
What does making stock for cooking have to do with naturalistic spirituality? Bart Everson gives us a delicious metaphor for our evolving paths.
Making stock, taking stock, by Bart Everson
Appearing Sunday, February 12, 2012

As my wife and I cope with the culture of our new home of South Korea, we’ll no doubt experience some culture shock. But what about coping with the new ecoregion? Will we experience nature shock? If not, why not?
Nature shock, by B. T. Newberg
Appearing Sunday, February 19, 2012
Four critical questions for HP in the coming year, by B. T. Newberg
Terror and mystery: An excerpt from The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough
Practice begets belief: An interview with Rev. Michael J Dangler, Druid
– by B. T. Newberg
Welcome to the second year of Humanistic Paganism. After starting up last spring, we published pieces from more than a dozen authors, pumped out three ebooks, and interviewed some big-name authors. What’s more, last week saw our 100th post!
Now we’re looking forward to a brand new year of quality work. What should we try to accomplish this year?
We might take a cue from critical voices. Analysis of critiques aired in last fall’s challenge post, as well as comments on various other posts, yielded some interesting findings: most critiques appear able to be categorized as variations on four essential questions that keep coming up and again.
These questions were first introduced in our ebook, Year One: A Year of Humanistic Paganism. Its Dynamic Table of Contents organizes all of last year’s articles according to how they address these four questions. Each piece has something to say, though none gives a comprehensive reply.
In the coming year, perhaps we should devote more explicit attention to these critical issues.
Without further ado, then, what are the four essential questions?
This question asks for more clarity and nuance in our discourse. What do mean by things like “gods” and “spirit”? What do we mean by “Paganism”? What is entailed by “responsibility?”
To a certain extent we must accept Weber’s admonition that we can only define something at the end of a discussion, since the discussion itself will illumine the concept. But that’s no excuse not to try. We need to strive toward working definitions for our major ideas.
One thing I hope to generate this year is a general glossary for HP. Key terms will be given a range of definitions so that everyone is on the same page.
Why bother with mythology and gods? Why bother with ritual? What do we get out of it? What’s the point?
These questions ask for the value of naturalistic practices. Obviously there must be some value, or else we wouldn’t do them – but what is that value exactly?
Thomas Schenk’s Bicycle Meditation post did a good job of describing the shift in consciousness or mental state derived from that practice. Eli Effinger-Weintraub’s Deities as Role Models post indicated how the figures of myth can be employed like role models to draw out traits in oneself, like orderliness or responsibility.
In the same way, we must be clear about what it is that we get out of our practices. And if the value is ineffable, then we should say so.
Why not use fiction or theater to achieve the same ends as ritual? Why not speak of “psychology” instead of “spirit?”
This question is more difficult to describe, as the difference between this one and the last is subtle. Number two asks for the value derived, while number three demands we compare that value with other potential sources. There also might be an implied assumption that if we can get the same benefits by other means, maybe we should. Is there something unique about what we’re doing, such that no other activity can bear quite the same fruits? If so, why?
None of last year’s articles addressed this question in any explicit way. Is it a question we are obligated to answer? If not, should it at least be a question we ask ourselves?
Since the paths that make up modern Paganism generally do not claim to be the One True Way, there is no reason to try to show they are inherently better than other religions or secular activities. Yet it may be worth our while to show that naturalistic ritual activity is not just another way to get your kicks.
In such a discussion, it may be helpful to distinguish instrumental value from intrinsic value. The former indicates value as a means of achieving some end, while the latter conveys the value of a thing as an end in itself.
Even if it can be shown that there is some unique value in what we do, something that can’t be obtained any other way, there is still the problem of whether it may be harmful to ourselves or others.
Could we be wasting valuable time and energy without contributing anything of value to society? Are we potentially misleading others in our words or activities?
These are the sorts of questions that engage the issue of responsibility. The second critical question asks for value, the third for comparative value, and now this one asks for net value. Are we doing more good than harm?
Incidentally, one of the reasons I started HP was the responsibility issue. I felt I could not responsibly invoke the figures of myth if I wasn’t explicit about my naturalistic understanding. Otherwise, my example might be taken as implicit support for literalistic religion. To be responsible, I had to be honest. That’s one reason why HP exists.
Ultimately, it only benefits us to answer these questions. Not only does it present a stronger case to critics, but it helps us clarify our own paths. In the coming year, we can strive to be more clear about these issues.
What do you think? Are some of these questions unnecessary to answer? Or are there other critical questions not covered here?

