PAGAN DEISM: Three Views
                        by Margarian Bridger
    Most discussions of the variety of Wiccan beliefs start by
      assuming that there are two basic positions: either one
  believes literally in personal, named deities ('deist', in the
        common parlance), or one does not ('non-deist'). The
    more I talk to non-deist Witches, the more I believe that
      this is an oversimplification. I'd like to suggest a new
    model, using not two but three endpoints, to which I have
        assigned primary colours for convenient reference.
Red: The first of these endpoints is the orthodox deist
position: the gods are personal, named, individual
entities, with whom one can communicate almost as one
would with human beings. They may or may not be
humanlike. They exist in a way ('level', 'plane', or
'dimension') that is far beyond human comprehension,
but their existence is objectively verifiable.
Blue: Deity exists. It is the Ultimate Sacred / Great
Mystery / Source. It is so great, so subtle, so all-
encompassing, that we cannot hope to comprehend more
than a tiny fraction of it. Being ourselves human, we
relate best to things that are humanlike, and so we have
'the gods': humanlike metaphors or masks which we
place upon the faceless Face of the Ultimate, so that
through them we can perceive and relate to a little of It.
Yellow: The gods exist only as constructs within the
human mind and imagination. They are Truths -- valid
ways of making sense out of human thought and
experience, personifications of abstracts that might
otherwise be too slippery for the human mind to grasp --
but they are not Facts; they have no objectively verifiable
existence. Like other abstracts (e.g. Freedom,
Democracy, Love, Truth) they enrich our lives and are
worth believing in, but it is naive to think that they have
any objectively verifiable existence. It doesn't matter that
the gods aren't factual; they're true, and that's what's
important.
Now, let's arrange these endpoints in the shape of a
triangle, with Red at the top, and Blue and Yellow at the
left and right of the base.
Many people's beliefs don't fall precisely on one of these
endpoints, but somewhere along one of the edges, or
even in the middle. A person's beliefs may change from
moment to moment, or may remain fixed for years.
Eco-feminist Witches, to whom the Earth is the living
body of the Goddess, mostly cluster along the Green
edge, between Blue and Yellow; those who believe in
transcendent deity are along the Purple edge, from Red to
Blue. Those who relate to the gods in a very personal
way, but are agnostic about Their nature, are probably
the Orange edge. Most Jungians cluster near the Yellow
point; pantheists are mostly Blue or Green. A totally
agnostic Witch is an earthy shade of mud-brown; an
atheistic one must be on the Yellow tip.
Yet even this is an oversimplification. Two Witches who
cluster very closely on this triangle might have very
different beliefs about reincarnation, or about the nature
of magic; two who are widely separated on the triangle
might have identical beliefs on these topics. For most of
them, additional axes in another dimension would be
needed; some would require entirely independent
complex maps. Nevertheless, let's take the triangle as a
working model for the moment.
This triangle is about conscious beliefs, those which we
can analyze and put into words. But Wicca is, first and
foremost, a mystery religion. The more deeply we
participate in the Mysteries, the less relevant distinctions
of belief and interpretation become. We can represent
this by drawing a pyramid upon the triangular base we
have established. When we debate the differences in our
beliefs, we are operating near the base of the pyramid.
The more we simply let ourselves experience the
Mysteries, and suspend our interpretation of them, the
more nearly we approach the apex. The triangular cross-
section becomes smaller, the different beliefs draw closer
together. At the apex, they merge into a single point --
and it is this point, this rare moment of total immersion
in the Mysteries, that all religions have in common.
This suggests a further geometric model. That peak that
transcends belief systems becomes the centre of a sphere.
Our original triangle may be mapped onto its surface,
together with the maps of the beliefs of other religions.
More likely, it's a hypersphere, as every religion has
common boundaries and areas of overlap with many
others.
Beyond the sphere lies the void of non-religion. But how
can we define this? Not as atheism; for atheism is itself a
type of religion. Not as agnosticism; even agnostics can
find a place for themselves within the sphere. Perhaps we
can best define this as nihilism, or perhaps religious
apathy.