I admire your work and I have to say your criticisms and critiques of movements are usually very solid, especially your criticism of the Alt-Right back in the day. That's where I think it's really a shame you've so dramatically missed the mark on this one, to the extent that I could only conclude you've either not talked to any intelligent Pagans or that you're ignoring some of the stronger arguments. (The dreaded word "strawman" comes to mind?)
For instance, in the first core critique of Christianity by Pagans, you merely say Christianity is responsible for progressivism and then agree partially in that you consider progressivism a Christian heresy. I think you ignore the much more fundamental and I’d argue more widespread right-wing Pagan argument that Christianity is a fundamentally leftist and progressive religion, that Jesus himself preached as fundamental values of pacifism, forgiveness, universalism, egalitarianism, and anti-elitism. Viewed properly, progressivism is the truest and most genuine interpretation of Christianity, and the past healthy, masculine, traditional, and hierarchical forms of Christianity are Pagan-influenced corruptions of the genuine faith. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature, and that ironically the only reason the software was working correctly is because it’s been bugged.
I also take exception to the analogy that if the heart isn’t working, it should be ripped out. That seems to view Christianity as something so integral to Western civilization and humanity at large that it could not function without it, like a heart, but that’s clearly wrong in view of history. The Roman Empire reached its height in physical power, morality, technology, and culture without Christianity, as did the Greeks, the Egyptians, and so on. This argument is also dismissive of Bronze Age civilizations beyond the Mediterranean, which while not leaving as strong of a written record as Christian Europe still birthed many great peoples, great stories, and great cultures.
These are just two illustrative examples of a general pattern of sloppy misrepresentation of Pagan arguments throughout this essay. As a practicing Asatruar I was eager to hear your viewpoint and am always open to strong arguments against what has come to be my own faith, but I’m disappointed. I feel you would benefit from an actual constructive dialogue with an intelligent Pagan or reading a stronger Pagan critique of Christianity rather than responding to what I can only conclude are poorly-thought out comments or posts on internet forums.
I have to say: this was certainly more combative than my essay! Then again, I completely understand. Having this kind of rhetoric being lobbed at Christians time and again is vomit-inducing, and it is especially infuriating when it comes from people who claim that they are on "our side."
Your final point is key to this. I often see pagans asking for a mutual respect from Christians, and due to the nature of the Faith, this cannot be given. We can respect that pagans have different beliefs, but we cannot view their beliefs as equal to ours. What's funny about that is that Christians are often accused of being "egalitarians" by pagans. We are not egalitarians by any simple understanding of biblical truth in any domain, but on top of that, we certainly do not believe other belief systems are equal to ours (that would be a heresy). To be blunt, I think the desire, as you mention, of pagans to be seen as equals to Christians by Christians is one of the main things that signal--for lack of a better word--an absence of "authenticity" to pagan practice from a Christian perspective.
Until the very end, this was an admirably measured and fair-minded critique. I would suggest almost too fair-minded. To me, the core issues with neo-paganism are twofold: that it is essentially ahistorical, and that it has no meaningful praxis.
On the former, neo-paganism is self-consciously ahistorical in some ways, it seeks to 'revive' pagan practice and belief but admits there has to be some creative licence in this as true pagan tradition has not been preserved intact into the modern age.
This is part of paganism's appeal, but also its great weakness - 'believers' are basically just making stuff up and projecting their own political values onto vague claims about honouring ancestors. It's especially acute for right wing pagans claiming to defend the core of western civilization - yes, Rome prospered under paganism and fragmented under Christianity, but pagans are weirdly eager to dismiss the past 1500 years, in which Europe conquered the world, as irrelevant (or, perhaps, achieved *despite* Christianity rather than *because* of it).
