Goodness and the Goddess

Well, themoderate, this is not really the notion that there's 'a whole bunch of other Creations,' rather that what we call the Universe is part of a deeper thing.

I wouldn't call that a 'matter of faith' so much as a matter of theory: it's a theory which may be based in mathematics: but a scientific theory nonetheless. What the scientists call things like M-theory may be difficult to *test by direct observation* ...but it is a model which accounts for the body of observation we have, rather than conflicting with it: while it's hard, possibly impossible, (but they said this about relativity and other things) to take ourselves and our instruments which generally directly interact with only the observable dimensions (that's why they're observable) and then try to look at what they don't directly interact with, ...but science can and has come up with models that explain a lot of things. Like why gravity is weaker than electromagnetism, how to reconcile the different 'rules' that things on a quantum level seem to operate by with how things operate on bigger scales, and other things like that.

People have trouble understanding what a 'theory' is... and what a model is. It's one thing that makes M-theory contentious: the fact that while it *is* a fairly elegant mathematical model which explains our observations, it's in a realm in which is darn hard to set up a direct experiment or predicted observation which could falsify it. But the idea of a singular universe created externally doesn't even fit the math.

Theories change and refine, ...I grew up in an 'oscillating universe' which theory was better than steady-state, then we had string theories and now M-theory and Hawking radiation and other things that say different things about physical cosmology.

For most Pagans, it's not a matter for existential angst to accept, reject, have faith in based on claiming to know better, ...it's, if you will, just learning more about 'How She does it.' :)

I definitely see newer theories it as compatible with Goddess theology: (again, neither demanding nor excluding the notion of Divinity, but compatible) and if you seek to understand that theology, especially in terms of not making claims about 'You can't prove this so it must be as my religion claims after all' you have to take care not to apply the usual presumptions and logical leaps that lead people to leap from a universe that's hard to understand to the idea of an external humanlike artificer.

I think it's proven pretty hard to get this conceptual distinction across, here. :) But I think at least it shows we can do better than an argument from ignorance if we want to talk about what science may have to say about the shape and 'origin' of the universe.

BTW, you are entitled to your faith in the Multiverse (which you cannot see or detect), and I am entitled to my faith in a creator. But we are both in the realm of faith. Choose as you will. I will choose as I will.

"You see, the 'unlikeliness' of everything fitting together just so, (at least to our point of view as people evolved and *from* here) ...is only 'unlikely' if you postulate where we are is a one-off 'whole of creation' in the *first* place."

We already covered that. Absent evidence of all those other creations, it is a leap of faith to say that they exist. A larger leap than positing a singular creator because I need only one cause and you need an infinity of causes.

PaganPlace,

"Well, on 1,) your argument comes from the a priori assumption that something in fact must have 'made' it that way, (and only that way) which really is just spinning back to premise #1 above. Doesn't tell us anything."

My argument is basically stock statistics, and is also made by Roger Penrose who is quite the master of quantum foam and all that to evaluate the probabilities he does to arrive at the conclusion he does.

Think about a roulette wheel. You can see the it spin. You can see the ball rolling around as it spins. Now suppose you are playing a chip on red and a chip on black every turn. You expect to loose about one time in eighteen rolls. Now suppose you watch the croupier roll 1,000 spins, and you get 1,000 green 00's in a row. Not what you expected, right? The chance of what you saw is (1/18)^1000. Now we don't have a name for that number it is so close to zero. It is one chance in:

187285909047425607203421572412[1196 digits] 303962772486323509091553509376

Now that is chance pretty close to zero. Since it did not happen by accident, something made the ball fall in to 00 green. Seeing it happen shows that something rigged the table.

What we see, according to Penrose is far less likely than a thousand 00 greens in a row. So the present universe is anything but a randomly arranged collection of particles. Ergo some non chance factor is at work.

So we know that

1.) There was a moment of creation (the Big Bang)
2.) It was almost infinitely unlikely among the possible configurations that we get a universe that can support life.

