Anti-Intellectualism in Wicca?

[Carla O'Harris]

Is there an anti-intellectual current in Wicca? Is there an embrace of one side of the rational/intuitive split without healing the split itself? Have there been people within the movement who have discouraged the development of rational thought? Have there been people within the movement who have discouraged the synthesis of the intuitive and the rational? Are people encouraged to turn off their critical faculty, which in my opinion is one of the only safeguards against authoritarianism? (Temporary suspension of judgement to allow intuitive openness is also important, allowing one to access phenomena that could be dispersed by a rationalist dogma ; however, once there, phenomeno-logy is possible, a logos or rationality that poetically and rigorously speaks to experience.) Are signs of intellectual rigor automatically taken as signs of a lack of intuition?


If any of these are true (and I suspect many of them are), I can almost understand some of Hutton's motivations --- to cut through the B.S. with an adamantium criteria of only allowing that which is strictly and historically documentable ---- going too far, perhaps, but setting up a filter of rigor which weeds out a great deal of nonsense, and ups the ante in terms of intellectualism. (The fact that I disagree with much of his theorizing does not mean that I disagree with his freedom to theorize.)

[LostSheep]

is intellectual necessarily synonymous with rational, though? the mainstream religions have had no shortage of thinkers and philosophers, but is any kind of religion - particularly one that insists on having faith in something that can't be proved - really "rational"? If Wicca (and most other pagan paths too) encourages people to feel, rather than think, is that necessarily a worse thing that expecting them to believe without thinking too much about it? maybe any religious path has to be "irrational" from the point of view of say, someone like richard dawkins.

just a thought; i will now go back in my box. _inabox_

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, maybe Richard Dawkins is not the end-all of rationality. A religion which asks me to turn off my mind is a religion which is asking me to turn off my critical faculties is a religion that is going to tend to be authoritarian.

[genexs]

Good points. I've been wondering why I am not finding more of a Wiccan or Pagan themed reply to some of the attacks on the culture of spirituality from Dawkins and Sam Harris. (If people have been, then I've missed it)

Harris seemed to imply an rationalization of torture in one of his books, which caused a bit of a dust-up in certain corners of the internets. IMHO, his reply is rather wanting. Links:

A hot crit of Harris from Alternet:
http://alternet.org/story/46196/

Harris replies:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

best,
Gene

[Simply Puzzled]

Is there an anti-intellectual current in Wicca? Is there an embrace of one side of the rational/intuitive split without healing the split itself?

Not at all. After watching your misadventures over on the list you recently stormed out of, I would have to say if anything there is an anti-intuitive current in reconstructionism. You are quick to pull out historical documents and scholarly works, but when invited to sit down at the table and discuss your experiences, your thoughts, your intuitive side, you back down. The problem isn't with Wicca Carla; it's you.

[Carla O'Harris]

Not at all. After watching your misadventures over on the list you recently stormed out of, I would have to say if anything there is an anti-intuitive current in reconstructionism. You are quick to pull out historical documents and scholarly works, but when invited to sit down at the table and discuss your experiences, your thoughts, your intuitive side, you back down. The problem isn't with Wicca Carla; it's you.

Hold on ; is it even proper to refer to events on a restricted-members list? Why don't you privately email me about this? For the record, I did not "storm out" of anything, and I freely discuss experiences with those I trust, those who have earned my trust, through a willingness to accept me for who I am with all of my challenging questions. If I were to leave a discussion because I felt a lack of momentary compatibility, that would be a sign of respect in difference, and not an insult. In any case, even if such a thing were the case, the questions I ask here would far transcend such a venue. They are questions that pertain to a larger context.

Since I am not engaged in "reconstructionism" (and generally tend to have critiques of said tendency), I wouldn't be participating in its alleged anti-intuitive currents.

[Eran]

From my experience, there is certainly an anti-intellectual (or at least anti-rational) current in modern Paganism (not just Wicca). I have seen two very important manifestations of this current:

One leads to a preference for personal revelation over careful research. At times, this involves insisting that accurate historical research be ignored in favor of one's own oh-so-stunning mystical experiences. ("Okay, your research shows you that historical Witches did thus-and-so; but the Fairies I talk to every day are not like that.")

