Understanding word use and how science relates to myth and religion, by Rua Lupa

26 02 2012
Gridball, by Plasmator

"Could there be words that are not needed for a Path that melds science and myth?"

This week we have a new “challenge” piece.  Rua Lupa engages the issue of appropriate terminology.

As always with challenge posts, this is an opportunity to listen, question oneself, and develop thoughtful responses.

Remember, this is offered in the spirit of dialogue, so let’s make the most of this chance for a meaningful exchange of opinions!

- B. T. Newberg, editor

I’ll start with a quote I believe to be a strong example of Humanistic Paganism: a naturalistic marriage of science and mythology:

“The ancient myth makers knew, we are equally children of the earth and the sky.”

Carl Sagan, Cosmos, Episode 13, 7:08

Carl Sagan lived a life that could make him a poster child for combining myth and science. As a public figure who worked on building a bridge of understanding between the public and science, he often used myth to provide an understanding and the feeling of deep connection with the cosmos. Yet he never associated with Paganism to express myth with science. Is Paganism even required to have a relationship with science and myth? I understand incorporating it, but is it Required?

Paganism itself struggles with its own label regularly. What is meant by Paganism? Is it really a useful label? I’ve come across pagan elders of various traditions who casually state that this sort of debate comes up every year or two throughout the pagan community. It appears that through this routine questioning there is a growing stance where once-considered Pagan groups are now using alternative labels to convey a better understanding of who they are and what they stand for. This was even mentioned here on HP (Humanistic Paganism) in an interview with Drew Jacob, where he found a change of name was more effective for public relations and made it easier for others to find them for the right reasons.

Could there be other words that are not needed for a Path that melds science and myth?

“Spirit” and “Spiritual” are words that I have mentioned before and for the same reasons that Drew Jacob had mentioned for the use of the word Pagan. HP and a few other very new Paths have taken the label of spiritual to describe themselves who do not associate with the incorporeal. They are the first, and few who have done so as a Path. Most other incidences are still relatively recent and are attuned as individual searches and pursuits without the group dynamic of “A Path”. Even so, the majority associate with the supernatural, evidence of this are the references to living gods, soul, fairies etc. while it remains difficult to filter through these supernatural-associated spiritualities to get to non-supernatural spiritualities. Which leaves the question, ‘do these few mean something different when saying ‘spirituality’?’ Many have voiced that ‘spirituality’ can mean many different things, which comes back around to the example of Paganism being difficult to pin down, its meaning adding to the confusion. Perhaps there will be a similar response in going by more specific labels for those who had once considered themselves spiritual to convey a better understanding of who they are and what they stand for.

An interesting relation to this is when you Wikipedia “Spiritual Humanism” it redirects to “Religious Humanism”. This is because the term “spiritual” is now frequently used in contexts in which the term “religious” was formally employed because of a growing distaste with the negative associations of ‘religion’. Some may argue that ‘religion’ necessitates a belief in the supernatural. Yet this need not be the case. What religion essentially is is a philosophy with a community, which in living according to that philosophy creates a culture with traditions and customs. Religion is also interchangeable with ‘Path’ which is common to see among many Pagan Paths also calling their Path a Religion, i.e. Wicca, ADF, Asatru etc. HP also calls itself a Path, “The Fourfold Path” to be exact. It’s a community that follows the philosophy that myth and science is a valid way of enriching quality of life, yielding psychological benefits. The culture and tradition is what is currently being developed.

Carl Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, believing that the two were meant to be together and were very complimentary in the absence of deity. The absence of deity would allow for this amalgamation because they are inherently conflicting, even if used metaphorically, as the lines tend to blur, giving way to prayers directed to a god, or having the portrayal of that god being something to emulate. The very essence of what makes a god a god is that it is super, beyond that of reality. Relating to a god would then be removing self from reality, the lines blur. It is also mentioned on HP’s post “What is Humanistic Paganism?” that “not only must we invoke no deity to solve our problems, but also we must actively acknowledge our responsibility to solve these problems.” Would it then be more successful with deities being absent altogether? As a way to actively acknowledge our responsibility to solve our problems, should our own image then be used instead in psychological activities? This criticism only applies to supernatural-related deities, such as anthropomorphic beings with superpowers, etc., that have the potential for idolatry (especially if it can be depicted as a statue) which are given traits. Other versions of deity, like that in some views of pantheism or Forces of Nature for example, would not apply to this criticism.

With HP revolving around science and myth, what then is mythology? Mythology is the stories of a culture, a tradition. The most common story in mythology is the explanation of how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. Science teaches this already, but is missing that tradition, that religion/path to make it complete. Both myth and religion function to derive morality, ethics, and lifestyle. Science can serve the same purpose as well. Thus, these are not conflicting, being quite complimentary.

