Of Gods and Heroes
24. May, 2007There has long been speculation that some (if not all) of the gods we are familiar with in Heathenry were at one time actually human, deified (made into gods) by their people for their achievements, wisdom or power. This kind of deification isn’t uncommon to Paganism, either – the Pharaohs, the pharaoh-cation of the Ptolomeic line in Egypt, the posthumous deification of some Roman emperors are all examples of this practice. It would be argued by many scholars that the practice isn’t uncommon to Christianity, with the elevation of Jesus from human prophet (what most of Jesus’ contemporaries considered him to be) to God-made-flesh (what his followers would eventually believe him to be) …
In Teutonic Myth and Legend, (Introduction, p. xxiv) Donald Mackenzie explains that divine status was a fluid thing, and advances the notion that human heroes could be deified:
The gods of subject peoples would, of course, become subject to those of their rulers.
A Mythology was therefore not only a criticism; it was also a compromise. The lesser gods were accepted by those who imposed the greater, and new tales had to be invented to adjust their relationships one to another. Contradictory elements were thus introduced. The gods differed greatly. Some had evolved from natural phenomena; others were deified heroes. A seaside tribe showed reverence to gods which had origin in their own particular experiences and ideals, which differed to a marked degree from those, for instance, of an inland, forest-dwelling people.
Much further back in time, Snorri Sturluson himself argued that the Æsir had their origins as humans in the legendary city of Troy (Prose Edda, Prologue III). A classic example in Heathenry of a human achieving god status is the smith-god, Weyland, the smith who used his powers to exact a terrible revenge in Völundarkviða. The Einherjar, the fallen warriors who reside in Valhalla, could also be said to have reached divine status (keeping in mind that the Æsir are often reckoned by describing those who reside within the walls of Asgard). Most of the royal lines of ancient Scandinavia traced their ancestry back to gods, making them demigods.
With all of this considered, I’m curious what people we see in the world around us, who we might consider to be candidates for deification? As I write this, with Don Henley’s Actual Miles blaring through my headphones, I’m tempted to recommend a new song-god (Don Henley was, after all, once an Eagle and companion to Frey).
Seriously, though, how does it sound to rational ears in the Information Age, to look around at people and deify them? The Christians (at least the Catholics) continue this practice, by raising people to sainthood (which I would argue is simply the monotheistic version of deification, just given another name and not taken as far as deification); so it’s not unheard of in our modern, scientific society. But to be honest, if someone leveled a gun at me and said, Choose a fellow human to be your new god, or else, I’d probably get shot. It’s not because I can’t conceive of honoring the divine in fellow humans (as a Heathen, I regard our gods as honored kin … elements of their wisdom and power, therefore, are to be found in all of us); but to take this concept to the next level, to seriously nominate someone to godhood, regardless how great, is a step I’m not so sure I could take. Does this mean I lack an understanding, common to classical Heathens, or does it perhaps mean that the greatness of humanity has diminished since the days of our forebears? Or has the influence of science and logic, of rationality, corrupted the part of my spirit that would be otherwise capable of regarding fellow humans as potential gods? The process of raising a great human to sainthood has an advantage over outright deification, to my mind, in that it doesn’t mean someone has become a god – it’s easier to regard someone else as having been guided or molded by the gods, to have been chosen or favored by the gods, to be walking with the gods, without taking that extra little step and saying that that person has become a god (or always was).
I’m curious about how people from different religious backgrounds view this issue – would you be able to consider someone you maybe beat up on the school playground as a god someday (or someone who beat the snot out of you, for that matter)? If you could see others as being gods, which people would you deify, if given the choice?
Interesting.
You said:The Christians (at least the Catholics) continue this practice, by raising people to sainthood
and later on:
but to take this concept to the next level, to seriously nominate someone to godhood, regardless how great, is a step I’m not so sure I could take.
