Paganism making a surprising return in modern Ru

[MeMyselfAndI]

<Paganism in Modern Russia
At present, a number of pagan movements and communities operate in Russia, committed to help the revive the native Russian faith. Despite the fact that the total number of their members is much less than the number of followers of various Christian and other religious movements, their ranks are constantly replenished and expanded with new members - real Russian patriots.
However, a number of phenomena must be pointed out that impede a genuine revival of the pagan spirit in contemporary Russia. In addition to external factors (socio-political), there are a number of internal reasons (spiritual and psychological) of the slow and sometimes very controversial form of revival of traditional Russian spirituality.
It is sad to observe that many of our, particularly, young people, formally claiming allegiance to the pagan faith (Rodolubians, national beliefs, traditionalists), in fact pay little attention to proper religious aspects of paganism. Sometimes political, economic, environmental and other objectives are put ahead by them, overshadowing self- and God-knowledge, and the overreliance on external attributes becomes an obstacle to obtaining and deepening of the internal - spiritual experience.
Paganism (Rodolubie, traditionalism), as a system of world outlook dealing with human life in its entirety, points to the importance of an inclusive view of reality. According to the Rodolub school, modern pagans should not shy away from political, economic, environmental and other issues which are put before them by life, and consider ways to overcome them as a kind of religious work, as a method of understanding the world and nature, as a means for self-and God -knowledge. Breaking off all duality within oneself. The pagan should develop a holistic view of reality, seeing the divine in everything, and everything as a manifestation of the divine. At the same time, every act committed by the pagan should be based on his spiritual experience and not in conflict with the World Harmony.
Paganism, being a universal and comprehensive philosophy, remains a deeply national phenomenon. This tradition is manifested through a set of traditions of each nation, set out clearly and specifically, taking into account all the specifics of national perception. In connection with the foregoing, it is necessary to point out the danger of an absolute nationalism, turning healthy patriotism (that is, it is natural for a man to love his people) to unnatural Nazism, characterized not so much love for one’s own people, but by hate for all other groups (Judaism with its dogmatic hostility to any other prescribed people, as well as the quasi-religion Fascism that once led the German people to war and defeat).
Love for your own people should not, ever, be measured by the degree of hatred towards people of other nationalities (especially since the negative emotions - hatred included – are simply unhelpful, especially for those who experience them). Mindless Nazism of some modern pagans goes against the principles of Russian paganism (Rodolubie) and is an unfortunate fact of our contemporary reality. Every pagan that shows a hatred for strangers becomes a conductor of anti-pagan ideas and anti-pagan philosophy, thereby flouting the Laws of the Sky and throwing insults at the Native Gods.
One characteristic of modern Russia is the presence of known differences between the urban and the rural way of life. These differences manifest themselves in one way or another with urban and rural pagans too. This is particularly evident when comparing the main principles professed by pagan movements and communities, based in large cities, and those accepted by the rural pagan associations.
Modern urban pagans tend to pay more attention to concepts, philosophical and historical development, literary and scientific activities, etc., while rural Pagans prefer mainly the practical side of things (rituals, temple arrangement, related craft activities, etc). Both approaches have their advantages, but none of them can claim to be the complete religious practice.
People today have lost most of their sense of integrity, developing any one side of their nature at the expense of all others. This condition is aggravated by the activities of many contemporary religious movements, all of them anti-pagan in nature. Rigid specialization of people prevents them from perceiving the world in its entirety, to see the divine in a variety of forms. Only reintroduction to the Tradition can help them restore the lost harmony of integrity, which has comprehensive Knowledge and the holistic view of the world.
A person who perceives reality primarily as a set of ideas comprehended by reason, as well as those who have the habit of trusting only one's feelings and instincts - are equally far from a holistic vision of the world. The person for whom religion is merely a set of dogmas, as well as the one who only follows the outward rituals - are equally far from having a holistic religious experience.
Only paganism, devoid of any rigid system of dogmas and regulations to which all people must adhere, without regard to their personal characteristics, would return to the modern human a holistic view of the world, stimulating his own personal spiritual quest and not confining him by the narrow dogmas or frames. Only paganism can, without dividing a single knowledge into fragments (as do all the upa-dharma faiths), use it in its entirety for the benefit of the human, not praising any one part of it by belittling the significance of all the others.
Before us, modern Russian pagans (Rodolubians, Rodnoverians, traditionalists), now more than ever stands the problem of revival of the spirit of our people which was crippled by centuries of dominance of ‘chuzhebesie’ (‘alien/evil/dark ideas’). Each of us can begin this truly noble cause with the recovery and purification of his or her own soul, to overcome the internal duality and restore the original harmony, lost to modern "civilized person", with the destruction of the inner barrier, which we dissociate himself from the rays of light of the non-mortal spirit - Nature Rod, part of our true Essence. Indeed, our future and the future of Russia is in our hands.>

