I’m currently reading Ronald Hutton’s “The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles”, and the theories proposed by him make for interesting reading.

If anyone’s familiar enough with R Hutton’s works, you’ll know that he (despite his own personal religious beliefs) debunks a lot of long-held cherished beliefs about paganism in this country. Without giving too much away, (if you were planning on reading the book), he states in this book that his own research demonstrates the invalidity of earlier theories regarding issues such as a divine “Great Mother Goddess”, the lack of evidence to provide undeniable proof of the existence of any “Celtic” belief system as we understand it in terms of “Celtic Paganism” and cast doubt on the assertions of various earlier authors about “the old religion” or indeed any proof of a continuing pagan tradition throughout the centuries. His book “Stations of the Sun: Ritual Year in Britian” is equally instrumental in demystifying many traditional customs and their origins.

For many people, his findings will not be too much of a surprise, and his theories readily acceptable as being fact. But this thread isn’t about R Hutton’s books, but more about:

How did, or does, fact affect your faith?

Let’s face it, most of us come to Paganism, not through dry academic research, but by our own emotional attachment and beliefs. It’s that emotional attachment which keeps us on our path, drives us forward to learn, to study, to understand. Part of the learning curve of any path is (or should be) to research its history and background – and it does, or must surely, come as a bit of a jolt to realise that the websites and velveteen-covered-books which promised you were faithfully reconstructing the true old ways as practised by real Bronze-age matriarchs and their consorts, were actually falling far short of the truth.

Do you turn a blind eye to newly-accepted fact, reasoning that the “facts” you were faithful to was considered absolutely right at one time and could well be proved right again? Do you re-appraise your path, and decide that in that case, none of what you believed was true and therefore hardly worth bothering about? Do you focus on the “unknown” and build your beliefs around that, basically making it up? Or do you look for something which has more of a proven authentic heritage?

For myself, it’s been strange – I started off like a lot of people who do come more officially or formally to a Pagan path a bit later on, doing the whole “Great Goddess/Horned God/wave a willow wand harvested at moonrise and mourn our sisters-in-the-craft who were persecuted by those nasty xtians during the witch-hunts” type of thing and, as my reading horizons broadened, was rudely shocked to discover, for example, that our ancestors did NOT dip-dye candles for specific magickal uses. It didn’t dent my beliefs, but it did make me question them – more of a kind of “what am I doing if there is no proven historical precedent etc” thing. And gradually I came to realise that for me, it didn’t really matter too much. Because I still have an emotional attachment and personal experiences with my Gods to make me realise that my path is still a valid one. Yes, it’s neo-pagan and at the moment has only as much to do with the practices of ancient Rome as my reading and 21st Century ethics and morals will allow, but it’s none-the-less valid for that. So I’m treading a road and trying to find a balance between dry academic research and my own faith. It’s what makes paganism the challenge that it is, and ultimately, for me, the more satisfying.

After all that, does anyone else have any views on how you reconcile your beliefs with the historical facts?

It is good to have the research that has gone into Ronald Hutton's books so easily accessible. They are always a good read.

Personally I take a lot of inspiration from the ancient sacred sites of Britain (I don't think it is too big a leap of imagination to assume that stone circles, barrows, etc had a religious purpose as for most of our history the really big construction efforts have gone into religious buildings and defensive structures). But I readily admit that we know little of what actually went on at such places and maybe I wouldn't be too happy if we did know !

Times change and like it or not we now have 2000 years of Chrtistian influence which is much more deeply ingrained into my outlook than I may care to admit.

The important thing for me is that behind all human spirituality there are common threads, the desire to reach out to the other, the need to honour the world in which we are set, the cycles of the seasons and the seasons of our own lives, fertility, sex, death. Making sense of these things, coming to terms with them, being at ease, celebrating, mourning, hoping, wishing ...

In a real sense all spiritual practice involves putting the head into the heart and going for it. The fact that I feel closest to my ancestors and the world in which I have been set by the Gods(esses) by practicing neo-Paganism is what matters. For me the experience is real, vibrant and meaningful and it is rooted in the land and the earth on which I stand.

If faith had to stand and fall on strict historical accuracy then all the faiths would fall - is there any real evidence that a man called Jesus existed ? and if he did was he born to a virgin in Bethlehem and brought up in Nazareth or are these convenient myths to fulfil scripture ?????

I've read that particular book of his and enjoyed it.
It was one of the first i read when i started on the Pagan path.
I was never a wand waving one myself and pretty grounded in science.
But have always had a fascination with the world around me and being Pagan has felt right to me.
Paganism of the past seemed to be always changing.
You only have to look at the different sacred and religious monuments in different times and countries.
It does'nt matter to me that the folk customs and traditions arn't that ancient.
In some cases the times of year they were celebrated on seem to have gone back a long way if you see what i mean.
Perhaps at certain times of year it felt right to celebrate:such as the spring arriving,the beginning of Summer ,the harvest and a celebration in winter to brighten up the dull days.
I find the world around me magical it's something i cant put my finger on.This is why Itry to be as enviromentally aware as possible. I know the science behind things but it never takes away the wonder and beauty.
I still go "Wow,a rainbow" when i see one and I find Avebury and other prehistoric sites lovely places to go to.Although i've never had a spiritual experience,i do tend to feel a sense of wonder and peace at such places no matter how small.
The world is such a very complex place and we dont know everything about it.
There are mysteries still out there,i dont have a closed mind about the supernatural , i just have an enquiring one.
That lot probably didnt make much sense but it's very difficult to put in words what i feel.

My beliefs have changed throughout my life and are still changing, in line with what feels true at the time. It feels like an evolution of belief rather than a dilettante switching. I hope you won't take it amiss if I say that my abiding guiding principles are derived from the Bible, "love one another", "judge not" and "by their fruits you shall know them". I don't actually read the Bible any more, it's just those principles that seem to distil the value of the thing. And they are universal, they don't rely on one book or one group of believers for their value.

In my searchings I have tried various techniques, a lot of them scorned by people who consider "anything new age" as suspect, and the ones that worked, I have kept. For example, there is a certain opprobrium amongst pagan types for the adoption of "native American" spiritual practices. But if you like to do sweatlodge rather than sauna, I really can't see what's wrong with it. I have done some journeys, based on native american tradition probably, but in essence no different from the witchy kind of "pathworking". And after meeting my "teacher" on my journey to the upper world, I realised that this teacher identifies with the Christ energy. And this teacher absolutely does not insist that I follow only one path.

I think it's good to believe impossible things sometimes, and to be open to the possibility that you are wrong.

I have to wonder if the ancients referred to themselves as Pagan or did this word come up at a later date in order to explain beliefs before Christ.

I agree with Hutton in that there has been no hard evidence of a belief in a mother Goddess or God. The Celts pretty much had a verbal history and rarely wrote the history or details of what their beliefs were. I would venture to say that they believed in many Gods and Goddess as did many other cultures at that time. It would be difficult to find archeological or documented evidence of this but at the same time, that doesn't mean they didn't.

Many of the old timers in Ireland, and I've listened to my Irish Grandmother's stories and beliefs, probably would give you more antidotal evidence but in some ways, and in some areas the oral tradition of story telling has not stopped.

hail Pomona. may your trees ever blossom!

I came to Paganism via Wicca, or rather via a book on wicca. So much of what was written in there resonated with my inner self.

I did try to get into the 'wand waving' but it felt silly. I did look at the 'gather xxx by moonlight and on a day with no clouds' bit and thought "why?"

But I did buy into the all gods are one god and the mother goddess/horned god bit.

Even before I discovered Hutton (or rather stumped up the money to buy his books - local library was useless) I found myself doubting a lot of what I thought I believed.

Over the years I have found that my beliefs have changed, not too dramatically, rather they have consolidated around a few core beliefs and from there my path has formed.

I now look at the past for inspiration but also to the present, and what I finish up with is what is my interpretation of what I have seen.

After all it is my path and it works for me

Kev

mmm, I really dont' know to be honst. I'm fascinated by history, be it ancient and modern.. and the thing that always strikes me with ancient history is that its all guess work.. very good educational guesses to be sure, but still guess work based on the sketchy information historians have at the moment, so i try to keep this in mind all the time.

I am intrigued by the fac that statue of the woman with big boobs and huge belly, the fertility symbol is found in almost every culture in some form or another, and I do wonder.. I suppose in part a woman's ability to produce life and it to grow inside her would have seemed to ancient man to be magical, mystical and maybe it did give them the idea of a Goddess, or Mother Nature. But of course it is all conjecture, and I rather enjoy that, facts are not indisputable, there is movement for diversity of thought and that attracts me alot. I don't like been told what to believe I like to be able put my interpretation on what I read, study, draw my own conclusions.

My own path is much about self discovery, its about study and learning, so I really don't feel any conflict between my beliefs and what the experts say. I merely look upon it as a different viewpoint to consider and to weigh up and make my own informed decision upon.

Historical fact is important in my path , I like to read original sources and find out just how it was done and the perceptions and values of the epoch. I also like to keep up with archaelogical findings whether they support those sources or not. I like to see it as a kind of old jigsaw puzzle, pieces have been lost and we're trying to hunt for them all the time to make up the whole picture. I think that it can only be enriching. For me there is something inevitably shallow in taking on ideas that have no historical grounding, especially when they're presented as being historical truth. It even 'feels' wishy washy to me.

However while I believe historical fact and primary sources to be important, so is keeping with the times and evolution. I think I've had this debate somewhere else and the phrase 'old Gods do new jobs' came up. We are no longer a society that faces a day to day struggle for survival against the elements (there are exceptions to this obviously), we're much more removed from death and the more 'primal' aspects of life (sorry, maybe a rubbish choice of word there). We have different struggles and concerns and while some may take historical fact and follow it to the letter, I prefer to move with the times. To me it's more relevant.

I suppose it's a balance.


In my opinion, challenges to long held beliefs are a positive thing, depending on how your use them. We can get so complacent that we forget to 'keep on looking' if you know what I mean? Historical fact that challenges what we believe keeps us from getting stagnant and keeps us moving on. We strip away the dross and get to new truths, we progress and we grow from it.

Effing hell, that was a ramble and a half

I agree Ever since I first became seriously interested in paganism (rather than just liking trees a lot and reading mythology ) I've been reading as much as I can get my hands on. I was lucky enough to be steered towards Ronald Hutton by some friends and I am eternally grateful to them! But as well as reading 'hard historical fact' I also read books on the Breton beliefs in the Ankou, and learned from them despite knowing that death is not a figure. To me, reading mythology or looking at folk art can give us insights into history and humanity that history itself leaves out. For instance, if you study the Black Death, the only way you get any idea of the terror the disease caused is if you study the artwork and poetry of the time. Likewise with mythology, to see how a race made sense of the world around them simply allows me to see the sacred in more things, rather than reading their myths or creation stories and thinking 'poor little savages'

I think its also important however to keep a sense of perspective when reading historical accounts or scientific 'facts'. Very few things are recorded entirely free from prejudice or subjectivity. A historian simply takes what little we know of a time period gone by, pieces it together using his/her own theories along with the theories of others, adds a good deal of conjecture and instinct and says 'aha - thats what happened...'. Source material can be interpreted in many different ways - you've only got to look at the changes to the Christian Bible over the centuries to see that. So I never take anything entirely 'as read' - nothing is absolutely true, nor absolutely false, but valuable and helpful to my path to a differing degree. If it makes me question my beliefs and thus develop and strengthen them, so much the better

I agree, history is written by the victorious. Just look at Julius Ceasar and his account of the Wickerman. Was it written for propaganda or have we simply
not found the archaeological evidence to support the existence of a wickerman rite? From the discovery of the Lindow man and other bog bodies, we know that human sacrifice was practised but the lack of evidence for a struggle on such bodies suggests that sacrifice was viewed differently in those societies. We probably will never know, we have no accounts from the Pagan Celts themselves to counterbalance Ceasar's rather damning account of barbarity.

This sort of brings me on to a rather worrying aspect of modern life. Everyday, we see history being re-written, either in a Hollywood film that yet again claims that America saved the world, or in political whitewash that hides acts of cruelty such as those which are purported to happen on a daily basis in Guantanamo bay (or over here - Belmarsh). I dread to think what our Great -Grandchildren will take as being historically true.

Then as you've said, souce material can be interpreted in different ways depending on cultural bias, prejudices are formed for and against cultures that you have had no personal experience with. History teachers seem to contribute to this a lot. One woman I work with goes to history lectures at the local college. Mention the Vikings and the first words out of her mouth are 'They were nothing but a bunch of brutes, they raped, they pillaged, they were horrible. Nasty culture.' When you ask her what she actually knows about the Vikings and Scandavian culture in the Viking age, she will tell you she's not interested. She doesn't care for reading what those brutes had to say or about them or trying to understand them. Irrational? Well not really considering her history lecturer is always slagging the Vikings and Viking age Scandinavia off. Her lecturer is an AS speaker that has always extolled the virtues of AS culture and history.

