ThusSpokeZarathustra
What would a Hierophant look like in a secular circle? Perhaps even as extreme as atheist? What role does he play in that case? Would it be appropriate to call him the spiritual leader?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Secular Hierophant
Thirteen
Hierophant is the traditionalist—the spiritual leader of anything
That's said, the Hierophant can certainly be secular. What distinguishes a Hierophant is if he was the sort to say, "This is how we've always done it...." The Hierophant is that man/woman who is old school, not into doing something in a new-fangled way just to be new-fangled. In this, he is the "spiritual" leader because he maintains the "spirit" of that thing. Be it the baker who insists that bread should be kneaded by hand, or the animator who refuses to use a computer and still paints every frame, or the lover of music who insists on vinyl recordings over digital.
The Hierophant is the one in the group who maintains the traditions. Yes?
The Hierophant is about traditions, about community practices. So you can't say that the Hierophant, as an atheist, would be an extreme atheist, because an atheist isn't about following any traditions or saying, "That's the way we do things here..." It's about not believing in a higher power. And an atheist can hold that as true (be militant about it) without engaging in any traditions or agreed on practices. This as compared to a militant religious person who is militant because they insist that everyone follow certain traditions and if they don't, they're not of that religion.What would a Hierophant look like in a secular circle? Perhaps even as extreme as atheist? What role does he play in that case? Would it be appropriate to call him the spiritual leader?
That's said, the Hierophant can certainly be secular. What distinguishes a Hierophant is if he was the sort to say, "This is how we've always done it...." The Hierophant is that man/woman who is old school, not into doing something in a new-fangled way just to be new-fangled. In this, he is the "spiritual" leader because he maintains the "spirit" of that thing. Be it the baker who insists that bread should be kneaded by hand, or the animator who refuses to use a computer and still paints every frame, or the lover of music who insists on vinyl recordings over digital.
The Hierophant is the one in the group who maintains the traditions. Yes?
Grizabella
The Hierophant is the "holy interpreter" who has standard ideas of what the Universe is all about and then he teaches his followers his notion of that. He's like the pope or a preacher in a protestant belief system---or anyone who is an intermediary in our spiritual beliefs, whether it's Crowley, the Catholic pope, the preacher in a church, a yogi or anyone else who is between us and the "top" spiritually. I personally have found that I can't stand to have someone else in between me and my Creator, so I go right to the Source.
As you said, this would be a spiritual leader, no matter whether an atheist or not. It's someone who is an intermediary in our belief system. Someone we look to in order to learn about spiritual things.
As you said, this would be a spiritual leader, no matter whether an atheist or not. It's someone who is an intermediary in our belief system. Someone we look to in order to learn about spiritual things.
Starshower
Secular Hierophant.
My view - might be 'wrong' to others. What do you think., Thirteen?
I see him / her as a conventional, rather stuck-in-the-mud but solid, old-fashioned traditionalist in any society or group. The one who knows & passes on knowledge, social constructs, rituals & practices - yes, even secular ones, eg in sports or in how any particular society deals with death & funerals, secular marriage /civil partnership rituals, divorces, namings, rites of passage ... a presider or president in courts of law, in academia, etc. Chieftain. Leader. Captain. Head chef. Director.
S/he is the holder & passer-on of learning, wisdom & above all traditions. A stickler for rules & regulations.
Chairman; Rotary Club or Round Table or Lions chairperson; sports team manager; head teacher or principal in a big school or college. University bursar or vice-chancellor. The one who knows & shows "how it's done" and passes on education and social manners, morals & mores.
My view - might be 'wrong' to others. What do you think., Thirteen?
I see him / her as a conventional, rather stuck-in-the-mud but solid, old-fashioned traditionalist in any society or group. The one who knows & passes on knowledge, social constructs, rituals & practices - yes, even secular ones, eg in sports or in how any particular society deals with death & funerals, secular marriage /civil partnership rituals, divorces, namings, rites of passage ... a presider or president in courts of law, in academia, etc. Chieftain. Leader. Captain. Head chef. Director.
S/he is the holder & passer-on of learning, wisdom & above all traditions. A stickler for rules & regulations.
Chairman; Rotary Club or Round Table or Lions chairperson; sports team manager; head teacher or principal in a big school or college. University bursar or vice-chancellor. The one who knows & shows "how it's done" and passes on education and social manners, morals & mores.
nisaba
What would a Hierophant look like in a secular circle? Perhaps even as extreme as atheist? What role does he play in that case? Would it be appropriate to call him the spiritual leader?
Atheism is a faith position. An atheist firmly believes that there is no god, despite the total lack of evidence that there actually is no god.
A person like Richard Dawkins might thus be seen to be the Hierophant of atheists. And yes, he would be their spiritual leader, exorting them to take a faith-based position that there is no god, despite the fact that such a position is as unprovable as the opposite position.
Hierophants are not only about the spiritual life, They are also about the traditions, wisdom and culture of your people, passed down from one generation to the next. They are about teaching. They are about a strong sense of right-and-wrong.
