In most religions, both monotheistic and polytheistic, there is a prejudice against atheistic adherents. Often because of orthodoxy, which means one's beliefs must be correct. Considering it is often impossible to change one's own beliefs, the very idea of orthodoxy is ridiculous.
There are also paths which claim to be orthopraxic, which means they are defined according to correct practice as opposed to correct belief. Wicca is one of these paths. However, many Wiccans refuse to accept atheistic Wiccans as one of them. It is one thing to not be accepted as an atheistic Catholic. Since Catholicism is an orthodox path, it could be said to be a contradiction in terms. However, since Wicca is an orthopraxic religion (not an orthodox one) any set of beliefs is compatible with it. The idea that an atheist can't be Wiccan is bigotry, plain and simple.
Since Wicca claims to honor a god and goddess, one might think that an atheistic Wiccan is a contradiction in terms. However, it is perfectly possible to honor the idea of a god without literally believing in it.
Since every part of the universe can be explained without God except perhaps its beginning/creation, every theistic belief system is ridiculous except deism (which posits a creator that does not intervene in its creation). Since this means that all religious beliefs are presumably false, it is ridiculous that theism would have higher status than atheism in any religion in this day and age.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
The Problem with Wiccanate Privilege
Wiccanate privilege refers to the dominance of Wicca at pagan events at the expense of other pagan paths. Pagan events aren't the only settings where this is a problem though. Online, the number of Wiccan groups far outnumber the number of eclectic and general pagan groups, which are more difficult to find. The Wiccan groups are also more vibrant and interesting. It's enough to make me tempted to become Wiccan just to feel like "one of them".
Of all the paths to dominate modern paganism, Wicca seems like a very odd choice. It is a combination of the worst possible worlds, in the sense that it has a degree of orthopraxy and even orthodoxy (if you don't do certain practices, or hold certain beliefs, you aren't "Wiccan" enough), yet lacks the history behind reconstructionist paths. Ideally, pagan groups and events would either be would be a perfect balance of paths. If one path had to dominate, I'd have it be eclectic paganism, since people of that path can draw from any tradition.
The biggest problem with Wicca is the poor view many Wiccans have towards atheistic Wicca. Since Wicca is orthopraxic, not orthodox, it makes no sense to frown on different beliefs. It is possible to honor the idea of a god without literally believing in a god, but hardly anyone seems to understand this. In my Reform Jewish upbringing, this was a more accepted idea. I suspect that too few Wiccans hold this idea because they come from Christianity, which holds faith as a requirement. To me, the requirement of faith in religion is a completely and utterly ridiculous idea, especially considering that religions usually preach very ridiculous ideas.
Even so, I find Wicca superior to many reconstructionist paths because of how ridiculous many reconstructionist paths are. Hellenismos has an excessive fear of hubris and offending the gods, frowning on Wicca's positive, more egalitarian relationship with them. Some people within Asatru think of Wiccan pantheism as "cultural appropriation" and "spiritual rape". People overreact to cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is never a problem unless it somehow hurts the culture borrowed from (which does sometimes happen). If one person privately prays to someone else's god, no one is harmed. Considering there is no evidence that any one culture's deities exist, I think it is safe to say that reconstructionists are overreacting.
I'll try out Wiccan ritual on the next Sabbats to see what it's like. My lack of ritual during Sabbats has seemed insufficient in observing them anyway. However, I'm not sure I'd be so anxious to conform my practice to Wiccan ritual if not for the dominance of Wicca in the pagan community.
Of all the paths to dominate modern paganism, Wicca seems like a very odd choice. It is a combination of the worst possible worlds, in the sense that it has a degree of orthopraxy and even orthodoxy (if you don't do certain practices, or hold certain beliefs, you aren't "Wiccan" enough), yet lacks the history behind reconstructionist paths. Ideally, pagan groups and events would either be would be a perfect balance of paths. If one path had to dominate, I'd have it be eclectic paganism, since people of that path can draw from any tradition.
