Feb 6
Dear Toyin,
Addressing me by my last name: a first for me. Is this perhaps a Wiccan custom?
The Hebrew Bible recognizes the existence of other gods and also recognizes the power of them, though the famous case of Elijah and the priests of Baal is meant as mockery. "Something to investigate," you tell us. Investigate by you, not by me. The very issue of when Israel became monotheistic is a perennial topic for scholars. The falseness of "false gods" does not refer to the illusoriness of them.
Even in modern times religion and nationality get connected, and even for religions--notably, Christianity--that are not tied to a single nation. Nations that go to war invariably assume that God--even a god shared with other nations--is on their side. The American Civil War, WWI, WWII are conspicuous cases. The outcome of these wars was not intended to be a tie, with each side getting a ribbon. Therefore exclusivity in religion and foreign policy is to be found everywhere. Your targeting of "Abrahamic" religions is unwarranted. Do Hindus in India evince more tolerance than Muslims in Pakistan? All sides believe that their god is on their side and that their god approves of their military actions. Prayers before battle? Thanks to god at the end of battle? Your singling out of Judaism is unfair.
You continue to misuse the term genocide.
The fact that there are cases of ecumenism misses the point, which is that even those who note similarities--such as Dion Fortune, whoever she was--are taking a stand on the closeness of the religions being linked. And those doing so are asserting that, say, Hindus and Buddhists who disagree on the proximity are wrong.
The fact that some theologians stress the similarities among religions does not mean that all or most do. There is no contradiction, just the existence of differing positions. And advocates of each would insist that opposing positions are wrong--and are not merely positions from which one merely chooses to demur.
That you consider me ignorant of the study of religion is not relevant to the issue, which is whether one can respect a religion or a nationalism or a world view that makes claims incompatible with one's own.
I must now start preparing for this week's classes at the University of Aberdeen on my course on Theories of Religion.
Robert Segal
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of toyin adepoju [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 1:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...
Dear Segal,
Rather than "singling out Israel for narrow mindedness" I argue that monotheistic religions, which include, to some degree, Pharaoh Akhnaton's worship of Aten, which I did not mention earlier, and its related Abrahamic religions, are founded on a conception of exclusivity of truth.
You have a point on the Moses story. Does the concept translated as 'false gods' mean gods of inadequate power or non existent gods, or does the meaning fluctuate in the Bible? Something to investigate.
You state- Every people is chosen by their gods.
Not always true.
Also, the conception of chosenness in Old Testament Judaism was not only most explicit, but it was reinforced through divinely sanctioned racial separation.The commandment to circumcise male children is a commandment for divinely ordained racial separation.
In relation to this you do not take note of the fact that the genocidal command supposedly from God against the Amalekites was in aid of reinforcing the claims of divine election-'I will give you a land of milk and honey' land that must be seized from others by force.To my knowledge, such claims of divine gift of land to be claimed through conquest are not common in known religious history. Where they exist, they are more likely to have occurred among the Abrahamic religions.
You claim to be used to discussing these issues in religious studies. I am puzzled, though, by your repeated failure to address some of these issues in terms of fundamental insights and procedures from religious studies.
You make the mistake of not distinguishing between the concepts you are using.I would have thought that basic distinctions in semantics and logic are central to all disciplines.
Earlier, you uncritically identify the idea of being 'at odds' with other religions with doctrinal difference from other religions. I am puzzled at that in the light of your description of your disciplinary specialization because the fact of various levels of mutual accommodation and even identification between religions are well known. So the source of your equation of difference with conflict is most puzzling.It is certainly ahistorical and not reflective of social reality.What shall we say about the symbiotic relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism or the recognition of the fundamental elements of ritual as unifying both Catholic ritual and Western magical ritual in Dion Fortune's writings and possibly in her school The Society of the Inner Light? One might not want to describe that school as a religion but it is certainly religious by almost any criteria.
You also state that theologians of various faiths may also recognize points of similarity between various religions but insist in the correctness of their own religion at points of difference. At other points, you argue for wholesale critique of one faith by another. Are you not contradicting yourself?
I had also thought that religious studies does try to describe actual perspectives of believers, as far as that is possible.Yet, you dont address the subject of eclectic Wiccans which has been pointed out here but continue to insist that Wiccan ethics must be exclusionary or negatory of the ethics of other religions.