Posted by: Велеслав (Veleslav) at http://www.sva-slava.narod.ru/index_ojaz/jaz_v_sovr_ros_veleslav.htm

It's like, other countries are moving forward in time, but Russia keeps on moving back.

[Non Sequitur]

I can't remember where CS Lewis wrote it, but I know that once somebody asked him whether he thought Europe was sliding back into paganism and he said he hoped so because it was better than rank materialism.

[Michael]

I can't remember where CS Lewis wrote it, but I know that once somebody asked him whether he thought Europe was sliding back into paganism and he said he hoped so because it was better than rank materialism.

Almost as witty perhaps as Ghandi's clever response to the question of Western civilization! :lol:

Though, seriously, I do agree that paganism is on the rise amongst the affluent Europe and America (smallish numbers, but definitely rising). I'm sure Greendruid will have something more to say on the topic of rising paganism. ;)

[MeMyselfAndI]

Main reason why I think that is happening, Orthodox Christianity, Greek/Byzantian Orthodox Christianity at the time, was forced upon Russia and Russians. Not by war, the Greeks could never have beaten us, in fact, we threw them out of the Crimea, easily. But, they colluded with certain particularly corrupt warlords, bribed them, including the most powerful one, Vladimir, who became the Great Duke. Then, he Christened Russia, as he had promised the Greeks. In modern history books, guest-edited by the Church, you'd think the people ran, enthusiastically, into the river to be baptized. Well, in real life they were dragged into that river by Vladimir's soldiers; those who resisted were killed, including women and children. Pagan churches, and monuments were burnt, cemeteries descecrated. In the South, in Rostov, there was a huge pagan rebellion, Vladimir and other newly Christian Dukes sent their forces there and they murdered and pillaged there for weeks.

That is how Christianity came to Russia. Through corruption and violence. Now that people are learning the truth... I think the Church is gonna have a BIG problem.

[Michael]

Main reason why I think that is happening, Orthodox Christianity, Greek/Byzantian Orthodox Christianity at the time, was forced upon Russia and Russians. Not by war, the Greeks could never have beaten us, in fact, we threw them out of the Crimea, easily. But, they colluded with certain particularly corrupt warlords, bribed them, including the most powerful one, Vladimir, who became the Great Duke. Then, he Christened Russia, as he had promised the Greeks. In modern history books, guest-edited by the Church, you'd think the people ran, enthusiastically, into the river to be baptized. Well, in real life they were dragged into that river by Vladimir's soldiers; those who resisted were killed, including women and children. Pagan churches, and monuments were burnt, cemeteries descecrated. In the South, in Rostov, there was a huge pagan rebellion, Vladimir and other newly Christian Dukes sent their forces there and they murdered and pillaged there for weeks.

That is how Christianity came to Russia. Through corruption and violence. Now that people are learning the truth... I think the Church is gonna have a BIG problem.

There is a tradition of claiming Moscow as the 'third Rome' after the original Rome, then Constantinople, and now Moscow as the home of the continuous Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) Church.

That being said, I've always understood that paganism has always been fairly strong in Russia (though somewhat secret and hidden) - back in the imperial Czarist days and through the Soviet Era, despite lots of pogroms to eliminate them.