It has been stated that “We are endeavoring to work out how [myth married to science] might manifest in the 21st century. That’s the whole reason why we’re here.” Much of what is referenced are the wonderful myths of old. Yet these myths speak specifically of a culture in a time not of the 21st century, where slavery, sexism, racism, displaying body parts, and more are justified which are not agreed with today. To truly make this marriage of myth to science manifest in the 21st century, there must be a culture of science where these myths may spring from within that century. In this time and age, our culture is different and these myths need to reflect that. What myths could be made to reflect the views of our culture like that of the ancient myths of Greece reflecting the views of their classical time?

A few ground rules for comments

It’s always useful to keep in mind what makes for a great debate:

  • Use “I” language, not “you” language.  Talk about what you think or feel, rather than making accusations against others.
  • Keep it civil.  Comments that stray toward rants or flames will be deleted.
  • Speak your truth.

The author

Rua Lupa

Rua Lupa is a Canadian Metis of Celtic and Anishinabek (Native peoples of the Great Lakes region) descent. By studying what is being rediscovered about the Celts, and getting involved in the spiritual practices of the Anishnabek, she hopes to find out more about herself, bring to light valuable insights from these cultures, and maybe bring about a new way of being. Rua’s strong love of Nature has led to a passion for photography and Wildlife Technician degree. She dedicates her life to conserving what is left of our unaltered wilderness, and helping humanity regain balance within Nature through Ehoah, a naturalistic path. Rua founded the Sault Community Drum Circle, the Gore Bay Drum Circle on Manitoulin Island, and has been a board member of Bike Share Algoma. She also has a background in tandem canoe tripping, winter camping, lifeguarding, advanced wilderness first aid, and a myriad of other outdoor activities.

Check out Rua’s other articles:

Get our ebooks

B. T. Newberg ebooks





Four critical questions for HP in the coming year

5 02 2012
Contemplation, by Bill Gracey

Thanks to critiques, we have four essential questions to contemplate.

Welcome to the second year of Humanistic Paganism.  After starting up last spring, we published pieces from more than a dozen authors, pumped out three ebooks, and interviewed some big-name authors.  What’s more, last week saw our 100th post!

Now we’re looking forward to a brand new year of quality work.  What should we try to accomplish this year?

We might take a cue from critical voices.  Analysis of critiques aired in last fall’s challenge post, as well as comments on various other posts, yielded some interesting findings: most critiques appear able to be categorized as variations on four essential questions that keep coming up and again.

These questions were first introduced in our ebook, Year One: A Year of Humanistic Paganism.  Its Dynamic Table of Contents organizes all of last year’s articles according to how they address these four questions.  Each piece has something to say, though none gives a comprehensive reply.

In the coming year, perhaps we should devote more explicit attention to these critical issues.

Without further ado, then, what are the four essential questions?

1.  What do we mean?

This question asks for more clarity and nuance in our discourse.  What do mean by things like “gods” and “spirit”?  What do we mean by “Paganism”?  What is entailed by “responsibility?”

To a certain extent we must accept Weber’s admonition that we can only define something at the end of a discussion, since the discussion itself will illumine the concept.  But that’s no excuse not to try.  We need to strive toward working definitions for our major ideas.

One thing I hope to generate this year is a general glossary for HP.  Key terms will be given a range of definitions so that everyone is on the same page.

2.  Why do it?

Why bother with mythology and gods?  Why bother with ritual?  What do we get out of it?  What’s the point?

These questions ask for the value of naturalistic practices.  Obviously there must be some value, or else we wouldn’t do them – but what is that value exactly?

Thomas Schenk’s  Bicycle Meditation post did a good job of describing the shift in consciousness or mental state derived from that practice.  Eli Effinger-Weintraub’s Deities as Role Models post indicated how the figures of myth can be employed like role models to draw out traits in oneself, like orderliness or responsibility.

In the same way, we must be clear about what it is that we get out of our practices.  And if the value is ineffable, then we should say so.

3.  Why not do otherwise?

Why not use fiction or theater to achieve the same ends as ritual?  Why not speak of “psychology” instead of “spirit?”

This question is more difficult to describe, as the difference between this one and the last is subtle.  Number two asks for the value derived, while number three demands we compare that value with other potential sources.  There also might be an implied assumption that if we can get the same benefits by other means, maybe we should.  Is there something unique about what we’re doing, such that no other activity can bear quite the same fruits?  If so, why?

None of last year’s articles addressed this question in any explicit way.  Is it a question we are obligated to answer?  If not, should it at least be a question we ask ourselves?

Since the paths that make up modern Paganism generally do not claim to be the One True Way, there is no reason to try to show they are inherently better than other religions or secular activities.  Yet it may be worth our while to show that naturalistic ritual activity is not just another way to get your kicks.