The other leads to blind faith in people with degrees (and agendas) so as to not appear foolish oneself. ("This respected scholar says there never were any historical Witches; we should therefore accept those conclusions if we want to be taken seriously.")

Both of these are non-rational approaches; in the first example, a mistaken understanding of what private epiphanies are for; and in the second example, a misunderstanding of how rational scholarship works (scholars expect to be disagreed with, and have greater respect for those who can prove a contrary position).

(By the way, I am completely ignorant of the events described as having happened on some other forum. But I agree that it is inappropriate to bring them up here, and I also feel the manner in which they were brought up left a lot to be desired in the way of exhibiting the mutual public respect that MysticWicks strives for.)

[Dawa Lhamo]

Is there an anti-intellectual current in Wicca? Is there an embrace of one side of the rational/intuitive split without healing the split itself? Have there been people within the movement who have discouraged the development of rational thought? Have there been people within the movement who have discouraged the synthesis of the intuitive and the rational? Are people encouraged to turn off their critical faculty, which in my opinion is one of the only safeguards against authoritarianism? (Temporary suspension of judgement to allow intuitive openness is also important, allowing one to access phenomena that could be dispersed by a rationalist dogma ; however, once there, phenomeno-logy is possible, a logos or rationality that poetically and rigorously speaks to experience.) Are signs of intellectual rigor automatically taken as signs of a lack of intuition? I don't think so. I think each has it's time and place. Certainly straight "intellectualism" as you describe it, is unbalanced, at least so far as the religion is concerned. If you approach all on one side, either completely intuitively or completely rationally, you're going to miss something very important, IMO. Wicca, in my experience, IS a synthesis of the two. It just doesn't work without a bit of both. Sure, there are some who lean more one way or another. But if you look at the fact that a great deal of Wiccans are engineers, techies, and the like... well, those kinds of careers and "anti-intellectualism" just don't go together. No, I'd say we're a healthy mix, an organic synthesis if anything.

[Athena-Nadine]

Not at all. After watching your misadventures over on the list you recently stormed out of, I would have to say if anything there is an anti-intuitive current in reconstructionism. You are quick to pull out historical documents and scholarly works, but when invited to sit down at the table and discuss your experiences, your thoughts, your intuitive side, you back down. The problem isn't with Wicca Carla; it's you.
2. Debate the idea, don't attack the poster. Calling someone "neocon filth"/"Liberal traitor"/"Fluffy bunny"/"idiot"/"dumbass"/"moron"/"crackpot"/"conservative arsehole"/"big loser", actually, any name-calling whatsoever is not a refutation of an idea, it's a verbal (yah, yah...typed, written, etc) attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community. Then he must be respected like every other member. Also, no condescending stuff. Calling someone sweetypie, honeybunch, hun, missy, might just be the way you talk, but it can also imply a condescending tone. We have no way of knowing which way you are using the term...so if you are addressing someone directly, just use their username.

5. The ignore function should be used. Keep the flames to PMs, and/or put people who annoy you on ignore. Seriously. Use the ignore feature. If someone is sending you PM's that you do not like then place them on ignore and they can't send you PM's anymore. It's very simple. If someone is harassing/stalking you then PM or email an admin immediately.

11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site. Private, real life problems between members needs to be settled in private and off of the public boards.

[Twinkle]

In all honesty....I think it depends on which Wicca we're talking about. Traditional Wicca (Gardnerian, Alexandrian) that's iniatory I feel is highly intellectualized...and requires a certain amount of critical reasoning.

The Wicca that encompasses anything and everything and accepts "orbing" as part of it's belief system is certainly dumbed down...and requires little to no intellectualism. These people can self initiate and call themselves a High Priestess.

So there you go.

[Elderbush]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Most groups aim for a mixture between the intellect and heart. Not every person is perfectly balanced between the two but hopefully the mix within the group is not too heavy one way or another. That is the ideal.

[StormVixen]

i think there is a lot of anti-intelectuals within Paganism as a whole, in fact maybe all religions...

i dont have the vocabulary to try an explane what my brain is thinking... (i wish i did... lol)

anyway... people need to put science and facts before there religious (or non-religious) beliefs...

[Prophecy]

i think there is a lot of anti-intelectuals within Paganism as a whole, in fact maybe all religions...

i dont have the vocabulary to try an explane what my brain is thinking... (i wish i did... lol)

anyway... people need to put science and facts before there religious (or non-religious) beliefs...

I agree with storm on this. I have read all the posts here and I will add, If it seems that intellectualism is under attack it's due to the fact that all these people continuously quote from books and authors proving that they are "book learned with no life experience" It's the "life experiences" that MOST want to hear about and learn about, not what this author says is "supposedly" gospel. I'm not attacking anyone but I have noticed this even here at MW. Nothing wrong in getting the knowledge from books, but can one use what they have learned from? Honestly, me personally speaking here, I am TIRED of some people dishing me the line "souces please", I'm not the Granddaddy of witchcraft wicca or anything of the sort but I do have 40+ years of study, learning, practice, and worship and I would like to think that people would accept what I say without someone saying "SOUCES PLEASE".

[Elderbush]

I think that the internet is the problem there, Prophesy. You must understand that you say you are a witch with 40 years experience but you could as well be a bright 16 year old who is lying. We have all run across people who misrepresent themselves on the internet and it is generally impossible to check the background of most people. (The initiation status is something else.) And even if they are who they say they are that doesn't mean they aren't making up what they say.

So if you say X = Y all we have is words from someone who may be truthful. Or not. That is why sources are desirable - so that the information can be checked out by everyone. Of course, after time (just like in the real world) you will build up a reputation here so that people who know you will be inclined to take your word for it. Newcomers to the site won't know that however.

Plus there is the factor that some people interpret the information or historical evidence in ways others would not. That's another reason that people like to see the source material. They want to draw their own conclusions.

If you don't have any sources just say it and you are speaking from experience. Your opinion is as valuable as anyone else's.

[Malcolm]

I think you think to much Carla, but thats just my opinion.

[Prophecy]

I think you think to much Carla, but thats just my opinion.

Who is??????? Not me!!!

[Elderbush]

LOL Thank you for the DL...but...um, I see people with several different DL on a regular basis and they aren't their own. It really isn't personal. Possibly I have had more experience with the criminal element or just plain creepy people pretending to be other than they are than you have since we have banks of computers the public can access. By sticking around here and posting you build your reputation the best way possible.

As for sources, some are good, some bad and you aren't going to get agreement on that as long as everyone is allowed to have an opinion. Not everyone is right when they condemn the source.

[Prophecy]

LOL Thank you for the DL...but...um, I see people with several different DL on a regular basis and they aren't their own. It really isn't personal. Possibly I have had more experience with the criminal element or just plain creepy people pretending to be other than they are than you have since we have banks of computers the public can access. By sticking around here and posting you build your reputation the best way possible.

As for sources, some are good, some bad and you aren't going to get agreement on that as long as everyone is allowed to have an opinion. Not everyone is right when they condemn the source.

OK OK OK LOL........What would you like to see as proof of who I am? LOL Want to meet somewhere? LOL You could always ask BlueMoon13 she knows me personally.
True about your last paragraph. I also like the fact that people have their opinions I have my own as well I just try to refrain from posting them here.

[Twinkle]

I agree with storm on this. I have read all the posts here and I will add, If it seems that intellectualism is under attack it's due to the fact that all these people continuously quote from books and authors proving that they are "book learned with no life experience" It's the "life experiences" that MOST want to hear about and learn about, not what this author says is "supposedly" gospel. I'm not attacking anyone but I have noticed this even here at MW. Nothing wrong in getting the knowledge from books, but can one use what they have learned from? Honestly, me personally speaking here, I am TIRED of some people dishing me the line "souces please", I'm not the Granddaddy of witchcraft wicca or anything of the sort but I do have 40+ years of study, learning, practice, and worship and I would like to think that people would accept what I say without someone saying "SOUCES PLEASE".

Well....with the huge influx of fakelore and plain old BS spewing forth from the mouths of supposed "elders" or whatever....I think it makes sense not take what anyone says at face value.

If you have an opinion, then you should be able to have sources to back up your assertions, preferably primary sources. If someone takes offense to that, perhaps it's because they don't have anything to back up their assertions, just what they "feel".

I think it's intellectually lazy to accept what someone says without researching yourself.

I'm all for personal gnosis and experience, but I alone and responsible for my own spirituality.

[Elderbush]

Of course you are. On the other side, there may not be sources to back up a UPG. UPGs are only important to the person who has them of course, but sometimes it is helpful to others to hear about other people's UPGs and especially how they created the environment where it could happen, if that's the case. I don't see how there would be sources for personal experience and that is part of Wicca, too.

[Prophecy]

Well....with the huge influx of fakelore and plain old BS spewing forth from the mouths of supposed "elders" or whatever....I think it makes sense not take what anyone says at face value.

If you have an opinion, then you should be able to have sources to back up your assertions, preferably primary sources. If someone takes offense to that, perhaps it's because they don't have anything to back up their assertions, just what they "feel".



I think it's intellectually lazy to accept what someone says without researching yourself.
Well I do do the research when I see something especially on this site but I have never asked for sources. I go and find my own.


I'm all for personal gnosis and experience, but I alone and responsible for my own spirituality.
We are all responsible for our own spirituality.

Care to explain what you mean by:

"Well....with the huge influx of fakelore and plain old BS spewing forth from the mouths of supposed "elders" or whatever
I read this as an attack on myself considering I am an Elder and a member of The Temple of Hekate. Just wondering.

[Malcolm]

I'd rather have upg than any book no matter how informative or accurate(if that can even be agreed upon). Books are just words on a page and mean nothing next to personal experience, but thats just my opinion.

[Elderbush]

LOL I have a friend that I would place in the "younger" category and he is convinced that there are more older Pagans full of BS while I, who falls in the "older" category, am equally certain that it is the younger ones who corner the market on BS.

It is might be an age thing.

[Twinkle]

Well I do do the research when I see something especially on this site but I have never asked for sources. I go and find my own.

We are all responsible for our own spirituality.

Care to explain what you mean by:

I read this as an attack on myself considering I am an Elder and a member of The Temple of Hekate. Just wondering.

If I had been attacking you, I would have mentioned your name specifically.:) There are many that call themselves elders who are basically misinformed charlatans poisoning the minds of young/new pagans.

I don't understand...and please explain it to me, why people will accept an "elder" telling them that their guardian is a tricerotops named Trixie. (Honestly...I've heard something similar)

To me...that's ridiculous...and now you've got a newbie spouting off what they're guardian is...when they've never understood the concept of what that is.

It's dangerous to accept things at face value...even a UPG.

Study yourself, learn for yourself....if you hear something from someone who claims to be experienced....ask questions, ask for sources, verify the information.

What's wrong with that?

[Prophecy]

If I had been attacking you, I would have mentioned your name specifically.:) There are many that call themselves elders who are basically misinformed charlatans poisoning the minds of young/new pagans.
Well that isn't me. I teach those of like mind and do lectures when asked. I also have an age liimit of noone under 18 for the classes even IF there is a parent there. I would never poison the minds of anyone not the bodies of some that's another story. LOLOLOL


I don't understand...and please explain it to me, why people will accept an "elder" telling them that their guardian is a tricerotops named Trixie. (Honestly...I've heard something similar)
trixie :rollingla :rollingla :rollingla :rollingla :rollingla :rollingla :rollingla


It's dangerous to accept things at face value...even a UPG.

Study yourself, learn for yourself....if you hear something from someone who claims to be experienced....ask questions, ask for sources, verify the information.

What's wrong with that?

And that is what I do, study and learn and research BUT I also keep my UPG's to myself. Just me I guess.
Nothing wrong in that.

[LostSheep]

um, sorry to interrupt, but what's a UPG? is that anything like an RPG?

[Elderbush]

UPG - unverified (or unverifiable) personal gnosis - something that you have experienced and believe but cannot prove it to anyone else, like a personal experience with a god

Does that help? :)

[Prophecy]

or an opinion. :)

[LostSheep]

Oh i see, thanks.

[Twinkle]

or a completely made up story by someone trying to look enlightened.:)

[Elderbush]

I'm not sure I agree that UPG is the same thing as an opinion.

The word gnosis (from the Greek word for knowledge, γνώσις) refers to a form of spiritual knowledge that is more commonly familiar to people as enlightenment. (from the free dictionary)

[Paracelsus]

NO I'm with Elderbush on this one - UPG and opinion are not the same kind of thing at all. Not even close.

