The passing of Deo’s Shadow

Some of you may have noted that Deo’s Shadow Podcast, once the most popular pagan podcast on the entire internet, has been discontinued by its hosts. Deo presents his reasons here.

I read his farewell letter, and also his follow-up note, entitled “Why Athiesm?“, which he wrote in response to a reader query. I’ve also read many of the comments on the Wild Hunt Blog, here, and the comments to the same blog post which were put on the Wild Hunt’s LJ feed, here. I felt a little disappointed by some of the comments made: it appeared that only a few people really understood what Deo was trying to say. It was not that he had “lost” his path, and it was not that he “hadn’t found his answers”. He said, simply and clearly, that he had discovered he had no strong valid reasons for adopting his pagan beliefs in the first place. The rational response to such a discovery is to reject those beliefs. End of story.

I have to admit this affected me greatly, and not just because I was a guest on the show four times. Deo is a friend and a fellow philosopher. Before I moved to Hamilton, I was living only 20 kilometers away from him. He is also a remarkably generous, friendly, fun and kind person. I was dearly glad of someone in the community who has the same background and knowledge in philosophy as I do, with whom I can talk about such things. His departure from the community, therefore, hit me hard. His reasons for leaving it were sound and rational. It made me wonder if I have given much of my adult life to a community that doesn’t care about philosophers, and if I, too, have become merely a spokesperson for a tradition that is ultimately a dead end.

I can hear some objections already. Many pagans believe that the pagan movement is full of deeply intellectual people, who have made a serious study of their traditions. A survey produced by a professor of sociology at Carleton discovered that 40% of Canadian pagans are university or college educated – which is 10% higher than the national average.

Many pagans are highly knowledgeable about history, archaeology, language, folklore, and the sciences. This I think is undeniable, and indeed praiseworthy. But most of this knowledge is factual knowledge, not philosophical knowledge.

Factual knowledge is welcomed and encouraged in pagan society: indeed people can obtain some prestige in pagan society by being well informed on obscure yet interesting topics. Factual knowledge, however, is not by itself enough to make the pagan community flourish. Factual knowledge of the social order in Iron-age Scotland, for instance, simply does not logically imply knowledge of how we today ought to live. To claim otherwise, as in the argument “The ancient Scots (or whatever culture) did ritual / family life / trade / etc in this way, therefore we should do so too” (or some variation thereof, perhaps with disclaimers and caveats to accomodate the realities of 21st century life) — is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Philosophical knowledge is the knowledge of how to separate the real from the unreal, the right from the wrong, the true from the false, the beautiful from the trite. This kind of knowledge is philosophical when it is a product of sustained systematic reason. This kind of knowledge, however, is often specifically rejected by pagans. This happens when, for instance, pagans claim that reliable knowledge can be obtained primarily (or only) through non-rational means such as magical sight, through “gut intuition”, etc. This also happens when someone says that “head knowledge” or “book knowledge” is worthless, and that intellectual reasoning about our problems is “too hard”, “too scary”, or “missing the point”, or even “an obstacle to true spiritual experience”.

All of those comments were expressed to me, by pagans, and in the last six months alone, by people to whom I described my livelihood. It’s beginning to wear me down.

I suspect that it was wearing Deo and Mandy down as well. For instance, his discussion of the logical contradictions and fallacies in the practice of spellcraft, was a work of top notch philosophical rigor – and it was almost universally ignored. No one wants to hear that one of their cherished beliefs is actually a senseless sham. He also generated controversy when he brought a social worker on his show as a guest, and they discussed how small children attending pagan gatherings can be harmed by the sight of their parents performing sexually provocative acts with near-strangers, at the fire pit at night. The anger that this show generated, despite that it was well reasoned, led me to believe that if he didn’t leave the community, he might be driven from it.

There are a lot of things about the pagan community that annoy me too, as a philosopher. In my judgement, “gut instinct” and “intuition” and “it feels right” are simply not good enough reasons to adopt a belief. Yet these are some of the most common reasons offered for why people in the movement believe some of the things they believe. But really, the only acceptable reason for believing something is that the belief is true. This requires an exercise of rational intellectual inquiry: it demands material evidence and strong logical argument. There is as much courage and risk and creativity and (dare I say it) art, in that kind of enquiry. Intellectual enquiry requires courage and honesty, and cannot be constrained by unexamined presuppositions or social pressures. If my enquiries carry me to athiesm, then, like Deo, that is what I will have to do.

Around four years ago I was on the verge of leaving the pagan community myself as well. I was growing increasingly unsatisfied with the way slogans from pop culture substituted for wisdom, and how almost all questions of a philosophical nature were dismissed by an appeal to relativism, or something unexplained like “the mystery”. I was also regularly asked to put my professional stamp of approval on the most banal of ideas, or the most idiotic of lifestyle choices. When I said things that I took to be important and helpful for people’s lives, like “The practice of magic is not what matters” I was accused of being insufficiently spiritual. I got tired of it.

I had to go deep within my mind to discover what I really did believe, and what things were truly worthy of belief. I had to find again the reasons why I, too, entered the pagan movement, and the reasons why, if at all, I remain a part of it. The end result of that enquiry was “The Call of the Immensity”, published as chapter 5 of my third book. I had to suffer to write that book. And the book I’m writing at the moment is also emerging from some profoundly troubling thoughts of a similar nature.

Someone might object by saying that in their circles or their own lives, they welcome and encourage philosophical knowledge. Perhaps that is the case for you. But I’m drawing attention here to the consequences for the movement as a whole of alienating or losing people like Deo. We had in our midst a fine young man with state-of-the-art philosophical knowledge who felt compelled to leave the community precisely because, in part, of its anti-intellectual disposition. Pagans need to take proper account of the implications of that event – and if we cannot do so, we will consign ourselves to ignorance.

This entry was posted in Archive 2007-2009 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to The passing of Deo’s Shadow

  1. owldaughter says:

    Very thought-provoking indeed. Thank you, Brendan.

    (‘Insufficiently spiritual’? I’m speechless.)

    • admin says:

      I’m glad you found this note thought provoking.

      I was speechless too! The remark came in an email conversation back in September. A reader of OSV asked me why I had very little to say in that book about magic, and nothing at all to say about worshipping the gods. I answered that the worship of the gods, and the practice of ceremonial magic, is not what matters. A worthwhile and meaningful life is what matters. I also noted that in my own life, I do no ritual anymore, except for the “peaceful abiding” meditation described in my second book. I guess that person couldn’t imagine life without ritual!

      • owldaughter says:

        This is one of the things that drives me crazy about the reception of books. OSV wasn’t about magic or worship, it was about ethics and values as demonstrated in myth and story, and how these may be applied to our modern lives. The focus was entirely different, and it was very obvious. I suppose you could have shoehorned a brief addressing of the ethics of magic into it, but it wouldn’t have fit thematically. And a good editor would have noticed that and had you take it out anyway.

