Neptune's Dolphins

Since various notable people have been discussing starting colonies on Mars, while others tell of discovering life in outer space, I decided to ponder the metaphysics of cosmotheology. As a Polytheist, I wonder how Outer Space and Extraterrestrials (ETs) will affect Polytheism, in general. Can the various cosmologies of Polytheism accommodate ETs or colonies on the Moon? How do rituals and traditions respond to realities beyond cultural beliefs? What is Polytheism’s place in the cosmotheological landscape?

 

I think that Polytheism will adapt and embrace the new realities. The many cosmologies of Polytheism already include multi-universes, non-physical realms, and orders of existence. For Polytheists, the universe is rich in spiritual meaning. All life exists in a web or reciprocity within a vast interconnected universe.

 

A reflection of what Polytheism is was written by the monks of the Saiva Siddhanta Yoga Order (Note 1) in their pamphlet “Gods and Gods of Hinduism.” They stated, “It must be clearly understood that God and the Gods are not a psychological product of the Hindu religious mind. They are far older than the Universe…They are loving overseers and custodians of the cosmos, earth and mankind. The Hindu cosmological terrain envelops all of humanity. It is not exclusive.”

 

The statements of the Hindu monks encompass Polytheistic thought. Polytheists do see the Cosmos as an interconnected web of relationships. As a part of that, the Gods move beyond the known Universe. The monks further state that the “Gods are the fountainheads of its (Universe) galactic energies, shining stars and sunlit planets.” Adding ETs to the Web of Life would not be so disruptive.

 

Meanwhile, how does a Polytheist approach to residing off the Earth? For example, how does living in a colony on the Moon, affect the worship and veneration of Luna or Nanna-Suen or any other God of the Moon? What form would that devotion take? Living on the Moon changes the relationship between the devotee and the God. What about colonies on Mars, where the Moon is not seen? That would mean a new relationship would develop.

 

In Sumerian Polytheism, Nanna-Suen measures time. As He waxes and wanes, Nanna-Suen delivers gifts from his Barge until He returns to the Underworld. During the Dark Moon, He is a Judge there. Could the Moon be His Barge, with the colonists his people? Could time be measured with a period of the “Dark of the Moon” and “Full of the Moon?” I believe that Nanna-Suen will whisper to his devotees in their dreams, what He wants. Rituals will take a new form, since the colony is on the Moon. As for Mars, Nanna-Suen may have the two Moons be his agents, or the Gods of the Moons of Mars will make Themselves known.

 

I believe that Polytheism will adapt to the new circumstances. New Gods will emerge, and old Gods will take on new attributes. The Gods will reveal new ways of venerating Them. Divination is always available for asking what They want. Reading the original myths and cosmologies will uncover new ways for devotion for life off the Earth.

 

Notes:

Note 1. The monks reside on Kauai, Hawai’i.

 

Suggested Reading:

 

Davis, Andrew, “Metaphysics of Exo-Life.” Grasmere (ID): SacraSage Press. 2003.

Meade, Shannon, “Faith in the Cosmos.” Machiasport (ME): Shannon Meade. 2024.

O’Meara, Thomas, “Vast Universe.” Collegeville (MN): Liturgical Press. 2012.

Weintraub, David, “Religions and Extraterrestrial Life.” London: Springer Book. 2014.

 

Neo-Pagan author, Yvonne Aburrow writes in “Changing Paths,” the pathfinder (deconvert) asks themselves, “should I stay or should I go?” for a while. The process of changing beliefs, values, and community is one of “huge upheaval and turmoil.” She says the experience of arriving in the Pagan community is often thought of as a homecoming and not a conversion. The pathfinder has finally found a community of shared values and practices.

 

Conversion is what revealed religions do. In “The Anatomy of Deconversion,” John Marriott writes, “conversion to a faith tradition nearly always includes adopting a comprehensive set of doctrines and becoming embedded in a religious community.” He continues, “believers choose to become Christians – it is an act of the will, a commitment to a faith system that provides them with great spiritual gain.”

 

People becoming a part of Neo-Paganism usually have no formal classes in converting. Instead, they read books, talk to other Neo-Pagans and begin to develop a Pagan-world view. What usually occurs is that most people become involved with eclectic Neo-Paganism. They follow the Wheel of the Year and become comfortable with magic.

 

Some study witchcraft with lineage groups such as the Alexandrians. Others will go from Neo-Pagan eclecticism into Polytheistic traditions such as Heathenism. Since they are actively searching for a place to feel at home, deconverts will often switch between groups.

 

Within Polytheism, deconverts embark on a new concept of the Gods outside of a revealed sacred text. Therefore, they need to find reliable people to ask questions of. By continually exploring, each person works to become comfortable with new ways of doing and thinking.

 

Entering either Neo-Paganism or Polytheism is a slow evolution of reinterpretation and experience. In response to both, people’s beliefs will wax and wane. It is not a steady progression but winds its way through twists and turns in believing.

 

Because people are developing their relations with the numinous, they often change paths within Neo-Paganism and Polytheism. They go from “just visiting” to “feeling at home.” Wise people will understand what Neo-Paganism and Polytheism can provide and what they are looking for. Others will discover that their beliefs lead them elsewhere outside of both faiths.

 

Where many Neo-Pagans get stuck is in constantly reassuring themselves that the faith they left was a bad one. They cannot seem to let go of the old faith. Usually, some trauma is involved, which needs to be addressed. Within Neo-Paganism, they will seek a solution to the trauma. However, a reputable group will refer the person to counselors who can help them. Otherwise, the group will be warped and filled with trauma-filled people.

 

Meanwhile, new Polytheists go from why they are doing a ritual to learning how to do it properly. New people need explanations to help them understand the numinous. In Polytheism, theology becomes how to relate to the sacred and why rituals are done in certain ways.

 

Notes:

Note 1. Deconversion is a religious transition from one religion to either another one or to no religion. Reasons for leaving could be emotional as the person was hurt by others or by religious leaders. A person may have suffered abuse such as being shamed for being gay. Cognitive or intellectual reasons for leaving stem from the dissonance between faith and reality. Toxic theology such as original sin or the fires of hell propel people to leave. Faced with the truth that does not fit the religious meanings, people are forced to rethink their understanding of their original religions.

 

Note 2. Neo-Paganism and Polytheism are orthopraxic. They focus on the proper ways of venerating the sacred. They have no outstanding doctrines to believe.

 

Suggested Reading:

Yvonne Aburrow, “Changing Paths.”

 

 

Monotheism asserts that every great civilization shares the same Gods. It explains that people created their Gods to explain the world around them. For example, the Mesopotamians had Gods to explain the unpredictable floods of their major rivers. The God of War, Ninurta built canals to control the spring floods. Based on that syllogism, El of Canaan and Ra of Egypt are the same as Ninurta.

 

This assertion is “faulty generalization,” since it is based on a limited amount of information. Polytheisms in various civilizations are often studied by “Monotheistic” scholars. Edward Butler explains in “The Way of the Gods” that “Western Tradition is a Christian and post-Christian tradition.” This forms a fundamental bias that myths are historical or natural events. Since Monotheism strives for unity, hence the scholarly approach to Polytheistic civilizations is to regard their Gods as the same Being. The result of this faulty generalization is a broad sweeping supposition about complex religions. In this case, the complexities of Polytheisms are stripped away forcing the religions into one convenient category of proto-monotheism.

 

Moreover, Monotheism’s drive for unity infers that no other God can stand alone. Every God’s Pantheon must be taken as one entity. According to Monotheism, all the Gods are all one God with many attributes. Therefore Jupiter, Mars, Vesta and the other Roman Gods are all aspects of the One Roman God.

 

The other logical fallacy of Monotheism is “special pleading.” That is “insisting that something is an exception to a rule, without justifying why.” Yahweh is the exception to the rule about other civilizations and their Gods. Nowhere is it explained as to why Yahweh is different nor why the myths concerning Yahweh are facts. Instead, it assumes the “specialness” of Yahweh.

 

Polytheists have taken Monotheistic logic in the opposite direction. If one God is real, then They are all real. Moreover, if all the Gods are the same except for Yahweh, then They are all different. Gods live in families with Beings of all genders. And like families, some within do move between other families and their own. Some Gods belong in several Pantheons, while Others remain in only one.

 

Further Reading:

Edward Butler, “The Way of the Gods.”

John Michael Greer, “A World Full of Gods.”

Glenn Holland, “Gods in the Desert.”

Johnathan Kirch, “God Against the Gods.”

Lynn Prickett and Clive Prince, “When God Had a Wife.”

 

 

Since 2020, there has been a steady drumbeat of essays of how Christianity is under siege. In the Erasmus Lecture (sponsored by the Institute of Religion and Politics) for 2022, the Catholic Archbishop of Sidney (Australia), Antony Fisher, O.P. ponders whether the West is post or pre-Christian. (Note 1) Alarmed by the rise of secularization and the floundering hegemony of Christianity, he believes that the balance between the Church and the State is tipped more and more to secularization.

