What Exactly is Paganism and Where Exactly do we stand?

I must thank Mr. Mandrill for his thoughtful response and for engaging in this dialogue in the spirit in which it was intended. Let us hope this serves as a template for how disagreements should be handled and discourse conducted in our circles in the future. Mr. Mandrill's “The State of Paganism: The Four-Fold Path” can be roughly divided into three sections: What is Modern Paganism; Mr. Mandrill's place within that tradition matrix and an attempt to engage with my objections to paganism. Let us call these three elements the Meta; differing views on the nature of Paganism and the Objection to Paganism.



The Meta: In the first portion my interlocutor admits the current chaotic state of paganism and why it is easier to engage with Christian thought than Pagan thought. As he states:

“As someone who grew up Catholic, I find that I understand Christians and their doctrinal differences much better than they understand me. I feel like I do most of the talking in the discussions for that reason.”


In light of this fact and that a general reading audience might not be familiar with our conversation at the Old Glory Club event this June, one can see why my interlocutor went into detail explaining the four modes of recovering knowledge of paganism: The Protestant Method; the Hippy Method; the Anthropologist Method and the combined Method (which includes all three). In short, the Protestant Method is textual, the Hippy method is experiential and the Anthropological method is driven by an understanding of the time in which the works were written as a guide to understand their meaning. Combined each technique can be seen as correcting for the deficiency in one or the others. This three-fold method combined into a fourth method mirrors the classical political schema of Aristotle and Cicero where the three forms of government are combined into a fourth which compensates for the failures in each of the three, by incorporating them into one unified whole. As a pure method, I think it would not be hard to convince Christians that this would work for understanding their sacred texts. While it is a running joke, Mr. Mandrill is holding back on his definition of paganism. His weaponized autism could go on for hours. Matching this fourfold method to what we discussed I would say my interlocutor ably and succinctly described those positions.

Differing views on the nature of Paganism:

The area I did not expect as much reaction to was something a bit more subtle and not my intent to get into, but as it turns out, might be inevitable given our differing conceptions of what it is to be a pagan. As my interlocutor said the state of modern paganism is rather eclectic and chaotic. While one can speak of paganism in the abstract and formal basis in any conversation it will inevitably take on more concert and intra-subjective form. This is all the more challenging for the pagan as he cannot easily point to an existing tradition to become a part of and find expression that way. Some of the books and authors that my interlocutor cites are Folktales in the Indo-European Tradition; the Ancient City; Arthur E. Waite; Georges Dumezil and others I am not at all familiar with and therefore help me understand the position he is coming from less than he might expect. In the effort of putting all the cards on the table let me talk about what I think of when I think of paganism. In high school, I read the Greco-Roman myths in an excellent volume “Gods and Heroes of Ancient Greece by Gustav Schwab.” Homer's Iliad and Odyssey twice and Virgil's Aeneid. In addition to this, I have read some of the Prose Edda's from the collection The Sagas of Icelanders from Penguin Press including Egil's Saga and the Vineland Sagas as well as some familiarity with Egyptian myths. My interlocutor objects to me including Egyptian mythology in with Greco-Roman myth. He says:

“That “connection” via occult myth, was DEBOONKED even a century ago by people like Arthur E Waite. Hermeticism is nonsense in my view.”

