I disagree, and the disagreement goes to the heart of why I despise neo-Paganism. Religion, if it is anything at all, is a philosophy of existence. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, give certain accounts of existence, and the practices they dictate are explained by the philosophy, not the reverse. (This is a very abbreviated argument. If you want, I will post in the future the essay I wrote a while back on this matter.) Now, modern pseudo-religions such as Wicca do nothing of the kind. At best, they give a vague, hinting series of suggestions about "energies" and correspondences, which do not allow to a solidly argued philosophy of existence which you can debate and oppose. No, they exist purely to make people feel good. The appeal of Wicca to its members is what is sometimes described as "inner healing" or the like; at any rate, the implication is that you should pick it up because it feels right, or nice, for you. The issue of truth hardly comes up. In the kingdom of relativism that the Pope has blasted, this is what passes for religion: something that improves your own ego, that leads to something called self-actualization or self-realization. But that is simply nothing to do with the issue of any religion. The monks of the Buddha, the warriors of Muhammad, the missionaries of the Church, did not spread the word because it would make people feel better; in many cases, it might make them feel a great deal worse. They went out because they believed it was true, and, being true, it deserved to be spread. That being the case, as I said to a former friend, going over from Wicca to atheism is a great step forward in dignity of thought and proper use of the intellect. Atheism engages with the real world; it is, like all true religions, a clear philosophy of existence, and deals with facts and issues of truth. This is an enormous step forward from simply looking for "inner healing" or "inner lights". Self-centred? Wicca is as self-centred a discipline as the mind of man ever conceived.
Even so, Wicca is still better than neo-Paganism, because at least it is an original intellectual effort. The basics of any kind of neo-Paganism are sinister: you should follow a certain path, not because it is rooted in universal reality, not even because it is individually good for you and leads to "inner healing", but because it is nationally or culturally suited to you. When the various Teutonic nations became converted to Christianity, they did wrong, in the eyes of Asatru and other Odinists, not because Christianity is a worse system than Asatru, nor even because it is bad for the individual self, but because it struck at the communal identity of the tribes concerned. These tribes were originally bound with their paganism; therefore their remote descendants will find their proper place in a resurrection of said paganism - and in no other system. It is, you might say, in the blood. I find this both irrational and sinister.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Hang on a moment
Date: 2006-06-22 10:30 am (UTC)Even so, Wicca is still better than neo-Paganism, because at least it is an original intellectual effort. The basics of any kind of neo-Paganism are sinister: you should follow a certain path, not because it is rooted in universal reality, not even because it is individually good for you and leads to "inner healing", but because it is nationally or culturally suited to you. When the various Teutonic nations became converted to Christianity, they did wrong, in the eyes of Asatru and other Odinists, not because Christianity is a worse system than Asatru, nor even because it is bad for the individual self, but because it struck at the communal identity of the tribes concerned. These tribes were originally bound with their paganism; therefore their remote descendants will find their proper place in a resurrection of said paganism - and in no other system. It is, you might say, in the blood. I find this both irrational and sinister.