I don’t think that it can be an immediate thing – one moment a person, the next a ‘god.’ I’m guessing that it is a process that takes place over a long period of time as stories are told, added to and changed to reflect the times and society. And the fact that there is now a paper trail to prove that some was a person, and not a god. :)
If we look at some of the people that we revere today as ‘heros’ (and I’m going to use George Washington as an example), much of that reverence comes from years and years of the stories that are told and how they are retold. It is one of the reasons why some of the stories that are told within a historically context are not even true. Good ol’ George didn’t chop down that cherry tree; it was just story to show GW as being moral. It shows more about how the idea of morality is seen in the US, than GW himself. (And just so people know, I’m not trying to imply that GW is looked at as being a god.)
While I don’t think that GW would have a chance at becoming seen as a god, I have a feeling that it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) for anybody in our modern times to be deified due to that paper trail I mentioned before. But, as you mentioned, sainthood has become a version of deification; a kind of “god lite.”
Good to see you blogging again!
Interestingly enough, I’ve heard that there are devout Hindus in Calcutta who believe Mother Theresa to have been an avatar of the goddess Kali.
The idea of an avatar is kind of a nifty one–a bridge to deification that’s easier to wrap my head around. Like you, it’s not something that comes naturally to me, to think of humans as gods. Although the place that the Mighty Dead have within Wicca, or the ancestors in my family’s Pagan practices, also seem like a kind of a bridge to the idea of a god,too.
Come to think of it, what do we mean by “a god”? There are some enormous trees in my neighborhood that have a numen that’s damn near palpable, and certain waterfalls or hillsides that I know of that have pretty powerful spirits of place. Are they gods?
I know that the ancient Greek Pagans did not differentiate very clearly between heroes, nymphs, and gods. Maybe 2000 years of monotheism has simply distorted our idea of “godness” to something far too crude and simple, and we need to start thinking again in shades of gray.
Cat certainly brings up the question of all questions… what is a god? And here I was, stuck on contemplating and re-contemplating the appointing of a human to god status, by another human. Gods have become gods that way, but I can’t, at this time, imagine deifying a person. Hugely adoring a person, sure.
Or has the influence of science and logic, of rationality, corrupted the part of my spirit that would be otherwise capable of regarding fellow humans as potential gods?
Science and logic are just truths, and can’t corrupt. They can strengthen, and make you sure of whatever conclusions you draw based even partially on them. It would take an awful lot of people worthy of god status in order for even a small fraction of us to note them.
Chell, I would have to respectfully disagree with you when you say that science is just truths and can’t corrupt.
Science is theory rather than truth; theories which change with time and our understanding. There are so many ’scientific truths’ from the past that are now looked at as false. You also mention that they (the truths) are strengthen over time, but we have to remember that they can also be weakened. It is the nature of science to continue to question information that is produced in the name of science.
I would also have to say that science can corrupt our thinking, as least in a way that changes how we think about the world around us based on the theories that have been taught to us our whole lives.
Thank you all for your comments, this is turning into quite an interesting conversation! I’ll apologize now for the long comment, but some really good points have been raised, and I’m like a kid in a candy store, not wanting to miss a single morsel!
Sojourner, I think Chell has a point if you consider the part of the definition of Truth that describes the word as a “transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality”. In that sense of the word, I think science shares goals similar to religion, even if it uses approaches based in theory.
You said:
I found this statement to be dead-on with a reaction I had to what you wrote in your first comment, about paper trails. Continuing to use your George Washington example, although his legend may grow with time, along with his celebrated hero status (to which I might add he also has significant associations with Pagan Rome, in that he patterned himself after Cincinnatus, and also has a modern version of the old Roman Pater Patriae title), the legend is weakened by the facts of his humanity – it’s unlikely that the US would ever deify a man who owned slaves. It’s for that reason that I brought up the Roman emperors and Egyptian pharaohs in my post: the emperors were usually deified very soon after their deaths, while the pharaohs were living gods (or avatars of Horus); so in these cases, the deification was not drawn over a period of generations, but rather quite sudden.
I wondered if there would be a connection between this kind of rapid deification and fanaticism, and think I found something interesting on Wikipedia’s entry for fanaticism that puts things into a sharper perspective for me:
Two thousand years ago, deification was acceptable within the prevailing social norms. The question, as we reconstruct the religious perspectives of our ancient forebears, is do we want this to be a prevailing social norm for us now?
