Naturalistic Paganism

Upcoming work

This Sunday

AtheistWitch

What do we get out of ritual?  AtheistWitch shares his personal take on the issue.

Why I love ritual, by AtheistWitch

Appearing Sunday, March 11, 2012

Next Sunday

B. T. Newberg

Should religious naturalists abandon all use of words like “goddess”, “god”, or “gods”?

In defense of “gods”, by B. T. Newberg

Appearing Sunday, March 18, 2012

Recent Work

The new Copernican shift: How science is revolutionizing spirituality, by B. T. Newberg

Understanding word use and how science relates to religion, by Rua Lupa

Nature shock, by B. T. Newberg

Get our ebooks

B. T. Newberg ebooks

The new Copernican shift: How science is revolutionizing spirituality

Ptolemaic orbits, from "Harmonia Macrocosmica" by Andreas Cellarius, 1661

We are no more the center of consciousness than the center of the solar system.  All the universe partakes of the same essential process of “knowing.”

– by B. T. Newberg

We are experiencing a new Copernican shift that is revolutionizing our spirituality.  It is undermining our sense of humanity as something privileged in the universe, the sole possessor of “soul”, standing above the beasts and apart from the inert dust of soil.  It is questioning our free will, our magical power to move ourselves amidst the billiard-ball jumble that moves everything else in the universe.  Our spirituality will have to change to embrace this new vision of humanity.

The old Copernican shift

The heliocentric model of Copernicus showed us that the earth is not the center of the universe, that we are not special but a humble, integrated part of a larger whole called the solar system.

Suddenly, the earth had the same status as any of the other planets, and behaved just like them.  This at once undermined both the specialness of the earth as the focal point of the universe, and the specialness of the other planets as exalted, transcendent entities.  Both were of the same stuff, and that required a tumultuous shift in spiritual understanding.

The new shift

In just the same way, we are now beginning to understand that the human mind, the psyche, the “soul” even, is not special either.  Neuroscience, cognitive psychology, evolutionary biology, organic chemistry, and a host of other lines of research are converging on an inevitable conclusion: we operate according to the same physical laws as everything else in the universe.

Consciousness, thought, emotion, meaning, value – all these are emergent properties of a particular arrangement of organic chemistry.

Just as extreme hardness emerges when carbon atoms assemble in a certain manner to form a diamond, so consciousness emerges when carbon assembles in another manner to form life.

Suddenly our dreams, hopes, and aspirations – all that we hold dear – appear as if at the mercy of chance meetings of molecules.  There is a beauty but also a horror to this.

Are we really nothing more than a random coagulation of stuff?  Aren’t we special?

The special species?

Just as the earth is not the specially-privileged center of the universe, we are not the specially-privileged center of consciousness.

We may be unique on this planet – so far as we can tell, no other species has achieved our level of intelligence or aptitude for complex manipulation of symbols.  But we are not special in how this came about.  It’s all due to the same fundamental process.

Meaning is not unique to us.  Even amoebae detect the effluents of decaying bacteria, and know this means food is near.  On an even simpler level, atoms are constantly seeking to acquire a complete set of electrons, and they bond with nearby atoms to acquire them.

There is no conscious intention to do so, but somehow the atom “knows” to do it.  This “knowing” is no more than physical laws in operation, yet it is different from human knowing only in the level of complexity and nuance of response.

An atom knows to acquire electrons, an amoeba knows to move in the direction of food, and we know to breathe the precious air that gives us life.  We know to circulate blood in our veins, we know to fire the neurons that bring up a certain memory, we know to respond to the caress of a lover with increased heartbeat and burning desire, and we know to pose one possible course of action against another and call up all the relevant social factors in order to decide what to do.  We know to recognize patterns in previous experiences, and extrapolate what patterns are likely to continue in what we call the future.  We know, finally, that this whole process of acquiring knowledge, ever incomplete, implies that there is and probably always will be more that we don’t know.

In this litany of knowing, there is a clear progression from the simple to the complex, but it is all the same fundamental process.  Consciousness creeps in gradually or all of a sudden, but it does not disrupt the essential process of knowing.

