Déithe na Spéire | Baile | Seinnteoir | TG4

A Science/History documentary from TG4 gives viewers a revolutionary new insight into Ireland's ancient sites: Déithe na Spéire | Baile | Seinnteoir | TG4

Labels

"I don't believe what I do because I am a polytheist animist; I am a polytheist animist because of what I believe."

This is paraphrasing Paul Mitchell speaking on Druidcast Episode 51, who made a similar statement in relation to druidry. 

I came to the reconnectionist polytheist community rather late in life.  My fundamental beliefs though have remained unaltered since I was 6 years of age^.   I know this seems ridiculous given people learn and grow over their lifetime, but the core of my beliefs have not altered, rather I have expanded, and deepened my understanding of the universe and my place in it over the years.   I never really understood the whole Catholic culture within which I was raised.  I honestly thought Catholicism, indeed Christianity as a whole, was just an eloborate play put on for children.  I felt the same way about Santa Claus.

I have always believed in the ability to manipulate reality, i.e. magic – a recent thread on a forum confirmed this wherein I noted one of the books that changed my life was a book of fairytales full of people who could wield this supernatural power.  I never believed in just one god who created all (a.k.a. intelligent design), but I sort of understood an underlying energy force that permeated everything whether supposedly alive or inanimate, but I could not express this until I was much older.  I always thought I was odd because of these thoughts.   Bearing in mind I attended religious schools, everyone around me seemed deeply religious and so I felt an outsider by believing what I did.   As I grew up and moved onto another religious school, I had conversations with my principal (Sister Marcella) about how the bible could be reconciled with scientific thought.  Sister Marcella was very patient with me and gave me pause for thought, but I still felt like my beliefs were unacceptable to society as a whole.   Even through the New Age movement, I didn't quite gel with what other people said was so.

Finding the pagan religions late in life didn't really change my beliefs.  My first encounters were with neo-wicca groups and, though these groups held similar beliefs, we were never really a match.   Cue chance encounter with a heathen and suddenly hard polytheism* comes into view.   You would think I might have encountered or, at the very least, googled these religions and their names long beforehand, but the internet wasn't that big when I first found the pagan communities.  As the world wide web expanded and Wikipedia came along, I began to understand how my thoughts, seeded as a child, and now maturing, were not unusual but were the subject of study; had modern-day followers and adherents; and had names.

These days there seems to be a reluctance to use labels, but, for me, why use a long-winded monologue to express what you believe, when you can reduce it to a few words.   Finding a term for my beliefs came as a relief because I had grown up with people who identified with Catholic and Christian, just two short words that encapsulated all that they held dear, whereas I had none.

There are many words that can express a single part of me, but none that encapsulate the whole, no one word really could, when you think about it, e.g. I have more than one given name as well as my surname.   So, if you want to know more about me, here are some labels which you can attach to me:

animal, animist, bibliophile, bitch, confidante, consumer, cousin, creator, dabbler, Darwinist, daughter, descendant, destroyer, diviner, drop-out, female, fool, foreigner, friend, grand-daughter, heathen, human, immigrant, interloper, introvert, listener, niece, observer, pagan, photographer, (wannabe) poet, polytheist, predator, reader, romantic, shrew, sister, student, subject, thinker, traveller, watcher, woman ...

I will continually add to this list over the coming weeks as I do some further exploration.  Apply any of the above labels to me, if you will, I truly don't mind.  They don't define me; well, not all of me, just one small part of who I am.























^ I'm sure you've heard this before and you're sick of it, probably don't even believe it, but do read on.
* I use the term hard to distinguish between those polytheists that believe all god/esses are one god/ess, and those who believe as I do that all are separate individuals/identities.  In no way does the use of hard imply my beliefs are truer or superior to those of soft polytheists.

Revelation

In concentrating on my own pursuits, I have come to learn something I found rather surprising.   The religion in which I grew up, the religion I thought was wholly ingrained in one line of my family is only three generations deep.