In such a discussion, it may be helpful to distinguish instrumental value from intrinsic value.  The former indicates value as a means of achieving some end, while the latter conveys the value of a thing as an end in itself.

4.  Is it responsible?

Even if it can be shown that there is some unique value in what we do, something that can’t be obtained any other way, there is still the problem of whether it may be harmful to ourselves or others.

Could we be wasting valuable time and energy without contributing anything of value to society?  Are we potentially misleading others in our words or activities?

These are the sorts of questions that engage the issue of responsibility.  The second critical question asks for value, the third for comparative value, and now this one asks for net value.  Are we doing more good than harm?

Incidentally, one of the reasons I started HP was the responsibility issue.  I felt I could not responsibly invoke the figures of myth if I wasn’t explicit about my naturalistic understanding.  Otherwise, my example might be taken as implicit support for literalistic religion.  To be responsible, I had to be honest.  That’s one reason why HP exists.

Writing for our critics is writing for ourselves

Ultimately, it only benefits us to answer these questions.  Not only does it present a stronger case to critics, but it helps us clarify our own paths.  In the coming year, we can strive to be more clear about these issues.

What do you think?  Are some of these questions unnecessary to answer?  Or are there other critical questions not covered here?

Get our ebooks

B. T. Newberg ebooks





Atheist-interfaith activism: An interview with Chris Stedman

8 01 2012
Chris Stedman

“Coexistence is merely the first step.  What comes next?”

Snowflake by Simply InnocuousWinterviews continues!  From the Solstice (Dec. 21st) till the next Cross-quarter (Feb. 4th), we’re bringing you non-stop interviews and other goodies from big-name authors.  Mark your calendar!


Click above to listen.

This week we interview Chris D. Stedman, who was recently named among the top ten peacemakers in the science-religion wars.  He’s an atheist-interfaith activist, and takes considerable heat from the atheist community for his work.  While many atheists see little or no need to engage religions in dialogue, Chris reaches out.  And his goal goes beyond tolerance between stances on religion.  He says:

“I don’t want to be tolerated.  I want to be embraced.  I want to be challenged.  I want to be understood, and I want to understand other people.  Coexistence is merely the first step.  Then what’s next?  Are we able to empathize?  Share values?  Work together?”

In this interview, Chris shares stories of his experiences as a person who grew up irreligious, became Born Again, then realized it was not the theology but the ethics and community offered by religion that he was really after.  Ever since, he’s been actively seeking greater understanding and commonality between atheists and the religious.  In particular, he shares a poignant conversation with a Muslim woman in which the two empathize with each other over their shared experiences of fear as minorities in America.

There was an issue with the sound quality – we tried recording in a library space that ended up having a nasty echo.  But our voices come through clear, as does Chris’ affable personality.

Here’s what’s in store:

  1. We tell a little about our paths.
  2. We share stories of what makes interfaith a burning need for us, both in atheist and Pagan contexts.
  3. Chris reveals his upcoming book Faitheist.  Look for it in late 2012!

Faithest, by Chris Stedman

The author

Chris Stedman

Chris Stedman is the Interfaith and Community Service Fellow for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University, the Emeritus Managing Director of State of Formation at the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, and the Founder of the first blog dedicated to exploring atheist-interfaith engagement, NonProphet Status. Chris received an MA in Religion from Meadville Lombard Theological School at the University of Chicago, for which he was awarded the Billings Prize for Most Outstanding Scholastic Achievement.

A graduate of Augsburg College with a summa cum laude B.A. in Religion, Chris writes for The Huffington Post Gay Voices and The Huffington Post Religion, where his work is among the most commented upon in the site’s history, and he is the youngest panelist for The Washington Post On Faith. He is at work on a memoir for Beacon Press (2012), and his writing has also appeared in venues such as Religion DispatchesThe Journal of College and CharacterTikkun Daily, AltMuslimah, The New Gay, and The New Humanism.

Previously a Content Developer and Adjunct Trainer for the Interfaith Youth Core, Chris is an atheist and secular humanist working to foster positive and productive dialogue between faith communities and the nonreligious. He has spoken and lead workshops on this topic at college and university campuses all across the United States; in 2011, the University of Oregon Alliance of Happy Atheists recognized Chris’ work with their first annual Happy Heathen! Award, and The Huffington Post named him one of the top interfaith activists on Twitter.

Chris was raised in a secular home but converted to evangelical Christianity after being invited to church by friends at 11 years old. After years of wrestling with theology and his sexual orientation, Chris left the Christian tradition and spent some time exploring. Eventually he recognized that he was an atheist and secular humanist, and today he works to advocate for the mutual respect of religious and non-religious individuals.

Get our ebooks

B. T. Newberg ebooks