I'm majoring in Anthropology and minoring in Religious Studies, so you can see why it interests me to uncover why people believe what they do. Wicca and paganism, I think, occupy a somewhat special realm in regards to this question, being largely free from the phenomenon of children growing up unquestioningly with their parents' beliefs; most people seem to find paganism independently.
Furthermore, as far as I can tell, paganism has so far grown apart from the philosophical tradition of the major world religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc). I have never come across a true scholarly attempt to approach paganism from the angle of theological philosophy (some may well exist, but they are not, at least in my experience, an accepted feature of the religious landscape to anywhere near the same extent they are in, for instance, Christianity).
As I mentioned before, paganism, due to its relatively non-mainstream nature, is not characterized by (what I see as) cop-out reasoning ("I believe this because my parents did"). On the other side of the coin, however, the widespread ignorance about the true nature of paganism means that the majority of criticisms leveled at the faith are totally off-base to the point where they're hardly worth debating- you know, "lolololol, you worship Satan!11" type thing. In the hubbub over these ridiculous criticisms, true critiques are lost. Paganism in general has not been dealt many of the tough questions the more established religions such as Christianity have been trying to answer for centuries, despite the fact that many of these debates are equally relevant here.
While I realize that paganism and Wicca do not have the (dis?)advantage of a body of firmly established canon from which to draw their truths, I would still be very interested to hear any of your individual responses to the questions I'm about to pose.
Basically, I'd like to know why you believe what you believe. I mean, if you believe in karma, an afterlife, natural forces which allow magic to work, gods, and so on, why? Do you have evidence of these things in your life?
Furthermore, a refrain I've commonly heard in pagan circles goes something like this: "Let's not argue. I'll accept your religion and you accept mine. Nobody's right; nobody's wrong." While I, too, see aspects of beauty in every religion I've studied so far, I completely disagree that everybody can be correct at once. I think it's nice to, for once, see a religion which errs on the side of tolerance, but I don't buy it that everybody can simultaneously be correct when the statements they're making oppose each other quite specifically. For those of you who agree with the quote at the beginning of this paragraph, why?
On a related note, for those of you who consider yourselves "pagan Christians" or "Wiccan Jews" or any other such combination, how do you reconcile the two sides of your belief?
That's it for now, I think. I'll definitely have more to add (follow-up questions and such) if I get any responses. Thanks in advance!
Love,
Sierra
Why do you believe what you believe?
Sierra, if you haven't, I'd suggest the following books to read:
When, Why...If by Robin Wood.
This is a workbook for Wiccan ethics and morals, probably the only one in existence. If not, then it's the best. If you were wondering about *hard* questions, this is where you go. She's a great thinker and I think it's a shame that she's not on every pagan's library shelf... even if one is not Wiccan it's a very enlightening read.
The Triumph of the Moon, by Ronald Hutton
While it advertises itself as a history of Modern Paganism, there's criticism here, too. Interesting stuff. He also criticises our general movement in The Religions of the Ancient Brittish Isles. It's hidden in there with the archeology, but he gets his kicks in.
For more criticism, also see:
Witch Hunts:Out of the Broom Closet by Kerr Cuhulain. He also does a lot of it on-line as well, particularly in "Wiccan Warrior". So much commentary comes for free with other benefits!
Also, A J Drew's posts on the Pagan Nation website does an extensive amount of criticism on the subject of ethics and morals in the pagan community if you aren't familiar with him.
Another good read for those looking for people asking difficult questions is Isaac Bonewitz. His website should give you an idea where he's coming from, and his Real Magic is a classic. So many traditions cite this work whether they admit it or not. Authentic Thaumaturgy, while technically a game supliment for GURPS role playing system, also reveals a great deal about the extensive thought that Issac has put into the subject.
If someone hasn't already pointed you to witchvox.com, then well, here it is. There's a lot of thought-provoking stuff here.
I don't think we've gotten to the point of asking ourselves things like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" because we are largely stealing our philosophy wholesale from other belief systems, namely the New Age movement, Blavatski and some Eastern Philosophies like Yoga.
Lesser known groups, like ADF and related reconstructionist traditions, spend a LOT more time on that (or none at all... ADF is an orthopraxy!) , and it is frequently decided in the subconscious of the group through the agency of culture or by the direction or personality of the leader. The other way is consensus, used by groups like Circle Sanctuary and Reclaiming.
Second there's a stronger tradition (if you can call slightly less than 50 years that) of personal gnosis in the pagan community than there has been in the Big Three since, oh, say the Early Christians? And since we regrettably don't have access to their weblogs, comparisons would be interesting but possibly not representative of all the groups around at the time. OTOH, I'm not a scholar in that area so I don't really know off hand what is available in depth. I was trying to be erudite and funny.
For myself, I base my practices on my experiences as a spiritual person, and previous experiments with other groups and the like. I think a lot of people really fit into this category and we tend to associate with groups to find people we work well with but don't really %100 agree with, if that makes any sense.
Besides we have a largely dissociative culture... so many of us would whittle any theologists to despair in terms of categorization. We believe startlingly different things (even within the same group) and sort of huddle together for warmth.
This is an intro to the pagan community as I know it, and frankly what I've got is 15 years worth of the tip of the iceberg. Good luck!
When, Why...If by Robin Wood.
This is a workbook for Wiccan ethics and morals, probably the only one in existence. If not, then it's the best. If you were wondering about *hard* questions, this is where you go. She's a great thinker and I think it's a shame that she's not on every pagan's library shelf... even if one is not Wiccan it's a very enlightening read.
