Is macroevolution a form of paganism?

[Real Sorceror]

If as many believe, religion must involve a god and atheists believe there are no gods, then how come you claim an atheist can practice a religion? Does this mean that you believe that a religion does not have to invoke a god?

Religions do not need to involve a god. Several existing religions do not. Therefore, an athiest could concievably practice a religion so long as that religion does not invlove the belief in dieties. For example, most Satanists are athiestic.

You claim that atheism is not a religion. Why is that?

Athiesm is a worldview. It has no ceremonies or rituals. It has no set of morals, rules, or philosophical code. It has no temples or preists. Athiests are not united, and the only belief they all share is the belief in no gods. Otherwise, they are very diverse, though most modern athiests subsribe to a naturalist worldview.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Yours may be too..

If as many believe, religion must involve a god and atheists believe there are no gods, then how come you claim an atheist can practice a religion? Does this mean that you believe that a religion does not have to invoke a god?

You claim that atheism is not a religion. Why is that?

There is a difference between a "religion" and a "religious outlook."

Atheism is an approach to life that occupies the place of a religious outlook. It is entirely possible for an atheist to have spiritual experiences that are commonly associated with religious. However, atheism is obviously not one of the historically organized sets of practice, custom and ritual.

Likewise, the term "god" must be distinguished. A "theological entity" is not the same as a "focus of constant activity and feeling." TV is not a god although it sometimes makes poetic and cultural sense to refer to it as such.

Relgion involves a spiritual connection between the core of human individuals and a trans-personal Spirit, Power, Reality, Being, etc. The general qualities and nature associated with a "god" or even with "God" need not be imagined in the form of a entity. Buddhism is technically a "godless" religion, but this does mean that it shuns the Divine Reality -- only that it has its own approach to the fact that "God" exceeds human conceptualization. Thus even the term "God" may sometimes mislead us in our understanding of God.

Macro-evolution (assuming I mean what you mean by this term) is definitely a framework that attracts those with a pagan spirit. It focuses on a kind of manifest divine power in the form of Nature -- spiritualizing and revealing itself over eons of time. On the other hand, macro-evolution is key to certain notions of Christianity such as those of Teilhard de Chardin. It is only in our small-mindedness and resistance that we make paganism into the adversary of Deity. In truth it is not the opposite, but rather a partial glimpse of the same truth. Those who know the Divine Itself can detect its glory over and above the manifest realms. Those who are just beginning to sense Divinity may think of it as a characteristic of Nature. Only personal growth can change this.

 

[bob b]

There is a difference between a "religion" and a "religious outlook."

Atheism is an approach to life that occupies the place of a religious outlook. It is entirely possible for an atheist to have spiritual experiences that are commonly associated with religious. However, atheism is obviously not one of the historically organized sets of practice, custom and ritual.

Likewise, the term "god" must be distinguished. A "theological entity" is not the same as a "focus of constant activity and feeling." TV is not a god although it sometimes makes poetic and cultural sense to refer to it as such.

Relgion involves a spiritual connection between the core of human individuals and a trans-personal Spirit, Power, Reality, Being, etc. The general qualities and nature associated with a "god" or even with "God" need not be imagined in the form of a entity. Buddhism is technically a "godless" religion, but this does mean that it shuns the Divine Reality -- only that it has its own approach to the fact that "God" exceeds human conceptualization. Thus even the term "God" may sometimes mislead us in our understanding of God.

Macro-evolution (assuming I mean what you mean by this term) is definitely a framework that attracts those with a pagan spirit. It focuses on a kind of manifest divine power in the form of Nature -- spiritualizing and revealing itself over eons of time. On the other hand, macro-evolution is key to certain notions of Christianity such as those of Teilhard de Chardin. It is only in our small-mindedness and resistance that we make paganism into the adversary of Deity. In truth it is not the opposite, but rather a partial glimpse of the same truth. Those who know the Divine Itself can detect its glory over and above the manifest realms. Those who are just beginning to sense Divinity may think of it as a characteristic of Nature. Only personal growth can change this.

