"My theological approach is not based on theory ....
I am going to begin with the accepted understanding that this is how things work ....
a polytheist in active engagement with his or her Gods doesn't need a theory ...
As to the nature of the Gods, Their actual origins: do you think we'll
ever know? of course not and therefore speculating is a waste of time
better spent in devotion."
"Theology" is a Greek word meaning, literally, a rational account (logos) concerning the Gods (theoi). According to Galina Krasskova's recent article,
We Don't Need No Stinkin' Theories, such lofty knowledge is beyond the abilities of mere mortals. But, wait, if that were really the case, then how could Krasskova have come to possess
that particular bit of (negative) knowledge, which she claims to know with absolute certainty?
There are at least
five major problems with Krasskova's anti-intellectual posturing.
The first, as already pointed out, is that her position is inescapably self-contradicting. That is, at the risk of repeating myself, she is making a claim about the nature of the Gods while at the same time making the claim that it is impossible to understand the nature of the Gods. Put yet another way: she claims that the nature of the Gods is unknowable, but how does she know
that?
The second problem is that when such anti-intellectualism emanates from someone who is the author of multiple books, who possesses a Masters degree in Religious Studies, and who is pursuing a Ph. D. in Classics, it simply cannot be taken seriously.
The third problem is that while it is all well and good for Krasskova to claim that her notions concerning the Gods are based on the solid foundation of her own experiences and her own religious practice, it is highly problematic for her to assume that the same is not the case for those she disagrees with.
The fourth problem is that the claim that humans are incapable of understanding the nature of the Gods is blasphemous. Reason is one of the greatest gifts that the Gods have bestowed upon humanity, and to what more noble and appropriate purpose could we apply this divine gift, than the investigation of the nature of the Gods and the Cosmos? If one chooses not to exercise one's own reasoning powers, that is a personal choice. And if one finds that one's own portion of reason is not worth cultivating, that is a pity. But to besmirch human reason itself is to denigrate the Gods themselves. And by claiming, at least implicitly, to have thoroughly plumbed reason's utmost depths and to have soared to its ultimate heights, and to have found it wanting, is one of the most breathtaking examples of hubris imaginable.
Finally, there is
one more problem: reasoning about theological matters is a very useful thing, and we are much worse off if we do not engage in this activity. For example, lets look at the interesting proposal by Christine Hoff Kraemer (found in her book
Seeking the Mystery: An Introduction to Pagan Theology) that there are nine areas of theological common ground shared by many modern day
Pagans (in some cases my wording is slightly different from hers):
- Pantheism
- Polytheism
- Reverence toward nature and the body.
- Looking to pre-Christian religions and to contemporary religions that have resisted Christianization.
- The importance of ritual practice.
- Trust in personal experience as a source of divine knowledge.
- Acknowledgement of the principles of magick.
- Virtue Ethics and non-harming.
- Pluralism.
One question can and should immediately be posed about these these nine "attitudes", as Kraemer terms them: if we examine them closely and thoroughly, and in the process compare them to one another, do we find that they constitute a harmonious, even orderly, whole? Or are they merely a random assemblage of disconnected, or even contradictory, impressions? If these ideas can be shown to fit together naturally, then this would reveal an impressive underlying logical coherence to modern Paganism. However, if these ideas are not mutually agreeable then this would suggest that modern Paganism is just a jumble of slapped-together notions, and that those who hold these ideas together inside their minds must make up for what they lack in intellectual curiosity with a very high tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
Fortunately, if one avails oneself of the writings of ancient Pagan philosophers, especially the Platonists and the Stoics, and most especially that masterpiece of Pagan Cosmology, Plato's Timaeus, one finds that all nine of these attitudes held by "modern" Pagans have solid foundations in the noble tradition of ancient Pagan philosophy, and that as a result, this theological common ground is both intellectually pleasing and spiritually sound.
By definition, any genuine theology must be rational. The word
logos, after all, is the Greek word for "reason". A great
benefit of such a genuine theology (based on reason and therefore internally consistent)
is that when it is subjected to scrutiny it can only be improved and made stronger.
On the other hand, a theology that is not based upon reason tends to
come apart at the seams as soon as one starts to ask questions about it.
Therefore a rational theology is not only far more pleasing to the
mind, it is also the only kind of theology that is comfortable with a
state of human society in which we are free to discuss, question, and
openly debate religious matters. In any free society, rational
theology will be able to flourish, and irrational, incoherent theologies
will in the most optimistic case fall into discredit, or at least will be limited to those
(unfortunately numerous) who choose ignorance over
understanding.
In brief conclusion: Pagan theology can, and must, have it all. We must have ecstatic union with the divine as well as serene contemplation of the divine. We must sing and dance the praises of the Gods, and we must also discuss and dispute the nature of the Gods. Pagan religiosity does not pit the heart against the mind, for it is truly said that "there is no part of me that is not of the Gods."
See also:
