most of my friends are wiccans. It’s the kind of faith I can get alongside, because it doesn’t force anything on anyone.

Hi Jonboy, and thanks.

As you pursue it, the argument about Who created What, at least in my experience, shades more and more towards something which can neither be explained nor really discussed, certainly not proven. What is a cloud? Let’s walk towards a cloud — all we find is wet air. And wet air is a brick wall compared with what you encounter when you approach deity.

See, I don’t need to declare I know who created what. I don’t even need to believe in God. But treasuring, and giving thanks when you see something beautiful or terrifying, that is the practice of worship, and to be effective it doesn’t need a concrete focus. (But it does need what tai kwon do needs — a focus just past the object itself.)

It’s entirely possible that when you “approach deity” you are approaching nothing. But the blessedness and awareness which are drawn out of the practitioner, in his recognition of beauty and terror — ah, those are real, and have real effects.

I love talking theology. God knows why I hang out at atheist blogs. Thank you for your patience.

Noni

This is 1) a perfect description of what worship means, and
2) the reason I cannot abandon religion (at this time =P)

I know very, very little about Wicca, and would hate to offend. Forgive blundering?

The intricacy of the world around me, from fractals to landscapes, and the weight and value I believe it has, is one of my most favoritest parts of my belief system. I am a Christian, but this rings entirely true for me, the principal difference being that I assign credit for it to a singular (or triune, if you wanna get picky) divine being. I in no way mean to hijack your description of Wicca for the purposes of glorifying Christianity at its expense, nor would I want to make an accidental gaffe in associating you with something you might not particularly like. At any rate, if you were looking for a good description of worship, which I think is a fair hallmark of a Christian life well-led (and perhaps also a Wiccan life well-led? Or maybe we could even say a religious life well-led?), then here is an excellent definition.

“I don’t “feel” any presence out there.”

A lot of people don’t. A lot of people do. Either group, or both, might be right about what they feel.

But that’s okay. We don’t proselytize (though we do learn to spell “proselytize”) We don’t declare our working structure is a real model of this or any other world. We try different practices and take advantage of what comes of them.

Dr. Ronald Hutton (Bristol) wrote that “Wicca is like a lobster trap in reverse — hard to get into and easy to leave.” It takes study and practice and thinking and reading to get good at it. There are no football games or charities or overt social approval (though there are a LOT of potlucks). The theology doesn’t come to the new practitioner ready-made, it’s still being built. You don’t get major public holidays off, except all the holidays everyone else gets. Plus, people think you’re goofy. It’s amazing anyone practices it at all; other religions have much more “stuff” and don’t get laughed at (as much).

But there’s about 1 – 2 million of us worldwide, thus confirming my old saying, “No matter what you believe, you will find someone who agrees.” ;-)

Past my bedtime. Be well,

Noni

Thanks for your civil answers re. Wicca.

As to the planaria metaphor … Why posit a human sense that acts as a god detector at all in the absence of any evidence whatsoever?

And I don’t think I understand the Dr. Flatworm graft argument at all.

It seems much more useful to think of “god” as the false stimulus (chemicals are particularly appropriate) rather than considering as false the input of the world we experience both directly and indirectly.

I don’t “feel” any presence out there. Reason tells me that any such feeling is a longing for the comforts and certainties of my Catholic childhood.

Noni Mausa said:

Now, this induction does not necessarily mean that the feeling of contact with divinity is either valid or invalid.

Metro replied:

Actually, it rather tends to invalidate it, wouldn’t you think?

———-
Not necessarily. One way to think about the human sense which may or may not sense the divine, is to use this metaphor: think of it as a primitive light-sensitive patch which has not yet evolved into an eye. The planaria swimming around can use it to move toward or away from sources of light, but it cannot tell what these sources are. In addition, other stimuli (perhaps chemicals? or being punched in the eye by another planarium?) can also convey the impression of light, without any light being present.

If a planarium was born without eye-spots, perhaps Dr. Flatworm could graft one on. Then his patient would have vision just like the other flatworms. But this intervention itself would not lead flatworms to invalidate their primitive vision, nor would it tell the flatworms anything about whether the moon and sun exist. There is something there, we just don’t know what.

As for your second point: “I mean, a religion that “does not require that you believe this, that, or the other thing” seems less a religion than a sort of feel-good psychology.”

This may be one of the chief ways Wicca differs from other religions — it is more a science or craft than a belief system. Since this is not my blog, there’s no space to say enough more to give you a grounding, assuming you wanted one. Suffice it to say, reading books to learn about it is a poor third or fourth place behind the most casual one hour demo in a park or living room.

As to what I worship — Well, this still isn’t my blog. But “worship” means “a recognition of worth”. I see worship as a variety of recognition. A recognition of magnificence, or rightness,or the small excellences of the world of little animals and plants. We all differ, but I see it in the living world, usually. Trees and water and mice and galaxies and the physics of a strummed guitar string. This doesn’t mean I sacrifice to the mouse-god, or obey the sunrise goddess — obedience does not come into modern day paganism, believe me.

Enough for now, thanks for asking.

Noni

PS: “And how do you know it’s Wicca if there are no requirements of belief?” Good question, we argue about that a lot. We still haven’t got an answer for that one. -N

Now, this induction does not necessarily mean that the feeling of contact with divinity is either valid or invalid.

Actually, it rather tends to invalidate it, wouldn’t you think?

As it’s been said by Kimberly, there is euphoria in letting go, and in succeeding at a project or task … and in myraid other fully human experiences which do not require contact with any sort of divinity. Why should there be any circumstances in which euphoria would require one?

I mean, they’ve even succeeded in duplicating near-death experiences in the lab. Which I think would be an amazingly cool fun fair attraction.

Speaking of evocative but nonsensical cascades of language: In my experience Wicca is the same as any other religion–there are a few basic rules for living together without screwing each other over too much, and then there’s the regalia we dress them in, which is merely decoration.

I mean, a religion that “does not require that you believe this, that, or the other thing” seems less a religion than a sort of feel-good psychology. Not that there’s anything wrong with that in and of itself.

What is it that you worship? To whom do you offer prayer and sacrifice? What power rules you? What rituals does it require? And how do you know it’s Wicca if there are no requirements of belief?

I think that, with people who are not raised in a particular faith, they will adhere to the first religious group in which they experience this sort of ecstatic experience that many associate with religious revelation.

Wicca has taught me is that these sorts of ecstatic experiences can be induced in various ways, and in fact this is not difficult. Some ways include the less subtle practices associated with Super Bowl games, others have to do with loading the listener with evocative but nonsensical cascades of language. Music is quite effective, and various forms of privation and ordeal will also yield such results. Habit and repetition help a lot.

Now, this induction does not necessarily mean that the feeling of contact with divinity is either valid or invalid. I will reserve judgment on that. But the emotional event itself doesn’t prove the validity of the contact one way or the other. The emotional event is external to the religious event.

Compare this to how animals decide what to eat or to not eat. In the wild, sugar, fat and salt are good indicators of items that would be good to eat. However, sugar and fat and salt can also be applied to nonfood items, or even poisonous items, and they will be eaten with a grateful Hallelujah.

it’s ironic that I had to learn the practice of Wicca before I could fully understand the practices of the everyday religions I grew up with. In some cases, I think I understand them better than the people who actually practice them. but I could be wrong about that.

I still feel moved by music, dance, to the point of tears and swelling joy. It’s not God — It’s just beauty, and that’s how simple it is.

If these people had any brains in their head, maybe they would not have ruined their lives in the first place. Some people can take care of themselves just fine, thank you very much. It is pretty arrogant that these people think I need what they need.

RE: 21
I totally agree with your method in the post at 21. You are actually attacking the argument from the same two points I suggested in 17; the false dichotomy and the weak axiom. As I stated before, I don’t think that the trilemma is strong argument, just that as far as logical arguments go, it is fairly well constructed, and thus the work of someone who has a grasp of rhetoric. I’m not a huge Lewis fan, but he is pretty sound logician and great mind, I’d suggest an often overlooked book of his called The Abolition of Man. It is one of his few works that deals directly with philosophy and does not touch on apologetics at all.

RE: 23
I will never make the claim that Christianity is a rational belief system that is accessible merely by intellectual ascent. At the heart of Christianity is a paradox: one man who is fully human, and fully God. Regardless of how this is spun (i.e. a long discourse on Aristotelian substance v. accident) this has huge logical implications. And this is just the beginning, there are also many other paradoxical doctrines in the faith (off the top of my head would be John 1:1-2). These are huge philo/theological pills that entirely too many Christians swallow without thinking.

Even within the framework of a paradoxical faith, one cannot altogether discard reason. For a good non-apologetical discourse on how inexplicable paradox and reason co-exist, I’d suggest Wittgenstein’s Tractus Logico-Philosophicus which ends with the statement “Of which one cannot speak, one must remain silent.” The paradoxical nature of the faith is something I understand on existential level, beyond that, I do not believe anyone will ever be able to construct Jacob’s ladder out of pure reason. I believe this is by the design of God. Faith was never meant to be an intellectual ascent. If it were, wazza, you’re question would be dead on. However, I believe the core of the Christian faith is not found in an exercise of first order predicate calculus, but rather the love story of the triune God (sappy, I know, but I’ve found He’s quite fond of me).

Having said that, I believe that God still works within the bounds of reason in a sort of anthropomorphic way. The question you have asked is a great one and demands a book! I hope in my stumbling through I gave you some insight as to how an intellectual, post-modern Christian views reason and faith. I’d suggest to you, Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Post-Script to Philosophical Fragments or a much lighter read in GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy.

@Roadguru

My blog is http://catacombsubculture.com It is much, much lighter in scope than anything I’ve discussed in this thread, but I will try to get a good post up re: the physiology of conversion. I have some very strong views on this especially as it relates to the manipulation of youth.

@ all

I’m really enjoying all this discussion. I am on the road however, so forgive me if I don’t respond too quickly! Thanks for hosting, Daniel. You know I am a fan.

(ie, give us your arguments so we can see if they’re convincing!)

You are spot on. What you described is, by literal definition, a cult. Good for you for not staying in a cult.

But I, and many millions like me, are not, and never were affiliated with your 1 out of 50,000 denominations of Christianity and therefore do not associate ourselves with your descriptions. Yet we still find fulfillment in our spirituality and maintain firm beliefs, differing though they may be from one another.

We believe in sound and historic theology. Reason. And deliberate thoughtful critique. Not feelings. Though feelings do occur.

What say you to this?