[Non Sequitur]

Almost as witty perhaps as Ghandi's clever response to the question of Western civilization! :lol:

Though, seriously, I do agree that paganism is on the rise amongst the affluent Europe and America (smallish numbers, but definitely rising). I'm sure Greendruid will have something more to say on the topic of rising paganism. ;)

Yeah I haven't seen the figures, but I could believe it. I can probably deal with it also.

[Greendruid]

This is interesting to hear because there are next to no posters on pagan websites that I frequently visit. The problem identified by the writer is a bit of a Catch 22 though and one that I suspect is intrinsic to pagan religions the world over, at least what one would define as neo-pagan movements. The problem is that everyone decries the lack of unity, the lack of completeness and that ultimately boils down to someone saying, "If only everyone did it this way." The very features that make paganism attractive to many of its practitioners are the very features that make unity almost impossible. These are a general lack of dogmatic beliefs and an internal system of hierarchy. It is difficult, if not impossible, to organise people around a spiritual belief system without a defined, central dogma. If you allow things to be too "loose" how can you all agree that you're doing the same thing or have common ground?

Attempts have been made at these time and again, the most recent by the inheritors of the Gardnerian tradition and independents of the eclectic tradition like Starhawk or the Dianic tradition such as Margot Adler. Ultimately, more recent attempts are Gardnerian traditions purged of their paternalistic flavours with a complimentary focus on female goddess worship. The wiccan rede, often cited by many but rarely is its true origin known is a simple form of a way of living that is about as close to dogma as modern pagans get:

Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill
An it harm none do what ye will

This is a very modern version (1960s) of the Rede which was passed down from the Gardnerian tradition via Crowley. It is ultimately probably a version of Mill's comments on harm, though apparently Wikipedia cites Rabelais as the possible earliest source. Who knew :shrug:

The author's points about nationalism are only seen in a minority of pagans I've ever met or known about. Those I have met or know about are usually Asatru members - a Norse/Germanic pantheon religion. I'm surprised to hear that it's a problem elsewhere. Much more common in North America are the problems with those who wish to harm others through their use of magick. In anthropological terms, this is plain sorcery. In most pagan communities these are commonly called black witches or are also sometimes chaos magicians. Chaos magicians aren't always about harming others per se, they are more akin to anarchists in the political realm in that they refuse to have ethics or morals tying down their magic practices, whatever those may be. My own experiences with them is that they are dangerous and unstable people in society, regardless of their spiritual beliefs.

On a slightly personal note, my own maternal family is half Polish and half Ukranian and practices ultimately derived from paganism were rife in our family growing up. The reading of tea leaves, use of tarot cards, dream interpretation, speaking with the dead, superstitions, etc, were regular features of our lives. It is interesting to hear that aspects of this were once common in neighbouring Russia. The Old Ways seem to be reawakening.

I would suggest that this re-emergence is occurring as the monotheistic religions have failed to deliver on their promises. Catholicism is an abject failure - this latest scandal is only the death knell of the Church. Judaism and Islam, in even their more liberal interpretations, promote exclusivity. Protestantism is too varied to lump under one roof but it has many divisive aspects to its various sects that isolate the followers as being the chosen ones in very much the same way that Judaism does.

Another interesting divide between the monotheistic religions and paganism is that the latter has no feature of conversion. There is no imperative from any pagan organisation I've ever seen to preach anything to anyone. I suspect this stems from a lack of a central dogma.

[Non Sequitur]

I would suggest that this re-emergence is occurring as the monotheistic religions have failed to deliver on their promises. Catholicism is an abject failure - this latest scandal is only the death knell of the Church. Judaism and Islam, in even their more liberal interpretations, promote exclusivity. Protestantism is too varied to lump under one roof but it has many divisive aspects to its various sects that isolate the followers as being the chosen ones in very much the same way that Judaism does.

Another interesting divide between the monotheistic religions and paganism is that the latter has no feature of conversion. There is no imperative from any pagan organisation I've ever seen to preach anything to anyone. I suspect this stems from a lack of a central dogma.

