06.14.05
The worlds newest polytheist
So, tonight I began reading God Against the Gods, and I have to say, I am am inspired!
Of course, I’m only a few pages in, but I have decided tonight to change my self-descriptor from “agnostic” to “polytheist“.
Now, understand, I still maintain a little bit of the agnostic mindset. I still wholeheartedly believe (and want to buy) the bumpersticker which reads: “Militant Agnostic. I don’t know and you don’t either.” That is to say, there is not now nor will there ever be proof of the physical or even meta-physical existance of any deity.
That said, what has always bothered me about the agnostic approach is that it leaves little room for the spiritual, psychological, or idealogical existance of gods. There is no way to say, in the terms of agnosticism (as I understand it), that because a person believes in a deity, believes in the power of their own belief, that these beliefs afford a true power. Which is always something I have believed. So, while I deny that there is absolutely some face of the metaverse in which a god (or gods) sit and watch us puny humans, I do not deny, and will never deny, that because somebody believes very strongly in something that that faith can have a very real, very powerful effect, not only upon that person, but upon the world. (Side note: thank the gods I’m not writing this for a class. That sentence alone would’ve gotten me a C).
This book, however, describes polytheism as having one over-arching theme: that it was not only silly to deny the existance of god that you did not worship, but that it was downright rude.
And this point is where I’ve always had trouble with the many friends of mine who worship in very profound, meaningful ways. By stating that I was agnostic, I was unintentionally denying that their worship had value. And that is profoundly untrue. All well considered, well believed, and peaceful worship has enormous value, which I respect very deeply. But, as a polytheist, I can accept the spiritual existance of the gods without having to accept any one path as being ultimately capital T “True”.
Random side note: Alcarwen thought that the book expressed polytheists (often expressed pagans, which I am happy to embrace, but for too many it represents negative connotations (sp?) ) as being people who could do no wrong. I very much disagree, ke’chara. I find that the book represents both the good and the bad of polytheism. What it does do is go out of its way to ensure that the reader understands that orgies, animal or human sacrifice, infidelity, incest, or barbarity are no more universal concepts in polytheism than suicide bombings, abortion doctor killings, crusades, jihads, or inquisitions are in monotheism.
So, in summary: I am qkslvrwolf, the polytheist.
