Instinctive paganism

[Shaker]

One on which to end the old year.

A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words, though the following is a very close paraphrase) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."

Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.

[Nearly Sane]

One on which to end the old year.

A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."

Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.

Mmm I think here 'one of these is not like the others, one of these just doesn't belong'. It reads like a category error and would be better comparing paganism with monotheism in which case I suspect both are likely to emerge. Further as an atheist I cannot see how anything that has emerged is not an innate and inherent human reaction.

[Shaker]

Mmm I think here 'one of these is not like the others, one of these just doesn't belong'. It reads like a category error and would be better comparing paganism with monotheism in which case I suspect both are likely to emerge.

This would certainly be the case if, as seems likely, theism develops from an innate sense of agency detection (for which there's now abundant evidence), so yes, theism and especially monotheism(s) would very likely still arise if we were to run the programme again from scratch - though not in their specific current forms.

[Nearly Sane]

This would certainly be the case if, as seems likely, theism develops from an innate sense of agency detection (for which there's now abundant evidence), so yes, theism and especially monotheism(s) would very likely still arise if we were to run the programme again from scratch - though not in their specific current forms.

But surely paganism is so wide in its definition that it doesn't fit the form definition that apply to Christianity, Islam, Judaism so it's not a valid comparison?

[Hope]

One on which to end the old year.

A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words, though the following is a very close paraphrase) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."

Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.

Paganism is based on a particular understanding of the natural world, in much the same way that the other belief-systems mentioned are.  Since neither Hinduism or Buddhism, let alone Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Shintoism, animism and various other belief-systems aren't mentioned by name, would I be right in thinking that the author regards them all as forms of paganism?  If so, Paganism suddenly becomes a far broader 'church' than I've ever understood it to be.

[Jack Knave]

The monotheisms you mention are basically intellectualised variants of the phenomena's of paganism. So as paganism is a function of the human psyche so in time monotheism at least would arise - assuming the intellectual will was there as it is now. As a Christ figure type was reproduced in other religions, including various pagan beliefs, before the actual Christ figure appeared in Christianity, then the form of these proposed monotheisms would include what is essentially a Hero figure, as Christ is, and the rhetoric that goes with all this.

I think it was Dicky who pointed out in a recent thread that he thought that Christianity was just an elaborate pagan format. From my archetypal reading of Jung's psychology this made sense, though before this I had not bothered to joined the dots on this.

Btw, nice question.

[trippymonkey]

What exactly do 'we' all understand as Paganism anyway ?

Nick

[Hope]

This would certainly be the case if, as seems likely, theism develops from an innate sense of agency detection (for which there's now abundant evidence), ....

Its interesting that it all has toi be brought down to and 'blamed' on evolution, Shakes.

I also like the definition of 'agent detection' from wikipedia -

Agent detection is the inclination for animals, including humans, to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not involve one.

Is there any evidence that animals other than humans presume anything in this way?  Are their brains that far advanced?  If not, I'd suggest that the whole concept is a red herring

[Hope]

I think it was Dicky who pointed out in a recent thread that he thought that Christianity was just an elaborate pagan format. From my archetypal reading of Jung's psychology this made sense, though before this I had not bothered to joined the dots on this.

Nt sure that Jung's take actually touches on the subject sufficiently to give an answer either way, JK; but the very idea suggests that this isn't some accidental process, but one with some degree of rationality.

I notice that no-one has really answered the early question as to what paganism is.

[Nearly Sane]

Nt sure that Jung's take actually touches on the subject sufficiently to give an answer either way, JK; but the very idea suggests that this isn't some accidental process, but one with some degree of rationality.

I notice that no-one has really answered the early question as to what paganism is.

Strawman on Jack Knave's statement, and then a flip out into an assertion and a naturalistic fallacy to end on. Funky fallacy routine!

[torridon]

One on which to end the old year.

A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words, though the following is a very close paraphrase) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."

Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.

That would be animism, not paganism, no ?  Paganism is poorly defined and derivative; animism is the closest thing to an indigenous religion for homo sapiens imv.

[Shaker]

Its interesting that it all has toi be brought down to and 'blamed' on evolution, Shakes.

There's no blame attached. And it's interesting purely because evolution is why we're here and are the way we are, and that's as interesting as it gets.

I also like the definition of 'agent detection' from wikipedia - Is there any evidence that animals other than humans presume anything in this way?  Are their brains that far advanced?

In some cases, yes.