As it turns out, my links to Ireland are to a protestant line in all but one branch of my family tree.  The conversion is mostly likely because of my ancestors married a Catholic and, at the time, the church required those marrying a Catholic convert before marriage.

I have found it interesting to learn there are practices within my family line that would be considered dubious, if not wholly unacceptable by the church and to learn that there are two definite lines along which my predecessors were known for certain things that might fall under the heading of psychic or magical.  Until I explored my personal beliefs and came to my current path, I had never heard these things discussed, yet the more I delved into my family tree, the more my family became open to discussing those who came before and, given my interests, provided me with information which they thought relevant.

I don't claim to come from a long line of witches - certainly no-one in my family wants to be associated with such a term - but what modern day pagans and witches might term magical practices or psychic ability certainly has shown itself in my family's past, they just didn't use the same terms I might.   I have found it suprising, always believing I was the only one who held such interests.   To learn, just last year that one of my cousins (whom I thought devoutly Catholic) is heavily into Crowley was also somewhat of a shock.

I have had some very interesting conversations with my grandmother about her little nuances but the idea that I might equate this with a religion or magical practices is abhorrent to her as she is extremely anti-religion/faith, being a confirmed atheist.   Even so, her knowledge of certain areas is invaluable to me and, if I can catch her in the right frame of mind, we have interesting discussions about "knowing".

All in all, I realise now that rather than look to the outside for inspiration, or influence I should have been looking to my own clan all along.

Truth v. Intolerance

Once again, I find myself worked up over the dissemination of misinformation by pagans - the catalyst for this blog post being the celebration of St. Patrick's Day.   This year, and last the Wild Hunt have done an excellent post on the matter of St Patrick and his supposed "genocide of the druids".

For me, it's important to get as close to the truth as possible, especially with regard to historical matters but, for others, "gut feelings" and wild supposition is just as valid proof as personal letters and biographies.  It seems some pagans want to play the game of martyrdom themselves and will rely on fabrications to do so. Myself, I am not into denigrating other religions just for the sake of it, though sometimes I am happy to criticise my fellow pagans. Some of my best religious discussions have been with those of another faith. Thus, I find myself intolerant of those pagans who would spout spurious information to all and sundry, disregarding reason to do so and without thought to the detrimental effect on others, especially when it appears to be no more than petty point scoring.  It would appear that critical thinking, and fact-checking is not an admiral trait in some pagan circles. 

I wish I wasn't this intolerant; I wish I could just let things lie and walk away, but somehow I can't. I get myself embroiled in these pointless arguments and when I request source materials but get no sensible response, I find myself getting frustrated, annoyed and then angry.

Let's face it, though it is just no good arguing with sheep.

I find myself intolerant of those that are happy to be sheeple* yet I have no right to be so. After all, isn't ignorance bliss, and what gives me the right to judge?  Perhaps this is something I should work on?   I have walked away from a lot of pagan groups, events and websites because I just couldn't stand the lack of common sense or individual thought amongst attendees.  Maybe it's that time again?  Time to walk away and stick with those who are happy to have questions asked of them; those who willingly point me in the direction of source materials enabling me to do the research myself and reach my own conclusions or, at the very least, eliminate a few theories and/or return with further questions.

What can I do to improve on this intolerance?  I suppose I could always become a real hermit, so I only have to be mindful of myself.   Or, I could stick to those fellow pagans who think as I do ... but then ... isn't that just avoiding the issue?  I could give up searching for the truth, facts, accuracy, or substantiated claims.   I have ruled out becoming a sheeple myself.   Are there any other options? 

Thoughts anyone?














* Those who act like sheep and run with the herd without question, even over a cliff.