The Triumph of the Moon, by Ronald Hutton
While it advertises itself as a history of Modern Paganism, there's criticism here, too. Interesting stuff. He also criticises our general movement in The Religions of the Ancient Brittish Isles. It's hidden in there with the archeology, but he gets his kicks in.
For more criticism, also see:
Witch Hunts:Out of the Broom Closet by Kerr Cuhulain. He also does a lot of it on-line as well, particularly in "Wiccan Warrior". So much commentary comes for free with other benefits!
Also, A J Drew's posts on the Pagan Nation website does an extensive amount of criticism on the subject of ethics and morals in the pagan community if you aren't familiar with him.
Another good read for those looking for people asking difficult questions is Isaac Bonewitz. His website should give you an idea where he's coming from, and his Real Magic is a classic. So many traditions cite this work whether they admit it or not. Authentic Thaumaturgy, while technically a game supliment for GURPS role playing system, also reveals a great deal about the extensive thought that Issac has put into the subject.
If someone hasn't already pointed you to witchvox.com, then well, here it is. There's a lot of thought-provoking stuff here.
I don't think we've gotten to the point of asking ourselves things like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" because we are largely stealing our philosophy wholesale from other belief systems, namely the New Age movement, Blavatski and some Eastern Philosophies like Yoga.
Lesser known groups, like ADF and related reconstructionist traditions, spend a LOT more time on that (or none at all... ADF is an orthopraxy!) , and it is frequently decided in the subconscious of the group through the agency of culture or by the direction or personality of the leader. The other way is consensus, used by groups like Circle Sanctuary and Reclaiming.
Second there's a stronger tradition (if you can call slightly less than 50 years that) of personal gnosis in the pagan community than there has been in the Big Three since, oh, say the Early Christians? And since we regrettably don't have access to their weblogs, comparisons would be interesting but possibly not representative of all the groups around at the time. OTOH, I'm not a scholar in that area so I don't really know off hand what is available in depth. I was trying to be erudite and funny.
For myself, I base my practices on my experiences as a spiritual person, and previous experiments with other groups and the like. I think a lot of people really fit into this category and we tend to associate with groups to find people we work well with but don't really %100 agree with, if that makes any sense.
Besides we have a largely dissociative culture... so many of us would whittle any theologists to despair in terms of categorization. We believe startlingly different things (even within the same group) and sort of huddle together for warmth.
This is an intro to the pagan community as I know it, and frankly what I've got is 15 years worth of the tip of the iceberg. Good luck!
I agree, I think it all boils down to the fact we we need each other. I startedjcrowfoot wrote:For myself, I base my practices on my experiences as a spiritual person, and previous experiments with other groups and the like. I think a lot of people really fit into this category and we tend to associate with groups to find people we work well with but don't really %100 agree with, if that makes any sense.
Besides we have a largely dissociative culture... so many of us would whittle any theologists to despair in terms of categorization. We believe startlingly different things (even within the same group) and sort of huddle together for warmth.
writing a whole mess of stuff in response to these questions, then decided I
couldn't really answer any of them
-
Spionen
Thanks for the recommendations, jcrowfoot. I checked out the links you provided and they do seem quite interesting. I gather from the reviews, though, that the first book is pretty intensely focused on ethics and much of the criticism in the latter two is aimed at misrepresentations of pagan history. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.jcrowfoot wrote:Sierra, if you haven't, I'd suggest the following books to read:
I think that religious ethics is generally one of the less thorny areas of philosophy. Paganism, as far as my research has taken me, appears to be tremendously concerned with morality (rightly so!), and while this is clearly a fascinating area of study, I'm more interested in the apparently unplumbed depths of more metaphysical philosophy.Also, A J Drew's posts on the Pagan Nation website does an extensive amount of criticism on the subject of ethics and morals in the pagan community if you aren't familiar with him.
Ahhh, now THIS is interesting. Perusing Neopagan.net, I came across this page entitled Neopagan Polytheology 101, which I found pretty useful. While Mr. Bonewits echoes your point about the lack of doctrinal unification with paganism, he asserts that certain commonalities of belief exist among the pagan community to the point where generalities are made possible, going on to list twenty-one (what he views as) overwhelmingly common majority views. A good number of them, such as "cautious technophilia," "positive ethics," "the good life," and so on, don't really concern me here. However, there's also quite a lot to work with in the realm of philosophy.Another good read for those looking for people asking difficult questions is Isaac Bonewitz.
Under the heading "polytheism and pluralism," for instance, he states that nearly all pagans believe in multiple deities due to the "astonishing complexity and ambiguity of life." Why would the complexity of the universe necessarily suggest the existence of multiple gods? Furthermore, what are the natures of these gods? Are creation myths within certain pantheons interpreted literally, and if not, what is their purpose? Supposing any other method of creation than by unmoved mover deities, would that not imply that the gods are not eternal? How, then, did they come into being?
Under a different category, he says that "Neopagans do not believe in, respect, or worship any divine or semidivine figure of ultimate Evil." Now, as far as I know, there is no tradition of belief among neopagans in any god's omnibenevolence (and if there were, this would open up entirely new fields of debate, particularly focusing on the problem of evil, which would be made even trickier in the absence of any semi-godlike personification of evil). How, then, is evil accounted for? The gods of the old pantheons, after all, are certainly not perfect- at times they lie, they cheat, they steal, they murder, they are unfair and jealous. Surely, in the absence of moral perfection, the concept of "deity" is somewhat tarnished? How do pagans come to terms with this?