Do you really think that the notions of Teilhard de Chardin should in any way be associated with Christianity?

Frankly such a thought disgusts me.

If one deviates too far from the scriptures in one's musings, I believe that calling such musings "Christian" is highly problematic.

BTW, I think your suggestion to use the term "religious outlook" rather than "religion" for certain belief systems is a good one, so I may adopt this terminology in some of my future postings. In return you might consider adopting the term "Christian outlook" in describing certain belief systems which seem to be far afield from adherence to what is actually taught in scripture.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Do you really think that the notions of Teilhard de Chardin should in any way be associated with Christianity?

Frankly such a thought disgusts me.

If one deviates too far from the scriptures in one's musings, I believe that calling such musings "Christian" is highly problematic.

BTW, I think your suggestion to use the term "religious outlook" rather than "religion" for certain belief systems is a good one, so I may adopt this terminology in some of my future postings. In return you might consider adopting the term "Christian outlook" in describing certain belief systems which seem to be far afield from adherence to what is actually taught in scripture.

When someone else's ideas deviate from our understanding of the essential core of our faith -- this has always been problematic. If someone argues that strong reliance on scripture is an invalid conception of Christianity and it disgusts them? Tricky business. One wishes to articulate one's own feelings while at the same time making those articulations as comprehensive as possible. One never knows exactly which forms of strong disagreement among Christians cross that vague threshold into Christian vs. Non-Christian.

"Christian outlook" may well be a part of resolving, or at least softening, the confusion of terms.

 

[Vision in Verse]

Paganism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "a country dweller" or "civilian") is a term which, from a western perspective, has come to connote a broad set of spiritual or religious beliefs and practices of natural or polytheistic religions. The term can be defined broadly, to encompass many or most of the faith traditions outside the Abrahamic monotheistic group of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This group may include the Dharmic religions, which incorporate seemingly pagan characteristics like nature-worship, idol-worship, polytheism and reverence of female deities, and are thus diametrically opposite to the Abrahamic faiths.

Nature worship is great. If God is life and love, to love life is divine. Female deities are also a cool idea, as they contradict our culture's patriarchal past. And now, since males and females are becoming more equal, I predict there will be a general decline in father-figure worship.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Nature worship is great. If God is life and love, to love life is divine. Female deities are also a cool idea, as they contradict our culture's patriarchal past. And now, since males and females are becoming more equal, I predict there will be a general decline in father-figure worship.

At times it is difficult to determine the difference between participation in a discussion and the mere affirmation of one's own feelings and beliefs. For example, if the comment posted above were utterly and entirely true -- does it address the theological relationship between macroevolutionary conceptions and the structural particulars of paganism? This comment of mine likewise fails this criteria and should be thread of its own...

 

[Vision in Verse]

At times it is difficult to determine the difference between participation in a discussion and the mere affirmation of one's own feelings and beliefs. For example, if the comment posted above were utterly and entirely true -- does it address the theological relationship between macroevolutionary conceptions and the structural particulars of paganism? This comment of mine likewise fails this criteria and should be thread of its own...

Macroevolution has nothing to do with Paganism whatsoever.

 

[Iconasostacles]

93

93

Macroevolution has nothing to do with Paganism whatsoever.

Yes, macroevolution is a scientific postulate that characterizes contemporary biological research rather than a traditional part of either the self-definition of Pagans or the standard superficial-historical connotation.

The question posed by the thread (though, not entirely with the cooperation of "bob b") is more like this:

What, if any, structural and functional similarities exist as correlatives between the Principle of Large Scale Natural Development Through Evolution (commonly associated with scientific agnosticism) and the Principle of Venerating Natural Forces as Supreme/Divine?

So it is not the naive matter of "Do I agree or disagree that Macroevolution is Pagan?" Rather it is the more subtle matter of what shapes we can discern within the context of this comparison.

It is clear that a structural similarity exists between a "pantheon of gods and goddess" and "the various forces of the natural universe." The former could somewhat legitimately be called a spiritualized version of the latter terminology. Or the latter could be called a secularized form of the prior terminology.

And when we imagine the difference between the world of natural science "without large-scale evolution" or "with large-scale evolution" we can certainly see that evolving constitutes a kind of dynamic, living, spiritualized form of matter/energy and time. Although some are quick to decry shoddy thinking, it is apparent that something in the concept of Evolution lends itself to a quasi-theological status.

 

[Vision in Verse]

It is the more subtle matter of what shapes we can discern within the context of this comparison.
It is clear that a structural similarity exists between a "pantheon of gods and goddess" and "the various forces of the natural universe." The former could somewhat legitimately be called a spiritualized version of the latter terminology. Or the latter could be called a secularized form of the prior terminology.
And when we imagine the difference between the world of natural science "without large-scale evolution" or "with large-scale evolution" we can certainly see that evolving constitutes a kind of dynamic, living, spiritualized form of matter/energy and time. Although some are quick to decry shoddy thinking, it is apparent that something in the concept of Evolution lends itself to a quasi-theological status.

I have no idea what a spiritualized form of matter/energy is. Can you define it?

 

[Iconasostacles]

I have no idea what a spiritualized form of matter/energy is. Can you define it?

Any aspect of the universe of mass and energy which is conceived as having properties more akin to a universe of spirit. If, for example, one images the conventional scientific scenario whereby some previously inert molecules somehow coalesced into a primal cell and begin to live, thrive, multipy -- this might be imagined as a spiritualization of matter/energy. Insofar as the natural universe is conceived as generating spiritual (or at least potentially spiritual) human beings from out of itself -- this is a "spiritualized" form of matter/energy. The brain is probably a good example owning to it close correlation with the psyche.

When we attribute higher capacities to Nature (such as, say, "making sentient beings") how similar is this to the classical pagan procedure of attributing higher capacities to the Sun, Moon, Wind, etc?

How close is The Universe produced intelligent life out of itself to, say, the old Aegyptian conception: The Sun created Man ?

 

[GeneCosta]

to something as bland as TV."

Praise thee, Stephen Colbert. Thou hast given us the Gospel of Foreign Affairs out of burning desire to rid the world of Evil. Surely thou knowest best that this thread is just another attempt to discredit evolution by placing science on level with religion. Whoa to those infidels, for surely they know not of what they do?

 

[bob b]

Nature worship is great. If God is life and love, to love life is divine.

I would say that your conclusion does not necessarily follow.

In fact scripture claims almost the opposite: to love one's life is to lose it, or something similar. I will try to find the verse.

John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

 

[noguru]

Bob, I would say that paganism and a belief in macroevolution may appear to be similar to a casual outside observer. However, from a person (me) who does accept macro-evolution but does not worship nature (paganism), I would say that this is an illusion of perception. The perception that is inherant in the myopic view of a certain brand of traditional Protestant Christian fundamentalism. I do accept the basic truths of Genesis. And it is in these truths that a Christian gets a glimpse of the relationship between God, nature, and humans. I also have found St Thomas Aquinas's writings on these subjects to be helpful in conceptualizing this relationship.

 

[noguru]

I would say that your conclusion does not necessarily follow.

In fact scripture claims almost the opposite: to love one's life is to lose it, or something similar. I will try to find the verse.

John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

That is just a different kind of life. Do you actually think we must hate life to keep it eternally? Or is this a literary device?

 

[Iconasostacles]

Bob, I would say that paganism and a belief in macroevolution may appear to be similar to a casual outside observer. However, from a person (me) who does accept macro-evolution but does not worship nature (paganism), I would say that this is an illusion of perception. The perception that is inherant in the myopic view of a certain brand of traditional Protestant Christian fundamentalism. I do accept the basic truths of Genesis. And it is in these truths that a Christian gets a glimpse of the relationship between God, nature, and humans. I also have found St Thomas Aquinas's writings on these subjects to be helpful in conceptualizing this relationship.

It is obvious that certain "narrow minded" religious traditions fall into a characteristic error that is demonstarted in the naive conflation of nature worship with macro-evolution. It is so obvious, in fact, that we must look past it in order to examine the topic. The interesting question is not whether or not Macro-evolution = Paganism, but the deeper question of where they are similiar and what common structures are revealed. It is very much like question: Are carnivores vegetarian because animals are essentialy salad, composed at some level of vegetables, etc. Every carnivore can simply say "No, I'm a carnivore and not a vegetarian -- so there is not equating the two." And every vegetarian can say likewise. But all that is what we already know merely by raising the question. What we should be asking is: Where are they similiar? What are consequences of the similarity? What does the common of these two disperate things tell us that we can use to deep our understanding?

The danger, as always, is to make the discussion too personal. The fact that anyone could be a macro-evolutionist or a pagan without being also the other one should be accepted and put aside prior to engaging the topic.

I would say that your conclusion does not necessarily follow.

In fact scripture claims almost the opposite: to love one's life is to lose it, or something similar. I will try to find the verse.

John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

Here 'bob b' is replying to Vision in Verse's "Nature worship is great. If God is life and love, to love life is divine."

The problem with VoV's comment is not that is in inaccurate but that it leaves out an additional factor, namely that the "thing" (God) which divinizes life also exceeds life. Therefore to know the divinity of life is not false, not an absence of divinity, but neither does it fully account for or relate itself to the Divine Itself. It is this trans-natural Ultimate that "is" the glory of Nature but which will not be directly known unless it is found beyond all forms and substances.

 

[Vision in Verse]

The problem with ViV's comment is not that is in inaccurate but that it leaves out an additional factor, namely that the "thing" (God) which divinizes life also exceeds life. Therefore to know the divinity of life is not false, not an absence of divinity, but neither does it fully account for or relate itself to the Divine Itself. It is this trans-natural Ultimate that "is" the glory of Nature but which will not be directly known unless it is found beyond all forms and substances.

You're right. I was just making a play on words really. No real knowledge or wisdom lies that comment.

 

[Vision in Verse]

I would say that your conclusion does not necessarily follow.
In fact scripture claims almost the opposite: to love one's life is to lose it, or something similar. I will try to find the verse.
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

I love my life; I will lose it. If I hated my life, I would still lose it. Agree with this passage from the Bible, I do not...

 

[Vision in Verse]

Any aspect of the universe of mass and energy which is conceived as having properties more akin to a universe of spirit.

What is a spirit?

If, for example, one images the conventional scientific scenario whereby some previously inert molecules somehow coalesced into a primal cell and begin to live, thrive, multipy -- this might be imagined as a spiritualization of matter/energy. Insofar as the natural universe is conceived as generating spiritual (or at least potentially spiritual) human beings from out of itself -- this is a "spiritualized" form of matter/energy. The brain is probably a good example owning to it close correlation with the psyche.
When we attribute higher capacities to Nature (such as, say, "making sentient beings") how similar is this to the classical pagan procedure of attributing higher capacities to the Sun, Moon, Wind, etc?

The deification of the sun, moon, love, war, and such are products of ignorance. They chose to relate these aspects of existence to human culture and emotion. Sentient life forms choose how they see the world in the way that best suits their survival. I don't see the need for a spirit, which I still don't know the definition of.

How close is The Universe produced intelligent life out of itself to, say, the old Aegyptian conception: The Sun created Man ?

Both are similar. I do agree that without the Sun(a source of energy), mankind would not exist. I see your point. Paganism is really less spiritual and more ignorant scientifically. They chose to explain something. They got close, but got lost in the trappings of human culture. Of course, evolution allows life to exist without the concept of spirituality or gods, therefore it is not pagan.

In this case, I don't think evolution points to paganism, but paganism does point to evolution.

 

[Iconasostacles]

In this case, I don't think evolution points to paganism, but paganism does point to evolution.