I'm curious what you think the promises have failed (this is just a genuine curiosity)? From my perspective, there are only two overriding promises: 1) you are made right with God and 2) Christ will come again. both these promises seem to be believed in more than anything else.

[Greendruid]

I suppose what has changed in the interim between monotheism's origins and today is the standard by which those promises are measured. Modern people demand results: tangible outcomes. Both of the things you've cited (and I agree these are the promises of Christianity specifically and perhaps Judaism and Islam in different wordings for the second one) are unverifiable through the means provided by the dogma of the religions themselves. There is no space to converse with the dead or the spirit world in Christianity to know if the piety of your dead relations was worthy of reception into God's good graces. Nor is there much hope in waiting for the return of a Messianic figure after 2,000 years with not much changing on this front.

One of religion's oldest roles in society is to provide answers for that which cannot be explained or known about in the natural world. This is anthropologically defined as the supernatural. Death or mortality are certainly in this category, at least in terms of what comes next. Unfortunately it is one of the few things that remains from a huge gamut of things that were seemingly supernatural 2,000 years ago. Religions provide hope for the weary, solace for the downtrodden. When this is taken advantage of by any slight act of indecency, Church-wide scandal or simple collection plate, the flavour of that hope becomes bitter. This is one of the central reasons why many forms of paganism approach hierarchy and dogma as flawed concepts. The author in the OP points out the humanistic goal of paganism. It is nature-centred and this makes the pay-off of the belief system tangible. As the saying goes though, hope springs eternal and I believe that most people, given an inkling of hope, can be sustained for years. Fear works well too, and we all know that all three Abrahamic religions provide enough examples of what happens if you don't believe in/worship God. I can't think of a single pagan organisation that I've encountered that practices negative reinforcement of this type. At any rate, my central point is that the promises of The Big Three are intangible and this is unsatisfying to the modern person. People who have been told by their priests/pastors/ministers/Rabbis that they are good and God loves them still suffer disparaging events in their lives daily. Eventually, people clue in that these two life messages are incongruent and incompatible. I think we're seeing that cluing in on a large scale. We have rebuilt the tower of Babel and no one else seems to be up in the clouds with us.

[Non Sequitur]

I suppose what has changed in the interim between monotheism's origins and today is the standard by which those promises are measured. Modern people demand results: tangible outcomes. Both of the things you've cited (and I agree these are the promises of Christianity specifically and perhaps Judaism and Islam in different wordings for the second one) are unverifiable through the means provided by the dogma of the religions themselves. There is no space to converse with the dead or the spirit world in Christianity to know if the piety of your dead relations was worthy of reception into God's good graces. Nor is there much hope in waiting for the return of a Messianic figure after 2,000 years with not much changing on this front.

One of religion's oldest roles in society is to provide answers for that which cannot be explained or known about in the natural world. This is anthropologically defined as the supernatural. Death or mortality are certainly in this category, at least in terms of what comes next. Unfortunately it is one of the few things that remains from a huge gamut of things that were seemingly supernatural 2,000 years ago. Religions provide hope for the weary, solace for the downtrodden. When this is taken advantage of by any slight act of indecency, Church-wide scandal or simple collection plate, the flavour of that hope becomes bitter. This is one of the central reasons why many forms of paganism approach hierarchy and dogma as flawed concepts. The author in the OP points out the humanistic goal of paganism. It is nature-centred and this makes the pay-off of the belief system tangible. As the saying goes though, hope springs eternal and I believe that most people, given an inkling of hope, can be sustained for years. Fear works well too, and we all know that all three Abrahamic religions provide enough examples of what happens if you don't believe in/worship God. I can't think of a single pagan organisation that I've encountered that practices negative reinforcement of this type.

thanks for the reply. I'm interested in the perspective more than anything else. As a future member of the clergy it helps to see the outside perspective