A further point, entitled "nature worship," brings up more issues. Are the gods concerned with the entire incomprehensible vastness of the universe, or just our little blue planet third from our one tiny sun? Why us?
There's lots more to tackle here, but I'll just bring up one more thing before moving on. Under "born again paganism," it says the following: "Most Neopagans believe in some sort of afterlife, usually involving rest and recovery in an Otherworld before reincarnating." What is the ultimate purpose of this reincarnation? Is there an aim to reach enlightenment, as in Buddhism? Does the reincarnated form hinge upon one's virtue in previous lives? Is there any kind of cosmic retribution on a greater scale than karma? How do ghosts fit into this schema?
Ahhh, Witchvox. I've been visiting that site on and off for about six years now, and I've always found it incredibly useful. I'll admit that while I examined each of the other links you provided at some length, I haven't gone back to Witchvox yet, being somewhat familiar with its contents already. I'll check back there probably later tonight; I'm sure they're hosting something of use. They typically are!If someone hasn't already pointed you to witchvox.com, then well, here it is.
You mention that there is a stronger focus on orthopraxy than on orthodoxy in many pagan groups (or in paganism in general?). This is an excellent point, and possibly a worrying one. Orthodoxy without orthopraxy seems little more than an intellectual exercise, but orthopraxy without orthodoxy seems... well... I don't know how to put this... somewhat pointless perhaps? I don't mean to suggest that simply because paganism is without a body of established canon, it is in any way lesser than more dogma-centric religions. However, I do think that the lack of centralized doctrine often does, in practice, detract from the metaphysical and the transcendent in favor of the practical. Maybe this is just the Religious Studies student in me talking, but I think that philosophy is an absolutely vital part of any religion, and I honestly don't know what to make of the fact that many of its concerns really haven't been satisfactorily addressed within the realm of paganism.Lesser known groups, like ADF and related reconstructionist traditions, spend a LOT more time on that (or none at all... ADF is an orthopraxy!) , and it is frequently decided in the subconscious of the group through the agency of culture or by the direction or personality of the leader. The other way is consensus, used by groups like Circle Sanctuary and Reclaiming.
Gnosticism is still around, though it's more often the territory of psychological anthropologists than theologians, these days. You'll find much stronger gnostic leanings in much of Islam than in Christianity, too.Second there's a stronger tradition (if you can call slightly less than 50 years that) of personal gnosis in the pagan community than there has been in the Big Three since, oh, say the Early Christians?
Absolutely, and that's definitely one of the first things anyone new to paganism will discover. It's also something of a mystery to me; Christianity (among others) is lent some credibility by virtue of its unity (both within sects and throughout the faith as a whole), its body of established canon, its scriptures, and its long history. Neopaganism can lay claim to none of the above. In the absence of tradition, written religious texts, firmly held doctrine, and even a large community of like-minded believers, where is the impetus for belief? I absolutely don't mean to demean anybody's faith; I simply wish to understand how people arrive at paganism and from what sources do they find sufficient validation of their beliefs?Besides we have a largely dissociative culture... so many of us would whittle any theologists to despair in terms of categorization. We believe startlingly different things (even within the same group) and sort of huddle together for warmth.
Love,
Sierra
-
AkanaAnash
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:48 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: Beijing
Hey Spi'
I too, did much study in this area and share your fondness for peoples beliefs and what, and why and too what degree, and where...etc....
Considering your original post, I'd ask you to contemplate this;
The word "pagan" (with which I personally disagree, but I'll get to that later) can be considered many things.
Because it is a christian word (from the Latin 'Paganus" meaning "of the country") we can quite literally take the page right from the catholic encyclopedia which states;
"Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism.
"It is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i.e. those who live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained heathen after the cities had become Christian. Various forms of Paganism are described in special articles (e.g. Brahminism, Buddhism, Mithraism); the present article deals only with certain aspects of Paganism in general which will be helpful in studying its details and in judging its value. "
We can therefore say that a "pagan" is anyone who is not christian. That includes Buddhists, Hindus, practitioners of Shinto, Chinese Folk religions, (ie...Chinese pagans) , Wics, Asatru, Indigenous or Aboriginal practitioners. I also agree with their second presumption of including the other Abramic faiths as they also follow a single-male-sun-creator-deity and do not permit other interpretations of their faiths.
So, in thinking about your question, I'd have to retort that, it is not paganism which has "grown away" from religion, it is, in fact, the monotheists...teehhee...
As to the context, "Why do you believe" I guess I'd have to say, it is an inherent quality of Humanity itself. Faith is one of the things which separates us from animals.
I believe, because I can.
Just a thought.
Thet
I too, did much study in this area and share your fondness for peoples beliefs and what, and why and too what degree, and where...etc....
Considering your original post, I'd ask you to contemplate this;
The word "pagan" (with which I personally disagree, but I'll get to that later) can be considered many things.
Because it is a christian word (from the Latin 'Paganus" meaning "of the country") we can quite literally take the page right from the catholic encyclopedia which states;
"Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism.
"It is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i.e. those who live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained heathen after the cities had become Christian. Various forms of Paganism are described in special articles (e.g. Brahminism, Buddhism, Mithraism); the present article deals only with certain aspects of Paganism in general which will be helpful in studying its details and in judging its value. "
We can therefore say that a "pagan" is anyone who is not christian. That includes Buddhists, Hindus, practitioners of Shinto, Chinese Folk religions, (ie...Chinese pagans) , Wics, Asatru, Indigenous or Aboriginal practitioners. I also agree with their second presumption of including the other Abramic faiths as they also follow a single-male-sun-creator-deity and do not permit other interpretations of their faiths.