Last year’s critical discussions proved fruitful for clarifying what we need to work on in the coming year. What are the essential questions that keep coming up again and again, and how can we address them?
Four critical questions for HP, by B. T. Newberg
Appearing Sunday, February 5, 2012
What does making stock for cooking have to do with naturalistic spirituality? Editor B gives us a delicious metaphor for our evolving paths.
Making stock, taking stock, by Editor B
Appearing Sunday, February 12, 2012
Terror and mystery: An excerpt from The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough
Practice begets belief: An interview with Rev. Michael J Dangler, Druid
The call of the Immensity: An interview with Brendan Myers, philosopher, Part 1 and Part 2
Introducing: Naturalistic Traditions, a new column at Patheos.com (by yours truly)!
This column features seasonal celebrations, profiles of historical and contemporary movements, and ritual activities.
It’s a big step to expand into a larger venue like Patheos. It expands our exposure, promotes cross-fertilization of ideas, and raises awareness of naturalism. So please support the new column by tweeting, sharing, and liking it!
The first post explores the month of February from a range of sources including Neopaganism, PaGaian, Pantheism, Humanism, and Carl Sagan. If you’re looking for a naturalistic way to celebrate the glories of nature this month, look no further. Check it out here.
Also, if you have anything to add for the month of February, by all means share! If we all chip in, we can gradually build a robust calendar of naturalistic traditions. You can leave a comment either here or at Patheos.
Finally, we’ll have a special treat for the February Cross-quarter on the 4th (this Saturday) here on HP. Videos and excerpts from the PaGaian tradition will warm your winter day!

Winterviews concludes today. From the Solstice (Dec. 21st) till the next Cross-quarter (Feb. 4th), we’ve brought you non-stop interviews and other goodies from big-name authors. Missed some? Catch up on your reading with the links below.
The last of our Winterviews authors is none other than Professor Ursula Goodenough. It is still relatively rare to find a readable, moving, awe-inspiring narrative of science. From the dynamics of cells to human emotion, The Sacred Depths of Nature reveals the throbbing heart of the universe. Goodenough is not just a scientist, she’s also a storyteller. Today, she graciously shares with us an excerpt from her book.
I’ve had a lot of trouble with the universe. It began soon after I was told about it in physics class. I was perhaps twenty, and I went on a camping trip, where I found myself in a sleeping bag looking up into the crisp Colorado night. Before I could look around for Orion and the Big Dipper, I was overwhelmed with terror. The panic became so acute that I had to roll over and bury my face in my pillow.
The night sky was ruined. I would never be able to look at it again. I wept into my pillow, the long slow tears of adolescent despair. And when I later encountered the famous quote from physicist Steven Weinberg – “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless” – I wallowed in its poignant nihilism. A bleak emptiness overtook me whenever I thought about what was really going on out of in the cosmos or deep in the atom. So I did my best not to think about such things.
But, since then, I have found a way to defeat the nihilism that lurks in the infinite and the infinitesimal. I have come to understand that I can deflect the apparent pointlessness of it all by realizing that I don’t have to seek a point. In any of it. Instead, I can see it as the locus of Mystery.
Mystery. Inherently pointless, inherently shrouded in its own absence of category. The clouds passing across the face of the deity in the stained-glass images of Heaven.
The word God is often used to name this mystery. A concept known as Deism proposes that God created the universe, orchestrating the Big Bang so as to author its laws, and then stepped back and allowed things to pursue their own course. For me, Deism doesn’t work because I find I can only think of a creator in human terms, and the concept of a human-like creator of muons and neutrinos has no meaning for me. But more profoundly, Deism spoils my covenant with Mystery. To assign attributes to Mystery is to disenchant it, to take away its luminance.
I think of the ancients ascribing thunder and lightning to godly feuds, and I smile. The need for explanation pulsates in us all. Early humans, bursting with questions about Nature but with limited understanding of its dynamics, explained things in terms of supernatural persons and person-animals who delivered droughts and floods and plagues, took the dead, and punished or forgave the wicked. Explanations taking the form of unseen persons were our only option when persons were the only things we felt we understood. Now, with our understanding of Nature arguably better than our understanding of persons, Nature can take its place as a strange but wondrous given.
The realization that I needn’t have answers to the Big Questions, needn’t seek answers to the Big Questions, has served as an epiphany. I lie on my back under the stars and the unseen galaxies and I let their enormity wash over me. I assimilate the vastness of the distances, the impermanence, the fact of it all. I go all the way out and then I go all the way down, to the fact of photons without mass and gauge bosons that become massless at high temperatures. I take in the abstractions about forces and symmetries and they caress me, like Gregorian chants, the meaning of the words not mattering because the words are so haunting.
Mystery generates wonder, and wonder generates awe. The gasp can terrify or the gasp can emancipate.
Reprinted with permission from:
Goodenough, U. (1998). The Sacred Depths of Nature. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 9-13.

Ursula Goodenough is Professor of Biology at Washington University. One of America’s leading cell biologists, she is the author of a best-selling textbook on genetics, and has served as President of the American Society of Cell Biology and of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. She and her family live in St. Louis, Missouri, and in Chilmark, Massachusetts, on Martha’s Vineyard. (bio text from Sacred Depths book flap, courtesy of Ursula Goodenough)