Unfortunately for us, while the words written those many centuries ago can be viewed objectively due to their unchanging nature, they are not themselves objective or any more valid than modern shared gnoses. We do not claim that these are holy texts or the “Word of the Gods” or even that they were divinely inspired. They are the various records of history and poetic oral tradition written down by people who did not experience them firsthand, but wished to record them for posterity. They contain useful information, but we must remember that what they illustrate is the culmination of shared gnoses passed down through generations of believers. They are received gnoses. 

Oral storytelling is one of the most human traditions, and we know the various reasons that these stories survive. Some stories impart wisdom so that following generations don’t have to learn lessons the hard way. Some teach important moral or ethical beliefs. The stories we’re concerned with here do both of those things, but also relay beliefs about the divine and the metaphysical makeup of the universe. What’s important is recognizing that those underlying metaphysical beliefs were once the shared gnoses of ancient people comparing their subjective spiritual experiences; their UPGs. Those stories were born from subjective beliefs and each new telling added to and subtracted from those beliefs. We could call it a game of “Mythological Telephone,” except that in Telephone the message is distorted by mistake, and many changes made to myth are conscious choices that reflect the storyteller’s perspective and biases. There is no reason to think a myth is more objectively true because of the retellings, only that it is more true to the subjective experience of the most recent storyteller. Any objectivity that our written lore seems to have is an illusion. 

I understand the discomfort that many have with accepting the UPGs of others. The experiences of another conscious mind are impossible to examine, and the factors that influence the accuracy of that perception are both varied and difficult to recognize from the outside. However, in order to have a religion that extends farther than the confines of one’s own mind requires us to engage in the comparison of experiences, either with living people or through reading the stories of the dead. Requiring our beliefs to be “verified” by ancient texts confers on those texts an extra layer of validity that they do not logically deserve. In reality, gnoses can only be personal or shared, either with other living believers or with what we infer that the dead must have believed. 

This is not to say that we shouldn’t read lore or take tradition into account when forming our beliefs. The texts that contain those poems and stories are valid and there is so much wisdom that transcends time. What I am saying is that a belief formed from reading those poems and stories is not more valid than a belief shared by only modern Heathens. They were formed by the subject experiences of believers then just as they are now. 

I recently encountered a situation that prompted this deeper look into how UPG and lore relate to each other. In my community, there has been a debate for several years over which mythological beings from Germanic lore should be worshiped. For the longest time, Loki was treated as if he were the Heathen Devil in many groups, and it was only recently that the widespread worship of Loki became the norm in inclusive heathen circles. Now, in certain groups, the fight is over the inclusion of “monsters” like Fenrir or Jormungandr, and other entities that some perceive as hostile to humanity, such as Surtr. The argument, from the viewpoint of the lore, is that these beings are the enemies of the gods and participate antagonistically in Ragnarok, the destruction of the gods. To those that argue for the extra validity of written mythology, it seems obvious that the ancient Norse considered these beings enemies and that we should too. 

However, there is a growing segment of Heathens who include these “monsters” in their religious practice. I had a feeling that these people were not Doomsday cultists or worshiping something they felt was evil, but I wanted to explore their real beliefs. The people I have spoken to tell stories of connection, support, and love when they speak about these outsiders. Many people who feel misunderstood or marginalized by society at large gravitate towards these beings and talk of the healing that can take place. Not a single person I have spoken to or surveyed, online or in-person, who had a spiritual experience with one of these outsiders reported a negative experience.  

This provides a stark example of the contrast sometimes existing between ancient and modern beliefs. It’s rather likely that the original Heathens believed beings like these to be dangerous, and yet the people today who are interacting with and worshiping them report positive, reciprocal relationships. I don’t know for sure which side is right or wrong, but it’s clear that neither side’s source of gnosis is more valid definitionally. I sincerely hope that our communities can bridge the divide caused by the conflict between personal and received gnosis. Lore is informative, but only to the subjective experiences of the dead. The record of their experiences is important, but it is no less subjective than modern experiences, and it is transformed by the biases of its authors. Inclusion in Heathenry is the advantage we have over folkish and racist pagans. Pluralist polytheist communities combine the strength and knowledge of multiple traditions with the shared values of an inclusive religious space. We should be including all people whose beliefs and actions do not harm others, and revel in the fellowship of our shared beliefs.

Mankind is man’s delight.    

Next Article >