At any rate, my central point is that the promises of The Big Three are intangible and this is unsatisfying to the modern person. People who have been told by their priests/pastors/ministers/Rabbis that they are good and God loves them still suffer disparaging events in their lives daily. Eventually, people clue in that these two life messages are incongruent and incompatible. I think we're seeing that cluing in on a large scale. We have rebuilt the tower of Babel and no one else seems to be up in the clouds with us.

interesting use of the story of the tower babel there considering in the story the point is that the tower is not supposed to built in the first place :D

[Greendruid]

interesting use of the story of the tower babel there considering in the story the point is that the tower is not supposed to built in the first place :D

That perspective depends on if you are the biblical God(s) or the people of Shinar. From my reading of that story, an ancient age of humanism was fighting to be born. Obviously those who held that perspective lost the right to write history.

[Non Sequitur]

That perspective depends on if you are the biblical God(s) or the people of Shinar. From my reading of that story, an ancient age of humanism was fighting to be born. Obviously those who held that perspective lost the right to write history.

haha wow, that certainly is a different reading. Actually, if we are being true to the story, Biblical scholarship is pretty united in the opinion that the tower is not the reason why the people are punished

back to the topic, I may disagree with you on points but I think your general analysis is correct.

[Greendruid]

haha wow, that certainly is a different reading. Actually, if we are being true to the story, Biblical scholarship is pretty united in the opinion that the tower is not the reason why the people are punished

back to the topic, I may disagree with you on points but I think your general analysis is correct.

I don't want to get mired down in biblical interpretation so perhaps the two of us can step out of the debate on the passage as it is written and let others have fun with it:

"Genesis 11:4

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

Indeed, a pagan druid is perhaps not the best interpreter of scripture but the above verse is the final line in the story that documents the build up to the tower's construction. The following verses are all about the reaction of (the) God(s) to the effort and knowledge and resulting construction of the people. Is there another set of scripture that I'm unaware of that talks about the tower or is the Genesis 11 story the only one?

[SMadsen]

I can't remember where CS Lewis wrote it, but I know that once somebody asked him whether he thought Europe was sliding back into paganism and he said he hoped so because it was better than rank materialism.
I can't say I find it as witty an answer as Michael :) It's merely an affirmation of a point I've maintained in past discussions with you concerning, for instance, sensus divinitatis, namely that faith in the wrong religion is always better than no faith at all. In fact, with the quote you mention, C.S. Lewis told with an amazing precision exactly why the concept of atheism must be devised.

[Non Sequitur]

I don't want to get mired down in biblical interpretation so perhaps the two of us can step out of the debate on the passage as it is written and let others have fun with it:

"Genesis 11:4

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

Indeed, a pagan druid is perhaps not the best interpreter of scripture but the above verse is the final line in the story that documents the build up to the tower's construction. The following verses are all about the reaction of (the) God(s) to the effort and knowledge and resulting construction of the people. Is there another set of scripture that I'm unaware of that talks about the tower or is the Genesis 11 story the only one?

Well, I think Jewish Midrash talks about the story. Also Josephus and a couple random books not in scripture. In canon, only Genesis 11 talks about the tower. It's kind of a weird story that way. It's mentioned once and then never really mentioned again.

[Non Sequitur]

I can't say I find it as witty an answer as Michael :) It's merely an affirmation of a point I've maintained in past discussions with you concerning, for instance, sensus divinitatis, namely that faith in the wrong religion is always better than no faith at all. In fact, with the quote you mention, C.S. Lewis told with an amazing precision exactly why the concept of atheism must be devised.


I'm a little confused about what you mean.

[Michael]

I'm a little confused about what you mean.
I'd venture to guess that he's referring to an 'increase in the option pool' here, so that those who choose to reject one religion don't just fall for a different religion with the same errors.

From an atheist perpective, all religions are essentially identical.

[SMadsen]

I'm a little confused about what you mean.
When C. S. Lewis said that he hoped Europeans at least slided back into paganism, it's merely because that to the religious, the wrong kind of faith is better than no faith. He could have said that paganism was better than anything he would deem void divinity; materialism, nihilism, humanism, atheism, doesn't matter.