I think that the "bullshit" thing here is interesting - I agree, there is far too much in Paganism, but that strikes me as the problem of those individuals who are spouting it, rather than anything else - why do they need to shore up fragile egos with stuff that is obvious crap - not a sign of spiritual advancement, I would suggest.

I do think though, that the anti-intellectualism that we're discussing isn't an issue - particularly in the UK. If you compare the anti-intellectualism of society as a whole - enthralled with Big Brother and other reality pap, and sucking down the real bullshit that the media feeds about politics, then Pagans actually come out quite well - at the end of the day a higher percentage of them read than the general public (although, before you jump on my head - I admit that the whole question of what they are reading is another matter). Like all religious traditions - Paganisms mirror the societies from which they arise - but, and this is important, Paganisms often contain very good methodologies for achieving upg, and that is really important.

"History", and various discourses thereof are interesting, but not something to get hot under the collar about - if Crowley and Gardner taught us anything it is to go with what works for us, and that is what counts - there is no orthodoxy - "nothing is true, everything is permitted"

BB

[Dio]

I honestly don't see a difference between someone who goes on and on about their UPG's and someone who goes on and on about their credentials and titles and book knowledge. Neither of those things impress me.

What impresses me about a person of any spiritual path is a combination of life experience, common sense, wisdom, and how the knowledge they learned guides them spiritually. It's good to know the roots of your path, but it's not the end-all be-all of spirituality.

Maybe that's just me.

[Prophecy]

I honestly don't see a difference between someone who goes on and on about their UPG's and someone who goes on and on about their credentials and titles and book knowledge. Neither of those things impress me.

What impresses me about a person of any spiritual path is a combination of life experience, common sense, wisdom, and how the knowledge they learned guides them spiritually. It's good to know the roots of your path, but it's not the end-all be-all of spirituality.

Maybe that's just me.

No Dio, it's not just you. I can also agree with what you wrote here.

[_Banbha_]

or a completely made up story by someone trying to look enlightened.:)

or when someone attempts to pass off UPG as a long held tradition....



I'm not sure I agree that UPG is the same thing as an opinion.

The word gnosis (from the Greek word for knowledge, γνώσις) refers to a form of spiritual knowledge that is more commonly familiar to people as enlightenment. (from the free dictionary)

I agree, UPG is something more than an opinion. Opinions can change easily with external sources of information or experiences with others; while UPG comes from within. Changes in a persons UPG also come form within even if informed by our external experiences.

[Elderbush]

Well, the thing about UPGs - if they were meant for anyone else, the other people would have that experience or at least be provided enough proof to believe it.

[Carla O'Harris]

I'd rather have upg than any book no matter how informative or accurate(if that can even be agreed upon). Books are just words on a page and mean nothing next to personal experience, but thats just my opinion.

Well, no offense, but if someone is sharing their upg in print or on the internet, it's just as much "words on a page" as someone sharing their experience.

The advantage of a good book is that it represents the presentation and synthesis of a number of different accounts of people's experience collected together so that one is able to have access to a greater range. A really good book well done allows one to not have to read a dozen or even a hundred good books or accounts of people's experience (unless one wants to explore it more in depth). I consider it good scholarship when an author has really done their work and been true to their sources, sought out interesting and provocative material, including field work seeking out personal experiences, and then had the kindness to organize it and share it, in a way that allows us to draw our own conclusions but also presents its own. I think that is a valuable contribution to the community, and not ""just" a book".

Sometimes one needs systematic accounts in order to find patterns. If an author collects accounts of "UPG"s, for example, and finds out that all over the country people are having these "UPG"s, well, suddenly they become "SPG"s, passing from Unsubstantiated to Substantiated personal gnoses.

And unless one is engaging in person-to-person telepathy of feelings and experiences, all experiences are going to be related through the medium of ideas and language, so it's an artificial separation to conclude that some things are full of "thinking too much" while others are not. We all think and we all have ideas, but how thorough and thoughtful we are with them may differ considerably.

[Twinkle]

I'm not sure that the example you stated could be considered Substantiated Personal Gnosis, Carla.

