pagan atheists?

Over on the Facebook, an interlocutor inquires, "But I am not sure I understand how you can be zen pagan and an atheist. I would really like to read an essay of yours that talks about this." I don't directly address the question in Why Buddha Touched the Earth, but sharp-eyed readers will note that what I do say is compatible with an atheistic, skeptical (in the deep sense, not in the sense of the cargo-cult approach practiced by many so-called skeptics) approach.

I recalled having posted something on the subject to a Pagan mailing list years ago, and with a little rummaging in the archives dug this up.

This is 14 years old and I might express things differently now, and one factual correction: chi/qi does not literally mean "breath", it's more complicated. (This was written before I started studying Chinese Medicine.) Also I've taken the liberty of fixing a few spelling errors. But it should do as a quick illustration of my thoughts on being a Pagan and an atheist.

To: mdpagans@egroups.com
Subject: Pagan athiests
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:53:26 -0400
From: Tom Swiss <address elided>


Cat <address elided> asks:

>Yes!  Any pagan atheists on this list who would like to enlighten the
>rest of us? 

     Okay, I'll go for it. Given the usual mainstream definition of a god
as some supernatural being outside the physical universe, I'll take the
atheist label. Given other definitions, I'll take other labels: pantheist
("Everything is god"), autotheist ("I am god"), apatheist ("I don't care
about gods"), whatever.



     Here's something I wrote recently in a comment on Slashdot
(http://slashdot.org), a technical news/discussion site, during a
discussion about the link between hackers, magick, and paganism (see the
whole discussion at
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/07/1630213&mode=nested), replying
to the comments of a user named "Dirtside":

     [in reply to "There is no God. There are no gods... There is no such
     thing as chi."]

            One must define one's terms before making such a statement.
            What is God? If you mean some supernatural being outside the
            physical universe, I'll agree with you. But what about a more
            Taoist formulation? What about God taken as the entire universe
            considered as a single entity? What about gods considered as
            archetypical psychological manifestations? ESR [Eric S.
            Raymond]'s opinion is that "All the Gods are alive. They are not
            supernatural; rather, they are our inmost natures
            [ http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/dancing.html ]"; it's hard
            to make a statement that "our inmost natures" do not exist. 
            [ link updated for 2014 post. -tms ]

            "Chi" literally just means "breath", which clearly exists; if
            you mean the semi-supernatural "life energy" extolled by some
            I'll agree that it doesn't have physical existence, yet
            concepts of chi can be useful in martial arts and in healing
            practices.

            Atheism is not incomparable with Paganism. I label myself a Zen
            Pagan Taoist Atheist Discordian; it all fits together.

      [in reply to "My point is, there is no reason to think that anything
      exists aside from what we can detect with our senses (and devices
      that enhance our senses, like radio telescopes)."]

            The following questions are left as an exercise for the reader: 

            Does the number 3 exist? Does truth? Beauty? The note Bb? The
            color red? The property redness? Your thoughts? Your mind? My
            mind?

            Who is more real: Mr. Spock, or John Smith, Esq. of Crofton,
            Maryland? One is fictional, one is (according to the phonebook)
            a real person; but Mr. Spock exists in many more minds than Mr.
            Smith. Which is the more durable existence?

            Every see Penn & Teller in action? Your senses are limited and
            can be fooled; what reason do you have to think that what you
            can detect with them means anything? What assumptions are you
            making when you integrate sense data? What other sets of
            assumptions are possible? Can these other sets of assumption
            led to useful results?

            The Paganism I practice has more to do with questions like this
            than with "How do I cast a love spell?"

            Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's
            so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe


and, in another comment:


      [in reply to "I was referring to "God" in the traditional
      "all-powerful (or extremely powerful) supernatural intelligent being
      who may have created the universe and may take an active role in its
      events." Duh."]

            Well, it's not a "duh" thing at all. Philosophers spend a lot
            of time discussing such things. In casual discussions of
            "religion vs. science", yes, you have a default idea, but some
            ideas of god(s) are much more subtle.

      [in reply to "As for Taoist ideas, well, you can say, "I define God
      as the total sum of the universe," and I'll say, "Okay, so, you're
      just going to call it God instead of The Universe. I'm pretty sure
      the universe exists, so, okay.""]

            There is just a little bit more to it than that. It's like the
            difference between "yes, that is a pattern of sonic vibrations
            of such-and-such frequencies and overtones" and "that's
            Beethoven's `Ode to Joy'". The physical observations are the
            same, but the subjective meaning, the use, the
            psychological/spiritual resonance, is completely different.

      [in reply to "My thoughts are simply electrochemical and
      neurochemical processes; entirely physical, and therefore they exist.
      So is my mind. Your mind, well, I don't know about that... (just
      kidding, you were asking for it :)"]

            You can (at least in principle) observe and understand the
            electrochemical events in my brain, but that's not the same as
            understanding my thoughts. No objective observation will let
            you know what it's like to see through my eyes.

     [in reply to "Yes, I have seen Penn & Teller in person. Just because
     they can fool my senses does not mean that I have reason to believe
     that anything I have not sensed (or SOMEONE has not sensed) does not
     exist. If this is an incorrect statement, please demonstrate how."]

            I didn't say you did. I said that you have reason to
            question that things you _have_ sensed exist.

            You also have reason to question reports of what others have
            sensed, because 1) they are subject to the same sensory
            limitations, and 2) they sometimes lie. And you have reason to
            question inferences made from sense data, since we all are
            subject to error.

            Just a reminder that we don't have a strong dichotomy of
            *TRUTH* vs. bullshit, that we must question everything.

            Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's
            so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe




     Or, if you want a simpler answer, you might just label me as an
atheist who likes to beat on drums, chant, and dance naked around bonfires. B-)

     Hope this helps somewhat.
===Tom Swiss/tms(at)infamous.net===http://www.infamous.net==="Born to die"===
    "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
   "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
    relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman