Resolving The Polytheistic Paradox

By Star Foster Let us talk about the Gods. That's all theology really means: talking about Divinity. The word theology has become strongly identified with Abrahamic faiths, and Pagans tend to equate it with orthodoxy and therefore anathema to many Pagan religions. The limits of the English language, with regards to polytheism, make this negative reaction understandable. (In this article the words Divine and Divinity are used as plural nouns.) However, these perceptions are changing and Pagans are taking on the unique challenges of applying theology to a plural, diverse religious movement. How do we talk about theology in a pluralistic way? I think the answer lies in how we perceive Divinity. If we consider Divinity to be objective, that is, as if anyone properly educated would perceive Divinity in the same way, then we fall into the same line of thinking as monotheistic and "One True Way" traditions. To even begin to consider a Pagan theology we must completely put away the idea of an objective Divinity. Take a deep breath. I'm not suggesting it's just all in your head, although as Lon Milo DuQuette says "you have no idea just how big your head is." Why put away the idea of Divinity as an objective entity in theological discussion? Thousands of years of human evolution has shown that while human experiences of Divinity may have commonalities, particularly among humans who share a common region or culture, there is no consensus on the nature of Divinity. Our experiences are widely varied and even among those who share a religious tradition there can be marked differences in the experience of Divinity. These differences are often chalked up to humankind's inability to truly understand the Divine. The problem with this theory is that if we are truly incapable of understanding the Divine, yet continue to try, this makes humanity perpetually stupid, if not insane. We have been seeking to understand the Divine since we were scrawling on cave walls and presumably felt the Divine reach out to us for just as long. If the Divine is reaching out to us, knowing we can never hope to understand them, then are we being toyed with? Treated as infantile? Being used? While I am not saying that there may not be a Divinity that is somewhat manipulative, or even possibly malevolent, the answer to this question in the heart of every person who seeks the Divine is a resounding No ! Ah, but that's a purely subjective answer, you say. Indeed it is, because I feel the only productive way to talk about the Divine is as if they are subjective. The Divine exist independently of us. No two humans perceive the Divine in the exact same way, and some do not even perceive the Divine at all. The idea that understanding the Divine is impossible makes approximately 200,000 years of human evolution absurd, as we as a species have devoted considerable time and effort to understanding the Divine. How do we resolve this paradox? Well, as a loose collective of religions we generally agree that there are many paths to the Divine. Why is this? Aside from the intricacies of polytheism, if the Divine exist independently of us, then surely there must be a best way to approach them, to perceive them. Some way more pleasing and efficient than the rest? I think the reason there are many paths to the Divine is that each of us is equipped to interact with the Divine differently. In the 200,000 years of human evolution, our perceptions of and interactions with the Divine have grown increasingly more diverse and intricate. In the beginning it appears we were mainly animistic, worshiping the forces of nature that surrounded us. As we evolved, so did our perception of the Divine. Now, it is possible the Divine were also evolving and this fed the exponential growth of religious expression, but that doesn't explain why humans have differing perceptions of the Divine. What might explain the paradox is that we are not identically equipped to interact with the Divine. Our DNA, environment, experiences, and our spirit/soul all combine to create a highly unique individual. No two humans are exactly alike in their views or in their fingerprints. Twins may have the same childhood experiences, go to the same schools, study the same subjects and yet have very different opinions, preferences, and perspectives as adults. They are equal yet different. The equal part is very important. Just as no path to the Divine is better than another, neither is "no path" to the Divine any less for its lack of Divine experiences. Just as the unique constellation that makes you unique may lead you to Odin, Jesus, or Shiva, so that within you that brings you to atheism or agnosticism is just as valid and important in the landscape of human religious thought and practice. I'm not trying to be patronizing. I think atheism, humanism, and agnosticism are vital elements in the world's religious landscape. For all things to be in balance, non-religious thought, belief, and practice must exist in the world. It's an essential element to religious pluralism. Besides, as many Pagan traditions are orthopraxic, atheism is no barrier to participating in most forms of Pagan spirituality, and is not of necessity in opposition to Pagan spirituality. Some atheists participate in Pagan groups because they enjoy the acceptance, joy, drama, and therapeutic nature of Pagan ritual. If we are differently equipped to interact with the Divine, this has several implications. If this is true, then we do not have true Free Will. While we may be able to learn to connect with and worship a Deity, we do not come automatically "wired" to connect with all Divinity. This would explain why some people are strongly drawn toward or strongly repulsed by certain Deities. The constellation of things that make them who they are predispose