On a bigger issue though, I am personally intrigued about the whole business of separating Paganism(s) from nature - I know that some people are uncomfortable with the whole designation of Paganism(s) as an "earth centered spirituality", but if they are not this, then what are they? Michael York suggests that Paganism is in fact the urge to venerate within nature, given expression (and thus it may be found, not merely in contemporary Paganisms, but also in indigenous traditions, and the major world religions). The comment above about "eco-zealot druids" is a case in point - I mean, what the hell would a druid be if not an "eco-zealot"? Surely a spiritual relationship with the local land, expressed through druidry is going to motivate any individual to care passionately about the surrouding world and want to do something about it. (and if it doesn't, then what kind of relationship is it).

I would be particularly fascinated to find definitions of paganism(s) that don't talk about the importance of nature - does anyone know of any that are published, or on the net?

Edited by Pomona to split post - beginning of post in the Organ Donation thread in the Snug.

Try Scientology.

Zealot = a fanatical and uncompromising follower of a religion or policy.

"Eco" = a shortening of "ecology" = the branch of biology concerned with the relations of organisms to one another, and to their physical surroundings.

Now I'm not a Druid, but I don't think they are generally that fanatical about organismic relationships...

Well most if not actually all of us neo-Druids are into the whole web of life, treading lightly upon the earth nature-based stuff. It is a major theme in all of the groups or orders I have been active in, along with the folklore, poetry, divination and Gods & Goddesses that make up the Druid thing. I think the division comes between the Druid who recycles and plants a few trees and the Druid who chains himself to the digger or digs tunnels under the bypass site. The Eco-Warrior type is very much in evidence in most groups but they are rarely the majority which does nothing to quell their fanaticism.

I have to say I admire anyone who stands up for what they believe to be right with regard to not only our ecology, but a plethora of other things too.

As a nation, we do seem to have a tendency to accept whatever the resident bully boys and girls say we must do! Maybe we should take a leaf fron the French's book - they certainly know how to protest against this sort of high handed PTB dictatorship!

I also view Paganism ( as in nature based faith) to be something of a symbioutic relationship. If the land is concreted over/poisoned etc - where can Pagans worship? Dammit! That brings in whether observances can equally well be conducted indoors...

Wanders off to have another think!

I can understand that many modern people dont spend a lot of time in the Country as the majority of people spend their time in towns and cities.
I certainly suspect any Urban Pagans, would still get into the Country when possible and also spend a lot of time in their Gardens or the Cities Parks , or at least their Window Boxes.
But I suspect taking Nature out of any Pagan Religion / Tradition is going to do it serious damage as aliving belief system!
If thats even possible as Humans are themselves a part of Nature, like it or Lump it!
I think personally any Pagans trying to remove the Nature aspects of their Tradition may just be following the wrong path!

A gods centred spirituality?

Well, "gods centered spirituality" is fair enough, and I think is a reasonable enough description of reconstructionist paganism in the classical mode, but there is an insistence in Pagan discourse that it is closely linked to nature! I mean look at what Pagans say - I've yet to find a book that says that Paganism is "gods centered", rather than "nature centered", and the same is certainly true for websites - I've surveyed over 100 sites aimed at "introducing" or "explaining" paganism, and they all, without exception, talk about the spiritual importance of nature very early on - it is uniformly articulated as a very basic identifier of "what a pagan is". The same story is true for academic work on Paganisms.
As always the difficulty lies in the diversity - but there seems to be a general acceptance that nature is somehow an important part of the mix. I think that Badger Bob is spot on with his description of Druids, and while the presence of nature tends to be (sometimes) more symbolic (i.e. personalised as a divinity) in Wicca, it is there as well.
Fundamentally I don't really understand Pagans who seek to distance themselves from this nature based position, although I do appreciate that the level of commitment to living that out in practice may be very different.
Please don't think I'm having a go - I'm not, but this point of view that "paganism is not green" is one that I've encountered in lots of places, and can't really get my head round.