The biggest problem with Wicca is the poor view many Wiccans have towards atheistic Wicca. Since Wicca is orthopraxic, not orthodox, it makes no sense to frown on different beliefs. It is possible to honor the idea of a god without literally believing in a god, but hardly anyone seems to understand this. In my Reform Jewish upbringing, this was a more accepted idea. I suspect that too few Wiccans hold this idea because they come from Christianity, which holds faith as a requirement. To me, the requirement of faith in religion is a completely and utterly ridiculous idea, especially considering that religions usually preach very ridiculous ideas.
Even so, I find Wicca superior to many reconstructionist paths because of how ridiculous many reconstructionist paths are. Hellenismos has an excessive fear of hubris and offending the gods, frowning on Wicca's positive, more egalitarian relationship with them. Some people within Asatru think of Wiccan pantheism as "cultural appropriation" and "spiritual rape". People overreact to cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is never a problem unless it somehow hurts the culture borrowed from (which does sometimes happen). If one person privately prays to someone else's god, no one is harmed. Considering there is no evidence that any one culture's deities exist, I think it is safe to say that reconstructionists are overreacting.
I'll try out Wiccan ritual on the next Sabbats to see what it's like. My lack of ritual during Sabbats has seemed insufficient in observing them anyway. However, I'm not sure I'd be so anxious to conform my practice to Wiccan ritual if not for the dominance of Wicca in the pagan community.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Would the Gods Approve of Neo-Pagans?
In my exploration of modern pagan paths, I have found two main types of path: neo-pagan, and re-constructionist pagan.
Neo-paganism is any path that invents its own rites instead of trying to reconstruct ancient ones, while reconstructionist paganism is a path that tries to reconstruct ancient rites.
People of reconstructionist paths often dislike neo-pagan paths, because they feel people of these paths do not worship the gods correctly or think of them the right way (I saw an article in which an Asatru person bashed Wiccan pantheism).
Recently, I started reading the book "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman. In it, Odin disapproves of neo-pagan paths, accusing them of being "pretenders" with inadequate worship. (He wants more ancient rituals, I've heard, but don't quote me, I haven't gotten to that part of the book yet.)
Even though I'm not a theist, I like to keep my mythologies and characterizations of the gods consistent. If reconstructionists don't feel that the gods would approve of neo-pagan paths, but neo-pagans do, are these people worshiping the same gods? Might it be more accurate to say that they are worshiping two different gods with two different characterizations? Are Wiccans worshiping the "Wiccan" aspects of the gods?
I prefer not to think so, because many neo-pagans take a more pious attitude than reconstructionists will give them credit for, saying things like 'Apollo will not let you forget he is a god'.
I like to characterize the gods as follows: They prefer ancient rites, but as long as reconstructionist paganism is a minority religion, they are willing to settle with anything, since every bit of thought or belief helps. (This is based on the "clap your hands if you believe" trope, which says that gods become stronger or weaker based on how many people believe in or think of them). I also characterize the gods as drawing power from their domains, so "inadequate levels of belief" can be replaced by participation in the domain (you could serve Thalia, the muse of comedy, by being funny).
Neo-paganism is any path that invents its own rites instead of trying to reconstruct ancient ones, while reconstructionist paganism is a path that tries to reconstruct ancient rites.
People of reconstructionist paths often dislike neo-pagan paths, because they feel people of these paths do not worship the gods correctly or think of them the right way (I saw an article in which an Asatru person bashed Wiccan pantheism).
Recently, I started reading the book "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman. In it, Odin disapproves of neo-pagan paths, accusing them of being "pretenders" with inadequate worship. (He wants more ancient rituals, I've heard, but don't quote me, I haven't gotten to that part of the book yet.)
Even though I'm not a theist, I like to keep my mythologies and characterizations of the gods consistent. If reconstructionists don't feel that the gods would approve of neo-pagan paths, but neo-pagans do, are these people worshiping the same gods? Might it be more accurate to say that they are worshiping two different gods with two different characterizations? Are Wiccans worshiping the "Wiccan" aspects of the gods?
