“However, what both Weber’s analysis of disenchantment and counter-claims as to the importance of contemporary re-enchantment often share is a tendency to make an easy association between religion and enchantment on the one hand and secular rationalism/scientific atheism and disenchantment on the other. In fact there is a long history of occasions when very modernist secular events seemed highly enchanted to many of those participating in them. Wordsworth’s response to the French Revolution, containing a reference to “reason” as the “prime enchantress” of the earth, being but one famous example. Likewise, organised religion can often be experienced as profoundly disenchanting, as the work of generations of writers, from James Joyce to Jeanette Winterson testifies.”

In short, the old binary of religious=enchantment and secular=disenchantment may be too reductive in today’s world, in fact, as one recent academic collection of essays argues, the new forces re-enchanment have no problem with “secular rationalism”.

“…enchantment continues to be understood as anti-rational and quasi-mystical, a source of cognitive deception and affective indulgence … modernity produces an entirely new array of strategies, compatible with secular rationality, for re-enchanting a disenchanted world. We perceive this as being an exciting new trend in current conceptualizations of Western modernity…”

To Pagans, the “spiritual but not religious”, the scores of “no religion” agnostics who believe in God, and the many other groupings taking part in the West’s re-enchantment, it isn’t a choice of Dawkins or Pope Benedict. Instead, it is melding of the best aspects of rational and secular progress with the immanent and transcendenat spiritual experiences provided by various religions and philosophies. While the old binary view of religioun and rationalism continues to duke it out, Pagans are having their (secular re-enchantment) cake and eating it too.

…she [Drury] argues that “Since the triumph of Christianity over the pagan civilizations of Greece and Rome, the West has suffered from the inability to affirm life in the world without an overarching purpose to give it meaning and make it worthwhile.” The Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim provided such grand narratives as part of an effort to “destroy the pagan view of life as an endless cycle” and replacing it with “the cyclical view of history with a linear view that has a magical beginning, an arduous middle, and a very splendid finale.” … Drury promises to explain in her next piece “why grand narratives must be transcended in favor of a return to pagan sobriety.”

While this argument fascinates Hadar, a noted critic of the neoconservative grand narrative, Jack Ross at TAC’s Post Right blog begs to differ that Judiac monotheism should be lumped in with Drury’s criticisms.

“As a practicing Jew following the examples of Isaac Mayer Wise and Will Herberg, I have to take exception to cavalierly lumping Judaism into this mix.  As Philip Rieff argued, against the cant of both “Athens and Jerusalem” and “Judeo-Christian values”, the greatness of Hebraic civilization was that it placed man squarely under the authority of death, the most powerful reproach imaginable to immanentizing the eschaton. Even in the case of Zionism, it is narrowly nationalist in the extreme and therefore can not be considered “world redemptive” in any sense.  As such, it is exuberantly pagan, as yesterday’s blood-and-soil oration by Netanyahu should make abundantly clear. In the ideal, therefore, Judaism stands for rationalism over paganism and for humility before the infinite over the redemption of the world by man.”

What I find fascinating here is that two noted conservative thinkers are willing to (critically) entertain the idea that we might be better off with a cyclic pagan sobriety than a triumphalist Christian narrative. Now, it is to be certain that neither Leon Hadar or Jack Ross are considered part of the conservative mainstream, but if the conservative mainstream is currently being defined by Gingrich, Huckabee, Limbaugh, and Cheney, perhaps on the sidelines (or “underground” if you prefer) is the best place for them to be. In the meantime, I think I might track down this essay by Drury.

From MetaPagan: Spirituality, Identity and Community (by Yvonne Aburrow).

But is a religious label really about beliefs, or about participating in community, and sharing values and practices? Is it about doing something for the wider community? Or about a quest to understand the world and know how to live in it well? When does identifying with a label become membership in the group? Where and how does membership end? If you were accused of practising your religion in a court of law, would there be enough evidence to convict you? Perhaps religion is really a convincing narrative that helps to confer meaning on the world and our place in it. Even if it isn’t literally true, it’s symbolically true and internally consistent.

From The North West Passage: The Passing of Deo’s Shadow (by Brendan Myers)

I have to admit this affected me greatly, and not just because I was a guest on the show four times. Deo is a friend and a fellow philosopher. Before I moved to Hamilton, I was living only 20 kilometers away from him. He is also a remarkably generous, friendly, fun and kind person. I was dearly glad of someone in the community who has the same background and knowledge in philosophy as I do, with whom I can talk about such things. His departure from the community, therefore, hit me hard. His reasons for leaving it were sound and rational. It made me wonder if I have given much of my adult life to a community that doesn’t care about philosophers, and if I, too, have become merely a spokesperson for a tradition that is ultimately a dead end.

From Letter From Hardscrabble Creek: Pagans are not a Community nor a Tribe — Not Yet (by Chas Clifton)

What we have is a network, not a community nor a tribe. Maybe in a few generations that will change, who knows? (For you anthro and sociology majors, it is the Gemeinschaft / Gesellschaft issue, no?) Everytime I hear someone going on about “the Pagan community,” I say to myself, “Not yet.” Not when you can walk in and walk out so easily.

From Cernunnos’ Path: On the Threshold Between One Life Path and Another (by Mahud)

I have no idea where my path will lead (who knows, perhaps back to Christianity. I’m open minded enough to consider that a valid possibility), but I’m going to take it slow and not rush into this ritual or that magical practice or suddenly start worshipping a pantheon of Deities, just to fit in with the wide world of Paganism. Whether I stay or go, I’ll always have a piece of the Pagan community with me. But the way things are going now, I’ll be sticking around for some time yet.

From Chrysalis: Where Can We Grow From Here? (by Pax)

Well, it seems to me that the Pagan community could really stand to do a lot of work and soul searching on issues of Pride and Community.  I say this as a Pagan and Gay man who has often seen parallels and contrasts between his two subcultural communities. Why do we seem to have so much trouble coming together across lines of faith or Tradition to build community on the local, regional, and national levels?

And that seems to only be the beginning, I’m sure there are even more posts I’m missing out on. If you have commented on the transition to atheism by Deò and Mandy, or the issues it (and subsequent blog commentary) raises in your own blog/journal feel free to share a link in the comments (you can also consider this a “fresh” thread to discuss the topic if you feel a bit overwhelmed by the number of comments on the original post).

Making deòs Shadow was usually a joy, and as the show grew more popular, we had many opportunities for new experiences which helped us to grow as people. One of the interesting side-effects of such growth is that one can end up growing out of that which induces the growth. We’ve moved on from Paganism and are now practicing atheists. We’re both in our 30s now, deò is half finished his PhD program (he began the show as an undergrad), Mandy is busy at a successful career, and we’ve got our eyes on the mundane things in life like securing a future and starting a family within the next few years.

In a follow-up post Deò ellaborates on his journey from Christianity, to Paganism, and into atheism (and why he isn’t jumping from Paganism into a different spiritual/religious practice). Spurring the follow-up was a comment by a listener of the podcast who experienced a similar (though not identical) trajectory.

I understand outgrowing things. I was a self proclaimed Pagan for 13 or so years. Recently after much study, therapy and self reflection I knew I had to take the plunge and drop the label. I can no longer label myself as a pagan. Doing this felt amazingly liberating. Who would have thought? Now this wasn’t necessarily a rejection of Paganism. I still find great value in many things deemed Pagan. This was just a moving forward from the need to put myself in a “box” that was stifling my growth. Now I know that this could be very offensive to some and I understand that.

Reading those pages made me think of the excellent posts by Cat Chapin-Bishop on her Quaker Pagan Reflections blog about balancing a Quaker and Pagan identity, about Al Billings’ (from In Pursuit of Mysteries) move from a Pagan/occult identity to Buddhism (albeit one still informed by his Pagan past), and even, briefly, about the conversion of author Carl McColman from Paganism to Catholicism. All of these narratives – Deò and Mandy’s, Cat’s, Andrea’s, Al’s, Carl’s – speak of growth, a growth that in most cases leads them away from a Pagan identity (or at least a displacement of Paganism as their core religious affiliation). Someone “outgrowing” Paganism (or hyphenating their Paganism) seems almost like a cliche nowadays, and it makes me wonder if we are alienating some of our more skeptical and philosophically-minded adherents in ways we don’t realize?

