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]] On Behalf Of toyin adepoju [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:02 PM
To: [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]>> 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]>] On Behalf Of Dr Leo Ruickbie [[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]>
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>
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
|
