Fascinating stuff, Rhyd. And I hope you had a good (pagan) Christmas.
I'm wondering where the common ground is. Maybe more than that, I am wondering what you mean by 'pagan.' Obviously originally, the word basically meant 'not Christian' - but what does it mean to you in a positive sense? It seems to mean that you don't believe there is a 'God' that created - and continues to create - reality.
I suppose the question that arises for me (a genuine question, not a challenge) is: so, how did reality arise? What created it? What is behind or outside of it? If no great intelligence is responsible, then are you not presented with a version of the problem you identify here: ie, that there is no reason not to 'rebel' and create reality in our own way?
I'm also interested in this quote:
"In this older Pagan cosmology, the goal of human life isn’t to unseat or dethrone the stars or the gods from their homes, but rather to learn how to also find our own seats and our own homes. Everything in nature is in its setl: the forest is where the forest is, the river is flowing through its home, the stars and the sun are following their own tracks across the sky just as the deer follow their own tracks across the land.
Everything is following a kind of order, but it is its own kind of order,³ an order arising from being rather than purpose. Purpose implies design, an ultimate destiny, what you were ‘put on this earth for.’ Being, on the other hand, is its own fulfillment, which is also the Tao of the Tao Te Ching."
This is not so far away from the traditional Christian worldview (there are many Christian worldviews, all squabbling with each other, but the Orthodox view sees 'God' as 'everywhere present and filling all things.') C. S. Lewis used the word 'Tao' to refer to the way of nature, which is also the way of God. A natural order within which humans should reside - not through fear of transgressing, but through wanting to live within that which was created by love.
I am rambling a bit, but I don't think the gap is as big as you might think - though of course the existence or otherwise of a loving creator is non-negotiable for a Christian. The nature of that creator, though, remains a mystery.
Remind me to send you a copy of my book (I'll email you for a mailing address), as the question of what Pagan is in a positive sense is the core thrust of that book. Also I'll email you on that interview discussion, because this would be a perfect part of that conversation.
To answer that in a short form, keep in mind that Pagan (paganus) actually was a pre-Christian Roman slur for rural people who were not keeping up with the customs and fads of the civitas. The Roman Christians adopted it later to then describe everyone who wasn't part of the new formation of that civitas, but the negative connotions pre-dated Christianity.
Basically, by those original Roman standards, a homesteading former environmental activist living 'beyond the pale" in Ireland, rejecting modernity and technology and civilization as just a destructive fad? He'd also be a pagan. :)
There really isn't much of a gap, I think. And there is a beautiful thread of these older Pagan beliefs persisting through quite a few threads in Christianity (George MacDonald, C.S. Lewis, Thomas Merton, and especially G.K. Chesterton, as well as mystics like Hildegard).
On the question or reality, there is a fascinating bit from a Christian writer who's name I've completely forgotten regarding the moon.
He wrote about the moon size 'illusion,' how we on earth see the moon as massive when it rises and small when it is in the highest part of the sky. Of course, the moon doesn't "really" change size, and atheist sorts are usually pretty eager to explain to the unenlightened how it's all just an illusion.
But on the other hand, the 'true' size of the moon only matters if you intend to land there and mine it. That is, the true nature of the moon's reality is a question relevant only to those who need to 'treat is as an object,' as the Tao Te Ching would put it. And Chesterton gets at this same point in Orthodoxy.
For me, the question of how all this arose in the first place isn't even an interesting question. If it can be answered, it's best left to the shamans and mystics (better them than NASA), because they tend to know that some truths should not be spoken.
My own suspicion is the same as the conclusion of the Tao Te Ching: it arises. That's generally the Greek pagan cosmological thinking as well, everything is constantly arising and becoming, and the moment you pose a linear start point and end point, you've turned processes into static objects.
Love this article and really love the dialogue between you and Paul! I super enjoyed Paul’s recent conversation with Charles Eisenstein. I would think that a video conversation between you and Paul would be fantastic and hope you will both consider that. Deepest gratitude for both of you! 🙏🏼🧡🙏🏼
Fascinating stuff, Rhyd. And I hope you had a good (pagan) Christmas.
