Scrutiny of beliefs

[Toby Stimpson]

I was working on an essay tonight (thats due next week *cringe*) about the factors of studying religion in a University setting. The basic assumption of the question is whether it is possible to hold deep rooted religious beliefs while at the same time scrutinizing them, and does this scrutiny serve the follower of that religion or the outsider of the religion more?

So I was pondering, when it comes to whatever form or view of Paganism you follow... in your study, does skepticism play a role and if it doesn't, how do you come to terms when an academic scrutinizes the validity of a belief you hold dear?

Likewise, when it comes to Paganism specifically, how do you react and come to terms when questions are raised about the validity of an opinion or belief? I have seen some people play the personal gnosis card, and others have seemed to come to terms through alternative interpretations of belief in question. What do you think?

[AJwins]

Personal experience does it for me. I come to the table exceptionally skeptical about everything. I have no time for the healing power of gemstones or psychic children and other new-agey stuff. I just don't buy it.

My personal magickal experiences tell me that realities are often subjective. So maybe gemstone healing would work for me if I believed it. Placebo or magic(k), take your pick.

When I'm holding a ritual, and I invoke God into me and he speaks with my voice, the words are mine, the voice which speaks is mine. It is the force behind the words, the frenzy and exhiliration of divinity present, the inspiration, which is not mine. The worse I say I don't chose, they're chosen for me. When my Priestess invokes Goddess and she and I share the energy of that duality, the skeptic fades because I am there, I feel the gods, and I know.

A really great example of magic for me involved a ritual that was held in the Order I was formerly a member of. I was elevated in some respects to the "priesthood" even though we didn't exactly have one- I was given a charge, a transferal of energy, where I was given leave to teach others what I knew. Now I can be a hundred percent sure that it was simply myself and a diminutive Jewish man in a smokey basement temple with a cold concrete floor and important magickal items resting on a folding chair. But thats not how I remember it. No matter what I do, my memory recalls things I know I didn't "see". Every pentagram drawn in the air by the Hierophant I can see clealry in memory, burning a bright blue. Every white line of energy, this small man who worked in day to day life as a lawyer loomed high as a priest-king of old, crackling with the charge. The eyes can't perceive the magic, but the mind sees it.

Excuse me waxing poetical. The point is, the skeptic is perhaps the only reasonable position to take when studying magic and walking down a religious path. But a TRUE skeptic does not dismiss things, a true skeptic BEGS for proof. The skeptic WANTS to believe, he will just not believe without proof. For me, proof is in the experience.

ALSO randomly CAPITALZING words for emphasis ISN'T annoying AT all.

[Hærfest Leah]

As one finishing a BA in History, religion is obviously discussed in pretty much every class. I think that if you cannot be skeptical or objective then you aren't having a true academic discussion. That's why I find if funny when some people on here try to act so 'I'm smarter than you' yet agrue over their religion like 8th graders fighting over a girl that doesn't like either one of them.

We have covered paganism in several of my classes (Medieval Europe, Roman Empire, Renaissance & Reformation, Classical Greece, and many others) and I often run into classmates who are christian fundies; what makes it fun though is when other non christians start ganging up on the fundies. That's besides the point, anyway, if you find yourself always defending your religion perhaps you take it too seriously and need to get used to seeing it from the other side. Picking at your own religion will help you to understand class conversations better without it getting you riled up; you may learn more that you previously did not know, or realize your beliefs are not what you thought they were. I'd say it definitely helps both sides. Try not to let another's scrutiny get you riled, I find it easy to just igmore the obvious morons unless they really go too far, even then, be respectful since you are in an academic setting.

Good luck Toby.

[Darkest Eve]

I was working on an essay tonight (thats due next week *cringe*) about the factors of studying religion in a University setting. The basic assumption of the question is whether it is possible to hold deep rooted religious beliefs while at the same time scrutinizing them, and does this scrutiny serve the follower of that religion or the outsider of the religion more? Ah, college essays.... you poor boy. :D :lol:

I think that it is only possible to scrutinize your own beliefs if you are willing to be honest with yourself (and others) that you might - just might - not have all the answers. Keeping an open mind and a willingness to evolve and refine your views over time makes study and growth possible.