        The identification of magic and/or ritual as synonymous with spirituality also makes me gnash my teeth. There is so much more to leading a spiritual life. In fact, as you point out, magic and/or ritual (as most people define or understand the terms) aren’t absolutely necessary. Or perhaps I should say, not necessary for everyone. Different people use different techniques. It all comes back to the fact that what’s right for one is not necessarily right for the entire community of people who self-identify as Pagan. You ca’ tar everyone with the same brush.

        Wow, I’ve just encountered two of my Major Issues, right there. And I haven’t even had a cup of tea yet today.

  2. Anonymous says:


    While the foundations of any religious belief may be irrational and unreal, the fruits are very real and tangible. While that social worker might have been miffed at the sexual nature of the interactions, I bet that they were pleased to see a group a people interacting around a camp fire instead of at home individually in front of their televisions.

    Though there may not be a black robed death figure with a scythe, we still have to deal with the incomprehensible death of a loved one. Even in our enlightened world, myths and stories have a role to play.

    • skiegazer says:

      Re: Ritual

      “Even in our enlightened world, myths and stories have a role to play.”

      Yes, but shouldn’t we be the creators and tellers of those stories, rather than ignorant victims of them?

    • admin says:

      Re: Ritual

      Hello anonymous,

      i appreciate very much that you have here stated the value of ritual in terms other than “it just feels right” etc. And believe me when I tell you that I recognise the importance and the power of mythology and narrative storytelling.

      However, I think the social and psychological usefulness of some belief cannot be the whole of its rational justification. Something really does need to be said about whether the beliefs are true.

  3. skiegazer says:

    People keep jumping into this conversation and saying increasingly interesting things, so that the blog post I started writing several days ago on it might never be finished! :-p All in all, though, I definitely agree with you (especially your point about factual versus philosophical knowledge and how one is valued more than the other–this might have something to do with why I’ve “gone solitary” over the past year and will probably remain so for a while yet).

    I hope I speak for more than a few people out here when I say I’m very glad you decided to remain in the Pagan community, such as it is, and that your chapter on Immensity was both insightful and moving. I could relate to its struggle very closely, and I am sure that it will inspire others to take philosophical inquiry into their spiritual life more seriously.

    Anyway, modern (neo-)Paganism is still so very young and new. Christianity had its early stages of anti-intellectualism and astounding lack of philosophy, too (and those threads persist today, rearing their ugly heads when threatened, to mix metaphors). But eventually some great philosophers came out of that religious tradition, and came afterwards in opposition. Good brains will out, I guess. I doubt we can blame Pagans or Paganism itself for the relativist, anti-intellectual streak that seems to be running through much of modern culture these days. (I’ll let you know when I’ve discovered who we can blame. 😉

    • admin says:

      Thank you for your good comments about my book here, Ali. I’ve had remarkably few comments about OSV so far, compared to the number of comments I’ve got about my other books. So I am sometimes at a loss to know how the book is being received.

      • skiegazer says:

        That surprises me! I thought it was excellent, especially the final part in which you kind of dissect the “logic of virtue”… As I mentioned to you before, I wrote a review on it (a combo-review, actually, along with Restall Orr’s book on ethics), but the journal that’s supposed to publish it is going through a change-in-management/face-lift of sorts, so instead of their next issue coming out for the winter solstice, it’ll be out by Imbolc.

        I’ve actually been trying to recommend it to some of my friends and family, none of whom are Pagan, just because I find it so fascinating. But people rarely take my book recommendations. I suppose that’s fair, since I read voraciously and other people have, you know, real lives to worry about and might not be able to keep up. 😉 I keep mentioning yours, though. 🙂

      • ninthraven says:

        I have read OSV, enjoyed the challenge rarely present in most pagan books, and now recommend it to the folks in my group as a way for us to think about what are values really are, where they come from, and how to think about such things in general. I don’t necessarily have the same rational rigor, I think our communities need to embrace philosophical discourse as much as it has embraced ritual and magic.

      • thegreencall says:

        Just an FYI, I’m a pagan in the Detroit area in the US and I’ve read your book, recommended it to friends and used a passage from it to stir up discussion (I don’t have the info handy, but it was regarding the pursuit of self-knowledge requiring active engagement with the world) in a Paganism class I co-taught. I hope people picked up a copy of your book afterwards.

        Paganism can only benefit from thoughtful reflection and criticism. However unappreciated the reflection and criticism may seem to be by the “community” at large. I’m not trained in Philosophy (or in epistemology in particular), so I’m not going to comment on why someone should believe something or not. But I do know that inconsistency of values and sloppy thinking are big issues that continue to frustrate me.

        Your work (and others who are trying to raise the discourse) is having an impact, but I also believe the change may be slow.

      • uncledark says:

        Well, I quite like OSV. I’m only about a third of the way into it, but I am very impressed. I bought it after hearing your lecture on Deo’s Shadow.

        I’m finding it a hard book to read, actually. Not in terms of the language or the intellectual level on which the subject is apporached. Rather, the implications are so huge that I often have to stop and digest what I’ve read, and allow the ripples to expand through my own awareness before I can move on.

        It’s hard, but worth it. Thank you.

      • darach says:


        I haven’t read it yet…. it is increadably hard to get… I have it on order…but have some doubts about them getting it here.
        I am very much looking forward to it.

  4. mythworker says:

    “It’s beginning to wear me down.”

    I can’t even begin to tell you.

    • ardaniel says:

      I identify as Pagan but not with the “Pagan community,” and I thought your post on Deo’s Shadow brought up some long-overdue discussion points, Jason. “My religion shouldn’t require me to endorse dipshittery” is about as profound as I get these days, but it’s true. I didn’t check my scientific knowledge at the door, for one, and I refuse to start now just to be perceived as sufficiently spiritual– for one thing, that’d cost me a livelihood in visual effects, and I like my gig. I know at least two other folks who still identify as agnostic, despite working relationships with deities everyone else would term “pagan,” simply because they can’t put up with the “anything goes as long as you really believe it” attitudes expressed by a large number of members of the “Pagan community.”

      Also, man, am I sick of the “atheists can’t have profound personal and group experiences because they’ve Lost Spirituality” argument, and the “if you didn’t find intellectual rigor in Paganism it really means you were a Bad Convert and should feel bad about your failings” and so on, ad nauseam.

      I’m firmly in love with the Reasonable Person Principle as a guide to my actions– “Would a reasonable person do this?” By those lights, Deo’s rejection of Pagan belief is a pretty damn reasonable action, and not one of a Bad Convert who’s forever rendered incapable of deeply profound experience.

  5. Correcting your citation of me — 40% of pagans have completed bachelor level degrees at a university. NOT ‘have some university or college level education.’

