Heathen Dawn

Returning to the original thread topic, it seems Ellen Cannon Reed in her book The Heart of Wicca is quite dogmatic about what Wicca should or shouldn't be. She would have it that Wicca is only an initiatory religion, whose core is serving the gods, who are real, but her view is one among many. For other Wiccans, the religion is not about initiation, but rather about kinship with nature as I found and liked it, and the gods are archetypes rather than real entities, and need no service. I was delighted to read this, by Selena Fox:

<a href="http://www.circlesanctuary.org/aboutpagan/Intro2Wicca.html" target="_blank">http://www.circlesanctuary.org/aboutpagan/Intro2Wicca.html</a>

What is good about the pagan religions is that there is plenty of wiggle room, with no threat of excommunication. If I want to throw out the supernatural stuff, although there are some like Reed who would disapprove, I can do it without fear of being called names. I needn't slap the name "Wicca" on my practices, just call it "secular paganism" or somesuch.

What I like about Wicca: nature spirituality, emotionality, poetic license, ritual, seasonal lore (the year-wheel), belief in reincarnation, celebration of sexuality and affirmation of life.

What I dislike about Wicca: occult stuff, raising powers, directing energies, divination, snivelling worship and service of the gods (which I hate as much in Wicca as I do in a monotheistic religion), belief that gods actually have influence over real life, seances with dead ancestors (death worship, yuck!), crystals and runes, tarot, new-age stuff like Qabbalah, and magick in general.

So on the way to practice secular paganism, whose core is appeal to my emotions, I shall simply, as Aquila suggested, throw away those occult-magick lunacies I don't like, and I'll keep those nature-worshipping, life-affirming goodies I like. Whether this could be called Wicca anymore is quite doubtful, but then again, labels aren't important. The only thing that might be at odds with naturalism here is belief in reincarnation, but this can't be helped, because I really am afraid of death being final, and I need such a belief in order to have inner peace.

Onward Secular Pagans!

Perchance

Heathen Dawn,

It seems we disagree fundamentally. Of course, I'm glad if this belief gives you some kind of peace, but I'm sad that you feel as if you have to attack rationality and those who like science or prefer rationality to emotions to get to it. I don't "worship" rationality, and don't know anyone who does.

I've seen good and bad things produced by rationality, and good and bad things produced by emotion. What I don't believe is that any of that comes from any source other than humanity's thoughts, glands, wishful thinking, and other aspects of psychology and physicality. And I find that I don't, personally, need belief in an afterlife to thrive. In fact, I'm somewhat glad of the thought that, at the end of my life, when I'll probably be tired and perhaps be in considerable pain depending on what age I am and what diseases I may have, I can lay down the burdens and escape from the threat of any more such pain. Besides, anticipation of the end makes life sweeter.

Good luck.

-Perchance.

Heathen Dawn

</strong>

Hyper-rationality f*cked up my life real bad, so I have every reason to attack it. I can't help seeing rationality as the big bad monster that dries life of all its excitement. That's also why I'm pursuing irrational paths such as Wicca. I now look down upon rationality as a false god I once worshipped, and I seek to worship the true god of emotion.

</strong>

Such is our difference. The spectre of final death has caused me sleepless nights since the age of eight. The mere thought of it, that one day I shall cease to be, simply drives me out of my mind. I really need the belief in the afterlife, otherwise my life will be a living death.

I was once devout in infidelity, holding to all tenets of naturalism, but I have fallen, collapsed under the weight of unbelief. Though inwardly I disbelieve in sovereign-gods, from time to time I raise my hands in prayer to the Goddess and God to make me happier...

Perchance

That doesn't mean that everyone here is hyper-rational and will hurt you- if what hurt you came from outside- or is exactly like you- if what hurt you came from outside. And I am disappointed that you seem to conclude that everyone here is "hyper-rational."

That's fine. But that doesn't mean it's what it is- any more than emotion is all stupid, simpering sentimentality. Characterizing all of rationality or all of emotion by their worst extremes is no better, I think, than getting angry at all members of a group of people for something that one member of the group once did to you.

(Assuming gods exist) False for you, true for you. Does that mean that it's the same for everyone? I've known people who seemingly can't conduct a rational argument, and who could benefit from not pursuing emotion quite as heatedly. My sister, who screams and slams the door when people disagree with her, comes to mind. And I've known people whom others think are cold bastards. I've been characterized that way.

