Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

[sionnach]

I wrote the post in the wrong color black clearly does not show through black so I reposted it in a different color so that it could be read.

I was fascinated by a post on a different forum where a person listed god or goddess and a line of description of their his pantheon that he followed with only with a name he created in place of their characteristics. Several others followed with similar posts and I was struck by the feeling that each was creating their own conceptions of the deities to fit their own view of what the deities should be and not as they have been historically portrayed. This created a question in myself of when does belief shift from some form of some form of reality to pure fantasy. There are those who see gods and goddesses in an abstract form to begin with which may make this question less relevant but for those who see the deities as real I think this question is relevant. In the end religion is personal but I would venture to say that most people want to believe there is a degree of reality in what they believe in. It seem easy in posts that I have read to make fun of people who believe in the world of harry potter (a truly amazing book that has influenced young adult literature),the world of the Jedi, middle earth, or other worlds created in literature but how is much of paganism today so different? How much is fictional?

In considering this I have found two obstacles in my own path in which I would like to know how other people think or approach their way in their own pagan beliefs/rituals. First is dealing with the change in religion over time and the second is trying to see the religion from the perspective of those who practice it in the past.

The first problem is difficult because both the Celtic and the Germanic beliefs/practices changed over time. In theBritish Isles the people who built the stone circles may or may not have the same people we call the Celts and there is evidence of changes in patterns of behavior as demonstrated by archeologic finds at different time periods. Even more complex is sorting out the influences of the Romans and then the Christians; the latter of which wrote the most extensive sources either as the Celtic mythology written by the clergy or the continued oral folklore of the people that was later recorded in word. The Norse mythology written in Iceland around 1000 AD probably has much of the pre-Christian/pre-Roman beliefs but it was most certainly heavily influenced by other cultures especially Christian and Roman. The end result is a mythology that has a somewhat similar familial pantheon blend which does not seem to exist prior to the influence of Rome from what little we know of the pre-roman era.

The second problem is trying to understand the beliefs and practices after shedding off the preconceptions we have, or at least as much as possible, and view the world from the environment in which those in the past existed. Although impossible to completely do I think we can try to relook from the early Celtic point of view. The term umwelt has been used when approaching how other organisms perceive theirenvironment. You try to reevaluate how another organism perceives its environment from the perspective of how the organism senses and connects to its environment. We have the same senses but a clearly different knowledge base and different environment we live in. I think we must start by removing our own preconceptions of gods and goddesses and look at the environment they existed in and how they might see their deities. Most of us have been influenced by the Christianity or othercurrent religion that has influence on us when growing up. For example it iscommon to see Jesus as a personal loving god who looks like us. I believe in Jewish history god was not always seen in this humanistic light. Many of us weretaught of the Roman gods and goddesses as a family or at least that way inlater mythology. Do we transpose this personal relationship or family relationship to the pre-Christian Celtic and Germanic deities creating somethingthat was never there? Where the gods/goddesses more like aspects of nature thanhuman? Where they representative of ancestors that had died and became a partof the Land thus living in the Sid. I would like to know if anyone else has similar concerns.

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

About your first problem: As you are probably aware taking that route is the goal of reconstructionists. The issue lies in that "pure" versions of those religions are almost non-existant and "correcting" information from surviving texts and myths is not something anyone presently living is - for lack of a better term - qualified to do. We have no "old faith" Celts still alive, much less priests of those faiths so adhering to dogma is not a choice.

Faiths do change over time, whether due to social causes (laws forcing them into hiding, a cult gaining prominence over others, invasions from other nations, etc.) Or due to do doctrinal changes (Christian Catholic-Orthodox split as an example). In our time there is the added fact that religion is reintepreted at the personal level so everyone can, to some level, "build" their own religion. As I see it this case is one of the "spirit-of-the-law" against "letter-of-the-law". What would the ancient Celts think about Celt reconstructionists and neopagans? Does it matter so much? I for one am very respectful of Neo-platonic traditions but I do not follow them to a fault, even when recorded texts do exist about their philosophies.

Regarding your second problem I can say that I have done (or tried to do) such a thing in the past. The issue is that if we reduce mythologies to their historical components you will find both scarce material and inadequacies for today's age. Most Greek deities were actual local town/city deities that mingled and spread as those cities gave way to city-states, nations and even empires. Roman deities are transplanted Greek deities, Incan deities were assimilated from various tribes and Eastern Asian deities often took on aspects of Buddhist (or other religious tradition) influence.