I think it might be considered Common Personal Gnosis, or Coincidental Personal Gnosis....but I don't think there's any way to scientifically prove that personal gnosis is substantiated. There could be any number of cultural, or religious perspectives that may have numerous people coming to the same conclusion about deity, or whatever.

There's too many environmental, or outside factors involved to prove personal gnosis as fact with any certainty.

[Dio]

Well, no offense, but if someone is sharing their upg in print or on the internet, it's just as much "words on a page" as someone sharing their experience.


I'm pretty sure he meant that he would rather have his own UPG as a personal experience, than to just trust someone else's statements, author or no, as fact. And I would agree with him.

[Carla O'Harris]

I'm not sure that the example you stated could be considered Substantiated Personal Gnosis, Carla.

I think it might be considered Common Personal Gnosis, or Coincidental Personal Gnosis....but I don't think there's any way to scientifically prove that personal gnosis is substantiated. There could be any number of cultural, or religious perspectives that may have numerous people coming to the same conclusion about deity, or whatever.

There's too many environmental, or outside factors involved to prove personal gnosis as fact with any certainty.


In this case, "Common" is the same thing as "Substantiated" Gnosis, in relation to a spiritual phenomena. That doesn't mean that that spiritual commonality can be imposed upon others of other spiritual beliefs or experiences, or on those who choose to not relate to the world spiritually.

We're not discussing "substantiation" in the sense of people substantiating that there is a mountain at such and such latitude, because UPGs are being contrasted with known, common spiritual beliefs, which themselves cannot be substantiated in scientific terms, but the fact of the belief itself can be substantiated, and therefore the collecting of a number of UPGs which converge on the same territory is in fact a substantiation that many people are experiencing similar things in relation to a given spiritual belief. That's substantiation, in the terms we are discussing!

[raven grimassi]

I would like to think that people would accept what I say without someone saying "SOUCES PLEASE".

What a kinder world that would be. But ironically, even providing sources does not ensure credibility as people will argue against the sources or against the interpretation of what the source material means or suggests. In my own experience as an author I receive criticism when I do not quote a source just as I do when I provide a source. I have even been criticized just for the act of providing sources in the first place (whether reliable ones or not). So, do not worry about the criticism. Share what you have to share, believe in what you believe in.

There is an old saying that a friend is someone who takes both the grain and the chaff of your words, sifts through them, keeps what is worth keeping, and then with a breath of kindness blows the rest away. So I guess the question is, why can we not all be friends?

[Elderbush]

Sometimes one needs systematic accounts in order to find patterns. If an author collects accounts of "UPG"s, for example, and finds out that all over the country people are having these "UPG"s, well, suddenly they become "SPG"s, passing from Unsubstantiated to Substantiated personal gnoses.

I would have to disagree with you. Pointing to patterns of reporting doesn't substantiate those reports unless there is firm evidence. I haven't heard of a substantiated personal gnosis but if you could point us to a source where someone's enlightening experience has been recorded through science I'd like to investigate it myself.

Ed. to add: I will have to disagree again. Substantiate has a definite meaning and it isn't "common" and we aren't talking about a belief. We are discussing a personal gnosis. Certainly people can share beliefs but I believe we each interact with our gods/have a spiritual enlightenment that perhaps share common features but that does not make them either substantiated or the same.

[RainInanna]

Is there an anti-intellectual current in Wicca? Is there an embrace of one side of the rational/intuitive split without healing the split itself? Have there been people within the movement who have discouraged the development of rational thought? Have there been people within the movement who have discouraged the synthesis of the intuitive and the rational? Are people encouraged to turn off their critical faculty, which in my opinion is one of the only safeguards against authoritarianism?

Certainly, in some circles there is. Unfortunately many feel threatened by terming their beliefs and thoughts UPG and will insist so strongly that their UPG/intuitive beliefs are valid as to vehemently deny the importance of what you have termed "the rational". They will take any focus on the rational as threatening to their view of the intuitive and therefore will disregard it, insisting to do otherwise must necessarily disregard the intuitive entirely. I much prefer it when someone who is asked for sources points out "this is my UPG" - as ElderBush pointed out, there is no reason to ignore the importance of UPG, it just needs to be separated for certain purposes.

