
I hate to admit it but I do feel some animosity toward hard polytheists. I feel as if they have stolen the gods (which of course belong neither to me nor to them, but to their own time and place).
The gods have meaning precisely because they are symbols, symbols of the power, the mystery of life, of nature, of the world. When the gods are conceived as supernatural people this meaning is lost.
A literal view of the gods has all the intellectual problems of the Christian gods (and I do mean gods, plural – Christians are only monotheists because they re-defined god, which for the ancient Greeks theo meant “deathless”). If the world is full of enlightened superbeings, why isn’t it more obvious? The gods as superbeings come off seeming un-god-like, small, weak and insignificant. Even if they do exist, I don’t see why we should care.
I just don’t get it, and that is the question that needs to be answered. Why do people want supernatural gods?
I don’t think people create or turn to supernatural beings because they have been befuddled by the use of personified symbols. It is not the symbol that is the cause, it is the need.
I think if religious naturalism can truly meet our instinctual needs, the needs religion traditionally addressed, then it will grow and supernaturalism will decrease; if not, then humans will continue to find new and ingenious ways to justify supernaturalism and supernaturalism will grow (with or without personified symbols).
I think there is good evidence that the rise of supernatural literalism in paganism and Christianity is not a return to traditional religion but is a reaction to our societal problems, our disconnected, fast-paced, de-humanized world (see Karen Armstrong’s book “The Case for God” and On Being’s (formally Speaking of Faith) interview with religious historian Martin Marty).
Naturalistic earth/nature-centered religion faces a lot of challenges. For many people, nature is just not a suitable object of reverence; nature is just not god-like.
We are taught that nature is like a machine. It is an object without will, without purpose, and without consciousness (for many people, saying that nature has consciousness and we are it is not satisfying).
For many modern urbanites, nature is not really awe-inspiring. We do not feel fear and trembling in the face of the great power of nature. We rarely feel vulnerable in nature (unless we seek this out by putting ourselves in remote and dangerous situations). Our survival and happiness is seen as depending on human ingenuity or perhaps God’s will, but certainly not on the “will” of nature.
Many Christians feel it is inappropriate to express thanks and gratitude toward nature. Since nature has no will, it cannot really “give” us anything (they are of course strongly against any form of personification of nature, especially with religious connotations).
More important than being intellectually satisfying, religion needs to be emotionally satisfying. I wonder if nature can really fulfill our emotional needs without some level of personification. To call nature our Mother is to personify nature, to make an analogy between human mothers and the earth (see the discussion in response to Rua Lupa’s “Understanding word use and how science relates to myth and religion“).
Given our culture, I can understand why some people are very skeptical about using myth and mythic symbols in religious naturalism. Myth is a very powerful technique for “writing on the tablet of the heart” as David M. Carr puts it, for conveying meaning, values and even information so important we should never forget it.
Yet, the symbols and metaphors of myth are only meaningful if everyone understands what they are referring to. If everyone in our culture insists that myths and the characters in myths must be taken literally (so that myth is judged as true or false history/science, not as true or false metaphor), then we will not be able to use myth or mythic symbols, and I think our religion will be diminished for it.

Maggie Jay Lee lives in west Tennessee with her husband, cat and two
dogs. When she is not working as an environmental consultant, she likes to spend
her time enjoying nature, dancing and learning about this strange, beautiful world.
Maggie is a naturalistic pagan with a particular interest in ancient Greek religion.
Check out Maggie Jay Lee’s other post:

Are hard polytheists stealing the gods? And if so, what do we stand to lose?
Why do people want supernatural gods?, by Maggie Jay Lee
Appearing Sunday, June 3, 2012

This is the second in the series integrating Loyal Rue’s work. This time I need your help: what could function as our root metaphor?
Nature: A root metaphor for HP?, by B. T. Newberg
Appearing Sunday, June 10, 2012
Seton Setting: Something special may happen, by Thomas Schenk
Managing human nature: A job description for HP, by B. T. Newberg
The impossibility of atheism, by Bart Everson
What can a naturalist celebrate in June?
Check out this month’s Naturalistic Traditions at Patheos.com.
Also, this just in:
On June 5, Venus will pass between the Earth and the Sun, an event that only happens once every 120 years.