The Egypt connection, as I shall call it, can be discussed on two levels the esoteric and the exoteric. I am more familiar with the exoteric and the latter is easier to verify via the Protestant Method, the first of the three modes my interlocutor appeals to in reconstructing ancient Paganism. If we look at the exoteric connection to Egypt it is clear. Pythagoras learned mathematics and esoteric truths from the Egyptians according to Porphyry; Solon went to Egypt to learn from the wisdom of the Egyptian priests as described by Herodotus in his Histories; Plato in the Critias and Timeas and Plutarch in the Life of Solon, and when Alexander the Great goes to Egypt he visits the priest of Siwa and is declared the son of Amun-Ra. The Greeks do not indicate in their written record that they viewed Egypt as a barbarian culture. If anything, Egypt can be viewed as a sister civilization. In myth and history, we see non-Greeks before the Roman era dignified with peer status the Phrygians and Lydians from which we get the legends of Midas and Croesus and the Egyptians as already indicated. Plutarch in his life of Alexander connects a line about the Pharos in the Odyssey to Alexander choosing that site for Alexandria. How much credence we might want to give to esoteric, Masonic, or Hermetic speculations of a connection is a separate issue, though again many Greeks in both myth and philosophy accepted this truth about Egypt as well.

In addition, my conception of paganism is formed by reading the historical texts themselves. Unlike the Germanic/Norse tradition, the Greeks and Romans left us writings of their own beliefs in their languages. In Medieval times Catholic scribes wrote down pagan Norse beliefs and practices. This is the great challenge for modern Norse Paganism they are indebted to Catholic Christians for their “scriptures.” As soon as anyone doesn't like where the conversation is going they can always say “Christians added it to make us look bad.” The results will be predictable (insert Riley Freeman from the Boondocks throwing the fold-up chair). If we look at how actual Greeks and Romans in history reacted to Egypt the result is that they viewed Egypt as an older brother who gives the wisdom of the ancients to those who are worthy: “You Hellenes are ever children and there is no knowledge among you hoary with age,”: Pythagoras, Solon, and Alexander the Great all show this. From the end of the Second Greco-Persian War till 336 BC there was on again off again support for native Egyptian revolutions against Persian rule by the Greeks. When I hear Egyptian civilization and religious traditions are not intimately tied to Western civilization, I have to say this doesn't sound like any paganism I am familiar with. As I do not wish this initially tertiary issue to become dominant I will return to my intellectual critique of Paganism. This is not to indicate that such a question as differing understandings of paganism is unimportant, but that this was not my intent to address and my arguments stand irrespective of one's given understanding of paganism. I will invoke my interlocutor's Anthropological definition of Paganism and argue if the Egyptians were homies for the Greeks and Romans, they should be for him as well. If my interlocutor would, at some time in the future, wish to discuss in a live stream what is paganism then I think that could be arranged.

The Objection to Paganism:

The areas in which my interlocutor engaged with my intellectual arguments against paganism can be labeled “the Prime Mover Argument;” “the Action Economy Argument;” and “X-with steps argument.” Let me begin by mentioning what my interlocutor did not discuss which is my argument from Existence, unless by this he means the prime mover argument. I will return to this point later.

Prime Mover: The main point here is that my interlocutor objects to this argument because it makes a presupposition that time has a starting point and moves in a linear fashion. Since this presupposition cannot be proven one way or the other, it is out of bounds. He appeals to the principle of Eternal Recurrence to justify a cyclical universe. First I am not making the Aristotelian argument from the prime mover in my Argument from Existence. Secondly, Aristotle himself did not believe in a linear timeline for the universe but thought that the universe was eternally generated by the Prime Mover contemplating his existence and thereby causing motion. So even if I was making the Prime Mover argument, it does not depend on the assumption of linear time.

Action Economy:

1 Kings 18:27-28: And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.” So they cried aloud, and cut themselves, as was their custom, with knives and lances, until the blood gushed out on them.

My interlocutor's position as I see it is this: a partial admission that “yeah you cannot pray to all the gods and make them all equally happy,” this would be a problem if the real issue weren't the importance of performing the proper rites at the right time. This moves the argument from doing everything all the gods want you to do to just pleasing some of the gods in just the right way they wish to be pleased. By applying this insight, he attempts to explain why Paganism lost. I assume he means that Christianity in not needing such rites, was able to force paganism to fight on its terms and simultaneously destroyed how pagans could perform these rites, or maybe he means the Catholics sniped those rites? At this point, I cannot tell and wait for his clarification. Lastly with this distinction made he makes the “It's in Decline Bro” argument:”

“Is it really fair to judge a system by the symptoms of its decline? Perhaps.”