Let us take Inari, a popular deity in Shintoism. Inari's most important aspect was related to rice. Yet today the vast majority of Japanese are not enganged in agriculture - let alone rice production. Why is Inari such a popular deity, then? Are all those Japanese worshipping in vain? Many deities have changed and evolved over time without losing their essence. Many modern Hellenic followers worship Zeus but do not believe he is the source of thunderstorms as he was in ancient times. Inari has not abandoned it's roots, either - but it has taken on more aspects and is today known more as a fox deity.

You mentioned Christian and Jewish beliefs not always being seen in a humanistic light. This is true: But the ideas of the world of today require Christianity (and Judaism) to take on more positive aspects. If Christians behaved as their texts supposedly require them to we would likely have a myriad of more tempered Westboro Baptist Churches. One of the reasons I abandoned Christianity was actually due to how detached it's theology had become from it's tradition.

To answer your thread's question I will say that it depends on the person's perspective. Hardly anyone will say "the gods take on their physical forms and we can see them", simply because those experiences are both extremely rare and subjective. Even in the case of mythological appareances it is more often perceived as divinity due to the person's beliefs - a hardcore Christian would not take a call from Pan as a good omen, for example, even if the god manifested in person and talked to them. A Wiccan in turn would perceive the same encounter in an entirely different light when compared to a Greco-Roman Neopagan.

My own beliefs are partially based on Neo-platonic works. To me gods are primarily non-physical entities which can interact with the world, and that is why I do not have a problem with accepting the existence of multiple pantheons simultaneously. Gods very often have the traits ascribed to them in mythology, but lack omnipotence and omnipresence. This is why shrines, prayers, and contemplation are useful to communicate with them.

Ra and Odin were real for ancient peoples and for many people of today - and for me their existence is not a problem but it does not change the fact that I do not worship them. I also take the position that gods like Yahweh or the Wiccan ones may exist, just not as the nigh-omnipresent beings they are traditionally held to be. Others would disagree with me of course and have their own perspectives, just as you do.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

I wrote the post in the wrong color black clearly does not show through black so I reposted it in a different color so that it could be read.

I have edited your post to remove the colour formatting, and removed the double-post at the same time.

In future, try to stick to using the default text options, because they will show up easily readable no matter what forum skin any given member uses. It also helps avoid confusion, as mod and admin notes are generally coloured. If you are cutting and pasting your post from a word editor, then there's a little button in the upper left hand side of the editor menu called 'Remove Formatting'... just click it and it will magically turn your post back to the default font, size and colour. That's an easy way to ensure that your posts will always be readable.

[Threshold]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

If the gods are real, in and of themselves, and they have chosen to interact with humans, I think they would not expect things to remain static. They know that humanity, culture, and the perspective of humanity's perceived relationship to the Universe is constantly evolving.

This was true in the old days as well. Perhaps like any relationships, there are instances where the deity and the people grow apart, and instances where they grow closer.

An agricultural deity may be very comfortable in taking patronage of a new profession or interest area, while others would not, and would make that clear to their followers.

[thalassa]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

This created a question in myself of when does belief shift from some form of some form of reality to pure fantasy. There are those who see gods and goddesses in an abstract form to begin with which may make this question less relevant but for those who see the deities as real I think this question is relevant. In the end religion is personal but I would ventureto say that most people want to believe there is a degree of reality in what they believe in. It seem easy in posts that I have read to make fun of peoplewho believe in the world of harry potter (a truly amazing book that has influenced young adult literature),the world of the Jedi, middle earth, orother worlds created in literature but how is much of paganism today sod ifferent? How much is fictional?

(snip)

For example it is common to see Jesus as a personal loving god who looks like us. I believe in Jewish history god was not always seen in this humanistic light. Many of us weretaught of the Roman gods and goddesses as a family or at least that way inlater mythology. Do we transpose this personal relationship or family relationship to the pre-Christian Celtic and Germanic deities creating somethingthat was never there? Where the gods/goddesses more like aspects of nature thanhuman? Where they representative of ancestors that had died and became a partof the Land thus living in the Sid. I would like to know if anyone else has similar concerns.

TBH, I think your question would be better asked as"When does belief shift from fantasy to reality?". I would then (because I take a functionalview of religion) ask "Does it matter?" And I would posit that both of these depend highly on how one defines "real" (and that the idea of "abstract vs. real" is a false dichotomy).

Perception is reality.