I resent being characterized as a 'hyper-rational' enemy, and told that not only does someone else happen to see things a certain way, but that that other person's conclusions trump my own when it comes to objective reality. Pursue your path all you like, Heathen Dawn, and good luck to you. But keep in mind that not everyone in the world is like you; not everyone is what you perceive her to be.

-Perchance.

Heathen Dawn

</strong>

No, I meant that I used to be hyper-rational.

</strong>

I didn't call any people an enemy, I called rationality an enemy. That's a difference.

</strong>

I don't believe in objective reality. "Objective reality" is another rationalist illusion.

</strong>

I can't see the world except from my point of view.

Cipher Girl

HD you said Perhaps that is the source of your inability to see the other side of an argument. Perhaps you need to take a debating class where you will have to learn to argue a debate from a point of view that you do not agree with.

You claim that science is dead, dry, & boring despite plenty of claims to the contrary. You personally may find science boring, but don't assume that every one has to have the same opinions that you have. I am a mathematician, but spend most of my days programming computers to run mathematical simulations. I'm not a scientist, but as a mathematician, I can see the beauty in in these "boring equations".

Along with you, I can also see the artistic beauty in nature. But to me, knowing somewhat how nature works increases the appreciation for me. I give you an example. Suppose you see a beautiful bronze statue, with a gorgeous patina applied to it. Personally for me, seeing the artist make the bronze statue increases the beauty of it for me. I can appreciate all of the hard work and skill that went into the statue in addition to the beauty of the statue. How can knowing how the bronze was constructed possibly detract from its beauty? As you clain that knowing how nature works detracts from its beauty.

Perchance

Heathen Dawn,

Cipher Girl said it beautifully, and I don't have much to add, except that:

It seemed that with claims like "Science is impersonal" you weren't adding the little corollary: "This is the way I perceive it." It seemed as if you were saying that science was impersonal because that's the way it is, that impersonality is a property of science in the same way that wetness is of water. And when you make sweeping statements like that, it does seem as if you're appealing to an objective reality. I was telling you that I resented being told that, if I had a different opinion, I was just laboring under a delusion and not seeing the world the way it really was.

If you didn't intend that, my apologies. However, in the future be aware that, since words aren't the same as tone of voice, facial expression, and a host of other cues in person, it's hard to tell if you're adding unspoken riders to your words. And it did seem to me as if you were ignoring all opinions to the contrary.

You may not ever be able to know exactly what it's like to see the world from someone else's point of view, but you can come close... and at least acknowledge that other people see things that way.

-Perchance.

Heathen Dawn

</strong>

I find fascinating other things that some people find boring: poetry, for instance.

</strong>

I'd rather not know anything about how nature works. What fascinates me about nature is just the sensory impressions, not the knowledge behind it. That is, when I seek communion with nature I seek an experience, not a study. I can't ever study nature; I must always experience it.

</strong>

All right, it's my personal opinion and mine only, yet I have difficulty in perceiving how people could think otherwise than I do. To me, the boredom of science means it really is boring, not that my attitude is wrong-headed. It may be a self-centred fallacy, but that's the way I am.

But when the day ended hath,
may this your consolation be:
that soon, with sky tinted blue,
another day commence will.

(I like writing English poetry using German word-order ).

Wicca, for me, is a nature religion. I can reconcile the conflict between "nature" and "gods" simply by saying, as I often have said, that "nature is my God and Goddess". As for Reed's dogmatic book, I've received word from my Wiccan friends that they too think she's too fixed on an idea for comfort.

Anti-Creedance Front

I hope this doesn't insult any pagans, but I think neo-paganism, in it's belief in a universal god and goddess, was a reformation of paganism because people found it illogical, in these modern times, to believe in pagan gods and goddesses. You're still fine with me though, I know many pagans and they are caring and imaginative people, most of them.

Kassiana

Heathen Dawn:
The relevance for me, as a metaphysical naturalist, is that I'm anti-mystical....

Kass:
Well, there's your problem right there. Most Pagans ARE mysical people, whether they're more Cunningham or Reed-oriented. Most Pagans work magic. They believe in the Gods. Paganism is not a non-theistic religious system. It is not a metaphysical naturalist system. It is a magical and theistic religious Way. Unitarian Universalism has its secular religious side to it, religious humanism does too, but Paganism (ideally) does not...even if it's Wicca.

Why not create your own system that isn't Wiccan? It can share some common themes with Paganism in the treating of nature as sacred and so on, but keep out all the nasty mystical stuff you don't like (and I do!).