Is Paganism anti-Christian?

[Perun]

A very interesting perspective on paganism's obsession with Christian-bashing.


http://www.winterscapes.com/sannion/anti-christian.htm


Is Paganism Anti-Christian?



Quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing about Christianity.

It seems that everywhere I go lately, the topic on everyone's mind has been Christianity. This wouldn't seem so odd if I traveled in largely Christian circles. But what gets me is that it's Pagans who are doing all the talking. For several days this week, the subject of ChristoPagans was hotly debated on one of my lists. Every chatroom I went into was discussing Christianity - whether it be how Christians are intolerant and bash us, how the Church supposedly stole all of its holidays and beliefs from Paganism, or the sinister plot of King James I to revise the Bible so that it justified his paranoid attacks on witchcraft. I no longer even bother trying to refute these absurd claims. It's just too much work, and accomplishes nothing in the end. Pythagoras said, don't piss against the sun, and that's about as effective as attempting to clear up the fallacies that Pagans perpetuate.

What does bother me is that Paganism itself is never discussed in these chats. Discussions about polytheism, ecology, ethics, or magic are rare. Instead, they'd rather whine about the Church. No one ever discusses the classic Pagan literature like Homer, the Eddas, the Mabinogian, or the Charge of the Goddess - instead they discuss the errancy of the Bible. We could discuss the complex interraction of multiple divine beings, but they would rather talk about how absurd Yahweh is. Instead of laying the foundation for Paganism's future, they recite a litany of atrocities that the Church is guilty of. Perhaps the most annoying thing that they prattle on about is the immanant death of the Church, and how we will take its place.

People have been predicting an end to Christianity for about two hundred years now. When the Soviet States were in power, it looked like they might have succeeded in banishing the spectral form of Christ from their world. But Communism collapsed, and the Church has returned with a vengeance. Church attendance is up in the United States. In India, Africa, and South America, they are making thousands of converts every day. Though given a run for it's money by Islam and to a lesser extant Buddhism - the Church is definitely not dying.

If we bet on the demise of Christ, if we set ourselves up as the Enemies of the Church, if we make it an issue of Us and Them - we are going to lose. The Church is strong, it has emotional investments in the lives of the people, and it doesn't play fair.

We are a challenge to the Christian idealogy - but we mustn't make ourselves out to be such. Instead, we must argue for pluralism - a free-market world in which all faiths have their place, and are able to compete. If we play the radical, and demand people renounce the heritage they were raised in, the family customs and social rituals, if we appear too different and alien, we will never succeed. We must make peace with Christ - recognize him as one God among many.[Perun: this is actually what the historical pagans often did, they were not rabid anti-Christians] See, polytheism can do that. It can embrace foreign Gods and different cults, it can even include monotheism. But monotheism can never do that, because it is the weaker of the two idealogies. Placed side by side, this becomes evident. But if we make it an either/or issue, people don't see that - they only see what they will be losing. This is why the Church hates competition, and remakes us in the mold of Antichrists. But we mustn't accept that role. We have to be peaceful, we have to be friendly. Instead of saying, you are wrong, we should say, ah, that's a good way of looking at it. Here's another good way. And another. Now what do you think? If we attack them, they become stronger. If we make them compete in an open market, they whither and fail.

I think we must also make ourselves stronger, better able to compete in this open market. If we want people to buy our product, we must have something good to show them. So I would encourage Pagans to stop focusing so much on Christianity, and work on making ourselves better. We need to create rituals that are beautiful and moving. We need to compose works of great art. We need to develop our minds. Quality always wins through in the end.

Most importantly, we must become a nation of actual Pagans, and not just people on the fringe of Christianity. We must become indifferent to Jesus. We must drain his influence from our lives, stop letting his followers define how we'll live, what we'll be against. Those who try to invert the teachings of the Church - such as Satanists who rechristen the Christian vices as virtues, or the Feminist Wiccans who substitute a monotheistic Goddess for God, and banish everything "patriarchal" from their lives - are just as much slaves to the Church as the old Italian widow in black, praying the Rosary, because they are still playing by the Church's rules. We need to stop bristling every time we hear the name of Jesus. We need to be able to talk about Christianity without getting defensive or painting them in diabolical hues. When a well-meaning stranger wishes us a Merry Christmas, we should accept it in the spirit which it's offered, and not lecture them on being sensitive to people of other faiths.