Is Tinker Bell real? Probably sure that most of all of us would have the automatic response of "no"...but that automatic response is only correct on one level. Tinker Bell, as I think we all know, is a fairy from Peter Pan. Peter Pan was first a carachter in a book by J.M. Barrie, and then the subject (and title) of a play (1904) and finally a novel (1911) (and later a movie in 1924 and the Disney animated classic in1953). Today she's the subject of her own series of children's books and animated children's movies all on the themeof being true to yourself and on being a good friend. I think that we will all agree that the physical existence of an actual individual tiny twinkly fix-it fairy by thename of Tinker Bell, flying between London and Neverland, is not factual (where a fact is defined as a discrete piece of information of a thing or occurrence that can be objectively observed). However, I think we can all agree that the fairy named Tinker Bell does indeed exist, though that existence is confined to literature, film, art, Disneyworld, and theimagination of millions of children.

And because Tinker Bell exists, even though that existence is not physical, I'm pretty sure most of us can agree that she is experienced. For example, my daughter has most of the Never-fairies (dolls), a good stack of their books, all of their movies, and even a few of their costumes--she has spent many an hour as a fairy, talking to fairies, building fairy houses, watching fairies do fairy things, and even making her own fairy habitat field guide. The relationship that a reader, a watcher, a Disney lover, or a child develops with the carachter of Tinker Bell is real...Chickadee and Tinker Bell are as much friends as Chickadee and her schoolmate Anya. The impact of Tinker Bell (or any literary/movie/virtual carachter) in the development of a child is often just as real as the impact of a physical friend (and often is more important) in the development of a child (or an adult for that matter). You could rewrite these entire paragraphs^ and exchange the name "Tinker Bell" to Hercules or Gilgamesh or Cu Chullain and it would still hold true (minus my daughter having a Gilgamesh doll, though she has a stuffed dog named Cu Chullain).

Somewhere in human development (as a species) we gained the capacity for imagination. We attributed agency to the world around us. Maybe this agency has an objective existence that we’ve not yet figured out how todiscern, maybe it doesn’t. Either way, we have shaped this agency that we have interacted with (because we have imagination, because we are capable of having experiences and relationships with *things that aren’t physically here*) as individuals and as collections of individuals. Maybe these individuals have actual existences elsewhere in a multi-dimensional universe and have beenattracted to certain cultures and we are able to access them somehow (or whatever your preferred conceptualization of how the gods exist is), and maybethey aren’t.

Either way, different cultures have built different conceptualizations of how these agents act in the world, what they look like, what their names are, etc. And those conceptualizations have change dover time, even within their respective cultures. Those changes have been (to use biology as an analogy) evolution by "natural selection"--what works as a consequence of changing ecosystems and cultural and political changes, but have also been a matter of artificial selection--people have forcible changed views of deities and how they are concieved by their respectice cultures on purpose.

Most of what we know about Greek mythology is not from some ancient Bible-like Greek mythological text, its from the surviving writings of what so-and-so said about such-and-such's story about Athena or Zeus or Persephone. We know this because the Greeks started writing things down fairly early in their cultural development (so did the Egyptians, and a few other cultures) and we've been reading (and copying, and rewriting) their mythology for centuries...and this is exactly why there are so many variations in everything from basic cosmology to whom-begat-whom among the Greek gods (but most people aren't exposed to enough Greek mythology to see exactly how variable their mythology is). In other cultures, where writing happened much later, our ability to see how the ancients saw the gods is confined to a much narrower time period and they seem more static.

Individual perception is individual reality. Individual realities inform a shared, consensus reality. The shared, consensus reality that gets passed on over time informs the next individual's perception of the reality...and the cycle begins anew. Religion is created by people. It is created by people inspired by their numinous experiences with the agency they attribute to the world around them. The experiences that work are the experiences that get passed down, and thus religion and the religious experience is ever fluid...whether its the experience of the god of Abraham (in which case, I highly recommend Karen Armstron's A History of God) or the gods of any other culture.

[sionnach]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

Thank you for fixing my post. I later figured out my mistake and will avoid the issue in the future.

[sionnach]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

Paganism from the beginning o the revival, where ever you place its return, is looking back to the pre-Christian religions from whatever sources were and are available. I am aware of the reconstructionist viewpoint but I would ask how even a person who does not consider themselves a reconstructionist believe in a god or goddess whose following was lost without some aspect of reconstruction of information of the past. The name alone requires looking into texts written in the past unless you pick and choose names you like from the internet.

