Naturalistic Paganism
Naturalistic magic?
There’s something interesting going on over at altmagic.com. Could this be a naturalistic form of magic?
When the site started, I was extremely skeptical. It’s the work of Drew Jacob, and it’s no secret that he’s a good friend of mine (not to mention an HP contributor). Yet despite our friendship, I’ve been quite reluctant to mention his new business. Selling magic scrolls online? Um… Even I have a hard time stomaching that one. It’s hard to imagine a more blatant way to exploit naïve believers in the supernatural.
That’s why it’s been such a surprise to see his work. He calls himself an “honest magician”, and makes good on that claim by stating flat out he doesn’t know why or even whether his magic works. Beyond that, he’s publishing a series of articles that call bullshit on supernatural explanations, and present scientifically-sound research toward naturalistic explanations of certain “magical” phenomena.
Where is this going, and will it ever be able to justify ordering magic scrolls from a website? I don’t know. Honestly, I have my doubts. But I’m looking forward to finding out.
As for Drew’s magic, let me just say this:
Getting me to actually take seriously a site that sells magic scrolls? – well, that’s magic enough for me.
Here are a few particularly interesting articles so far:
- The Honest Magician – Here’s where he calls out other magicians for dodging the question of whether magic works, and puts forward his vision for a different approach
- Skeptic Tests – Here he acknowledges that hundreds of well-designed tests of a variety of magicians have all failed to confirm results, without exception. But what about tests of traditional tribal magicians?
- Three Magic Spells That Work – This one presents scientific research toward naturalistic explanations for tumo, vodou zombies, and death curses.
Upcoming work
This Sunday
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
Next Sunday
Last fall’s challenge post by Jake Diebolt saw some critical but valuable debate, and now we’ve got another challenge. Rua Lupa takes up the issue of terminology in a new debate.
Understanding word use and how science relates to religion, by Rua Lupa
Appearing Sunday, February 26, 2012
Recent Work
Making stock, taking stock, by Bart Everson
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
Get our ebooks
Making stock, taking stock, by Bart Everson
We’ve had the habit for many years of constantly making stock. We are always saving any bits of vegetables left after slicing and dicing — carrot tops, onion skins — as well as the occasional bone. We save these in the fridge and, every few days, we boil them in water to make a stock. If we already have a stock on hand, we simply combine everything. The stock grows richer, and darker, and more flavorful, with each iteration. A stock will keep indefinitely if you boil it often enough. Each stock is different, unique. We couldn’t recreate them if we tried. We use the stock to give flavor to rice or greens or other such cookery.
It’s economical, it’s fun, and it also tends to make the house smell nice. I highly recommend it. It seems like a metaphor for something, but I’m not sure what. That’s the very best kind of metaphor, if you ask me.
Maybe it’s a metaphor for what I’m doing right now. As I continue my quest for discovery and definition, I’ve been storing up bits and pieces, ideas and aspects. I want to pause, take stock, simmer in my own juices for a moment, see where I’m at so far.
Just like stock, our paths combine many ingredients into a rich, nuanced flavor.
I can say three things with some degree of certainty. I’m not sure if these qualify as statements of value or just descriptions. This is what my religion or spiritual orientation looks like in broad outline. I’ll unpack each term a little.
- Celebratory: The main function is to celebrate, not to manipulate. Ritual practices mark our place in the world and the universe, in the wheel of the year and the cycle of life, in family and community. I use the term celebrate in the old sense. It is not a synonym for “party,” though parties are celebrations of a sort. But so are funerals. In New Orleans, of course, it is sometimes hard to tell the difference.
- Naturalistic and humanistic: The natural world, as revealed through sense experience and through science, invested and storied with meaning and mythology by countless generations of humanity, is sufficient and complete in itself. Deep mysteries remain, but supernatural explanations are best understood as metaphors or thought experiments. Gods and goddesses hold special power as archetypes that emerge from human consciousness.
- Earth-centered: The planet we live on, our home and mother, is the source of much inspiration. There is wonder in the sun and the moon and all the stars, but the Earth holds a special place of reverence and awe. To experience this place as sacred is a continual challenge for the individual in a technological-industrial society. To recognize and refocus on our participation in the ecosphere is a main purpose of religious celebration.
To these three I’m tempted to add a fourth: Communitarian. I’d like to see our practice connecting us to a larger community beyond the immediate family. I hesitate because this seems more like an aspiration than a plain fact, and I have a certain deep ambivalence about other people, especially when it comes to our most deeply cherished notions of value and cosmology. I’m skeptical of radical individualism even as I’ve lived and breathed it all my life. Civic engagement is important; revolutions of conscience are necessary; our way of being in the world must be transformed; but exactly how all this intersects with spiritual practice is a puzzle that continues to unfold.
All of this is enough to suggest some sort of naturalistic or humanistic paganism, which comes as no surprise. Through the net I’ve discovered many others of like mind. But these are very large umbrella terms. One major question that remains unresolved is whether I’m on any established path or simply blazing my own trail. It is perhaps the main question, a fact which has only become clarified through the process of writing this.
Which is what making stock is all about.
About the author
Bart Everson is a writer, a photographer, a baker of bread, a husband and a father. An award-winning videographer, he is co-creator of ROX, the first TV show on the internet. As a media artist and an advocate for faculty development in higher education, he is interested in current and emerging trends in social media, blogging, podcasting, et cetera, as well as non-technological subjects such as contemplative pedagogy and integrative learning. He is a founding member of the Green Party of Louisiana, past president of Friends of Lafitte Corridor, sometime contributor to Rising Tide, and a participant in New Orleans Lamplight Circle.
Get our ebooks
Upcoming work
This Sunday
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
Next Sunday
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
Recent Work
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
Get our ebooks
Four critical questions for HP in the coming year
Thanks to critiques, we have four essential questions to contemplate.
– 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?
1. What do we mean?
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.
2. Why do it?
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.
3. Why not do otherwise?
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.
4. Is it responsible?
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.
Writing for our critics is writing for ourselves
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?
Get our ebooks
Buy Godless Paganism (paperback)
Buy Godless Paganism (ebook)
Pagan Coming Out Day – May 2nd
Naturalistic Paganism 