Pagan beliefs are "in error". In what way in error and who says so?

[Leonard James]

The whole universe is amazing. Our little world, the incredibly diverse forms of life and nature are amazing. The things we feel and hear and see are amazing. We are so lucky to have the perceptive power that evolution has given us to appreciate such things.

But "gods"? Nah, they're just a product of our brains' ability to conjure up romantic imaginings, just as we conjure up fairy stories. A lovely dream world to get lost in, but nevertheless, a dream world.

[jeremyp]

Perhaps everyone's beliefs ( including atheists beliefs) are in error.

Yes, and in my experience most atheists and most pagans have no problem with accepting that they might be wrong. It's usually the Christians and Muslims that have a problem with accepting that they might be mistaken.

Everyone constructs their universe in a way that makes sense to them.

Even science itself assumes there is a pattern or that somehow the universe makes sense in regard to the relationship of one thing to another, and on the whole it does. ( except Quantum physics seems baffling ATM).

I think we can be fairly confident that the assumption is correct given how successful science is at describing the World.

JeremyP's construct is just as much a construct as your average pagan.

But it is based on our scientific understanding of the World, so I'm quite confident it is correct. On the other hand, no religious construct is based on anything so reliable as evidence.

[Leonard James]

Yes, and in my experience most atheists and most pagans have no problem with accepting that they might be wrong. It's usually the Christians and Muslims that have a problem with accepting that they might be mistaken.

Wisely observed.

[Rhiannon]

Nice thread

I find Rhiannon's descriptions of her path quite appealing, as she knows. The rocks, trees, the sky, the stars... Yes, all of them, they all mean something to me, and that meaning is difficult or impossible to express. For now that is all it is for me. But one day... who knows. I'm happy to find out along the way.

I've long thought that any religious practice is simply a framework within which those felt but unarticulated and elusive meanings can be explored, Given form and expression, value and even authority. Ideas within stories, stories within ideas, a never ending spiral of questing for resolution of the mess of self and the dim awareness of our surroundings afforded to us as human merely beings*.

And it's all well and good to talk... But in the end we turn away from conversations to deal with reality in all the neccesary ways that our individual natures demand and make the best of a bad job. Beyond the labels we cling to a smidgen of compassion and humility towards our sisters and brothers is basically what it all comes down to.

*that 'human merely being' phrase is pinched from the poem i thank you God for this most amazing by e.e. Cummings... I really like it

You're probably right about the stars, moon, rocks, trees, herbs, flowers, hares, crows, all of it. I can try to get the essence of them with words like 'beauty' and 'love' but the way I feel about them is so overwhelming that 'God' is the only possible expression big enough.

[Leonard James]

No don't agree with the last bit about your construct being based on science.

It's based on your understanding and interpretation of science as you understand it today, the correct answer might not be the one we have arrived at today.

Which does not alter the fact that scientific answers ARE based on testable evidence. Whether our interpretation of that evidence is correct or not will eventually be discovered and corrected.

Religious beliefs offer no such hope.

[torridon]

Religion isn't about testafiable evidence, more about shared experience and an expression of creativity and inspiration. A sense of awe and place, religion gives it a shared framework.

What does a 'framework' consist of ? There is no escaping the fact that in most cases the framework involves certain underlying propositional claims about the world and those claims are either correct or incorrect. So we could commission a study to investigate those claims and base our faith on the study findings in the knowledge that with the objectivity brought by a more disciplined approach we would be less likely to be in error.  But we don't do that do we;  if we follow a faith, we are not really interested in objective truth, more we are interested in finding a way of life that suits us as individuals. In part, we have to do this because our minds are limited in capacity. From the moment we are born we are flooded with information, and to avoid overload we quickly start developing prejudices regarding which sorts of information are valid and which sorts of people are trustworthy.  It is difficult keeping an open mind, life is much more manageable with narrower horizons, so we become smaller people. Instead of being a human being, we become a christian, or a muslim or a pagan.  We become a banker, rather that just doing banking to make a living. We don't just enjoy a game of football, we become arsenal fans or chelsea supporters. A diehard lifelong labour voter has probably lost the ability to see any virtue in policies produced by rival parties. We are creatures born of tribalism and this shows up in religion just as much as in any other sphere of life, hence most debate here is more about people defending their position rather than seeking truer understanding through engagement.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I'm not keen on labels. But for me it's a kind if shorthand when explaining what I do. I'm also mindful that pagans still face persecution - even I chickened from telling the nice girl on the til in tesco that I'm pagan when chatting about Halloween - and not to identify as such seems unfair to those who stick their heads above the parapet.

[Leonard James]

Religion and science are different things, so science can never replace religion.