How do we interpret what we have given the problems with change over time and understanding the perspective of the people of the past? On way clearly is if it feel right it is fine for that person but for other like myself tat want to understand it more in the context that it was believed we still have to approach the problem of interpretation from what we have. How can we remove some of the outside influence and come closer to approximate the original view.

I have tried three things in my approach
1. Comparing the written to the folklore to the archeology and even to anthropology. There are many discussion of this
2. Looking for concepts that have repetition in different sources and are unique to the area - less likely to be imported
3. Preserved beliefs that continued beyond the conversion to Christianity and were clearly not imported from Christianity.

I think and interesting question is were knowledge was gained with respect to wisdom and belief for the Celts. The salmon is symbolic of wisdom at least by the Fionn cycle and there is the story of the salmon of knowledge in which the knowledge could be passed down from the salmon to the person who eats the salmon (this case in reference to a specific pool where the knowledge is dropped into the water from the hazelnuts and eaten by the salmon). I tried to look up more about the meaning of the salmon but my resources are limited but I do know the salmon are clearly connected with the cycles of the sun/moon/earth. The people who built the henges who predate the Celts according to historical references were clearly aware of the cycles of the sun and moon and certainly noticed the salmon behavior to be tied to these cycles and to the specific waterways. I personally believe that the Celts drew much of their wisdom from nature itself and that this is an example of that connection but I do not know if I am alone in this viewpoint. Their gods and goddesses seem more tied to the land and nature than the religion that replaced them. I was wondering if anyone else feels this way.

I have read Karen Armstrong's book on A History of God. Excellent book that looks primarily at the Abrahamic God and indicated the original Jewish god was one of many making the early jews polytheistic with their one tribal god. In other sources this concept of a single tribal god/goddess for a tribe has been thought to be the case of the Celts and Germanic people prior to Roman influence and that the Romans beliefs of a family pantheon was imported. Interesting concepts and well documented demonstration of change in religion.

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

Paganism from the beginning o the revival, where ever you place its return, is looking back to the pre-Christian religions from whatever sources were and are available. I am aware of the reconstructionist viewpoint but I would ask how even a person who does not consider themselves a reconstructionist believe in a god or goddess whose following was lost without some aspect of reconstruction of information of the past. The name alone requires looking into texts written in the past unless you pick and choose names you like from the internet.

Indeed, but not always. Wicca as I understand it is it's own identity. It may have past influences (most notably the pentagram) but otherwise it's tradition is relatively new. The Greek and Chinese schools of philosophy could be considered forms of paganism depending on which branch you talk about, without necessarily worshipping pre-Christian deities (and both even co-existing with it at certain points). Also, some forms of neopaganism look at archetypes and ideas (i.e.: Thor for storms, Odin for wisdom) without delving too deeply into the figures themselves.

But I disgress. My point is that unlike Christianity most forms of Neopaganism have no "Orthodox" branch to draw inspiration from -- it is all fragments and remnants of the past.

How do we interpret what we have given the problems with change over time and understanding the perspective of the people of the past? On way clearly is if it feel right it is fine for that person but for other like myself tat want to understand it more in the context that it was believed we still have to approach the problem of interpretation from what we have. How can we remove some of the outside influence and come closer to approximate the original view.

The problem with this approach is as I have stated before: While it is fine to "get closer" to the past, you will never get there completely as the information available is both scarce and altered. Sacred sites, information, and tradition are all scarce and as there are no living "Old Tradition Celts" today you will always have a flawed, if aproximate, viewpoint. Perhaps studying extensively Celtic history along with surviving traditions/mythology, and even then you would be short of verification.

I have tried three things in my approach
1. Comparing the written to the folklore to the archeology and even to anthropology. There are many discussion of this
2. Looking for concepts that have repetition in different sources and are unique to the area - less likely to be imported
3. Preserved beliefs that continued beyond the conversion to Christianity and were clearly not imported from Christianity.

An interesting aspect of your method is that it shares similarties to how Muslims determine the authenticity of Hadiths, and it is probably as closest to truth as you can get in the modern era.

I personally believe that the Celts drew much of their wisdom from nature itself and that this is an example of that connection but I do not know if I am alone in this viewpoint. Their gods and goddesses seem more tied to the land and nature than the religion that replaced them. I was wondering if anyone else feels this way.

I would agree with you. I am not a follower of Celtic traditions but I find that that most pre-Roman cultures (this irrespective of monotheistic influences) have maintained a closer association with nature. Sacred groves and rituals in nature were prominent aspects found in these religions. Even Viking runestones were often placed in locations away from civilization with this later abandoned once Christianity became widespread.