So I was pondering, when it comes to whatever form or view of Paganism you follow... in your study, does skepticism play a role and if it doesn't, how do you come to terms when an academic scrutinizes the validity of a belief you hold dear?

I guess I might look at it as truth vs. Truth. "truth" of a non-spiritual nature - such as the sun rises each morning - and "Truth" of a spiritual nature that is a deep-seated inner truth that can't be seen or shown... but is only known to it's holder, if that makes any sense. Communicating with the God/dess, would be an example - I can't prove to you that I do... but I may know in my own way that it is true without being able to prove it to anyone else.

Other people being skeptical of your beliefs will either strengthen or shatter your faith. If it manages to shatter your faith - then maybe you never really held it as Truth... and you need to move on in your path in life.



Likewise, when it comes to Paganism specifically, how do you react and come to terms when questions are raised about the validity of an opinion or belief? I have seen some people play the personal gnosis card, and others have seemed to come to terms through alternative interpretations of belief in question. What do you think?

I try to answer questions to the best of my personal ability. If it is something I don't feel I can adequately answer, I'll make an attempt to refer the person to an appropriate resource of information.

If they go in thinking that it is absolutely the wrong answer - you are unlikely to change their mind... hence a need for the above-mentioned open-mindedness in order to truly scrutinize and find an appropriate path in life. Skeptics abound, and the fact of the matter is that we can't prove to another person beyond a singular doubt that we have the correct answers... we take it on faith, on our own personal truth, that we do.

AJwins answer is interesting: Reality is subjective.

Throw that out there and they will have a field day trying to figure out just what you mean. :lol:

[Toby Stimpson]

Thankyou for your comments, I want to read and reread them before I reply. I want to add some context around my question first. I don't think that my own beliefs are riled up about this, and the class isnt related to Paganism, but was more so a general question to others.

The question Im writing on is "what are the purposes of studying Sikhism in a University classroom? What are some factors to be considered? and What are the needs of Sikh and Non-Sikh students." What I am finding is that the main difficulty comes from the insider vs outsider perspective... as well as the difficulty of scrutinizing a sacred scripture. The people who hold that sacred scripture to be absolutely perfect and without influence from anything do not appreciate the academic's opinions of historical influence from other religions on the the development of that sacred text.

So with Paganism, for example, there has been criticism of a LOT of different elements because they are untraceable by any source, or it's quite common on mysticwicks to have a poster saying things that seem to be completly out there BUT they use the virtue of personal gnosis as an alibi for their beliefs. So, I guess my ultimate question is... is academic study of Paganism (perhaps more focussed towards Recons) compatible with religious devotion? And I say that as a non pagan myself.

[Meadhbh]

Is the study of a pagan religion the same as devotion? Yes and no. I think it is because to be devoted to a religion or anything really you must understand it. If you don't understand how it developed and grew over the years then your at a loss how it got to be that way. But on the other hand people can say they only need devotion and that viewing from a academic view point can under mind a persons faith. That it can take away some of the mystery and what have you. Personally I think if your faith can be shaken by something like the introduction of academic study of your chosen religion then perhaps your faith is not as strong as you would like to believe. Not that, thats a bad thing but if it bothers you its something you should take a look at.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

in your study, does skepticism play a role and if it doesn't, how do you come to terms when an academic scrutinizes the validity of a belief you hold dear?



For me personally I think that I must acccept a certain amount of skepticism in one's ability to see as I do. I mold my belief structure around certain things that are tangible and can be validated via research and historical documentation. Yet, I also understand that certain facets are things that may never be valid in the eyes of others for they can not see it, touch it or find it as I have.

That skepticism also impacts on the level of my belief. If my beliefs are shallow and false then it will not stand before the skepticism. Yet, the skepticism can also be used as a fuel to drive my search and discovery of my gods / goddess and even my own understanding of what "MY" truths really are.



Likewise, when it comes to Paganism specifically, how do you react and come to terms when questions are raised about the validity of an opinion or belief?


In my youth I would fly into a rage, how dare you question my beliefs. However both youth and perspective have faded and changed as time marches forward.