So, in thinking about your question, I'd have to retort that, it is not paganism which has "grown away" from religion, it is, in fact, the monotheists...teehhee...
As to the context, "Why do you believe" I guess I'd have to say, it is an inherent quality of Humanity itself. Faith is one of the things which separates us from animals.
I believe, because I can.
Just a thought.
Thet
"The Prince Of Darkness is a gentleman"
W. Shakespeare
W. Shakespeare
-
Spionen
Interesting thought, AkanaAnash. Why do you disagree with its modern usage? I don't think that was fully explained in your previous post.AkanaAnash wrote:The word "pagan" (with which I personally disagree, but I'll get to that later)
I think that's more or less an argument of semantics. The word has been used in so many different ways across the centuries that you could really make a case for many, many different "correct" usages in modern times.We can therefore say that a "pagan" is anyone who is not christian. That includes Buddhists, Hindus, practitioners of Shinto, Chinese Folk religions, (ie...Chinese pagans) , Wics, Asatru, Indigenous or Aboriginal practitioners. I also agree with their second presumption of including the other Abramic faiths as they also follow a single-male-sun-creator-deity and do not permit other interpretations of their faiths.
I think my wording there was a little misleading. I said that "as far as I can tell, paganism has so far grown apart from the philosophical tradition of the major world religions," meaning that it has, since the beginning, had its roots in a place very much sheltered from the need to consider itself in light of philosophical apologetics.So, in thinking about your question, I'd have to retort that, it is not paganism which has "grown away" from religion, it is, in fact, the monotheists...teehhee...
Again, maybe I was misleading... I was meaning to ask not "why do you believe anything at all?" but rather "why do you hold the specific beliefs you do and how have you come to terms with the problems of theological philosophy inherent in any faith?"As to the context, "Why do you believe" I guess I'd have to say, it is an inherent quality of Humanity itself. Faith is one of the things which separates us from animals... I believe, because I can.
Since you brought it up, though, I'll play Devil's Advocate on this one. I would argue that it is not faith which sets us apart from animals, but rather its opposite, reason. Now, I don't mean to suggest that faith is inherently intellectually disingenuous (I think the jury's still out on that one), but I do believe that when it is allowed to remain blind and unexamined, human potential is colossally unfulfilled. Philosophy serves as the bridge between logic and belief. Which brings us around to my original question: why do you believe what you do?
I have the utmost respect for belief, provided that it is rigorous.
Love,
Sierra
-
being-singular-plural
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:46 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Calgary, Canada
- Contact:
Greetings Sierra,
You are a bright one, aren't you!? I like some of your questions and responses and I'm sure your topic will generate more and more discussion since you are touching on crucially fundamental epsitemological questions. I am educated in philosophy with a focus on Continental philosophy as well as world literature, lingusitics and am now doing my PhD in Religious Studies. I think that we may have much in common academically. I don't want to step on AkanaAnash's toes by interupting your dialogue but I am interested to know why you "believe" that you can separate humans from animals? Can you really claim that animals don't have usages of reason and/or imagination? Go to the park and watch the squirrels and you'll see reason, imagination and play at work. This is an ancient assertion brought to the fore by Aristotle who really put humans over the top in his (arbitrary) division between humans and "mere brutes." But, contemporary zoology and linguistics demonstrate that many species from varying genus' (geni?
) have rather sophisticated language and complex behaviours that show that animals have really got a bad rep that is un-called for. If you wish to read some interesting philosophy about this try Derrida's "Of Spirit" where he takes on Heidegger's notion of animality and more importantly Giorgio Agamben's "The Open: Man and Animal"--this little book is packed with world changing ideas!
As for your appeals to human reason--re-call Kant who points out the limits of reason in that it fails its own tests: you cannot step outside of reason to test reason's (vi)ability--thus, reason amounts to little more than faith in reason--thus, it's come back full circle--it is still a matter of faith, at bottom. . .
Here's a penny I'll throw in this deep fountain: "Believe everything. . .and only discard what does not work or no longer works for you"--I like this since it impels one to approach any new information with openness and genuine understanding as opposed to those typical philosophical juggernauts who resist all new information as a knee-jerk response to respond critically. There is a new push in contemporary European philosophy to embrace the contingency involved in all life processes and to overcome the Enlightenment ideals of critique and suspended judgment: in short there is a new "school" of philosophy emerging engaged in the "critique of critique."
I look forward to more posts in this highly sophisticated topic.
Illuminating Repose,
bsp
You are a bright one, aren't you!? I like some of your questions and responses and I'm sure your topic will generate more and more discussion since you are touching on crucially fundamental epsitemological questions. I am educated in philosophy with a focus on Continental philosophy as well as world literature, lingusitics and am now doing my PhD in Religious Studies. I think that we may have much in common academically. I don't want to step on AkanaAnash's toes by interupting your dialogue but I am interested to know why you "believe" that you can separate humans from animals? Can you really claim that animals don't have usages of reason and/or imagination? Go to the park and watch the squirrels and you'll see reason, imagination and play at work. This is an ancient assertion brought to the fore by Aristotle who really put humans over the top in his (arbitrary) division between humans and "mere brutes." But, contemporary zoology and linguistics demonstrate that many species from varying genus' (geni?
