Question to Polytheists/Neopagans: Which gods exist?

[amci]

The standard devotional polytheist answer is that all gods exist and that to exist is be a self-sufficient agent with will.
...
These entities may have been sometimes equated but that would vary based on locality, they weren't usually reduced to a handful of divinities. By this logic it stands to reason that there may be millions of undiscovered gods and new gods, depending on how you define divinity. If you take the Heptadic Greco-Scythian pantheon and integrated it with something like Tengri or local steppe animism, it standards to reason that there may be as many gods at least as there are land features in the world.

This is a very interesting idea. Within this theory, do you think that if, in a hypothetical future, humans colonized other astronomical bodies, gods would come with us? Or perhaps there are already gods abounding in the cosmos away from other material sapient life. I like the idea of lonely gods of interstellar asteroids as the inspiration for modern and future mythology.

Within this theory, can gods be organized into sets based upon their reach and complexity? There are local deities; there are cosmopolitan deities; there are cosmic deities. On an ontological level, are these different types (or "sizes"?) of entity?

In neopaganism, especially Wicca; all divinities often reduced to facets of one or two greater divinities usually represented by the Horned God and Mother [triple] Goddess. In this view, its more common to see say, Hecate or Artemis as facets of the great mother or Cernunnos and Hermes as facets of the horned god. This is not the historical view but its fairly common. This the view you also commonly see as described in OP.

I've encountered this idea within attempts at explaining historical Egyptian, Maya, and Nahua theology and cosmology. Wicca's reduction to a single male and female figure is interesting. Does Wicca look at gender and/or sex as a foundational attribute of divinities, or is this more of a way for practitioners to put divinities into relatable categories?

A third group exists more common in neopagan faiths (rather than devotional polytheism) that sees the gods as archetypical manifestations of unconscious will. Think for example of Neil Gaiman's American Gods wherein divinity has power insofar as it has worshipers and devotees. This group is also very numerous among pagan groups and often times this and the second group duke it out with the first group, in my experience.

Does this theory tacitly assume pantheism or panpsychism or something similar?

 

[amci]

I have a feeling neopagans don't know.

So this thread is going to be a Heinz-57 equivalence of he says / she says.

Instead of answering with names, look what we're getting: "Greek/Roman fusions," "divinities reduced to ..."

It's sad.

So far, the answers to my questions have been very helpful. I wasn't expecting a list.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of the above.
(no pun intended)

Which is how man, exactly?

 

[awitch]

Which is how man, exactly?

Well, there's 0 empirical evidence for any of them, which is something I've never been embarrassed to say. There are only a handful that are relevant to me, so I'm unconcerned about any possible others.

 

[AV1611VET]

So far, the answers to my questions have been very helpful. I wasn't expecting a list.

Well, if you compare your thread title to your OP, they are two different things.

In the title, you're asking which one(s) exist -- a very good question.

But in your OP, you ask a few questions that have nothing to do with which ones.

So, yes, I agree that their [vague] answers may satisfy your OP; but not your thread title.

And it was the thread title that attracted me here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, there's 0 empirical evidence for any of them,

How can you say that though?

You don't even know who the real McCoys are.

Is Thor real? but Zeus isn't?

I'm confused.

 

[awitch]

How can you say that though?

Easily and with honesty.

You don't even know who the real McCoys are.

No one does. If any exist at all.

Is Thor real? but Zeus isn't?
I'm confused.

No one can objectively determine with certainty. Some believe, some don't. It's not particularly relevant to me until someone starts to take action suggesting it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Easily and with honesty.

I'm going to have to take your word for that.

No one does.

Then why did you say this:

Your answers are going to vary depending on who you ask but I'll give you my two cents.

As if they have knowledge about god(s) that you don't?

I'm sorry, Andy, but this is a real sore spot with me about pagans (or whatever they are) saying one thing about Saturnalia, and the major and minor points on the compass (I forget what they call them), and a host of other things that go bump in the night; then lambaste the God of the Bible for things they don't even know the context of.

The gods that pagans give lip service to are some of the most licentious and evil persons imaginable.

Having relations with each other's wives, banishing their children here there and everywhere, or turning them into animals and whatever; but let God do one thing they don't agree with and wow -- He's anything but moral.

 

[awitch]

Then why did you say this:As if they have knowledge about god(s) that you don't?

I think to understand it, you can't look at it from the Christian perspective.
In your religion, God, his qualities, his expectations, and his rules are a given. You're required to accept them as fact because your eternal soul is hinging on it. And that applies to everyone. There are many ways to interpret scripture, but typically, there is only one correct way and the others are wrong.

In our systems, we believe things, but they don't HAVE to be an accurate description of reality. I break down divinity into something that I can understand and deal with. It works for me, and I feel there's a benefit to my life. If other neopagans find different ways to break divinity down to something that works for them, then that's great for them. But we're not trying to make each other adopt the other's beliefs because there's no real incentive to when the fate of our souls aren't dependent on it.

I'm sorry, Andy, but this is a real sore spot with me about pagans (or whatever they are) saying one thing about Saturnalia, and the major and minor points on the compass (I forget what they call them), and a host of other things that go bump in the night; then lambaste the God of the Bible for things they don't even know the context of.

Not sure if you're referring to the Wheel of the Year, the 8 popular holidays (Sabbats) and full moons (Esbats).

The gods that pagans give lip service to are some of the most licentious and evil persons imaginable.

