Religion, SF, and Other Speculative Fictions.


Mind on Fire random header image
← →

Why I Pretend to be a Pagan

Posted by Miko on August 9th, 2007 at 4:52 am · 2 Comments

I am an atheist. But I’m also a bit of a polytheist. If there is anything divine, I cannot believe that it is off somewhere, listening to my thoughts & judging my inactions, but that it is in the beauty around us; in my family & friends, in the wonders of a plane take-off, in the plants & animals of nature. Sometimes I feel hardwired to believe in something because of my upbringing. And while I love meeting people who are devout & happy (which, often, seems like a combination that’s hard to come by), part of me always whispers, “you know this is all bunk”.

But for some time now, the religion that I most identify with, that I wish I was, if I could believe it, is paganism. And today, I read this. It is, I think, one of the most beautiful explanations of pagan doctrine as I see it. That is, respect for and harmony with, nature. It’s why I vote Green, buy organic, and take Navy showers (sometimes). I encourage everyone to read it & to muse on the beautiful prose.

Tags: Environment · Spirituality

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 SunflowerP // Aug 9, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Some things you need to know:

    1. Paganism is not a religion; it’s a whole bunch of religions, often with next to nothing in common – no common roots, no common doctrine. The collective label exists for reasons of (recent) history: these diverse and otherwise-unrelated religions came (directly or indirectly) out of the neoPagan movement, which was a groundswell of rejection of “revealed” religion, and not a religion or philosophy in itself.

    2. Even within each of those many religions, there’s rarely what most folks would recognize as “doctrine” – mostly, it’s a matter of individually-developed philosophies/values, and people grouping together because their philosophies and values are similar. There are individuals who try to position themselves as arbiters of orthodoxy; they are generally not well-regarded.

    3. While some of those philosophies are theistic in nature, others are not – or are theism-optional. “Atheist Pagan” is as reasonable and non-oymoronic as “Atheist Quaker”, for quite similar reasons.

    4. There are a lot more individuals, with unique personal philosophies, that identify as Pagan and may or may not have a name for their path, than there are Pagans who are part of identifiable Pagan religious groups.

    That’s just a very quick’n'dirty summary; it’s much more complex than that. If you’re minded to put some time into pursuing it further, I know just the place: http://www.ecauldron.com/index.php

    Read articles (left-hand sidebar – I recommend starting with the Pagan Primer). Check out the forum – it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I think it will suit you, and it’s a great place to get solid, well-grounded info. (It’s where I feel most “at home” online.)

    Sunflower

  • 2 Miko // Aug 12, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    I agree that I ought to have used “neo-Pagan”, but I intended it in the sense of “Christianity”; that is, not a specific religion per se, but a definite realm of belief systems that is recognizable by the general label.

    Incidentally, my recent readings have again brought to mind the original meaning of “pagan”, which was intended as an insult on a par with today’s “hick”. Personally, I prefer the term “heathen” but I’m definitely a pagan-influenced heathen.

    In the Neopagan communities that I hang around, there seems to be much more acceptance of the various varieties of Paganism than the few Christian communities I’ve been associated with showed toward the various flavors of Chrisitanity.

    Diversity always breeds a healthier stock.

Leave a Comment