) have rather sophisticated language and complex behaviours that show that animals have really got a bad rep that is un-called for. If you wish to read some interesting philosophy about this try Derrida's "Of Spirit" where he takes on Heidegger's notion of animality and more importantly Giorgio Agamben's "The Open: Man and Animal"--this little book is packed with world changing ideas! As for your appeals to human reason--re-call Kant who points out the limits of reason in that it fails its own tests: you cannot step outside of reason to test reason's (vi)ability--thus, reason amounts to little more than faith in reason--thus, it's come back full circle--it is still a matter of faith, at bottom. . .
Here's a penny I'll throw in this deep fountain: "Believe everything. . .and only discard what does not work or no longer works for you"--I like this since it impels one to approach any new information with openness and genuine understanding as opposed to those typical philosophical juggernauts who resist all new information as a knee-jerk response to respond critically. There is a new push in contemporary European philosophy to embrace the contingency involved in all life processes and to overcome the Enlightenment ideals of critique and suspended judgment: in short there is a new "school" of philosophy emerging engaged in the "critique of critique."
I look forward to more posts in this highly sophisticated topic.
Illuminating Repose,
bsp
-
AkanaAnash
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:48 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: Beijing
Hi Spi,
The thing is, because the word is Latin in origin and therefore Church perpetuated, ie..the only reason we use the word is because it is the term the roman church uses to describe us...I feel the word itself is derogatory..unfortunately, I have had some difficulty convincing others that this is a problem.
Much like persons of African descent in the 60's and 70's began to legally change their names to those of African origin because of the context of the "slave name"
or the reason that the GLBT movement in general ceased using the Pink triangle as a means of demarcation; I feel that using the word is self-deprecating, I prefer the term Indigenist myself...allowing that even newer faiths such as Wicca are in fact attached to Indigenous belief systems in some way.
I believe there are 3 main criteria to describe Indigenism;
1. Goddess Worship
2. Ancestor worship
3. Nature worship
(because monotheism has all but erased these aspects from religious practice)
And that any belief system having 1 or more of these qualifies as what is now known as Pagan.
This being said, I still have to use the word in all contexts because otherwise no one will know what the hell I'm talking about.
"I think that's more or less an argument of semantics"
You're right, of course, but that's precisely what I'm talking about. The word nigger, for example was almost completely acceptable by both blacks and whites as late as the 1940's.
"as far as I can tell, paganism has so far grown apart from the philosophical tradition of the major world religions," meaning that it has, since the beginning, had its roots in a place very much sheltered from the need to consider itself in light of philosophical apologetics."
Yes, I can see what you're saying here as well, I was offering a perspective from the other end of that spectrum...as in, the only reason that pagans have to consider themselves within this construct is because monotheism has made it impossible to be heard otherwise...whereas, before, it was the "one-god'rs" that were crying for a bit of attention.
As for your question,
I believe because I had what can only be considered an extraordinary mystical experience...and in the duration
of this experience, I was taught (through divination...Praise the Ancestors!!!) what I should believe and what I shouldn't.
For purposes of modesty, I won't go into the details here, but
I'll simply say it was like waking up one morning and
finding out the world was completely different from when I went to sleep. Praise Isis!
I like that last quote "provided it's rigorous"...means you have no tolerance for fenceriders? hahaha...that's cool, I feel somewhat similarly.
Thet
The thing is, because the word is Latin in origin and therefore Church perpetuated, ie..the only reason we use the word is because it is the term the roman church uses to describe us...I feel the word itself is derogatory..unfortunately, I have had some difficulty convincing others that this is a problem.
Much like persons of African descent in the 60's and 70's began to legally change their names to those of African origin because of the context of the "slave name"
or the reason that the GLBT movement in general ceased using the Pink triangle as a means of demarcation; I feel that using the word is self-deprecating, I prefer the term Indigenist myself...allowing that even newer faiths such as Wicca are in fact attached to Indigenous belief systems in some way.
I believe there are 3 main criteria to describe Indigenism;
1. Goddess Worship
2. Ancestor worship
3. Nature worship
(because monotheism has all but erased these aspects from religious practice)
And that any belief system having 1 or more of these qualifies as what is now known as Pagan.
This being said, I still have to use the word in all contexts because otherwise no one will know what the hell I'm talking about.
"I think that's more or less an argument of semantics"
You're right, of course, but that's precisely what I'm talking about. The word nigger, for example was almost completely acceptable by both blacks and whites as late as the 1940's.
"as far as I can tell, paganism has so far grown apart from the philosophical tradition of the major world religions," meaning that it has, since the beginning, had its roots in a place very much sheltered from the need to consider itself in light of philosophical apologetics."
Yes, I can see what you're saying here as well, I was offering a perspective from the other end of that spectrum...as in, the only reason that pagans have to consider themselves within this construct is because monotheism has made it impossible to be heard otherwise...whereas, before, it was the "one-god'rs" that were crying for a bit of attention.
As for your question,
I believe because I had what can only be considered an extraordinary mystical experience...and in the duration
of this experience, I was taught (through divination...Praise the Ancestors!!!) what I should believe and what I shouldn't.
For purposes of modesty, I won't go into the details here, but
I'll simply say it was like waking up one morning and
finding out the world was completely different from when I went to sleep. Praise Isis!
I like that last quote "provided it's rigorous"...means you have no tolerance for fenceriders? hahaha...that's cool, I feel somewhat similarly.
Thet
"The Prince Of Darkness is a gentleman"
W. Shakespeare
W. Shakespeare
-
Spionen
Wow- nice to have you joining the discussion!being-singular-plural wrote: I am educated in philosophy with a focus on Continental philosophy as well as world literature, lingusitics and am now doing my PhD in Religious Studies. I think that we may have much in common academically.