Having relations with each other's wives, banishing their children here there and everywhere, or turning them into animals and whatever; but let God do one thing they don't agree with and wow -- He's anything but moral.

Agreed. Those stories are pretty horrendous, aren't they?
The difference is, they are just stories. They aren't literal or historic events. They are ancient fan-fiction. They're real meaning is locked to the time and place they were written. We can read them today and find our own meaning in them, or we can ignore them entirely. The presentation of the gods in those stories do not accurately reflect what I believe them to be.

The Bible is different. Many Christians insist all of it is entirely literal. Or maybe it's not all literal, but then why make it so prone to interpretation error when everyone's soul is hinging on accurately understanding and believing it?

 

[AV1611VET]

In our systems, we believe things, but they don't HAVE to be an accurate description of reality. I break down divinity into something that I can understand and deal with. It works for me, and I feel there's a benefit to my life. If other neopagans find different ways to break divinity down to something that works for them, then that's great for them. But we're not trying to make each other adopt the other's beliefs because there's no real incentive to when the fate of our souls aren't dependent on it.

Then what's the difference between paganism and atheism?

If you don't have any book or standard or creed or whatever to go by, what's with the label?

And seriously, isn't this the same as ...

Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

... as well as ...

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[awitch]

Then what's the difference between paganism and atheism?

Generally speaking, we believe in divinity but won't insist we can define it accurately.
Atheists don't believe in divinity.

If you don't have any book or standard or creed or whatever to go by, what's with the label?

Some traditions do have standards about protocols or specific sets of beliefs.
But our religion(s) aren't about gods' expectations and rules and worship, so we don't need a book.

And seriously, isn't this the same as ...
Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

... as well as ...

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I don't know. Based on your complaints of taking the Bible out of context, you should probably provide context and commentary on this first.

 

[dlamberth]

Some traditions do have standards about protocols or specific sets of beliefs.
But our religion(s) aren't about gods' expectations and rules and worship, so we don't need a book.

Isn't Paganism more experiential in nature?

 

[awitch]

Isn't Paganism more experiential in nature?

Very much so and in different ways; it could be from ritualistic practices, meditation, spending time doing outdoor activities, or even pursuing a hobby.

 

[dlamberth]

Very much so and in different ways; it could be from ritualistic practices, meditation, spending time doing outdoor activities, or even pursuing a hobby.

Or seeing/feeling the Divine in my infant grand-daughters laugh and the twinkle in her eyes as she giggles in delight? Something like that?

 

[RoseCrystal]

I think to understand it, you can't look at it from the Christian perspective.
In your religion, God, his qualities, his expectations, and his rules are a given. You're required to accept them as fact because your eternal soul is hinging on it. And that applies to everyone. There are many ways to interpret scripture, but typically, there is only one correct way and the others are wrong.

In our systems, we believe things, but they don't HAVE to be an accurate description of reality. I break down divinity into something that I can understand and deal with. It works for me, and I feel there's a benefit to my life. If other neopagans find different ways to break divinity down to something that works for them, then that's great for them. But we're not trying to make each other adopt the other's beliefs because there's no real incentive to when the fate of our souls aren't dependent on it.

Not sure if you're referring to the Wheel of the Year, the 8 popular holidays (Sabbats) and full moons (Esbats).

Agreed. Those stories are pretty horrendous, aren't they?
The difference is, they are just stories. They aren't literal or historic events. They are ancient fan-fiction. They're real meaning is locked to the time and place they were written. We can read them today and find our own meaning in them, or we can ignore them entirely. The presentation of the gods in those stories do not accurately reflect what I believe them to be.

The Bible is different. Many Christians insist all of it is entirely literal. Or maybe it's not all literal, but then why make it so prone to interpretation error when everyone's soul is hinging on accurately understanding and believing it?

Thanks for this post, very interesting, and this approach to having a spiritual component in our lives sounds a lot more fulfilling than adhering to rules because the alternative is eternal punishment. It seems to give you a lot of freedom and control over your own spirituality.

 

[awitch]

Or seeing/feeling the Divine in my infant grand-daughters laugh and the twinkle in her eyes as she giggles in delight? Something like that?

I'd be surprised if you didn't.

 

[awitch]

Thanks for this post, very interesting, and this approach to having a spiritual component in our lives sounds a lot more fulfilling than adhering to rules because the alternative is eternal punishment. It seems to give you a lot of freedom and control over your own spirituality.

I think it's pretty fulfilling.
It's like practicing spirituality is a form of artistic expression.

 

[RoseCrystal]

I think it's pretty fulfilling.
It's like practicing spirituality is a form of artistic expression.

So one would not really need to follow or pick a god/goddess straight away, or at all? You could focus on more your connetion with nature, seeing the divine in the world around us, and within us, and learning about the changing of the seasons. As a place to start I mean?

 

[awitch]

So one would not really need to follow or pick a god/goddess straight away, or at all? You could focus on more your connetion with nature, seeing the divine in the world around us, and within us, and learning about the changing of the seasons. As a place to start I mean?

Absolutely. It's a great place to start.
If/when you feel like considering a deity again, you can let that influence which one(s) you look into. Then you can choose free from threat or bribe.

 

[RoseCrystal]

Absolutely. It's a great place to start.
If/when you feel like considering a deity again, you can let that influence which one(s) you look into. Then you can choose free from threat or bribe.

So when you do pick a deity its more from the point of view of 'working with and appreciating' rather than 'worship and don't break my rules'