Our knowing, then, our thoughts, our dreams, our very experience of being, is not special.  It is the knowing of animals, the knowing of plants, the knowing of amoebae, the knowing of carbon atoms, the knowing of all things that partake in this marvelous phenomenon called the universe.

We are not the center of the universe.  We are not the center of consciousness.  We are not the center of knowing.

Like people in the days of Copernicus, we may perceive this insight as a threat.  We may react to it with fear and denial.  But if, instead, we can learn to embrace it, we may discover something startling and new.

Toward a new vision

Our spirituality must evolve itself to incorporate this new insight.  We are essentially one with our universe.  Every entity in the universe is unique and different – there’s no denying that – but at the same time, on a fundamental level, they are the same.

I and my world are a single, seamless whole.  Person and place are identical.  The world “out there”, and the experience “in here”, are one.

Atoms are our brothers and sisters.  All things in the universe behave exactly as we do, and we behave like them.  We are at one with all things.  We enjoy communion with each and every thing.

How could there be any deeper mystery than this?

Get our ebooks

B. T. Newberg ebooks

Upcoming work

This Sunday

B. T. Newberg

Are we humans the only beings in the universe that can know anything?  Are we really so unique, or are we part of a seamless web of universal knowing?

The new Copernican shift: How science is revolutionizing spirituality, by B. T. Newberg

Appearing Sunday, March 4, 2012

Next Sunday

AtheistWitch

What do we get out of ritual?  AtheistWitch shares his personal take on the issue.

Why I love ritual, by AtheistWitch

Appearing Sunday, March 11, 2012

Recent Work

Understanding word use and how science relates to religion, by Rua Lupa

Nature shock, by B. T. Newberg

Making stock, taking stock, by Bart Everson

Get our ebooks

B. T. Newberg ebooks

Naturalistic Traditions for March

Happy Eostre, by Jessica LuciaWhat can a naturalist celebrate in March?

Check out the March post of Naturalistic Traditions, a column exploring naturalism in Pagan ways, at Patheos.com.

Understanding word use and how science relates to myth and religion, by Rua Lupa

Gridball, by Plasmator

“Could there be words that are not needed for a Path that melds science and myth?”

This week we have a new “challenge” piece.  Rua Lupa engages the issue of appropriate terminology.

As always with challenge posts, this is an opportunity to listen, question oneself, and develop thoughtful responses.

Remember, this is offered in the spirit of dialogue, so let’s make the most of this chance for a meaningful exchange of opinions!

– B. T. Newberg, editor

I’ll start with a quote I believe to be a strong example of Humanistic Paganism: a naturalistic marriage of science and mythology:

“The ancient myth makers knew, we are equally children of the earth and the sky.”

Carl Sagan, Cosmos, Episode 13, 7:08

Carl Sagan lived a life that could make him a poster child for combining myth and science. As a public figure who worked on building a bridge of understanding between the public and science, he often used myth to provide an understanding and the feeling of deep connection with the cosmos. Yet he never associated with Paganism to express myth with science. Is Paganism even required to have a relationship with science and myth? I understand incorporating it, but is it Required?

Paganism itself struggles with its own label regularly. What is meant by Paganism? Is it really a useful label? I’ve come across pagan elders of various traditions who casually state that this sort of debate comes up every year or two throughout the pagan community. It appears that through this routine questioning there is a growing stance where once-considered Pagan groups are now using alternative labels to convey a better understanding of who they are and what they stand for. This was even mentioned here on HP (Humanistic Paganism) in an interview with Drew Jacob, where he found a change of name was more effective for public relations and made it easier for others to find them for the right reasons.

Could there be other words that are not needed for a Path that melds science and myth?

“Spirit” and “Spiritual” are words that I have mentioned before and for the same reasons that Drew Jacob had mentioned for the use of the word Pagan. HP and a few other very new Paths have taken the label of spiritual to describe themselves who do not associate with the incorporeal. They are the first, and few who have done so as a Path. Most other incidences are still relatively recent and are attuned as individual searches and pursuits without the group dynamic of “A Path”. Even so, the majority associate with the supernatural, evidence of this are the references to living gods, soul, fairies etc. while it remains difficult to filter through these supernatural-associated spiritualities to get to non-supernatural spiritualities. Which leaves the question, ‘do these few mean something different when saying ‘spirituality’?’ Many have voiced that ‘spirituality’ can mean many different things, which comes back around to the example of Paganism being difficult to pin down, its meaning adding to the confusion. Perhaps there will be a similar response in going by more specific labels for those who had once considered themselves spiritual to convey a better understanding of who they are and what they stand for.