I say none of this because I resent Deò and Mandy’s (or anyone else’s) decisions, or that we should try to win them back. I wish them both the best, and thank them for their years of service to our communities. However,  that the hosts of a popular Pagan program have turned atheist should evoke some soul-searching about growth and maturity in our communities. Chas Clifton recently pointed out that pre-Christian (pagan) philosophy used to embrace everyone from the “hard” polytheists to the skeptical materialists. Who (and what) are we not embracing? Where are we not growing that these smart and talented folks must find their spiritual (or philosophical) satisfaction elsewhere? What do you think?

Liv Ullmann with Ingmar Bergman in 1968.

For Pagan film buffs he will be fondly remembered for his classic take on the uneasy co-existence between Christianity and paganism “The Virgin Spring”.

“Based on a ballad of that era [13th c] by Ulla Isaksson, it’s both one of the more unusual and accessible of Bergman’s pictures. Tore (Max von Sydow) is a lord who, with his wife Mareta (Birgitta Valberg) is a recent convert to Christianity, with different degrees of devotion. Their teenage daughter Karin (Birgitta Pettersson) is both devout but also somewhat vain and flighty. When she insists on wearing an elaborate dress to take candles on an overland journey to the local church, she attracts the attention of several herdsmen (Axel Dyberg and Tor Isedal) and their younger broher (Ove Porath). They rape and murder Karin, stealing her garb, under the observant eyes of her adopted sister, Ingeri (Gunnel Lindblom), a pagan worshipper of Woden, who brought a curse down upon Karin. But the herdsmen make the mistake of coming to Tore’s home and attempting to sell Karin’s dress, triggering an outraged paroxysm of vengeance.”

Bergman’s films have influenced directors as diverse as Woody Allen, Wim Wenders, and Wes Craven, and his penetrating observations about faith and doubt were groundbreaking.

“Bergman was the first to bring metaphysics – religion, death, existentialism – to the screen,” – Bertrand Tavernier

Bergman was one of the great modernist filmmakers, and because of his vision, the art of film-making is a richer and more thought-provoking medium.
]]> http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/07/ingmar-bergman-1918-2007.html/feed 2 http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/03/golden-rule.html http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/03/golden-rule.html#comments Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:37:00 +0000 Jason http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/03/the-golden-rule.html Philip Harland, Assistant Professor in the Humanities Division at York University, offers a corrective to those who still think ancient pagans were amoral hedonistic party-goers concerned solely with gladiator battles and orgies.

“Despite what you may have heard about the “pagan” Greeks or Romans (a friend of mine – perhaps representative – thought they were all about wild orgies), “pagans” too were very concerned with proper behaviour as they defined it, and sometimes they defined it in similar ways. Educated philosophers, in particular, focussed their attention on questions of what behaviors were most fitting, desirable, or appropriate in particular circumstances. Such philosophers were often very concerned with “family values”, and so they spent considerable time thinking about what were the appropriate relationships among members of the household…”

As an example, Harland focuses on the ethic of reciprocity (aka “the golden rule”) and quotes the work of 2nd century Stoic philosopher Hierocles.

“The first bit of advice, therefore, is very clear, easily obtained, and common to all people. For it is a sound word which everyone will recognize as clear: Treat anybody whatsoever as though you supposed that he were you and you he.”

Hierocles the Stoic wasn’t the only pagan philosopher to endorse the ethic of reciprocity, similar statements have been made by Seneca, Aristotle, Epictetus (also a Stoic), Socrates, and his student Plato.

“May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.” – Plato

In fact the earliest known written version of the golden rule is from an ancient Egyptian piece of literature entitled “The Tale of Sinuhe”, written nearly two thousand years before the birth of Jesus.

“This is an ordinance: Act for the man who acts, to cause him to act. This is thanking him for what he does.”

This is a far cry from some evangelical commentators who have claimed that ancient pagans existed in a fatalistic world view devoid of morality. In fact, Christianity would have had a very hard time taking root in such societies. The truth is that our modern world (and its advanced “ethics” and “morals”) is more in debt to ancient paganism than many people realize. Something to remember the next time someone tells you how lost we would all be without the dominant monotheisms.
]]> http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/03/golden-rule.html/feed 3