I prefer not to think so, because many neo-pagans take a more pious attitude than reconstructionists will give them credit for, saying things like 'Apollo will not let you forget he is a god'.
I like to characterize the gods as follows: They prefer ancient rites, but as long as reconstructionist paganism is a minority religion, they are willing to settle with anything, since every bit of thought or belief helps. (This is based on the "clap your hands if you believe" trope, which says that gods become stronger or weaker based on how many people believe in or think of them). I also characterize the gods as drawing power from their domains, so "inadequate levels of belief" can be replaced by participation in the domain (you could serve Thalia, the muse of comedy, by being funny).
Pantheism vs. Hard Polytheism
In neo-pagan traditions there are a couple of ways of viewing the gods. Soft polytheism views the gods as symbols or energies that effect the human mind. This is my personal view. Hard polytheism views the gods as real and distinct. Supernatural pantheistic polytheism views the gods as real but aspects of the same force.
I am inclined towards pantheism. However, I do not view the gods as real personalities. Even if I did, I would reconcile hard polytheism with pantheism as follows:
The gods are all aspects of the same universe, but so are we. They are no more identifiable with each other than you or I (an exception could be made for gods that are traditionally identified with each other).
I hold this view even though I am not a literal polytheist by regarding the gods as fictional/archetypal aspects of the universe rather than sentient aspects. I am inclined towards regarding the gods as distinct for two main reasons:
For one thing, although it is tempting to apply a gendered duo-theist model to the gods (the goddesses are all aspects of one goddess and the gods are all aspects of one god), this model fails where split-gendered deities are concerned (is Hermaphroditus an aspect of the god or the goddess?)
More importantly, the gods were never viewed as synonymous with each other by the original cultures that created them. If we view them as such, are we worshiping the same gods?
I am inclined towards pantheism. However, I do not view the gods as real personalities. Even if I did, I would reconcile hard polytheism with pantheism as follows:
The gods are all aspects of the same universe, but so are we. They are no more identifiable with each other than you or I (an exception could be made for gods that are traditionally identified with each other).
I hold this view even though I am not a literal polytheist by regarding the gods as fictional/archetypal aspects of the universe rather than sentient aspects. I am inclined towards regarding the gods as distinct for two main reasons:
For one thing, although it is tempting to apply a gendered duo-theist model to the gods (the goddesses are all aspects of one goddess and the gods are all aspects of one god), this model fails where split-gendered deities are concerned (is Hermaphroditus an aspect of the god or the goddess?)
More importantly, the gods were never viewed as synonymous with each other by the original cultures that created them. If we view them as such, are we worshiping the same gods?
Monday, August 8, 2016
Curses Are Impossible (Mostly)
In an earlier post I mentioned that it was impossible to effectively curse someone without risking negative consequences. I don't believe this because of the "threefold law". I don't believe in the threefold law. It wasn't originally a real part of Wicca and only exists because of a misinterpretation of a passage in a book written by Gerald Gardner. However, I still believe that a person causing harm can cause harm to come to that person, if only because society has a taste for justice and revenge.
I don't believe in instrumental magic. This means I don't believe there is a force called "magic" that causes spells to work. Rather I think that magic reprograms a person's conscious and unconscious mind so that they pursue their goal more single-mindedly (especially if they believe that the spell will work).
Since every spell requires mundane actions in order to work, you can't curse someone from a distance, unless that curse makes you more single-minded in your intentions to harm that person. There is no way to deliberately harm a person that does not risk some form of justice or revenge, so I feel such an action would be foolish.
Another way to curse someone might be to utter a curse to their face. This wouldn't necessarily work unless the person believed in instrumental magic though.
You can't just write a curse down, and then consider someone cursed. Magick doesn't work like that. It requires mundane actions in order to work. There may be no threefold law, but people don't take kindly to being harmed. This is why I do not curse.
