Nature Doesn't Exist

People often describe Paganism as a "nature religion" and talk about venerating the natural world as a fundamental tenet of Pagan practice. But what exactly does that mean? What do we mean when we talk about nature--and what are some of the troublesome assumptions underlying that language? (Hint: It's just anti-industrialism in sheep's clothing.)
Buy QUEEN OF ALL WITCHERIES:
bookshop.org/p...
Check out my Tarot blog:
jackofwandstar...
Find me on Facebook:
/ jackofwands

[@AhimsaWitch]

Great points, it's an important discussion. This topic is similar to the combatting of an "appeal to nature" fallacy in debate

[@gaiagreen2690]

In the end, we and the world around us are all made of star dust. Everything that human star dust creates can only be a new combination of the old star dust... And yet, my witchy soul still prefers genuine crystals to the synthetic ones.

[@laurarocque43]

When I was doing my ecology degree we had to write a paper defining the words natural and nature and such. The argument was that, since humans are animals and thus natural then shouldn't our creations also be considered natural, in the same way a beaver dam or beehive is. Given that I am a scientist, I can honestly say that I am not anti science. I get your argument, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Your observation that most pagans romanticize the preindustrial Era and look to that time period to define what is natural is probably true. But just as we can, and should, critically examine some of the drawbacks of capitalism, so too should we critically examine the costs of modernity on the ecosystems we depend on. Ecologists do debate the nature of ecological integrity, and we even debate the full extent of the harm done to the structure and function of ecosystems. But we all basically agree that every ecosystem on the planet has been affected by humanity in a negative way, and that these ecosystems are at risk of collapse. In the end it seems like your argument hinges on the idea that if we take the concept of "living naturally" to its conclusions we'll end up in a society that rejects science and oppress people and so, because the conclusion is not a desired one, we cannot value natural living. I don't know, perhaps it's my background in environmental sciences but, I don't see how embracing a more natural lifestyle leads to some of the conclusions you have about rejecting science or oppressing people. I understand the fear in ending up in those situations, but what I disagree with is that a concept of nature necessitates adopting those conclusions.

[@JackChanek]

This is an important point and well taken. I do think we need to examine the ecological impact of the anthropocene and work to counter the harmful effects we've had on our environment! And the framing of "nature" can sometimes help with that, rhetorically. But conversely, whenever we draw lines between what's "natural" and what's not, doing so carries a value judgment--the kind of thing that marketing firms have been exploiting for decades. I'm wary of the way we often embrace that value judgment without questioning it.

[@laurarocque43]

@@JackChanek I am not arguing whether terms like "natural" vs "unnatural" have connotations and value judgements associated with them. I acknowledge that point and have concerns about how it is marketed in a capitalist system. But so does science. I have a solid understanding of science, but most people do not The number of times I have had people tell me that a product is superior to a natural one because it was made in a lab is incredibly frustrating, especially since I know what the ingredients of said product do in the body. I read ingredients on every product I buy, I know why each ingredient is in said product, and what it can do in the body. Not everybody can do that.

[@laurarocque43]

Another point worth making is that there is now financial incentive to control the narrative around what is supported by science and what isn't. The most well known example is the marketing campaign by the tobacco industry which convinced the public that there was no scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking, but what most people don't know is that there was overwhelming scientific evidence for the link between lung cancer and smoking since the early 1900's. This control over the narrative of science is so obvious once you're within a field that challenges corporate interests. Scientists have a great deal of humility about the degree to which we are sure our findings are true. Going through school I was instructed on how the language in scientific articles is deliberate in avoiding making statements that sound as though we are stating facts, even if they are true. That is why a scientific theory is called a theory, because it "could" be wrong. We are also educated on instances where we were wrong and people were harmed as a result. We had instances like thalidomide, which harmed babies, we created baby formula, a substance attributed with killing more babies than it saved and poisons we now use as pesticides. There are so many examples. When I hear people wanting what's "natural" it's often that they're aware of some of the instances where science got it wrong, where we jumped the gun and people got hurt. But then my final thought is two-fold. If we stopped defining paganism by saying that it's nature worship, then what is it? What is it that unites us? You've stated what pagans should be against, but not what we should be for, who we should not be, not who we should be. And if the nature of what it means to be pagan changes from nature worship to something else then what happens to the rest of us who don't go along? By redefining the fundamental nature of what it means to be pagan you've effectively taken an identity category and changed it's nature so that it ejects people like me from that category. Do I have to change what I call myself because you change what it means to be pagan? I would have to, because I wouldn't be part of the new definition of pagan. Is it fair for some members of the pagan community to change the definition of what it means to be pagan in such a way that you leave some of us without a term to define ourselves?

[@50peredur]

Love it!!!

[@sacredbloomalchemy]

I am one of those Romantic nature people but I do agree that total rejection of modernity wouldnt work so maybe there would be a middle way. Personally i think any sexuality is natural and any gender identity or non identity is natural and pagans who think otherwise are misguided and unethical.

[@MatrixMaster777]

Nature Is 420! We Smoke It, Naturally. May The 4th Be Natural To You^^