Gods as archetypes VS gods as sentient beings: pros and cons of each belief.

Another article for interested Neopagans, I suppose.

“Allow me to stir the pot”. <- This is a mini-spoiler, a quote from my upcoming novel, and it means exactly what you think it means (figuratively, causing unrest or controversy), but with a special twist. Await further details about the publishing. :)

Today I’m stomping all over where angels fear to tread, lol. If you like a good controversial topic, stay for the fun.

As usual, I’m bringing you an experiential outlook. You will not find Academic citations here. It’s not that I couldn’t (I more than could, to be honest. If you’re the scholarly type, go read Plato and Aristotle, specifically their theological thoughts. You’ll find some of what I’m not citing here). Instead, I simply don’t wanna. Human behaviour in its raw form interests me a lot more than abstractions and Philosophy. It’s not in vain that I tag so many of my articles as “human behaviour”. I’m one of the people bringing the orthopraxy back into Hellenism, if you will. This, of course, applies to more pantheons and not just the Greek. Feel free to weigh in.

Photo by Marc-Olivier Jodoin on Unsplash

First of all: this is a (heated!) argument as old as time.

Entire History books could be written about this apparent disagreement, and not only involving the West (don’t get me started on why Buddhism has so many schools of thought, or why there are “two” main branches in Islam). I won’t extend myself here, but it’s a fascinating topic to look into. Instead, this article will limit itself to the apparent disagreement that exists in modern reconstructive spirituality, today — namely, Neopaganism.

I’m saying “apparent” disagreement because god as archetype vs god in its literal form is one of those paradoxes you end up accepting, the more familiar you are with your chosen faith. You sort of lose the will to understand the paradox, or “fight” with the “other” crowd. But if you’re still perceiving defending your side of the argument as a matter of utmost importance, maybe this article is for you. Feel free to use it as a guiding light in order to decide which side you’re on (or leaning towards) and gain new understanding of your own relationship with faith.

Let’s start on a positive note? On to the pros of each side:

Pros of “god as an archetype”

This is the “Catholic” of Neopaganism. Specifically, I’m referring to the friendliness towards agnosticism. Don’t be fooled — this crowd can be very superstitious; they’re just not radical and pedantic about it. If you’re unfamiliar with Catholic and Orthodox churches (yes, I went there. Most Neopagans have a Christian background. Don’t shoot the messenger), allow this Latina based in Ireland to explain the system to you:

There is one god. This doesn’t mean there can’t be other elevated spirits (namely, saints). That’s because “god” is not “a guy”. God is a driving force, most powerful of all, that sometimes appears sentient (and we won’t tell you that is a wrong assumption either), but we don’t center the entire belief on this sentience; we center it on what god has taught.

So, translating the above obviously Christian worldview onto a context where there are more gods (and therefore, no longer Christian), we get the following:

These are our gods (insert number here, depending on Neopagan path), and each of them is one-and-only because they drive specific forces in the world. Each god is not “a person” you can strike a casual conversation with; that is what lesser spirits are for. The faith is centered not on each god’s personhood, but on the lessons their myths bring and the learning that can be gained by engaging with their energy.

Observe that there is no definite affirmation that “gods ARE archetypes”. If you follow this line of thought, you’re more likely to leave that up for interpretation; But in the praxis, you behave toward them as if you had indeed said “gods are archetypes”. (that’s why I dislike abstraction without grounding in reality).

So, these are some of the pros of following the “Catholic” line of thought:

• By believing in the existence of the gods, but remaining agnostic as to whether these gods are “superior people” akin to superheroes (because they could as well just be energies in nature that don’t have an inherent personhood to them), you prevent problems such as hubris and obsession over genetics.
• Mythical literalism goes out the window, you don’t need to worry about it or “warn” any Catholic about it. They just get it. Automatically.
• Syncretism with other faiths becomes easier (although not always doable. Especially not if it’s monotheistic. I know I’m using “Catholic” here but it’s a qualifier — I’m not referring to Christianity anymore).
• Non-believers can share some of the tenets of this faith, since they’re free to focus solely on the archetype hypothesis if they feel like it. This makes for greater inclusivity.

Pros of “god as a sentient being”

This is the “Protestant” of Neopaganism (and probably why it’s so popular in the US. Internalised Protestantism, anyone?). I’m referring to the willingness to accept literality as a side effect of believing that god(s) can only be sentient beings, not archetypes. I said what I said for a reason: if you ask this kind of Neopagan whether they’re mythical literalists, they’ll tell you “no” and even lecture you about it. They seem to want very badly to be perceived as non-radical, but ignore the very real fact that literality is just around the corner for their belief system — which is why they see and combat it so often among themselves. But I said I’d talk about pros (is my bias showing yet?), so let’s start with the pros and leave the cons for later.