I'm wondering where the common ground is. Maybe more than that, I am wondering what you mean by 'pagan.' Obviously originally, the word basically meant 'not Christian' - but what does it mean to you in a positive sense? It seems to mean that you don't believe there is a 'God' that created - and continues to create - reality.
I suppose the question that arises for me (a genuine question, not a challenge) is: so, how did reality arise? What created it? What is behind or outside of it? If no great intelligence is responsible, then are you not presented with a version of the problem you identify here: ie, that there is no reason not to 'rebel' and create reality in our own way?
I'm also interested in this quote:
"In this older Pagan cosmology, the goal of human life isn’t to unseat or dethrone the stars or the gods from their homes, but rather to learn how to also find our own seats and our own homes. Everything in nature is in its setl: the forest is where the forest is, the river is flowing through its home, the stars and the sun are following their own tracks across the sky just as the deer follow their own tracks across the land.
Everything is following a kind of order, but it is its own kind of order,³ an order arising from being rather than purpose. Purpose implies design, an ultimate destiny, what you were ‘put on this earth for.’ Being, on the other hand, is its own fulfillment, which is also the Tao of the Tao Te Ching."
This is not so far away from the traditional Christian worldview (there are many Christian worldviews, all squabbling with each other, but the Orthodox view sees 'God' as 'everywhere present and filling all things.') C. S. Lewis used the word 'Tao' to refer to the way of nature, which is also the way of God. A natural order within which humans should reside - not through fear of transgressing, but through wanting to live within that which was created by love.
I am rambling a bit, but I don't think the gap is as big as you might think - though of course the existence or otherwise of a loving creator is non-negotiable for a Christian. The nature of that creator, though, remains a mystery.
Happy new year,
Paul
Hey Paul!
Remind me to send you a copy of my book (I'll email you for a mailing address), as the question of what Pagan is in a positive sense is the core thrust of that book. Also I'll email you on that interview discussion, because this would be a perfect part of that conversation.
To answer that in a short form, keep in mind that Pagan (paganus) actually was a pre-Christian Roman slur for rural people who were not keeping up with the customs and fads of the civitas. The Roman Christians adopted it later to then describe everyone who wasn't part of the new formation of that civitas, but the negative connotions pre-dated Christianity.
Basically, by those original Roman standards, a homesteading former environmental activist living 'beyond the pale" in Ireland, rejecting modernity and technology and civilization as just a destructive fad? He'd also be a pagan. :)
There really isn't much of a gap, I think. And there is a beautiful thread of these older Pagan beliefs persisting through quite a few threads in Christianity (George MacDonald, C.S. Lewis, Thomas Merton, and especially G.K. Chesterton, as well as mystics like Hildegard).
On the question or reality, there is a fascinating bit from a Christian writer who's name I've completely forgotten regarding the moon.
He wrote about the moon size 'illusion,' how we on earth see the moon as massive when it rises and small when it is in the highest part of the sky. Of course, the moon doesn't "really" change size, and atheist sorts are usually pretty eager to explain to the unenlightened how it's all just an illusion.
But on the other hand, the 'true' size of the moon only matters if you intend to land there and mine it. That is, the true nature of the moon's reality is a question relevant only to those who need to 'treat is as an object,' as the Tao Te Ching would put it. And Chesterton gets at this same point in Orthodoxy.
For me, the question of how all this arose in the first place isn't even an interesting question. If it can be answered, it's best left to the shamans and mystics (better them than NASA), because they tend to know that some truths should not be spoken.
My own suspicion is the same as the conclusion of the Tao Te Ching: it arises. That's generally the Greek pagan cosmological thinking as well, everything is constantly arising and becoming, and the moment you pose a linear start point and end point, you've turned processes into static objects.
Anyway, always great to hear from you!
--Rhyd
Love this article and really love the dialogue between you and Paul! I super enjoyed Paul’s recent conversation with Charles Eisenstein. I would think that a video conversation between you and Paul would be fantastic and hope you will both consider that. Deepest gratitude for both of you! 🙏🏼🧡🙏🏼
Rhyd I love this piece, that you so much for your writing!