h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"There are countless manifestations of beliefs and world views that can be considered Pagan." I feel that the word Pagan could be replaced by the word Religion and the statement is still accurate.

In the USA, the new Bush administration wants to give social funds to "faith-based" groups (churches) for distribution. The problem is which groups? Polls taken with lists of religions - long lists - tend to favor the "big names", e.g. Catholics, Jews, the larger Protestant denominations, but smaller groups find little support. I don't recall seeing Pagans on the list.

Setting aside the question of whether this makes any sense at all in a country that is based on separation of church and state, I think it points up a problem with the definition in the article. Defining something by what's its not, i.e. Pagans have non-Orthodox beliefs, is problematic. My view is a more or less continuous spectrum of groups/beliefs, from ultra-orthodox to really weird.

FWIW, I was brought up Catholic, gave up on that early on, and now favor Wittgenstein's view in the Tractatus, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

And here I was trying to avoid defining Pagan by something it is not, and fell into the trap anyway. How would you practicly define Pagan as the word is used today?

I dunno, the article seems to point out the fact that if you ask 5 pagans, you'll get at least 7 definitions.

At the website of the Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans (CUUPS) (I can't put the link, but its ends in .org ), the phrase "Earth-centered spirituality" seems to summarize my understanding, based on very limited contact with some Pagans on the Internet. Reminds me a little of Thoreau at Walden.

If I were writing a dictionary in the year 2001, I would make a couple of changes and additions to the definition that ZenMondo called inaccurate.

First, I would add a definition which acknowledges people who call themselves Pagans. Modern paganism is, in my experience, the most disorganized a religion can get and still get away with calling itself an organized religion. (Actually, some people who call themselves pagans would take offense at being called members of an organized religion.) The definition would probably read, "One whose philosophy, spirituality, and/or religion is primarily centered around nature". Or, in some cases, magic. Or the resurrection of ideas and pantheons from ancient religions. Obviously the exact wording of the definition would be a touchy subject, but the spirit of it is to mention that there are people who identify themselves as pagans.

The other change would be to simply note that the older definitions are "obsolete" or "derogatory". Today, a person who professes no religion or does not acknowledge God would be called an agnostic or an atheist, and people who call themselves "pagans" may or may not believe in God or lead an active religious life. The word "pagan" may have been used to describe such people in the past, but the meaning of the word has changed, and the definition is no longer accurate.

As for the derogatory part, lumping everyone who does not follow a Judeo-Christian religion into the category of pagan or heathen is not nice, but there are people who do it, out of prejudice or hatred. Every usage or definition of a word must be included in a dictionary definition, even the not-so-nice usages.

Ugh, definitions! Why the mania for finding ONE definition that somehow captures a word? Most words don't have a DEFINITION, like mathematical terms do, they have instead several USAGES. For a given word, there is no necessity that the various usages all overlap, and it is therefore fatuous to try to come up with only ONE. Dictionaries tend to reflect usages pretty well, but lots of people still think in terms of definitions. (I distinguish a 'usage' from a 'definition,' not because I think that I'm reflecting current usage by doing so, but because I'd like to suggest that it would be a good distinction to make.)

The only sensible way I can think of to describe a term like 'pagan' is to list several usages, perhaps in order of commonness, like a dictionary does. 'When some people say "pagan," they mean, "[whatever]", when others say "pagan," they mean...' and so on. I don't see the sense in trying to come up with one formula that captures it all. You only end up alienating folks that way.



I don't mean to sound as gripy as I do; it's just that this reminds me all too much of a ridiculous argument we got into at the Freedom From Faith Forum a while back about 'definitions' of the word 'Christian'. I kept saying that there's just not ONE usage that applies to EVERYONE who calls themself a 'Christian,' and I'll wager that the same is true for 'Pagan'.

On the other hand, I can't imagine people talking about "Pagan behaviour" as they might talk about the "Christian behaviour" of a non-Christian...

Pagan Behavior, huh? What would that involve, respect towards nature? Celebrating equinoxes and solstices? Having the same name as a pagan god? I know a guy named Thor, but he pronounces it more like 'Tor' with a very soft 't'...

No really, I could see a sincere member of ANY religion, (I've even gotten this from Atheists) using the name of their religion in a way that they can apply it to people who don't apply it to themselves, based on their behavior. 'He's an atheist, he just doesn't know it yet'... 'That little Hindu is the best Christian I've ever met'... Those are real quotes, one from the FFFF and one from an American reflecting on his travels in India. I'm sure a Pagan somewhere is doing the same thing with that word, no?



PS Hey Lu, what, are you tryin' to start the whole thing up again or something?

Maybe we could go back to Dante's take in "The Inferno", he meets the "devout pagans" in the first level of Hell, Limbo. No punishment, they just never see God, I think. Maybe not so bad, rock critic Lester Bangs in a posthunous memo from Heaven says the music sucks (Marie Osmond? Bobby Bloom?), all the real talent went straight to hell. So if you can get concert tickets in Limbo, maybe a pretty good deal.

Umm - I could equally say of someone "He's autistic, but he doesn't know it yet". But that isn't suddenly creating a new meaning of autism - it's just reflecting the fact that nobody has perfect self-knowledge. Which is why relying on self-labelling doesn't work - not least because then you couldn't call anyone dead...

The really important things about definitions is that it allows people to actually communicate with each other. The relativists would have us all standing in a vaccuum saying highly meaningful things that nobody else understands - when actually communicating with other people, it's very handy to be able to say "I'm defining 'pagan' as ...".

Part of the process of language is eliminating unhelpful, meaningless, nonsensical, and duplicated usages of words - it doesn't do anybody any favours when people start saying that the use of "there" to mean "their" is perfectly valid, because it's a very common usage amongst stupid teenagers. Not all usages are equally valid.

>It appears that the most practical definition that could be applied >is:

>Pagan: n. One who adheres to a belief system outside that of
>established Orthodoxy.

I think that is pretty spot on. Being a certain branch of Pagan, that is probably not concidered "earth-centered spirituality". I like the defination. I think that by including the "earth-centered spirituality" wording in that defination you will leave out some pagans...such as satanists. I don't know many satanists who are crusaders for the earth...well they may worship a deity who "resides in the earth" but I don't think that qualifies them as following an "earth-centered spirituality.

Phaerie

OK, my "earth-centerd spirituality" definition is too narrow. But I still think the "outside established Orthodoxy" is too broad, e.g., I myself (and I think a lot of others) would be included, but I don't consider myself a pagan. So as it says a few messages back, no one definition may be adequate, a list might be better. Maybe a David Letterman approach, "Top Ten Reasons A Person is Considered a Pagan."

10. Worships Satan.

If you have a word that is used in more than one way, then that particular sequence of letters has more than one definition. I was using "definition" and "usage" interchangeably in my previous post.

A word such as "paganism", which carries so many different connotations and has been used to mean so many different things over the years, is extremely difficult to summarize. If you're writing a dictionary, you unfortunately have to do just that-- write a very short sentence for each usage or meaning of the word. A dictionary definition of any word only gives the most basic idea of what the word means. My point was that a very important usage of the word "pagan" was left out of the dictionary definition that was quoted in the article. I'll leave it to pagans and dictionary writers to muddle out exactly what the wording of the addition should be.

Trying to tread carefully...

Do satanists consider themselves to be pagans?

When I was at school (Catholic, British, white...) "pagan" was defined as "not-Christian". Lumping together animists, observers of solstices and satanists seems to be equally dismissive, using a pointlessly broad brush.

The pagans I have known defined themselves in terms of rediscovery of old (pre-Christian? extra-Christian?) beliefs and practices based on the power of things in the world (creatures, places) and times of the year. They are pacifist and vegetarian, though I can imagine others who might not be.

The Satanists I know do. These are not the Devil worshipping little teenage rebellious type persons. These are highly intelligent folk. From what I understand, and if any of you Satanists out there would like to correct me, please do. But Satanism is a Self-centered religion. You put your self first and for most!!!

Phaerie

Just FWIW, my (old, 1971) unabridged dictionary has only two definitions for "pagan": 1. HEATHEN, esp. a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome). 2. One that has little or no religion and that is marked by a frank delight in and unihibited seeking after sensual pleasures and material goods: an unrestrained irreligious hedonist and materialist <" ...is a pagan of the decadence ... takes the world with exquisite nonchalance and prefers a well-ordered dinner to a dissertation on the immortality of the soul." T. L. Peacock>

I don't know if H2G2 folks are familiar with the American NBA basketball player Dennis Rodman, but somehow he comes to mind

Pagan conundrum.

Let me first say it looks like a good entry and you're braver than I for trying ( I did New Age a couple of years ago ).

ONE definition for Pagan? Unlikely. One definition for Christian, while more likely, is will never happened ( one word, Gnostic).

Pagan, in modern usage, almost invariably means Neo-Pagan. This means it is usually a hodgepodge of several belief systems which may, or may not, share a common theme. The earth mother thing is most common, but of course mother Gaia and mother Kali are two complete different styles of mothers.

Some Pagans will acknowledge a male aspect to creation theology, others tend to downplay and immaculate it. Pagan roots can include beliefs from old Britain ( Druids ), Norse, Native American, Greek (THE Pagans ), Middle Eastern, or any other tradition that fits the individual's view. A lot of Occult stuff from the Middle ages has leaked in as well as influences from Victorian spiritualists and anyone inclined to invoke the word magick.

All and all, someone calling themselves a Pagan has told you little beyond the fact their beliefs tend to be counter culture. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of Pagans come from lapsed Orthodoxy. Ex Catholic and Jewish Pagans are very common.

A note on Satanist's. They are NOT Pagans. They subscribe to a Catholic theology and are consciously routing for the underdog.

Edited entry on Satanism: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A230211

Would you care to retract your comment, or do you stand by your words?

-Xanthia

That's a pretty good writeup on Satanism. Having been brought up Catholic, I think I can understand the attraction. Dante probably started all this when he made Satan a lot more interesting than God. Devious, conniving, vindictive, egotistical - yes, right, but never dull. Shakespeare understood this, I think - Richard III, Iago, Darth Vader - uhh, wait, that last one was somebody else. When I was in school, we were marched in to see the music group "Up With People", while tickets to Jerry Lee Lewis ("the devil's music") were in short supply. "If I'm goin' to hell, I'm goin' playin' the piano."

Pagan equals Neo-Pagan? no, I'm a pagan, my particular brand of paganism is a traditionalist path, we don't beleve in ceremonial magik, we don't believe in the God and Goddess, we believe in many gods and goddesses. We don't worship Mother Earth as her own entity. We are not the tree hugging, corner calling, spell conjuring, light and bubbles pagans that most people think of when they say pagan.

We say our daily prayers in the language of our ancestors. We worship the Gods of our ancestors. We raise our children with the time tested values of our ancestors Truth, Honor, and Hospitality.

As far as the Satanists go, my friends are of the variety that are described in that entry posted just up there. They DO consider themselves pagan.

Phaerie

Understandably, there are exceptions to every rule. I was merely trying to explain why, imho, pagan can never really be defined by a set of standard rules. Because, of course, there are none.

Remembering that labels are just labels and rarely mean only one thing to everyone. I am simply documenting the labels as I have seen them commonly used. If you choose to apply a label and assign it a different meaning than I do, that is to be expected. I am attempting to help those who currently don't have definitions for these labels.

To the Pagan-not-Neo-Pagan. The act of defining oneself as pagan is essentially a neo-pagan thing to do. It invites association with followers of wide variety of practices. But again, you would obviously apply the pagan moniker differently than I would and I don't really want argue with that.


If reference to Satanist's "Would you care to retract your comment, or do you stand by your words? -Xanthia"

Of course I stand by my words. I define Satanist as "one who worships Satan." This is the traditional meaning and the one most outsiders would apply. This definition presupposes the existence of Satan and thus basic Catholic ideology. Plus, I don't believe lumping Satanists in with Pagans particularly helps the Pagan PR department.

Now, in reference to our h2g2 definition, this is defining ( very well, it looks like ) the "Satanism" espoused by Anto LaVey. From the entry we find this: "The true Satanist does not believe in the Christian deities God or Satan." Again, this is LaVey's Satanist and not that of popular conception. By the logic of the quote, the true Christian does not believe in Christ.

LeVey appears to use the figure of Satan as a call to rebellion against any system that the individual feels confines them. While this is an interesting take, it is a far cry from a Christian willing allying themselves with evil personified. Btw, in my definition of pagan, a LeVey Satanist certainly qualifies.

Again, my intent is not to argue definitions, but to present them. If your definition differs, well, let's hear them, you've heard mine.