In some ways I find the questions of my beliefs to be reflective of thier own questions and concerns. Each occurance of asking me is in affect an asking of thier own beliefs and level of belief. If they accept what I say then it must inversely mean a change or evoluation of their own belief system.

Those questions also pose a position of what is the deapth and breath of my own beliefs. I find my own beliefs to be of such deapth that I can see not only thier question but even their position in myself. In many ways their questions are but reflections of questions I have asked of myself and answered to some degree to arrive at the place I now stand.

Those that refuse to admit change or possibility of such I find do not ask the question or even speak of the possibility of it.



and does this scrutiny serve the follower of that religion or the outsider of the religion more?



I think it serves both. As an outsider it gives me a perspective of what is versus what I think something is. There will always be a difference of what I know versus what I think I know of a thing, regardless of the subject. As one within the bowl beng observed it gives me a chance to understand and see the perspective of those looking into the bowl. It gives me a chance to understand thier questions and maybe a understanding of how they reached such positions.

The problem though lies in will I as the insider or outsider be willing to consider that I may be wrong and they right. Will I be willing to question my own faith and beliefs and listen to thier conclusions, even though they not be supported by my beliefs.

Personally I see this as the biggest hurdle of any belief system. Those new to it frequently fight the notion that they might be wrong or consider that another might be right. It is frequently seen not as a search and discovery of truth but as an attack upon them or trying to convert them. Frequently, the point where I will find and point out all the wrongs of your system even as I ignore or omit the wrongs in mine. Anything that can be construde as being bad or wrong will be seen in such a light for to do less means I must look upon myself as well. Toi some extent as long as I look and find faught with you I do not have time to look upon myself.



is academic study of Paganism (perhaps more focussed towards Recons) compatible with religious devotion?


I think that it is. That said I think those that use Unproven Personal Gnosis (UPG) will also try to find a tangible support for that position. No, not support to justify but some support or knowledge that will give the foundation that will give them more perspective and development of belief.

Even as a non recon I must include somehings that I know can not be supported or verified by any means. Yet that does not mean that I do not try or accept the notion that my Gnosis is wrong or not complete. It is through the exploration of self, diety, belief and all the facets of it that my UPG's are tested and modified or dropped.

Even the question that raises doubt about it's validity is a powerful tool if I use it to push me forward vice sitting in the present and crying about how it is unfair or I do not have to justify myself to others.

Truthfully, to me when I hear I don't have to justify myself to you I see a person who has stopped asking and is still stuck at the I'm new stage. Myself, I answer to the best of my ability for each answer means I must look at myself and see where I am and have I grown in my understanding of my self, my beliefs and my dieties. That to me is how one grows from being shallow in thier beliefs to growing it deep into their psychie and spirit.

Of course that is my position and opinion so others may disagree.

[Anteros]

Skepticism is important to any belief system. It's healthy to question what you believe and examine why you believe what you do.

I'm actually studying religion in university, and it's really difficult sometimes. Studying religion seems to make atheists out of a lot of people :lol:.

[Kraheera]

Skepticism is healthy. It is only through the constant re-evaluation of what we believe that we come to know just who we are.

I often think that this is the problem with all zealots of any religion. They are so dogmatic, so set in stone, that everything becomes about the religion, and not at all about personal accountability.

At that point, they no longer believe. They accept it as fact, without ever having experienced that which they claim to be infallible truth.

I KNOW that when dancing, spirits or gods touch me. I know that, because I cease to be in control of my movements. It is... a solid line of movement, something that only starts to slow when whatever I am communing with lets me go, or the music ceases. Even that isn't a guarantee that I'll come down from my trance immediately.

I KNOW that I have a deep connection to Horse and Bobcat.

I KNOW these things because I have experienced them. I was skeptical, until I kept peeling away my thoughts to find what was Truth for me. Reality is subjective. It is our beliefs that shape us, and those around us.

So skepticism is healthy. Is that truly what you believe, or is a mirroring of what has surrounded you for so long? An important question to answer.