On the latter, I have yet to meet a truly practising pagan and I don't expect to encounter one any time soon. There are no pagan doctrines, no institutions, no moral instructions or hard and fast beliefs. I appreciate that polytheism is vaguer on some of these issues than the great monotheistic faiths, but meeting up in the woods to have a bonfire and invoke Odin is not religion, it is a LARP. Internal, deeply held fidelity to extrinsic deities and their moral demands is religious faith - dancing round maypoles or cutting up pig entrails is all externality, it doesn't mean anything and smacks of pretentiousness (at best). When I see 'organised paganism' I might take neopagans more seriously, but there are no solid principles for it organise around.
I recently re-read the Iliad, and what really stood out to me was the concept of virtue. The gods of the Homeric tradition are quixotic, to say the least, and it is arguably the humans on both sides of the Achaean-Trojan war that are the true heroes. There is such a display of virtue by both Achilles and HEctor, both of whom are flawed in major ways and yet heroically resign themselves to the mutual demise they know is coming. For all the flaws of pagan society (which were critiqued by Plato and Aristotle LOOOONG before Christianity even existed) they had a sense of virtue that simply doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for a good hundred years or so. Neo-Pagans are LARPERs of the wignat variety: they are merely trying to be "cute", and don't actually have any beliefs or even comprehensible opinions on anything. They are far too busy yelling thing like "ye gods" and trying to convince us that pre-scientific folklore is more believable than theism within a modern framework to actually ask themselves what their spiritual system even is or what pragmatic purpose it serves in pulling society together. They have no concept of the virtues of their ancestors, and no interest in resurrecting them. The fact that their current life style and aesthetics would be considered cringe, if not shameful by anyone living even five hundred years ago much less in pre-Christian times, doesn't even occur to them.
This may be a good time to mention that the original "vanities" thrown on the bonfire destroyed the artwork, the material culture produced under the patronage of Lorenzo di Medici. Was that dialectic Christian Savonarola vs. Pagan di Medici or (proto) Protestant Savonarola vs. Catholic di Medici, or was it the iconoclastic heresy rearing its ugly head against beautiful Christianity?
This article doesn't contain the words 'jew', 'torah', 'judaism', 'hebrew' or 'testament'. Key words in my primary criticism of Christianity. Nice attempt other than that.
As an extension of 4 I frequently see this Idea that Christianity is a hostile foreign belief system not native to Europe thrown around by specifically those championing Norse religion. It seems queer to me because to most of Europe that is just as hostile and foreign of a belief system that was not native to their area but it certainly is better known than whatever pre-Christian religion that existed there. Because that specific tradition is dead and forgotten they seem to think that they have been given the right to assume its place as they are "genuine" European belief system unlike Christianity. The likely-hood of more than some tiny offshoots of my family tree practicing it's historical version is very low and it would be beyond a larp for someone like myself to adopt it out of some sense of it being the real belief system of my ancient ancestors.
A better debate to have is whether to embrace a detached, faith-based approache to religiousity. This applies both to Pagans and Churchians or to embrace a hands-on experiential approach imho.
Something interesting I've begun to notice when talking to pagans (and atheists)—they don't seem to comprehend sincere conviction. The first thing they do is when you engage is enter into a dialectic in which historical facts and philosophy are used in an attempt to demonstrate why Christianity is false or bad. Anyone who understands sincere religious conviction should realize that it is impossible to argue someone out of the position simply with facts and logic. They should also understand why getting my to question my faith would immediately provoke a hostile demeanor. I've also noticed the tactic of attempting to get a Christian to feel guilt over things Christians have done to pagans—this is a mirror image of the left wing white guilt tactic. Again, why would anyone who understood sincere conviction think that this would be a good idea? It's for this reason that I question the degree to which pagans actually have any sincere conviction, since they clearly don't understand it at all. Obligatory #NotAll. For example, a pagan would say that Christianity is bad because it destroyed native religions. On the opposite side, I would never say that the native beliefs were false because Christianity destroyed them. This would obviously be a stupid thing for me to say, if I believed that my interlocutor actually held the native beliefs in any capacity. Yet pagans do this
To your point that ancestor worship doesn't make sense because our Christian ancestors would abhor it, I suspect a pagan would respond "exactly, Christianity alienates us from our ancestors".
Most pagans or vitalists probably don't view civilization as inherently good or bad, having more babies as the top indicator of societal health or that anti nomianism is inherently bad. You're projecting these mid 20th century middle class values onto us when in fact almost nobody else besides a small minority of Christians believes these things. From our perspective, many left hand path pagan traditions are/were antinomian, having more babies without a vitalistic culture for them to live under does nothing but contribute to the yeastification of life, and an indicator of a civilization's health is the feats of greatness that it is able to achieve.
Anyway arguing for Christianity is pointless because it has been dying for hundreds of years straight with no signs of recovery whatsoever. It's successor progressive strain is much more well adapted to the modern world and people who believe in the universalist egalitarian values of Christianity will just follow that. If there is a second religiosity it would have been something new that's able to summon up more vital energy. Paganism, transhumanism or practically anything else seems more likely than Christianity.
I was pagan for a good portion of my life, but I was never much into the larping, "return to our ancestors", or the political/historical side of things. I was primarily someone looking for the more primordial truths of the world through a few knowledgeable friends and self-study/experimentation.
I can at least partially answer that comment on a "vagueness" you experienced. Simple disclaimer, everything I'm saying is anecdotal self-observance. But hey, maybe it will be useful.
One thing about pagans, or at least the ones taking the spiritual part of it seriously, is that there is a shared idea that their practices are uncovering forgotten "truths". Whether that be old rituals, energy work, or even kitchen witches, each practice is in its own way making steps to learn about something that feels fundamental more real and closer to the source of things. As you spend more time as a pagan, this feeling of a more "core" way of being can leave folks feeling as if when words are being used, they come up lacking without some emotional feeling, mental image, or other such subconscious remembrance. As if the words just don't fit what the person is trying to say.
As for why this happens might relate to the Christian gift of discernment, but in one way or another, pagans tend to believe in that feeling behind the words more than the words themselves. They use more general vocabulary where more descriptive terms would be beneficial, perhaps even give more emotional charging to the word chosen.
Secondly, it could also come from the reality of socializing with other pagans, who more often than not do not share exact beliefs with one another. Vagueness matches well with this scenario, as it is easier to find common ground. Of course, this would also contribute to why pagans are confused as to why the Christian is mad they offered to go to church on Sunday if he comes with me to drum circle on Saturday.
Well, I think you are a very intelligent person with some truly fantastic, and quite frankly beautiful, insights.
But this exclusion of other faiths is why I’ve always had an issue with Christianity, and why I have so far never converted, despite me aligning with them more and more on political issues. There have been thousands of different religions in history, with every society having its own, and it seems very arrogant to assume only yours is the real one.
But you made it very clear how firm you are. Whilst I think there is a limit to how much I can connect with somebody who holds your absolutist notion of religion, this won’t stop me from enjoying your insights into our civilisation and society, even if you fully believe I’m going to hell for an eternity.
"In short, for this criticism to have real teeth, the story of Europe would have to be one of dynamic peoples living out their true potential under pagan beliefs then being brought low by the establishment of Christendom for almost two millennium. Does this sound like the story of Europe?"
Maybe... I'm not a historian by any stretch, but as Wikipedia (yes, yes) puts it: "The age of Constantine marked a distinct epoch in the history of the Roman Empire and a pivotal moment in the transition from classical antiquity to the Middle Ages." Or, to put it another way, Constantine's conversion marked the transition from the high water mark of Romans living out their true potential under pagan beliefs to a time of relative backwardness compared to the East. The West really only came back to the fore during the Age of Enlightenment... made possible by the Protestant Reformation which touched off the slide into progressivism and leftism.
So I don't know, from a timeline analysis maybe it's not so ridiculous.