In other sources this concept of a single tribal god/goddess for a tribe has been thought to be the case of the Celts and Germanic people prior to Roman influence and that the Romans beliefs of a family pantheon was imported. Interesting concepts and well documented demonstration of change in religion.

I am not sure about the Celts and Norse-Germanic religions, but the Jewish faith certainly has evolved (and mutated) a lot over time. A lot of it's commandments appear to be drawn from even older faiths, and it's original afterlife is quite close to the Greek Underworld.

Ultimately this is a question we have to answer ourselves. We cannot know with utter certainty. But that should not stop you from practicing your faith, or researching more about it.

[DavidMcCann]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

Firstly, on the question of reality, philosophers like Collingwood and Popper have recognised three types of "things": physical objects, minds, and intelligibles (ideas). Tinker Bell is obviously in the third category. Intelligibles have a degree of reality, in that some statements about them can be true or false, but they are not real in the sense that minds and bodies are real: you can't weigh Tinker Bell and she can't reply if you talk to her. The Gods are obviously minds: they can reply to you and they can interact with the physical world.

Secondly, on the question of the activities of Gods, one must not confuse a God's manifestations with the God. Evans-Pritchard observed that the Nuer say that thunder is God, but never that God is thunder. As Plutarch said, to identify Zeus with thunder is to commit yourself to either atheism ("Zeus is just thunder") or superstition (worshiping a natural phenomenon). Also, one must not assume that the usual way in which a God interacts with a community is the only possible way. That's how things change. In Greece, Poseidon was originally some sort of earth God (his name means "husband of Demeter"), then he got to be worshiped by sailors, and on one island he was called on for healing. In Athens, the patrons of marriage were Zeus and Hera; in Syracuse, Hades and Persephone! I dare say Hades would do some healing, if you asked nicely, just like Papa Ghede on Haiti.

Some Gods may have started as ancestors: the Greek heroes and many Chinese gods. Some may be "incarnated" in places are we are in our bodies: the Greek nymphs or Fuji-san. Others clearly belong in neither category: Athena.

On the question of reconstruction, available information obviously varies. As Ronald Hutton said, Celtic reconstructionism can never be more than a pious hope. Myths are not necessarily a good guide. Myths are stories and few, if any, cultures keep religious stories (myths in the strict sense), historical stories (legends), and pure fiction (folk-tales) completely separate. In Greek, "mythos" refers to all three, not to mention the plot of a play!

[thalassa]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

Firstly, on the question of reality, philosophers like Collingwood and Popper have recognised three types of "things": physical objects, minds, and intelligibles (ideas). Tinker Bell is obviously in the third category. Intelligibles have a degree of reality, in that some statements about them can be true or false, but they are not real in the sense that minds and bodies are real: you can't weigh Tinker Bell and she can't reply if you talk to her. The Gods are obviously minds: they can reply to you and they can interact with the physical world.

There is no "obvious" about the gods being minds. There is no evidence of them interacting with the physical world, or replying to individuals, other than an individua's own anecdotal account, which can easily be explained by the quirks of the human brain. And I challenge you to convince my daughter that Tinker Bell does not talk back.

[sionnach]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

In my approach to Celtic pre-Christian beliefs I see a strong relationship with nature. Prior to the arrival of the Romans to the British Isles the Celtic people were closely connected to the natural environment around them. They were dependent on the cycles of nature and recognizing them. So it is not surprising that the gods and goddesses were so strongly connected with the land. Understanding and celebrating the cycles of nature and having respect for nature was essential for their survival as it was for the Germanic tribes too from what information we have about them prior to the influence of Rome.

I believe the sacred knowledge was from the study of nature around them and the cycles of the moon, sun, and earth. Understanding bird migrations, the cycle of the salmon as they return to the same location every hear, and behavior of other animals were a part of the sacred knowledge that would be passed down in their oral tradition. The trees also provided so much to their survival and also would contain sacred knowledge as well as the plants whose properties could heal. I think the gods and goddesses were seen in a more abstract form than the more familiar form portrayed by the tales written hundreds of years after the druids disappeared.