[cydira]

I have to say that the very thing that helped me grow the most during the years I was at college is precisely the skepticism that I encountered. Being openly pagan at a Catholic college, you find a lot of skepticism. Three things became immediately apparent:


Skepticism is not bad. Neither is it denigrating your beliefs. It can lead to a learning experience.
If I was offended by the question, I had to examine why I was offended. Usually, it was my ignorance showing not that I'd been personally attacked.
Open and honest communication, when done with respect for everyone, makes just about any discussion of religion is a wonderful way to learn more about how religion works, not just the religion in question.


Now, obviously, it's important to be aware of your comfort levels and to recognize when you're approaching subject matter that you don't believe you know enough to discuss intelligently. But I don't think one should shy away from discussions like this. These are the things that makes theologians, and the world needs some theologians to help it understand modern paganism from each religion that is covered under that umbrella term.

That, however, is my opinion and I'm kinda partial to theologians because I think they're fascinating and wonderfully interesting people to talk to. :)

[ffetcher]

Toby posted a follow-up:


What I am finding is that the main difficulty comes from the insider vs outsider perspective... as well as the difficulty of scrutinizing a sacred scripture. The people who hold that sacred scripture to be absolutely perfect and without influence from anything do not appreciate the academic's opinions of historical influence from other religions on the the development of that sacred text.

So with Paganism, for example, there has been criticism of a LOT of different elements because they are untraceable by any source, or it's quite common on mysticwicks to have a poster saying things that seem to be completly out there BUT they use the virtue of personal gnosis as an alibi for their beliefs. So, I guess my ultimate question is... is academic study of Paganism (perhaps more focussed towards Recons) compatible with religious devotion? And I say that as a non pagan myself.

The insider/outsider thing is a common problem throughout anthropology and religious studies, and although it's probably too late, Ron Hutton has a great personal perspective on it in the essay "Living with Witchcraft" in his "Witches, Druids and King Arthur" - worth a read even after you've handed the essay in.

From my own point of view I'm a little surprised that you're encountering this with Sikhism. We have a large Sikh community with two Gurdwara, and I have friends in both groups. There's good-natured sniping between the groups and as a friend, they'll carry in when I'm there, although as I'm not an 'insider' I can claim ignorance and avoid taking sides. If an outsider does appear to take sides, the two groups will, as is natural, join ranks, but then attempt to engage said outsider in the same kind of dialogue they have between themselves.

I personally do think that certain groups place too much emphasis on the perfection of their texts, but I try to follow Ron Hutton's advice that a good academic in these fields always allows room for others' beliefs. It's a yardstick by which I have judged my own work over the last thirty years.

And my own work has involved quite a lot of scepticism. I encountered and espoused Wicca just as I began my undergraduate studies in Engineering Science. Apart from anything else, this includes taking things apart, figuring out how they work and trying to make them work better. It's probably not the case today but thirty-five years ago in England most people were aghast. Newbies just didn't question things. Which of course just made me more determined. People told me that taking it apart made it less special. I coined a phrase back then that I stil think is true. "Knowing how to make coloured glass doesn't stop a stained-glass window being beautiful".

Modern research, including science as well as anthropology, is rewriting much of what we "knew" about pagansim and witchcraft back in the seventies; it's just that (a) much of it hasn't been presented for lay readership yet; and (b) many popular books just trot out the same stuff, either because the authors don't know better or because they don't want to think too hard.

Taking Ron's advice, at this point I'll move on to neuroscience. Since the eighties there's been stuff around that started to explain _why_ various parts of occultism and paganism work. Does that worry me? No, I simply compare what I can see happening in bain scans with what I "know" and do a lot of thinking. For just one example that won't affect (ie offend) most people here but does involve scepticism both ways round.