I admire your work and I have to say your criticisms and critiques of movements are usually very solid, especially your criticism of the Alt-Right back in the day. That's where I think it's really a shame you've so dramatically missed the mark on this one, to the extent that I could only conclude you've either not talked to any intelligent Pagans or that you're ignoring some of the stronger arguments. (The dreaded word "strawman" comes to mind?)
For instance, in the first core critique of Christianity by Pagans, you merely say Christianity is responsible for progressivism and then agree partially in that you consider progressivism a Christian heresy. I think you ignore the much more fundamental and I’d argue more widespread right-wing Pagan argument that Christianity is a fundamentally leftist and progressive religion, that Jesus himself preached as fundamental values of pacifism, forgiveness, universalism, egalitarianism, and anti-elitism. Viewed properly, progressivism is the truest and most genuine interpretation of Christianity, and the past healthy, masculine, traditional, and hierarchical forms of Christianity are Pagan-influenced corruptions of the genuine faith. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature, and that ironically the only reason the software was working correctly is because it’s been bugged.
I also take exception to the analogy that if the heart isn’t working, it should be ripped out. That seems to view Christianity as something so integral to Western civilization and humanity at large that it could not function without it, like a heart, but that’s clearly wrong in view of history. The Roman Empire reached its height in physical power, morality, technology, and culture without Christianity, as did the Greeks, the Egyptians, and so on. This argument is also dismissive of Bronze Age civilizations beyond the Mediterranean, which while not leaving as strong of a written record as Christian Europe still birthed many great peoples, great stories, and great cultures.
These are just two illustrative examples of a general pattern of sloppy misrepresentation of Pagan arguments throughout this essay. As a practicing Asatruar I was eager to hear your viewpoint and am always open to strong arguments against what has come to be my own faith, but I’m disappointed. I feel you would benefit from an actual constructive dialogue with an intelligent Pagan or reading a stronger Pagan critique of Christianity rather than responding to what I can only conclude are poorly-thought out comments or posts on internet forums.
I have to say: this was certainly more combative than my essay! Then again, I completely understand. Having this kind of rhetoric being lobbed at Christians time and again is vomit-inducing, and it is especially infuriating when it comes from people who claim that they are on "our side."
Your final point is key to this. I often see pagans asking for a mutual respect from Christians, and due to the nature of the Faith, this cannot be given. We can respect that pagans have different beliefs, but we cannot view their beliefs as equal to ours. What's funny about that is that Christians are often accused of being "egalitarians" by pagans. We are not egalitarians by any simple understanding of biblical truth in any domain, but on top of that, we certainly do not believe other belief systems are equal to ours (that would be a heresy). To be blunt, I think the desire, as you mention, of pagans to be seen as equals to Christians by Christians is one of the main things that signal--for lack of a better word--an absence of "authenticity" to pagan practice from a Christian perspective.
Until the very end, this was an admirably measured and fair-minded critique. I would suggest almost too fair-minded. To me, the core issues with neo-paganism are twofold: that it is essentially ahistorical, and that it has no meaningful praxis.
On the former, neo-paganism is self-consciously ahistorical in some ways, it seeks to 'revive' pagan practice and belief but admits there has to be some creative licence in this as true pagan tradition has not been preserved intact into the modern age.
This is part of paganism's appeal, but also its great weakness - 'believers' are basically just making stuff up and projecting their own political values onto vague claims about honouring ancestors. It's especially acute for right wing pagans claiming to defend the core of western civilization - yes, Rome prospered under paganism and fragmented under Christianity, but pagans are weirdly eager to dismiss the past 1500 years, in which Europe conquered the world, as irrelevant (or, perhaps, achieved *despite* Christianity rather than *because* of it).
