Does that not render the whole thing as somewhat utilitarian?
Well, yes, in a way. But all religion is somewhat utilitarian when viewed from a scholarly perspective. It is only people within religions that refuse to look at themselves from an "outside" point of view that fail to see religion's usefulness. I think it is fairly self-evident that usefulness of belief is a big part of its retention in society. I can point out many cross-religious examples if you like.
I can see that it differs from Christianity, say, as you're dealing with Divine Revelation, rather than personal intuition, or Buddhism, in which the enlightened mind is regarded as moreso than that of everyday man ... I suppose it's the utterly subjective nature of paganism that makes me wonder.
As Brian points out, everything in everyone is subjective. Human cognition itself is subjective. No one escapes conditioning, personality, strengths and weaknesses, limitations, etc. Doctrinal and mythic agreement, as one finds in Christianity, can put a veneer of objective standard on what are deeply problematic divides in experience, personal belief, ethics, and so on.
Most Pagans I know, including myself, do think that as one does the deep work of magic- the transformation of consciousness and impact in the world- that one becomes better at perceiving reality as it is, or at least in a way that is more beneficial to humanity and the whole of the universe. However, of course this is a subjective process, just as enlightment or salvation is. It is an interior process, and therefore exterior judgments and conceptualizations of it are necessarily going to be somewhat lacking.
As for personal intuition vs. Divine Revelation- what is the difference? Pagans don't say that no one experiences Divine Revelation, quite the contrary. But what they typically say is that one person's Revelation is not necessarily a trump-card on another's. There is an expectation of mutual respect despite disagreement. In that sense, no one person's Revelation becomes canonized as THE WAY. And in this, there comes to be a great deal of diversity, yes. But it is also a significant protection from abuse of authority and intolerance.
Without dogma, without centralized authority- no one can tell another person they deserved to be killed, persecuted, or excommunicated for their
thoughts about the Divine (which is what doctrine/belief is). You are well aware that the Catholic church, without such protections, has frequently engaged in extremely unethical and sometimes violent conduct through the ages. This is not to say that it has no merit, but there is a significant danger inherent in investing in centralized authority and dogma.
The assumption being that 'people of faith' don't live their faith, or experience it?
No. The assumption that "people of faith" first put their faith in an authoritative text and/or religious leader, regardless of whether their lived experience matches it or not. I myself have experienced this countless times in diverse Christian churches. If my lived experience conflicts with what is considered authoritative, I am expected to disregard my own experience in order to conform to a set standard of belief. I came to find this deeply dishonest with regards to myself. It put me in a position of either being heretical or being a liar. That's a rather uncomfortable position to be in.
Experiential belief is not a matter of self-justification, nor does it lead to the view that others would or should believe as you do or have the experiences you have. On the contrary, experiential belief is a method of recognizing one's own limitations and changing nature. It is a sort of reverent agnosticism that says honestly, "I experience the Divine. I think my experience means XYZ. But really, I'm limited and so I also honor your experience of the Divine, and what you think it means for you."
As a result, most Pagans respect any person's religious
experience. What is not considered very valuable, in general, is blind faith based on authority. But then again, this is also considered dangerous and psychologically damaging by scholars in many of the social sciences and humanities. So it isn't as if Pagans are alone in their concerns for religious or philosophical lemmings.
But as 'experience' is the most subject and the most error-prone aspect of the lot!
Really? And investing one's beliefs in the authority of some other person's experience, whether written as sacred text or as a religious leader- this is any less error-prone? Or does it simply abdicate direct responsibility for one's beliefs?
I've seen an awful lot of people comfortable with blind faith because they don't have to be personally responsible for study, for struggling with paradox, for deep critical thinking, for putting it into action. To me, this is like an ostrich putting it's head in the sand.
It's just as prone to error, if not more so, but since it is not grounded in one's own experience, the odds of self-awareness about it are slim.
Personal experience may be prone to error, but at least it's my own error. I can learn to be a better observer of myself, a more self-aware person. I can work on my own complexes and thought patterns. I can become aware of my biases.
A psychologist would have a field-day with it: A psychotic's beliefs are grounded on personal lived experience, are they not? Without any objective measure, how does one differentiate between reality and fantasy?