Have you read many books about reconstructed pagan religions?

Is it possible that most of that derives from the early ascendancy and hold of the Pagan Federation, and the prevalence, for a long time, of PF Officers in terms of published works on paganisms? Given that one of the three principles as espoused by the PF defined paganism(s) as nature worshipping, or based (can't recall the actual wording, but no doubt John Mac will, if he reads this! ), and the insistence of the PF of there being one paganism (a political move, I suspect, to try to convince the government that "paganism" is a religion) I am not surprised if these things are to be found on the majority of pagan websites - which, at the best of times, seem to freely borrow from each other.



which ones did you have in mind? Apart from Dr Blain's work on sacred spaces.



ah well - you see, I think the statements "paganism is a nature based religion" and "paganism is green" could be viewed as completely different.

a) Yes - as I've accepted that reconstructianism is an exception in the previous post.
I'm not sure that the position that this is due to the presence of PF members / officers, as representing "published paganism" is entirely fair or accurate. I agree with you that there are inherent tensions in trying to represent Paganism in a political context, but the construction of Paganism as a Nature based path is much more prevelant (and indeed predates) that, particularly if one accepts the romantic inheritance suggested by Hutton.
c) Academic work - other than Jenny Blain; Hutton, Clifton, Harvey, York, Pearson, Wallis, Lewis, Roberts, Samuel, Berger, Rabinowitz, Ezzy, Letcher, to name but a few (although Letcher does critique Paganism as a "virtual religion" in this respect).
d) I don't think that they are that different - indeed, there is a strong implication that the latter should arise from the former, as I suggested in the inital (if bowdlerised) initial post.

Ah, but the Romantic movement was not exactly modern paganism. However, I take your point that, if a lot of modern paganism was inspired by it, then it would be natural to include that. I would argue that the religions which were primarily influenced by the Romantic movement were Wicca and Druidry. As the numerically predominant pagan religions they have, undoubtedly, influenced many who would not label themselves as either. Hutton, after all, discussed this in his book on Wicca. He may also have done so when discussing Druidry, but I have not read that book.





I know Harvey and Wallis. Blain is a very good friend. And yes, though we both practice a reconstructed religion, we both, also, feel close to the land. But I'm not sure it's from the same source as the Romantic movement. In Iceland the government will divert roads if it is felt they pass through spaces inhabited by elves.

Dear Moonhunter,



Much as I'd like the PF to have that kind of influence, we both know it doesn't. I think the concept maybe goes a wee bit further back than that. For instance:

“The chief good is to live according to Nature, which is to live according to virtue, for nature leads us to this point”
Zeno of Citium (334 – 262 BCE)

"I am Nature, the Universal Mother, mistress of all the elements, primordial child of time, sovereign of all things spiritual, Queen of the dead, Queen also of the immortals, the single manifestation of all gods and goddesses that are.………"
Apuleius of Madaura, Metamorphoses, 2nd C CE

I don't actually see any meaningful distinction between 'nature-centred' and 'deities-centred' Paganism. The monotheistic faiths tend to view their deities as absolutely transcendent. Pre-existent creators of nature rather than a part of it. Our Pagan deities seem to be predominantly experienced/understood as a part of nature, albeit with the recognition that there are many parts of nature that humans do not, and perhaps cannot, understand.

In the last few years, there has been a kind of reaction against the concept of nature-worship by a few Pagans, who have sought to present it as some sort of weak-minded, sniff the flowers and hug the bunnies, hippy fantasy. This really seems to picking fights for the sake of it, as it depends on twisting nature-worship into a parody few nature-worshippers would recognise.