Absolutely, that's a good point. Animal intelligence studies in recent decades have shown that many species possess much greater capabilities for language acquisition, tool use, and even abstract problem-solving than previously thought. Surely, though, you wouldn't argue that animals display anywhere near the same scientific aptitude humans do?I don't want to step on AkanaAnash's toes by interupting your dialogue but I am interested to know why you "believe" that you can separate humans from animals? Can you really claim that animals don't have usages of reason and/or imagination? ... But, contemporary zoology and linguistics demonstrate that many species from varying genus' (geni?
Again, that's an interesting point, and one which very much resonates with me as a skeptic. Despite the ultimate unknowability of anything and everything, however, logic remains our best tool; it is certainly our most likely route to that which has the greatest probability of accuracy. And now I yield the floor to my pal Bertrand Russell (:)), who has a comment about the nature of rationality:As for your appeals to human reason--re-call Kant who points out the limits of reason in that it fails its own tests: you cannot step outside of reason to test reason's (vi)ability--thus, reason amounts to little more than faith in reason--thus, it's come back full circle--it is still a matter of faith, at bottom...
"...the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
(taken from his essay "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?")
Skeptical philosophy tells us that, as you pointed out, logic cannot be the be-all and end-all of our understanding of the universe, but surely we can agree that critical thinking plays a vital role in advancing our comprehension.
I like that quote- interesting way of approaching things! Very... utilitarian. What, precisely, is meant in suggesting that we ought to discard only that which does not work for us? I would prefer to tackle things the other way around, retaining a relatively high level of skepticism toward everything until I have seen sufficient evidence of its accuracy. There are, after all, many beliefs (particularly, since we're on the subject, in the realm of theology!) which could very well work for me and allow me to live a happy life, but are nevertheless false. Truth (with a capital T) is a tricky concept. I believe that if a god exists, which seems just about as likely as the alternative, it is highly improbable that it is a personal god, concerned with the workings of my (or anybody's) life; therefore, my continued interest in theological philosophy is almost entirely academic. If I ever end up solidly in the camp of theists or of atheists, it will have had no material impact on my life. I want to know for the sake of knowing, not because the knowledge would have practical consequences.Here's a penny I'll throw in this deep fountain: "Believe everything. . .and only discard what does not work or no longer works for you"--I like this since it impels one to approach any new information with openness and genuine understanding as opposed to those typical philosophical juggernauts who resist all new information as a knee-jerk response to respond critically.
Are you familiar with the critiques of mysticism put forward by Walter Kaufmann and especially William James? If not, I'll poke around and see if I can find them online somewhere. They would be really fascinating to discuss here, I think.AkanaAnash wrote:I believe because I had what can only be considered an extraordinary mystical experience...and in the duration of this experience, I was taught (through divination...Praise the Ancestors!!!) what I should believe and what I shouldn't.
Haha... actually, being an agnostic, I'm probably considered a fence-rider myself. I really meant that I have little patience for unsubstantiated, poorly thought-through religious belief. I think it's far more intellectually valid to ride the fence than to sit squarely on one side or another without being able to provide the reasoning to back up the choice.I like that last quote "provided it's rigorous"...means you have no tolerance for fenceriders? hahaha...that's cool, I feel somewhat similarly.
Love,
Sierra
-
being-singular-plural
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:46 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Calgary, Canada
- Contact:
Bonjour Sierra,
Touche on the animal topic--surely there are differences, but I still see animality at the heart of all human endeavours. What is science for, really? To overcome fear? To seek to control? These instincts are imbedded in all beings with the animated motility principle. Our species just happens to excel at compensating for insecurites. Thus, Reason, then is born out of weakness--following Nietzche--that which is born from weakeness can only be weak. . .
I want to hear what you have to say about your faith in this Reason of yours. . .What makes it a more valid ground than any other faith i.e. "an evil demon made me do it" etc...? I see that you are well versed in the analytic tradition which reveres this ground as the proper ground that follows the anti-humanist movement of the early 20th Century. The Continentals are alot more critical of this approach although they too are caught up in the anti-humanistic push toward "whatever being" or x.
But, we are humans and full of contradictions, animal instincts, and other variables that cannot be included in a truth table or mathematical set. These very sets of mathemes are born from the dirty weakness of human fear of life and fear of death. . .fear of fear... or for some of us. . .fear of mathematics (lol)! The human being has never been properly theorized yet presupposed in all beliefs. Perhaps a "new" philosophy could try to account for this--I suppose it would have to pick up where psychology has failed (but I ramble). . .I would also like to hear more about your assertion that "logic is our best tool"--it has to first be established why accuracy should be exalted as your highest value? Maybe it's better to be wrong?
Compelled and Intrigued,
bsp
Touche on the animal topic--surely there are differences, but I still see animality at the heart of all human endeavours. What is science for, really? To overcome fear? To seek to control? These instincts are imbedded in all beings with the animated motility principle. Our species just happens to excel at compensating for insecurites. Thus, Reason, then is born out of weakness--following Nietzche--that which is born from weakeness can only be weak. . .
I want to hear what you have to say about your faith in this Reason of yours. . .What makes it a more valid ground than any other faith i.e. "an evil demon made me do it" etc...? I see that you are well versed in the analytic tradition which reveres this ground as the proper ground that follows the anti-humanist movement of the early 20th Century. The Continentals are alot more critical of this approach although they too are caught up in the anti-humanistic push toward "whatever being" or x.
