The first component is an acceptance of the inherent divinity of the natural world, and a rejection of any notion of the creation of that world by a power outside itself. Such acceptance is immediately recognized to take a range of possible forms, from the animist belief that the cosmos is empowered by an apparently infinite number of spirit forms to that form of monotheism which suggests that the planet is the living body of a single divine entity.
This certainly accords with my rejection of the concept of the “supernatural,” that is, that some forces transcend or exist wholly apart from the natural order of things. Anything that exists beyond the direct perception or experience of human beings is nevertheless a “natural” part of the universe. We are not the arbiters of nature’s boundaries. This causes me some trouble, though, with the concept of “divinity.” I would argue that “divinity” is merely a matter of perspective. To a garden-variety ant, I am like a pagan god. They cannot perceive me in my totality, but I can smite them at will. With my lawnmower I can devastate their world and send them scrambling in a panic. Compared to their brief lifespans, I seem eternal. Even a dog, depending on when you get one, may not live long enough to see you visibly age. To such creatures, humans may seem “divine.” By the same token, recognizing that the Planet Earth is a living being, now some 4.5 billion years old, doesn’t necessarily require a belief that such an entity is “divine” or that celebrating Gaea should properly be labeled “monotheism.” In some nature-based religions, the Earth may be considered a divine being, but in Scientific Paganism, Gaea is just Gaea.
The second component is the rejection of any concept of a divinely prescribed law for human behavior, and therefore of the concepts of sin and salvation. In place of those is an ethic of freedom to express and gratify individual needs and desires, and so pursue personal growth and happiness, with the single major limitation of an undertaking to avoid harming others in the process. This restriction is given a mystical quality for many by the concept of the inherent sanctity of all living things. The two aspects of this morality are summed up in ‘the Wiccan Rede’: ‘Do as ye will an’ ye harm none.’
Whether or not one considers the Earth to be a divine being, Gaea does not issue proclamations or commandments to control human behavior. That’s on us. Our ability to reason is enough to point us in the right direction, if properly applied and excuses for bad behavior not countenanced. We don’t need the threat of damnation or destruction after death to enforce our ethical systems. As history shows, this cop-out too often merely helps one group impose its will on others, thereby leading to exploitation and abuse. Anytime the needs and/or desires of one person come into conflict with those of another person, the only ethical option is negotiation. And if we accept, as we must, that all people are of equal intrinsic value, then the outcome of such negotiations must balance the gratification of the individual against any harm to the community. There is no recourse to some set of “supernatural” edicts. A further point of clarification: it is my understanding that the Wiccan exhortation “Do as ye will” does not mean ‘do whatever you want’ so much as ‘be yourself’ or ‘live as your “will” (true self) impels you to live.’
The third component is an acceptance that divinity can be both female and male. This formulation leaves room for a further range of conceptualizations, from a single bisexual Great Spirit to a genuine polytheism, although duotheism—by which a goddess and a god appear in various aspects—is the most commonly articulated. The essential practical expression of this principle is that women are held to represent religious power at least as effectively as men.
Setting aside my reservations about the very idea of “divinity” discussed above, the conclusion of this third statement seems like a no-brainer to me. Valuing one conceptualization of gender over another is a relic of our civilization’s patriarchal past. Likewise, it is illogical to assume that anatomical details make one more or less adept at conducting a ritual or explicating a system of belief. But in any case, Scientific Paganism doesn’t get bogged down in arguing for particular manifestations or anthropomorphisms of cosmic forces. Such constructs can be expressed in male, female, androgynous, or asexual terms as seems appropriate. This impulse merely reflects the human need to make such forces relatable. One wouldn’t waste time arguing the gender of gravity, for instance.
Hutton then sums up:
At a glance it should be obvious that these principles can also characterize not only every other variety of modern Paganism, but some varieties of Hindu and Shinto beliefs and many tribal religious systems. They could, indeed, be endorsed by liberal Christians, with some reformulation such as the recognition of a Supreme Being who is beyond gender, incorporating both female and male. As already indicated, they leave room for a very wide span of beliefs, let alone practices, of a sort quite large enough to characterize separate religious systems. An unspoken definition is therefore crucial, that Pagans today are people who hold those tenets and turn for symbolism, kinship, and inspiration to the pre-Christian religions of Europe and the Near East, and that pagan witches identify in addition with a refashioned, positive version of the traditional figure of the witch.
This passage suggests that the core of many religions is essentially the same, and they are differentiated largely by the trappings with which they adorn themselves. This speaks to the underlying unity of the human experience, which is of paramount importance when religions must coexist on the same small world. As my ancestors come from the British Isles and northwestern Europe, it makes sense that I would look there for ritual imagery, but other people would naturally be drawn to different inspirations. Scientific Paganism tries to take a broad view of human activity, so diversity is not a problem. We are all aspects of Gaea, our living world.
No comments:
Post a Comment