If we are creating a true Pagan culture, with it's own beliefs, customs, rituals, agendas, and laws - it must be on our terms, not theirs. That means that many of these things will be different from Christianity, but we should not expect all of them to be. If something can only be Pagan because it is diametrically opposed to Christianity, than we are letting them define things. If we run screaming because something has the scent or shape of the Christian, then we miss out on much. No one has a monopoly on truth, and there is much that is good and wise about Christianity - we should not reject their ideas out of hand. Let's not ask, is this Pagan or Christian - but rather, is this sensible or foolish? Only when we make Christianity such a total non-issue are we free of it.

And lastly, if you would build a strong Paganism, free of persecution and fundamentalism, cultivate friendships with people from different faiths. Get to know them, let them know you. Put a face on it, so that instead of Pagan, they think James, instead of Christian, you think Jennifer. Fundamentalism flourishes because it is able to convince people that others are the Other, a faceless mass devoid of goodness and human dignity. I doubt that the people who committed the atrocious acts of 9.11 saw their victims as people. Certainly they didn't think of them as husbands and wives, sons and daughters, fathers and wives, siblings, friends, people with hopes and dreams and fears, facing the same adversities and hardships as themselves. Because if they had, I doubt that they could have done that. It's much harder to kill a man when he has a face. Which is why the ministers of evil strive so hard to paint people with that brush of anonymity - and why we must fight both to be seen as individuals, and to see others as individuals.

[Timo]

I really don't hate christians nor am I agianst their right to believe their little savior line. I think, however, there is just too many christians getting in people's faces, especially evangelicals. When some christian legislates their morality onto me, I would get uppity about it.

What does bother me is that Paganism itself is never discussed in these chats. Discussions about polytheism, ecology, ethics, or magic are rare. Instead, they'd rather whine about the Church. No one ever discusses the classic Pagan literature like Homer, the Eddas, the Mabinogian, or the Charge of the Goddess - instead they discuss the errancy of the Bible.

I wounder what chats these are. I have attended many a 'pagan' chat and few seldom do we even mention christianity, judaism or islam, etc. We mostly talk about the future of our own movements and how they tie into our ancestrial heritage.

the Church is definitely not dying.

Good for the "Church". Btw, which one? There are more divisions of christianity than I have gods/goddesses to worship. I think one doesn't need an institution in order to be spiritually fullfilled or be a "christian" - depends on which sect I guess. I don't care if it dies or not. There will always be christians, one way or the other. We need to accept that we believe differently from one another, learn from our differences and get along. The divison that religion has is miniscule compared to our real enemies of non-european immigrants (etc.).

We must make peace with Christ - recognize him as one God among many.

I disagree with this here. This makes it sound as if he wants us to recognize christ as real and the gospels also as real. That would make us christians. It is quite odd to add into this essay. I recognize christianity as one religion amoung many, but I don't believe in their diety(ies). I recognize only my own gods/goddesses, that is what makes me a germanic heathen. Otherwise if I recognized other's gods, I'd also be hellenistic, slavic, hindu, buddist, muslim and jewish, etc. It just doesn't make sense what he is trying to say here. Make peace with christians, yes, but not with Christ. There is not Christ. I don't believe in him, we heathens don't believe in him. Period.

[Spartadux]

What do you think about the statement of Evola about the neopagans in Germany, he was well binding with the Conservative Revolutionaries in Germany but not with NS properly

Against the Neo-Pagans

Extract from "Grundrisse" (1942) by Julius Evola



The Misunderstandings of the New "Paganism"



It is perhaps appropriate to point out the misunderstandings that are current at the moment in some radical circles, who believe that a solution lies in the direction of a new paganism. This misunderstanding is already visible in the use of terms such as "pagan" and "pagandom". I myself, having used these expressions as slogans in a book that was published in Italy in 1928, and in Germany in 1934, have cause for sincere regrets.

Certainly the word for pagan or heathen, paganus, appears in some ancient Latin writers such as Livy without an especially negative tone. But this does not alter the fact that with the arrival of the new faith, the word paganus became a decidedly disparaging expression, as used in early Christian apologetics. It derives from pagus, meaning a small town or village, so that paganus refers to the peasant way of thinking: an uncultured, primitive, and superstitious way. In order to promote and glorify the new faith, the apologists had the bad habit of elevating themselves through the denigration of other faiths. There was often a conscious and often systematic disparagement and misrepresentation of almost all the earlier traditions, doctrines, and religions, which were grouped under the contemptuous blanket-term of paganism or heathendom. To this end, the apologists obviously made a premeditated effort to highlight those aspects of the pre-Christian religions and traditions that lacked any normal or primordial character, but were clearly forms that had fallen into decay. Such a polemical procedure lead, in particular, to the characterization of whatever had preceded Christendom, and was hence non-Christian, as necessarily anti-Christian.

