Chickie:

Interesting post. Let be be brief...

I agree with you. But I think requiring everyone who 'wonders' and 'speculates' to actually have 100% knowledge of something is nuts. They aren't spouting facts. They are being silly. Inform them, don't insult them. My 2¢. Insult whomever whenever however you like. I have no right to tell you what to do.

No, but it is the status quo and what we are taught to do in school. We have also gotten a few advances out of it.

But they do make a nice fire. You still haven't told me where the rules regarding the 'use' of science are.

What counts as evidence? It is the general atmosphere of the religions in toto--- and the written policy of the main organizers of the groups?

Actually, they are more superstitious. And it seemed from the above that the 'missuse of QM' was a main factor in your 'blasting the entire faith'.

You are soooo cute! You must have seen that I said: As a whole, pagans are science and learning friendly. I think that is 'a good thing'. Regardless of whether or not any understand it at all. I did not say that Learning without understanding is good. My point was that if they do not care to do the learning and research themselves, they encourage the field of research and promote learing. Which, whether or not they understand it all (I don't, and I would guess you don't either) they still promote and encourage it. Unlike the more fundie Christians.

Looking forward to your next post--- although I will be out of town for the weekend and will not respond...

jess

DChicken wrote:

Although I understand your point about consequences, if they don't start off understanding these principles they claim to infer from then its likely they will be wrong.

jpbrooks:

I agree. But from the Pagan/"New Age" perspective, it is "materialistic science" that is "wrong". In fact, their stance tends to be that since everyone else's view can be considered "wrong" from each perspective, there is, ultimately, no "right" or "wrong" world-view. (That is, at least, the "New Age" stance. Some Pagans might consider Paganism to be ultimately "right".)

DChicken wrote:

Science is not holistic. Specific scientific statements only cover a limited domain and they certainly cannot be expanded to cover topics such as Experience, Meaning and Aesthetics.

jpbrooks:

Again, I agree. Such attempts to expand what we know today as "science" to encompass those other areas would blur the distinction between science and those other areas of inquiry.
However, if the Pagan/"New Age" view of science and scientific inquiry can't legitimately be called science, then I'm not sure what to call it. (I stop short of referring to it as "pseudo-science" because that term is derogatory and suggests that the Pagan/"New Age" view of inquiry is valueless.)

(I'll be back later.)




[This message has been edited by jpbrooks (edited May 24, 2001).]

In my Anthropology 101 course, one textbook distinguished magic from religion as follows: Magic is "manipulative," (ultimately from the Latin word for "hand") while religion is "supplicative" (from the Latin adjective supplex, "being on one's knees").

That is, a "magical" belief system is hands-on -- the results you desire will unfailingly be obtained if you perform the rituals correctly. And if you don't get the desired results, it's because you screwed up with the magic formula, not because some deity arbitrarily vetoed your request. In a "religious" belief system, however, adherents must beseech supernatural entities for favors. Said entities may or may not decide to honor the request, no matter how fervently the adherents get down on their knees and pray.

In practice, of course, a given belief system may include both "religious" and "magical" elements. E.g., some Christians believe that we are saved only if God grants it (which is "supplicative"), yet simultaneously believe that the particular wording of prayers has at least a grain of significance (shouldn't the sincerity of the prayer be the one and only thing that matters to God?) or believe that immersion baptism and sprinkling baptism may not be equally valid. Both of the latter two beliefs reek of "magical" thinking.

Which reminds me of an old conundrum: if Wicca indeed teaches that adherents have direct control over things -- if the success of their spells is not at the mercy of a "middleman" deity -- then the belief system would seem to be falsifiable in a way that Christianity, for example, is not. Christians have a ready escape if their requests are denied ("God did answer my prayers -- and He said 'no'"), and hence they can cling to their belief in God through all manner of disappointments. But how can Wiccans remain Wiccans in the (presumably common) event that a spell fails over and over again?

[This message has been edited by Throbert McGee (edited May 24, 2001).]

It's been my experience from the pagans and wiccans I've known that they treat Science much the same way many Christians do. That is, they trust it only when it tells them what they want to hear, and they often misuse scientific concepts to prove an unrelated point.

This is most frequently seen in beliefs like magic, souls, karma, etc..