  6. dubhlainn says:

    There are a great many of us out here, Pagans who do identify with the community, who are doing our best. Buying books (including yours), trying to understand those “gut insincts” on a philosophical level. On many levels really. Studying the linguistic, archeological, historical, philosophical, and spiritual, aspects of our religious lives. We are not academically trained of course… again, we are doing the best we can, but we have a real desire to understand those “gut instincts” that brought us to Paganism in deeper more resonate ways.

    I also have to wonder, for every Pagan who has told you that you are insufficiently spiritual how many, like myself, have thanked you for bringing (at least the beginnings of) philosophical understandings to our lives?

    • admin says:

      There are a great many of us out here, Pagans who do identify with the community, who are doing our best

      Yes, I know; and these are the people I normally seek out as friends. They are also, thankfully, the sort of people who regularly read my LJ. I don’t wish to appear as if I’m dumping on all pagans everywhere, and I apologise to you all if I give that impression.

      I also have to wonder, for every Pagan who has told you that you are insufficiently spiritual how many, like myself, have thanked you for bringing (at least the beginnings of) philosophical understandings to our lives?

      The answer is: more negative than positive. If I had to estimate, I’d guess that, negative to positive, the ratio is about 3:2.

      Negative remarks tend to appear in my private email. Some were comments so scathingly negative that they were quite upsetting – it was in a short email conversation that the remark about me being “insufficiently spiritual” came in.

      All of the positive and congratulatory messages I have received so far have been posed in public forums such as this LJ, or my Facebook page, or from people attending a book promo event. There are also four reviews of OSV on the Amazon page right now (including one from you — thank you!)

      • owldaughter says:

        I’ve always found most philosophy to be inherently spiritual. That says something about how I approach knowledge, of course, but I’m continually puzzled by people who can deny that it has any sort of connection.

        Just for you, Brendan, I will post my review of OSV on Amazon, breaking my no-engagement-with-Amazon-reviews rule, since it looks like the WynterGreene review is encased in carbonite.

        • admin says:

          Thank you, Arin!
          I will happily return the favour, and post a review of Way of the Green Witch to Amazon – something I’ve been meaning to do for months anyway.

  7. there should also be a distinction between following a spirituality and the *study* of that spirituality. different set of tools, i should think.

  8. alfrecht says:

    At heart, I’m in basic agreement with you.

    I think there are many things at play with all of this–Chas Clifton’s brief discussion of the differences between paganism being a “community” or a “tribe” was quite apt, and the fact that many people feel somehow offended that this isn’t proving to be the case in this particular situation rather reinforces that notion. (The same is true of the so-called “queer community,” and the use of the term “tribe” or even “family” in relation to all of that…I truly worry about the families of people concerned if they use that as an analogous term to what goes on in the “queer community”!)

    However, I don’t think that philosophy is the only answer or antidote to this situation. I’d suggest two things in particular:

    1) You use the word “belief” quite a bit in your entry here; and it seems that “belief” is the fundamental issue in the Deo’s Shadow situation. Since when has “belief” ever been a problem for paganism? Paganism–ancient and modern–as well as most polytheist or animist systems of spirituality are not based on creedal belief, they’re based on experience and on practice, engagement and conduct. If more people were to actually take this on board, and run the axis of identity for their religious affiliation through practice and experience rather than belief, situations like this would not happen as often, because “lack of belief” in a particular proposition would no longer be a problem. (And this is where Jason’s comments on The Wild Hunt come in–that ancient paganism used to embrace a much wider field of positions on various issues, from skepticism and even atheism through to hard polytheism and animism, and yet be able to encompass them all, because those are all matters of belief, and not as relevant to the everyday practice and experience of these religions as many mostly monotheist constructions of religion would have one, well, “believe.”)

    2) I don’t think it is a matter of “either/or” as far as philosophy and what you’ve (rather derisively) called “factual knowledge” is concerned. I don’t think it’s even a “both/and” where these are concerned. I think it must necessarily be a “both/and/and (and…),” which is to say, a multivalent approach offers the greatest advantage. Whatever your philosophical training has afforded you of the benefits of logical argumentation and discernment and of the practicalities of the good life, some of your written work does ignore the factuality and integrity of some of the topics you have chosen to address. As a recon and an academic Celticist, I know how impractical and often irrational a great deal of argumentation is in both recon religions and in academic discourse on matters of interpretation of what are (ostensibly) factual matters; so a more philosophically-aware approach in these disciplines would be of great benefit. But what both of those approaches are also missing is the necessity of a mystical core to the entire edifice, that is far beyond the rather vapid and airy-fairy notions of “gut instinct” and “I like this because it feels good”; in other words, an actual and demonstrable connection to mystery, The Immensity (a very good definition on your part!), divinity, or what have you. Without that, the formalism of the factual knowledge can become stultifying and irrelevant; and the insistent logic of the philosophical approach can become redundant and circular and–again–less relevant. To add to what I think said about what Celtic Recon should be: not only “aislinge and archaeology,” but also “argumentation” (i.e. the philosophical approach you advocate). Yet again, a triad seems to work a bit better than a dyad!

    To be continued…

    • admin says:

      Hi Alfrecht,
      I appreciate the time and thought that went into this reply. Thank you.

      In response to your suggestions:

      1) If I am not mistaken, Deo is studying a branch of philosophy known as analytic epistemology. If so, then it is unsurprising that the concept of ‘belief’ should figure into his reasoning so prominently. ‘Belief’, to an analytic epistemologist, means any idea, custom, committment, claim, or even “practice, engagement, engagement, and conduct”, as you say, which can be expressed in the form of a categorical proposition. Thus, for example, the statement “The bus station in Hamilton is on Hunter street” is a belief. As you can see, isn’t really the same use of the word as one finds in religious studies.

      Aside from that minor difference in the use of terminology in different academic disciplines: well, point taken.

    • admin says:

      2) I didn’t wish to be derisive when describing the distinction between factual knowledge and philosophical knowledge. I wished merely to distinguish them, and observe that philosophical knowledge tends to get short shrift. I’m calling for greater attention to be given to philosophical knowledge, in order to rectify what I perceive to be an imbalance that may harm the pagan movement in the long run.

      Factual knowledge and philosophical knowledge do differ. Philosophical knowledge tends to be generalised, theoretical, and abstract; factual knowledge tends to be practical, or it tends to be the sort of knowledge that can be verified with an empirical observation (a science experiment, etc.)

      Where, in my works, I make errors of fact, I’m happy to be corrected by those in a better position to know those facts. My background in Celtic matters comes partly from some academic study, and partly from my experience growing up in an Irish diaspora family and community. On matters of experience and engagement, I would trust my own knowledge. On matters of, for instance, the correct translation of a few Old Irish words, I’d go to you. 🙂

      Part of the reason that I percieve this imbalance might be simply because of the nature of my occupation; i.e. a philosophy lecturer. Just as engineers see structural stress on buildings and bridges everywhere, just as parents of small kids see public spaces in terms of how child-safe they are, and so on, so do I, perhaps, see a community’s discourse in terms of how principled and logically sound it is.