I don't believe in instrumental magic. This means I don't believe there is a force called "magic" that causes spells to work. Rather I think that magic reprograms a person's conscious and unconscious mind so that they pursue their goal more single-mindedly (especially if they believe that the spell will work).
Since every spell requires mundane actions in order to work, you can't curse someone from a distance, unless that curse makes you more single-minded in your intentions to harm that person. There is no way to deliberately harm a person that does not risk some form of justice or revenge, so I feel such an action would be foolish.
Another way to curse someone might be to utter a curse to their face. This wouldn't necessarily work unless the person believed in instrumental magic though.
You can't just write a curse down, and then consider someone cursed. Magick doesn't work like that. It requires mundane actions in order to work. There may be no threefold law, but people don't take kindly to being harmed. This is why I do not curse.
Can I Call Myself Wiccan?
Although many of my practices are inspired by Wicca, there are a couple of reasons why someone might object to me calling myself a Wiccan.
For one thing, I am not part of a coven, so Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wiccans don't think of me as Wiccan for that reason. However, I could still be accepted as Wiccan by eclectic solitary Wiccans without being part of a coven.
One thing that more Wiccans would object to, is the fact that I am an atheist. However, I could still get away with calling myself a Wiccan among atheistic Wiccans (yes those exist).
However, one potentially more convincing argument against calling myself a Wiccan is the fact that I freely ignore traditions in Wicca that do not work for me. Although I write "an' it harm none" into my spells, I find harming none to be impossible in practice. I don't set out to harm or curse people though, as I don't believe there's any way to curse someone that doesn't also cause bad consequences for the person casting the curse (but that's another article).
Even so, the Wiccan Rede is just that, a rede, which means "advice", so if I don't follow it strictly, that might not be an issue.
A more convincing argument might be the fact that my rituals are never specifically Wiccan. I never invoke the elements, as I am more interested in gods. I suppose I could remedy this by doing Wiccan rituals during Sabbats (which I do celebrate by honoring specific season-themed gods).
The biggest reason why I am reluctant to choose Wicca as my path is that I have trouble with the gender duality. Wiccans often imagine gods and goddesses as being aspects of the Wiccan God and Goddess, with the gods being aspect of the God and the goddesses being aspects of the Goddess respectively. However, if this is the case, how do you arrange hermaphroditic deities into this scheme? Is Hermaphroditus an aspect of the God or the Goddess? For that matter, what about Phanes? Could it be decided based on whether they conform more to the yin or yang principle? Hermaphroditus is the god of androgyny. Which principle does he fit best? (You could say "yang" because of his association with sexuality, but if yang=god, this would make Aphrodite (who is also associated with sexuality) an aspect of the God, and she is usually seen as an aspect of the Goddess.
I think I'll ask a Wiccan about this last question. The answer might be fascinating.
Update: I did a bit more research on Wiccan views of divinity. It turns out some Wiccans view the gods as distinct from each other rather than being aspects of the same two gods. I hold a pantheistic viewpoint in which the gods are distinct from each other, and so are we, but we are all aspects of the same pantheistic universe (the gods are probably fictional/archetypal aspects though).
For one thing, I am not part of a coven, so Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wiccans don't think of me as Wiccan for that reason. However, I could still be accepted as Wiccan by eclectic solitary Wiccans without being part of a coven.
One thing that more Wiccans would object to, is the fact that I am an atheist. However, I could still get away with calling myself a Wiccan among atheistic Wiccans (yes those exist).
However, one potentially more convincing argument against calling myself a Wiccan is the fact that I freely ignore traditions in Wicca that do not work for me. Although I write "an' it harm none" into my spells, I find harming none to be impossible in practice. I don't set out to harm or curse people though, as I don't believe there's any way to curse someone that doesn't also cause bad consequences for the person casting the curse (but that's another article).
