What Atheists Can Learn From Pagans

[rug]

November 16, 2014 by Rua Lupa

First off, lets clear the air of any ideas of what this author is and is not – I am an atheist, though I prefer naturalist (as in naturalism). I also fall under the Pagan umbrella due to my nature based practices. So I am speaking from a shared perspective and not of being on one side critiquing another.

Secondly, I would like to acknowledge that there are a great many atheists who are not vocal about their worldviews and prefer to keep to themselves on the subject. This is about the more vocal members of the atheist worldview – especially those who debate in the public sphere and are out to prove everyone else is wrong. Pagans are certainly not immune to this, but there are much fewer incidences by comparison, by a long shot. And this article is to look at how that is, even though this sphere holds a lot of very different and often opposing views.

Debating remains a vital part of human discourse and shouldn’t be discouraged. It helps challenge long held beliefs that have come to be expected to be true just because that is the way it always has been – or so it appears to be from your lifetime experience. Such debates can help us shake off things that we find to be not good, and thus help us move in a better direction in life. Debates cease being good when it no longer acknowledges what the other side of the debate has to say and are essentially speaking to yourself. Even if the other side may have a valid point. As far as my own experience goes, most sides have a valid point and we mustn’t forget that the other side is human too and should avoid demonizing or belittling the person who hold views different from you. And yes, even if they started it. Its the subject that should be debated, not a person’s character. Who ever enters a debate attacking someones character does a great disservice to the debate and to themselves.

Being naturalistic myself while moving through the Pagan sphere has me rub elbows with a LOT of worldviews that greatly differ from my own, and that I simply don’t agree with for various reasons. But we maintain a human respect for one another all the while. In fact, Pagans and Atheists have worked together on a number of issues already – especially when it comes to religious rights, freedoms and particularly the separation of State and Religion. And unlike what a lot of Christians think of these two groups, we’re not out to get Christians. Its about treating everyone equally and respecting each others human rights, as opposed to having any one religion be favored over others in government. Whether it be Hindu, Muslim, Shinto, Buddhism, or Pagan. That’s it. We’re normally more interested in our own affairs and have little interest in influencing Christianity itself. Likely just as much as Christians would have interest in influencing Jainism.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/pathsthroughtheforests/2014/11/16/what-atheists-can-learn-from-pagans/#ixzz3JFvpI3ur


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/pathsthroughtheforests/2014/11/16/what-atheists-can-learn-from-pagans/

[msongs]

1. superstitions can be fine so long as they are not imposed on others who don't share them nt

[cbayer]

2. The world in general, and the internet in particular, needs more people like this author.

The commonalities are quite interesting. I think many, if not most, people yearn for community, structure, ritual. For those who don't do churches, there are other opportunities.

He does a good job of describing what the options could be.

[Cartoonist]

3. He fails to address a significant difference.

The rejection of Science by the superstitious. Vaccines, climate change, stem cell research, to name a few, are compromised by the religious. Evolution and the age of the Earth are rejected by many of the faithful. This all contributes to the dumbing down of the populace. This is one of my primary objections to religion. I don't believe Pagans reject science to any significant degree.



I would have included the larger image so that you can read the sign on the left, but large files cause problems. So I will Painstakingly transcribe it. Note that it's by an archdeacon, so I am not making the claim that all believers are idiots.

Text:
No one who is acquainted with the history of science, and has sufficient honesty to accept facts, can possibly deny that scarcely a single truth of capital importance in science has ever been enunciated without having to struggle for life aginst the fury of theological dogmatists.When, as is too often the case, a preacher poses as Sir Oracle against some scientific theory, while he is as concpicuously ignorant of science as he is of most other subjects, he presents a spectacle which is ridiculous alike to Gods and Men.
Archdeacon Farrar

[cbayer]

4. He is comparing pagans and atheists, not pagans and religions.

not the religious and pagans.

I think you may have missed this thread which provides evidence that science denial is correlated more with political ideology than with religion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218162347

I do agree that science and religion have often gone toe to toe and that the greatest scientific discoveries have had to battle against the religious dogma of the time.

But science generally wins in the long run, and religion has contributed mightily to scientific discovery in many ways.

I agree that those who deny science create a problem that extends beyond their own personal borders.

But I also think that attacking them will only drive them further into their corners.

As many great scientists that I admire have said, the science must be presented in a way that does not completely rob people of their beliefs.

This is how science has prevailed in the past and how it will prevail in the future.

At any rate, that is not what this article is about.

[Cartoonist]

5. He is saying what we can learn from Pagans.

I have no quarrel with Pagans. His article does not address the scientific schism between believers and non-believers, so Pagans have nothing to teach atheists in this regard. The article is more of an appeal to tolerance. Well meaning, but still misses the important stuff.

And no, I didn't miss that other thread. I have disagreements with it's conclusions as well.

[cbayer]

6. You are right, he doesn't address that because that is not his topic.

I think he makes some excellent point about what paganism offers that non-believers might find attractive or useful. It really has nothing to do with science.

He also makes excellent points about tolerance and embracing others even if you don't share their beliefs.

I'm not sure there is anything more important than tolerance when it comes to religious beliefs. I think it is prejudice, hate and bigotry that are the biggest problems when it comes to religion. You bring up examples of that frequently. That's a street that runs in every direction and is only destructive.

That doesn't mean that beliefs that cause harm should not be countered and challenged. I think they should be. However, for beliefs that cause not harm or even, god forbid, lead to actual good, I object to blind attacks on them.

What do you disagree with in the other article. I think the data is clear and his statistical analysis of that data very thorough.

You may not like the conclusion, but it would be hard to refute it. I am willing to hear your refutation if you want to share it.

[Fumesucker]

8. There are plenty of people who think atheism causes harm

Or Islam or Harry Potter and Halloween for that matter.

That's the problem, what you see as harmless I may well see as being harmful and vice versa. Which is why tolerance is not as simple as you often make it out to be. A great many Christians in America think tolerance means they get to put their religion in everyone's faces because they are the majority.

Cleek's Law applies almost as much to conservative Christians as it does to Republicans..

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Internet_law#Cleek.27s_Law

Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

[cbayer]

9. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but you know that

is not the kind of tolerance I am talking about. Tolerance is about how you treat the other, not about your right to impose what you believe or don't believe on someone else.

[rug]

7. The "the dumbing down of the populace' explains a lot of the posts I read in here.