[Non Sequitur]

When C. S. Lewis said that he hoped Europeans at least slided back into paganism, it's merely because that to the religious, the wrong kind of faith is better than no faith. He could have said that paganism was better than anything he would deem void divinity; materialism, nihilism, humanism, atheism, doesn't matter.


Ah well if I remember correctly in the article he thinks that paganism is better for Christianity than materialism (which he thinks is the direction that Europe is going). It's not that paganism is a religion, but that materialism is bad and it would be good for Christianity to interact with paganism.

[SMadsen]

I'd venture to guess that he's referring to an 'increase in the option pool' here, so that those who choose to reject one religion don't just fall for a different religion with the same errors.

From an atheist perpective, all religions are essentially identical.
By the way, I could never use the words "choose" and "reject" in order to describe an absence of faith.

Naturally, from the theist perspective, having no faith is always a willful rejection of the Truth. Seeing it any other way is a trivialization of his own faith, and that's of course not an option :)

The atheist, however, is not bound by the same restaints and is free to describe absence of faith without having to use the same false dichotomy.

[Non Sequitur]

By the way, I could never use the words "choose" and "reject" in order to describe an absence of faith.

Naturally, from the theist perspective, having no faith is always a willful rejection of the Truth. Seeing it any other way is a trivialization of his own faith, and that's of course not an option :)

The atheist, however, is not bound by the same restaints and is free to describe absence of faith without having to use the same false dichotomy.

I don't agree with that at all. Traditionally in the Bible and Christian theology faith is described as a gift, not something you choose.

[dilettante]

By the way, I could never use the words "choose" and "reject" in order to describe an absence of faith.

Naturally, from the theist perspective, having no faith is always a willful rejection of the Truth. Seeing it any other way is a trivialization of his own faith, and that's of course not an option :)

The atheist, however, is not bound by the same restaints and is free to describe absence of faith without having to use the same false dichotomy.

I also disagree. It's a narrow-minded person who sees having no faith as necessary a "willful rejection of the Truth", but I don't think its fair to paint all us theists with that same broad brush.

[MeMyselfAndI]

There is a tradition of claiming Moscow as the 'third Rome' after the original Rome, then Constantinople, and now Moscow as the home of the continuous Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) Church.

That being said, I've always understood that paganism has always been fairly strong in Russia (though somewhat secret and hidden) - back in the imperial Czarist days and through the Soviet Era, despite lots of pogroms to eliminate them.

Indeed. Some of us, Pomors, follow the Traditional Faith. When I was back in my home Arkhangelsk, two months ago, saw young people wearing pagan amulets where Orthodox Crosses once hung on their necks (and also on ears of girls and women). This is in a city named after Archangel. :) The North is going back to the way it was, at least.

[Michael]

By the way, I could never use the words "choose" and "reject" in order to describe an absence of faith.
Well, you do to tend to be a bit dogmatic on this kind of point. ;)

And I do agree, but only up to a point. For every atheist that I personally know, it is a matter of always being atheist since childhood, not something one chose one day.

But there are other 'atheists' out there that are in fact 'ex-theists' so for them, I would accept that some kind of choice/gift/rejection thing may have occured.

[SMadsen]

Well, you do to tend to be a bit dogmatic on this kind of point. ;)

And I do agree, but only up to a point. For every atheist that I personally know, it is a matter of always being atheist since childhood, not something one chose one day.

But there are other 'atheists' out there that are in fact 'ex-theists' so for them, I would accept that some kind of choice/gift/rejection thing may have occured.
If by dogmatic you mean that the norm of not having chosen to have no particular belief in something does not apply in the single instance of theistic faith then yes, I guess I'm dogmatic about it :)

About ex-theists, yes, in certain cultures there are probably many, many more ex-theists than there are non-indoctrinated atheists. However, it doesn't mean that loosing faith is a particular choice. Again in certain cultures, there are far more people who lost faith in the myth of Santa Claus than there are people who never believed in the myth to begin with. It just means that they encountered some things along the way that made them change their mind. No particular choice involved.

