<\/p>\n
The apparent paradox of Pagan It turns out that atheism is a The rest of us would benefit as <\/p>\n To be an atheist does not A Personal Admission<\/b><\/p>\n I practice Pagan spirituality I have had a number of encounters I will soon have a post up on these Atheism in Science<\/b><\/p>\n A great many scientists, including The garden variety Dawkinsesque A sense of isolation and estrangement is captured by the terms This is quite a different attitude from the atheistic attitude I The most beautiful thing we can I cannot imagine a God who rewards and It is enough for me to contemplate the Einstein is describing a universe with admirable qualities
\natheism has prompted me to do a lot more thinking about atheism than I ever
\nhave before. <\/span>In the process I
\npicked up a copy of the British philosophical journal Philosophy Now<\/a><\/i>, which had a fascinating article on “Varieties of Atheist Experience<\/a>” by Paul
\nCliteur. <\/p>\n
\ncomplex term with a number of reasonable meanings beyond the dogmatic
\nassertions that modern reductionist science knows all we need to know to answer
\nthe fundamental questions of life and consciousness. I recommend the dogmatists
\ntake a look. <\/span>They may well be
\nappropriating a complex word to express a simple thought, just as the anything
\nbut skeptical people today do who misleadingly call themselves “skeptics.”<\/p>\n
\nwell. <\/span>Here I will focus on only a
\ncouple of alternative meanings.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nnecessarily deny the existence of what we term today “paranormal phenomena” nor
\ndoes it necessarily deny the existence of a kind of impersonal pantheistic
\nunity to the universe. <\/span>Both questions
\nare logically and practically separate from whether Gods exist, whether
\npersonal or impersonal. And both questions are highly relevant to the question
\nof “Pagan atheism.”<\/p>\n
\ntowards its shamanic end rather than towards its celebratory end, if I can make
\nthat distinction. <\/span>Wicca tends to
\nbe celebratory, but some traditions, the Gardnerian among them, also have a
\nshamanic component. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nwith deities and spirits that have convinced me it is more reasonable for me to
\nbelieve they exist than that they do not.
\n<\/span>But I am equally certain that absent such encounters, in my
\njudgment there is no very good reason to believe they do exist beyond taking
\nother people’s word for it. <\/span>And
\nthat latter strategy has obvious risks. Why some of us have such encounters and some do not is a mystery to me, but I am pretty certain it is not a sign of ‘spiritual development.’<\/p>\n
\nphenomena, but I mention them now so readers can see where I am coming from. <\/span>I am seeking to understand
\nsympathetically a position I personally do not hold. <\/span>I think I succeed, but my readers, particularly Pagan
\natheists, can be the judge.<\/p>\n
\nmany of the most important, have described their sense of wonder and awe at the
\nbeauty and magnificence of the universe.
\n<\/span>They do not describe themselves as religious in any conventional sense,
\nand can reasonably be termed atheistic.
\n<\/span>But in a Pagan way.
\n<\/span>Why? <\/span>Because they perceive
\nthe universe as intrinsically possessing qualities worthy of their awe\/. <\/span>I will pick one: beauty.<\/p>\n
\natheist would agree with the French scientist Jacques Monod<\/a> that we live in a world of “icy solitude” and “If he accepts this message in
\nits full significance, man must awaken from his millenary dream and discover his total solitude, his
\nfundamental isolation. <\/span>He must
\nrealize that, like a gypsy, he lives on the boundary of an alien world that is
\ndeaf to his music, and as indifferent to his hopes as it is to his sufferings
\nor his crimes.”<\/span><\/p>\n
\n“icy” and “alien.”<\/span><\/p>\n
\nam describing where the universe in its beauty and other qualities fulfills a
\nscientist’s purpose and life in exploring its wonders. <\/span>As an example of this view, consider
\nAlbert Einstein, who observed<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n
\nexperience is the mysterious. <\/span>It
\nis the source of all true art and science. <\/span>He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer
\npause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are
\nclosed. <\/span>This insight into the
\nmystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. <\/span>To know what is imprenetrable to us
\nreally exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant
\nbeauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
\nforms – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. <\/span>In this sense and in this sense only, I
\nbelong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.<\/span><\/p>\n
\npunishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own
\n– a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I
\nbelieve that the indifvidual survives the death of the body, although feeble
\nsouls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nmystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect
\nupon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and
\nto try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesmal part of the intelligence
\nmanifested in nature.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nindependent of our capacity to see them whereas Monod’s universe has no
\nqualities that require a reference to consciousness to exist. <\/span>No beauty, no color, no nothing. <\/span>Every quality every ethic is a human
\ncreation and so ultimately rooted in our meaningless existence, and so itself
\nmeaningless. <\/span>To get a clear
\nexample of the difference, imagine you are driving in the mountains and as your
\ncar rounds a bend you see a rainbow stretched across the sky. <\/span>Do you immediately experience a sense
\nof discovery of beauty that was there even before you discovered it? <\/span>Or do you congratulate yourself that
\nthe human mind can create beauty from the meaningless interaction of sun, rain,
\nand the diffraction of light? <\/span>Most
\nof us do the former, not the latter.<\/span><\/p>\n