Chell, you raise a point that I’m drawn to like a moth to flame: can truth corrupt? I think it can – we generally accept truth as being something that within itself cannot be corrupted, which is not to say that it’s incapable of corrupting. It seems at first to be a paradox (which I always find irresistible); but in the end, truth can corrupt and still remain uncorrupted. Also, if one truth eliminates another truth, it could be argued that the eliminated truth was eliminated because it proved corruptible, and thus not a truth to begin with.
You echoed a very powerful point, in response to Cat’s comment, when you asked what actually makes a god? How do we, as humans, judge something to be a god? By greatness, perhaps? If that’s the case, then deification of great humans makes more sense. Do we judge divinity by some other, intangible quality that we as humans simply don’t possess? If so, how can we accurately judge it? Also, and perhaps most important: if two people recognize or judge something to be a god, and two people don’t, does that thing continue to be, or cease to be a god?
The reason why I say that last point is so important is because it not only applies to deification, but to religion in general. As a Heathen, I believe Odin and Njord to be gods – a Christian might see them as myths or even demonic agents of Satan – and an Atheist would probably dismiss the entire question as an example in religious absurdity. Do these things make Odin and Njord less godly? Does our recognition of divinity actually affect divinity, itself?
Cat, along with your question about what a god actually is, I was particularly moved by your inclusion of trees, waterfalls and spirit of place. Imagine a god, being able to take any form, and being able to live for periods of time we simply couldn’t calculate, taking root as a tree, to silently stand and watch over an area and all those that move around it. Our ancestors, before anthropomorphizing our gods, experienced them in rivers, seas, meadows and mountains. As such, I found your inclusion of these natural features to be highly appropriate.
I think you and I are also on a similar wavelength with avatars – part of the reason why I brought up the pharaohs was because they were (or still are, by Kemetics) considered as avatars of Horus. The bridge analogy is easier to accept, and I think it’s for this reason that the Catholic recognition of sainthood, rather than outright divinity, is also easier for me to swallow.
The other thing your comment brings to mind is that, at least in the case of the Roman emperors, deification was posthumous (though swiftly so). Also, among the earliest saints in Christianity were the martyrs – so even this form of deification was posthumous. The Einherjar that I mention in my post are also people who have passed from this world. What is it about death, that makes deification easier? Why might it be easier to believe that dead people walk more closely with the gods than do living people?
Sojourner, you are right about science. It is just theory, and I should have thought that comment through a lot better. There’s a difference though, between science and its factual findings. Actually, there doesn’t even need to be a lab or a list of criteria in hand for us to stumble across a fact. ;)
*still saying this in a polite, quiet voice* Bernulf, truth, facts that are, “corrupts” in the same way as guns shoot people. I’m using the word “truth” in its cold, hard sense here, and not in a mutable, personal conviction sense, because science was mentioned. If a bird flies over you, it’s a fact. The factual aspect of it doesn’t do anything. It’s (the fact, not the bird- lol) just sitting out there, waiting to potentially be picked up. But you might do something with the fact. You might believe the bird to be a god. And you might take it a step further, and say that a person that can fly like the bird is a god. Then another person might try to fly. The fact didn’t try to sway anyone in any way. It still just is. A bird flew, and people will decide what to think or do about that truth alone or combined with other truths.
I think of a corrupt something as being ruined. But some people use the word “corrupt” as they would “unpure,” which is simply changed, and not necessarily ruined. People generally try to keep elements that “ruin” away from what they might ruin. But truth, I think, shouldn’t be kept from a person’s spiritual beliefs. A person could pick up the truth, facts, and decide he believes somehow differently, but I consider this growth.
Bernulf, never apologize for such long and _thoughtful_ comments. Kid in a candy store is pretty much the way I’ve always felt about any theological discussion I’ve ever had with Pagans/Heathens over a beer or around a campfire after ritual… It’s one of our best things, IMNSHO. :)
You ask, “What is it about death, that makes deification easier? Why might it be easier to believe that dead people walk more closely with the gods than do living people?” and I wonder if that might not have something to do with what we humans want from gods, anyway. I think it might be that, sensing a something in the universe that conveys meaning, or orders invisible realities, or simply goes beyond a mechanistic universe, we humans, being obsessively social animals, want above all to talk to whatever is out there.