      Perhaps I should just stop telling people what I do for a living. I’ve heard of English profs who don’t tell people what they do for a living because as soon as they do, everybody around them starts speaking in a faux-Shakespearean vocabulary.

      • vogelbeere says:

        Incidentally, I think that many college-educated Pagans have degrees in science or computing, neither of which teach people much about philosophy. This may be part of the reason why there’s a lack of interest in philosophical enquiry? I did a degree in psychology, which had a whole module on the history and philosophy of psychology, including Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, Hume, Locke, William James, ancient Greeks, etc. I’ve also just completed an MA in Contemporary Religions and Spiritualities, which also dealt with some philosophical knowledge.

        Also, I edit a site called Pagan theologies, and there was a lot of resistance from a lot of people to the term “theology” (even though it was coined by Cicero), so much so that I had to write apologetics for the term itself: What is Pagan theology? so I am entirely in sympathy with you and Deò.

        • alfrecht says:

          Your site sounds fascinating! I’ve been clamoring for pagan theology as an exerted and deliberate activity since about 1995, and have mostly found blank stares as a result. However, in both CR, and some syncretic recon groups I’m part of, we have developed some efforts in this direction…perhaps we should speak more about this at some stage?

        • marytek says:

          I’ve looked at your site, in particular the Romuva section (I find it interesting that there is a mixture of Christian and pre-christian names given to a smattering of the festivals..grin) and that someone has laid claim to the “herbas” or “symbol” of Romuva, that was created in the 60s/70s.

          We are currently discussing theology within the Romuva mailing list, worldviews of the ancestors and if it is possible to incorporate those into a modern context. I think it really comes down to which “trad” one looks at. Some of the groups that I run across tend to focus on how to live one’s life within a modern context – there’s less emphasis on ritual and more on being part of our communities/families.

          • vogelbeere says:

            If you can come up with a better Romuva article I’d be very happy to host it. I know nothing about Romuva, that was a copy and paste job (with permission from the authors).

          • marytek says:

            the webmaster for pilfered my lecture notes. so i figure if the webmaster and the Senior Elder are willing to put it on the site it must be decent enough for their needs 🙂

            Here it is

    • admin says:

      “aislinge, archaeology, and argumentation”

      I like that. If the CR movement were to adopt that as one of its triads, I’d be delighted.

      Incidently, we’re not without literary precedent here. The Instructions of Cormac includes a short section on logic. Cormac is asked “What is the worst pleading and arguing”?, and he replies with a list of logic fallacies that good public speakers would do well to avoid.

    • Anonymous says:


      Since when has “belief” ever been a problem for paganism? Paganism–ancient and modern–as well as most polytheist or animist systems of spirituality are not based on creedal belief, they’re based on experience and on practice, engagement and conduct. If more people were to actually take this on board, and run the axis of identity for their religious affiliation through practice and experience rather than belief, situations like this would not happen as often, because “lack of belief” in a particular proposition would no longer be a problem.

      Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thank you …

      Thank you, Alfrecht, for saying what I was thinking whilst reading the original post, but could never articulate so well.

      I’ll go and read your other comments now.

      Just one thing:

      “In my judgement, “gut instinct” and “intuition” and “it feels right” are simply not good enough reasons to adopt a belief.”

      Where does faith fit into your ideas of paganism, Brendan, if at all? I always thought that as not everything can be proven, faith is necessary, i.e. the mystery element.

  9. alfrecht says:

    As for myself, I’ve been close to leaving paganism on a number of occasions–and not because I “lost faith” or had difficulties with belief not being satisfying or not matching practice, but instead due to the nonsense that often happened in the so-called “pagan community” (again, getting back to Clifton’s point), and the vast gap between what was purported to be fact (by people like John Matthews, and others) but was really just the “feel good” simplicities and fallacies and applications of irrelevant interpretive schemata that were substituted for real research. I’ve endured the schism of a group I helped to co-found because one of the co-founders decided that he wanted to emphasize orthodoxy and (self-defined) institutional authority as the core of the religion, rather than practice or experience. And while the group that I then formulated does thrive, the activity level is rather low, because this “do-it-yourself,” “build-it-as-you-fly-it” methodology is very intimidating to people who are used to thinking of every religion as something complete and finished that can be handed to one in a tidy and easy-to-use package. In many respects, I hope that the forms of paganism with which I’m involved never get to the level where they can be transmitted that easily, but with time and a few generations, I think there will either be greater accessibility to a lively and vibrant yet not completely or overly defined tradition (as Shinto has been for at least 1500 years), or else the sanitized, smoothed-over and simplified version will become more and more prevalent. Of course, my preference would be for the former, but I won’t really have a say in the matter…

  10. jdhobbes says:

    Thanks for posting this

    I started writing a comment and it was turning into an epic (bardic job hazard, y’know). I’ve saved the original text and I’ll make a proper posting of it later.

    But I wanted to thank you for writing about this in the first place. It’s put a voice, so-to-speak, to a morass of conflicting emotions and musings that have been stewing since I read Deo’s announcement.

    And I feel your pain about the negative comments and frustrating attitudes that you’ve had to endure. Unfortunately, it’s part and parcel of interacting with the larger pagan community. Stepping up makes you an easier target.

    However, the good news is that if the price for meeting quality folks like yourself, Deo, and others means I have to hear some negative or ridiculous spoutings from a boatload of nincompoops, it’s always worth what I paid.

    I appreciate you and the work you’ve done and I know I’m not alone. It’s an odd thing to say now, but have faith! *grin*

    • jdhobbes says:

      Re: Thanks for posting this

      BTW, the criticism I get from Pagans about my bardic craft is that I don’t tell enough “pagan” stories. *rolling eyes*

      • alvita_felis says:

        Re: Thanks for posting this

        Hahaha 😀

        You should compose some Pagan blockbusters like the one about a Wise Woman who was burned by ignorant Xtian hicks for practising her Olde Religion! Wake up, man, you gotta understand the missionary duty you have to promote religiously approved arts! *unnatural fire of zeal in my eyes*

        • jdhobbes says:

          Re: Thanks for posting this


          The problem with a Pagan blockbuster is that pagan would balk at price of paying to see it.

          “Pay for mythology? How dare you! The Goddess blesses you with a gift and you are trying to profit from it? Gerry the Gardner would never approve and he’d smack you with his Witches Bible Belt! Why I never… *glint* Oooh… a shiny new athame with 16 hidden blades. $200? Sure, I can afford that…”

      • Anonymous says:

        You have my sympathy, jdhobbes.

        Have you ever asked them what constitutes a pagan story?

  11. What an excellent and insightful post!

    I’m hurrying to now buy OSV. I had moved it back on my to-buy list because I am anti-hero (whoa, that makes me sound like Satan) because I have chosen the common man over the hero and I lump ‘virtue’ with ‘piety’ in the ‘unpleasant mouth-feel’ group.

    But a book about Right Action? I’m all for it!

    I too have a problem with my local community. Partly because they resist reading and discussing the hrd buks with the big wurds but more because of the logical inconsistency and superficiality of their beliefs. My ideas about what’s wrong with the greater community and how it could be addressed have always been a little inchoate and unable to be advanced; I’m stimulated by your post and hopefully book.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I’m of two minds on the subject

    On the one hand, I admire Deo’s bravery in investigating and exploring various paths, and being wise enough to choose what is right for him and what isn’t. That couldn’t have been easy, considering the success of his show. On the other hand, I wish he hadn’t embraced paganism for what he calls ‘the wrong reasons’. Both Deo & paganism’s current state are responsible for his leaving paganism behind in favour of atheism. I feel very protective of the pagan community at this time, and the mama bear in me wants to stick up for it.

    I think paganism is experiencing some serious growing pains. The pagan community is very new, and there are a lot of people who jumped into it as an alternative to Christianity. I see people copy/pasting concepts directly out of their old faith into the new one all the time, and I don’t think this works in creating a viable spiritual path. That paganism helped Deo heal from his guilt around leaving Christianity says a *lot* about paganism, however, and I think that is being overlooked in this discussion.

    I also think that those of us who aren’t as shallow as bathwater have an obligation to be patient with this growing community. It’s extremely important that those who do have meaty spiritual and philosophical books and discussions to offer (as opposed to lickety split pagan in an instant books and talks) remain in the community, fighting the good fight. There are those of us out there who WANT this, badly, and it would be a travesty if those who can offer it drop out because they become disenchanted with the majority.

    In every spiritual path there are those who really work and seek and deeply crave understanding, and those who just want to put on the title and go about their merry way. The latter will always be in the majority and the former, in the minority. I’m staying in it for the minority. I wish Deo and Mandy had done the same, because being pagan and being an atheist or an agnostic is possible (I am such a pagan) and we don’t have enough of those kinds of pagans out there! The loss is sad, and a little disheartening, but I’m seeing I a lot of discussion happening among pagans about the loss and that is really exciting to me. We’re talking about it, thinking about, and ultimately, that is never a bad thing.

    Deo and Mandy inspired me to start a show of my own, and for that I will always be in their debt. I adore them, and I wish them all the best. I hope to see more secular pagans come out in the years to come, and I hope we grow out of the shallow as bathwater phase we seem to be in and head for deeper waters.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for this. On Dutch messages boards I have often been chastised for being critical and inquisitive, even on my very own forum. The ‘agree-to-disagree argument and the familiar ‘as longs as it feels right’ [zolang het goed voelt] are thrown in to avoid any discussion. Many pagans want to be confirmed in their beliefs and choices … not become questioned. Dear Brendan, I’ve just read your book The Other side of Virtue and is a real comfort to know that like-minded people do exist I have found only one within the Netherlands.

    • alvita_felis says:

      Agree to disagree, love and peace, just don´t make me think?

      I´m afraid I´ve heard this very argument repeatedly from the leadership of the mentioned international Pagan organization which I bet you are familiar with there in Netherlands 🙂

      • admin says:

        Re: Agree to disagree, love and peace, just don´t make me think?

        Hello Anonymous, and Alvita

        Which organisation do you speak of, if I may ask? Contact me privately if you don’t wish to say so here.

        I will be visiting Europe in the spring: England and Switzerland, and possible Italy as well. Are there events I could attend or groups I could visit in your countries?

  14. alvita_felis says:

    The New Age milieu, to which Neopagan movement owes its demography to a large extent, is rather anti-scientific (or pseudoscientific?) and anti-intellectual. The core issue is direct spiritual experience and emotion. I can´t possibly see how this could change, perhaps only partially along with institutionalization which requires some sort of clergy training, religious education etc.

    I sympathize with you, Brendan, in what you experience about the predominant sentiments in our community (or is it one). I became a “participant observer” with my religious studies endeavours, slowly shifting more to the “observer” than “participant” end. While I didn´t want to admit it at first, I now found it probable that I may shift from Neopaganism completely. If you think western Neopagan communities are lacking in maturity, take a look on the post-communist ones (if you can possibly imagine). Where I live you hardly ever meet a Pagan in his 30´s or elder. I have tried to found a Pagan group for several years now, with no success. I did some interfaith work which showed me just how fundamentalist local Pagan scene is. I wrote complaints to international Pagan organizations´ headquarters. I think I´m slowly approaching the end of the road.

    And at this end, I found a satisfactory solution to my dilemmas. Screw educational, missionary and activist work. I´m opening a business with a friend. A successful esoteric centre is our goal. I think not having any emotional, religious or intellectual strings of expectations attached to the community is what you desperately need when running a business like this, and I feel quite at peace with my “Pagan religion” right now. Come what may. I don´t want to end up as a stupid fundamentalist myself, desperately trying to find a solid ground in the swamp of local Paganism.

  15. dscarron says:

    “He said, simply and clearly, that he had discovered he had no strong valid reasons for adopting his pagan beliefs in the first place. The rational response to such a discovery is to reject those beliefs. End of story.”

    Feh. This smells more of the reck of sour grapes. The insinuation that the last years of his work was what – a lark? This is not a pitch-to-win ballgame. He proported having beliefs and was a community leader. Now to say oops “my bad” does not cover it. If his faith does not now meet his needs, I say more power to him and good luck. But if the years were a mistake, then he is a fool and has been fooling a number of listeners for a long time.

    Such level of responsablity and ethics should be independant of the faith that he proports to no longer have.

    I am glad for this conversation because clearly some people need to challenge their beliefs and figure out what is important to them.

  16. darakat_ewr says:

    A comment from an athiest who became a pagan

    I was brought up as an Atheist and chose to become pagan after much research and philosophical thought. I wouldn’t say I am in any way an expert philosopher (far from it, I am a mere armature) but belief and what you believe is very much a part of your religion. I became a pagan because I believe that there is either no god or many and out of the many polytheistic choices I had available paganism held the most interest for me and to some extent the right people. One of those persons was a bloke by the name of Brendan Cathbad Myers and he talked about things relating to paganism and philosophy (and the Celts) which made a hell of a lot of sense to me. I agree that we should question our belief and we should question our motives, goals and what paganism is, what we want it to become.
    I stopped being an atheist when I realized that no matter what I had belief in there being at least the “possibility” of multiple gods, and since then I have had experiences that have taught me that I am right. Now of course my “truth” is not rationale because no matter what I will always be an influence on myself, let alone be influenced by others. What I experience could again be all brain in a jar, etc. But I decided that although this mattered, what I have experienced may not be true, but I knew the nature of truth is itself subjective, and thus anything is true. Of course to a given value of “truth.”