But, we are humans and full of contradictions, animal instincts, and other variables that cannot be included in a truth table or mathematical set. These very sets of mathemes are born from the dirty weakness of human fear of life and fear of death. . .fear of fear... or for some of us. . .fear of mathematics (lol)! The human being has never been properly theorized yet presupposed in all beliefs. Perhaps a "new" philosophy could try to account for this--I suppose it would have to pick up where psychology has failed (but I ramble). . .I would also like to hear more about your assertion that "logic is our best tool"--it has to first be established why accuracy should be exalted as your highest value? Maybe it's better to be wrong?
Compelled and Intrigued,
bsp
-
Spionen
Science is the quest for understanding, which is, in my opinion, the highest and most noble human activity.being-singular-plural wrote:What is science for, really? To overcome fear? To seek to control? These instincts are imbedded in all beings with the animated motility principle. Our species just happens to excel at compensating for insecurites. Thus, Reason, then is born out of weakness--following Nietzche--that which is born from weakeness can only be weak...
Ah, there's the root of it all, no? Reason goes hand in hand with science, and faith with religion. Reason is more valid than faith because it, unlike faith, introduces a standard by which to accept or reject any given premise. Science, unlike faith, accepts and allows for its own fallibility, thereby facilitating evolution toward higher understanding. A conclusion based solely upon faith is no conclusion at all; it has been exempted from all rigors which we as humans are capable of submitting it to. If faith were the standard by which truth were judged, there would be no method whatsoever of separating fact from fantasy; it would be no more or less absurd to worship my dirty sneakers as divine beings than to worship the Christian Trinity, Allah, the ancient pantheons, the Hindu gods, and so on, and by extension, no more or less absurd to assert the divinity of those sneakers than to accept that cats are alive and the earth revolves around the sun.I want to hear what you have to say about your faith in this Reason of yours. . .What makes it a more valid ground than any other faith i.e. "an evil demon made me do it" etc...?
Hmmm... this is getting into some pretty deep stuff, haha. First off, I certainly wouldn't say that accuracy ought to be the "highest value," per se. I'd think better of a person who was kind and compassionate and never got a damn thing right their whole life than of a cruel sadist who had figured out all the mysteries of the universe.I would also like to hear more about your assertion that "logic is our best tool"--it has to first be established why accuracy should be exalted as your highest value? Maybe it's better to be wrong?
That said, I absolutely do believe that seeking truth is inherently more valuable than accepting untruth. In the realm of religion, I can conceive of some instances when it might be more useful to a particular individual to believe something false (for reasons of comfort, primarily), but I don't believe that a standard for humankind in general ought to be extrapolated from these isolated examples; as a species, I think, we are advanced enough to handle (and indeed, to seek!) truth.
I'm not sure I even addressed your question fully... I'm having a pretty difficult time verbalizing my thoughts on the subject. It might help if you could offer some further thoughts on why accuracy should NOT be valued highly and under what sort of circumstances it would be better to be wrong?
I really appreciate your (extremely thought-provoking!) comments! Fun discussion
-Si
-
AkanaAnash
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:48 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: Beijing
YAY!! Open debate without namecalling !!!!!
WOOOHOOO!!!!
I'll put in tuppence on the animal issue. I was taught through divination that the true difference is that while animals have a collective Spirit ie...Dog Spirit, Hawk Spirit...etc... Humans have an Individual Spirit and it is that which not only makes us special in all the world, but also which gives us the greatest amount of responsibility.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in Benevolence for All Animate Beings, which means we are no more or less important than a cockroach or a gecko lizard but that as human beings, we are responsible for caring for the cockroach and the lizard and other humans equally.
I certainly wouldn't say that animals don't have creativity, but the fact remains that animals don't build temples, or create images of deities, we must therefore assume that, a symptom of the Individual Spirit is Faith and er go..Faith is a distinguishing factor of the human vs/ animal debate.
Thet
WOOOHOOO!!!!
I'll put in tuppence on the animal issue. I was taught through divination that the true difference is that while animals have a collective Spirit ie...Dog Spirit, Hawk Spirit...etc... Humans have an Individual Spirit and it is that which not only makes us special in all the world, but also which gives us the greatest amount of responsibility.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in Benevolence for All Animate Beings, which means we are no more or less important than a cockroach or a gecko lizard but that as human beings, we are responsible for caring for the cockroach and the lizard and other humans equally.
I certainly wouldn't say that animals don't have creativity, but the fact remains that animals don't build temples, or create images of deities, we must therefore assume that, a symptom of the Individual Spirit is Faith and er go..Faith is a distinguishing factor of the human vs/ animal debate.
Thet
"The Prince Of Darkness is a gentleman"
W. Shakespeare
W. Shakespeare
-
Kolohe Redux
- Banned Member
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:53 pm
Luckily for me, I do not understand philosophy and theology, it is interesting to read people's opinions, but so much seems like conjecture and circular reasoning that it does not concern me. I am faithless and unreasonable. So I'll give you a perspective that doesn't have so much to do with any of that. For a time, I was an atheist/agnostic, I came to belief through the scientific method and divine revelation. Initially, through the stock market : - that's the best place to learn about the fibonacci series and Elliott Wave theory, which brought me to pantheism and some of the writings of Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking etc., all of it also has no material impact on my life or morality. I like bsp's comment re. believe everything, I don't necessarily do that but try to remain open to possibilities. Paganism is harder to justify logically, for me sort of a playful and personal way to identify the energies that I believe are inherent throughout the universe, perhaps some day everything will be explained, , but I doubt it, and wouldn't it be boring if it was.