Even so, the Wiccan Rede is just that, a rede, which means "advice", so if I don't follow it strictly, that might not be an issue.
A more convincing argument might be the fact that my rituals are never specifically Wiccan. I never invoke the elements, as I am more interested in gods. I suppose I could remedy this by doing Wiccan rituals during Sabbats (which I do celebrate by honoring specific season-themed gods).
The biggest reason why I am reluctant to choose Wicca as my path is that I have trouble with the gender duality. Wiccans often imagine gods and goddesses as being aspects of the Wiccan God and Goddess, with the gods being aspect of the God and the goddesses being aspects of the Goddess respectively. However, if this is the case, how do you arrange hermaphroditic deities into this scheme? Is Hermaphroditus an aspect of the God or the Goddess? For that matter, what about Phanes? Could it be decided based on whether they conform more to the yin or yang principle? Hermaphroditus is the god of androgyny. Which principle does he fit best? (You could say "yang" because of his association with sexuality, but if yang=god, this would make Aphrodite (who is also associated with sexuality) an aspect of the God, and she is usually seen as an aspect of the Goddess.
I think I'll ask a Wiccan about this last question. The answer might be fascinating.
Update: I did a bit more research on Wiccan views of divinity. It turns out some Wiccans view the gods as distinct from each other rather than being aspects of the same two gods. I hold a pantheistic viewpoint in which the gods are distinct from each other, and so are we, but we are all aspects of the same pantheistic universe (the gods are probably fictional/archetypal aspects though).
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Death Gods and Mediumship Without An Afterlife
I do not believe there is an afterlife. I do not pretend to know this for sure, but I imagine being dead is an identical state to being unborn.
However, a cosmology without an afterlife can still have mediumship of sorts and here's why: Plato wrote dialogues with Socrates that may never have occurred (as Socrates was dead by then). If these dialogues never did occur, Plato might have said he was describing what Socrates would have said. It is the same thing with mediumship. It is possible to give one's best guess of what someone would have said if they were alive even if they are not alive to say it.
Lacking a belief in the afterlife also calls into question how to integrate death gods into my system of pantheism. In this system, gods are archetypes representing certain aspects of the universe. However, death gods do not fit this system well, as they do not describe a part of the universe that I believe exists. Jung dealt with this by making them "gods of the unconscious" but this does not fit well with how they were originally conceived.
I have also "rewrote" the gods of death, but not in the same way. Rather I write that the "underworld" is a series of memories of people. The collective mind of humanity is always trying to gather data, and this data takes the form of an "afterlife" filled with ghosts that are, not having a brain to support them, presumed non-sentient. They are philosophical zombies, beings who behave as if they have a mind, but don't have a mind... probably.
This worldview leaves room for agnosticism where life after death is concerned, because of what's known as the "teleportation paradox", which questions whether a teleported person, having been broken down and re-constituted, is still the same person with the same consciousness. In this system, the death gods transport a being that appears outside the body to the underworld. This being is composed of everything that person was, but it is impossible to tell if they are truly conscious, or were just programmed to give that impression, particularly since they have a habit of not behaving like a conscious being unless being observed by a living consciousness.
Therefore, in my pantheistic system, mediumship is talking to one of these "memory ghosts". It probably isn't real mediumship, but could still be useful for calculating what someone "would have said if they were alive".
Even with this replacement for the afterlife, gods of death still lose some of their perceived power. That's why my system increases the importance of these gods' powers over dreams, making them gods of fiction as a consequence of such power (stories and dreams are after all, the same thing).
However, a cosmology without an afterlife can still have mediumship of sorts and here's why: Plato wrote dialogues with Socrates that may never have occurred (as Socrates was dead by then). If these dialogues never did occur, Plato might have said he was describing what Socrates would have said. It is the same thing with mediumship. It is possible to give one's best guess of what someone would have said if they were alive even if they are not alive to say it.