  17. Anonymous says:

    Sorry I’m not Good Enough For You

    When I call the Gods, I get goose bumps, I sweat and can feel Their presence. I can’t see Them, but I KNOW They’re there.

    I can’t explain it, but I know it.

    Sorry that I don’t need all your big fancy words and ideas. I know the Gods exists and I know that magick works, in my guts. To be told “that’s not good enough” angers me.

    Who are you or deo or anyone to tell me what’s not good enough, for me? Not needing or having an interest in philosophy does make me or my beliefs less valid than yours.

    I appreciate what you do Brenden, I’ve listened to you on a number of pagan podcasts, but we’re not all philosophers.

    • jdhobbes says:

      Re: Sorry I’m not Good Enough For You

      If you get goose bumps or tingles in your feet during a ritual, it’s a huge leap to say that the Gods are present. You don’t know that; the only thing you KNOW is that your feet are tingling. It could be the presence of the Gods, or it could be a bad burrito. You can’t know it one way or the other; you can only really, really, really believe it.

      You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn’t add to your credibility to say that you KNOW the Gods are making your feet tingle. You can also tell me that you know, in a way that cannot be explained or questioned, that you are now a can of tuna, but don’t expect me to take that seriously either.

      The process of philosophy is how beliefs are developed and allowed to evolve. Philosophy forces us to question our beliefs, testing them to see if they stand up to our own personal and public evidence, and to consider other positions.

      Never questioning our beliefs means that your faith becomes blind and history has plenty of instances where blind faith slides easily into fanaticism.

      Simply asking “Why do I believe this and not that” is basic philosophy in action. Discussing it with others, while it may reveal that you have more to learn, will force you to expand upon your current beliefs and cement those you choose to espouse. It’s not rocket science and it can only add fuel to your faith.

      If you went to a restaurant and asked “Can you tell me what is in this salad” and the response you got was “You don’t need to know that. Just believe us when we tell you its healthy for you”, would you feel that was a good enough answer? If it’s in your best interest to question what goes into your body, you should also question what you decide to put in your mind and soul.

      • admin says:

        Re: Sorry I’m not Good Enough For You

        Spoken like an expert, JD.
        Thank you!

      • Anonymous says:

        Your ignorant

        I have been a can of tuna for many years, and I find your comments hurtful and offensive.

        • admin says:

          Re: Your ignorant

          Dear Anonymous,

          From this moment forward, I will not be permitting you to post here anonymously unless you identify yourself.

          This being my blog, after all.

        • jdhobbes says:

          Re: Your ignorant

          Congratulations on that. I’m sure you and your other tuna friends are very happy.

          My comments are pointing out what I consider to be flaws in your argument and they are encouraging you to be more open-minded about the untapped potential of what you don’t know. If you find that offensive or hurtful, then tuna must be more flaky than I realized.

          BTW, you misspelled “Your” in “Your ignorant”.

      • Anonymous says:

        Re: Sorry I’m not Good Enough For You

        In my opinion, the flippancy of saying “it could be the presence of the Gods, or it could be a bad burrito” is disrespectful, and discounting of the intuitive approach to life, a disrespect often demonstrated by over-rationalists, a respect which feeds the vicious cycle of anti-intellectualism < --> anti-intuitivism.

        The person is saying that something profound occurs, and that that profundity itself may be trusted.

        Siegfried Goodfellow

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m always grimly amused at how eager pagans are to denounce the idea that they have anything in common with each other, or that having something in common is even desirable. We cherish our distinctiveness, from each other as much as from the monotheistic masses, maybe a little too much. Enough that we take our differences as a good reason not to have much to do with each other.

        Paganism has spun itself, particularly on this side of the pond, as the ultimate religion(s) for non-joiners; you don’t need to accommodate or compromise with anyone else if you don’t want to, because you can do everything needful by yourself. Which, I grant, has its good points. But I wonder about it’s durability. The old saying is wrong; there are indeed atheists in foxholes, but what there are few of are loners, because loners do badly in difficult times. A pagan, no less than anyone else (however much we protest), is a social and political animal.

        The non-Neo- varieties of paganism I’m personally familiar with from my far-traveled youth have this in common: they really, truly are either mostly oblivious or indifferent to the division between creeds. They see no problem with belonging to six or seven different religions at once (or combining them omnivorously), with practicing alongside people with whom they have not a single belief in common, even with the majority of their membership ignoring ‘belief’ entirely in favour of big, loud public festivals and idiosyncratic private devotions. They are ‘lumpers’ as enthusiastically as Neo-pagans are ‘splitters’. And you know, it works, because two people can happily participate in the same activity together even if they privately understand the meaning of the activity in completely different ways. I dearly wish that attitude, of friendship and mutual participation across boundaries, would take root here. That’s why I think your clan-maker idea is an excellent one; it’s what I aspire to myself, though without expectation of pouches of tobacco (though I’d appreciate the thought).


  18. Anonymous says:

    Sorry I’m not Good Enough For You II

    I meant to say that not needing or having and interest in philosophy does not make my beliefs any less valid than yours.

    • Re: Sorry I’m not Good Enough For You II

      I don’t think that this is what he is trying to say (that you are not good enough). I think both philosophical and practical knowledge is needed to have a complete understanding of what you are practicing. Also a look at ones reasons for following a path is very important, I try to do it every year, it helps me asses where I am and what I want to do next. Thank you for a very thought provoking post.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Thought Provoking


    I’ve been reading this topic at various blogs and websites, but your post and the resulting comments have been the most interesting to me – not because I agree with everythings that has been said, but because they have raised even more questions for me to consider.

    I’d just like to thank all the contributors.

  20. Anonymous says:

    a common philosophical mistake

    Bren, it seems to me that you’re making one of the more common philosophical mistakes concerning religion in insisting that statements about religious experience have to conform to what amounts to a positivist standard of proof. One of the central claims of religion is that the objects of religious experience are not analyzable in terms of ordinary reason, but rather require a distinctive language that I have elsewhere called apophatic communication — a language of symbol and reference that is self-canceling in logical terms, because it refers to objects of experience that transcend logic. The priest of the goddess Ungit in C.S. Lewis’ novel Till We Have Faces may have put it best:

    “I, King, have dealt with the gods for three generations of men, and I know that they dazzle our eyes and flow in and out of one another like eddies on a river, and nothing that is said clearly can be said truly about them. Holy places are dark places. It is life and strength, not knowledge and words, that we get in them. Holy wisdom is not clear and thin like water, but thick and dark like blood.”

