Paganism doesn’t define itself in opposition to Christianity. The comparison only arises because the context of these conversations is always “Christianity versus Paganism”—> discussions between Christians and pagans about Christianity and paganism.
There is far more rigor and structure developing within paganism than you acknowledge. Tristan Powers and the Norroena Society are just two examples. Many others are working to revive the practice with serious scholarship, ritual, and theology rooted in ancestral worldviews.
I agree with your main point. Even if you focused on a more folkish reconstructed paganism, the tradition I identify with, it still wouldn’t give you the satisfaction you're looking for. There’s no central authority you can debate and decisively battle. It’s like trying to debate a harvest custom or a holiday observance. That’s because paganism is not like Christianity at all, so you cannot debate it one to one using the same epistemological base. We do not “choose” our faith, technically, for one. It is like your genetics, rather than a chosen or found religion. The Abrahamic religions ruptured the continuity for most of us, but it’s only a short detour. Also, there is no requirement to believe either, only that you practice it. Again, this makes it hard to debate in the way you want to.
Also, the decentralized nature of paganism is not a defect. It’s how we have always functioned: tribal, familial, local, for kin and of the land. That is the structure. Religion, custom, and lifestyle were kind of one thing and tied together with your family and tribe. It’s not like Christianity, where there is a universal structure and institution. Paganism isn’t structured for formal diplomatic meetings or interfaith panels. It is for survival, belonging, and prosperity through hearth, family, clan, and so on.
Where politics and power come into play, it is because folkish paganism is pro-natal, pro-family, and loyal to the in-group (Read: Organized minority). It fosters duty, safety, belonging, procreation and shared religious practice within the tribe. If that creates political strength (it will), then it will rise and grow over time and over generations.
For those still on the fence: come home. The custom is apt for you.
Objectively you nearly all did “choose” your current faith, even if you did feel a powerful personal draw to it.
I'm skeptical of the political strength because paganism is such a small thing it hasn't drawn the eyes of the state yet. I think any attempt to politically unify as an antagonistic tribe within a modern nation will be highly targeted. And this is all ignoring my previous essay that paganism likely cannot unify many people over the timespan of a couple decades
Some good points here but...You have to see how weak your argument about the lack of centralization is as a problem unique to the pagans right? Despite having the Bible there are dozens of competing Christian churches each with their own hierarchy and there are also hordes of evangelical "my best friend is jesus" Christians out there. It's just hard to not apply some of your criticism you point at pagans right back at Christians.
"The second and less obvious crisis caused by this lack of a coherent central creed is that any legitimate claim on authority over pagan faith can be endlessly disputed — meaning no-one can easily argue for themselves to be the legitimate leader of the faith"
Ian Paisley in 1988 heckled Pope John Paul II calling him the anti-Christ. The Catholic and Orthodox can't make up. It isn't even unique to Christianity either. Every other religion in the world has branches and competing legitimacy. Sunnis vs Shias. Many flavors of Buddhism.
You're implying it's unique to the pagans but the evidence before our eyes suggests it is just an inherent feature of religion itself.
I agree that other existing religions splinter, but I think it's different from paganism in terms of their metaphysical reasoning/ability to reconnect.
Pagans splinter based on their branching locality/local gods and practitioner bloodlines, in contrast doctrinal religions each splinter (nominally) based on seeking the most perfect adherence to the 'one true faith'. When a doctrinal religious elite (e.g. Muslim/Christian) comes to power, it's really quite simple for them to force/pressure splinter groups into line if there is a will do to so. Within modern Sunni nations for example they have extremely efficient practical controls/checkpoints on religious dogma.
But for pagans such as the Roman empire this usually resulted in an ever increasingly complex syncretic mesh of beliefs from what I've learned.
Dumb but serious question: is there much of a distinction between those drawn to paganism’s perceived civilizational impact vs those who seek it out simply to alleviate private existential yearnings (but within a moral framework more malleable to their own)? That is to really ask, can any religion accomplish the latter that can’t accomplish the former?
I used to think religion was just vibes based until I tried it myself.
