(no subject)

Went to Pagan Coffee Night tonight, which is always fun, and occasionally thought-provoking. Tonight it was. We were discussing Troy (which I have not seen, but several of the folks there have) and that led into discussion of the bases of reconstructionist religions--literary and archaeological evidence--and that led into a discussion of the question "If, tomorrow, new evidence turns up that is contrary to what you have known about the religion you are reconstructing, how would that affect your beliefs (and practices, presumably)?"

It's an interesting question, and we discussed it for a while. I think (although I suppose you couldn't know for sure unless it happened) that very little that could turn up would be likely to change the core of my belief, but that certainly the details would be open to reinterpretation. I think that would be the case.

I also think that such a thing would be more likely to affect those folks who take a very fundamentalist approach, such as the Edda-thumpers who consider Ragnarok to be more literal than figurative. For example, Loki: there are plenty of heathens who not only avoid dealing with Loki in their personal practice, they don't think there is a place for him in heathenry at all. The two sorts of reason I've heard for not dealing with Loki are the moral (since, if you take the lore literally, he is destined to betray the Aesir and side with the etins at Ragnarok, it is a bad idea to have any dealings with him at all) and the historical (since there is no evidence of a Loki cult in the historical record--no temples, no recorded worship, no places named for him--he was surely not a god any more than any etin and should not be treated as one). But what if evidence turned up that Loki did have a cult following--that the ancients did honor him in some fashion? Would the folks who leave the sumbel when someone toasts him have a change of heart? Or would they maintain their present position? Or would it depend on the reason they don't deal with him in the first place--might it be that the historical folks would change and the moral folks would not?

Another thought comes to mind, and that is that this sort of thing has happened in the past. Think of all the goddess-worshippers who built a theology upon the theories of Marija Gimbutas--when those theories were thrown into doubt (and they are no longer in favor among her academic community, haven't been in some time) did they abandon them? Some did, I'm sure. But you still see plenty of folks who believe in a near-Utopian prehistoric matriarchy, and take any criticism of it very poorly indeed.

Hell, think of Christianity and evolution. For a lot of people, Darwin turned their world upside down. And now? Well, more liberal Christian sects seem to have little trouble with it, finding that evolution does not conflict with or contradict their non-literal interpretation of Biblical lore. The fundamentalists, however, deny it, refuse to include it in their view of the world, and that's where "creation science" came from--because a literal interpretation of their Bible does find it to be a problem.

Very likely the same thing would happen among the recon communities if something new and surprising were to turn up.

(no subject)

I've been searching for info on grape-growing today. The grapes are arriving next week and I should really have some clue as to what to do with them when they get here. I'm thinking four poles and a bunch of mulch, right now. A trellis-y structure eventually, though that can probably wait a bit since they are not likely to grow a great deal in the first year (not with the late spring we seem to be having). I also know that I am likely to get sidetracked by design ideas if I try to do the trellis right away; I will just have to be satisfied with four posts at the corners of an 8X8' area!

I am tired, debating a nap, although I had some writing I wanted to do as well--we'll see if I can formulate coherent sentences and then make a decision!