What I Believe ... continued

Further to my post of 18 February 2009, "What I Believe", I have considered other people's ideas and am now able to add to my list:
I believe in:

1. the pre-Christian gods of the British Isles;
2. genius loci, i.e. spirits of place and/or landscape;
3. animism, i.e. spirits in plants, animals and some objects scientist might deign inanimate;
   ancestor worship;
4. an energy, or force that permeates everything, though I am unsure as to its source (it could be the gods, or perhaps they are a part of it, like us);
5. the effectiveness of magic and/or witchcraft, i.e. the ability of humans to source and utilise that energy and/or force;
6. the ability to craft magic is unconnected with religious beliefs;
7. crafting magic is a gift, in the blood, not a skill anyone can harness;
8. the connectiveness of all, not unlike the heathen Web of Wyrd;
9. the gods are separate from us, external, not something we project;
10. (most of) the gods/goddesses are separate individuals and not aspects of just one;
11. the gods are superior to us in some ways, mostly their ability to wield power/magic/energy;
12. the gods are fallible, just like us;
13. there are planes of existence other than this one, and they touch at certain points, even interact, with ours;
14. it is possible to know the non-human denizens of the Otherworlds, such as the Sidhe and other beings, and that we can communicate with them.

I am sure I will add to this list as time goes on and I read the offerings from other pagans.

A belief in in god[/gods] infers you are stupid??

So, I was home yesterday and had the chance to watch daytime TV. On "The Wright Stuff", they were discussing how a belief in God was almost absent from those of higher intelligence. There apparently had been reports of a study stating that 699 out of 700 nobel prize winners had no belief in god and, thus, that believing in god meant you were stupid. The topic originated from the following article:

Intelligence is a predictor of religious scepticism, a professor has argued.

Belief in God is much lower among academics than among the general population because scholars have higher IQs, a controversial academic claimed this week.

In a forthcoming paper for the journal Intelligence, Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, will argue that there is a strong correlation between high IQ and lack of religious belief and that average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 countries.

In the paper, Professor Lynn - who has previously caused controversy with research linking intelligence to race and sex - says evidence points to lower proportions of people holding religious beliefs among "intellectual elites".

The paper - which was co-written with John Harvey, who does not report a university affiliation, and Helmuth Nyborg, of the University of Aarhus, Denmark - cites studies including a 1990s survey that found that only 7 per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. A survey of fellows of the Royal Society found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God at a time when a poll reported that 68.5 per cent of the general UK population were believers.

Professor Lynn told Times Higher Education: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

He said that most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many began to have doubts and became agnostics.

He added that most Western countries had seen a decline of religious belief in the 20th century at the same time as their populations had become more intelligent.

Andy Wells, senior lecturer in psychology at the London School of Economics, said the existence of a correlation between IQ and religiosity did not mean there was a causal relationship between the two.

Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck, University of London, said that any examination of the decline of religious belief needed to take into account a wide and complex range of social, economic and historical factors.

He added: "Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response."

Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at the University of Leeds, said that Professor Lynn's arguments appeared to have "a slight tinge of intellectual elitism and Western cultural imperialism as well as an antireligious sentiment".

David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt intuitions.

Source: Times Higher Education.

Now, I know the report relates to the xian god or a single god, but what about polytheists and/or pagans who believe in a higher energy/source/[insert appropriate name here]? Are we considered less intelligent again?

For my part, and given the (what I believe to be) genuine pagans with whom I have contact, I would dispute this. Many have degrees or are in the process of higher education and, from what I can see, also have high IQs. I know that I am in the top 10 percentile for intelligence, and I believe in more than one god.

Personally, I think belief is more dependent on how you were raised. If you grew up in a household where religion played a factor (regardless of it being xian or non-xian), you are more likely to continue on some spiritual practices, whereas if you were raised in a family where rational thought was more valued, you are less likely to explore the unexplainable, or anything that may require faith.

To my mind, Profess Lynn's argument is flawed as it does not explore the backgrounds of the nobel prize winners. What's more, I thought Rev. Desmond Tutu was a prize winner, so it he the only believer?

I wonder what the rest of the polytheist and/or pagan community might feel about this.