Theism and Paganism

Paganism and theism attempt to answer some of life's most fundamental questions. Still, their perspectives on how these questions should be answered are fundamentally distinct. "paganism" refers to a group of different polytheistic religions that acknowledge the existence of multiple gods, spirits, and natural forces. This is in contrast to theism, which asserts that one God is omniscient, omnipotent, and rules over the entire universe. Pagans believe that there are many gods, spirits, and natural forces.

One of the primary concerns that both paganism and theism address is how one should respond to the problem of evil. The concept of evil is intrinsically linked, across all world religions, to the fact that there is an imbalance of misery, suffering, and injustice in the world. Typically, when asked to justify the existence of evil, theists point to the concept of free will. According to this hypothesis, God gave humanity the capacity to choose between doing what is right and what is evil by endowing them with free will. As a result, the presence of evil can be traced back to human actions and choices that go counter to what God desires for the world.

On the other hand, paganism does not provide a unified, all-encompassing explanation for the existence of evil. Some pagan traditions consider evil an innate part of the cosmos, a force that calls for the equal and opposite force of good to balance it out. In some forms of paganism, it is believed that the actions of evil spirits or demons cause evil. Some people still believe that people are responsible for reducing the amount of evil in the world by striving to coexist peacefully with the natural world and the divine.

Even though they are fundamentally different, pagan belief and theistic belief both accept the important impact that evil has on the existence of humans. If there was no such thing as evil, the human experience would be quite different. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is credited with saying, "Without evil, human existence would turn in upon itself, and it would be enclosed as a zone of independence." Without the struggle against evil, there would be no reason to strive for moral excellence, remain resilient in the face of adversity, or look for something more worthwhile to work towards; hence, human life would be devoid of meaning and purpose.

In addition, the absence of a sense of community and communication would be a greater problem. People are social beings who gain a great deal from having connections with others and having blood relatives. Without the opportunity to communicate with other people, share experiences and points of view, and create connections, human life would be nothing more than a meaningless existence plagued with loneliness and isolation.

According to Schelling, an explanation for freedom can be found in only a pantheistic philosophy because this type of philosophy acknowledges that everything is interconnected and a part of the same total. The existence of God is acknowledged by pantheism as well. To put it another way, liberty is not bestowed upon us by an external authority; rather, it is innate to who we are as individuals. This argues that our decisions and acts are not governed by factors that are not controlled; rather, they are determined by our own free will and the initiative we choose to take. In addition, pantheism emphasizes that humans are not distinct from the cosmos but rather a part of it as a whole. More people than ourselves feel the ripple effects of our activities. Thus, we are responsible for conducting ourselves in a manner that is harmonious with the natural order. This is because the consequences of our acts are felt by more people than just ourselves (“Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom,” n.d.).

Spinoza's pantheism is criticized by Schelling because, in his perspective, it is excessively mechanistic and deterministic. This is why Spinoza's pantheism is called into doubt. Spinoza argues that there is no essential distinction between things since God is the only reality, and as a result, there is no genuine individuality or freedom  (Spinoza: Ethics, n.d.). He bases this argument on the fact that God is the only reality. This is because everything besides God is merely an aspect of God or an expression of God. According to Schelling, this worldview ignores both the one-of-a-kind qualities of each individual human being and the creative potential of the human will. In addition, he criticizes Spinoza's understanding of God by asserting that it is devoid of the emotional and intuitive elements required for a complete comprehension of the divine. Spinoza's view of God was entirely intellectual and devoid of personal characteristics.

Instead of the presence of God being the factor that results in the existence of evil, Schelling places the blame on human freedom. He thinks that God gave each of us free will, enabling us to form moral judgments about appropriate and inappropriate behavior in a given situation. This suggests that humans have the potential to commit errors and make poor decisions, both of which may have negative repercussions not only for ourselves but also for other individuals. According to Schelling, this is not an error in God's creation but rather an unavoidable consequence of the freedom given to humans. He thinks that there should be evil in the world since it is through our failures that we can mature as individuals and gain wisdom.

In his book titled "On Religion," Schleiermacher makes the case that the modern criticism of Religion is founded on a misunderstanding of what Religion is. He says this argument may be found in Schleiermacher's book. He contends that we have never had a correct understanding of Religion because we have always considered it distinct from metaphysics and morality. Schleiermacher contends that our most profound sentiments and sensations can be expressed in our religious practices (“On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers,” 1989).

In the second lecture that is included in Schleiermacher's book On Religion, he argues that religious tolerance is the most essential and revolutionary value that can be derived from any religious practice. He contends that our understanding of fundamentalism and radicalism in Religion is flawed because it needs to consider the growth of a sense of unity with the divine, which is at the center of Religion.

Nietzsche has several criticisms of Christianity, including its "tendency hostile to life." He contends that all of Christianity's fundamental tenets must be reexamined in light of modern scholarship. Nietzsche offers a genealogy of the Christian Religion in his book The Antichrist (Nietzsche, n.d.). He argues that the move from Paulian belief to Christian belief is the most significant one for him. According to him, Paul places a greater emphasis on a person's commitment to God, but Jesus places a greater emphasis on a different kind of redeemer.

According to "The Awakening of Self in Buddhism," by Nishitani Keiji, Buddhism is not an ideology like Marxism, Christianity, or Capitalism. According to him, Buddhism does not pretend to be able to affect how society evolves; rather, it focuses more on obtaining one's own enlightenment than it does on attempting to influence the development of society. Nishitani, in his article titled "Science and Zen," is critical of Western science and asserts that Zen Buddhism demonstrates the path that ought to be followed by contemporary religions. He asserts that the demythologization of the mythical and the essentialization of the scientific are two facets of the same process in the Religion of Zen Buddhism but that these two processes are complementary to one another (Shapiro, 1981)..

Georges Bataille, a French philosopher, and author, is known for his argument that evil is essential to human life. He thought the only way to achieve a world free from evil would be to remove all means by which people might interact or communicate with one another. In this way, evil contributes to people's coming together and cultivates a sense of having experienced and comprehended something in common.

According to Bataille, if there were no such thing as evil, humans would live in a cosmos where they are cut off from one another and unable to experience meaningful connections. The concept of evil provides a structure for moral and ethical investigation and a method for differentiating between right and wrong (The Accursed Share’, n.d.). People can acknowledge their limits and work toward the improvement of society as a result of this.

In addition, according to Bataille, the inability to communicate, which he describes as an "empty loneliness," would be a greater source of agony than any other form of anguish or pain. According to him, engaging in conversation with other people and looking for meaning in one's life are essential aspects of being a human being.

In this perspective, evil should not be avoided or eradicated. Still, it is a fundamental component of human existence that enables us to interact with other people and grow as individuals. Even if it may be unpleasant or painful, evil, in the long run, assists humanity in expanding beyond its limitations and improving the world.

In many different theological perspectives, the fact that evil exists is considered a problem. Why does evil continue to exist if God is all-knowing, all-good, and perfect? Many potential answers have been proposed during the debate that has lasted for centuries. Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher, held the view that evil in the world is necessary for human existence and that, in its absence, individuals would be doomed to live an existence characterized by loneliness and isolation.

Nietzsche's reasoning is based on the concept that humans naturally engage with one another in groups. This concept is essential to Nietzsche's argument. Having meaningful exchanges with other people and cultivating meaningful connections are necessary steps to discovering the meaning and purpose of our existence. If we could not communicate with one another when there were no other people around, we would be doomed to a life of isolation and deprived of the depth and breadth of the human experience. According to this point of view, individuals are more able to connect and cultivate meaningful relationships, which holds that indulging in negative behaviors is beneficial (Nishitani et al., 1983). As a result of our difficulties, we can better comprehend and empathize with other people's experiences, as well as create the relationships necessary for our continued survival throughout life.

Nietzsche contends that if there were no such thing as evil, a new kind of difficulty would come into being. If we did not encounter any challenges or obstacles on the way through life that we have chosen, we would become self-satisfied and stagnant, and we would never develop into fully formed adults. In this context, evil is an essential driving force behind progress. It forces us to acknowledge our flaws and confines and motivates us to work toward overcoming them.