One should consider, then, that "paganism" is a fundamentally tendentious and artificial concept that scarcely corresponds to the historical reality of what the pre-Christian world always was in its normal manifestations, apart from a few decadent elements and aspects that derived from the degenerate remains of older cultures.

Once we are clear about this, we come today to a paradoxical realization: that this imaginary paganism that never existed, but was invented by Christian apologists, is now serving as the starting-point for certain so-called pagan circles, and is thus threatening for the first time in history to become a reality--no more and no less than that.

What are the main traits of today's pagan outlook, as its own apologists believe and declare them to be? The primary one is the imprisonment in Nature. All transcendence is totally unknown to the pagan view of life: it remains stuck in a mixture of Spirit and Nature, in an ambiguous unity of Body and Soul. There is nothing to its religion but a superstitious deification of natural phenomena, or of tribal energies promoted to the status of minor gods. Out of this there arises first of all a blood- and soil-bound particularism. Next comes a rejection of the values of personality and freedom, and a condition of innocence that is merely that of the natural man, as yet unawakened to any truly supra-natural calling. Beyond this innocence there is only lack of inhibition, "sin," and the pleasure of sinning. In other domains there is nothing but superstition, or a purely profane culture of materialism and fatalism. It is as though only the arrival of Christianity (ignoring certain precursors which are dismissed as insignificant) allowed the world of supra-natural freedom to break through, letting in grace and personality, in contrast to the fatalistic and nature-bound beliefs ascribed to "paganism," bringing with it a catholic ideal (in the etymological sense of universality) and a healthy dualism, which made it possible to subjugate Nature to a higher law, and for the "Spirit" to triumph over the law of flesh, blood, and the false gods.

These are the main traits of the dominant understanding of paganism, i.e., of everything that does not entail a specifically Christian world-view. Anyone who possesses any direct acquaintance with cultural and religious history, however elementary, can see how incorrect and one-sided this attitude is. Besides, in the early Church Fathers there are often signs of a higher understanding of the symbols, doctrines, and religions of preceding cultures. Here we will give only a sampling.

What most distinguished the pre-Christian world, in all its normal forms, was not the superstitious divinization of nature, but a symbolic understanding of it, by virtue of which (as I have often emphasized) every phenomenon and every event appeared as the sensible revelation of a supra-sensible world. The pagan understanding of the world and of man was essentially marked by sacred symbolism.

Moreover, the pagan way of life was absolutely not that of a mindless innocence, nor a natural abandonment to the passions, even if certain forms of it were obviously degenerate. It was already aware of a healthy dualism, which is reflected in its universal religious or metaphysical conceptions. Here we can mention the dualistic warrior-religion of the ancient Iranian Aryans, already discussed and familiar to all; the Hellenistic antithesis between the "two natures," between World and Underworld, or the Nordic one between the race of the Ases and the elementary beings; and lastly the Indo-Aryan contrast between sams'ra, the "stream of forms," and m(o)kthi, "liberation" and "perfection."

On this basis, all the great pre-Christian cultures shared the striving for a supra-natural freedom, i.e., for the metaphysical perfection of the personality, and they all acknowledged Mysteries and initiations. I have already pointed out that the Mysteries often signified the reconquest of the primordial state, the spirituality of the solar, Hyperborean races, on the foundation of a tradition and a knowledge that were concealed through secrecy and exclusivity from the pollutions of an environment already in decay. We have also seen that in the Eastern lands, the Aryan quality was already associated with a "second birth" achieved through initiation. As for natural innocence as the pagan cult of the body, that is a fairy-tale and not even in evidence among savages, for despite the inner lack of differentiation already mentioned in connection with races "close to nature," these people inhibit and constrict their lives though countless taboos in a way that is often stricter than the morality of the so-called "positive religions." And as for that which seems to the superficial view to embody the prototype of such "innocence," namely the classical ideal, that was no cult of the body: it did not belong on that side of the body-spirit duality, but on the other side. As alreay stated, the classic ideal is that of a Spirit that is so dominant that under certain favorable spiritual conditions it molds Body and Soul to its own image, and thereby achieves a perfect harmony between the inner and the outer.