Are you really serious? I would say, as a cognitive scientist, that the importance is not in differentiating between reality and fantasy, but in being able to function fully in the world. We all live in a fantasy in a sense. We live in an interior cognitive world that is filled with conditioning, false limitation, linguistic structure, cultural models, on and on. It's a total non-issue to me, and indeed an entirely specious claim, that somehow Pagans are more prone to mental illness because they honor their own experience rather than having faith in an authority. In fact, that makes no sense whatsoever, because if you have faith in an authority, then you are trusting *that* person's experience... and on down the line. At some point, you give up your own capacity for Divine Revelation and believe in another person's. But just because someone or some text is viewed as authoritative does not make it any less prone to the reality/fantasy issue.
Case in point- Revelation in the Bible, to a psychologist, could well look like the ravings of a total madman. If I brought that in as my journal entries to a therapist, I would probably be considered seriously mentally ill. Yet Revelation is considered by yourself and other Christians to be an authoritative sacred text because a council of people two thousand years ago decided it was. How is that any less prone to error in perception than my beliefs that are grounded in my experience today?
I can at least say definitively that my own journal entries are no crazier than John's.
Oooh, Path! that's a very, very, very dangerous concept! Lord, National Socialism rose to power in Germany on that kind of thinking!
Explain, please.
In my cult days, we had people aura-sensing, dowsing, what-have-you, in minutes, and more ... when I went for my Reiki attunement, he used exactly the same language, and demonstrations, that we used ... once people have said 'yes' to that experience, which I do not dispute as real, you can lead 'em where you want 'em. They have the experience, then you shape their perception of it ... every salesman knows, all you've got to do is get the person to hold the pen, and eventually, they'll sign...
I find it fascinating that your experience is so different from mine. I find that myself and most of the Pagans I meet are rather skeptical, even of our own beliefs. I see my own experience as just that- my experience. It could change. I hope it grows and becomes ever deeper and wider. To be honest, I am entirely perplexed about how aura-sensing leads to a cult of personality, unless people are really quite desperate for something/someone to follow. All you mention, to me, are just tools and skills... and ones that almost anyone can pick up easily. It's like saying a cult of personality forms around someone who can drive a car or balance a checkbook. I am totally confused as to how you are relating these skills to authority and cult of personality. I can only conclude, on limited knowledge, that the problem was more to do with people deeply desiring a leader than with the practices themselves, since I've seen that overwhelmingly, this is not generally the case.
But with sheeple, anything is possible. I jest, but I do see it as a serious issue that people could be so desirous to give over their personal power to another. This is generally very undesirable in Paganism, though in any religion you will get unbalanced individuals.
The more you describe it, the more it confirms the conclusions I had drawn through my own somewhat limited experience of pagans, and the distinction between the classical 'eros' experience of the gods as divine intoxication ... as opposed to the Christian idea of the agape of God, which is something else altogether.
Hm... I can't say I agree. At least not if you read mystics of both traditions. It is clear that many Christian mystics experienced a sort of ecstatic state, which you might call divine intoxication. And, in turn, Pagan mystics experience a deep love of all beings, a deep sense of service to the Divine and all beings, that could be called agape.
I think you wish to reify differences that falsely shore up your own religion as somehow immune to error, to unbalanced individuals, to the limitations of human perception. Especially with this last comment, it would seem that on rather limited experience of Pagans and Pagan traditions, you desire to view their experience of divinity as different from your own.
But Path — are you sure, without for a moment disputing your own experience, that such have led you to view the pagan ideal through some heavily rose-tinted spectacles?
I am not sure there is "a" Pagan ideal. And I certainly maintain quite a few things I've learned from all religions, particularly Christianity. But I must say, with all its issues, I do find certain things valuable in Paganism. I find the work toward not being static in belief, allowing for growth and change, skepticism balanced with acceptance of spiritual experience useful for avoiding problems of large-scale unethical action and mobilizing of religion-justified force that larger, authority-based religions have. I find conceptualizing God as immanent and working toward integration and transformation rather than transcendence, of the sacredness of everything and every moment, as having very exciting implications for people being able to truly love other beings and themselves.
All in all, I think like all the other religious traditions, Pagan traditions have significant things to offer humanity as a whole, and sundry challenges and problems.
Anyone who couldn't see their own religion this way would be, to me, a person who is really wearing rose-tinted spectacles... or perhaps is completely blind-folded.