Nietzsche's understanding of evil substantially differs from the traditional religious perspectives that are still widespread today. Typically, these beliefs attribute sin or disobedience on the part of human beings as the source of evil in the world. Nietzsche presents an understanding of evil that is opposed to this view. On the other hand, Nietzsche believes that to live a complete and meaningful life; we must first accept the truth that evil will inevitably be a part of the human experience and learn to love it. This is the first step in the process, according to Nietzsche. This position reflected his greater hostility toward conventional moral and religious notions, which he considered blocking and constraining human potential. He believed that humans are capable of much more than they are taught to believe. He believed that these concepts restricted the possibilities of humans.

Despite the fact that some people may find them unusual and even frightening, Nietzsche's beliefs bring to light essential questions about the role that evil plays in the lives of human beings. Is it an obstacle that must be confronted and conquered, or must it be tolerated as a normal part of the human experience? Is it possible to have a genuine appreciation for the good in a world without evil, or is contrast and comparison impossible in such a world? Ultimately, it is up to each person to form their own opinions regarding these issues based on the experiences and points of view that are specific to them alone (“Hegel’s Elements of the Philosophy of Right,” 2021).

The idea of palpable freedom, which serves as the cornerstone of Schelling's argument, is the basis for his counterargument against the assumption that the existence of evil is evidence against the existence of God. This idea is at the heart of Schelling's argument. If there were no evil in the world, individuals would be forced into perfect autonomy and isolation, which, according to Schelling, would be an even bigger tragedy than the current state of affairs. Schelling maintained that evil is essential to humans because it contrasts with good and enables individuals to exercise autonomy in decision-making. To put it another way, the existence of evil is a necessary prerequisite for a choice, and for a choice between good and evil, humans need to have the freedom to choose either. Only then can there be a choice between good and evil?

According to Schelling, freedom is not only an abstract concept; it manifests itself in the specific decisions individuals make in their day-to-day lives. A significant advancement in philosophical thought has been made with this concept of freedom. Concrete freedom, according to Schelling, is the ability to generate moral judgments, and Schelling contends that this capacity is necessary for human life (Schelling, 1994). Concrete freedom is the ability to form moral judgments. Schelling contends that people would not be free if the only decisions responsible for them were those about their moral behavior. As a direct consequence of this, the existence of evil serves as an essential prerequisite for genuine freedom.

In addition to this, Schelling gives a counter to the notion that the existence of evil is proof that God does not exist. Schelling contends that there cannot be such a thing as "concrete freedom" if there is no possibility of "evil." The purest expression of freedom is the ability to choose between doing what is right and what is wrong. If there were no evil in the universe, there would be no contrast between good and evil and no such thing as true freedom. In addition, Schelling asserts that one can triumph over evil by using concrete freedom and that doing so contributes to the development of moral character in the individual who does so.

Schleiermacher contends, in his book "On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers," that contemporary criticisms of Religion are built on an inaccurate grasp of the core doctrines of those religions. This argument can be found in Schleiermacher's book "On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers." Schleiermacher maintains that religion is not one of ethics or philosophy; rather, it is a problem of an individual's complete dependence on something bigger than oneself. This sensation of complete and utter reliance cannot be effectively described or appreciated via words alone; rather, it can only be understood through direct personal experience.

In his second lecture, "On the Essence of Religion," Schleiermacher argues that religious tolerance is the most fundamental and revolutionary value of any religious practice. He is certain this is the case regardless of one's religious beliefs. He contends that a higher level of religious tolerance can be accomplished by first recognizing that the fundamental belief shared by all religions of the world is one of complete and utter dependency and then moving on to acknowledge this reality as fact. People with this understanding create a regard for the various religious experiences that people have and a willingness to accept those who practice different faiths (“On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers,” 1989).

On the other hand, Nietzsche holds a negative view of Christianity due to his conviction that it possesses a "tendency hostile to life." He contends that every tenet of Christianity needs to be reexamined since it is impossible to square them with the Christian concept that life should be affirmed. He bases this contention on the fact that it is hard to reconcile these two beliefs. According to Nietzsche, the most significant event in the progression of Christianity was the transition from the teachings of Jesus to the concepts of Paul. This is the period that Nietzsche considers to be the most important. The Pauline transition is the name given to this particular transition. Jesus is said to be Nietzsche's interpretation of the redeemer type, whereas Paul is the antithesis of the redeemer type. Paul fits the profile of a savior.

Nietzsche provides a historical narrative of Christianity within the setting of his work "The Anti-Christ." He contends that one of the defining aspects of Christianity is a tendency toward self-denial, in addition to an emphasis on sin and humility as central themes in Christian theology. According to Nietzsche, the quality of Christianity that distinguishes it as a missionary religion derives from the desire of adherents of the faith to force their views on people of other civilizations. Nietzsche is quoted as saying that the necessity for a new religion derives from the fact that the beliefs of Christianity are no longer compatible with the affirmation of life. As a result, a new religion is required, according to Nietzsche, because of this incompatibility.

In his essay titled "Science and Zen," Nishitani Keiji casts doubt on the Western scientific community by saying that Zen Buddhism gives a superior conceptual framework for appreciating how people engage with the natural world. He does this by suggesting that Zen Buddhism provides a superior conceptual framework for appreciating how humans interact with the natural world. When it comes to the spiritual qualities of Zen Buddhism, he argues that the scientific essentialization and the demythologization of the legendary are two facets of the same concept that should be viewed as two sides of the same coin. According to Nishitani, the influence of Zen Buddhism on society is not due to a collection of thoughts but rather to a greater awareness of the essential components of life. This view was presented in the book "Zen Buddhism and Its Influence on Society."

Bataille raises questions about the conventional understanding of what it is to distinguish between good and evil. He argues that this definition drastically oversimplifies the concept of evil and ignores the crucial function it plays in the life of humans. He also claims that this definition ignores the role that evil plays in the existence of humans. Bataille thinks the only way to have a genuine human experience is to converse with other individuals. He thinks that a world free of evil would be a depressing and claustrophobic place to live. In Bataille's view, the sacred offers a way to break free of one's limitations by serving as a medium through which transcendence might be achieved.

In conclusion, the conversation on paganism and theism has enlightened us about the divergent points of view on religion, freedom, evil, and the concept of sacrifice. The philosophers and researchers covered in this article provide a wide variety of criticisms and insights into the nature of religion and the part it plays in our lives. We can see that there are a variety of beliefs and opinions regarding religion and spirituality by examining Schelling's concept of Pantheism as the only possible philosophy of freedom, Schleiermacher's argument that the essence of religion lies in our most intimate feelings and emotions, and Nietzsche's critique of Christianity as being inimical to life. All of these examples demonstrate that there are different perspectives and ideas regarding religion and spirituality.

References

Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. (n.d.). In sunypress.edu. Retrieved May 6, 2023, from https://sunypress.edu/isbn/9780791468746

 On religion: speeches to its cultured despisers. (1989). Choice Reviews Online, 26(11), 26–624626–6246. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.26-6246

 Shapiro, G. (1981). Nietzsche’s Graffito: A Reading of The Antichrist. Boundary 2, 9(3), 119. https://doi.org/10.2307/303116

 Nietzsche, F. (n.d.). CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols. http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/The%20Anti-Christ%20Ecce%20Homo%20Twilight%20of%20the%20Idols%20&%20Other%20Writings%20Friedrich%20Nietzsche.pdf

Nishitani, K., King, W. L., & Bragt, J. V. (1983). Religion and Nothingness. In J. V. Bragt (Trans.), www.ucpress.edu. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520049468/religion-and-nothingness

Schelling, F. W. J. V. (1994). On the History of Modern Philosophy. In PhilPapers. Cambridge University Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHOTH-3

On religion: speeches to its cultured despisers. (1989). Choice Reviews Online, 26(11), 26–624626–6246. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.26-6246

The Accursed Share’. (n.d.). https://www.filosofiadeldebito.it/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/1988_Bataille-The-Accursed-Share_Essay-on-General-Economy.pdf

Hegel’s Elements of the Philosophy of Right. (2021, August 16). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/hegels-elements-of-the-philosophy-of-right/896C4D998753549EED9738FF3D8F07AF

Spinoza: Ethics. (n.d.). Hackettpublishing.com. Retrieved May 6, 2023, from https://hackettpublishing.com/ethics