Nowhere, NOWHERE does it say that atheists can't have any of those things. In fact, their sense of right-and-wrong is often MORE developed: they arrive at it out of a respect for other living things, not out of a fear of a devil or a hope of reward from a god.
GlitterNova
A secular Hierophant to me would be a distinguished professor at an old University shaping the minds of the upcoming generation of thinkers and professionals. That might be somewhat of a romantic view of higher education, but it's what pops into my mind.
bluelagune
What would a Hierophant look like in a secular circle? Perhaps even as extreme as atheist? What role does he play in that case? Would it be appropriate to call him the spiritual leader?
Well "secular" meaning one separate from religion.
Religions are man made rules to how serve a diety. So heirophant fits well as a leader of religious group.
Atheism is a religion, a religion that does not belive in God. So an atheist fits well into the heirophant description, he/she belongs to a religious group of none believers. Cult leaders fit there quite well, so do the scietific or political institutions that follow "if you are not with us, you are against us" mentality. Its mass control. That is a group leader.
However, if you are talking about spirituality. Heirophant is NOT a spiritual leader. Spirituality comes from within and its build around FAITH (ie: an individual belief into something greater than oneself). A hirophant can influence a spiritual direction by creating/controlling a following to a spiritual leader like Jesus, DaliLama, etc.
Thirteen
Um...I'll agree that Dawkins could be the Atheist's spiritual leader if they quote him and follow his methods of being an atheist. But comparing Atheists to the religious (saying they're the same) because you see one's inability to "disprove" something's existence as the same as the other's inability to prove its existence is...problematic. People didn't believe that the continents were once one big one, split and moved about. Then proof came, and they believed. An Atheist is someone like that. Someone who, presumably, WILL believe in god if you you present proof. A religious person, on the other hand, is someone who will not stop believing in god even if there were found to be absolute proof that god did not exist and could not exist.Atheism is a faith position. An atheist firmly believes that there is no god, despite the total lack of evidence that there actually is no god.
For the two to be equal the atheist would have to say that he wouldn't believe in god no matter how valid the proof. Like Creationists. You can offer proof and proof of evolution, they won't believe it. That's not, by definition, an atheist.
The atheists position (at least those I know) is that you can't argue from ignorance. You can't say "You can't prove it's not true!" The onus on proving it true is on the believer (prove the continents are moving) and no one has to believe it till they do prove it. Otherwise we'd have to believe in everything that can't be disproved. Conspiracy theories, that homosexuality is unnatural and a sin, and Santa Claus (I happen to believe in Santa myself, but I won't expect others to without proof ). What I'm saying is, if any of us don't believe in something without being offered proof, then we can't condemn atheists for doing the same.
Because whoever argues with us about this thing's existence--the thing we don't believe exists--can always say, "You can't disprove it!" (With the understanding that even if we could disprove it, they wouldn't disregard the evidence as planted, false, or wrong).
Ultimately, religion is based on faith. You believe it to be true even if there is no evidence--and a lot of times even if there is evidence (people who believe we were created by god rather than evolved will do so no matter how much evidence we give them of evolution). However obnoxiously bad an individual atheist might be to you, equal to any missionary knocking on your door, atheism is not the same as religion. Because, technically, an atheist is just against believing in something from faith rather than from proof. Give them proof and they will alter their thinking. The opposite is not true of the religious who will not alter their thinking in spite of proof to the contrary.
Chimera Dust
I don't really view this card as being exclusively about religion, but mainly about the things that bring a community together.
The person the card is about may be an atheist, but they may still be attached to non-religious traditions. Maybe they have a very active role in an atheist group or community of some kind.
If it's pointing to the more negative side that people often point out about the Hierophant, that person may not have theological dogmas, but they may have very strong opinions (on atheism or other subjects) to the point where they become close-minded.
The person the card is about may be an atheist, but they may still be attached to non-religious traditions. Maybe they have a very active role in an atheist group or community of some kind.
If it's pointing to the more negative side that people often point out about the Hierophant, that person may not have theological dogmas, but they may have very strong opinions (on atheism or other subjects) to the point where they become close-minded.
ravenest
What would a Hierophant look like in a secular circle? Perhaps even as extreme as atheist? What role does he play in that case? Would it be appropriate to call him the spiritual leader?
Since religion and magick are both ways of 'manipulating psychology', then I would say a non-religious Hierophant could be represented by a psychologist - or to put it another way ; someone that has a learned, object view of one's situation.
As far as Atheists go, I think most of them, nowadays, have become so due to the development of the modern scientific approach; if it is 'real' (instead of the dualistic opposite 'ideal') then it should be able to be be demonstrated in the 'real' world by evidence. if it cant be, then the idea is not adopted as 'real'. So it isnt considered valid UNTIL it can be proved real. [ But the 'real' issue may not be whether God exists or not .... but lie in the nature of 'reality' itself.]