Emmm... Creation for the purpose of supporting life. Whatever did that will do for God until the real thing comes along. And from the viewpoint of living things, that creative actor is the Summum Bonum.

You see, the 'unlikeliness' of everything fitting together just so, (at least to our point of view as people evolved and *from* here) ...is only 'unlikely' if you postulate where we are is a one-off 'whole of creation' in the *first* place.

Considering the scale and scope of the *visible* universe, many things which are 'unlikely' become statistical *inevitabilities.*

Now say that the 'universe' we're tempted to see as linear and Newtonian... actually is based on the many dimensions and all the possible interactions and non-interactions the best math we have says must be there, ...part of a still vaster something...

What if all possibilities are actual, and stabler ones endure? Then you can have a birth of All, and ...somewhere in there, there *has* to be near any darn thing that is capable of enduring.

Maybe it doesn't *answer* to some what's 'The Big Question,' but it sure does reframe it, quite in keeping with our knowings, I think our feelings, our capabilities, and indeed, perhaps, our limitations.

We're subjective creatures in some very important measures. Some will say that subjectivity is to be *subordinate* to objectivity, and as a result get all confused about trying to claim the subjective *is* objective. Lest they feel, 'inferior,' I guess.

People may therefore 'see' an 'Architect' that validates that feeling and all the needs that descend from that, or a 'Mother' ...feeling that that better reconciles our feelings with our knowings and thinkings.

Myself, I look out at the visible vastness, and within all we can see up close, and see the 'Dust of Her Feet,' even as I'm wanting to chart those lights on an H-R diagram and such. Which goes back to the theological difference between literalisms of a moralistic 'creator architect' telling us who and what is 'supposed to be' and Herself who *is* everything that *is,* and maybe to us 'could' 'be.' :)

Hi, theModerate. :)

"""(me:) ie, suppose what we see as a 'thing' and call 'The Universe' that's darn hard to explain, ...is in fact 'just' a stable point among nigh-infinite possibilities, rather than an improbable ((construction, let me edit to say for clarity)) of clockwork 'rules,' rather the inevitable place where that fairly stable confluence of *all* possibilities *is.* Arising and falling like a wave, like some old traditions say. :)"

"" Out of those ways, how many yield a world much like the one we inhabit? Not too many? Then why is it this way?

Two possibilities emerge:

1.) Something made it this way. On purpose?""

On this, I'd say, if you want to postulate it was 'made,' by an intelligence and a whole other separate set of means... (ie designed and constructed like a machine, 'laws' of physics and all:) why isn't the 'machine' *simpler?*

Not a very elegant theory after all, I'd say.

(continued from above)

Moderate: ""2.) This unlikely configuration is one or a quasi-infinite bunch of configurations that all exist.

Problem for 1.) is you can't see what made it that way.
Problem for 2.) is that you can't see all of those other configurations.""

Well, on 1,) your argument comes from the a priori assumption that something in fact must have 'made' it that way, (and only that way) which really is just spinning back to premise #1 above. Doesn't tell us anything.

On 2) No, we can't 'see' all those other configurations, ...in fact, what we 'see' may be limited in that way. But in order to explain what we *do* see, there are mathematical models which are the simplest that can account for all observation which call for the universe to have lots of dimensions folded upon each other, and a basis in a quantum foam.

We may not be able to directly observe these things, any more than we could nail a hammer to itself, but if we're reduced to theories, models, and philosophy *anyway,* we can say that the notion you encapsulate in proposition #2 is certainly more elegant and accounts best for what we *can* observe. The idea of an outside artificer adds another layer of complication, and doesn't satisfy the notion of its own cause, or explain the world usefully. It's just an argument from our own ignorance.

The notion of the Great Goddess, and even some notions of God/Brahma, and other traditions also are compatible with the notion. Seems to fit fine with Tibetan Buddhists I know, too.