Then again, of course, from the perspective of those who do believe in the myth of Santa, it must either be a willful rejection or ignorance not to believe in it. Any admittance to the contrary would make their own faith insignificant.

[SMadsen]

I also disagree. It's a narrow-minded person who sees having no faith as necessary a "willful rejection of the Truth", but I don't think its fair to paint all us theists with that same broad brush.
True, as my previous post just showed, I shamefully forgot about the other option, namely that non-belief can be result of ignorance. This is why the oblivious must be herded before determining if they willfully accept or reject :p

[Michael]

If by dogmatic you mean that the norm of not having chosen to have no particular belief in something does not apply in the single instance of theistic faith then yes, I guess I'm dogmatic about it :)

About ex-theists, yes, in certain cultures there are probably many, many more ex-theists than there are non-indoctrinated atheists. However, it doesn't mean that loosing faith is a particular choice. Again in certain cultures, there are far more people who lost faith in the myth of Santa Claus than there are people who never believed in the myth to begin with. It just means that they encountered some things along the way that made them change their mind. No particular choice involved.

Then again, of course, from the perspective of those who do believe in the myth of Santa, it must either be a willful rejection or ignorance not to believe in it. Any admittance to the contrary would make their own faith insignificant.
But what of the myth of the social contract? Or the myth of democracy?

I think the human ego is sufficient to hold a belief by choice alone. I'm not saying that all faith/belief is choice, only that it is possible.

[SMadsen]

But what of the myth of the social contract? Or the myth of democracy?
Regarding which situation? That reality can make you discard the myth of democracy without choice being involved or that, from the perspective of the democrat, it must be a result of willfull rejection or ignorance not to believe in democracy?

I think the human ego is sufficient to hold a belief by choice alone. I'm not saying that all faith/belief is choice, only that it is possible.
Fair enough. I believe the line between choice and no choice can be drawn with a brush adequately sized for entertaining both views.

[Michael]

Regarding which situation? That reality can make you discard the myth of democracy without choice being involved or that, from the perspective of the democrat, it must be a result of willfull rejection or ignorance not to believe in democracy?


I was referring to this comment of yours...

Then again, of course, from the perspective of those who do believe in the myth of Santa, it must either be a willful rejection or ignorance not to believe in it. Any admittance to the contrary would make their own faith insignificant.

Since you seem to making a general rule about the treatment of myths, I'm wondering if the same rule ought to apply regarding the myth of the social contract or the myth of democracy.

That is to say, your argument appears to hold that anyone who believes in democracy (or anything else) is ignorant by definition.

[Non Sequitur]

Does a myth always have to be an untrue thing?

[Michael]

Does a myth always have to be an untrue thing?
Myths are mythological by definition.

If 'myths' were true, they'd be called 'facts' instead.

[Non Sequitur]

Myths are mythological by definition.

If 'myths' were true, they'd be called 'facts' instead.

All truth is fact?

My real point is that a myth can be a story that tells a people who they are and what there purpose is. In this sense the story can be true even if it isn't factually so. The example I usually use is the Exodus story from the Old Testament? is it a historical fact, probably not. But the myth rooted the Israelite (later Jewish, and even later Christian) their purpose and meaning. In that sense I would call the story true even though it is a myth.

[Greendruid]

All truth is fact?

My real point is that a myth can be a story that tells a people who they are and what there purpose is. In this sense the story can be true even if it isn't factually so. The example I usually use is the Exodus story from the Old Testament? is it a historical fact, probably not. But the myth rooted the Israelite (later Jewish, and even later Christian) their purpose and meaning. In that sense I would call the story true even though it is a myth.

I definitely have to agree with Non Sequitur on this. The anthropological definition of a myth is, broadly speaking, a narrative explaining how the universe came into being. It may specifically deal with a part of that, like the origins of a people or a religion or a tradition. A mythology is a collection of such stories. Indeed, the myth of the Noachian flood is another good example. It provides the Abrahamic tradition with a demonstration of God's power, disposition towards humanity and the role of humanity in worship of God. For this reason it is a repeated archetype in countless religious and cultural traditions. The theme rings true for many people. The components that make up the story aren't true, let alone possible. I really do think that a lot of these things are more akin to Plato's Noble Lie than an outright lie. I know - bisecting rabbits there but a distinction nonetheless.