An interesting relation to this is when you Wikipedia “Spiritual Humanism” it redirects to “Religious Humanism”. This is because the term “spiritual” is now frequently used in contexts in which the term “religious” was formally employed because of a growing distaste with the negative associations of ‘religion’. Some may argue that ‘religion’ necessitates a belief in the supernatural. Yet this need not be the case. What religion essentially is is a philosophy with a community, which in living according to that philosophy creates a culture with traditions and customs. Religion is also interchangeable with ‘Path’ which is common to see among many Pagan Paths also calling their Path a Religion, i.e. Wicca, ADF, Asatru etc. HP also calls itself a Path, “The Fourfold Path” to be exact. It’s a community that follows the philosophy that myth and science is a valid way of enriching quality of life, yielding psychological benefits. The culture and tradition is what is currently being developed.

Carl Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, believing that the two were meant to be together and were very complimentary in the absence of deity. The absence of deity would allow for this amalgamation because they are inherently conflicting, even if used metaphorically, as the lines tend to blur, giving way to prayers directed to a god, or having the portrayal of that god being something to emulate. The very essence of what makes a god a god is that it is super, beyond that of reality. Relating to a god would then be removing self from reality, the lines blur. It is also mentioned on HP’s post “What is Humanistic Paganism?” that “not only must we invoke no deity to solve our problems, but also we must actively acknowledge our responsibility to solve these problems.” Would it then be more successful with deities being absent altogether? As a way to actively acknowledge our responsibility to solve our problems, should our own image then be used instead in psychological activities? This criticism only applies to supernatural-related deities, such as anthropomorphic beings with superpowers, etc., that have the potential for idolatry (especially if it can be depicted as a statue) which are given traits. Other versions of deity, like that in some views of pantheism or Forces of Nature for example, would not apply to this criticism.

With HP revolving around science and myth, what then is mythology? Mythology is the stories of a culture, a tradition. The most common story in mythology is the explanation of how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. Science teaches this already, but is missing that tradition, that religion/path to make it complete. Both myth and religion function to derive morality, ethics, and lifestyle. Science can serve the same purpose as well. Thus, these are not conflicting, being quite complimentary.

It has been stated that “We are endeavoring to work out how [myth married to science] might manifest in the 21st century. That’s the whole reason why we’re here.” Much of what is referenced are the wonderful myths of old. Yet these myths speak specifically of a culture in a time not of the 21st century, where slavery, sexism, racism, displaying body parts, and more are justified which are not agreed with today. To truly make this marriage of myth to science manifest in the 21st century, there must be a culture of science where these myths may spring from within that century. In this time and age, our culture is different and these myths need to reflect that. What myths could be made to reflect the views of our culture like that of the ancient myths of Greece reflecting the views of their classical time?

A few ground rules for comments

It’s always useful to keep in mind what makes for a great debate:

  • Use “I” language, not “you” language.  Talk about what you think or feel, rather than making accusations against others.
  • Keep it civil.  Comments that stray toward rants or flames will be deleted.
  • Speak your truth.

The author

Rua Lupa

Rua Lupa is a Canadian Metis of Celtic and Anishinabek (Native peoples of the Great Lakes region) descent. By studying what is being rediscovered about the Celts, and getting involved in the spiritual practices of the Anishnabek, she hopes to find out more about herself, bring to light valuable insights from these cultures, and maybe bring about a new way of being. Rua’s strong love of Nature has led to a passion for photography and Wildlife Technician degree. She dedicates her life to conserving what is left of our unaltered wilderness, and helping humanity regain balance within Nature through Ehoah, a naturalistic path. Rua founded the Sault Community Drum Circle, the Gore Bay Drum Circle on Manitoulin Island, and has been a board member of Bike Share Algoma. She also has a background in tandem canoe tripping, winter camping, lifeguarding, advanced wilderness first aid, and a myriad of other outdoor activities.

Check out Rua’s other articles:

Get our ebooks

B. T. Newberg ebooks