And who better to talk to invisible beings than the invisible beings we know best, our own Mighty Dead? Since psychologists tell us that about half of all bereaved people will report a sense of the presence of the person who has died (even in our secular society) at some point, this sense that death isn’t the end surely goes back a long way.
You may have your pick as to whether it’s a result of spiritual realities, or a reflection of how our DNA leads us to perceive personalities–those so important social elements of our worlds–as enduring and permanent. I think the point is the same: we perceive that our dead are not dead–or not only dead. But, as invisible beings themselves, they must participate in that other, invisible reality…right?
I wonder, too, if the human need for personalities–our drive to anthropomorphize the whole world–might not be behind the way our ancestors came to sense personalities within numenous places (trees, rivers, and so on). I’m not saying that there isn’t something there, nor even that there isn’t something aware looking out at us and in relationship with us. But I think that at least some of the personalities we understand the gods to have are a result of how we are able to understand the world only through the lens of human experience… sort of like seeing faces in clouds and rocks, we see human-type personalities in the forces and powers of the natural world–?
I guess I’m saying that, yes, everything is full of gods… but, so long as I’m human, I’ll perceive them socially, since that’s how I’m put together.
As to the deification of Roman emperors, I’m really not convinced they were sincerely felt to be gods. Seems more like a PR that everyone goes along with for its symbolic value. Like the way that, today, virtually all American politicians make a point of being observed going to church. Do Americans really believe that all our politicians are reverent and observant members of their religion? I doubt it. But I think that bending the knee to an appearance of religiosity is the modern Christian voter’s equivalent of the demand for a pinch of incense before the altar of Rome: a symbolic gesture to affirm loyalty.
I’m thinking out loud here, so I’m not sure of what I’m saying… but it’s an interesting thread. I hope it continues!
Chell, the sense of corruption I’m using here is in the way that something is changed from its original state. A truth can be used to challenge another asserted truth, and expose it as being untrue, altering its original status. Corrupt, when used this way, is a relative sort of word, and may not have been the best word for me to use; but I chose it originally in my post to imply and explore the possibility that the perspectives of deifying polytheists a thousand years ago and beyond had somehow spoiled in a civilization ruled by reason and rationality (in much the same way that it’s harder nowadays for many to imagine a big tree in the middle of the cosmos). Since you and Sojourner continued to use the word, I figured it was just a matter of continuity. If the word bothers you, I would happily switch to another ;-)
In other words, you’re using “truth” in its absolute sense, when even science shows an increasing reluctance to engage in absolutes. Here is an article you may find interesting, published in issue 6 (volume 113) of the online edition of The Tech, from MIT. It’s title, “Absolute Truth, Dogmatism Antithetical to Science” should provide some idea to both the article’s subject and the author’s attitude toward immutable truths and science. That I share this author’s perspective is why I originally supported the first half of your original statement, that science and logic are truths.
The frith of this blog is tried by bashing, name-calling, over-the-top obscenities, religious and racial hatred and other forms of pig-headed stupidity; and I don’t put up with it very well. This blog’s frith is not tried by polite disagreements, misunderstandings, or constructive criticisms … if anything, it’s enhanced by such things :-)
Sojourner, you said something in your first comment, something that I meant to respond to but overlooked, and apologize for not remembering until now:
Thank you very much – despite mixed feelings and moods over the past few months, it does feel good to be back in blogging mode :-)
Cat, thank you for understanding (and even encouraging) my verbosity!
I think this neatly sums up everything in your preceding paragraph – we understand things on a social level by relating with them. I think this explains why we have the need or instinct to personify things so much, because it brings them to our level of understanding. The danger in doing this, of course, is that not everything necessarily shares or responds to this need of ours … such situations are golden opportunities for us to employ the flexibility and adaptability of mind we so often pride ourselves on. With our gods, I think they know us (and our limitations) well enough to relate to us in ways we can understand, when they so choose; but I don’t think they are limited to human form, human words and languages, human mortality or human motivations.