On the latter, I have yet to meet a truly practising pagan and I don't expect to encounter one any time soon. There are no pagan doctrines, no institutions, no moral instructions or hard and fast beliefs. I appreciate that polytheism is vaguer on some of these issues than the great monotheistic faiths, but meeting up in the woods to have a bonfire and invoke Odin is not religion, it is a LARP. Internal, deeply held fidelity to extrinsic deities and their moral demands is religious faith - dancing round maypoles or cutting up pig entrails is all externality, it doesn't mean anything and smacks of pretentiousness (at best). When I see 'organised paganism' I might take neopagans more seriously, but there are no solid principles for it organise around.
I recently re-read the Iliad, and what really stood out to me was the concept of virtue. The gods of the Homeric tradition are quixotic, to say the least, and it is arguably the humans on both sides of the Achaean-Trojan war that are the true heroes. There is such a display of virtue by both Achilles and HEctor, both of whom are flawed in major ways and yet heroically resign themselves to the mutual demise they know is coming. For all the flaws of pagan society (which were critiqued by Plato and Aristotle LOOOONG before Christianity even existed) they had a sense of virtue that simply doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for a good hundred years or so. Neo-Pagans are LARPERs of the wignat variety: they are merely trying to be "cute", and don't actually have any beliefs or even comprehensible opinions on anything. They are far too busy yelling thing like "ye gods" and trying to convince us that pre-scientific folklore is more believable than theism within a modern framework to actually ask themselves what their spiritual system even is or what pragmatic purpose it serves in pulling society together. They have no concept of the virtues of their ancestors, and no interest in resurrecting them. The fact that their current life style and aesthetics would be considered cringe, if not shameful by anyone living even five hundred years ago much less in pre-Christian times, doesn't even occur to them.
This may be a good time to mention that the original "vanities" thrown on the bonfire destroyed the artwork, the material culture produced under the patronage of Lorenzo di Medici. Was that dialectic Christian Savonarola vs. Pagan di Medici or (proto) Protestant Savonarola vs. Catholic di Medici, or was it the iconoclastic heresy rearing its ugly head against beautiful Christianity?
This article doesn't contain the words 'jew', 'torah', 'judaism', 'hebrew' or 'testament'. Key words in my primary criticism of Christianity. Nice attempt other than that.
As an extension of 4 I frequently see this Idea that Christianity is a hostile foreign belief system not native to Europe thrown around by specifically those championing Norse religion. It seems queer to me because to most of Europe that is just as hostile and foreign of a belief system that was not native to their area but it certainly is better known than whatever pre-Christian religion that existed there. Because that specific tradition is dead and forgotten they seem to think that they have been given the right to assume its place as they are "genuine" European belief system unlike Christianity. The likely-hood of more than some tiny offshoots of my family tree practicing it's historical version is very low and it would be beyond a larp for someone like myself to adopt it out of some sense of it being the real belief system of my ancient ancestors.
A better debate to have is whether to embrace a detached, faith-based approache to religiousity. This applies both to Pagans and Churchians or to embrace a hands-on experiential approach imho.
Something interesting I've begun to notice when talking to pagans (and atheists)—they don't seem to comprehend sincere conviction. The first thing they do is when you engage is enter into a dialectic in which historical facts and philosophy are used in an attempt to demonstrate why Christianity is false or bad. Anyone who understands sincere religious conviction should realize that it is impossible to argue someone out of the position simply with facts and logic. They should also understand why getting my to question my faith would immediately provoke a hostile demeanor. I've also noticed the tactic of attempting to get a Christian to feel guilt over things Christians have done to pagans—this is a mirror image of the left wing white guilt tactic. Again, why would anyone who understood sincere conviction think that this would be a good idea? It's for this reason that I question the degree to which pagans actually have any sincere conviction, since they clearly don't understand it at all. Obligatory #NotAll. For example, a pagan would say that Christianity is bad because it destroyed native religions. On the opposite side, I would never say that the native beliefs were false because Christianity destroyed them. This would obviously be a stupid thing for me to say, if I believed that my interlocutor actually held the native beliefs in any capacity. Yet pagans do this
To your point that ancestor worship doesn't make sense because our Christian ancestors would abhor it, I suspect a pagan would respond "exactly, Christianity alienates us from our ancestors".