Even, if you don't read it through a Christianized, antrhopomorphized lens, the notion of an 'Uncaused First Cause.'

No one said that had to mean only our one physical universe and one timeline 'exist' and all else must be the realm of a supernatural moralistic 'agent.'

Certainly, the ideas I expressed neither command nor exclude the idea of any particular God or Goddess being 'responsible.' For many Pagans, though, the Great Goddess we know is in all of this stuff, *what is,* possible and manifest, seen and unseen... and that's how we seek to know what we may honor of Her, accepting and embracing our own subjectivity as the creatures we are, as well as using such reason as we can. For many of us, to see all this wonder as in line with a Great Mother rather than a mysterious absent rulemaker who went to all this trouble just to tell monkeys not to be gay, ...certainly reconciles these parts of our natures as humans.

Still think it's 'political and arbitrary?'

Arminius,

"Yes, the problem is that if any of the basic rules of science were skewed a very small amount, life would be impossible."

Yes, it is a very, very, very, very, very, small amount of which you speak. So miniscule, in fact that even committed Atheist scientists like Fred Hoyle were moved by the unlikeliness of it.

"...what we see or chart as 'rules' defining just part of a greater sea of possibilities:

ie, suppose what we see as a 'thing' and call 'The Universe' that's darn hard to explain, ...is in fact 'just' a stable point among nigh-infinite possibilities, rather than an improbable confluence of clockwork 'rules,' rather the inevitable place where that fairly stable confluence of *all* possibilities *is.* Arising and falling like a wave, like some old traditions say. :)"

One way to play the game is to look at what we see and refine our ways of observing so we can see on larger and smaller scales than our eyes see, or our ears hear, or our fingers feel. Take that as far as you can make it reach. Then, look at what do you find along the way, and how many other ways could it be configured. Out of those ways, how many yield a world much like the one we inhabit? Not too many? Then why is it this way?

Two possibilities emerge:

1.) Something made it this way. On purpose?

2.) This unlikely configuration is one or a quasi-infinite bunch of configurations that all exist.

Problem for 1.) is you can't see what made it that way.
Problem for 2.) is that you can't see all of those other configurations.

Neither has observations to verify it. So in resolving 1.) you are doing theology, and in resolving 2.) you are doing science fiction. Occam's razor principle goes: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". 1.) Suggests that we hypothesize one unobserved entity (Say the Goddess) for this unlikely life supporting universe. 2.) Suggests we hypothesize a quasi-infinite number of unobserved entities (Say all the alternate and unseen universes you mention) so that this unlikely universe is inevitable among so many.

So why is it better to purport an infinity of uncaused entities that no one can see than to purport only one uncaused entity that no one can see?

And, hi, Arminius, Moderate: (Sorry to throw all this out at once, scheduling. :) )

"Yes, the problem is that if any of the basic rules of science were skewed a very small amount, life would be impossible. To me this implies a creator, but is certainly no proof.
More tomorrow."

Try not to think if it, if you'd comprehend the Great Goddess concept, as a materialistic, humanlike-rules-defined "real world" with separate unseen realms and manipulators.

To most Pagans, the realms seen and unseen, whether by unseen orders of physics and mathematics or by things seen as more 'supernatural,' these realms interpenetrate and are all of the same stuff, so to speak.

Think of the Universe we know as part of a garden, certain stuff grows here cause that's how it grows: think of it not so much as a machine with a 'design' but more like the rest of the world: what we see or chart as 'rules' defining just part of a greater sea of possibilities:

ie, suppose what we see as a 'thing' and call 'The Universe' that's darn hard to explain, ...is in fact 'just' a stable point among nigh-infinite possibilities, rather than an improbable confluence of clockwork 'rules,' rather the inevitable place where that fairly stable confluence of *all* possibilities *is.* Arising and falling like a wave, like some old traditions say. :)

Physics lead to very similar ideas about time and shape which many seem to find irrationally uncomfortable. Personally, I think *that* fits perfectly with what's observable. At least it seems to make the math work out.

When we try to project the implied 'ownership' of an externalized 'Creator' onto things, we don't really get any answer to what an 'ultimate first cause' is, or where *that* came from... Certainly from this the idea that specific tabooes are 'natural law' based on a belief that that Creator is a specific dude... Doesn't really follow so well.

What's good in us as humans isn't something externally-commanded against our nature: it's implicit in, ...a product *of* our nature, and our ability to observe, contemplate, act, and interrelate. To do this well, rather than badly, is how to best honor a vast and sacred universe just *teeming* with possibilities.

'Creation,' well, that's something we're active participants in, not passive receivers or mere interpreters of, at this point. :)

And I definitely think this is a huge part of it, Themoderate: "We are called to good stewardship of the earth and her life."

Speaking of implicit purposes, it's clear we've been making a mess of things, but wouldn't we just make one Hel of a biosphere-protection system? We've even gotten really pretty good at throwing things at asteroids, for a buncha apes, ain't we? Maybe that's a hint toward a more general purpose. :)

A little more for Edbryon on continuity of tradition:

You see, Ed, continuities of tradition, and accumulated wisdom, where it *is* wisdom, are pretty precious things.

As people descended of Europe and the Mediterranean areas, we feel the loss of these continuities and comforts and other treasures pretty constantly, ...we know their value, but most of this was taken from us. For many the answer is not to give up based on some (logically fallacious) argument from antiquity, though.

Things were taken from us. It happened.

But the Goddess, like many of our Gods are profoundly about *regeneration and rebirth.*

So we deal. We get together, representing our many ancestors, and you bet your bippy we put it all together to build something anew: and we generally-embrace some of the advantages of someone having stolen our baggage. There's less *inertia* of long-standing traditions and prejudices. More freedom to examine and pray and practice and experiment and adapt. Take lessons from others even. What works, what leads to injustice and suffering and dysfunction and all those other ills which many stamp with 'Religion' or 'Impiety' and just keep on reinforcing.

We have what couldn't be taken away, lifetimes of experience in other ways, even if much is learned by negative example, lots of respect for what others have to teach if they aren't just trying to convert people (speaking of lessons by negative example) ...and that's proven to be a pretty good foundation.

We stand on other shoulders, and this most certainly didn't start cold with Uncle Jerry and Auntie Doreen. (People biased toward words and founders and 'revelations' always seem to want to reduce our ways to this one system or one event)

Cause what's important can't be taken away from us: I for one have faith in that. This is an ongoing process for us, and we embrace and have embraced that.

"""(me) It would be helpful to understand what you're labeling, before calling it a 'trap,' ...especially since I think you're associating the concept of 'First Causes' with an architect/artificer, and particularly a sense of literalism which 'Great Goddess' traditions don't stress or rely upon."

""In the branch of Buddhism to which I belong it is called the Mystic Law or the World of the Buddha, the latter reflecting his enlightenment to its existence. It is hard to translate to the western idea of God or Goddess. Sometimes it is referred to as the "rhythm of the universe".
My problem with the female designation of Wicca is that it seems arbitrary and political.""

Well, as a Buddhist, you should be careful of that word "seems," especially when trying to claim what you think "seems" is what "is," ...you're criticizing another religion based on your own illusions.

The 'Western concept of God or Goddess' are not actually interchangeable on certain levels. (Particularly not in terms of a Western convert to atheism or Buddhism's tendency to figure all Gods are perceived as thethe same sort of thing (to be avoided) In the sense of the very most abstract and all-encompassing senses of Divine unity, there are certainly ways to feel we're all touching the same 'Something,' but what it *means* is actually quite different among Pagans.

Not all Pagans hold to the notion of a Great Goddess, ...many believe She's the biggest 'being' we can conceive of in even the most broadly-identifiable terms, ...few if any have a creedal belief that She sat outside the Universe and made it with humanlike intelligence and set humanlike 'moral laws' over it. She's not just 'God in a dress.'

The term 'panentheist' is often used, by Starhawk in particular, ..this can look like a combination of monism and animism, but be that as it may.

One key difference is one you seem to keep glossing over: while we see some things as good and some as bad, (And the whole as good, not 'fallen') whatever we may say and however we may speak of 'the Goddess,' we're quite aware that we're speaking in *mythic,* not *literalist and limited terms.*

There are a lot of different takes on the Goddess, but for each of us, it's anything but 'political and arbitrary.' You're projecting something, probably how certain tribes have taken their own king-God and decided to make him the one and only God of Everything for everybody... and all of the universe that doesn't fit with that God's humanlike 'will' must be wrong or damned or otherwise have to go.

That's not how we go about this. The Great Goddess is how some of us are given to see that the Universe is alive, and the whole of it is a goodness. Some may say 'Great Mystery' or other things, or consider the concept too big for humans to really worry about, but it's different.

Edbryon:

""The benefit of having a long tradition is that it has stood the test of time.""

It really depends on how that time was used to test it: frankly, long traditions of for the most part only seeing things by their own standards may not so much have fifteen centuries of experience so much as the same century of experience fifteen times.

"" This time has also allowed many devoted and learned people to comment upon the doctrine. This provides a body of material to study, something which deepens faith with understanding.""

It's also quite possible for relatively recent developments in these 'ancient continuities' (like modern political fundamentalism) to claim the ancientness of tradition for themselves, when they are simply using the same words and labels for relatively new concepts, like neoconservative spins on Calvinism and such.

Let's face it, for much of the traditions of the Dark Ages we're emerging from, real comment and questioning was restricted by authority: with rare exceptions, people simply weren't *allowed* to come to any other conclusions than those which authorities claimed 'would deepen faith.'

I think it levels the playing field a bit.
There's also this:

""To think that one can recreate this depth of thinking and comment in a single generation is arrogant.""

Actually, it's arrogant to think that this 'depth of thinking and comment' belongs to your tradition alone. Modern Pagans are quite familiar with philosophy and theology of all kinds: we simply haven't reached the same conclusions.

The whole 'test of time' argument is one we could claim as well... We're here, again, despite all attempts to obliterate all our traditions. I actually count it as rather important that the Old Gods found me without me knowing a thing about the Pagan revival, ...and how many others seem to have had the same callings. How much we still somehow recognize, despite all the defamations and obscurations. (And blanket dismissals.)

Paganplace wrote:

"Many cite a preference for the idea of 'continuous traditions' (by their own standards, particularly those who believe the point of a religion is that it comes from a founder, who theoretically represents being closer to some authority in antiquity.) ...But it's for one, pretty ironic when it comes from people honoring traditions that did their best to exterminate any such continuity of traditions from Paganism."

The benefit of having a long tradition is that it has stood the test of time. This time has also allowed many devoted and learned people to comment upon the doctrine. This provides a body of material to study, something which deepens faith with understanding. To think that one can recreate this depth of thinking and comment in a single generation is arrogant.
_________________________

"It would be helpful to understand what you're labeling, before calling it a 'trap,' ...especially since I think you're associating the concept of 'First Causes' with an architect/artificer, and particularly a sense of literalism which 'Great Goddess' traditions don't stress or rely upon."

In the branch of Buddhism to which I belong it is called the Mystic Law or the World of the Buddha, the latter reflecting his enlightenment to its existence. It is hard to translate to the western idea of God or Goddess. Sometimes it is referred to as the "rhythm of the universe".

My problem with the female designation of Wicca is that it seems arbitrary and political.
_____________________________

"Again, these are your assumptions: this is the language of perhaps an external, lawgiving, moralistic creator. Think more in terms of birthing, embodying, ...One might say all the Universe comes from Her, what we may call good,bad, or indifferent, but you're talking about a figure creating some revealed moral order in ways that don't apply to such big concepts."