    I also think you’re at least sometimes mistaken to see the widespread Pagan unwillingness to feed their experiences into a logical meatgrinder as anti-intellectual; it’s not anti-hammer to recognize that not everything is a nail, and that some very valuable things can be damaged by subjecting them to a good thwacking. As Michael Polanyi points out in The Tacit Dimension, we know more than we can say — and, I might add, we say more than we can usefully analyze by the tools you seem to be applying to the subject.

    But I’ll stop now before I start quoting Kierkegaard.

    — John Michael Greer

  21. Anonymous says:

    Resaons for changing Religious Faith

    awww, yes. All the newbies caught up in the glamour of the promise of paganism, but after a while, examining evidence and experience, it can wear thin. Been there, done that.

    For me, it was Buddhism that brought me to Wicca, to First Nations beliefs, that brought me to OBOD Druidry. Druid fits, in all its forms. While I am not fond of researching my way into a practise of faith that is used in ADF, I also appreciate what that rigour has done for druid practise.

    I am surprised at why people would be so surprised that people who did a public project like a podcast would not also being questing and questioning. I always meet people who have no idea anything beyond Wicca exists in paganism, and for many, while wicca hints at something that works for them, Druidism or Heathenism may be a better fit….for them.

    May I quote you here
    “Philosophical knowledge is the knowledge of how to separate the real from the unreal, the right from the wrong, the true from the false, the beautiful from the trite. This kind of knowledge is philosophical when it is a product of sustained systematic reason. This kind of knowledge, however, is often specifically rejected by pagans. This happens when, for instance, pagans claim that reliable knowledge can be obtained primarily (or only) through non-rational means such as magical sight, through “gut intuition”, etc. This also happens when someone says that “head knowledge” or “book knowledge” is worthless, and that intellectual reasoning about our problems is “too hard”, “too scary”, or “missing the point”, or even “an obstacle to true spiritual experience”.”

    Anyone who is seriously going deep in their faith, which may not happen for people who are new, want the philosophical explained, explored, delineated. While I also find the ethical information challenging to read, how can I teach others if I am not grounded in the ethics of the path, or any of it cosmology, ontology, or other ologies of philosophy. I really think that too many folks have been building experiences, using their right brain functions, without letting the left brain catch up. We learn different things from different perspectives. It is, a different way of knowledge, a reality that only has validity within itself. Counselors would call that kind of subjective reality of the client as holding “therapeutic” validity.

    But, as you point out, too many people think “my reality anything goes”…Nonsense. Very good people are actually indulging in personal delusions, in some cases, and some of us are wondering what kinds of psychological safety protocols do we have for induced psychological emergencies at festival events or powerful rituals.

    And, pagans, while individualized, need to address family and community stuff, especially if we are going to do group stuff. Virtue ethics is a start, but too many people are denouncing anyform of leadership as “power grabbing”. Leadership is a must, and it is not always exhibited by the “person in charge on paper.”

    We need reason, and philosophical knowledge. Just because the masses do not appreciate it does not mean it is not needed. The way to becoming of knowledge in paganism has changed a lot in the last several years. I started in my early twenties, and now, at middle age (not saying more about that), with a family, three kids, etc., I found myself training in pastoral seminary in paganism. I am a leader. I just know that even from my training thus far, a persons spiritual development does go through phases. Was paganism a way to back away from Christian ideas, in spiritual practise, and then discover more? Why, we have people going to various Christian sects and buddhism and all kinds of things. Being able to explore the value of ideas in faith is important.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Reasons for deos decision….con’t

    But, as I screen students to teach for a group I am starting, I am aware that the appeal of paganism may be like a rose…until the thorns come out.

    Some of this is just allowing people the freedom of choice.

    And, to quote further:
    “For instance, his discussion of the logical contradictions and fallacies in the practice of spellcraft, was a work of top notch philosophical rigor – and it was almost universally ignored. No one wants to hear that one of their cherished beliefs is actually a senseless sham. He also generated controversy when he brought a social worker on his show as a guest, and they discussed how small children attending pagan gatherings can be harmed by the sight of their parents performing sexually provocative acts with near-strangers, at the fire pit at night. The anger that this show generated, despite that it was well reasoned, led me to believe that if he didn’t leave the community, he might be driven from it.”

    Spellwork is seldom properly understood, and usually requires more work than some want to put into it for success. I personally think it has more to do with inducing a change in oneself, and these methods have worked when “talk therapy” or “language dependent” methods will not. I know not everyone will benefit from it. An example of my husbands, doing a 12 step exercise with a ritual in the book, for a specific step. He found it “hoey”; I would have got more out of it than him. He is not into using drama or the like to make things happen, though. Does it mean that exploring it using for fallacies was not useful? No. I think that not enough has been done to modernize the understanding of it working, and some people really have no idea why. I think the early ceremonialists, when they figured out that psychology seemed to explain some of the phenomenon they had seen, were hopeful. This is before 1925 or so. I think that there is still a lot of room for post modern thinking to be applied to pagan ideas, for further thought. No, not everyone is going to like the shine taken off their prize, but it is necessary if we are grow in this faith or belief system. Way more work needs to be done.

    As far as the social worker explaining the harm, well, duh. There is a reason children grow into sexuality. I think that people need to account for that if they want to have children around, and that if children are around, we need to be “family friendly, rated PG” in our behaviour. Not being willing to get a child care provider or provide a space for family friendly activities to be central, for people to have to look at their parental responsibility to be parents first and participants second. It is a tension playing out at festivals and gatherings again and again, and I am sure, in time, our communities may grow up to the idea that boundaries are not restrictive of freedom, but allow people to have freedom in the first place. The anger, though, is the denial/ blame of people not wanting to look at it. We just need to keep bringing it up.

    While we may have “lost” deo, we also need to consider whether keeping people is what we are about. My druidism is less about “magic” as a practise and more about, for me, healing “ourselves and our planet.” It is not enough to look at those actions which reacted to deo as part of the responsibility for his leaving. It may have hastened it, but, I caution people to see paganism as a movement of “peace and light”, and “with the answers.” We are primarily focused around small group experience, at best, in our religious practices, with many of us way more comfortable as loosely associated solitares. Books allowed many people access to the ideas of paganism where only contact with religious groups would have allowed a few years back. The internet is also assisting people find information and ideas.

    While the basics of Wicca, Druidry, and the like are out there, I really think they are being “beaten to death”, re hashed over and over, without a whole lot of “why is this so.” Try explaining the nature of the soul as a Wiccan, and you will find out that there is really not a lot there.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Reasons for deos decision….con’t part 3

    The process of spiritual development you are describing is normal, but not everyone goes through these stages of “growing up” in a belief system. People changing belief systems is normal sometimes in spiritual development, if they cannot resolve issues that arise for them in their process. I can email you a copy of where this comes from Brendan, at my email address at

  24. Anonymous says:

    Thank Gods!