Science is essential for us to live in and learn about the universe that spawned us.

Religion doesn't need replacing ... it simply needs to be seen for what it is, a human invention that some people use to evade facing the reality of life being nothing more than a bio-chemical process. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religion and science are different things, so science can never replace religion.

Science is essential for us to live in and learn about the universe that spawned us.

Religion doesn't need replacing ... it simply needs to be seen for what it is, a human invention that some people use to evade facing the reality of life being nothing more than a bio-chemical process. 

You expect us to buy that from a hedonist?

[Leonard James]

You expect us to buy that from a hedonist?

I have learned to expect ANYTHING from you, my friend! 

[Outrider]

You expect us to buy that from a hedonist?

1 - arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on the descriptor of the person making the argument

2 - what's wrong with hedonism?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You expect us to buy that from a hedonist?

2 - what's wrong with hedonism?

It states that life is more than just a biochemical process it means it's

a total fuuucccckinggg Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavvvvvvvvvvvvve! Yeeeeeeeaah!

Big fish..........Little fish..........cardboard box! yeah![/size]

[Outrider]

You expect us to buy that from a hedonist?

2 - what's wrong with hedonism?

It states that life is more than just a biochemical process it means it's

a total fuuucccckinggg Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavvvvvvvvvvvvve! Yeeeeeeeaah!

Big fish..........Little fish..........cardboard box! yeah![/size]

No, it just accepts that enjoying that biochemical process whilst it's happening is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice.

O.

[Leonard James]

No, it just accepts that enjoying that biochemical process whilst it's happening is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice.

O.

Which is precisely what the "religious" do in fact, despite their pretend pious cant.

[torridon]

Religion isn't about testafiable evidence, more about shared experience and an expression of creativity and inspiration. A sense of awe and place, religion gives it a shared framework.

What does a 'framework' consist of ? There is no escaping the fact that in most cases the framework involves certain underlying propositional claims about the world and those claims are either correct or incorrect. So we could commission a study to investigate those claims and base our faith on the study findings in the knowledge that with the objectivity brought by a more disciplined approach we would be less likely to be in error.  But we don't do that do we;  if we follow a faith, we are not really interested in objective truth, more we are interested in finding a way of life that suits us as individuals. In part, we have to do this because our minds are limited in capacity. From the moment we are born we are flooded with information, and to avoid overload we quickly start developing prejudices regarding which sorts of information are valid and which sorts of people are trustworthy.  It is difficult keeping an open mind, life is much more manageable with narrower horizons, so we become smaller people. Instead of being a human being, we become a christian, or a muslim or a pagan.  We become a banker, rather that just doing banking to make a living. We don't just enjoy a game of football, we become arsenal fans or chelsea supporters. A diehard lifelong labour voter has probably lost the ability to see any virtue in policies produced by rival parties. We are creatures born of tribalism and this shows up in religion just as much as in any other sphere of life, hence most debate here is more about people defending their position rather than seeking truer understanding through engagement.

A framework to me,is made up of shared things a group has in common, (or an individual has) that guides their life.

It's not so much a label I give,  but one they define themselves.

They don't have to be religious, they could be an Athiest humanist.

A Muslim for example has the Quran and probably follows some of the five pillars.

It's marked by such  things as shared holidays and experiences  etc.

Even our British society is a framework of sorts and differs in some ways, to other countries.

A framework is something that is man made, it's how you live your life and how someone approaches life.

My J W relatives have a different one to me, theirs is dictated by the watchtower, they don't share the same holidays etc.

Their frame of reference is different to mine.

I'm not sure if there  is a better word to use, than framework.

None of that is really addressing the core dilemma for religions, namely that they largely derive from a set of propositional truth claims about the nature of reality and these truth claims are things which are either correct or they are not. Some of the core beliefs of a muslim flatly contradict the core beliefs of the christian and vice versa and so while the muslim may be happy within his belief world and the christian likewise they are destined to be forever separated, divided by an instinct that elevates loyalty to your personal faith above loyalty to your fellow human beings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religion isn't about testafiable evidence, more about shared experience and an expression of creativity and inspiration. A sense of awe and place, religion gives it a shared framework.

What does a 'framework' consist of ? There is no escaping the fact that in most cases the framework involves certain underlying propositional claims about the world and those claims are either correct or incorrect. So we could commission a study to investigate those claims and base our faith on the study findings in the knowledge that with the objectivity brought by a more disciplined approach we would be less likely to be in error.  But we don't do that do we;  if we follow a faith, we are not really interested in objective truth, more we are interested in finding a way of life that suits us as individuals. In part, we have to do this because our minds are limited in capacity. From the moment we are born we are flooded with information, and to avoid overload we quickly start developing prejudices regarding which sorts of information are valid and which sorts of people are trustworthy.  It is difficult keeping an open mind, life is much more manageable with narrower horizons, so we become smaller people. Instead of being a human being, we become a christian, or a muslim or a pagan.  We become a banker, rather that just doing banking to make a living. We don't just enjoy a game of football, we become arsenal fans or chelsea supporters. A diehard lifelong labour voter has probably lost the ability to see any virtue in policies produced by rival parties. We are creatures born of tribalism and this shows up in religion just as much as in any other sphere of life, hence most debate here is more about people defending their position rather than seeking truer understanding through engagement.

A framework to me,is made up of shared things a group has in common, (or an individual has) that guides their life.

It's not so much a label I give,  but one they define themselves.

They don't have to be religious, they could be an Athiest humanist.

A Muslim for example has the Quran and probably follows some of the five pillars.

It's marked by such  things as shared holidays and experiences  etc.

Even our British society is a framework of sorts and differs in some ways, to other countries.

A framework is something that is man made, it's how you live your life and how someone approaches life.

My J W relatives have a different one to me, theirs is dictated by the watchtower, they don't share the same holidays etc.

Their frame of reference is different to mine.

I'm not sure if there  is a better word to use, than framework.

None of that is really addressing the core dilemma for religions, namely that they largely derive from a set of propositional truth claims about the nature of reality and these truth claims are things which are either correct or they are not. Some of the core beliefs of a muslim flatly contradict the core beliefs of the christian and vice versa and so while the muslim may be happy within his belief world and the christian likewise they are destined to be forever separated, divided by an instinct that elevates loyalty to your personal faith above loyalty to your fellow human beings.

But these divisions are also found in other fields and between atheists and religionists or philosophical naturalists and the religious.

[Dicky Underpants]

I think I said before that my path owes more to Richard Mabey and Geoff Hamilton than any 'pagan' writer.

Richard Mabey: his book "Nature Cure" was a fascinating and poignant memoir.
However, the 'Vis medicatrix naturae' appears not to have been able to prevent the premature death of the sadly missed, organically inclined Geoff Hamilton. In my allotment-renting days, I owed to the ingenious Mr. Hamilton the knowledge of the way to construct mini-polytunnels out of a few lengths of plastic hose and transparent polythene sheeting. Certainly helped my over-wintered broad beans.
He was certainly a more worthy figure than the celebrity arse-licking Alan Titchmarsh. However (judging by your remarks about Viggo Mortensen) you probably find Monty Don a suitable replacement in the TV gardener department.

[Dicky Underpants]

Just wondering if there is a role for Jung in the approach to paganism? It's not that it is handed down by correct texts, it is that it can continually be rediscovered by channelling into the collective unconscious? That the Hero with a Thousand Faces is are expression of the archetypes we all encounter.

No doubt we need Jack Knave to give us the goods on Jung. You sound as if you are prepared to accept the reality of the "Collective Unconscious" and "Archetypes" (in the particular sense that Jung posited the latter). I'm not so sure I do any more. These things all seem to depend on there being some kind of 'psychic reality' underlying all phenomena that connects everyone of us. I think the only things that connect us are the fact that we all share the same evolutionary history, the same basic gene pool and therefore are likely to respond to many of the everyday phenomena of existence in similar ways. Other things are matters of cultural conditioning and the handing down of traditional teachings. The artistic side of me finds this bitter medicine to swallow, but I tend to grit my teeth and gulp it down nonetheless.

[Dicky Underpants]

He is a expert on Paganism in Britain. All his books on te subject are well worth reading. Being, I think, a Druid himself he is extremely passionate about his siubject.

He is also one of those who helped, at the very least, to debunk Gardner's claims for the history of Wicca.

Your saying Prof Hutton is a Druid kinda puts me off him a bit. Isn't Druidism itself one of those aspects of paganism about whose history and practice we know very little - apart from a few references in Caesar and Tacitus?
Nonetheless, I've always liked his style of presenting on television, as well as his ultra-refined speaking voice (sounds a bit like A.N. Wilson to me, but the latter is much more of an old fogey than Prof Hutton). And with his long hair and Norfolk jacket, our Ron looks a real cool dude.

[Rhiannon]

I think I said before that my path owes more to Richard Mabey and Geoff Hamilton than any 'pagan' writer.

Richard Mabey: his book "Nature Cure" was a fascinating and poignant memoir.
However, the 'Vis medicatrix naturae' appears not to have been able to prevent the premature death of the sadly missed, organically inclined Geoff Hamilton. In my allotment-renting days, I owed to the ingenious Mr. Hamilton the knowledge of the way to construct mini-polytunnels out of a few lengths of plastic hose and transparent polythene sheeting. Certainly helped my over-wintered broad beans.
He was certainly a more worthy figure than the celebrity arse-licking Alan Titchmarsh. However (judging by your remarks about Viggo Mortensen) you probably find Monty Don a suitable replacement in the TV gardener department.

I attended a talk by Mabey on his book Weeds. A very sweet, engaging man. His Flora Britannica is my 'go to' for existing folk memories around plants. Nature Cure is one of my favourite books.

Hamilton taught me to garden. Every time I buy peat free or improvise old stuff into new it is because of him. The gentlest of men. After his death I visited Barnsdale - it was nothing less than a pilgrimage.

Interesting fact about Monty Don: before he became a gardener he and his wife had a designer jewellery company in the 80s, and she had the idea to put Swarofski crystal on jewellery - up to then it was just used for chandeliers. But the life didn't suit him and his story of how the company collapsed and he found solace through gardening in The Jewel Garden - another great memoir.

Mr Don is very nice but... I dunno, he's more useful background plant than attractive specimen.

[Rhiannon]

He is a expert on Paganism in Britain. All his books on te subject are well worth reading. Being, I think, a Druid himself he is extremely passionate about his siubject.

He is also one of those who helped, at the very least, to debunk Gardner's claims for the history of Wicca.

Your saying Prof Hutton is a Druid kinda puts me off him a bit. Isn't Druidism itself one of those aspects of paganism about whose history and practice we know very little - apart from a few references in Caesar and Tacitus?
Nonetheless, I've always liked his style of presenting on television, as well as his ultra-refined speaking voice (sounds a bit like A.N. Wilson to me, but the latter is much more of an old fogey than Prof Hutton). And with his long hair and Norfolk jacket, our Ron looks a real cool dude.

As far as I know Prof Hutton isn't open about his faith, but according to Wiki he was raised pagan.

I find Neil Oliver interesting - I don't believe he is a pagan but watching his programmes you can tell he 'gets' it. I could quite happily sit beside a campfire while he talks to me about the later Bronze Age.

[jeremyp]

No don't agree with the last bit about your construct being based on science.

It's based on your understanding and interpretation of science as you understand it today, the correct answer might not be the one we have arrived at today.

There is a difference between basing your World view on science and every little bit of science being correct. I am confident that basing my World view on science is the right thing to do because it works. Science is unbelievably successful.

Here are some examples

http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/

All of those ideas were debunked by using science. Unlike with religion, science finds and corrects its mistakes. 

Who is to say some of  our science today won't be laughed at as being as silly?

I am. While it is true to say that nothing in science is completely certain, many of its current ideas are unlikely ever to be overthrown. I'm pretty sure that the Earth will be perceived to orbit the Sun pretty much for ever more. I doubt if the idea of oxygen will ever be overthrown.

[torridon]

None of that is really addressing the core dilemma for religions, namely that they largely derive from a set of propositional truth claims about the nature of reality and these truth claims are things which are either correct or they are not. Some of the core beliefs of a muslim flatly contradict the core beliefs of the christian and vice versa and so while the muslim may be happy within his belief world and the christian likewise they are destined to be forever separated, divided by an instinct that elevates loyalty to your personal faith above loyalty to your fellow human beings.

But these divisions are also found in other fields and between atheists and religionists or philosophical naturalists and the religious.

Yes that might be true; that indicates that tribal instincts transcend religious and political instincts. Thus an arsenal supporter is probably more fervently engaged with the game than someone who just likes football but lacks any club affiliation. Likewise in religion, most people who go 'searching for God' end up finding him somewhere within the broad boundaries of their cultural upbringing. Some people do convert to distant faiths but these are numerically lesser.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No don't agree with the last bit about your construct being based on science.

It's based on your understanding and interpretation of science as you understand it today, the correct answer might not be the one we have arrived at today.

There is a difference between basing your World view on science and every little bit of science being correct. I am confident that basing my World view on science is the right thing to do because it works. Science is unbelievably successful.

Here are some examples

http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/

All of those ideas were debunked by using science. Unlike with religion, science finds and corrects its mistakes. 

Who is to say some of  our science today won't be laughed at as being as silly?

I am. While it is true to say that nothing in science is completely certain, many of its current ideas are unlikely ever to be overthrown. I'm pretty sure that the Earth will be perceived to orbit the Sun pretty much for ever more. I doubt if the idea of oxygen will ever be overthrown.

1: Science does not support your world view Jeremy. I have as much science in my life as you do and maybe more.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.

[torridon]

2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.