This is quite an unexpected response. What logically follows next is that all of his criticisms of Christianity must be reevaluated. If you are attacking Christianity for the manifestations of symptoms of decline, that raises the specter of unfairness. What is good for the pagans is good for the Christians, to mix a metaphor. Can I get signed in writing that Mr. Mandrill will drop all charges against Christianity that are manifestations of decline? While this might sound tongue-in-cheek, well it is a bit, this would go a long way in building goodwill in our circles on which to engage in future discourse.


I will say I find this argument unconvincing. I do admit there is a certain ambiguity in what my interlocutor means by why paganism lost and I might be missing the point there. But when we appeal to “Decline Bro” I think I would say these aspects are present in a full-throated and vibrant paganism. With the cheeky reference to Elijah mocking the priest Baal, we do see an important representation of my concern. In the Iliad, we read that Hera uses the magical girdle of Aphrodite to seduce Zeus into love so that he is unaware of what is transpiring on the battlefield. So the pagan might set up his sacrifices and get the rites just right and then he gets the annoying holding tone on his phone, then he speaks with Mt. Olympus' customer service; hey I need Zeus' help to defeat the Greeks, where is he! Customer Service: Well you see, Zeus is getting it on with Hera. Pagan: When will he be finished? We need help! Customer Service: No idea, shrugs, Hera is using the girdle of Aphrodite. Pagan: Shit we're screwed. If you cannot even be sure that the head of your pantheon will hear you in prayer what exactly are you doing? Monotheism in many ways bypasses this problem entirely.

One might say OK, but what about the Odyssey? Ulysses has three main gods he worships Zeus (a no-brainer); Athena (wisdom) and Apollo (knowledge). In this schema, Homer is trying to deal with the contradiction I spoke of. Ulysses does not and cannot keep all the gods happy, especially Poseidon, he has to pick his patron deities with care and even then he has a 10-year travelogue written about him by Homer. The problem is Homer's solution is not one many pagans would be happy with using reason and wisdom to overcome pride. Think about the Polypheous incident it was Ulysses' pride that had him boast of his name to the Cyclopes and incur Poseidon's wrath. By overcoming his pride, Ulysses returns to Ithaca.

What is the point of this appeal to Homer? To show that the problem of action economy is there at the beginning. You have no confidence that Zeus will even hear your prayer let alone respond to it in the way you hope he will. This leaves a lot of doubt. Furthermore, paganism is syncretic by nature and will always seek to add more gods and goddesses to the pantheon, so if we agree that “too many gods” is a sign of bloat and decay, I think we have found the mechanism by which even pristine paganism will irresistibly move in this direction.

Before I delve into the intermediary question I want to reiterate my core objection to paganism, or more precisely polytheism. Polytheism means the worship of many gods and in this context, I think my interlocutor and I agree on what that means. The action economy argument and X-with-steps argument are probabilistic arguments against polytheism without necessarily asking the polytheist to step outside of his mental space. The core argument of existence will do just that. To be clear I am not denying that there are intermediary spiritual beings that stand above man in the created order, there are. The disagreement lies in the nature of these beings. Specifically are they worthy of worship? In the Classical Pagan tradition certain claims are made of these gods, claims I believe are false. The power in such claims is that they are appealing to a power higher still than themselves, while simultaneously obscuring this higher power's nature and existence. My argument in its simplest form is this: “In any given polytheistic pantheon none of the gods are the explanation of their existence and therefore are not worthy of worship.” In philosophy, there is an axiomatic consensus on the existence of things: a thing may exist due to some external cause or a thing may exist in that it explains its existence. This gets at the issue of contingency vs. necessity. In classical philosophy all things, but one are caused by external things, that is God. Why God? Because we cannot have an infinite regress of causation. If every x has to appeal to a y to explain why it exists we get nowhere. There must be something or as I argued in my essay someone who possesses aseity and solves this problem of existence for us. That being we call God and this establishes my “Mere Deism” thesis. I did not see my interlocutor engage with this point unless he attempted to deal with Aristotle's Prime Mover argument, which was not where I was going. In either case, I will have to await my interlocutor's response.