In the seventies I developed an interest in sex magic, which remains. The advice commonly given was the for good results (with a partner) one should be in a committed monogamous relationship. I was sceptical - many of my friends in casual relationships seemed to be getting on well. Some years later I began to find the same advice, for advanced work at least, coming from cultures with vastly different attitudes to sex. Could there be something in the advice or was it being filtered for the Western market? I had a control group of one - my wife and myself - but it was prety difficult to see which way round the situation was - was our committed relationship making advance easier, or was our progress making our relationship stronger? I put it aside. Four years ago, I got an advanced copy of a paper that indicated there was a reason for the advice other than a stuffy western attitude to sex. A scholarly book is nearly in publication and when it hits the market I shall summarise the stuff for my web site. (there's no full scale study as yet and in this field I suspect that finding two equivalent study groups might be ... interesting. :)

The first pagan author to have a go at a popular book on modern neuroscience and paganism will certainly sell well; whether they'll be popular will depend on whether my attitude is in the majority or minoity. Time will tell.

blessings
ffetcher

[Kraheera]

That was a wonderful post, Ffetcher. I've often been a bit curious about that aspect of magic myself, but as of right now, it is unavailable for my own personal practice. My husband being Christian is uncomfortable with the idea, and so I am happy just reading about it. ^_^

Though he, oddly, enjoys Beltain quite a bit with me. LOL.

Out of curiousity, which scholarly book is nearly on the market? I would like to keep an eye out for it.

[David19]

Thankyou for your comments, I want to read and reread them before I reply. I want to add some context around my question first. I don't think that my own beliefs are riled up about this, and the class isnt related to Paganism, but was more so a general question to others.

The question Im writing on is "what are the purposes of studying Sikhism in a University classroom? What are some factors to be considered? and What are the needs of Sikh and Non-Sikh students." What I am finding is that the main difficulty comes from the insider vs outsider perspective... as well as the difficulty of scrutinizing a sacred scripture. The people who hold that sacred scripture to be absolutely perfect and without influence from anything do not appreciate the academic's opinions of historical influence from other religions on the the development of that sacred text.

So with Paganism, for example, there has been criticism of a LOT of different elements because they are untraceable by any source, or it's quite common on mysticwicks to have a poster saying things that seem to be completly out there BUT they use the virtue of personal gnosis as an alibi for their beliefs. So, I guess my ultimate question is... is academic study of Paganism (perhaps more focussed towards Recons) compatible with religious devotion? And I say that as a non pagan myself.

Personally, I think you need skepticism when it comes to your own religion, I don't mind my religion being studied, it can actually help it, by improving things, making things clearer, etc. Personally, I like it when academic people study magic, 'cause when you read about it from them, they don't put it in a load of esoteric language that no one can understand. I think it's a good thing anyway, good luck with your essay :).

[lavenderdawn]

Skepticism is important to any belief system. It's healthy to question what you believe and examine why you believe what you do.

I'm actually studying religion in university, and it's really difficult sometimes. Studying religion seems to make atheists out of a lot of people :lol:.


Or at least Unitarians, lol.

[Darth Brooks]

I am a person of faith. My faith is of great, great importance in my life. However, like many other people on this board, I believe that faith wouldn't be worth a hill of beans if it weren't for scrutiny. We must always strive to be true to ourselves, and in doing so, it's important to examine why we believe the things we believe. In my experience, such examination is often helpful in culling the weaker, less important beliefs we might have (which can actually become obstacles) and in refining the stronger, more important beliefs (which can help us to overcome said obstacles). As Socrates said, "An unexamined life is not worth living."

And I wish you the best of luck on your paper, Toby. :)

[Xentor]

I was trained academically, with analytical ability as my strongest skill. I question everything, including this statement. I regularly revise my beliefs based on new knowledge acquired. I deem this an obligation for all beliefs that wish to withstand time.

It's the main reason for me describing my path systematically: a circular, self-referencing system, complementing scientific explanations rather than ignoring them. Here's the dogmas, here's the explanation for the dogmas, and here's what we extrapolate when pondering upon those dogmas. There's plenty of room for error, plenty of room for ethical duress, and plenty of room for individual interpretation, which allows for quite interesting discussions.

[Cobalt]

My personal experience with this is a little odd, perhaps. When I studied goddess feminism for a class and realized what absurdly-bad scholarship the whole myth of "original matriarchy" was based on, I realized that I had to accept--as many Christians must--that my faith's core myths may not be literally true, and that their historicity cannot be why I follow the path I do.

When I realized that the history and scholarship were all wrong, something else hit me. I didn't care. There were other things I wanted to get out of it, and I became truly active in my practice after that. It was over a year ago, and I still consider that the transition point between "I think this stuff has a good ring to it" and "this is for me."

I guess what I'm trying to say is when I realized the holes in the narrative, they highlighted what was solid and good. It was then that I knew what I wanted.

[Morgaine_cla]

I think it's important to remember that history is not unbiased. Educational institutions are accredited by government agencies only after meeting government criteria that define what they can and cannot teach and how they can teach it; and modern Western governments have a vested interest in maintaining the belief that "people have always been savages waging war against one another". Our economy is largely based on war. If people accept war as inevitable, they are less likely to oppose the philosophies that lead to it. The idea that former societies might have existed for long periods in relative peace could completely upset the apple-cart and endanger profit margins across the Western world. :hairred:

Proof of the existence of relatively peaceful matriarchies has existed for many years in the UK (comparative studies of Barnhouse and SkaraBrae, for example), North and South America (records of Amerindian accounts of the natives who preceded them, and recent excavations of Peruvian plateau settlements), and probably in many other places as well. I'm not sure I see any value in claiming one or another type of society as "original"; I suspect we cycle through them in the course of time. Until the last ten years the bulk of this proof was suppressed. The story of its suppression is just now being told. Awareness of the existence of various kinds of suppressed evidence is just now percolating into mainstream consciousness here; but the cautiously worded Discovery and Nova programmes, and the academic spats in Science magazines post-date the matter-of-fact documentation of many State Archaeological Journals by as much as one hundred years. Yes, that's right. We've spent 100 years teaching false history as established fact...

In the US, the entire classroom history of the peopling of America and the founding of our nation is now admitted to be largely wrong, but it continues to be taught anyway. Many school teachers will admit knowing this, but they are also quick to remind you that to keep their jobs they must teach to the tests, and until their superiors change the tests this is what they'll be teaching. They encourage students to do their own research, but to memorize what was learned in class for the exams. Even assuming these kids run home and become student sleuths, the test answers are likely to be the ones that stick with them, since they are also the answers their parents will know and affirm. This is a ridiculous situation, but it was inevitable once government and industry :crown: got control of financing and regulating education.

Understand, I am not saying that everything you were taught in school is wrong... I am saying that an indeterminate amount is wrong, and that this fraud was perpetrated for political and religious reasons to protect the status quo. So we cannot simply say "it's true because the experts say it is" anymore than we can reasonably say "it's false because Neopagans believe it." We have to go back to the actual evidence (archaeology, literature, folklore, place name evidence, myths -- everything), visit the sites where possible, and arrive at our own conclusions based on the evidence at hand -- with the understanding that any conclusion we reach is subject to change as new information becomes available.

In light of this, as Neopagans who profess a love of the earth and a veneration for ancestral practices and beliefs, perhaps it's time that we reclaimed the methods for asking the land to tell us its story. Our form of Druidry subjects this kind of information to a process of verification that requires us to find supporting evidence in three or more authoritative outside sources before accepting a finding as likely true. The fact is, usually the story in the land will seem ridiculous or impossible at the outset, but if you put it on a back burner and keep checking it, the facts will often emerge to support it over time -- much as archaeology has recently discovered much of the physical evidence supporting Irish and British "myths" as transcriptions of an oral history precisely recording certain actual events. For centuries science, academia, and religion scoffed at the laws of metaphysics as "pure superstition", something only ignorant fools would believe. Now the new physics is validating them. Things which were formerly considered "impossible" are being proven true every day. The truth is "out there", and to get it means actively engaging in a process of discovery, rather than waiting for an "expert" to provide an instant "answer".

Any institution is subject to the same biases and blind spots as the society that supports it. In addition, history teaches us that if we rely on other people for our answers, we can never be sure they aren't using our credulity to their own advantage. Many things "sound reasonable" and yet are not true... The trick is to arm ourselves with the ability to evaluate facts and arrive at our own conclusions about what they suggest; preferably from a more holistic perspective that synthesizes all of the available evidence, rather than drawing a final conclusion from only one, preferred source.

The Truth will out because it endures where falsehood fails. Happy hunting!