“To meditate, we have to break our habitual responses – let the ant be a part of our world and our body be part of the ant’s world.”
Many years ago, I spent a year teaching outdoor education to grade school children. The students would be bussed out from the city for their once-a-year instruction about wild nature. In addition to providing the scientifically-oriented subjects that were the core of our outdoor education curricula, I attempted to get students to sit quietly for a few minutes and attend to the sensory qualities of nature. To get them to quiet down, I would tell them: “if we sit quietly, something special might happen.”
Usually I did not have much success getting the kids to be still, but one morning I had a group sitting quietly when two fawns walked right into the middle of the circle we had formed. Wow, I thought, this is special! Strangely, it didn’t create nearly the buzz among the students I expected. Later I asked the teacher why the students were not more impressed. She said, “They think you do this for every group.” Oh well!
In the lingo of outdoor education, the technique of sitting quietly in this way is called Seton Sitting. It was named for the naturalist Thomas Seton. It is nothing more than trying to sit very quietly in a natural area until the wildlife forgets you are there. Some people call it “still stalking.” Once while Seton Sitting a Northern Goshawk landed on a ledge a few feet from me and graciously ignored me for about ten minutes.
Though its goals are not quite as lofty as enlightenment or attaining oneness with God, Seton Sitting is not too different from the formal practice of meditation. In both Seton Sitting and meditation, you have to ignore the ants that crawl on you and a lot of other stimuli – you have to become somewhat ignorant.
In practicing meditation, we create a “space” between stimulus and response. Our ordinary response to an ant crawling up our leg is to brush it off. To meditate, we have to break our habitual responses – let the ant be a part of our world and our body be part of the ant’s world.
Once we become proficient in creating this mental space, we can do a couple things with it. We can remain in the silence and emptiness of this space or choose some object of attention, such as an idea, symbol, or impression, and become deeply immersed in it. Both have their distinctive values.
In the practice of meditation, we learn to become non-responsive to both external and internal stimuli. The external stimuli cannot be shut out; the internal stimuli – thoughts, emotions, desires — can be slowed, but not stopped. The practice of meditation deepens as we learn to let both external and internal stimuli pass through us without our getting caught up in them.
This is not easy. Most of us have a strong inclination to respond to a thought or image by thinking it through. In the early stages of learning meditation, again and again we find our self abstracted from the present moment, entangled in a thought or image. With time, though, maintaining this space between the stimulus and the response becomes easier; when it becomes truly easy, this inner space provides a haven of self control and serenity.
The poet T.S. Eliot described the modern condition as being “distracted from distraction by distraction.” Our world pulses with disjointed stimuli, blowing the mind this way and that like leaves in the wind. The distracted mind’s readiest refuge is in entertainments abundantly supplied by the popular media. But, these entertainments are just “distraction from distraction.” To gain clarity and rootedness requires a different approach.
A formal meditation practice may be the right approach for some, or just sitting quietly with nature might work better for others. One has to try a few things to find what works best.
Is it worth the effort?
As I told my students many years ago, “if we sit quietly, something special might happen.”

Thomas Schenk: “If asked, I’d call myself a Space-age Taoist, Black Sheep Catholic, Perennial Philosophy Pantheist, Dharma Bum. In other words I am a kind of spiritual and philosophical mutt. I’m not out to change the world, for I believe the world has a much better sense of what it is supposed to be than I ever could. But I do try to promote the value of the contemplative life in these most un-contemplative of times. I don’t know if the piece presented here has any value, but I feel blessed that I can spend my time thinking about such things. My version of the American dream is that here, as the child of a line of farmers and peasants going back through the ages, I have the privilege to live with my head in such clouds.”
Thomas is also the author of the naturalistic spirituality blog Golden Hive of the Invisible.
Check out Thomas’ other articles:

Sitting quietly in nature is not just relaxing; it can be a powerful meditative technique.
Seton Sitting: Something special may happen, by Thomas Schenk
Appearing Sunday, May 27, 2012

Are hard polytheists stealing the gods? And if so, what do we stand to lose?
Why do people want supernatural gods?, by Maggie Jay Lee
Appearing Sunday, June 3, 2012
Managing human nature: A job description for HP, by B. T. Newberg
The impossibility of atheism, by Bart Everson
Paganism and the gods, by Glen Gordon