them to react to Divinity a certain way. Some people may be intrinsically suited to connect with only a single Deity and their only experience of Divinity is in "One." Monotheists have been around for as long as humans have had religious impulses. While intellectually accepting Divinity as plural, there were ancient Pagans who found their religious expression only through a single Deity. What they believed and their experience did not correspond, yet they didn't contradict each other, if the concept of "all paths to Divinity are valid" is accepted. A good example is the early Hebrews who, although recognizing there were other Gods, found a connection and a religious expression only through one God. Today there are many Pagans who worship only the Goddess, a single female Deity encompassing all of nature. For those who connect with multiple Deities, the idea of predisposition helps explain why people "choose" the very specific paths they end up following. Most people who convert to Pagan religions go on an odyssey that can last several years before settling into a path of Paganism that speaks to them. This process of "trying on" Gods and religious practices is almost like solving a puzzle where you have to find which blocks fit in the odd-shaped holes in your religious life. If we were all identically equipped to interact with the Divine then such an odyssey would be unnecessary, as we would be able to connect with equal depth to any Deity. The flip side of this as it relates to those who connect with multiple Deities is that it provides a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon of declining the call of a Deity. Some Pagans have felt the call of a God but felt no connection or calling to serve that God. If the Gods were omniscient they would not be reaching out to those who cannot connect to them, and this phenomenon suggests that the Gods may be searching for the humans who can connect to them in the same way we seek them. Mythology is full of examples of Gods claiming those who are not only desired by them, but who are capable of responding to their call, the most famous of these perhaps being Abraham and Hercules. Although, being claimed obviously doesn't mean your spiritual path is smooth sailing! If we were differently equipped to interact with the Divine it would explain the "coming home" phenomenon. Upon finding a spiritual path that speaks to us it is common, especially in the Pagan community, to have a profoundly emotional reaction that is often described as "coming home." This experience can be intense and profound, yet it tends to only occur in certain circumstances. A person may spend years in a religious tradition without ever having this experience, or may have pursued various religious traditions without having this feeling of homecoming. Like a radio receiver, the person has found the frequency that matches their position on the dial of religious experience. If all Divinity is "One" then this experience should only happen to those coming from non-belief to belief. If we are all equally equipped to connect to all Divinity then we hit the same wall. This experience only makes sense if each of us is predisposed to connecting to Deity in specific personal ways and this feeling results from solving the puzzle at last. A serious implication of this theory regards the possible harm of a limited religious education. If we are taught from birth that only one religious path (or lack of path) is an option, we may find ourselves struggling against the current for years to achieve connection with Divinity. Whether or not this "square peg + round hole" struggle is spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually damaging is beyond the scope of this article, but it's something any parent should seriously consider. What I find the most fascinating about this theological concept is that we are constantly evolving our ability to connect with the Divine, that we are able to connect in ways today that we couldn't 2,000 years ago. One of the most fascinating things about mythology is that the Gods change over time. They give birth to new Gods, they make allies, they make enemies, and they make amends. The Divine as a static concept is relatively new to human religious thought. The concept of static Divinity could be said to be tied to "scriptures": dynamic, organic, oral traditions codified into written works that were then held to be sacred by later generations. It has been said that the modern proliferation of books on Paganism is causing a movement built on dynamic exploration and experimentation to stagnate. Aside from the Gods evolution, ancient Paganism experienced new cults springing up and new Gods gaining prominence. Think about that for a second: new Gods. Either Gods that have come into being or Gods we were not aware of previously. Modern myths have taken hold in unexpected ways, as illustrated by the burgeoning Jedi Knight movement. The connection between entertainment and religion is an old one. By what standards do we judge whether a myth is invented or whether new Gods are being revealed? Is The Lord of the Rings a sacred myth of a devotee (Frodo) being claimed by a God (Gandalf)? This article has more questions than answers, but I hope this serves as "the finger pointing to the moon." While it is merely a rough articulation of what an inclusive theology might look like, it is hopefully pointing in the right direction. Engaging in discourse about theology isn't anathema to modern Pagan religions: it is taking up the torch of the ancients and carrying it into the future. This is the torch carried by Sallust, Cicero, and Plotinus among others. We should embrace this illustrious part of our past and ensure it flourishes in Pagan academia and religious education for generations to come.

Resolving the Polytheistic Paradox