Pretty pumped to see you flex some of your anti-ecumenist muscles. Good read.
Most pagans or vitalists probably don't view civilization as inherently good or bad, having more babies as the top indicator of societal health or that anti nomianism is inherently bad. You're projecting these mid 20th century middle class values onto us when in fact almost nobody else besides a small minority of Christians believes these things. From our perspective, many left hand path pagan traditions are/were antinomian, having more babies without a vitalistic culture for them to live under does nothing but contribute to the yeastification of life, and an indicator of a civilization's health is the feats of greatness that it is able to achieve.
Anyway arguing for Christianity is pointless because it has been dying for hundreds of years straight with no signs of recovery whatsoever. It's successor progressive strain is much more well adapted to the modern world and people who believe in the universalist egalitarian values of Christianity will just follow that. If there is a second religiosity it would have been something new that's able to summon up more vital energy. Paganism, transhumanism or practically anything else seems more likely than Christianity.
I was pagan for a good portion of my life, but I was never much into the larping, "return to our ancestors", or the political/historical side of things. I was primarily someone looking for the more primordial truths of the world through a few knowledgeable friends and self-study/experimentation.
I can at least partially answer that comment on a "vagueness" you experienced. Simple disclaimer, everything I'm saying is anecdotal self-observance. But hey, maybe it will be useful.
One thing about pagans, or at least the ones taking the spiritual part of it seriously, is that there is a shared idea that their practices are uncovering forgotten "truths". Whether that be old rituals, energy work, or even kitchen witches, each practice is in its own way making steps to learn about something that feels fundamental more real and closer to the source of things. As you spend more time as a pagan, this feeling of a more "core" way of being can leave folks feeling as if when words are being used, they come up lacking without some emotional feeling, mental image, or other such subconscious remembrance. As if the words just don't fit what the person is trying to say.
As for why this happens might relate to the Christian gift of discernment, but in one way or another, pagans tend to believe in that feeling behind the words more than the words themselves. They use more general vocabulary where more descriptive terms would be beneficial, perhaps even give more emotional charging to the word chosen.
Secondly, it could also come from the reality of socializing with other pagans, who more often than not do not share exact beliefs with one another. Vagueness matches well with this scenario, as it is easier to find common ground. Of course, this would also contribute to why pagans are confused as to why the Christian is mad they offered to go to church on Sunday if he comes with me to drum circle on Saturday.
Well, I think you are a very intelligent person with some truly fantastic, and quite frankly beautiful, insights.
But this exclusion of other faiths is why I’ve always had an issue with Christianity, and why I have so far never converted, despite me aligning with them more and more on political issues. There have been thousands of different religions in history, with every society having its own, and it seems very arrogant to assume only yours is the real one.
But you made it very clear how firm you are. Whilst I think there is a limit to how much I can connect with somebody who holds your absolutist notion of religion, this won’t stop me from enjoying your insights into our civilisation and society, even if you fully believe I’m going to hell for an eternity.
"In short, for this criticism to have real teeth, the story of Europe would have to be one of dynamic peoples living out their true potential under pagan beliefs then being brought low by the establishment of Christendom for almost two millennium. Does this sound like the story of Europe?"
Maybe... I'm not a historian by any stretch, but as Wikipedia (yes, yes) puts it: "The age of Constantine marked a distinct epoch in the history of the Roman Empire and a pivotal moment in the transition from classical antiquity to the Middle Ages." Or, to put it another way, Constantine's conversion marked the transition from the high water mark of Romans living out their true potential under pagan beliefs to a time of relative backwardness compared to the East. The West really only came back to the fore during the Age of Enlightenment... made possible by the Protestant Reformation which touched off the slide into progressivism and leftism.
So I don't know, from a timeline analysis maybe it's not so ridiculous.