It was not me but Starhawk who introduced the idea of "good" and stated that her diety was the source. I was merely pointing out that if good flowed from the Goddess of all, then evil must necessarily flow from it as well. The idea of an external moral order along a dialectic isn't very Buddhist either. It doesn't have much in the way of legalism, except for the precepts, which are kind of a grafted on older tradition that are commonsense rules for dealing with others. We are left with a kind of Utititarianism, with the hope that prayer gives wisdom to see the future, the lack of which is the greatest weakness of Mill.

Moderate,

One of the big questions is: does what the universe presents for a moment of creation, perhaps twelve or fourteen billion years ago, and its exquisite tuning to support life, imply about a creator, or anything about her nature?

Briefly - tired, been watching the World Series.
God, at least to me, has no gender. I routinely, out of lifelong habit, refer to God as 'He', but that is convention.
Is God the creator? I believe that, especially since my return to the spiritual, and eventual return to religion, had much to do with the beauty of creation.
Yes, the problem is that if any of the basic rules of science were skewed a very small amount, life would be impossible. To me this implies a creator, but is certainly no proof.
More tomorrow.

Arminius,

One of the big questions is: does what the universe presents for a moment of creation, perhaps twelve or fourteen billion years ago, and its exquisite tuning to support life, imply about a creator, or anything about her nature?

This is not an easy problem.

Pagan Place,

Well said. With my speculation about creation, I do not mean to push the idea of a new Virgin Mary personality. Just that creating an environment exquisitely tuned to support life has a distinctly feminine feel to me.

Be well.

Edbryon: a couple things here, though:

"Buddhism has a longer continuous tradition"

Many cite a preference for the idea of 'continuous traditions' (by their own standards, particularly those who believe the point of a religion is that it comes from a founder, who theoretically represents being closer to some authority in antiquity.) ...But it's for one, pretty ironic when it comes from people honoring traditions that did their best to exterminate any such continuity of traditions from Paganism.

I like to say we at least got to keep what couldn't be obliterated.

" and does not fall into the trap of imbuing the First Cause with a sex, one way or the other. "

It would be helpful to understand what you're labeling, before calling it a 'trap,' ...especially since I think you're associating the concept of 'First Causes' with an architect/artificer, and particularly a sense of literalism which 'Great Goddess' traditions don't stress or rely upon.

"It is also notable that the first cause must create all, including those things that most consider evil as well as the good."

Again, these are your assumptions: this is the language of perhaps an external, lawgiving, moralistic creator. Think more in terms of birthing, embodying, ...One might say all the Universe comes from Her, what we may call good,bad, or indifferent, but you're talking about a figure creating some revealed moral order in ways that don't apply to such big concepts.

" The choice of which we embrace is up to us and the karmic effect is upon us as well."

I think we can agree there, but again, careful of assuming it's about authority in that way before you start thinking of 'traps.' :) Sorry for the haste about this post.

"I'm a Witch--that is, I worship in the ancient tradition of the Goddess of birth, growth, death and regeneration who is embodied in nature and in human beings. Our Goddess, however, is not a Supreme Being in the same way God is often seen to be. She doesn't hand us a set of rules for living, nor does she require us to believe in a dogma. The worship of the Goddess does not demand belief in the supernatural, but awe, wonder and ecstatic appreciation of the miracles inherent in the natural--that a leaf can use the energy of sunlight to break apart air and water and make food, that a fungus can break down a toxin, that our bodies know how to mend wounds and heal disease, that the complex neural networks of our brains give rise to joy and wonder, sorrow and compassion, beauty and love."

This is not so different from the Buddhist tradition. The differences are notable though. Buddhism has a longer continuous tradition and does not fall into the trap of imbuing the First Cause with a sex, one way or the other. It is also notable that the first cause must create all, including those things that most consider evil as well as the good. The choice of which we embrace is up to us and the karmic effect is upon us as well.