Lastly, there is an aspiration away from particularism to be found everywhere in the "pagan" world, to which was due the imperial summons that marked the ascending phase of the Nordic-derived races. Such a summons was often metaphysically enhanced and refined, and appeared as the natural consequence of the expansion of the ancient sacred state-concept; also as the form in which the victorious presence of the "higher world" and the paternal, Olympian principle sought to manifest itself in the world of becoming. In this respect we might recall the old Iranian concept of Empire and of the "King of kings," with its associated doctrine of the hvarenÙ (the "celestial glory" with which the Aryan rulers were endowed), and the Indo-Aryan tradition of the "World-king" or cakravartÓ, etc., right up to the reappearance of these signifiers in the "Olympian" assumptions of the ancient Roman idea of State and Empire. The Roman Empire, too, had its sacred contents, which were systematically misunderstood or undervalued not only by Christendom, but also by the writers of "positive" history. Even the Emperor-cult had the sense of a hierarchical unity at the top of a pantheon, which was a series of separate territorial and ancestral cults belonging to the non-Roman peoples, which were freely respected so long as they kept within their normal boundaries. Finally, concerning the "pagan" unity of the two powers, spiritual and temporal, this was very far from meaning that they were fused As a "solar" race understood it, it expressed the superior rights that must accrue to the spiritual authority at the center of any normal state; thus it was something quite different from the emancipation and "supremacy" of a merely secular state. If we were to make similar amendments in the spirit of true objectivity, the possibilities would be overwhelming.

Further Misunderstandings Concerning the "Pagan" World-View



This having been said, there remains the real possibility of transcending certain aspects of Christianity. But one must be quite clear: the Latin term "transcendere" means literally leaving something behind as one rises upwards, and not downwards! It is worth repeating that the principal thing is not the rejection of Christianity: it is not a matter of showing the same incomprehension towards it as Christianity itself has shown, and largely continues to show, towards ancient paganism. It would rather be a matter of completing Christianity by means of a higher and an older heritage, eliminating some of its aspects and emphasizing other, more important ones, in which this faith does not necessarily contradict the universal concepts of pre-Christian spirituality.

This, alas, is not the path taken by the radical circles we have mentioned. Many of these neo-pagans seem to have fallen into a trap deliberately set for them, often ending up by advocating and defending ideas that more or less correspond to that invented, nature-bound, particularistic pagandom, lacking light and transcendence, which was the polemical creation of a Christian misunderstanding of the pre-Christian world, and which is based, at most, on a few scattered elements of that world in its decline and devolution. And as if this were not enough, people often resort to an anti-Catholic polemic which, whatever its political justification, often drags out and adapts the old clichÈs of a purely modern, rationalist and enlightenment type that have been well-used by Liberalism, Democracy, and Freemasonry. This was also the case, to a degree, with H. S. Chamberlain, and it appears again in a certain Italian movement that has been trying to connect racial thinking with the "idealistic" doctrine of immanence.

There is a general and unmistakable tendency in neo-paganism to create a new, superstitious mysticism, based on the glorification of immanence, of Life and Nature, which is in the sharpest contrast to that Olympian and heroic ideal of the great Aryan cultures of pre-Christian antiquity. It would indicate much more a turning towards the materialistic, maternal, and telluric side, if it did not exhaust itself in foggy and dilettantish philosophizing. To give an example, we might ask what exactly is meant by this "Nature," on which these groups are so keen? It is little use to point out that it is certainly not the Nature that was experienced and recognized by ancient, traditional man, but a rational construct of the French Encyclopedist period. It was the Encyclopedists who, with definitely subversive and revolutionary motives, made up the myth of Nature as "good," wise, and wholesome, in opposition to the rottenness of every human "Culture." Thus we can see that the optimistic nature-myth of Rousseau and the Encyclopedists marches in the same ranks as "natural right," universalism, liberalism, humanitarianism, and the denial of any positive and structured form of sovereignty. Moreover, the myth in question has absolutely no basis in natural history. Every honest scientist knows that there is no room for "Nature" in the framework of his theories, which have as their object the determination of purely abstract equivalences and mathematical relationships. As far as biological research and genetics are concerned, we can already see the disequilibrium that would occur the moment one held certain laws to be final, when they only apply to a partial aspect of reality. What people call "Nature" today has nothing to do with what nature meant to the traditional, solar man, or to the knowledge of it that was accessible to such a man thanks to his Olympian and regal position. There is no sign of this whatever in the advocates of this new mysticism.