Are you sure you dont need to do some fieldwork on this subject?
thanks
toyin
On 5 February 2011 23:09, Segal, Professor Robert A. <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Feb 5
Dear Toyin,
I cannot resist replying one last time.
I won't to go through all of your claims, which are, at the least, exaggerations.
To take one exampel, the Hebrew Bible acknowledges the existence of the gods of all peoples. When Moses and Aaron compete with the Pharaoh's wise men and magicians to turn rods into snakes, Moses and Aaron accept that Egyptians are initially able to duplicate the feats, which can only come from Egyptian gods. The debate is over the power of the god or gods of each side, not over the existence or the legitimacy of other gods.
In the Hebrew Bible every people worships its own gods. Therefore your singling out of Israel for narrownmindedness is unwarranted and is anachronistic. Each people is as much the elect chosen by its gods as Israelites are the elect chosen by its God. (And there is more than one god for Israelites themselves.) We just are not told of how it comes to be that the Egyptians are the people chosen by the Egyptian gods.
In the ancient world religion and nationality went hand in hand. Therefore religion and foreign policy went hand in hand. But wars were rarely genocidal. Wars were of conquest, not of annihilation. Saul even loses his throne in part because he refuses to kill every Amalekite--itself an unprecedented command.
Metaphysical and ethical differences tend to be incompatible. For example, Kantianism and utilitarianism are not just different but incompatible varieties of ethics.
And if, as has been suggested, some Wiccans choose Wicca for its ethics, then for those Wiccans alternatives are rejected because they are considered at least inferior, if not outright incompatible.
I am accustomed to discussing these kinds of issues within the field of religious studies. I am sorry that I introduced them on this list.
Robert Segal
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of toyin adepoju [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 10:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...
'Your characterization of Christianity, Islam, and above all Judaism is a caricature. But I am not prepared to debate with you on these religions. My university offers distance-learning courses for those interested in different religions'.
You will need to work very hard to prove that conceptions of divine exclusivity of the elect are not foundational to the Abrahamic religions. These conceptions do not define the totality of these religions. These conceptions are not held by all their members. The number of those who hold such conceptions and the intensity in terms of which believers identify with them are much weaker than in the earlier centuries. These conceptions, however, have been foundational to these religions.
The concept of divinely ordained exclusivity was behind the Israeli accounts of genocide against other groups in the Bible, this concept was behind the Catholic Inquisition and has influenced Islamic attacks on other religions.
Such perspectives persist today at various levels of geographical spread and intensity.
'If the metaphysics and ethics it offers are at odds with those of even one other religion, then Wicca cannot be respecting all other religions'.
By being 'at odds' do you imply conflict or difference? Are difference and conflict necessarily synonymous?
I dont think so.
So, the fact that the metaphysics and ethics of Wicca are different from those of other religions does not mean that they are 'at odds' with those of those religions.
Nor does it imply that they are therefore not respectful of other religions.Does developing a philosophical and religious identity imply disrespect of other identities? No. An individual or corporate entity cannot possibly assume all identities no matter how much they respect those other identities, so the entity develops something distinctive which defines it. Your recognition of the relative validity of others rights to self definition determines whether or not you respect others rights to different forms of self definition.
'If one's values and aspirations and fulfillment are independent of the truth claims made by a religion, then the organization at hand is not a religion'.
That would depend on what you understand truth to be. Note, also, I did not exclude the evaluation of truth claims. I stated 'Such a choice may or may not involve placing these faiths on a scale of accuracy of truth claims'.
I stated that the believer might not be choosing a religion based on a comparison of truth claims among religions.The reasons and processes demonstrated in entering into religions are quite diverse. Relative truth claims understood in terms of absolute access to truth as compared to others is only one of them.That perspective too, has been reduced in force on account of the weakening of the authority of Christianity whose claims to absolute truth have been significantly diluted by science.
The following is an exaggeration of the point I made-
'The contention that Wiccans, unlike Christians or Jews or Muslims, respect other religions even while committing themselves to their own religion...'
I did not make a summative assessment of all members of those various religions. I stated that Wiccans, like a number of new religions, are more likely to respect other religions because these new religions are not founded on conceptions of exclusivity of truth, nor are their texts likely to contain or emphasize such conceptions. Christianity and Judaism are founded on conceptions of exclusivity of truth, conceptions emphasized by the Bible. The influence of these conceptions has been weakened significantly however. Many Christians do not hold such conceptions but some certainly do.