Specifically Buddhism, a particular meditation/prayer known as metta. Even though I didn’t believe it at the time, it nevertheless worked. And it very much failed to work if I tried the method in any other fashion, or tried to do my own thing no matter how much it resonated with me, it still would not work.
I don’t know why that is, but it’s convinced me fully that true religious/spiritual practices are things discovered like math or medicine. Not just vague ‘belief makes it real’ chaos magic.
Eh in Britain the Germanic Pagan groups are pretty well organised around a couple central figures. And most people join because they choose the one closest to their own ancestry. Now in that sense it obviously selects for a certain type of person
Hah! Self identified ancestry is a good correction. But in Britain it is not so difficult to know. Harder for Americans but given that they are likely significantly English or German then turning to orthodox Germanic heathenry is fairly reasonable. Recent American immigrants probably know their ancestry so less of an issue
1. The Pagan faith is a doctrine based on Nature and Tradition. There are texts, but there are different ones. Until we have an institution that wields authority over large numbers of Pagans, such as the Druids of old, such a quest for a higher authority and common doctrine will be nigh impossible.
2. (a minor point, yet still salient) These criticisms can also be applied to christianity in its current form due to the many thousands of schisms. Perhaps more so since at least the Folkish Pagan has Ancestry to focus and guide his faith.
1) If there are texts but they are not curated/declarative in their meaning then that really is the core of the issue I'm talking about. There's definitely some material there, but it's just not a religion capable of being political (which is necessary to survive any serious challenge imho)
2) Copying my reply to Arthur which was similar: I agree that other existing religions splinter, but I think it's different from paganism in terms of their metaphysical reasoning/ability to reconnect.
Pagans splinter based on their branching locality/local gods and practitioner bloodlines, in contrast doctrinal religions each splinter (nominally) based on seeking the most perfect adherence to the 'one true faith'. When a doctrinal religious elite (e.g. Muslim/Christian) comes to power, it's really quite simple for them to force/pressure splinter groups into line if there is a will do to so. Within modern Sunni nations for example they have extremely efficient practical controls/checkpoints on religious dogma.
But for pagans such as the Roman empire this usually resulted in an ever increasingly complex syncretic mesh of beliefs from what I've learned.
Thanks for a charitable response. I do appreciate such things.
Regarding what you said:
1)In the political sense, a perfect example of a political state surviving and thriving with Paganism is The Roman Empire. They incorporated local deities into a pantheon, or translated their Gods into existing Roman ones. This allows for flexibility and adaptability for assimilation purposes. The exception of the Germans was not over religious reasons. They did not assimilate due to their ethnic pride and fighting spirit. In contrast, the christian history is full of religious infighting. In a sense, christian’s have been willing at the drop of a hat to kill each other for a slight difference in theology
(2)This is probably a difference of metaphysical views of the world, which I agree would not be useful for our two sides to discuss. Regardless, if you want my two cents, why is this a bad thing? Why is it bad for a world of local governments and polities that are most interested in serving their own kind. Such a world is in many ways the inverse of this globohomo hellscape we all live under. Christianity paves the way for the largest world empires due to universalist theology. Paganism allows for empires, even continental sized empires, yet stops at healthy ethnic and racial boundaries. And these world wide empires, did they truly even bring about objectives of peace and love? No. The large empires, ever in contest, fought wars of death that would put any human sacrifices historical Pagans did to shame
Like I said, a metaphysical difference that isn’t here or there for this discussion.
very good stuff here.. it’s a shame that most pagans don’t seem to have the humility to address any of these problems or reciprocate with appropriate critiques of their own…
Metaphysics, like actual physics, isn’t vibes based. It isn’t negotiable in the same way that mathematics isn’t based upon “what I personally think/feel to be right”.
It’s not a question of “is X religion’s metaphysics correct, or is Y religion’s metaphysics correct?”
There simply is a correct metaphysics, the understanding of which requires no affiliation to any particular religion. It may lead one to a particular religion based on that understanding, but it isn’t required.
Some of the neopagans online actually seem to believe that they can invent their own metaphysics in order to dance around the inconsistencies & contradictions in their contrived worldview. It’s pathetic, and even more that’s not what the ancestors practiced. Even the ancient pagans believed in truth based in metaphysics. Some of them got it right, others not so much.
Reminds me of W.B. Yeats, who started the Celtic revival movement. He did wonderful things to catalogue old Irish myths and customs, but his actual spiritual practices were very odd and modern.
There's definitely a sort of Chesterton's Fence idea with religion like you say. A lot of trial and error led to the religious formations that stood the test of time
It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion in this conversation, and a lot of it is the problem of the big tent.
The Left (which is inherently a Christian identity movement, though they claim to despise it) is not representative of Liturgical or Mystic traditions. The conservative Christian church abdicated all Cultural Capital it has built over 2000 years, and society is collapsing under a theological difference within Christianity. The "Culture War" is Christian.... That's why you wonder where Pagans stand on "Culture War" issues.
But there has been a long argument with the Left within "neopaganism," and unfortunately the "folkish" pagan was entirely drummed out of all public discourse by its own Universalist Left in the 1990s through the present. The Buffet of pantheon, or the selection of following a folk tradition sans ancestry, is not representative of pagans in the same way "No Kings" rioters are not representative of Latin Mass.
I don't wonder where pagans stand on culture war issues - I'm asking where they stand on moral issues.
And I disagree that Leftism is inherently a Christian identity movement. It shares some of the same forms and norms for sure (because as I argue here, organized religion is a social technology useful within civilization), but it's demonstrably not Christian in that it actually opposes the claims of the Nicaean Creed and many other aspects of Christian doctrine.
I can't, and won't, speak "for paganism," it's weird to me that people feel fine speaking "for" anything as some kind of avatar... Unfortunately ubiquitous, and I would say anti-christian as far as Hubris and Pride.
I would say you could find the answer by reading source materials, and folk tradition/lore/song/tales etc. One example, on abortion:
I would say I am personally opposed for me and mine, certainly, and I am honorbound to support my children. Would I go to hell/niflehel/Hades? Well exposure of infants was frequently done, and I haven't found anything that stated it would have been contrary to law in the traditions I value or identify with. Likely slave children were sacrificed at some distant point. If my brother or son were talking about having an abortion, I would be pissed off, and it would likely come to blows.
I reject the word vibes. I also don't think ancestral precedent informs Morality. I stated that it is entirely inconsistent, and I don't know what to do about that... Except to say that I need to live on this planet.
As much as I want to just split the skull of the enemies, doesn't mean I don't have five children and live in a blue city. Besides, I've met quite a few Christians that are pro-choice, I hardly see the difference.
The other thing is that I'm an American, I don't answer to you. If we end up in a world where the Heithni rules can exist, keep your head up because all bets are off and crime will be irrelevant conceptually
The fundamental difference between aesthetic neopagans and actual pagans is the belief in fate. What tied pagans together, before, was fate understood in the tribe for war (comitatus). There's no modern equivalent of that, and, also, the idea that religion is a belief system that you can adhere to or not (which is more a protestant Christian conception). There was no separation between physics and religion. The heroes were engaged in reality. The journeys to the underworld explained the cycle of death that we see in seasons. If faith is treated in that protestant conception then they're never going to be able to bridge it. We'll be able to tell there are actual pagans when the first point is actually developed. Even after all that, as you've said, paganism was deprecated because Christianity offered a more developed conception of justice, ethics, culture, science etc. I simply don't see it coming back unless humanity was reset again.
Paganism doesn’t define itself in opposition to Christianity. The comparison only arises because the context of these conversations is always “Christianity versus Paganism”—> discussions between Christians and pagans about Christianity and paganism.
There is far more rigor and structure developing within paganism than you acknowledge. Tristan Powers and the Norroena Society are just two examples. Many others are working to revive the practice with serious scholarship, ritual, and theology rooted in ancestral worldviews.
