are certainly people in our broader community now, as in every religious community, who are there for fellowship and a sense of “belonging” with those whose values they share far more than they are for rituals or practices or worship. So long as those people are respectful, why NOT allow them to call themselves “Pagans”?

Where, exactly, is the harm in that?

It’s a cold enough world as it is. Surely we can be hospitable to those who find our community a good place to be…and in the process, inoculate ourselves against the pernicious nature of fundamentalist thinking.

2 thoughts on “Beyond Faith. Beyond Fundamentalism.

  1. Kenneth

    “So long as those people are respectful, why NOT allow them to call themselves “Pagans”?

    Why not allow anyone who observes Shabbat and considers themselves a friend of Israel to call themselves Jewish? Or why can’t an atheist who eat halal and love the poetry of Rumi waltz into any mosque and demand to be recognized as fully Muslim and call the imam “fundamentalist” if he has a problem with it?

    Because even though there is no agreed one way to be a good Jew or Muslim, even though being a Jew or Muslim does not mean the same thing to any two people on the planet, it clearly means something, and therefore not anything and everything.

    This is the problem I have with “inclusion” as the highest and only core value recognized by much of today’s Pagan movement. It is the one edict taken as unquestionable dogma and preached with a kind of fundamentalist zeal all its own. It seeks to cure the ills of fundamentalism with a kind of enforced nihilism. The one requirement of being a Good Pagan or even a Real Pagan is to make sure we never assign any meaning whatsoever to being Pagan other than inclusion and a particular political and cultural aesthetic.

    Anything that is politically progressive, environmentally conscious, self affirming and New Agey in any way must be accepted at face value as being as equally valid and Pagan as anything else. Pagan religion/spirituality is in reality nothing more than an operating platform for cosplay in the woods for people who want to get away from the homophobic/misogynistic Evangelical pastors of their youth. I’m supposed to accept and celebrate this as the only and highest purpose of what it means to be Pagan, otherwise I’m a fundamentalist and just and all around meanie.

    I refuse to go along with this. This issue has nothing to do with anyone trying to enforce who can and can’t call themselves Pagan or forcing anyone to “do it right”. No one was, is or ever will have the authority or power to do so. This is about personal sovereignty and the right to define, for oneself only, what is authentically and truly Pagan even though this act of definition will, inevitably exclude someone (many someones in all likelihood).

    I didn’t become Pagan because it tended to value diversity and inclusion and tolerance. I valued those things when I was Catholic and later when I was a seeking secular humanist or whatever my 20s might have been labeled. I am not in Pagan religion as a way to network with other likely Bernie Sanders voters. I came to Paganism because I was called, by what I perceive to be gods, by my ancestors and by individuals and tribes of people who helped me find my way home to something that defines the core of my being.

    Being Pagan means many things to me, but it mean something, and not other things. Pagan identities which rest on nothing more than an affinity for incense, drum circles and jewelry is not authentically Pagan, to me. Nor is Christopaganism, nor rituals which invoke deities from four different pantheons plus the invokers favorite anime characters. I’m not the Pope of Paganism, and I would honestly not take such a job for all of Warren Buffet’s money. I’m not seeking to strike these folks off the rolls or make them turn in their magic decoder ring or anything of the like. I support their right to call themselves Pagan as vigorously as my own right not to recognize what they’re doing as being compatible with what I call Pagan. They may be one of us, but they’re not one of me. And that’s ok. That in no way precludes us from extending each other hospitality or working as allies for social justice or mutual causes. Diversity, healthy diversity, does not require people to ignore or airbrush over differences. It acknowledges and honors them.


    1. A very long way of saying that you agree with me, Kenneth. I see nothing in your post here that disputes my fundamental point. While I don’t agree with your religious chauvinism, you acknowledge that none of us should be playing gatekeeper of the community. Thank you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.