[Bramble]

That would be animism, not paganism, no ?  Paganism is poorly defined and derivative; animism is the closest thing to an indigenous religion for homo sapiens imv.

I think this is right. It's been said that animism is the default human 'response' and has manifested pretty much everywhere there have been humans whereas monotheism developed only once. 

[Jack Knave]

Its interesting that it all has toi be brought down to and 'blamed' on evolution, Shakes.

I also like the definition of 'agent detection' from wikipedia - Is there any evidence that animals other than humans presume anything in this way?  Are their brains that far advanced?  If not, I'd suggest that the whole concept is a red herring

We don't really know but they don't always take things as is and will puzzle at things. For example if I bark at a dog - and I sound like the real thing - a dog will look at me with some puzzlement as it sees a human but the sound of a dog. But if I then speak to it it calms down because the dilemma has been resolved. I can do the same with some cats by making meow sounds.

[Jack Knave]

Nt sure that Jung's take actually touches on the subject sufficiently to give an answer either way, JK; but the very idea suggests that this isn't some accidental process, but one with some degree of rationality.

I notice that no-one has really answered the early question as to what paganism is.

Firstly, haven't you been the one asking me to put my Jungian stuff into plain English? Now all of a sudden you've become an expert on him! 

Well if I answer the second bit first then in my view paganism is a psychological reaction to being human in this natural world. I.e. the psychical archetypes impose an emotional awareness (consciousness) of the environment they are in. That is the outer world appears to reflect what they are feeling in their inner world, i.e. their psyche, the unconscious. The two worlds become in a sense one though the relationship is only symbolic and expressed as representable images. This then being the root of all those myths and fables etc. Our monotheisms being the intellectualisation of our pagan days, that is, to a greater and significant degree, the inner world is severed from the outer world and thus we are left with the façade and patina of a spiritual life - that is spiritual death. A meaningless routine of rituals is undertaken that provides almost no connection with who we are within as spiritual human beings. This in turn brings about a reaction hence the endless schisms and new religions - Mormons, Scientology etc., and for our modern day the plethora of political ideologies and utopian philosophical dreams. Paganism in my view is the same or just a step on from what is referred to as the primitive psychological position, though for modern man taking up the pagan standpoint this would mean a 'going back' but still holding onto the modern psychical attainments that mankind has achieved, and hopefully reassessing our whole spiritual position or paucity.

So no, Hope, you don't understand Jung as he has presented a more than adequate perspective on the whole of mankind's psychical development through the ages.

[Shaker]

Firstly, haven't you been the one asking me to put my Jungian stuff into plain English? Now all of a sudden you've become an expert on him! 

Surely not 

Interesting stuff JK. I'm awaiting delivery of a book on Jung's approach to spirituality, as it happens.

[Jack Knave]

Strawman on Jack Knave's statement, and then a flip out into an assertion and a naturalistic fallacy to end on. Funky fallacy routine!

Citation required for this inane assertion and personal incredulity.

[Jack Knave]

Surely not 

Interesting stuff JK. I'm awaiting delivery of a book on Jung's approach to spirituality, as it happens.

Which book? Is it one of the collective works ones?

[Nearly Sane]

Citation required for this inane assertion and personal incredulity.

What do you mean citation? You ask for a citation for a factual claim about something not a personal opinion about Hope's post.

[Shaker]

Which book? Is it one of the collective works ones?

Oh, no, it's a broad and basic introduction - by Vivianne Crowley IIRC.

[Jack Knave]

What do you mean citation? You ask for a citation for a factual claim about something not a personal opinion about Hope's post.

So I was right it was an "inane assertion and personal incredulity"

[Nearly Sane]

So I was right it was an "inane assertion and personal incredulity"

No, that doesn't follow. Your logic seems askew. 

[Jack Knave]

Oh, no, it's a broad and basic introduction - by Vivianne Crowley IIRC.

Good luck with that. I hope, like a good rationalist, you will engage in some experimentation, practical exercises and on hands scrutiny? 

[Jack Knave]

No, that doesn't follow. Your logic seems askew.

Like your post we are addressing, this one is likewise an unqualified assertion based on your personal incredulity.

[Nearly Sane]

Like your post we are addressing, this one is likewise an unqualified assertion based on your personal incredulity.

Repetition is not argument. Having had your nonsensical request for a citation pointed out  is not a justification for the rest of your post.   And there is nothing about personal incredulity in the posts. If you are seeking to pack the most wrongness into the fewest words, you have started the year well.