Refocusing Religion, Defining Distinctions, and Mythic Truth Over Literality

This is one of those topics I’ve sat on for months and could easily continue to mull over without posting anything— from fear of redundancy (has someone else already made this point, better?), to fear of forgetting an important point, to “who cares.” 

“Who cares” is my go-to response with myself to keep me out of useless arguments with those I consider foolish or wrong is just that: that I don’t care, it doesn’t effect me so why bother, and if people need to be told something instead of coming to that conclusion themselves then there’s already no use. But that’s borne out of an earned wariness for those who enjoy bad-faith “argument” as bloodsport, as a way to not come to mutual understanding but as a way to exert power over one another, so I’ve written that off as the cannibalism it is and make a point of starving, not feeding, that dumb beast. On top of that, I can’t stand proselytizing or missionary type recruitment: I consider it distasteful, to the divine as much as to humans, so out of real respect for people’s individuality, I more often than not go out of my way to avoid sounding like I’m recruiting. This is where the old Craft expression for those with the eyes to see, and the ears to hear comes to my mind— if you know, you know.

I’ve taken a liking to the orations of Christopher Hitchens recently, and when I listen to his debates or lectures especially on the topic of atheism, I learned something new apart from a fresh perspective: that I do care. 

The point of this week’s post is this. Call it ignorant if you like, I am paganus after all: but I wholly reject the idea that a Creator God, a supervisory Supreme Being, that this idea above all others (one of its own commandments) should define religion itself— especially to such a degree that it should definitionally distinguish religion from atheism. I don’t feel quite right calling this a “misconception,” because what I regard as a basic operating premise doesn’t seem to even register recognition as an option for almost anyone that discusses these topics seriously. This is where I realize that I do, in fact, care.

There’s plenty of other people that do, too: there are people of multiple perspectives who care deeply and sincerely, who are passionate about their paths, and due to tunnel vision for their own passions (something I can sympathize with & relate to), sour experiences with other religions/religion overall that have become wholesale aversion, and/or whatever other reason— many people just aren’t familiar with the actual pagan perspective. The idea of divinity in a pagan standpoint is something that many people simply are not aware of, including plenty of self-professed pagans. And that’s what I care about: not convincing anyone of “my” view, but establishing set definitions and terms so that every dialogue & argument on “religion vs atheism” doesn’t end up reduced to the same pitiful straw manning of condemning (or praising) religion as nothing but the worst of monotheism, the other tar pit of logical fallacies and lazy thinking that shows an inability to reckon with the reality of the topic at hand.

I find often that fundamentalists and atheists alike both embrace or reject “religion” (their idea of it) for the exact same wrong reasons, the same lazy thinking- and yes, I regard it as objectively wrong, not simply a difference of opinion. I am sick of fundamentalism and unimaginative, reductionist literalism towards religion, spirituality, mysticism— defining the entire realm in the eyes of outsiders and the “faithful” alike. Not only does fundamentalist literalism not define religiosity, but a controlling creator entity does not define religion or divinity itself— any more than corrupt religious organizations do. Laying claim to the divine (anyone who claims it can only be experienced in one rigid way is automatically doing this) does not actually merit ownership of it, but it should be seen as an immediate disqualifier of any real understanding. 

So to iterate it clearly, the statement I wish to make can be summarized in a few sentences:

The idea that religiosity is defined by belief in one supreme being, and/or adherence to organized religion, is wrong. Wrong as in both untrue and immoral.

Religiosity is defined by active engagement with the divine. 

I’m not going to write some entire list of what constitutes as “divine” here. I’m deeply uninterested in delving into every little detail of minutiae; I think the truly called do best with the least amount of permission possible, and to detail some laundry list of what is and isn’t ok amounts to giving permission, which to me comes off as patronizing and unnecessary.

Atheism, I think, should be defined as a lack of engagement with the divine on the whole, a lack of engagement beyond the material and fully literal world. It’s generally what I mean by atheism, but I don’t especially care to fight that one out as I’m no atheist and have no dog in that race. It doesn’t strike me as accurate to define atheism— literally a-theism, without belief in gods/divinity period— as a rejection only of fundamentalist monotheism, as a rejection of organized religion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam do not define religion itself. New Age bullshit doesn’t define it. Corrupt assholes using self-righteousness to cover their own asses don’t either.