Moderate,

I must agree. Also, I have abandoned Jacoby's blog. Once, it was a golden site, with fantastic conversation. Now, sadly, it is nothing, a sinkhole for people talking in circles. Nothing.

Arminius,

For me, just because of my career, The Great Conversation has a lot to do with the the goings on since the Ionic Enlightenment. Thales of Miletus for example, who is considered by some to be the first scientist that history remembers, laid a foundation of . Our view of the progression to modern science, engineering, and mathematics seems to start here. The whole issue of epistemology is central to this. From the Atomists back then, who only had a simple notion of atoms with geometric shape, to detailed quantum models that give refined models of behavior of molecules we use in bioinformatics, this part of the Great Conversation has been very productive on a millennial scale.

Thucydides is also part of this conversation. He documents the early attempts at democracy and how it went wrong. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and others used his work to design a republic that had defenses against the failures of Athenian democracy. This is another millennial scale part of the conversation.

Jacoby and and her merry band are really of no interest in these matters. They have nothing to offer. Consider decoupling from that bunch. Forget about them. Find others to talk to. The pace may be slower, but the conversation is better, and more likely to be constructive.

Fortunately for the world, science has successfully undermined the simpleminded religions - the Abrahamic cults, mainly Christianity and Islam.

Christianity and Islam have had a good 2000 year run preying on ignorance and the ignorant. This ended for Christianity in Europe with the development of science. It is now looking for the ignorant and uneducated in Africa and South America.

Islam - a strange combination of ignorance and intolerance - has been picking the lowest lying fruit for a 1000 years as apparent in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Now is the time for science, logic, and deeper & truer spirituality - not supremacist, intolerant cults like Christianity and Islam that proselytize and force their views on others. This results in conflict, violence, and suffering.

Now is the time for Vedanta & Hinduism. After 1000 years of anti-Hindu propaganda, many are not prepared to hear the wisdom or absorb the deep & complex monistic philosophy which is consistent with science. Now is a good time to start; at least some will benefit.

A new age of rational spirituality is again arriving, and Hinduism and Vedanta will lead the way again.

Moderate,

Yes, anyone who does not continue to learn is, for all practicable purposes, dead.

What am I reading? I just read 'The Lost Symbol', Dan Brown's latest. Pretty weird, and not especially a learning experience. A pretty good read, though. But I hunger for good history. Tempted to read Thucydides again, still one of the greatest ever.

Always wondered about 'The Great Conversation'. Between whom, and by whom? Yes, I read many of the classical thinkers. Always enjoyed Plato's dialogues, although I thought 'The Republic' was a dead loss. The whole thing about a Philosopher King just screams Plato's basic flaw of equating learning with wisdom and then with virtue...

Yes, oh good Lord, the gang of several who are working hand-in-foot in opposition to any and all who wish to interrupt their kumbaya-cut-and-paste monopoly of Susan Jacoby's blog. The hierarchy of this gang of trolls might be worthy of a psychological monologue. A leader, a hit man, and assorted ankle-biters. The latter called into being when needed.

Arminius,

"Maybe something that leads me to learning instead of just being pissed off."

Me too. We are both getting on in years old friend, but I feel no diminished desire to learn either. What are you reading these days? Anything relevant to The Great Conversation? Seems like we may be old enough to address some of the classical thinkers. I am pretty sure that you ran into some of them at Sewanee. What do you think about all that?

BTW, we are going to have to ignore some folks who will inject trolling distractions and ridicule to have this discussion.

Ankle biters you called them once, if I remember well.

Moderate,

"Now, Arminius, what did you want to talk about, anyway?

Good one, there. Maybe something that leads me to learning instead of just being pissed off. I don't really know. I'm just tired, I guess.

Arminius,

"The infighting and hatred of other threads here in On Faith dismay me."