Lacking a belief in the afterlife also calls into question how to integrate death gods into my system of pantheism. In this system, gods are archetypes representing certain aspects of the universe. However, death gods do not fit this system well, as they do not describe a part of the universe that I believe exists. Jung dealt with this by making them "gods of the unconscious" but this does not fit well with how they were originally conceived.
I have also "rewrote" the gods of death, but not in the same way. Rather I write that the "underworld" is a series of memories of people. The collective mind of humanity is always trying to gather data, and this data takes the form of an "afterlife" filled with ghosts that are, not having a brain to support them, presumed non-sentient. They are philosophical zombies, beings who behave as if they have a mind, but don't have a mind... probably.
This worldview leaves room for agnosticism where life after death is concerned, because of what's known as the "teleportation paradox", which questions whether a teleported person, having been broken down and re-constituted, is still the same person with the same consciousness. In this system, the death gods transport a being that appears outside the body to the underworld. This being is composed of everything that person was, but it is impossible to tell if they are truly conscious, or were just programmed to give that impression, particularly since they have a habit of not behaving like a conscious being unless being observed by a living consciousness.
Therefore, in my pantheistic system, mediumship is talking to one of these "memory ghosts". It probably isn't real mediumship, but could still be useful for calculating what someone "would have said if they were alive".
Even with this replacement for the afterlife, gods of death still lose some of their perceived power. That's why my system increases the importance of these gods' powers over dreams, making them gods of fiction as a consequence of such power (stories and dreams are after all, the same thing).
Can an Archetype be Offended?
Many religions, pagan included, believe their gods can be offended the same way a human might be. I disagree. However, I would say they can in a sense, take "offense" metaphorically speaking.
There are many stories in Greek mythology illustrating the horrors of what happens when you do not give a god their due worship. Aphrodite and Dionysus are good examples of this.
I believe these stories can be seen as allegories for the fact that each domain of life must be given its due respect and attention lest someone find they cannot work with that domain properly. Aphrodite is powerful because love can be both a blessing and a curse, and Dionysus' punishments of those who refuse to worship him illustrate the dangers in trying to suppress madness.
Luckily this also means that there is absolutely no risk of offending the gods for trite reasons such as doing a ritual wrongly, as this has zero real natural consequences. There are no sentient gods to get offended at this. Even the metaphorical "offense" listed above, is just that, metaphorical.
The advantage of atheism is that you don't have to worry about doing rituals wrong, although everyone, religious and non-religious alike, could be affected by the forces represented by Aphrodite and Dionysus.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Are There Any Good Gods?
In many of my previous posts, I explore whether or not certain gods are evil, and in a story I posted earlier, I contrasted the gods invented by a child with better-established gods invented by adults. It seems no matter what mythology you look at, gods are evil. This arguably includes the Abrahamic God as well, since his mythology includes flooding the world, among other things.
The closest thing I have found to a perfectly innocent mythological being are beings who fight for just causes. Hermes, for example, kills the monster guarding Io, because she was being held captive by Hera. The angels of the Abrahamic religions deliver messages of God and deliver people from demons. I therefore saw fit to do the same thing with my own gods, not giving them anything dark until they were themselves attacked. This is a tradition in modern fiction. People want to see strong heroes, but have a low-view on attack without reason, so enjoy watching heroes defend their loved ones against evil antagonists.
However, in religious mythologies, gods are either morally justified by divine command theory (good is a synonym for godly so anything God does is good) or not morally justified at all (gods are more powerful than humans but not more moral). I actually like gods who have a bad side, since it makes the mythology more descriptive of the world as it is, as opposed to the world as it should be. Mythologies that have unambiguously good beings, such as angels, tend to create evil demons to explain evil, and I'd rather have a more realistic situation such as Greek mythology (where, as in real life, there is no all-good or all-evil being).
However, perhaps due to dissonance between ancient and modern values, certain gods have worse reputations than others, due to certain modern biases.