There is clear archeological evidence for the awareness of the natural cycles. The pre-Celtic people (if they really were different than the Celtic people) who build the henges as in the most famous - Stonehenge- or as in the mound at Newgrange in Ireland which was associated with the winter solstice. These and others showed a clear awareness of the cycles of the earth, sun, and moon. Another site is the causeway at Fiskerton England which was part of a pattern seen in other places of Europe and shows a practice of sophisticated astronomical understanding. The best finds have proved to be the oak timbers of the causeway whose felling dates can be identified to the precise year and season with a statistical correlation of 15 episodes of felling with midwinter total lunar eclipses with an estimated 99% accuracy.
The Iron Age timber causeway at Fiskerton and its connection to lunar eclipses felling of timber especially during midwinter is seen in sites from Ireland to Switzerland and Germany. This association of a connection with the eclipses suggests a possible religious act and at least some of the causeways had significant votive offerings.

The burial mound at Newgrange is also associated with Dagda and the mounds in Ireland in general were later seen as fairy mounds or the dweling of the people of the sid (ase sidhe). In the case of Newgrange the mound is also associated with the bend in the Boyne river which is a goddess associated with Dagda and thus two natural areas are associated as god and goddess or as the land(male)/river (female).

There are some trends in the Irish literature which are clearly not from the imported Christian religion.
1. The Celtic Irish gods and goddesses were often seen as in the wild solitude of the coillearnach naofa - the sacred wood. There is at least some mention in history that the druid would go to the sacred woods to be closer to the Celtic gods/goddesses.
2. The races of man, the divine and other mythological figures share the land which contains the would inhabited by humans and the mystical otherworld. . Their gods and goddesses dwell on the earth an there is no evidence of a beyond or else where.
3. The female deity is represented as the mother goddess as a single or triple goddess, river goddess, animal goddess, goddesses of seasonal feasts and the incarnation of natural forces of fertility or destruction. The male type is a blend of the nurturer, protector of the tribe, warrior, magician, and craftsman. The male could be seen as the social forces as opposed to the natural forces of the female.
4. There was not a great barrier between the supernatural and the natural and is more of a continuity between the world and the otherworld which could be entered from both ways.
5. There is a zoomorphic character to the deities blurring the division between humans and animals - a lack of hierarchy as was introduced in Christianity.

These are a few things that seem consistent with Celtic beliefs. No in our environment that has separated us from natural exposure has many to focus on the details of the gods and goddesses with the same attributes as humans rather than the association with the natural land around. Now we can create in depth using what has been described as gnosis(as opposed to the Gnostics of early Christianity) and that is were I believe that fact and fantasy seem to lose its division. However there are others that think we have made a mistake in removing the rest of the natural world and has drawn some of us back to pagan beliefs. I am not an academic nor have unlimited resources but these are some of the conclusions I have drawn and want to see other views.

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

I am not an academic nor have unlimited resources but these are some of the conclusions I have drawn and want to see other views.

For the most part I have told you already what my position is regarding the thread's question, but I think I can add a few other thoughts if you would like to read them.

There is clear archeological evidence for the awareness of the natural cycles. The pre-Celtic people (if they really were different than the Celtic people) who build the henges as in the most famous - Stonehenge- or as in the mound at Newgrange in Ireland which was associated with the winter solstice.

I would personally say the pre-Celts were indeed different from the Celts, specially if monoliths are involved. There are lot of monoliths spread all over the world and evidence points them as having been created by pre-historic civilizations as well. Tiwanaku in Bolivia, the Moai of Easter Island. It is clear that these structures must have had some religious purpose at one point or another, but it is also known that the civilizations that superceded the creators of those wonders were incapable of replicating them. Some however did continue to use them.

However there are others that think we have made a mistake in removing the rest of the natural world and has drawn some of us back to pagan beliefs.

In my opinion it is not so much as "removing the rest of the natural world" as it is "unbalancing it". The problem of cities is not that they house humans or technology or even that they lack nature - it is that their only purpose is to grow and replace ecosystems with increasingly urban ones. As Chinese philosophers would assert, there is no harmony in this endeavor.

[DavidMcCann]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

There is no evidence of them interacting with the physical world, or replying to individuals, other than an individual's own anecdotal account, which can easily be explained by the quirks of the human brain.

When a competent, educated observer reports a miraculous healing, for example, I'm inclined to accept their report rather than rationalisations based on half-baked, second-hand materialist metaphysics. And what does "anecdotal" mean, other than being a word much loved by scientists to keep the plebs in their place?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

As Thalassa's pointed out earlier, before even an attempt to answer this question can be made, you have to determine the difference between "real" and "fantasy," especially if you are talking about immaterial things/entities.

Anybody have any ideas?

[thalassa]

Re: Are the gods/goddesses real or fantasy?

And what does "anecdotal" mean, other than being a word much loved by scientists to keep the plebs in their place?

Perhaps you would prefer the term personal "just so" stories.