That's what I very much dislike about modern Wicca, which in my opinion is the "easy" alternative to what some consider real paganism, an olde tradition dating back to the time of the Stonehenge.

Wicca seems to me to be a watered-down version of this olde religion. I studied "Avalonism" from a very learned lady, never called herself a pagan, CERTAINLY never would have called herself a Wiccan! In the tradition I learned, spells to alter the outcome of ANY situation are not used - instead, you spend your time learning about, among other things, where you fit into the cosmic order (if you believe there is one), and how to gain your spirituality not from other people, but from observing your surroundings and experiencing God/Goddess for yourself.

I'm sorry that I missed these intervening comments, guys. (I tend to miss things because my time on the net, in any one site, is so limited.)

Waning Moon Conrad wrote:

JP, I'm going to be really pedantic and possibly annoying here and point out firstly that Satanism is not pagan but Christian. Satan-as-devil was invented by Christianity and the Black Mass is a parody of the Catholic Mass. This is hardly pagan.

jpbrooks:

Many Satanists would vehemently object to being called "Christians" even though they understand that the Satan "symbol" has its origins in Christianity. Furthermore, how can a philosophy, (view, religion, etc.) be called Christian if it opposes Christianity?

Waning Moon Conrad wrote:

Perhaps I'm being narrow as well as pedantic now, but I would suggest that perhaps the philosophy does not apply to either Wicca or Satanism. With Wicca, they certainly have a set of beliefs but does a set of beliefs and sanctified platitudes (the law of threefold return for example) actually constitute philosophy?
Same questions goes for Satanism, LaVey style and other forms.

jpbrooks:

Yes, because I was using the term philosophy in the sense of a set of beliefs and/or concepts. Perhaps, the term "belief system" might have been better.

Waning Moon Conrad wrote:

Regarding the paganism of Wicca, yes, it is a new and modern form of paganism with some old symbols and old deities. There is however, quite a little photo of Alex Sanders and his wife/priestess (self styled King of the Witches - I don't know how well they got along with Gardner if at all) doing a "pagan"/"wiccan" ritual whilst standing in a magic circle from the Solomonic Grimoires.
In other words....pagans doing Judaeo-Christian magic.

jpbrooks:

Are you suggesting that there are no distinctively Pagan forms of ritual, and that all symbolism used in magical spells and rituals are Judeo-Christian at basis? If so, some Pagans might be offended by such a suggestion, since there are Pagans who feel that it was contemporary "Christianity" that borrowed symbols from Paganism.
(Or perhaps I'm missing the point of your comment.)



[This message has been edited by jpbrooks (edited May 26, 2001).]

Hello, jess.
Sorry about missing your reply.


jess wrote:


There isn't as much of a 'left' or 'right' hand path in paganism. There is a large force of 'fluffie bunnies' (technical term ) who believe that wicca(tm) is 'good' and can't be used for 'bad'(harm), but the belief system itself does not support this 'disneyfied' version of the religion.


jpbrooks:


The terms "left hand path" and "right hand path" do not refer to distinctions such as "bad" and "good" or "dark" and "light", etc.. The term "left hand path" means that the path followed is one that concentrates on the further development of the individual self as opposed to the "right hand path" goal of growing toward some "outwardly" determined ideal or standard, (such as a "god").


jess wrote:


Satanism is more atheistic than Christian--- the use of 'satan' was more of a joke/ way-to-piss-off-Christians than a true belief in it.


jpbrooks:


Ok. But Satanic ritual is more than a joke. Satan could also be viewed as a symbol in the context of magical working.


jess wrote:


It is not a 'left hand path', it is just more cynical and selfish than wicca(tm). Wiccans(tm) don't like that.


jpbrooks:


Are you a Wiccan? I ask because I have a Wiccan friend on the net that hates Satanists, and makes comments like that quite often.
A Satanist's retort to comments like that would be that everyone, at basis, seeks to satisfy their own "self-interest" even in so-called "altruistic" acts. In that regard, the Satanist is no more "selfish" than anyone else, just more honest! And, if that seems cynical, then "cynicism", (at least, on that issue), is justified.
(IMO, this blurs the distinction between truly "selfish" acts and all other acts that are done simply out of a personal desire to do them, but that is the way that I have heard [Satanic] "selfishness" defended.)


jess wrote:

They want life to be bubbly and happy all the time. Other wiccans are violently against to this concept, holding the 'rede' as a guidline not a 'rule' and quoting wiccans like Z. Budapest: a witch who cannot hurt cannot heal. Other than the FBW(tm), the religions are fairly well integrated with dark and light.


jpbrooks:


Again, the terms "left/right hand path" have nothing to do with the distinction between "darkness" and "light" in the context of magic.
And, isn't the Rede too broad to be used as a specific rule? I'm inclined to agree with Z. Budapest, but (probably) for a different reason. It is not clear to me that all healings can occur without producing some consequences that could be harmful to some living thing.


jess wrote:


quote:

In other words....pagans doing
Judaeo-Christian magic.

Yes. One could argue that 'magic is magic', and if it works ( ) then use anything you want. Or you could argue that AS had no imagination. Many witches use Christian symbols. Many Christian symbols were not just Christian.


jpbrooks:


I'm not sure that all Pagans hold such an "eclectic" view of magic.




[This message has been edited by jpbrooks (edited May 26, 2001).]

Indeed! Okay, I was being overly pedantic to the point of being wrong. I do understand that LaVey and others have taken the Satan symbol and applied to to someting entirely other than the Christian Devil.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> jpbrooks: Are you suggesting that there are no distinctively Pagan forms of ritual, and that all symbolism used in magical spells and rituals are Judeo-Christian at basis? If so, some Pagans might be offended by such a suggestion, since there are Pagans who feel that it was contemporary "Christianity" that borrowed symbols from Paganism. (Or perhaps I'm missing the point of your comment.)

There are plenty.....the Catholic Mass for example!

Early Wicca - Gardnerian and Alexandrians, as far as I know, borrowed heavily from the grimoires which are definitely based on Judaic mysticism with a bit of Christian mysticism thrown in (depending on the grimoire).

These days, there seem to be some symbols getting about which are indigenous to Wicca.

If people want to plunder the grimoires, more power to them! The only problem I have is when somebody stands in a magick circle from the Goetia or Key of Solomon, and claims to be practicng the authentic Druidic/Celtic tradition.

Or maybe they never actually made that particular claim......

[This message has been edited by jpbrooks (edited May 26, 2001).][/B][/QUOTE]

What?! The only religion that contradicts science? How about Christianity, which says we were created from the dust, separate from the animals, instead of evolved? That's contradictory enough to science.

Paganism is largely tolerant. Paganism is reverent towards natural phenomena. Of course, there's a downside as well, such as supernatural nonsense (using a thundergod as an explanation for thunder, etc) and, in the past, hideous practices (sacrifices).

Everyone wants to be a wizard/witch, to exercise supernatural control over things. One of the things which attracted people to Star Wars was the ability to move things by thought. I remember, after I first saw Star Wars (in the late 80s) I spent whole days trying to perform psychokinesis. I've since given up...

Waning Moon Conrad wrote:

I do understand that LaVey and others have taken the Satan symbol and applied to to someting entirely other than the Christian Devil.

jpbrooks:

Yes. So, when Satanists and Christians are talking about "Satan", they are not necessarily talking about the same thing.

Waning Moon Conrad wrote:

There are plenty.....the Catholic Mass for example!

jpbrooks:

Well, actually I was referring to Paganism in general, not specifically to the form(s) of Paganism that perform rituals that parody those of Christianity.

Waning Moon Conrad wrote:

Early Wicca - Gardnerian and Alexandrians, as far as I know, borrowed heavily from the grimoires which are definitely based on Judaic mysticism with a bit of Christian mysticism thrown in (depending on the grimoire).
These days, there seem to be some symbols getting about which are indigenous to Wicca.
If people want to plunder the grimoires, more power to them! The only problem I have is when somebody stands in a magick circle from the Goetia or Key of Solomon, and claims to be practicng the authentic Druidic/Celtic tradition.

jpbrooks:

I think I see your point. I always thought that the Judeo-Christian "elements" in Wicca were due to Aleister Crowley whose work influenced both Gardner and Sanders, and who himself was heavily influenced by Freemasonry. Freemasonry espouses a "universal brotherhood" among humans and compatibility with all of their religions. So, it is not surprising that Crowley, in his work, would find it easy to draw on the ritual forms and symbols of other religions.



[This message has been edited by jpbrooks (edited May 27, 2001).]