Some of the other moderators do seem to whip themselves and their bloggers into a frenzy. I agree with your use of the term hate. It is not too strong a term for what passes for discourse and discussion there. I think the moderator and some of the dominant bloggers there are profoundly angry about some of their life experiences and that colors all their interactions.

I stopped blogging there after the "neo-nazi" character that one of them faked under a new login was exposed by a login blunder. When exposed, they were much more concerned about how clever they were in the fake rather than the malign and manipulative nature of what they were doing. I am quite sure that other extremist "Christian-Right" characters who have made incursions here were also written by these clowns.

Not much point in wasting more time with such fools.

Now, Arminius, what did you want to talk about, anyway?

Wiccan,

Thank you for the pointer. I will follow it up.

My acquaintance with "Pagan" religions is from ancient sources. An all time favorite of mine is Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. There is a very nice new translation under the title of The Emperor's Handbook (Hicks, and Hicks translators). I don't like the the new title much but the translation to contemporary English is very readable.

I am also now reading The Manual of Harmonics by Nicomachus the Pythagorean. The beauty of the musical scale of Pythagoras and its harmonic ratio and proportion spoke to the Pythagoreans of a harmonic order of the cosmos and our lives. I think there is something to that.

Another The Theology of Arithmetic by Iamblicus that explores the Pythagorean sense of beauty and harmony in relationship to arithmos.

Anyway, they speak to other pathways to the sacred than the Abrahamic ones. Good pathways with rich traditions that have changed the world for the better.

Happy Holloween.

Hello, to my friends, Lep, Wiccan, and Moderate,

You all have it right! For once, a compassionate thread searching for truth. Starhawk does seem to promote that - what a wonderful person she is. The infighting and hatred of other threads here in On Faith dismay me.

The Moderate,

This link will lead you to a few versions of the Charge. (Now that Wicca has been around for 60+ years there are some variations). If you want to learn more about Wicca, you can't go wrong reading anything by Scott Cunningham. Happy Halloween!

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/deercreek/248/101/charge1.html

Wiccan,

Thank you for your kind response.

"The Abrahamic religions seem a little short on the mirth part. ;-)"

Yeah, compassion too, all too often. Though I worship as a Christian, I hear much wisdom from Starhawk and your Charge of the Goddess. Could you give me a pointer to a book that has the complete form? I read ancient works by classical period theologists of non Christian kinds and find much grace and wisdom in their writings, so it would be a welcome explore, I think.

All the best to you.

Yes, TheModerate, and Merry Meet!

A portion of the Charge of the Goddess:

"Let my worship be within the heart that rejoiceth;
for behold,
all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals.
And therefore let there be beauty and strength,
power and compassion, honour and humility,
mirth and reverence within you."

The Abrahamic religions seem a little short on the mirth part. ;-)

Merry we part, and Merry we will meet again. Blessed Be!

Hello Starhawk,

Thoughtful as usual. I find myself in fundamental agreement with you on many things.

"We cannot escape subjectivity, but we can make our values explicit, and attempt to live by them--"

In particular. This idea of axioms of religion is much along the lines you speak about here. After many years of study on the question, I find two explicit axioms with which to conduct my theological investigations:

1. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
2. She did this to create an abode for life.

A few of the things that follow from these simple and explicit premises:

You are a part of a cherished and sacred creation.
We are all the children of God and as her children, each of us is sacred.
When you act in aid of life, you act in in concert with the Creator.
We are called to good stewardship of the earth and her life.

That is about as boiled down as I can get it. Though it comes from a mathematical training and background, it is surprisingly parallel to what you write.

What is it you all say?
Merry meet?

Isn't that all subjective? Yes, but so is the interpretation of every law and rule that purports to be God-given. We cannot escape subjectivity, but we can make our values explicit, and attempt to live by them--not out of fear of Divine punishment nor hope of heaven, but because we can see and feel their results: in our own self respect, and in the loving relationships that arise when we give of ourselves generously and act with courage, creativity and compassion.
**************************************************************************************
And when it all boils down, that's all I really need.