X-with steps: My interlocutor does not directly engage with the “X-with steps argument,” maybe he thinks his dealing with Action Economy was sufficient? Instead, he moves into his concluding remarks. He invokes the NRx Triangle and seeks to superimpose the Christian Bro vs. Pagan Bro discussion onto it. Protestants at the extreme are the Individualist point, the real debate is who is mapped onto the communist point? I invoke a truce with Odin-son to say that the Catholics are the communists among us, Thomas More is on the line. He wrote a book about an ideal communist community called Utopia. He then moves into further metaphor with allusions to the material sciences in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. I don't see where he is going with that. Maybe he can explain in the next essay? He then moves into his final point that reality is materially based:

“The evolutionary benefit of pre-rational belief in oneself and one’s tribe is that the individual can be motivated to continue existing despite adversity and encroaching nihilism. This seems to me, to be the evolutionary reason for why human religious systems exist despite real and tangible costs. Therefore, spirituality flows out from the biological and not the other way around.”

This is where I think a major point of departure develops in our methodologies. I believe that all material reality is downstream from mental and metaphysical phenomena (this puts me in more in the Platonist camp) whereas my interlocutor believes mental and metaphysical phenomena are downstream from material reality (this puts him in a more Aristotelian camp). While an important difference I do not believe this explains his polytheism, since Aristotle believed in one creator God with a similar presupposition.

I will reiterate for the sake of clarity that I do not think that any of the three arguments I proposed against paganism were adequately addressed those being Action Economy, X-with Steps, and Existence. Given that paganism, in my estimation, fails at each of these points we have a first-principles reason for rejecting paganism or to be more clear polytheism entirely. This leaves us with “Mere Monotheism,” or “Mere Deism” as a starting point for further discussions trending toward acceptance and conversion to Christianity.

In conclusion, I see three major fault lines developing whereas I only really started engaging with one that night with Mr. Mandrill on a weekend during the OGC event in the year of our Lord 2024: (1) ontology; (2) what is Paganism; (3) what drives belief biology or psychology.

I didn't see a lot of engagement with the argument from existence. The appeal to “paganism in decline bro” I argue is unsatisfying for many reasons including natural drift, we find this problem early in the record and it must suck being a Trojan calling Mt. Olympus' customer service and realizing you're going to get shellacked by the Greeks because Zeus was busy getting it on with a goddess.

What is Paganism will likely evolve into a broader discussion. There are many assumptions I have about Pagan belief and praxis from both reading historical texts and mythic texts from the classical era. To what extent we differ on the readings of such texts seems to have already shown itself with regards to Egypt, Hermes Thrice Great is not amused.

With the last bit on the sciences, I think I might see what my interlocutor is getting at with an appeal to Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, that is I am working from a theory down and he is working from a live experience up. Well as was already conceded modern paganism is not a lived tradition at present. As I said I think the Plato v. Aristotle angle on the forms is really where we are beginning to see some differences. I don't like physics so I can just come out and say: No, I am not a crypto-physicist.

While not an exact analogy the three methods for rediscovering paganism that my interlocutor appeals to are not very far methodologically from the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a rubric used by Protestants to evaluate how much you weigh various inputs into one's understanding of scripture. There is scripture; tradition; reason and experience. Scripture here is analogous to your textualist approach, experience is analogous to your New-Age approach and Tradition is analogous to your Historicist approach. In using the Wesleyan quadrilateral I believe we share a similar underlying methodology in trying to understand the religious positions were are propounding.

This is already a long essay and I will await my interlocutor's future response.