 

The Archbishop defines “secularity” as “not only a distinction but a degree of separation between church and state with each sphere and its agents having a certain freedom from the other.” He defines “secularization” as “the process of further separating these spheres, and minimizing or privatizing religion.” Fisher explains “whereas other civilizations identified sacred and profane power, Christianity has always insisted that some things be rendered unto Caesar and some unto God, even if we bring the one conscience to both spheres.” According to the Archbishop, not only is Christianity being marginalized, but that it has been pushed aside for “progressive orthodoxies.” (Note 2)

 

Archbishop Fisher considers Christianity to be the capstone of civilization. He contrasts that with Ancient Rome, which he says allowed for human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery, and immoral behavior. Since in Rome, religion was also civic religion, people obeyed the authorities as sacral figures. Fisher maintains that the ancient Romans had a multitude of deities which exercised arbitrary power over life and death. Therefore, according to him, Roman ethics left much to be desired. Noting that many societies were only converted partly to Christianity, Fisher states that they still held onto Pagan values. These values are reflected in the movement toward secularization which includes relative morality. Fisher alludes to the destruction that Progressivism has made on modern society. (Note 3)

 

The Archbishop concludes his long essay with “Christianity must speak truth in love.” He writes, “Only such a Christianity can reunite a divided Church and culture, provide a foundation for a genuinely tolerant, pluralist society, and bring God and humanity closer together.”

 

Archbishop Fisher does what many Monotheists do. Since God in Christianity is the absolute moral center of right and wrong, the problem of evil needs to be dealt with. One way is to put the evil outside onto the secular or Pagan (Polytheistic) culture. Since the faith no longer needs to address evil within it, it can focus on the “outside evil.” Therefore, the usual response to any threat is the call to return to “traditional Christianity.”

 

Edward Butler in “The Way of the Gods,” writes “The strain of absorbing the weight of Europe’s own pre-Christian heritage, not to mention the encounter with living polytheist civilizations in every other part of the world, leads to a massive deployment of intellectual resources in defense of the existing paradigm, working to transform it in a controlled manner rather than allowing it collapse.” He continues, “In this way, the so-called ‘Classics’ also became safe for Christians to study through the notion that either they had no real religious significance at all, or that if they did, this aspect of them necessarily belonged to the merely historical conditions of their cultural production, as distinct with the fundamental truth of monotheism.” Butler stresses that the imperative to defend monotheism will distort any examination of Polytheistic cultures. This is apparent in Fisher’s assessment of Roman society.

 

Butler points out that Monotheists when faced with autonomous independent Pagan cultures will deflect the reality of Christian hegemony. The bad aspects of Christianity are foisted on the Polytheistic culture. The fragility of Christianity inspires its believers to control or at least double down on their efforts to discredit the Polytheistic culture. Otherwise, the Christian culture will become disoriented and unglued.

 

What has become apparent to me is that Archbishop Fisher’s essay echoes the writings of Jonathan Cahn and Naomi Wolf (Note 4), except that he blames the secularists instead of Gods. The uneasy feeling of being out of place is combined with a call to traditional religion. Oddly enough, various Neo-Pagans are also writing about the same unraveling of society. In their case, they are calling for a return to Progressive values. Both the Monotheists and Neo-Pagans seem to be unsettled since they perceive that their places of safety are under siege.

 

Is the West, pre or post Christian? Since I believe that Polytheism is the default religion of humankind, I think that Polytheism is reasserting itself. In that regard, the West is returning to its natural faith. As for the secularization that the Archbishop rails about, I think that is modernity’s reaction to Monotheism, which I consider to be an unnatural religion.

 

Notes:

Note 1: Read Archbishop Fisher’s essay here: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/02/the-west-post–or-pre-christian

Note 2: He calls them “secular fixations – on autonomy, sexuality, victimhood, diversity, and inclusion (of everyone except believers).”

Note 3: Meanwhile, Neo-Pagans decry the rise of traditional Christianity which they believe threatens them.

Note 4: See my post, “‘Return of the Gods:’ A Polytheistic Perspective.”

 

Living in a Monotheistic culture does not prepare people coming into Polytheism to understand Who the Gods are. The Gods of Monotheism (Note 1.) are transcendent Gods, Who are totally independent and separate from the physical universe. These Gods are so alien that They cannot be depicted by ordinary people.

 

To understand a Monotheistic God requires consulting an approved source. The authorities of each Monotheistic religion have delineated writings and teachings for informing their believers. This could be the Christian Bible which offers textual knowledge.

 

To be in the presence of One of the Monotheistic Gods is experience transcendence. This mystical experience often leaves a person overwhelmed and overcome. This is because the Monotheistic Gods are powerful and removed from the Cosmos.

 

In contrast, the Gods of Polytheism are immanent, since They are a part of the material universe. By fully participating in the ecosystem of the Cosmos, these Gods are accessible to humans. They can be encountered by humans in various ways. For example, I felt Neptune’s presence during a Roman ritual. Other methods of meeting Polytheistic Gods are through making offerings, doing magic or going to sacred places.

 

Polytheists live in a numinous world. Every tree, place, value and even an act such as traveling has their own numen (spirit). A regular person can experience the numen directly. I have had encounters with the numina of the basswood trees near my building. Since I am a devout Polytheist, I honor these numina by offering Them water.

 

An example of the difference between transcendence and immanence can be found in interpreting Moses and the Burning Bush. The transcendent God spoke to Moses by using a bush that burned but not consumed by fire. Since this God was separate from the Bush, the focus of the incident is the message to Moses.

 

For a Polytheist, the Bush would be holy since the immanent God was a part of the Bush. The message to Moses is important but so is the Bush as the residing place of the God. The Bush would receive also offerings for being holy.

 

Notes:

Note 1. I refer to the Monotheistic Gods as plural since the Gods of the Monotheistic religions –Allah, Yahweh, and Christ — differ greatly from each other.

 

Kadmus, a professor of philosophy, expounds on the difference between Polytheistic (Pagan) and Monotheistic metaphysics. After explaining the differences, he applies Polytheistic theology to modern Western politics. He concludes that capitalism came from Monotheism, which he considers to be nihilistic. To combat that, people need to embrace Polytheism, which is life-sustaining.

 

The major value of this book for me was how to think as a Polytheist. According to Kadmus, the invention of writing fundamentally changed how people think. Writing objectified words, which now exist without any anchor to reality. Therefore, abstract concepts such as “goodness” could come into being. Since writing detaches words from time and space, it allowed Monotheism to come into being.

 

In contrast, oral cultures are concrete and additive. They force the listener to be present with the speaker. Oral thought cements words to a particular time and place. Like verbs, oral thought follows “and also” to encourage things to accumulate more parts.

 

Kadmus writes, “This objectifying nature of the thought of a literate society shows up in many of our very worst modern characteristics. It also runs deeply throughout Monotheistic metaphysics. The Monotheistic God is most often an abstract goodness or perfection, a strange monster impossible to grasp in an active, concrete associative logic.” He continues, “If the One God were good, we could have this world; if it were evil, we could have this same world; if it didn’t exist at all, we could have this same world again. Thus, ‘goodness’ here is clearly a word without concrete content.”

 

Meanwhile, Polytheist metaphysics is committed to a complex plurality. This can be seen in the many names for the various Gods. For example, Marduk of Babylon has fifty names; each as important as the others. He is the Commander of the Legions of Wind Demons, Wielder of the Flaming Sword, Knower of the Secrets of the Earth, the Bringer of Rain, and more. Marduk can be all of these parts without being a totality

 

Monotheist thinking is reductive while Polytheistic thinking is productive. Monotheism reduces everything to One, while Polytheism promotes an abundant plurality. Kadmus writes “Reality within Pagan metaphysics is defined in terms of multiplicity and complexity, while Monotheism instead posits an ultimate oneness arrived at through reduction and simplification. For most versions of Monotheism, the oneness of the universe will derive from the power and oneness of its creator. If God is One, then so too are Truth and Reality. On the other hand, if the Gods are many, then so too are the truths of reality.”

 

Kadmus continues “When your metaphysics is based upon unity, reduction, totalizing, and Oneness, your approach to the world be shaped by it. Your approach to the world will focus on perfection, purity (Note 1), and the one narrow path to the only acceptable goal. In such a view, each thing has an essence that it either fulfills or betrays. Likewise, each thing has a purpose that it either serves or neglects. Oneness is purity, multiplicity is sin.”

 

As we try to re-establish Polytheistic metaphysics, these ideas are worth pondering. There is no One Truth but as many truths as there are Divine Beings. Polytheistic thinking celebrates fertility in all its forms, multiplying instead of reducing.

 

Notes:

Note 1. Purity in Polytheism can be seen in context such as dirty dishes that need to be washed. Christian purity involves purpose and order. In Monotheism, to be pure means to consist of only one thing.