I think you bring up a good point, that our ‘Mighty Dead’, our honored ancestors, are a suitable link between us and the gods: we understand them to take with them into the afterlife a basic human form, retaining human language and motivations; but lacking human mortality, and likely capable of more directly communicating with the gods (Christian saints would also conform to these things). That these things were assumed by early Heathens is evident in the practice of human sacrifice, where the offered people were often meant to take messages with them to the afterlife, to the gods. As such, they make an appropriate bridge; and I can more easily understand how posthumous deification in extraordinary cases might be reasonable (although I’m still not sure I’d go so far as to embrace the practice).
Must is such a strong word, lol; but I would agree it makes sense that (especially with so many different invisible realities that we’ve conceived of over the past thousands of years) the dead participate in realities the mortal living can’t participate in.
With some, you might very well be right; but at least the cult of the deified Caesar Augustus lasted for a good three hundred years (ending only as Christianity rose to power in the empire), so I suspect that it wasn’t always just a matter of PR and going through the motions of piety.
I’m also enjoying this thread of conversation, and hope that it will continue :-)
Sorry it took me so long to respond back to the points that were brought up.
Bernulf – I see where you are coming from but you are using only part of the definition. (And Chell stated that it was not the sense that she was using it in.) Another part of the definition is accepted as true. If anything is accepted as true, it become “truth” – until something else comes along and replaces with something else that becomes true. After all, wasn’t it the “truth” that world was flat? What I was trying to say was that truth can change over time. This was the part of the definition that I was picking up on and what I was referring to when talking about truth. (I’m guessing that Chell may not have been using “truth” in the way that I am using it, but only she could confirm that.) (Gotta love language. There are so many meanings for words these days, that it is easy to disagree on certain points just based on word definitions alone.)
The fact that truth can change over time is another reason why your question (…as we reconstruct the religious perspectives of our ancient forebears, is do we want this to be a prevailing social norm for us now?) can become a little sticky. If we say yes, we know that there are practices that just don’t coincide with what our society believes today and we would be in contradiction between our beliefs and our societal norms, which could cause many legal and social problems. If we say no, we could be implying that the way that our ancestors ordered the world is no longer “good enough” for us. And what does that imply as a reconstructed religion? It is a tough question to answer.
Chell – I could have been more clear with my statements (and definitions) as well. :)
You said:
Actually, there doesn’t even need to be a lab or a list of criteria in hand for us to stumble across a fact.
You’re right; there doesn’t need to be a lab or a list of criteria to find “facts.” However, in some cases, “facts” can be interpretations instead of truths. Without going into too much detail of research methods and such (which would be bring the discussion way off topic), if you were trying to “prove” something scientifically as true, you need more than stumbling (as you put it) to prove your fact was true (and you yourself mentioned that you were talking about truth from a scientific perspective as that was what had been mentioned previously). Scientifically speaking, even if you declare something as a fact, it doesn’t make it so; you need to support your idea with data when talking about science.
You said:
If a bird flies over you, it’s a fact.
This, also, is not necessarily a fact; it could be that person’s reality depending on the situation. Think about it this way. Two people are standing next to each other; one is hallucinating (for what ever reason) and one is not. “Dude, there’s a bird!” “What bird? I don’t see a bird!” Which person knows “the fact” of whether the bird is there or not? It depends on their subjective reality. In this case, is either of them wrong? No, because that is what they experienced.
But now we really are getting further from the original topic.
I just set up my new computer for my daily RSS feeds, and I seem to have missed this gem. To my delight there has been much talk already, and this has been a great way to get back into the Pagan Blog conversation. There are a few things that I want to add.
(1) I agree that there is much evidence to support that Pagans deified people after their deaths. Many local deities (and I believe this is referenced in the sections that deal with Jarl Haakon’s adventures in the Hiemskringla) were deified townsfolk–outstanding folk heroes and the like. I also agree that this tradition has blended with Catholcism in the custom of “Sainthood”.
(2) I do not think that we will ever fully understand what a “god” meant to an ancient Heathen, nor to any Pagan. The word itself has been too changed by the trials and tribulations that have befallen Western History. We can read the ancient texts and have a good guess about how our ancestors saw gods and the concept of divinity, but we can never fully understand it.
I’m pretty OK with that, incidentally.