I agree with your main point. Even if you focused on a more folkish reconstructed paganism, the tradition I identify with, it still wouldn’t give you the satisfaction you're looking for. There’s no central authority you can debate and decisively battle. It’s like trying to debate a harvest custom or a holiday observance. That’s because paganism is not like Christianity at all, so you cannot debate it one to one using the same epistemological base. We do not “choose” our faith, technically, for one. It is like your genetics, rather than a chosen or found religion. The Abrahamic religions ruptured the continuity for most of us, but it’s only a short detour. Also, there is no requirement to believe either, only that you practice it. Again, this makes it hard to debate in the way you want to.
Also, the decentralized nature of paganism is not a defect. It’s how we have always functioned: tribal, familial, local, for kin and of the land. That is the structure. Religion, custom, and lifestyle were kind of one thing and tied together with your family and tribe. It’s not like Christianity, where there is a universal structure and institution. Paganism isn’t structured for formal diplomatic meetings or interfaith panels. It is for survival, belonging, and prosperity through hearth, family, clan, and so on.
Where politics and power come into play, it is because folkish paganism is pro-natal, pro-family, and loyal to the in-group (Read: Organized minority). It fosters duty, safety, belonging, procreation and shared religious practice within the tribe. If that creates political strength (it will), then it will rise and grow over time and over generations.
For those still on the fence: come home. The custom is apt for you.
Objectively you nearly all did “choose” your current faith, even if you did feel a powerful personal draw to it.
I'm skeptical of the political strength because paganism is such a small thing it hasn't drawn the eyes of the state yet. I think any attempt to politically unify as an antagonistic tribe within a modern nation will be highly targeted. And this is all ignoring my previous essay that paganism likely cannot unify many people over the timespan of a couple decades
Some good points here but...You have to see how weak your argument about the lack of centralization is as a problem unique to the pagans right? Despite having the Bible there are dozens of competing Christian churches each with their own hierarchy and there are also hordes of evangelical "my best friend is jesus" Christians out there. It's just hard to not apply some of your criticism you point at pagans right back at Christians.
"The second and less obvious crisis caused by this lack of a coherent central creed is that any legitimate claim on authority over pagan faith can be endlessly disputed — meaning no-one can easily argue for themselves to be the legitimate leader of the faith"
Ian Paisley in 1988 heckled Pope John Paul II calling him the anti-Christ. The Catholic and Orthodox can't make up. It isn't even unique to Christianity either. Every other religion in the world has branches and competing legitimacy. Sunnis vs Shias. Many flavors of Buddhism.
You're implying it's unique to the pagans but the evidence before our eyes suggests it is just an inherent feature of religion itself.
I agree that other existing religions splinter, but I think it's different from paganism in terms of their metaphysical reasoning/ability to reconnect.
Pagans splinter based on their branching locality/local gods and practitioner bloodlines, in contrast doctrinal religions each splinter (nominally) based on seeking the most perfect adherence to the 'one true faith'. When a doctrinal religious elite (e.g. Muslim/Christian) comes to power, it's really quite simple for them to force/pressure splinter groups into line if there is a will do to so. Within modern Sunni nations for example they have extremely efficient practical controls/checkpoints on religious dogma.
But for pagans such as the Roman empire this usually resulted in an ever increasingly complex syncretic mesh of beliefs from what I've learned.
Dumb but serious question: is there much of a distinction between those drawn to paganism’s perceived civilizational impact vs those who seek it out simply to alleviate private existential yearnings (but within a moral framework more malleable to their own)? That is to really ask, can any religion accomplish the latter that can’t accomplish the former?
My impression is that modern paganism does do the latter without actually addressing the root causes/issues of the former - maybe there's more to it
I used to think religion was just vibes based until I tried it myself.
Specifically Buddhism, a particular meditation/prayer known as metta. Even though I didn’t believe it at the time, it nevertheless worked. And it very much failed to work if I tried the method in any other fashion, or tried to do my own thing no matter how much it resonated with me, it still would not work.
I don’t know why that is, but it’s convinced me fully that true religious/spiritual practices are things discovered like math or medicine. Not just vague ‘belief makes it real’ chaos magic.