It’s important to state as well that there is a fundamental misconception both in language, use and actual knowing that myth means fiction- fake, false, an untrue and verifiably/demonstrably false truth claim on the basis of reality. 

Myth is not fiction.
It occupies a different domain.

Carl Jung, Mircea Eliade, Joseph Campbell, Clarissa Pinkola-Estes… how many scores of depth psychologists, folklorists and good old-fashioned backwards hillbilly pagans already understand this and have written about it in depth just to be disregarded? Myth is not fiction, but sacred truth. If you hear “sacred truth” as a way to say “fancy lie,” you’re already not understanding. 

Eliade wrote about what he called the sacred and the profane: sacred space being the interruption from the sterilized, mundane everyday “profane” that offers no catharsis, no regeneration, no transformation or true reckoning with the inner world. No chance to “suffer what must be suffered,” as Jung brilliantly put it. That is the realm of the sacred, and the language of the sacred realm is myth. Now, I’ve spoken to actual fundamentalists who believe that taking their scripture word for word “true” without a grain of salt or any question is a sign of greater faith on their part. 

To use the Bible as an example, do you seriously think seven days to us is the same seven days in a cosmic god sense, whether small “g” or big? Do you seriously think that the same numbers are repeated in association to significant events with overlapping themes by accident, or that they’re unimportant? To engage with myth in a deeper sense than the literal isn’t to make it “less true” or lessening of your faith; it makes your engagement & faith even deeper.

So… do people sincerely think that literality is an appropriate or even accurate approach for this domain, I wonder? Or do they just not actually think all that hard before speaking on it like they know?

To put it as simply as possible, sacred truth doesn’t and shouldn’t occupy the same space as literality or the corporeal, material world. It speaks in the symbolic to teach deeper lessons that often cannot be felt nor seen, but are no less valuable for it. They do not occupy the same realm, should not be regarded as competing for the same space, and ideally supplement each other rather than contradict each other. Both perspectives are required for a fuller, more complete and balanced engagement with life as it is: the physical world, and our own internal worlds such as they connect to the good old PTB: the Powers that Be. Divinity, however you engage with it.

Again, both the fundamentalist types and the hardcore atheists and antitheists do us all a disservice in this regard, themselves especially: to see & respect nothing that isn’t fully literal and two feet in front of your face is not only ignorant, it is to discredit much of the beauty in humanity, in the natural world, in the Powers that Be- however you’re called to engage with them. Our capacity for pattern recognition in both the natural world and in storytelling, our hunger to transform internally to shift our engagement with the external for the better, the raw instinctual honesty in our being when we can drop our mask and incorporate the primal into our waking lives. This idea of religion as essentially “relying on fake bullshit as an emotional crutch that must be ripped away” that the overly literal atheists of the world have, has nothing to do with divinity or real religion itself. To define religion fundamentally as a crutch, as fiction, as not corporeally “real” and therefore useless denotes a level of ignorance that surpasses any blind faith. Why let those you disagree with set the terms? Why let those who’ve done such evils in the name of religion lay complete claim to it?

I’ll pass on that. And though this is a separate topic, my enjoyment of Hitch should be a testament to disproving this insane concept that familiarity with or even enjoying someone and/or their work means you agree with them, or that you vouch for 100% of everything they’ve ever said or done. Again, this absolute lunacy of an idea, and I’d be remiss to not link Clementine Morrigan’s astute articulation on what’s wrong with it— the insane implications of thinking anyone can or even should agree with 100% of anyone else, and how stating “I don’t agree with everything from XYZ person” is a self-protective attempt at shielding oneself from the backlash of social punishment. So not from a wish to ideologically “protect” myself, but genuinely— I disagree with a good amount of opinions I’ve heard from the late great Christopher Hitchens, but his tremendous intellect & rare gift of the gab provokes real thought on its own. That’s far better than hearing someone mindlessly repeat my same positions like robotic talking points. Fuck complete agreement— I really don’t care— intrigue me. Sincerely intrigue me. Gods I can’t say how rare that is.

In any case, here’s to genuinely caring and not letting corrupt cowards set the terms.