Wiccans also may hold such conceptions, but the likelihood and the number who do are likely to be much less than for Christians, Jews and Muslims.
thanks
toyin
On 5 February 2011 19:59, Segal, Professor Robert A. <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
Feb 5
Dear Toyin,
Your characterization of Christianity, Islam, and above all Judaism is a caricature. But I am not prepared to debate with you on these religions. My university offers distance-learning courses for those interested in different religions.
The topic is Wicca. Unless Wicca offers both metaphysics and ethics, it is not a religion. If the metaphysics and ethics it offers are at odds with those of even one other religion, then Wicca cannot be respecting all other religions.
You confuse the reason for joining a religion with the justification for the religion joined.
You declare that "Faiths may be chosen in terms of how well they align with one's values and aspirations or the fulfillment they give one. Such a choice may or may not involve placing these faiths on a scale of accuracy of truth claims." If one's values and aspirations and fulfillment are independent of the truth claims made by a religion, then the organization at hand is not a religion. Furthermore, if Wiccans are not Christians, are they allowing that the truth-claims of Christianity can be true?
There are Christian and Jewish theologians--there may also be Muslim theologians--who stress the smiliarities among religions. Wicca has no monopoly on its supposed tolerance. But the similarities do not go on forever. Christian theologians think that where the differences lie, Christianity is correct. Of Jewish theologians, the same is true.
The contention that Wiccans, unlike Christians or Jews or Muslims, respect other religions even while committing themselves to their own religion and not to any other remains, for me, dubious.
Robert
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>] On Behalf Of toyin adepoju [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...
The following is an extremist perspective-
"Wiccans would not be Wiccans if they didn't think that their beliefs were right and the beliefs of Christians wrong".
"The rejected belief is rejected as illogical or false or implausible"
The fact that one chooses one religion over another does not imply that one has made an absolute normative assessment of both religions.
The notion that holding to one faith in exclusion of others indicates seeing the other faiths as wrong, illogical or implausible implies that those normative assessments about factual accuracy are the only criteria on which faiths are chosen and assessed. Faiths may be chosen in terms of how well they align with one's values and aspirations or the fulfillment they give one. Such a choice may or may not involve placing these faiths on a scale of accuracy of truth claims.
The notion that choosing one faith over another is tantamount to dismissing others as false or illogical suggests a binary, exclusionist mindset that one is more likely to find among some followers of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions since the religious texts of these groups emphasize the falsehood of other religions. The Koran, I understand, however, demonstrates a qualified recognition of Islam and Christianity, like Christianity does of Judaism. The Catholic Second Vatican Council might have had a modificatory influence on the Catholic denial of the value of other faiths but that represents a partial development within Christianity and even then,if I remember well, the council decree on that subject still insists on the supremacy of Christianity.
More modern religions like Wicca are more likely to have adherents who do not see other faiths as false or illogical but possibly as paths that, even though they are contrastive may demonstrate their own relative validity. This validity might even be seen as complementary to Wiccan,even though not identical with Wicca.
Such flexible and pluralistic,rather than binary, possibilities of interpretation have grown since the decline of the monolithic authority of Christianity in the West.
This decline, created by a number of factors, among which are increasing literacy and access to information, has meant that new religions are more likely to acknowledge their debts to older religions which form part of the tapestry their founders built upon. Also, on account of the primacy of science and its dilution and relativizing of religion, contemporary believers of all faiths, particularly in new religions, are less likely to see religion in terms of absolute claims to truth.
Some Wiccans might see Christianity, for example as false or illogical particularly on account of the adversarial attitude that Christianity has traditionally assumed to other religions and which some of its adherents still practice.. Wiccans are less likely to see some non-monotheistic religions, for example, as false or illogical beceause those are more likely to be seen as sharing values closer to Wicca. Also, within Wicca , I expect there is a spectrum of opinions about the level of identification between faiths from within and outside Wicca.
In my case, a number of faiths have contributed to who I am. I have not involved myself in others.The lack of involvement in those others is not necessarily beceause I see them as false or illogical.Its often more beceause of circumstantial factors and because I found them less appealing. Not because I am comparing them on a normative scale.
Secondly,I think the following comment from Rubert Segal is rude:
"Please do spare us your silliness. You sound like the Archbishop of Canterbury, just less pompous".