Similar to Protestantism (the background of most Neopagans who adhere to this system was communities founded by the Protestant Church. That’s where these people were born and raised, so I can’t relate, and you can feel free to correct any mistakes of mine here), this system is a bit more, eh, “rigid” than Orthodoxy and Catholicism when it comes to some theological beliefs (Is rigid the correct word? My alternative was “pedantic”, lol, feel free to suggest a more neutral term if you know it). For example, they view the worship of saints and other lesser spirits as sinful and wrong (akin to idolatry), as if it replaced the worship of God (when it doesn’t?? Honestly, I just don’t get the Protestant worldview, sorry, it’s bordering on black-and-white radicalism to me).

By the way, yes, I know, I do have some Swedish in me. I’m not a total stranger to Protestantism. However, I dislike it nonetheless. I’d rather honour other aspects of this side of my heritage — not the religion.

Anyway.

When you apply the above baggage to a revival of pagan faith, this is what you get:

These are our gods (insert number here, depending on Neopagan path), and each of them is a person with a literal lineage, relationships, personality and story. Their stories aren’t allegories, they’re literally what happened when these gods were born into the world, so there can be many gods in other cultures who look and behave like them but are different nonetheless (since they’re people, and not archetypes). Can you see the inclination towards “hard polytheism” yet?

What’s next? Giving each god a passport? The times are changing, ya know, we’re no longer in the bronze age. Lol sorry, I couldn’t help myself. Okay, I’ll behave from now on, no more silly jokes. So, as you can see, as weird as this system can be, it has some very real pros:

• When you center your theology on (to some extent — come on, guys, let’s admit it. It’s allright, just own it) literalism… You make a very strong case against religious cultural appropriation. It’s not that other systems can’t be against appropriation, but the “Protestant” one is itself incompatible with any kind of religious appropriation by default, no activism needed.
• This system excludes the crowd who is curious but not fully committed — such as atheists who might perhaps feel drawn to some of the moral lessons behind myths, but not the gods. If you don’t like these atheists, you can go for “god as a sentient being” and they won’t come bothering you.
• It’s easier to maintain your faith through difficult moments when you subscribe to believing that your god(s) is/are literal people. This makes them feel more “real”. If they were (potentially) just archetypes, you’d feel more alone in your struggles every now and then.
• This system places a greater emphasis on each god’s sovereignty — and it’s up to you to interpret that as good or bad (personally, I think it’s good).

However, not everything is rose-tinted. Let’s look at the cons:

Cons of “god as an archetype”

• As alluded to above, when you’re open to the idea of archetypal gods, you end up opening doors to appropriation and/or misunderstanding of these deities’ sacredness. There is a slippery slope towards emptying the practice out of cultural meaning altogether.
• (Often perceived as a side-effect of the above), mysteries end up spread far and wide, instead of kept as a secret within a small group of initiates. This can lead to the misunderstanding, judgement, and condemnation of said mysteries by outsiders. It’s the stuff of holy wars, ya know.
• On the one hand, you don’t need to exclude atheists; but the other side of this coin is the fact you might end up doubting your own faith — and have a harder time coming back to it.

Cons of “god as a sentient being”

• Mythical literalism runs rampant, even (and dare I say, especially) where it’s super harmful: feeding people’s paranoias (“oh no, is god X mad at me?”; “is god Y trying to reach out and am I ignoring the poor thing?”) — a problem you definitely don’t have when you’re open to the possibility of gods as archetypes.
• You’re sort of more prone to cult-like behaviour (sorry, but yes, you are) because this system lends itself to a lot of gatekeeping and initiatic tradition. In and of themselves, these aren’t problems; But if taken to extremes — which can happen more easily than perhaps you’re willing to admit — yes they are.
• Believing that gods are sentient beings can end up enabling delusions of grandeur. That’s because, in case you haven’t noticed, you’re a mere mortal. Why would a god almighty care about you, unless you’re secretly special? Conversely, archetypal gods are automatically all-present (or all-present to a significant extent, enough to keep delusions of grandeur at bay).

So, as you can see, there are more pros than cons to either side. This could be my own bias speaking, since I am pro-faith, not anti-faith (or else I wouldn’t have this blog at all). But now it’s your turn: let me know what pros and cons you would add to the list.

Good luck on your spiritual journey, whichever side you’re on!