Questioning Our Religious Experiences
Are people having experiences with the Gods? What authority do those experiences have? Must we accept the experiences of others or our own without skepticism?
The topic of experiences between humans and deities has come to my mind lately. It is something that never really goes away from my mind. I have had my own experiences which I regularly reflect on and I know others claim to have experiences as well. Some experiences others report to have provoke me to explore what is allegedly reported. I recently had an online exchange, which got me thinking about experiences.
In this exchange between myself and a Pagan, the Pagan told me that “…our relationship to ALL ancient gods is vastly different from their creators' percepetions of them. I honor Hera as the arbiter of Justice, Righteous Anger, and Advocacy, none of which are her ancient domains. Hestia is seen more as a weaver than Athena etc.” I entertained the novelty and began to probe. “What makes Hestia more of a weaver than Athena to you? What is the basis for this?” I asked him, and he replied, “[w]eaving or rather fiber arts are now considered crafts done in the home. Myself and other pagans identity those arts more towards Hestia than Athena. Again, modern interpretations of all Gods are radically differe to ancient practice.” Unsatisfied with this, I followed up with, “But why? What’s the grounding for the association? Is there an etiological myth? What exegesis do you have that explains it?” He replied, “I...just explained this. Most contemporary paganism is not historical, and it no longer tries to be. We use ancient gods to connect with the theologies of the present, the now. We are not the Ancient Hellenes. Our stories are different and our gods reflect that.” Well, since the stories are different, why aren’t the Gods? I thought to myself and asked my interlocutor, “Why don’t you give your Gods new names?” he replied, “Because they tell us their names.”
It was at that point that I mentally checked out of the conversation. That and this person upholds Lore Olympus, a graphic novel series, on the same level as Ovid lost me. “We are just as ready to use Lore Olympus as we are Ovid as our mythic structure,” he asserted.
Here are some of the takeaways from this conversation.
(1) This person associates Gods with non-traditional domains.
a. Hera with Justice, Righteous Anger, and Advocacy.
b. Hestia with weaving/fiber arts
(2) Most contemporary paganism is not historical.
(3) The stories are different, but the Gods don’t have different names because they tell people their names.
(4) The Gods are “used” to connect to modern theologies.
(5) Modern fiction is equal to ancient literature for creating mythic structures.
I am intrigued by the ways some Pagans engage with Paganism, particularly those who attempt to infuse Hellenism with Pagan elements, presenting these ideas as authentically Hellenic. This approach often leaves me puzzled, as I, while not a Pagan myself, closely observe Pagan practices and beliefs, especially when they endeavor to promote a Paganized version of Hellenism that stands at odds with Hellenism proper. My critique aims to serve dual purposes: firstly, to mitigate and prevent the spread of Paganized Hellenism, and secondly, to support the development of a robust Paganism that can confidently stand its ground in the world.
In engaging with Pagan thought, I aim not to dispute the validity of individual Pagan beliefs, such as the association of deities like Hestia or Hera in unique ways within their Pagan religions. Instead, I aim to scrutinize and compare these beliefs against traditional Greek thought, highlighting the discrepancies between Pagan and Greek approaches. This examination is crucial for the reasons mentioned and for clarifying the distinctions between Pagans and Greeks, especially since many Pagans tend to group Greeks with them in discussions about Paganism. It's important to reiterate, as I have done numerous times that Greeks who worship Greek gods are not Pagans and do not adhere to Paganism.
Let us delve into a discussion concerning religious experiences and the assertions of knowledge they produce. Consider the Pagan in the aforementioned discussion, who, when probed about his reasons for retaining the Greek names of the Gods despite diverging narratives from the classical myths, responds with, "...they tell us their names." This suggests that he or others have encounters with these deities where the Gods disclose their own names.
One might wonder why these divine encounters report Greek names rather than Roman ones. Do the Roman Gods not exist? I propose that environmental factors play a role in this phenomenon. The Greek names are most popular in contemporary media, though this was not always so. For instance, Roman names dominated past eras, as seen in Thomas Taylor's translation of the Orphic Hymns, where the Gods bear their Roman appellations.
Are people having religious experiences with the Gods, and in those experiences, the Gods reveal their names to them? Maybe, but we are better off asking if we must accept the experiences of others or our own without skepticism. In moments such as this, I turn to the philosophy of religion, which offers critical perspectives on religious experiences. These critiques on religious experiences challenge us to examine the epistemic value of such experiences.