People, women especially, often have a more idealized view of gods who do not commit rape, even if they are not otherwise moral (Ares being an example). This is an inverse of what happened in Ancient times, where Zeus, a serial rapist, was idealized and Ares was demonized.
This might be explained by the fact that ancient views of the gods varied, and the people didn't necessarily believe all of the myths about them. The story of Apollo's rape of Creusa for example, was likely an invention of Euripides (Ion was originally said to be fathered by Xuthus). Some myths are closely associated with a god's religious cult, but others were designed more for entertainment purposes.
Often in modern fiction, villains have "standards" and will not cross certain lines (like Ares). However, the main reason for mythological rape is procreation. The act is "justified" by the fact that it creates a hero.
In both real life and mythology, this is bullshit. Gods have celebrity status among their own peoples. If they wanted children so badly, they could easily find a mistress that would consent to them. An especially glaring example of this is Odin's rape of Rindr to create Vali. He chose Rindr because of a prophecy. This is the worst example of self-fulfilling prophecy I've ever heard, although the murder of Baldr comes close. It seems Norse mythology is filled with misplaced fatalism.
Often I hear about Odin and Zeus still being honored today with the justification, among theists, that "the gods are real but their myths are not". As an atheist, there isn't really anything more to the gods but their mythologies, so the ideas of gods without myths seem like secondary mythological copies whose mythologies have been wiped clean to make them seem more palatable. This begs the question, what have these mythless gods done? Aren't they ever bored?
The closest thing I have found to a perfectly innocent mythological being are beings who fight for just causes. Hermes, for example, kills the monster guarding Io, because she was being held captive by Hera. The angels of the Abrahamic religions deliver messages of God and deliver people from demons. I therefore saw fit to do the same thing with my own gods, not giving them anything dark until they were themselves attacked. This is a tradition in modern fiction. People want to see strong heroes, but have a low-view on attack without reason, so enjoy watching heroes defend their loved ones against evil antagonists.
However, in religious mythologies, gods are either morally justified by divine command theory (good is a synonym for godly so anything God does is good) or not morally justified at all (gods are more powerful than humans but not more moral). I actually like gods who have a bad side, since it makes the mythology more descriptive of the world as it is, as opposed to the world as it should be. Mythologies that have unambiguously good beings, such as angels, tend to create evil demons to explain evil, and I'd rather have a more realistic situation such as Greek mythology (where, as in real life, there is no all-good or all-evil being).
However, perhaps due to dissonance between ancient and modern values, certain gods have worse reputations than others, due to certain modern biases.
People, women especially, often have a more idealized view of gods who do not commit rape, even if they are not otherwise moral (Ares being an example). This is an inverse of what happened in Ancient times, where Zeus, a serial rapist, was idealized and Ares was demonized.
This might be explained by the fact that ancient views of the gods varied, and the people didn't necessarily believe all of the myths about them. The story of Apollo's rape of Creusa for example, was likely an invention of Euripides (Ion was originally said to be fathered by Xuthus). Some myths are closely associated with a god's religious cult, but others were designed more for entertainment purposes.
Often in modern fiction, villains have "standards" and will not cross certain lines (like Ares). However, the main reason for mythological rape is procreation. The act is "justified" by the fact that it creates a hero.
In both real life and mythology, this is bullshit. Gods have celebrity status among their own peoples. If they wanted children so badly, they could easily find a mistress that would consent to them. An especially glaring example of this is Odin's rape of Rindr to create Vali. He chose Rindr because of a prophecy. This is the worst example of self-fulfilling prophecy I've ever heard, although the murder of Baldr comes close. It seems Norse mythology is filled with misplaced fatalism.
Often I hear about Odin and Zeus still being honored today with the justification, among theists, that "the gods are real but their myths are not". As an atheist, there isn't really anything more to the gods but their mythologies, so the ideas of gods without myths seem like secondary mythological copies whose mythologies have been wiped clean to make them seem more palatable. This begs the question, what have these mythless gods done? Aren't they ever bored?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)