(3) One of the interesting asides that I saw was an aside about “why do we have gods?” I think that everyone should have a look at Daniel Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell”. Amazing book by an amazing American philosopher. In essence, havng gods and personifying certain natural features is all a part of how our brain-software functions. We have the tendency to ascribe agency to something as a result of an evolutionary trait, which Dennett (and I am paraphrasing here) shows in an example of being in the jungle and hearing a rustling of leaves. We don’t think “what was that?” but rather, we think “WHO was that?” Reason being, those that did not think “WHO was that?” were more likely to get eaten by something–and thus did not get a chance to spread their genes.
That’s just one of the many features and benefits produced by human evolution that interact to give us religion and gods, according to Dennett’s conjecture–and one that I believe to be quite true, I might add.
(4) You all bring up interesting points about science. And yes, science is just theory. It is just theory that has been gleaned from hundreds of tests and experiments, analysis of data, and then tested again against any new data. Of course it is conjecture, but it is far less prone to error as a result of its constantly having to be re-tested in light of new data.
Religion is also just theory, but it has been by definition a thing that cannot and should not be tested. I have been of the mind that religion is fully within the realm of scientific and philosophical inquiry, so I don’t really get the cold-prickly feeling when someone goes poking around to see if the Bifrost Bridge really does exist.
What a great conversation!
Just a simple note on science: Science and the scientific method do presuppose a belief about reality — that empirical reality is measurable and has meaning. The scientific method is a way to establish a shared understanding — we all agree that if you follow these steps when you perform an experiment, you have demonstrated that your results have empirical reality. I think that this position is important especially considering the current public discourse in which demonstrable falsehoods have not been effectively de-meaned — deprived of meaning.
That said, I believe in different ways of knowing — knowing through empirical reality and the scientific method is one way of knowing, and knowing through religious cosmology and ritual, through spiritual perception, is another way of knowing, and for the individual, they are both valid. For an entire society, it is unclear how non-empirical ways of knowing can be valid. In America, I want the separation of Church and State maintained, and I don’t want anyone passing laws to regulate my religious or philosophical behavior.
To the deified human question I would like to add two criticisms: the class criticism and the structural criticism. Roman emperors were deified because they were emperors and controlled the majority of the power of the state and the religious institution — not because they were great people from the perspective of human-centered relationships. Caesar used the combination of titles — pontifex maxiumus as well as imperator — to consolidate power in the person of the emperor. I would not agree to deify any individual human using this method.
Egyptian emperors were deified as part of the structure of Egyptian religions — not because they were great people. They played a role, a very important and powerful role, in Egyptian religion by performing deity for their people. I would not agree to deify an individual human being using this method, either, because it is so susceptible to abuse. Presidents and Popes are bad enough.
I agree wholeheartedly with Cat’s and Chell’s comments about deity-formation on a smaller scale. Like Cat, I experience powerful relationships with trees, streams, and other natural features, and because of my proclivities, I choose to interpret these relationships using metaphors for human realtionships.
Also, it makes sense that people would tell stories over and over again, and eventually a hero would be treated like a god. Notice, however, that through the stories that hero would be significantly divorced from the living individual — so in effect, the personal was not deified, but the community collaboratively created a deity around that person’s deeds and personality.
I’m not sure that process is one we can necessarily control, except through storytelling. Given these considerations, I would not consent to deify a living human being.
If anything has corrupted our religious imagination, I would say that it is the concept of God as separate from and superlative to human beings.
Hehehe. “Frey.”
I’m glad to see a compilation of a list of heathen blogs. May I submit mine:
http://community.livejournal.com/aesirkindred/
We steer clear of hate speech but we do seek to reclaim some of the symbols lost to us because of the Nazis and seek to understand all of the Gods and recognize Christian taints in the retelling of our stories.
Stupid man! I see you are persisting in this ‘heathen’ nonsense; and you an Oswin too! The ancient House of Oswin is perhaps the most holy family in existence. You are to consider yourself ‘removed from the lists’ – bearded toss-pot that you are!
i think the meaning of a god is simply a being we honour and respect… i mean what are the qualification for being a god other than being worshipped? i think it makes sense that some gods could be ancestors. others seem to be simply personifications of nature.