Ted,
I wonder where you-all are getting your definitions of belief.
Mine are simply dictionary definitions and how they are used in
theological spaces, the center of my training.
Here's a quick Google search we can share:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&q=define%3A+belief&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1
I don't have my OED here in the UK, but besides the music
references this mostly seems on track.
Yes it has a colloquial use, which has a trivial relationship to
our topic, so I'm excluding it. It most specifically has a
religious use as well, and when some one starts making
assertions about the Trinity, we are getting into topics which
some folks like the Arians of old and Unitarians today don't
even see as biblical. This topic, Trinitarianism, is a belief.
That and the Credo in general is a list of things to believe.
While one may cite the Bible as the basis for that belief, the
Bible, while it has history in it, is not a historical document.
Nor is it science, it is a religious document, a scripture. It
is not evidentiary in the same way as sense-data, logic, or
scientifically collected data is. Doctrines formed on it are
generally called beliefs. These are to be held without evidence,
Aquinas' logic notwithstanding, simply because the church
Fathers and the priests who have follow them have said so.
Do I need to go on or do I have to continue this Sunday school
lesson? This is why I think what I have said, regarding my use
of the term belief. You are of course allowed to use it in a
different manner. But that is my point. I am raising a
methodological concern.
Perhaps a different language will help: What I'm saying is that
an emic category (Christian-frame notions of the importance of
belief in religiosity) is privileged by being raised to a etic
level and then imposed on other emic frames, distorting our
understandings of them.
The focus on belief so characterizes western thought towards
others' religiosity that we call them 'faiths'. When I've had
the chance to ask them, real people, not books, they beg to
differ on the subject. When they are being polite, they laugh.
They put up with it because the west is hosting the meetings and
they need to be there.
I find that so much of the scholarship is filtered through the
focus on belief as central to religiosity, that, in my opinion,
it distorts our understanding. Perhaps your read of the data is
different than mine. Blessedly, scholarship is not a democracy.
We can differ.
But how about trying on the proposition, rather than simply
attacking it because it conflicts with your previously held,
dare I say it, beliefs? The value of a proposition is in that it
makes us think differently. (A.N. Whitehead) I do find it
fascinating that just raising the issue brings so much heat, and
this is not the first time. The pastor in me finds that worth
examining, the scholar in me makes me think we are missing
something.
For my part, I've done the inner work to remove, to the limits
of my capacity, belief-thinking from my thought processes. This
has in no way diminished my experience of the Divine or the
World. The contrary is my assessment. I find it that it in
general helps me not leap to conclusions too quickly.
However, Ted, beyond challenging your 'beliefs', you have seen
fit to challenge my credentials. While I would, for the sake of
good discourse simply invoke the ancient rhetorical stance that
one should ignore the speaker and see if the proposition is of
interest (Demosthenes), you accuse me of ignorance.
If you have been looking at my work posted on line, you have
been seeing its practical application, only. My function has
been as a teacher and pastor, and a designer of ritual. What you
see on line is not my historical work, and most of it is quite
old. Those were not my concerns back then.
More recently I have done service as a Unitarian Universalist
Minister and for the last decade been building a magical
training institution which has been quite successful in
spiritually advancing its students (www.OSOGD.org).
You see, Ted, and not to diminish or discredit anything you may
do, but I don't just study this stuff. I do it, and have to do
it so that it helps and not harms real people. Out in the field,
one may develop ideas that are at variance with the common
wisdom. I guess I have. That's what comes from building schools
and practices, and having taken the time to see if they work in
people's lives. Mine do.
Now, I'm on sabbatical from that, which is why I'm at Bristol,
studying with Prof. Hutton. Yes, I've read much of what you list
below, but thanks for the ones I haven't. I would count Shaw and
Mazer among my friends, and have taught their work, so I'm
familiar. I was a student of Culiano at the University of
Chicago just before he was shot. My current work is on the
history of Theurgy, so I am working the texts, another reread of
the last third of De Mysteriis is on the agenda for today. (I
love the 5th Book).
It be frank I don't see much to justify the focus on belief in
any of what I'm reading, even if the author does. As a single
ancient example, Iamblichus in DM 1.3 slams Porphyry for
relating to the Divine in a manner that can admit of choice.
Approaching what he is saying from the attitude of belief will
only distort Iamblichus' understanding of the Divine. Another
approach is required. That is what I'm suggesting.
But I probably share your feelings about Starr King.
Cheers,
)O+
sam webster, m.div, mage
phd student, history, University of Bristol
On 2/14/11 9:11 AM, Ted Hand wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">Sam,
Seems we aren't going to profitably debate about definitions of
belief here,
but I am interested in what you said at the end about Tibet. Of
course
Religious Studies doesn't know what to make of magic. But that
doesn't
mean we should make the mistake of redefining religious belief to
suit
some operational magical framework. That is not doing justice to
religion
any more than "Religious Studies" does justice to magic. But you
should
really read the academic studies of magic that don't fall into
these traps.
I was very disappointed when I read your work because although you
are
dealing with subjects I'm very interested in, you don't seem to
have much
of a grasp of the texts or the historical issues. These issues
shouldn't be
ignored simply because some religious studies theorists don't know
what
they're talking about and say stupid things about magic. Your work
doesn't
address the questions I find most compelling about magic, so I
didn't find it
very useful. It seems to me that we really need people who are not
only
taking contemporary magical discourse seriously, but also showing
the
kind of respect for classical sources and traditional belief
structures that
seems like it only happens in scrupulous academic study. Although
many
theorists of magic are confused, we can learn a great deal from
the pioneering
researches of (to name a few) Gregory Shaw on theurgy, Edward
Butler on
Proclus, Dylan Burns, Zeke Mazur, J.Z. Smith, Christopher Lehrich,
Stephen
Clucas, Versnel, Graf, Kiekhefer, Klaasen, Claire Fanger, Deborah
Harkness,
Ioan Couliano. Being academics did not prevent them from
discovering vital
information that is useful not only to historical critics but
practicing magicians.
I don't mean to be rude, but please have a look at some serious
research on magic.
I would love to hear what you think about it. We can build amazing
things without em
but we aren't really talking about authentic magic if we don't
study it carefully first.
Sincerely,
Ted Hand
bitter former MA student who was poorly used by SKSM