
(This is a brief excerpt from my book, The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy: Stoic Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy, published by Karnac and available for order online now.)
Plato has a fine saying, that he who would discourse of man should survey, as from some high watchtower, the things of earth. (Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations)
Take a moment to settle into your posture and make yourself comfortable… Close your eyes and relax… [Pause.] Be aware of your breathing… Notice the rhythm and pattern of the breath… Do nothing for while, just be content to contemplate your breathing more deeply… [Pause.] Now, begin by paying attention to the whole of your body as one… From the top of your head, all the way down into your fingers and down into your toes… Be aware of your body as one… every nerve, muscle and fibre… Don’t try to change anything. Don’t try to stop anything from changing… Some things can change just by being observed…
Your help is needed! Please critique this entry from the HPedia: An encyclopedia of key concepts in Naturalistic Paganism. Please leave your constructive criticism in the comments below.
In the Contemporary Pagan community, there is a general distinction between soft and hard polytheism.
Soft polytheism encompasses views of the gods as figurative to some extent, whether that means they are metaphors for aspects of nature, or metaphors for some greater transcendent divine power (which may or may not go beyond what a naturalist usually considers “nature”) that is difficult to grasp except through human-created imagery. To that extent, different deities may be seen as aspects of one another.
In contrast, hard polytheism asserts deities are distinct entities, usually as causal agents with their own independent wills and personalities. The fullest account of this view is probably John Michael Greer’s A World Full of Gods. The view is described in brief by Celtic Reconstructionist Seren:
I believe that the gods, spirits and ancestors are as distinct as much as they can be closely intertwined: Sometimes the gods might be seen as spirits, or as ancestors, or both, or neither of these things. They are timeless, and they are Otherworldly. They are in this world and outside of it.
It’s also described by Star Foster:
As a hard polytheist I believe in distinct, sentient Gods that move within nature’s laws.
The claim that deities “move within nature’s laws” is worth remark. Janet and Stewart Farrar agree with regard to magic: “magic does not break the laws of nature”, as does Starhawk: “No magic spell will work unless channels are open in the material world.” These claims point to the complicated issue of what constitutes “nature” within Pagan discourse. An article on that complicated issue is available here.
It is also worth noting that Star capitalizes her “G”, whereas many others do not. HP adopts the editorial policy of not capitalizing the g, with the intention of distinguishing against the classical monotheist “God”, which is traditionally capitalized because it is a name. No disrespect is intended.
Naturalism, wherever it includes multiple deities that do not transcend nature as defined by reliable scientific evidence, might overlap with soft polytheism or be considered a subset of it. Otherwise, it may be considered a third alternative.
See also “Deity.”
Check out other entries in our HPedia.
June 5th is World Environment Day, a time to stimulate awareness of the environment and enhance political attention and public action This year’s theme is “Green Economy: Does It Include You?” From the website:
The UN Environment Programme defines the Green Economy as one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive.
Practically speaking, a Green Economy is one whose growth in income and employment is driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. These investments need to be catalyzed and supported by targeted public expenditure, policy reforms and regulation changes.
But what does all this mean for you? Well, this essentially what the second part of the theme is all about. If the Green Economy is about social equity and inclusiveness then technically it is all about you! The question therefore asks you to find out more about the Green Economy and assess whether, in your country, you are being included in it.
– by B. T. Newberg
Most naturalists would probably agree that however much you may love the universe, it can’t love you back. And yet, much of our language about it – and perhaps our feelings for it too – are built on an analogy to social relationships.
For example, we might speak of relating to the universe as to a friend, or symbolize the universe as a cosmic mother. Since it is generally only humans with which we engage in such relationships, this is a form of anthropomorphism.*
Do you do this? Is it an intentional part of your practice?
I would wager that the vast majority of Pagan forms of naturalism anthropomorphize to some extent. The language of deities, spirits, and ancestors is a prime example. Gaianism is clear anthropomorphism as well.** Among published authors, Glenys Livingstone relates to Cosmic Creativity as a triple goddess, and Brendan Myers writes of humanizing the landscape as a confrontation with existential loneliness.
Your help is needed! Please critique this entry from the HPedia: An encyclopedia of key concepts in Naturalistic Paganism. Please leave your constructive criticism in the comments below.
Naturalism is a worldview with numerous technical definitions, each with their own virtues and difficulties. One of the oldest definitions comes from Littré’s 1875 Dictionnaire de la langue française, which defined naturalism as:
“the system of those who find all primary causes in nature” (Furst and Skrine, 1971).
Variations on this definition continues to enjoy popularity today. Concentrating on causes, it allows analysis to focus on how people explain events, which makes it more or less portable across historical eras. Like most all definitions of naturalism, it does not escape the question of differing concepts of nature in different eras, much less the question of the so-called supernatural, which remains problematic in Pagan contexts today.
Other popular definitions obtain, such as these from Wikipedia:
These two are clarified by William E. Kaufman, starting with methodological naturalism:
Naturalism may be defined as “the disposition to believe that any phenomenon can be explained by appeal to general laws confirmable either by observation or by inference from observation” (CRN 21). This does not mean that everything that happens in the universe is at present explainable. Rather, naturalism represents a methodological recommendation concerning the theory of knowledge. What it suggests is that the only instruments of knowledge we possess are reason and critically analyzed experience. Claims to knowledge based on a special faculty, such as mystical intuition, must therefore be recognized as assertions of faith which cannot be verified and can only be evaluated in terms of their consequences for human conduct. The reliance on reason and critically analyzed experience is thus the method of naturalism, its logic of inquiry.
Kaufman goes on to speak of metaphysical naturalism:
Naturalism as a theory of reality, however, can be problematic because of the ambiguity of the term “nature.” For most naturalists, nevertheless, it is safe to say that “nature” signifies the totality of reality — its substance, functioning and principles of operation, since what distinguishes naturalism from other metaphysical standpoints is its claim that there is nothing beyond nature.
HP adopts only methodological naturalism as an essential tenet; metaphysical naturalism is left up to the individual to accept or reject. This is simply and purely a statement of what HP is, not a dogmatic proclamation of what is right or wrong for all people in the universe to believe. Those who practice HP do not invoke supernatural causes; others are free to do as they see fit. Invoking supernatural causes is neither condoned nor condemned; it just isn’t HP.
Metaphysical naturalism (also called philosophical or onotological naturalism) is left up to the individual to accept or reject. Some may find it questionable to believe in the existence of the supernatural while denying it any causal influence, but that is for individuals to judge for themselves (those interested may see Barbara Forrest’s treatment of the methodological-philosophical naturalism debate). The only naturalism required for a path to be considered HP is methodological naturalism.
In HP, naturalism refers to methodological naturalism, unless otherwise specified.
Note that the definitions above rely on definitions of nature and science, which are not uncontested.
See also “Nature”, “Supernatural”, and “Science.”
Check out other entries in our HPedia.