Eh in Britain the Germanic Pagan groups are pretty well organised around a couple central figures. And most people join because they choose the one closest to their own ancestry. Now in that sense it obviously selects for a certain type of person
Closest to their own self identified ancestry - it's a challenge to know when we're so separated from the tribal/clan tradition
Hah! Self identified ancestry is a good correction. But in Britain it is not so difficult to know. Harder for Americans but given that they are likely significantly English or German then turning to orthodox Germanic heathenry is fairly reasonable. Recent American immigrants probably know their ancestry so less of an issue
Two things:
1. The Pagan faith is a doctrine based on Nature and Tradition. There are texts, but there are different ones. Until we have an institution that wields authority over large numbers of Pagans, such as the Druids of old, such a quest for a higher authority and common doctrine will be nigh impossible.
2. (a minor point, yet still salient) These criticisms can also be applied to christianity in its current form due to the many thousands of schisms. Perhaps more so since at least the Folkish Pagan has Ancestry to focus and guide his faith.
1) If there are texts but they are not curated/declarative in their meaning then that really is the core of the issue I'm talking about. There's definitely some material there, but it's just not a religion capable of being political (which is necessary to survive any serious challenge imho)
2) Copying my reply to Arthur which was similar: I agree that other existing religions splinter, but I think it's different from paganism in terms of their metaphysical reasoning/ability to reconnect.
Pagans splinter based on their branching locality/local gods and practitioner bloodlines, in contrast doctrinal religions each splinter (nominally) based on seeking the most perfect adherence to the 'one true faith'. When a doctrinal religious elite (e.g. Muslim/Christian) comes to power, it's really quite simple for them to force/pressure splinter groups into line if there is a will do to so. Within modern Sunni nations for example they have extremely efficient practical controls/checkpoints on religious dogma.
But for pagans such as the Roman empire this usually resulted in an ever increasingly complex syncretic mesh of beliefs from what I've learned.
Thanks for a charitable response. I do appreciate such things.
Regarding what you said:
1)In the political sense, a perfect example of a political state surviving and thriving with Paganism is The Roman Empire. They incorporated local deities into a pantheon, or translated their Gods into existing Roman ones. This allows for flexibility and adaptability for assimilation purposes. The exception of the Germans was not over religious reasons. They did not assimilate due to their ethnic pride and fighting spirit. In contrast, the christian history is full of religious infighting. In a sense, christian’s have been willing at the drop of a hat to kill each other for a slight difference in theology
(2)This is probably a difference of metaphysical views of the world, which I agree would not be useful for our two sides to discuss. Regardless, if you want my two cents, why is this a bad thing? Why is it bad for a world of local governments and polities that are most interested in serving their own kind. Such a world is in many ways the inverse of this globohomo hellscape we all live under. Christianity paves the way for the largest world empires due to universalist theology. Paganism allows for empires, even continental sized empires, yet stops at healthy ethnic and racial boundaries. And these world wide empires, did they truly even bring about objectives of peace and love? No. The large empires, ever in contest, fought wars of death that would put any human sacrifices historical Pagans did to shame
Like I said, a metaphysical difference that isn’t here or there for this discussion.
very good stuff here.. it’s a shame that most pagans don’t seem to have the humility to address any of these problems or reciprocate with appropriate critiques of their own…
I'm very much not anti-pagan, just trying to be more specific on why no progress seems to be made. Maybe there will be a reformer
"Rootless tree worship" lol
https://youtu.be/0fxn6Rjm6Sw
Me and the boys hangout with our antlers out
Christians can't fathom that a different religion has a different set of metaphysics.
…Because there is only one set of metaphysics.
Metaphysics, like actual physics, isn’t vibes based. It isn’t negotiable in the same way that mathematics isn’t based upon “what I personally think/feel to be right”.
It’s not a question of “is X religion’s metaphysics correct, or is Y religion’s metaphysics correct?”
There simply is a correct metaphysics, the understanding of which requires no affiliation to any particular religion. It may lead one to a particular religion based on that understanding, but it isn’t required.
