Naturalistic Paganism

Today we continue our early winter theme, Beginnings, with an interview with Stifyn Emrys, author of Requiem for a Phantom God and other books, gives us the inside scoop on his Atheist Paganism and his ebook ventures.

“I have great respect for metaphor, myth and symbolism. The difficulty, I think, arises when we forget that these are intended as gateways to understanding.”

B. T. Newberg: In the last year, you’ve become actively involved in the “Atheist Pagan” question, writing numerous blog posts and debating Ian Corrigan over whether Atheists can be Pagans or not. I find this is often a matter of how you define terms, so could you tell us what “Atheist Pagan” means to you?

Stifyn Emrys: To me, an atheist is someone who is “without gods,” and a Pagan is a very broad term that comprises any number of earth-based, polytheistic and pantheistic belief systems. I think the conflict comes because some use the term Pagan as a virtual synonym for polytheist. I don’t subscribe to this definition. I respect polytheists, but I resist the very human inclination to redefine a broader term in some narrower sense because it happens to fit my particular belief system.

There are many, many people who respect the earth and our universe who do not see it necessary to define these things in terms of deity. I think it’s natural to view these things in anthropomorphic terms, because doing so makes them easier for us to understand from a human perspective. I’m also fascinated by ancient myth, because its symbolism offers us a glimpse into how we, as humans, interact with our environment and make sense out of things.

I have great respect for metaphor, myth and symbolism. The difficulty, I think, arises when we forget that these are intended as gateways to understanding. Instead, they are taken literally, because, frankly, it’s easier to do so. It also leads to dogmatism and fundamentalism. That’s what I’m concerned is occurring among those who insist that Pagans “worship” literal gods. Very much the same thing happened early in the development of Christianity, when the orthodox literalists suppressed mystical or Gnostic traditions that sought a deeper meaning.

There’s a huge strand of mysticism running through Paganism that I don’t want to see sacrificed to literalism. I’m not using the term “mysticism” in some mumbo-jumbo sense; I’m using it to denote the mysteries of the universe – mysteries I believe we can and should continually seek to understand using science and inquiry. This contrasts with a literalist approach that maintains we’ve already got it all figured out thanks to our symbols, religious hierarchies or holy books.

I’m aware that the term “atheist” carries a certain amount of baggage. I think the terms Pagan humanist and secular Pagan work just as well. Unfortunately, some of the most vocal self-described atheists and anti-theists tend to come off (in my experience) as bitter or petty. Given the way we’re often treated, that’s understandable. But I prefer to take a more positive tack. I like Carl Sagan’s perspective: that the universe in itself is more awe-inspiring than any god who symbolizes it could ever be. Why spend time revering gods as symbols of nature when you can go straight to the source? I think many non-theistic earth-based Pagans would agree with this approach, and I don’t think they should be excluded from a discussion of Paganism.

BTN: So when you say an atheist is “without gods”, do you mean without literal interpretations of gods, or without gods of any kind, symbolic or otherwise?

SE: I mean without literal interpretations. We communicate through symbols; there’s no getting away from that. I think it’s important to be aware of how we use symbols rather than pretending they don’t exist. We don’t stop buying tickets to movies involving superheroes because we know they don’t exist. We enjoy these movies (at least I do) because they offer an insight into human nature and the world in which we live. Symbols are extremely valuable from that standpoint; I believe they become dangerous when we take them literally and, in doing so, ignore the ideas the symbols were meant to convey.

BTN: Many of these concerns also inform your books. Your first, Gospel of the Phoenix, re-weaves the story of Jesus with earlier myths like that of Isis and Horus or the Queen of Sheba. To put it bluntly, what gives you the right to re-write the Gospels?

SE: I anticipated this question, which is why I addressed it in the introduction to the book. What gives anyone the right to present a version of any story? We don’t even know the names of the people who wrote the four canonical gospels (most scholars recognize the titles as pseudepigraphal). What gave “orthodox” Christians the right to exclude the Gospel of Thomas from the canon? What gave the author of Luke, writing four decades after the fact, the right to pick and choose elements of the book we call “Mark” and interweave them with the sayings gospel known as “Q” and at least one other source?

I’m not claiming this book to be “scriptural” or “holy.” It’s just one possible interpretation, and I’m up front about that. Many people have written lives of Jesus. In fact, it has been one of the most popular topics addressed by writers across the centuries. I don’t think I have any more right to produce such a book than they did, but I don’t think I have any less right, either.

BTN: After Gospel of the Phoenix, you followed up with a critique of monotheism called Requiem for a Phantom God, and a further exploration of Jesus-myth issues from your first book in a sequel called Principle of the Phoenix. With three books critiquing or rewriting Abrahamic religions, it almost starts to seem like a New Atheist-style all-out attack. Would you call yourself actively opposed to Abrahamic religions?

I’d call “The Phoenix Principle” an exploration of how Western religion has developed over time. It’s provocative in places, but it wasn’t intended as an attack, either. Rather, it was meant as an attempt to tie many historical and mythological elements together. It’s not a sequel to “The Gospel of the Phoenix” but a separate work, although it touches on some of the same events.

BTN: How would you characterize the difference between the two works, Gospel and Principle?

Stifyn Emrys’ books are available on Amazon (paperback and Kindle) at http://amzn.to/XreObZ or Nook http://bit.ly/10lWdtR.

The author