Is he referring to his wards? Does making his point need to be sealed by referring to Leo Ruickbie as silly? Must Leo be labeled pompous? Is the intellectual argument not sufficient to make the point? Must an insult be added to it?
I identify with this point from Segal, though, since it makes a factual point:
"the absence of proselytizing need not mean respect. Nor would the absence of invective mean respect. Not all religions even seek converts. Some, such as Judaism, frown on conversion".
I think part of his conclusion from that point, though, is stretching the validity of this example too far:
"Therefore your criterion of respect is insufficient, if not irrelevant."
Agreed, it is insufficient, in the light of the example from Judaism, which, though it may not proselytize, is built on the denial of the truth claims of other religions, although not all its adherents would hold that view.
There is a world of difference between Judaism and Wicca, however. That world of difference gives the absence of efforts to convert others in Wicca a different significance than it does in Judaism. I wont pretend to know much about Wicca, but I would be surprised if the notion of exclusive revelation to Wiccans, the notion of Wiccans as the elect of God, the condemnation of other faiths as false and their gods as false, is central to Wicca or even emerges in foundational or seminal Wiccan texts.On the other hand,these conceptions are the founding conceptions of Judaism.
Thanks
Toyin
On 5 February 2011 15:16, Segal, Professor Robert A. <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>> wrote:
Feb 5
Dear Leo,
(a) My response to you was not ad hominem. I was not asserting that you claimed what you did because of who you are. I challenged your claim itself, not you. It is easy to dismiss criticisms by appealing to the ad hominem fallacy, which is a species of the genetic fallacy. But sometimes an ad hominem argument is fully appropriate and is not fallacious. Had I known anything about you, I might have been able to formulate an ad hominem argument that perhaps would not have been fallacious. But I did not.
(b) It was you who linked proselytizing to respect--as if the absence of a guide to missionary work were sufficient evidence of respect. But the absence of proselytizing need not mean respect. Nor would the absence of invective mean respect. Not all religions even seek converts. Some, such as Judaism, frown on conversion. Therefore your criterion of respect is insufficient, if not irrelevant.
(c) The choice of religion is not like the choice of dress. Religiosity presupposes beliefs--metaphysical and ethical beliefs, among others. Unless the beliefs of two religions are at least compatible, as they rarely are, then the choice of one religion dictates the rejection of the other. The rejected belief is rejected as illogical or false or implausible. I therefore do not see how Wiccans can still be respecting Christians--or Christians respecting Wiccans or Jews and Christians respecting each other.
I will be grateful if you will explain why I am wrong.
Robert Segal
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>] On Behalf Of Dr Leo Ruickbie [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 2:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...
On 05/02/2011 14:09, Segal, Professor Robert A. wrote:
Feb 5
Dear Leo,
I teach religious studies. I am neither Christian nor Wiccan. Your statement about Wiccan "respect" for other religions is as naive as is the respect officially shown other religions by official representatives of mainstream religions. Wiccans would not be Wiccans if they didn't think that their beliefs were right and the beliefs of Christians wrong. There may be commonly held beliefs, but religious folks are no more relativistic about their convictions--and also their practices--than nationalists are about their nationality.
Please do spare us your silliness. You sound like the Archbishop of Canterbury, just less pompous.
Sincerely,
Robert
Robert Segal
Sixth Century Chair in Religious Studies
University of Aberdeen
________________________________________
Nice unprovoked ad hominem attack, Robert. It was neither silly nor naive to point out that Wicca has not produced any sort of publication about converting people of other faiths.
The tone of your email was not what I would have expected from contributors to this list. Please don't forget your manners in future.
Best wishes,
Leo
________________________________
Dr Leo Ruickbie, PhD, MA, BA (Hons), AKC
Author:
Witchcraft Out of the Shadows (Robert Hale, 2004; 2nd ed., 2011)
"Witchcraft Out of the Shadows is an engaging book which deserves to be the benchmark for all future analyses of the Craft." - Alan Richardson
Faustus: The Life and Times of a Renaissance Magician (The History Press, 2009)
"Dr Ruickbie has re-evaluated and contextualised the sources of the Faust tradition from a position of authority. The result is a work of meticulous scholarship that can be read as a gripping page-turner." - Professor Osman Durrani
The Paranormal (Constable & Robinson, forthcoming)
For more information visit www.witchology.com<http://www.witchology.com><http://www.witchology.com><http://www.witchology.com><http://www.witchology.com>
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
|