[SMadsen]

I, too, will agree with Non Sequitur on this.

I have found that what characterizes the myth is that verification of truth is irrelevant. This is not to say that myths aren't considered true. In fact, they most commonly are or have been taken to be true. It only means that they are true a priori. A sure sign of this is that myths, when adhered to, are rarely called myths without causing offense while myths, when not adhered to, are simply referred as myths.

[SMadsen]

I was referring to this comment of yours...
Ok, thanks.

Since you seem to making a general rule about the treatment of myths, I'm wondering if the same rule ought to apply regarding the myth of the social contract or the myth of democracy.

That is to say, your argument appears to hold that anyone who believes in democracy (or anything else) is ignorant by definition.
Well, I'm not easily swayed to regard political ideologies as being identical with religious ideologies.

The reason is akin to my reluctance to equate ethics with morality.

[Greendruid]

I, too, will agree with Non Sequitur on this.

I have found that what characterizes the myth is that verification of truth is irrelevant. This is not to say that myths aren't considered true. In fact, they most commonly are or have been taken to be true. It only means that they are true a priori. A sure sign of this is that myths, when adhered to, are rarely called myths without causing offense while myths, when not adhered to, are simply referred as myths.

Yeah, a lot of my students are taken aback when I talk about the myths of the Bible and equate them to the myths of the Maya or the myths of the pagan Romans :)

[Michael]

All truth is fact?
No. Assertions of "Truth" are usually a faith-based statement and faith does not admit of facts.

My real point is that a myth can be a story that tells a people who they are and what there purpose is. In this sense the story can be true even if it isn't factually so. The example I usually use is the Exodus story from the Old Testament? is it a historical fact, probably not. But the myth rooted the Israelite (later Jewish, and even later Christian) their purpose and meaning. In that sense I would call the story true even though it is a myth.
That's what is increasingly called "truthiness". Something is held to be true because people like to believe it so.

Myths are real, but that doesn't make them true or factual.

[Michael]

Yeah, a lot of my students are taken aback when I talk about the myths of the Bible and equate them to the myths of the Maya or the myths of the pagan Romans :)

Indeed, all myths are the same - qua myths.

But widespread belief in any given myth doesn't make it true or factual. It remains just a myth.

[Michael]

I definitely have to agree with Non Sequitur on this. The anthropological definition of a myth is, broadly speaking, a narrative explaining how the universe came into being. It may specifically deal with a part of that, like the origins of a people or a religion or a tradition. A mythology is a collection of such stories. Indeed, the myth of the Noachian flood is another good example. It provides the Abrahamic tradition with a demonstration of God's power, disposition towards humanity and the role of humanity in worship of God. For this reason it is a repeated archetype in countless religious and cultural traditions. The theme rings true for many people. The components that make up the story aren't true, let alone possible. I really do think that a lot of these things are more akin to Plato's Noble Lie than an outright lie. I know - bisecting rabbits there but a distinction nonetheless.

:ummm:

How is Plato's Noble Lie, or any myth for that matter, anything but a myth?

Faith-based belief cannot create truth (or facts) by aspiration.

[Non Sequitur]

No. Assertions of "Truth" are usually a faith-based statement and faith does not admit of facts.

That creates a dichotomy between faith and fact that even I as a good Lutheran don't want to create. Facts and faith deal with different things.

That's what is increasingly called "truthiness". Something is held to be true because people like to believe it so.

Myths are real, but that doesn't make them true or factual.

No that's not what I mean at all. Greendruid's example of the flood story is a good example. The actual facts of the story are not supposed to be the focus. The flood may or may not have happened, but the truth is in it's description of God. I will agree with you that the myth is not factual (the only exception being the crucifixion story) but that does not mean it is not true.

On another note I smiled at me, Greendruid, and SMadsen all agreeing on myth. :)