Misunderstandings of more or less the same kind. arise regarding political thought. Paganism is here often used as the synonym for a merely worldly and yet exclusive concept of sovereignty, which turns the relationships upside-down. We have already seen that in the ancient states, the unity of the two powers meant something quite different. It provided the basis for the spiritualization of politics, whereas neo-paganism results in actually politicizing the spiritual, and thereby treading once again the false path of the Gallicans and Jacobins. In contrast, the ancient concept of State and Empire always showed a connection to the Olympian idea.

What shall we think of the attitude that regards Jewry, Rome, the Catholic Church, Freemasonry, and Communism as more or less one and the same thing, just because their presuppositions differ from the plain thinking of the Folk? The Folk's thinking along these lines threatens to lose itself in the dark, where no differentiation is possible any more. It shows that it has lost the genuine feeling for the hierarchy of values, and that it cannot escape the crippling alternative of destructive internationalism and nationalistic particularism, whereas the traditional understanding of the Empire is superior to both these concepts.

To restrict ourselves to a single example: Catholic dogmatism actually fulfils a useful preventive role by stopping worldly mysticism and suchlike eruptions from below from passing a certain frontier; it makes a strong dam that protects the area where transcendent knowledge and the genuinely supra-natural and non-human elements reign--or at least where they should reign. One may well criticize the way in which such transcendence and knowledge have been understood in Christianity, but one cannot cross over to a "profane" criticism that seizes on some polemical weapon or other, fantasizes over the supposed Aryan nature of the immanence-doctrine, of "natural religion," the cult of "life," etc., without really losing one's level: in short, one does not thereby attain the world of primordial beginnings, but that of the Counter-Tradition or the telluric and primitive modes of being. This would in fact be the very best way of re-converting those people with the best "pagan" talents to Catholicism!

One must be wary of falling into the misunderstandings and errors that we have mentioned, which basically serve only to defend the common enemy. One must try to develop the capacity to place oneself at that level where didactic confusion cannot reach, and where all dilettantism and arbitrary intellectual activity are excluded; where one resists energetically every influence from confused, passionate desires and from the aggressive pleasure in polemics; where, finally and fundamentally, nothing counts but the precise, strict, objective knowledge of the spirit of the Primordial Tradition.

http://eisernekrone.tk

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Timo

I really don't hate christians nor am I agianst their right to believe their little savior line. I think, however, there is just too many christians getting in people's faces, especially evangelicals. When some christian legislates their morality onto me, I would get uppity about it.

Well, I can see your point about some Evangelicals, yes

I wounder what chats these are. I have attended many a 'pagan' chat and few seldom do we even mention christianity, judaism or islam, etc. We mostly talk about the future of our own movements and how they tie into our ancestrial heritage.

I wish I had been so fortunate. I'm afraid my experiences have been more along the lines of the pagan who wrote the original post.

There will always be christians, one way or the other. We need to accept that we believe differently from one another, learn from our differences and get along.

Exactly

I disagree with this here. This makes it sound as if he wants us to recognize christ as real and the gospels also as real. That would make us christians.

Techincally, no.
To be Christian you would have to reject the rest of them. If you incorporate Christ into a pantheistic pantheon then you haven't become Christian. You've just developed a new heresy or a new pantheon,, depending on how you look at it.

It is quite odd to add into this essay. I recognize christianity as one religion amoung many, but I don't believe in their diety(ies). I recognize only my own gods/goddesses, that is what makes me a germanic heathen.

That's interesting. you actually believe in their literal existence?
If so then you are the first one I've met. It seems all the others I've met ultimately are athiest but use the imagery and names of old pagan gods to embody certain abstract concepts and attempt to make them feel more "at one" with their heritage somehow. Does it go further for you into the realms of real paganism?

Otherwise if I recognized other's gods, I'd also be hellenistic, slavic, hindu, buddist, muslim and jewish, etc. It just doesn't make sense what he is trying to say here. Make peace with christians, yes, but not with Christ. There is not Christ. I don't believe in him, we heathens don't believe in him. Period.

If you cannot make peace with Christ then I suppose that's fair enough.
You are what you are I guess, the same is true of everyone.
I suppose you cannot make yourself anymore than I could force myself to believe in the old pagan deities.
But it is important to at least respect the beliefs of others.