Putting agreement/disagreement aside, I would like to say that this is a good point which demonstrates a structural relationship/insight between the two ends of the discussion topic.

What is a spirit?

There are clearly a lot of different metaphysical schemes that specify 'spirit' differently. One may use it to point at ghosts while another uses it to distinguish an Ultimate condition beyond 'soul' and 'self.' The folk-usage is fine for most discussions, i.e. whatever general quality is pointed to in a 'spirited mare," "the human spirit," etc. It is any abstracted subtle attribute that is intimately connected with our life, intelligence, deeper purposes. So we can easily say that a snake has (more) spirit than a plastic replica of a snake. A body has spirit and a corpse lacks it. Obviously there is a long-running cultural debate over whether or not scientific evidence supports the idea that these qualities can exist apart from material forms, whether a "realm of spirits" is the testimony of more development human beings or merely poetic folklore. However, these considerations do not prevent us from generally comprehending the archaic religious approach to the forms of Nature.

The deification of the sun, moon, love, war, and such are products of ignorance. They chose to relate these aspects of existence to human culture and emotion. Sentient life forms choose how they see the world in the way that best suits their survival. I don't see the need for a spirit, which I still don't know the definition of.

The delightful thing about these kinds of discussion is how vexingly close one choice of perception is to another. If I say, "Well, the Sun does have a spirit" and you say, "No, there's no need to say that. It is just a conglomerate of energy forms that moves around, exchanges with other systems, has particular attributes and psychological significance for sentient beings..." then have said almost exactly the same thing. This "almost" is clearly at the heart of the issue.

Both are similar. I do agree that without the Sun(a source of energy), mankind would not exist. I see your point. Paganism is really less spiritual and more ignorant scientifically. They chose to explain something. They got close, but got lost in the trappings of human culture. Of course, evolution allows life to exist without the concept of spirituality or gods, therefore it is not pagan.

So we get close to specifying a loose hierarchy of spiritual-scientific perception... provided we always remember that any particular individual who labels (or is labelled) a "pagan" could be more sophisticated, comprehensive, compassionate, loving, divinely-awakened that an individual associated with a more complex approach.

 

[Vision in Verse]

There are clearly a lot of different metaphysical schemes that specify 'spirit' differently. One may use it to point at ghosts while another uses it to distinguish an Ultimate condition beyond 'soul' and 'self.' The folk-usage is fine for most discussions, i.e. whatever general quality is pointed to in a 'spirited mare," "the human spirit," etc. It is any abstracted subtle attribute that is intimately connected with our life, intelligence, deeper purposes. So we can easily say that a snake has (more) spirit than a plastic replica of a snake. A body has spirit and a corpse lacks it. Obviously there is a long-running cultural debate over whether or not scientific evidence supports the idea that these qualities can exist apart from material forms, whether a "realm of spirits" is the testimony of more development human beings or merely poetic folklore. However, these considerations do not prevent us from generally comprehending the archaic religious approach to the forms of Nature.

What you're describing is life. There is no reason to assume that life continues after it has died. Evolution does not specify anything spiritual or otherworldly. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to claim that a teaching in evolution leads to a pagan belief.

The delightful thing about these kinds of discussion is how vexingly close one choice of perception is to another. If I say, "Well, the Sun does have a spirit" and you say, "No, there's no need to say that. It is just a conglomerate of energy forms that moves around, exchanges with other systems, has particular attributes and psychological significance for sentient beings..." then have said almost exactly the same thing. This "almost" is clearly at the heart of the issue.

Almost the same thing. Well that's good, we can't be that far from understanding both sides then.

So we get close to specifying a loose hierarchy of spiritual-scientific perception... provided we always remember that any particular individual who labels (or is labelled) a "pagan" could be more sophisticated, comprehensive, compassionate, loving, divinely-awakened that an individual associated with a more complex approach.

All people have the capacity for those traits regardless of their metaphysical beliefs.