    Having spent 5 years in the wilderness because I couldn’t bear the self-indulgent rubbish that was masquerading as British Druidry and, I later discovered, British Paganism, it is FANTASTIC to read this. In all religions there’re laxadaisical members but that’s all British Paganism currently seems to have. Never mind philosophy Brendan, we’ve become anti-intellectual. But I trust that this is a phase that Paganism needs to go through. It’s just so painful.

  25. Anonymous says:

    We need to be challenged

    To become stronger and wiser.

    I’m not a college grad and yet I’ve not made myself popular for asking questions, either. The eclectic refrain, “I’m not doing something just because someone tells me,” echoes in my skull. “It’s all from the same thing” (so I understand what you believe) causes pain behind my eyes.

    I’m grateful for Deo for asking the questions and calling bullsh*t even when I didn’t quite agree (or understand). He made me squirm and look in the mirror. I also quickly learned, much as I thought everyone should listen to this podcast just to have to think, that wasn’t what most wanted.

    Yes, we need philosophers even when they confront us in uncomfortable ways. I’m reminded of the tarot card The Hermit. Perhaps the philosopher carries a light in their rarity and singularity for the masses. The community you serve may not ever ‘get’ all of it, but without it the world would be a much drearier place.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Wholeness, Not Rationalist Supremacism

    As an Ur-thanker (philosopher) myself, I must differ from you in your emphasis on rationality. Don’t get me wrong ; I highly value rationality, but it is Wholeness, the blend of the intuitive and the rational that is of higher importance, in my opinion and practice. I, like you, become very annoyed when I hear anti-intellectual comments, and urge people, as Robert Anton Wilson did, to think with both sides of their brain (an appropriate metaphor, however outdated that brain science may be). But the intuitive may very well be a completely valid reason to pursue something, and for me, one of the great values of spirituality is its encouragement of giving intuition at least the benefit of the doubt.

    There is no doubt that the intuition as a capacity requires maturing, and that part of this maturing process is a dialogue with our rational side. But if the rational side completely dominates, then we lose the development of a capacity that is already over-stunted in our culture. The yearning after that fully developed capacity may express itself in immature forms and counterfeits which are easily rationally debunked (although I am personally not interested in “debunking” anything ; I am highly skeptical of debunkers), but this says nothing about the capacity in its well-trained state.

    Over-rationality may itself represent an immature state, a somewhat schizoid approach to human life. Again, I point out that I am a person known for my great faith in Reason, with all the hopes the Enlightenment put into that. But there is such a thing as scientism, and there is such a thing as reductive rationalism.

    Paganism if it is to be a true spirituality must not be enslaved to the abstract rational intellect. Rather, it must pursue a wholeness which benefits both sides of the equation.

    But that is, once more, my informed and experienced opinion.


    Siegfried Goodfellow

  27. darach says:

    Deo’s shadow

    I can understand what your saying and I see it so much in my community here. So many elders have gone into the shadows because of the influx of the new young wanna be non educated Pagans. It is hard to see. Many of the educated Pagans here that I know… don’t come out ot often either.
    So many times I have given thanks for ADF. And for the education it has given me.

    I very much look forward to your comments on my small Philosophy collection when you get here. lol.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Victor and Cora Anderson. Hans Holzer. Ellen Canon Reed. Gwydion Pendderwen. Maybe Maya Deren?

    I’m not sure how much I like the term “saint” for this project though. To me it falls a little more into the realm of ancestor veneration, just on a somewhat bigger scale.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Philosophy and Religion

    Great article, Brendan. It really calls to question the roles which all pagans play in the development of our religion not only for ourselves, but our community. I don’t believe that the pagan community openly rejects philosophy, for there are many examples of philosophical insight throughout paganism, especially ethics. The bigger problem, at least from my studies and experiences, is the rejection of open criticism. Of course, this falls hand in hand with philosophy, especially when it comes to religion.
    All religions throughout history have faced open criticism, and many have rejected it to the point of violence and warfare. Over the course of time, religions adapt to new philosophical movements and subsequently become stronger, or give way to more structured, logical beliefs.
    The pagan movement in North America is still brand new, compared to the many other religions in the world which for centuries have been pondered, critiqued and written about. Any sort of criticism or attack on paganism is taken offensively since it is such a new developing system. Since there is no current philosophical debate which exists, many pagans are left to argue for their beliefs using personal conviction and opinion, which according to Plato was the most ignorant kind of knowledge. Consequently, many pagans have fallen into ignorance for a lack of philosophical insight of their own beliefs.
    There is a dire need for pagan philosophers, to further develop this newborn religion, and without the criticisms of such people our religion will not develop into anything greater. We will be stuck not only in the naturalistic fallacy, but also the fallacy of appealing to tradition. A tradition which stands on extremely weak ground due to the inability of pagans to think critically, and philosophically about their beliefs.

    Martin Pytlewski
    BA.Honours – History / Philosophy
    University of Guelph

  30. Anonymous says:

    Keep It Up

    I would think that if you’re pissing that many people off you’re doing something right. Keep it up, please!

    Bernie, Calgary

  31. Anonymous says:

    The Passing of Deo’s Shadow

    Greetings Brendan,

    Excellent post and one that rekindles thoughts I had about 4 years ago. I had also been questioning my faith and decided to sit down and examine in writing where my issues lay. The result was a very long paper which detailed many aspects of modern Paganism from beliefs, to reasons for becoming Pagan to some of the ideological issues and where I seemed to stand. I could almost make it into a book, but it did show me exactly where my issues lay and what I could do to reconcile that within myself.

    Good to know I’m not alone in this thinking!

  32. Anonymous says:

    Forgot to leave my name

    Hi there, in my post about the long paper I wrote, I forgot to sign my name! Athelia /|\

  33. Anonymous says:

    “Philosophical knowledge is the knowledge of how to separate the real from the unreal, the right from the wrong, the true from the false, the beautiful from the trite. This kind of knowledge is philosophical when it is a product of sustained systematic reason. This kind of knowledge, however, is often specifically rejected by pagans. “

    No where was this more obvious than with the whole “racist flag” controversy after this years K-Fest. I noticed that most, if not all of the people who spoke out against it had university degrees, while most who were in favour of the racist flag did not. I think this is very telling…and it is this lack of what you call philosophical knowledge that is turning more than a few deep thinkers off the Neo-Pagan movement. Deo is not the only deep thinker who has left in the past year or so…I am tenacious, and the fact that I once had a priest tell me it was OK for a parent to beat up on their son or daughter based on the Bible, among other things makes me reject the whole Abramhic family of religions. In Neo-Paganism, I see some hope of building something modern, dealing with today’s problems, not re-fighting the wars first fought by those who are generations dead.

Leave a Reply to jdhobbes Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *