Naturalistic Pagans may be atheists, pantheists, or even animists. Not all Naturalistic Pagans use theistic language, but some do. The use of “god language” by non-theists can be confusing. Some feel that we should “say what we mean” and avoid theistic language altogether. However, other Naturalistic Pagans feel that to surrender all theistic language to literalist demands is to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Both the heart and the head need to be satisfied. In religion, the evocative power of language is at least as important, if not more, than semantic precision. As B. T. Newberg explains:
“The imagination must be captivated and transformed by a vision, not of what one is not, but of what one is or could be. This missing element may be embodied in symbols that remind, invite, and inspire. The individual must be able to interact imaginatively with the symbols in ritual or meditation, and fill them up as it were with experience and affect. At that point, when they are charged with personal meaning and emotion, they may become powerful motivators of thought and behavior. They radiate the power to transform.”
Some Naturalistic Pagans have found that use of theistic language in a ritual context is more productive of certain kinds of religious experience than non-theistic language. For one thing, the word “god” or “gods” is embedded in a complex web of cultural associations. This is precisely why many Naturalistic Pagans discard such language (especially when those associations are negative), but it is also a good reason for retaining “god language”. Such language is laden with emotional resonance (both positive and negative) and has unique potential to evoke powerful emotions of a special character. Because the word “god” lacks an objective referent, it is like a container that can be filled with many different meanings. Whatever goes in the container takes on the qualities associated with the word, including a sense of sacredness, a relationship to what is of “ultimate concern” (Tillich), and moral power.
In addition, much of “god language” is anthropomorphic. Again, this is another reason why some Naturalistic Pagans avoid it: Anthropomorphism can lead to anthropocentrism. But anthropomorphic language is useful to Naturalistic Pagans because it stimulates different parts of the brain than non-anthropomorphic language. Anthropomorphic language tends to activate the regions of the brain associated with sociality and relationship, in contrast to the part of the brain that processes objects and abstractions. This is why we have a different experience in response to words like “God” or “Goddess” than we do to more abstract or impersonal words like “Being” or “Nature”. We experience “Goddess” as a “Thou” rather than an “It” — to use Martin Buber’s terms — even when we are using the word to mean an impersonal Nature. As a result, we become open to a kind of relationship with nature that would have been impossible had we used more objective language, and we become more susceptible to the life-transforming religious experiences that flow from that relationship.
Many Naturalistic Pagans use ritual and meditative practices to connect to something greater than themselves. Theists and atheists alike may wonder how this is possible, since Naturalistic Pagans do not believe in deities or spirits. But there are other things that can be understood as transcending ourselves, including the natural world, the community of life, and our deeper selves. For example, B. T. Newberg explains how the experience of transcendence can arise out of an encounter with nature:
“… stand at the foot of a mountain and you may be impressed by how much greater it is than you in degree, how alien it is from you in kind. Climb that mountain and confront limits of endurance beyond which you thought yourself incapable, feel the relation between yourself and the mountain’s flora and fauna as part of one interdependent ecosystem, and discover how the experience of the mountain becomes part of you and changes who you are – then you may draw close to something like transcendence.”
Typically, “transcendence” is understood as a movement beyond the human condition, beyond our embodiment, and beyond our connections to the world around us. But there is another kind of transcendence, what Phil Hine calls “lateral transcendence” or “horizontal transcendence” (and Luce Irigaray calls the “sensible transcendent”). Hine explains:
“Transcendence, in these terms, is not some unknowable absence, but a feature of phenomena as they announce themselves within a horizon. Transcendence means that what is perceived ‘always contains more than what is actually given’ – that any phenomenon has the capacity to surprise us, to broaden or even explode our horizons. Lateral transcendence can be thought of as a reaching-beyond the boundaries of isolated selfhood towards the web of relationships, and perhaps, an openness to novelty, surprise, the unexpected.”
Examples of such naturalistic transcendents include the Earth and the Cosmos, the human community and the more-than-human community, and the “Big Self” (what Starhawk calls the “Deep Self”) as distinguished from the ego-self or our conscious identity.