BB,

John Macintyre

Until recently with the separation of agriculture/nature from day to day living i think everyone would have had an appreciation of nature. It would have been normal. If you didn't, you went hungry.
Now with most of us living in cities and buying bread already made in plasic bags and even, god preserve us, ready sliced it is normal for people to start to over-do the nature bit because it has ceased to be a part of them. It is a re-discovery and as such is elevated to an abnormal postion or status that i don't think it ever had. I don't think you can talk about nature worship. Maybe parts of nature, like grain or something specifi and vitally importatant to you were the object of veneration but on the whole it seems more likely that the whole of nature was held in the reverence which comes with a deep understanding of it and from being simply a part of it, something everyone has lost.If you look at any so-called primitive society there is no separation from nature and the gods etc. are worshipped in the context of it.
Without nature we are doomed, there is nothing else. So imo any non-nature based belief system has got it entirely wrong. You can't eat the Gods. It's probably just a stamping of little feet and trying to get attention.

I'd have trouble with this as I can't think of anything that is not nature.

Do you mean Pagans who draw a distinction between 'science' or 'technology' and nature? To me anything man-made is nature because nature made man and all that man makes comes from the materials of the universe Know lots will go 'no but, yeah but, no but...' to that, but what is not nature?

Chaos Magic's quite good at going beyond the 'earth mother' discussions; Scientology I suppose? Anything Sci-Fi related? Electro-magic/techno-magic - if you believe the electricity inside a computer to be no cousin of the lightning bolt

While I agree in large with Thinair about what is not 'nature', in a seemingly contradictory fashion I have to ask what is meant by 'natural'

There is little left in any inhabited regions that could be termed 'natural'. Nature changed as soon as humans developed the tools and ideas which would bend 'nature' to it's will and out of any original shape.

Take a garden. There are few gardens in the U.K. that don't have mostly non-indigenous flowers or shrubs in them. Most modern gardens could at best be called " containment areas for potentially invasive species" .

The country side is not 'natural'. Neither horticulture nor agriculture are natural processes. The country side is full of imported species, both plant and animal, arranged in human determined areas to meet human needs. If one wants to 'go out into nature' , find an untouched rain forest somewhere in the world, not the British Country side ( and I don't think you'll find that 'nature' in untamed areas is any respecter of humans!).

Stonehenge. Nowt natural about that. Perfectly good rock formations were cut up and pulled along the landscape (probably causing the destruction of the habitat and thus extinction of the 'Pre- Neolithic ground shrew' ) and put up what is increasingly being considered a Necropolis. Yet neo-Druids , many who claim to be 'nature based', go to worship there.

Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find a 'natural' area anywhere in the U.K. This is not to say one cannot acknowledge natural 'processes'. natural processes are, well, everything from cowslip 'invading' one's garden to the making of a nuclear bomb ( metal from ore, oil-based plastics, silicone and the mind of humans at work ).

I think one has to be a bit more specific than just saying 'nature based' as that both misses and covers a lot of territory.

Marto

John, I'd agree, for those who read the writings of pre-Christian pagans. However, for those who don't, I think the PF has had a major influence, at least via its local moots. this is not to denigrate the PF - what it has accomplished for paganism is excellent, and it continues the good work. It's simply a recognition that it probably has the most widespread and longest established moot structure which, when combined with its philosophy, means it has had a very big influence within the pagan community. With the growth of internet fora that is probably on the wane now, but I don't think that early influence should be overlooked.



I'd agree. What I see is a difference in emphasis, rather than in kind.



Maybe I've missed what you describe. I have seen a shift in emphasis among some pagans away from nature-worship, which might, for example, be exemplified as not encompassing a 'Mother Nature' goddess as such, to one where nature is very much a feature of one's religion, but not in terms of worship or equality with deity, so much as a natural outcome of being in touch with the root causes of the things which shaped one's religion.

For me, it is quite easy. Nature is oposition to culture and culture is everything made by men. So nature is all what isn't made by humans. The culture is a way how people change the world. For example: chair is made of wood which is part of nature but chair per se ("idea" od chair, its shape, way how it's made) is part of culture. I have no idea if you understand what I mean