Some of the neopagans online actually seem to believe that they can invent their own metaphysics in order to dance around the inconsistencies & contradictions in their contrived worldview. It’s pathetic, and even more that’s not what the ancestors practiced. Even the ancient pagans believed in truth based in metaphysics. Some of them got it right, others not so much.
Thanks for proving my point ;^)
If your point was that the only valid metaphysics begins and ends with an Absolute Unity, then sure.
Reminds me of W.B. Yeats, who started the Celtic revival movement. He did wonderful things to catalogue old Irish myths and customs, but his actual spiritual practices were very odd and modern.
Spirit medium/teaching spirits thing seems pretty wild but definitely interesting. I could see that coming back with the Ayahuasca crowd
There's definitely a sort of Chesterton's Fence idea with religion like you say. A lot of trial and error led to the religious formations that stood the test of time
It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion in this conversation, and a lot of it is the problem of the big tent.
The Left (which is inherently a Christian identity movement, though they claim to despise it) is not representative of Liturgical or Mystic traditions. The conservative Christian church abdicated all Cultural Capital it has built over 2000 years, and society is collapsing under a theological difference within Christianity. The "Culture War" is Christian.... That's why you wonder where Pagans stand on "Culture War" issues.
But there has been a long argument with the Left within "neopaganism," and unfortunately the "folkish" pagan was entirely drummed out of all public discourse by its own Universalist Left in the 1990s through the present. The Buffet of pantheon, or the selection of following a folk tradition sans ancestry, is not representative of pagans in the same way "No Kings" rioters are not representative of Latin Mass.
I don't wonder where pagans stand on culture war issues - I'm asking where they stand on moral issues.
And I disagree that Leftism is inherently a Christian identity movement. It shares some of the same forms and norms for sure (because as I argue here, organized religion is a social technology useful within civilization), but it's demonstrably not Christian in that it actually opposes the claims of the Nicaean Creed and many other aspects of Christian doctrine.
I can't, and won't, speak "for paganism," it's weird to me that people feel fine speaking "for" anything as some kind of avatar... Unfortunately ubiquitous, and I would say anti-christian as far as Hubris and Pride.
I would say you could find the answer by reading source materials, and folk tradition/lore/song/tales etc. One example, on abortion:
I would say I am personally opposed for me and mine, certainly, and I am honorbound to support my children. Would I go to hell/niflehel/Hades? Well exposure of infants was frequently done, and I haven't found anything that stated it would have been contrary to law in the traditions I value or identify with. Likely slave children were sacrificed at some distant point. If my brother or son were talking about having an abortion, I would be pissed off, and it would likely come to blows.
I am also fallible so this could be untrue.
Do you not see how you're literally adjusting your stance on abortion based on vibes in your own example?
I reject the word vibes. I also don't think ancestral precedent informs Morality. I stated that it is entirely inconsistent, and I don't know what to do about that... Except to say that I need to live on this planet.
As much as I want to just split the skull of the enemies, doesn't mean I don't have five children and live in a blue city. Besides, I've met quite a few Christians that are pro-choice, I hardly see the difference.
The other thing is that I'm an American, I don't answer to you. If we end up in a world where the Heithni rules can exist, keep your head up because all bets are off and crime will be irrelevant conceptually
And yet the actual pagan Romans and Greeks and Druids etc all converted to Christianity. So they threw out their old gods for the True God.
The fundamental difference between aesthetic neopagans and actual pagans is the belief in fate. What tied pagans together, before, was fate understood in the tribe for war (comitatus). There's no modern equivalent of that, and, also, the idea that religion is a belief system that you can adhere to or not (which is more a protestant Christian conception). There was no separation between physics and religion. The heroes were engaged in reality. The journeys to the underworld explained the cycle of death that we see in seasons. If faith is treated in that protestant conception then they're never going to be able to bridge it. We'll be able to tell there are actual pagans when the first point is actually developed. Even after all that, as you've said, paganism was deprecated because Christianity offered a more developed conception of justice, ethics, culture, science etc. I simply don't see it coming back unless humanity was reset again.