[Awar]

Which all speaks in favour of my theory that modern "pagans" are
mostly post-traumatic Christians with a bone to pick.

It however doesn't speak about the religion, just the people and the personalities.
Which are by now much more effects of the modern consumerist society than any religion.

Perhaps, if we discussed about this 100 years ago, there would be some point to blame a religion on someone's behaviour, but, today, it's pointless.

I really don't understand how you confuse so many things.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Awar

Which all speaks in favour of my theory that modern "pagans" are
mostly post-traumatic Christians with a bone to pick.

Well to be honest I don't know if many of them were ever really Christian other than in name. I would guess most have always been basically athiest, and that in modern paganism they find a sense of spirituality that they believe is more relevant to them

It however doesn't speak about the religion, just the people and the personalities.
Which are by now much more effects of the modern consumerist society than any religion.

Agreed

Perhaps, if we discussed about this 100 years ago, there would be some point to blame a religion on someone's behaviour, but, today, it's pointless.

Agreed.

I really don't understand how you confuse so many things.

Who? Me?

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Well to be honest I don't know if many of them were ever really Christian other than in name. I would guess most have always been basically athiest, and that in modern paganism they find a sense of spirituality that they believe is more relevant to them

I don't believe that humans can be truly atheist. It's simply hardwired into us to believe into something. I don't think GOD installed that into us,
it's more likely a product of evolution, following the leader etc.

The neo-paganism is just a product of Christianity. A sort of expression of the pent-up rage which is the product of the constant clashing Christian-based society has with nature.

I'm talking about Christianity, because this is an European forum,
and we live in a mostly Chr or ex-Chr populated society.
It could be applied to any religion which considers itself as carved in stone.

Life always builds itself around rigid things.

Who? Me?

No. Actually you posted while I was typing.

[Zyklop]

Originally Posted by Awar

I don't believe that humans can be truly atheist. It's simply hardwired into us to believe into something.

Who says Atheists don´t believe in something?

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Awar

I don't believe that humans can be truly atheist. It's simply hardwired into us to believe into something. I don't think GOD installed that into us,
it's more likely a product of evolution, following the leader etc.

To be fair though, my father and all his family are completely athiest. They have never expressed a belief in some higher being(s) as far as I know.
For them there is only science and a belief that science can and will provide all the answers some day. Possibly you could class this belief as Scientism and a religion itself though. In which case, you are probably right

The neo-paganism is just a product of Christianity. A sort of expression of the pent-up rage

Yeah, it does often seem that way

which is the product of the constant clashing Christian-based society has with nature.

Clashing with nature?
I'm not sure what that refers to. I don't see it clashing with nature anywhere as much as modern society

I'm talking about Christianity, because this is an European forum,
and we live in a mostly Chr or ex-Chr populated society.
It could be applied to any religion which considers itself as carved in stone.

Hey, don't be one of those "everything has to change with the times" guys, you evil liberal

Life always builds itself around rigid things.

Humans cling to things which provide stability in a changing world, I guess.
It may be one of the primary drives, to find stability and build on it.
All civilisation is ultimately a force of stability against the flux of everyday life.

No. Actually you posted while I was typing.

Good, I'm confused no longer

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Zyklop

Who says Atheists don´t believe in something?

That's what I said... atheists do believe in something.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

To be fair though, my father and all his family are completely athiest. They have never expressed a belief in some higher being(s) as far as I know.
For them there is only science and a belief that science can and will provide all the answers some day. Possibly you could class this belief as Scientism and a religion itself though. In which case, you are probably right

Yep. That's what I think.

Clashing with nature?
I'm not sure what that refers to. I don't see it clashing with nature anywhere as much as modern society

Yep, but it does, and modern society is largely influenced by
Christianity. Not in the sense of being influenced by scriptures,
but being influenced by it's existence. Cause and effect.

Hey, don't be one of those "everything has to change with the times" guys, you evil liberal

Humans cling to things which provide stability in a changing world, I guess.
It may be one of the primary drives, to find stability and build on it.
All civilisation is ultimately a force of stability against the flux of everyday life.

But, everything does change. Humans do cling to constants, but it's also in human nature to change things, to evolve ( in all directions ).

I think Ancient Greek religion had wonderful explanations about the nature of chaos, order, and their existence in the same person.