This article appeared on alt.religion.asatru on 31 March 1997 in the midst of the controversy surrounding the "Kennewick Man". It is reprinted here with the author's permission. HnikarASATRU AND BIOLOGY
This business of biology and Asatru seems to be the hot topic, as well it should be.
Right to the point: I would feel that if a religion-any religion- does not have a biological basis, then one is dealing with a philosophy-just a set of habits and thinking patterns that can be shed like a dirty shirt- and not a religion, least of all one that is living. Why would one ever wish to settle for a low-grade, two-dimensional version of the real thing? Nor of satisfaction is the universalist viewpoint, in any of its faces in which everything other than the One Approved Truth for Everyone is determined by "higher minds" to be deadly and threatening.
I do not find either class of alternatives acceptable, life enhancing, or liberating.
I do not feel that if I can discard my beliefs, convert and repeat the process again and again that I am somehow more flexible and open-minded in any real way, but rather that I have found nothing of real value. Nor do I accept the "one size fits all" approach- my travels taught me that, and my instincts, if one accepts the existence of such, chafe at either approach.
Biology, or just environmentally influenced cultural phenomena? If a religion- Asatru in particular-is no more than a collection of folkways elevated to a special status, perhaps best is to do away with the label "religion" altogether. Just a function of neurology, perhaps a bit of electromagnetic energy across the temporal lobe for instant numinous experiences and nothing more?
I doubt that the validity of a religion can be "proved" by either strictly cultural or biological interpretation, and especially not by logical means- itself a style of thinking. I doubt anything with a non-rational element can be validated or proved by strictly rational methods.
So where does that leave things? I do not choose a "philosophy-religion" nor do I accept the universalist position; rather I express what is inside of me: hard-wired, comes-included-with-the-unit Asatru, or at least the fundamental orientation towards it.
I cannot point to the "Asatru gene", nor can those who differ definitively prove there is not a biological basis for religious variation, but I tend to think there is some manner of link, and that this link is not only meaningful, but fulfilling and even interesting!
I see a people's religion reflected in its history and doings, its comings and goings, so to speak; therefore the more that is known about a people the better. For this reason count me among the supporters for the examination of "Kennewick Man", a position I will support by script, thought, and pocketbook! If a far wandering member of a distant but to me meaningfully related group made his way to a place "impossible" for him to be, I want to know about it!
Links to other sites on the Web
back to Hnikar's Folkish Asatru page
1997 [email protected]
This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page