Sorry, gone off the path a bit here, this is one of my bugbears as I believe that those who teach history or record it have a responsibility to record it accurately (so that people like us have a chance of understanding the faiths and cultures to which we are drawn)

Gypsimoon, about people calling themselves pagan, my hubby says the Romans first used the word "pagan" and it meant "countryman".

mmm I don't know if the Romans did first use the term "pagan", although its true it does mean country dweller, so entirely possible. But I do also keep in mind that the terms we use today are ones that were often "made up" by historians to partion, if you like, time periods and events.

After all, look at the word "Witch" its very unlikely that people who practised what we call witchcraft these days, actually called themselves "Witches" its pretty much a modern(ish) term, made popular by Christain propaganda.

As has been mentioned around here any number of times it would appear that 'pagan' was coined by the Romans as a sort of insult to those who held on to local beliefs rather than adopting Roman ones, it meant as Very says, 'country dweller' rather than countryman, which is quite different. If however Gypsimoon was not looking to start a semantic arguement but instead meant simply that 'back then' people didn't consider themselves as anything much other than people rather than guardians of a way of life, I would agree with her.


As for myself, although I do take an interest in historical paganism I dont' live by it. As has been said, it's all too fuzzy and tainted to be a sound foundation for a faith. Anyway, as I think I mentioned elsewhere it's fair to assume that the gods have moved on from that time just as we have. While it's nice to have a vague idea where they came from, it's more important to me to work with paganism and gods now.

What an interesting point Esk!

I haven't really thought about evolution in terms of the Gods/Goddess themselves. Mmm, an interesting thought to ponder.

Hi Pomona,

"How did, or does, fact affect your faith?"

Thoughtful question.

The subjective 'facts' that consist of what I've come to believe from my own experience are crucial to my faith, as I presume they'll be to many here. But they're not really the kind of facts that can be subject to scholarly review, or even fully communicated to anyone else. Merely trying to put them into words means the intellect getting in the way with all kinds of editing and tidying up. They're more strong memories of what particular episodes felt like, and of how I responded to them, along with a general way of feeling about living in the world - basically what feels sacred to me - held within a rather ramshackle and flexible analysis of what it all means that is less doctrinal belief than a kind of evolving hypothesis.

The other kinds of 'facts' that rest on scholarship in history, social anthropology and religious studies? Well, I think Hutton is a brilliant scholar who is always worth reading, and that Pagans are fortunate to have so much academic attention focussed on us just now. But I don't see much of this as having a direct connection with faith. Studying ancient religion - and even the changing ways in which history has approached ancient religion over time - is fascinating in itself, and must contribute in some way to shaping the mental filters through which we try to make sense of our own religious experience. That said I don't think it's possible to enter into the religious experience of a past culture directly. Only perhaps to take inspiration from it in ways that may help shape our modern Paganism. For example I love the Bacchae and have found it a deeply inspiring and thought provoking religious work, but I know I'm not understanding it in the ways the audience it was written for will have understood it, because I live thousands of years later in a different culture, even though there will be points of connection because we're all human beings trying to make sense of religion as best we can.

So I don't see the question of historical facts having much influence on contemporary Pagan faith. Certainly not to the extent which, say, proof that the gospels were forgeries and Jesus never existed might be expected to have on Christianity.

I believe in the Gods and Goddesses as both external and internal realities and in the sacredness of nature, and that belief has stayed constant for many years. I guess that's faith. But how I interpret that experience changes gradually over time and this doesn't trouble me because I also believe that if the divine were so simple that we could truly understand it then it wouldn't be up to much. I don't expect to know The Truth as the rather foolish people who rant about salvation outside shopping centres seem to believe they know it, so I'm happy with a limited, imperfect, and gradually evolving spiritual understanding.

What I believe about the Pagan religions of ancient cultures changes as much cleverer people's scholarship produces more or less persuasive historical studies of them. Sometimes that means facts change, but not in any way that affects faith.

PS: Someone asked about the origin of using 'Pagan' in a religious context. I understand that in that sense, it's a term of Christian origin uing the latin for 'country-dweller' as an insult implying that folk who hadn't adopted the new religion were backward, primitive, unsophisticated, etc. It also had strong overtones of 'civilian', as in one who was not a soldier of Christ. Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians" covers this in some detail. Late Roman'Pagan' revivalists like the unfortunate emperor Julian did not call themselves Pagans. They called themselves Hellenists, and would probably have been horrified at the suggestion there was anything rustic about them.

BB,

John Macintyre