Neo-Paganism and "the Enemies of Reason."

I have just begun watching videos by Richard Dawkins and have been quite impressed with his work. I am skeptical of skepticism and scientific method to be the end all reality of my experience as being human and a Pagan. I recently watched a video "Enemies of Reason" by Dawkins and was quite impressed. I found myself agreeing in part with him as he made quite a spectacle of psychic readers at new age conventions and fairs. Dawkins contended that these New Age methods and religion for that matter is humanity's attempts at filling in gaps in understanding with fabricated meaning. I certainly agree that this is done however I would argue that "experienced meaning" can fill in such gaps in my understanding and that I strive to be ethical and responsible about it.

First let’s take a peek and some things that Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley had to say about theism:

Charles Darwin (section of Charles Darwins Autobiography on http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/Charles_Darwin_quotes.html )

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

Thomas Huxley (from the Secular Web Library http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html )

Huxley describes how he came to originate the term "agnostic" as follows:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]
Huxley was delighted to find that the name "agnostic" stuck; he proceeded to expand upon what he meant by it.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

As a Panentheist Neo-Pagan, I believe in the God and Goddess. On the other hand, there is much that my reason will not allow me to believe. I don't believe in certain assumptions about Magick and I don't believe in concrete application of what a Tarot Reader or an Astrologist tells me. I may use their reading as food for thought but my scientific mind will not allow me to ignore investigation fully with what research sources may be at my disposal.

First I am compelled by my faculties of reason to consider the originator of the term "Agnosticism": Coined by Sir Thomas Huxley (whilst defending Charles Darwin during the heated presentation of "Origin of Species" at the Royal Geographic Society).Huxley held that Agnosticism was not a creed but a method. To apply the method of Agnosticism (Huxley said it is a method, not a creed), to back up my belief system.

My belief system makes note of patterns in nature, most importantly procreation, especially by more sentient species which include male and female. My belief in these deities is very nebulous as I perceive them to be in the nature of most things in the natural scientifically observable world. So if being compelled to first apply the discipline of Agnosticism to my creed of panentheism, it is first with this observable, measureable experience of nature, biology, chemistry, physics and astrophysics etc. Second are much my feelings, of joy, of awe and of "transcending wonder" when I see the majesty of a mountain or the delicate beauty of a snowflake. The timeless feeling I get when looking at antiquated art or watching the ducklings following in the Father and Mother ducks at the duck pond here in my hometown of Norman. I see and feel. I measure life and I experience life. Sometime my experience is to bask in joy such as recently when I held my newborn Grandson Dayne. There is a warm glowing joy that I have only felt with such strength when holding my children and my grandchildren as soon as they were born. I do not need to pass this joy through the filter of my skeptical mind to say that "I know this joy!" If someone asked me to "prove it" I would have to respond "prove it yourself and hold a new-born grandson." I have no reason to prove it to embrace and treasure such an experience as divine. Another quick example the "teflon" effect all of my troubles slipping right away from my mind when standing atop the Continental Divide or listening to a choir sing the mysteries of the stars when a certain harmony is struck!

So, give me Dawkins and give me Farrar! I like to straddle the cosmic fence! I would love to read your thoughts (pun intended)

CraigWicce

**********
(added 4/14/09)

Recently appearing on my blogs which appear both on MySpace.com:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=10341534

and PaganSpace.net:

http://www.paganspace.net/profiles/blogs/neopaganism-and-the-enemies-of

I posted my article "Neo-Paganism and "The Enemies of Reason."

Subesequentely, I posted a bulletin for my MySpace friends that read "I challenge you. . .to read my blog and watch Part I and Part II of "The Enemies of Reason.
"

Whatever your faith (or lack thereof). I challenge you to answer and explain your beliefs without using the sacred text of your religion to answer.


I do not want to invalidate you. I want you to clarify and have a strong answer.


Although I do not agree fully with Dawkins, I highly respect his skepticism.

I received a response in my MySpace mail from mine and my son Michael's friend Ryon. I have coppied Ryon's response and youtube video link of a Dawkins interview done by Ben Stein below. I am hoping any further replies he gives will be done on my blog directly by him. Please find both his reply and my response to him:


Subject: Re: I challenge you. . .'funny'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc


I found this interesting that Dawkins actually believes in intelligent design.. just not from any god known to us.. probably from aliens. which that would be a whole other discourse un itself.

It is interesting that people very often belief something because they were raised a certain way and that is what they "know". Any sort of fundamentalist is a scary thing. I kind of have a theory that any sort of knowledge is metaphysical. whether from one god or another.. the stars.. or what have you. And when you study epistemology, you know that knowledge of the supernatural is still knowledge even though it can't be measured by science. To accept Christ, you don't have to say that every other suppostion is wrong, you just have to say that the ultimate revelation is Jesus.
The evidence when checked out earnestly and without bias is overwhelmingly compelling, but more important than evidence is an encounter. I have met pastor's children that grow up to be agnostic beacuse they never had really known God. They knew all about him, and all about the bible, but never knew him. That being said, being agnostic seems like most logical and reasonable thing to do. Logic and reason are gifts from God and they are things that we should never negate. Any faith that asks you to do so is not a faith worth having.

As for me, I did not come to know God through having been raised around it or having read about him in sacred text. I had some people that followed an ancient Babylonian god named Ashtar or Ishtar show me the power of the gods. Ashtar is where we get easter from. Her spaceship looked like an egg, and she claimed to be an asended master of the universe. (interesting that Mork and mindy's spaceship also looked like an egg) These people tried to sacrifice me and Jesus Christ saved me. By his grace, He showed me the reality of what I was dealing with. These people seemed very nice but their god that was inside of them was fowl and evil. When Jesus came to me, I said His name and the god that was in them trembled fiercly. Don't let fundamentalists or bigoted uniformed people stop you from seeing the reality of Christ. Paradoxically, you won't see the reality of Christ without Christ. You probably are familar with the routine. But it begins with humility. not your idea of humility, but humbling all that you are and repenting, and asking God, Christ in particular to come in. Blind faith is not faith at all. God does not desire anyone to follow him blindly. If you humble yourself and pray to God through the acceptance of Christ and ask the Holy Sirit to come inside you. Then you will not guess at reality anymore. You will know reality because reality will be now living inside of you.

gotta go
Much Love Friend

Thank you my dear friend Ryon for your exquisite reply! I am glad you are humored by my challenge! I so often get such banal and predictable replies with various canned scriptures and containing no individual free thought that I was compelled to make such a challenge.

My word my young friend! you have delivered the caliber of response I had hoped for and for that I applaud you!



I do not believe that Dawkins even remotely came close to professing a belief in intelligent design. Dawkins postulated the possibility of an extra terrestrial race 'seeding" this planet. Read further below:

Ben Stein says: "So Professor Dawkins is not against intelligent design, just certain types of intelligent design."

He says this just after Dawkins said about the possibility of a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe "seeding" life on our planet: "But that higher intelligence itself would have had to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that's the point."

Stein then basically asks Dawkins "what will you do if you die and run into God and he asks you 'what have you been doing?', I gave you all of this money on your book etc. etc."

Dawkins replies quoting Bertram Russell "Sir why did you take such pains to hide yourself."

Stein then goes on to say: "But if the intelligent design people are right, God isn't hidden. We may even be able to encounter God through science. If we have the freedom to go there. What could be more intriguing than that?"

I really like Stein's closing statement because it left the mind open to the hopeful possibility of someday intelligent design passing successfully through the filter of the scientific method!

Concerning "accepting Christ." I personally cannot profess something that I do not at all believe. That being "the ultimate revelation being Jesus." I do embrace many of his ideals and living message as contained in the four gospels and apocrypha books I have read. Concepts like "Loving God with all your heart and your brother as yourself." "Before trying to remove the splinter in your brother's eye, remove the beam your own." When asked by his disciples when the kingdom of God would come, him saying "the kingdom of God is within you." So I "accept" those aspects of Christ whilst rejecting anything he said about being the only way to God.

I do not believe in original sin nor the human (or animal) atonement of sin. I agree with many of the horrific adjectives used by Dawkins when describing the blood-thirsty Jehova god.

Sacrificial living and putting others first along with humility so much as practiced being of help to my fellow humans to me is living Jesus' message. I find many common threads of thought in Witchcraft, Wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam (to name some) as well.

I am still waiting (as is Dawkins) for the "compelling evidence" you speak of. I believe we strike a common thread in speaking of our experiences "encounters" transcending empirical evidence. Of course such is pure subjectivity but valid to the individual nonetheless.

On Easter. Yes I celebrated with my congregation on the Vernal Equinox. Indeed Celtic Eostre and later Babylonian hegemony Ishtar and later the hegemony of the resurrection myth of Christianity.

I like to first guess at reality and then follow those guesses up with ongoing research. I find it dull to be told "This is the reality, believe it." i long since abandoned the "Holy Spirit filled" concept as far as it being exclusive to a triune entity. Mine is much more eclectic and "panoramic.' Thank you for those thoughts though.

Peace and respect,

CraigWicce