The critiques of religious experiences primarily focus on their subjective nature and the difficulties they present in serving as reliable justifications for knowledge, particularly concerning the existence of God(s) or the supernatural. These critiques unfold across several dimensions, each interrelated and contributing to a broader skepticism about the epistemic value of religious experiences.
Firstly, the inherent subjectivity and personal interpretation required to classify an event as a religious experience are major points of contention. It is argued that for an experience to be considered religious, the experiencer must interpret it as being caused by something supernatural. This precondition implies that religious experiences are not independent phenomena that can be used to ground religious beliefs; instead, they are deeply entangled with the pre-existing beliefs of the individuals who have them. This interpretation problem leads to the conclusion that religious experiences, by themselves, cannot establish the validity of religious beliefs since they are constituted by those very beliefs.
Secondly, the issue of circular reasoning further exacerbates the problem. The justification of religious beliefs through religious experiences often falls into a loop where the experiences are deemed religious based on pre-existing supernatural beliefs, and these beliefs are, in turn, justified by the purportedly religious nature of the experiences. This circularity questions the evidential value of religious experiences in supporting religious beliefs.
Moreover, conflicting claims about the divine across different cultures and religions highlight another critical challenge. Individuals may attribute contradictory characteristics to Gods through their religious experiences, with no clear way to reconcile these discrepancies or make predictions that could serve as confirmations of religious beliefs. Such conflicts cast doubt on the universality and reliability of religious experiences as a basis for knowledge.
Lastly, the realist view, which argues that religious experiences can justify religious beliefs in the same manner as perceptions justify beliefs about the physical world, faces significant scrutiny. The presence of conflicting claims and the potential for error in religious experiences suggest a lack of general reliability, further questioning the capability of religious experiences to justify religious beliefs reliably.
In sum, while religious experiences may offer profound personal understandings, their subjective nature, coupled with challenges in verifiability, susceptibility to circular reasoning, presence of conflicting claims, and questions about their overall reliability, present significant obstacles to their use as justifications for knowledge. These critiques underscore the complexity and limitations of relying on religious experiences to support religious beliefs and knowledge claims.
Now, let us apply these critiques to the dialogue with the Pagan. The Pagan suggests that their relationship with the Greek Gods is distinct from the original perceptions of these Gods, assigning new attributes and domains to them, such as seeing Hera as an arbiter of Justice and Hestia as associated with weaving, rather than Athena. This modern interpretation reflects a significant departure from historical accounts and ancient practices.
In applying the critiques of religious experiences, we see the first issue emerge: the subjective reinterpretation of deities. This modern adaptation might be seen as a personal subjective experience that lacks a grounding in historical, cultural, textual, or philosophical tradition. The reliance on personal or collective contemporary experiences to redefine the roles and attributes of Gods opens up questions regarding the verifiability of these experiences and their justification as reliable sources of knowledge about these deities. There is no offered etiological myth or exegesis to justify this reassignment.
Furthermore, the Pagan's response that "they tell us their names" when asked why the Gods are not given new names, despite their stories and attributes being different, raises another critical point. This claim appears to rely on a direct, personal revelation from the Gods themselves, a type of religious experience that is subjective and non-verifiable. This presents a challenge in determining the authenticity and reliability of such claims, as they are not subject to objective validation or scrutiny.
This situation also highlights the issue of circular reasoning, another critique of religious experiences. The Gods are identified by their ancient Greek names because that is how they are experienced and revealed, according to the Pagan. However, this circularity does not offer an independent justification for why the Gods would maintain their names if their stories and domains had been so radically altered.
Lastly, the notion of using Greek Gods to connect with theologies of the present reflects a desire for continuity and a link to the past while also making capricious alterations without proper reason or justification, which raises questions about the reliability of their religious experiences. If contemporary Pagans are not seeking historical accuracy, then the foundation upon which they experience and understand these deities is based on a constructed present, potentially lacking the epistemic rigor that historical or philosophical context would provide.
The problem I see with attitudes like the one discussed in this conversion is the inevitable ever-continuous divergence of a God’s identity. Who are the Gods? What do They do? What is our relationship to Them? Is Athena still Athena if 1,000 people associate Her with 1,000 domains that are each odd with one another? I will explore this more in my next post where I will continue this conversation.