Kolohe
: - that's the best place to learn about the fibonacci series and Elliott Wave theory, which brought me to pantheism and some of the writings of Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking etc., all of it also has no material impact on my life or morality. I like bsp's comment re. believe everything, I don't necessarily do that but try to remain open to possibilities. Paganism is harder to justify logically, for me sort of a playful and personal way to identify the energies that I believe are inherent throughout the universe, perhaps some day everything will be explained, , but I doubt it, and wouldn't it be boring if it was. Kolohe
-
AkanaAnash
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:48 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: Beijing
Kolohe!
hahaha! Luv the new sc!!
Your "origin story" actually sounds interesting...you should definitely expound!
I gotta agree. I've learned through divination (Praise the NtJr) that your "energies" (I call them "forces" AND I believe they are self aware)
Dont really have true names, but, because we're human, it's important for us to give them "nicknames" of sorts...and things like choosing a Right Pantheon are more important for the individual than for the Spirits.
hahaha! Luv the new sc!!
Your "origin story" actually sounds interesting...you should definitely expound!
I gotta agree. I've learned through divination (Praise the NtJr) that your "energies" (I call them "forces" AND I believe they are self aware)
Dont really have true names, but, because we're human, it's important for us to give them "nicknames" of sorts...and things like choosing a Right Pantheon are more important for the individual than for the Spirits.
"The Prince Of Darkness is a gentleman"
W. Shakespeare
W. Shakespeare
-
Wolf Heart
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:11 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Iowa
- Contact:
I must admit I was very surprised to see the content of this topic. I was hafl expecting a simply "Why you wiccans believe in that stuff?" or something along those lines, I'm very pleased to find a very intelligent and well thought out line of questions.
Unfortunately it is early for me but I will try to answer some of your questions with my own personal beliefs and opinions, but these are in no way absolute truths for anyone but myself.
I shall break this down question by question, for the most part.
Karma, afterlife and natural forces etc: I do not believe completely in the rule of Karma. I think that karma works in a strange way. If you do something really harmful, then yes I think you'll get a bite in the but back. However I don't think that something as small as sharing in a bit of gossip or other such things would cause karma to get at you to terribly.
When it comes to death and the afterlife I believe simply in reincarnation. I believe we come back to further better ourselves and to constantly learn more and more. If I had the choice I'd want to live as an immortal, not because I'm afraid of death, but because there is just so much in this world I want to know.
When it comes to natural forces, magic, and gods it gets a bit more complicated. I believe there is natural magic all around us all the time. I can feel it even now as I sit here and type away at this machine. To me magic is the moving and manipulating of those energies for NEEDED change.
When it comes to Gods and deities I believe that there is one God and yet many. I believe there is an ultimate being who has many faces, many personas. The "One" is everything, the wind through the trees and the Goddess we call to in times of need. I don't know if it makes much sense to others, but it makes perfect sense to me.
I have always accepted others religions, but never have I thought they we were all correct at the same time. I believe that we all THINK we are correct at all times, there is a great difference. I will accept anybody for who they are, but hardly will I ever agree with them 100%
I would also like to touch on your question about whether the "Gods are concerned with the entire incomprehensible vastness of the universe, or just our little blue planet third from our one tiny sun? Why us?" I truely believe that this "higher power" is not concerned solely with just our planet. I think that there are hundres, thousands, maybe even millions of other planets like ours, with it's own inhabitants with their own problems and ways of religion and worship.
I am intrigued by this conversation and hope it keeps going. You'd think being in college would give ample opportunities for intellectual conversations, but it doesn't happen very often.
~~ Wolf Heart ~~
Unfortunately it is early for me but I will try to answer some of your questions with my own personal beliefs and opinions, but these are in no way absolute truths for anyone but myself.
I shall break this down question by question, for the most part.
Karma, afterlife and natural forces etc: I do not believe completely in the rule of Karma. I think that karma works in a strange way. If you do something really harmful, then yes I think you'll get a bite in the but back. However I don't think that something as small as sharing in a bit of gossip or other such things would cause karma to get at you to terribly.
When it comes to death and the afterlife I believe simply in reincarnation. I believe we come back to further better ourselves and to constantly learn more and more. If I had the choice I'd want to live as an immortal, not because I'm afraid of death, but because there is just so much in this world I want to know.
When it comes to natural forces, magic, and gods it gets a bit more complicated. I believe there is natural magic all around us all the time. I can feel it even now as I sit here and type away at this machine. To me magic is the moving and manipulating of those energies for NEEDED change.
When it comes to Gods and deities I believe that there is one God and yet many. I believe there is an ultimate being who has many faces, many personas. The "One" is everything, the wind through the trees and the Goddess we call to in times of need. I don't know if it makes much sense to others, but it makes perfect sense to me.
I have always accepted others religions, but never have I thought they we were all correct at the same time. I believe that we all THINK we are correct at all times, there is a great difference. I will accept anybody for who they are, but hardly will I ever agree with them 100%
I would also like to touch on your question about whether the "Gods are concerned with the entire incomprehensible vastness of the universe, or just our little blue planet third from our one tiny sun? Why us?" I truely believe that this "higher power" is not concerned solely with just our planet. I think that there are hundres, thousands, maybe even millions of other planets like ours, with it's own inhabitants with their own problems and ways of religion and worship.
I am intrigued by this conversation and hope it keeps going. You'd think being in college would give ample opportunities for intellectual conversations, but it doesn't happen very often.
~~ Wolf Heart ~~
~*People fear the beast within the wolf because they do not understand the beast within themselves.*~