Are the Gods Merely Archetypes?

The question of the nature of the Gods is something which has given me much food for thought over recent years. Following a  conversation from last year with someone who was brand new to heathenism I wish to set forth my thoughts regarding this issue so that people who read this may understand the position which I take on this issue.

I believe that our Gods may be understood on a number of different levels. I accept the theory that they may be viewed as archetypes in a Jungian sense. Many modern heathens and I stress the word modern, are influenced greatly by Jung's work on archetypes, especially his essay Wotan (1936). Whilst I believe that Jung's contribution to the subject is useful and has a great deal of merit I do not accept that this is all that the Gods are. Jung in his essay described the Gods as sleeping or dormant archetypes which he pictured as "river-beds which dry up when the water deserts them". However because the water has flowed so long, for many centuries it has created deep channels. These channels still exist despite the centuries of Christianisation. However he predicted that "sooner or later the water will return to its old bed."

Of course the Germanic peoples were heathen for much longer than they were held under the grip of Christianity which by comparison is just (an unfortunate) blip in time. The people are thus able still to find their ancient deities with not too much trouble for in a sense they are part of our very nature and the fabric of our being. Jung believed that given the right circumstances they could manifest themselves within the collective life of a people. In his assessment of the phenomenon of the rise of National Socialism in Germany I believe that his analysis in this regard is correct. However it is sheer folly on our part to believe that this all that the Gods are. Jung was a scientist and the founder of Analytical Psychology but he was not a follower of the Ancient Ones. We should thus not feel ourselves to be constrained by his interpretation as it is the interpretation of a scientist but I feel that many heathens have been.

 In fact Jung took a rather scathing view of people who believed that the Gods had an existence independent of the people who honoured and believed in them: "A mind that is still childish thinks of the gods as metaphysical entities existing in their own right, or else regards them as playful or superstitious inventions." This is a typical materialist and almost atheist perspective. Jung, the scientist would seem to know better the nature of our Gods than our ancestors. Jung, like everyone was a product of his time and sought to explain the 'irrational' in rational terms and this simply does not work. Thus whilst I value Jung's contribution it is a grave mistake for us to regard his interpretation as the only valid one. Our ancestors certainly did see the Gods as existing "in their own right" and gave due reverence to them (See Tacitus's Germania). If all the Gods are are archetypes then why give them reverence or even honour? Are we not deceiving ourselves? For if they are only archetypes then all we do is give honour to a part of ourselves. I fail to see why our ancestors would think this way. The Gods as archetypes is a 20th and 21st century rationalisation of the divine and for some strange reason it is only the heathen deities that are rationalised in this way, not the Abrahamic one!

Edred Thorsson discusses the nature of the Gods in chapter 11 of his very interesting A Book of Troth. Edred poses the question: "What are the gods and goddesses?" He goes on to explain that the answer to this question depends upon the individual and their level of understanding and thus "there can be many answers". He points out that the Gods just like humans are "not one-dimensional" and cannot be "pigeonholed." The possibilities that he gives for their existence include:

1. Mental or psychological constructs.
2. True living beings.
3. Forces of nature.

He points out that the Gods may be viewed in many different ways. In my opinion Edred's presentation of the Gods is far more honest than that of Jung's. There is no reason at all why the Gods cannot be viewed in more than one way. They are complex and as Edred has said "are not one-dimensional easily defined, pigeonholed entities". Yet there are some who are dogmatic and will insist that the archetype explanation is the only valid one. To know the Gods takes a lifetime and I have spent most of my life on this sacred quest and I am still searching for answers.

Stephen A. McNallen in his Asatru. A Native European Spirituality appears to take the view that although the Gods "exist on the very margins of our comprehension" they are nevertheless very real and very powerful. Modern man in his conceit believes that he is the pinnacle of all that is, that there can be no higher power. If you are a heathen and only believe the Gods to be manifestations of psychic impulses within the Collective Unconscious then how do you differ from a pure atheist? Is your understanding of the Gods thus superior to that of our ancestors who were not influenced by Christianity or materialist science? If we believe that there are forces and powers, sentient beings that exist in different dimensions or on a higher vibrational frequency then why is it so difficult to accept the concept that we are the product of a divine agency, not 'evolution', a purely materialistic and faulty concept, for modern man as he is today is not the product of 'evolution' but involution!