I would say that the Pagan movement can benefit highly from people accepting their beliefs as valid and discussing them honestly without concern as to whether someone else is validating them. People need to have the guts to say "this is my UPG" and discuss the rational where appropriate, or not discuss it if they are not interested. If people are not interested in a debate over historical sources or rational discourse, they can simply not participate. There simply isn't a need to cause problems when others are willing to do so.

The problem is people getting offended by those closer to one end of the rational/intuitive scale or the other. Inasmuch as I think those who are not interested in the rational could simply leave that discussion to those who are interested, the same respect can be shown the other way - those who are not interested in the intuitive can leave that discussion to those who are interested. There is a place for both.

[Elderbush]

Hear, hear! Very well said!

[Twinkle]

In this case, "Common" is the same thing as "Substantiated" Gnosis, in relation to a spiritual phenomena. That doesn't mean that that spiritual commonality can be imposed upon others of other spiritual beliefs or experiences, or on those who choose to not relate to the world spiritually.

We're not discussing "substantiation" in the sense of people substantiating that there is a mountain at such and such latitude, because UPGs are being contrasted with known, common spiritual beliefs, which themselves cannot be substantiated in scientific terms, but the fact of the belief itself can be substantiated, and therefore the collecting of a number of UPGs which converge on the same territory is in fact a substantiation that many people are experiencing similar things in relation to a given spiritual belief. That's substantiation, in the terms we are discussing!




To substantiate means to establish proof or competent evidence.

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense.

[Carla O'Harris]

To substantiate means to establish proof or competent evidence.

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense.

My post makes complete sense. You just have to understand it correctly.

How does a folklorist establish that a particular belief is common? By a number of independent testimonies. We know, for example, that a number of people believed that there were women who flew out on certain nights.

That doesn't substantiate that there were actually women flying through the air any more than modern beliefs about UFOs scientifically proves that there are flying saucers, but what can be substantiated is that a, people in the past believed there were women flying through the air at night, and b, people in the present believe there are flying saucers.

If you asserted that there were lots of people who believe that the sun is actually green, you would have to go out and actually collect testimony to that effect in order to substantiate the claim. That substantiation would not make the sun green in any scientific sense.

But we aren't seeking scientific substantiation in these cases. What are Odin's characteristics? Science cannot make any statements whatsoever about Odin's characteristics. The only thing that can be examined is existing testimony in that regard, the most important of which is existing lore (especially in the form of the Poetic Edda foremost). Odin only existed, scientifically, as the focus of beliefs of particular individuals. If a number of modern individuals have common gnoses about Odin, that commonality substantiates the belief beyond the personal level. It doesn't tell us that people in the 800s believed the same thing about Odin, but that's only relevant for a historical discussion, not a religious one, as religious ideas about deities change all the time.

The only meaning "unsubstantiated" or "unverified" can have relative to a personal gnoses about a deity or a spiritual experience is that it is not common --- there is no other level for it to be substantiated, unless one has blurred the levels between scientific and religious discourse, which I assume no one here is doing.

[Nemesis Descending]

There is an old saying that a friend is someone who takes both the grain and the chaff of your words, sifts through them, keeps what is worth keeping, and then with a breath of kindness blows the rest away.

Yikes, so what you're saying is that we're all without friends!! :lol:



So I guess the question is, why can we not all be friends?

For the same reason why we treat each other the way we do on the road. When people don't know us and can't get their hands on us, well, we're not opposed to being at our worse.

[RainInanna]

So I guess the question is, why can we not all be friends?

Wouldn't it be nice?

(I'll see your "War" musical reference and raise you a "Beach Boys" musical reference). 8O

[KeaErisdottir]

Is there an anti-intellectual current in Wicca?

Of course there is. People who feel inferior use anti-intellectualism to target and deride the things they feel inferior in the face of. If there is anything at all that typifies the garden variety fluffy bunny, it is their willingness to dismiss the very natural intellectual pursuits of the Craft in favor of the flavor of the moment.


Have there been people within the movement who have discouraged the development of rational thought? Have there been people within the movement who have discouraged the synthesis of the intuitive and the rational? Are people encouraged to turn off their critical faculty, which in my opinion is one of the only safeguards against authoritarianism?

Anywhere you have a cult of personality, where the leadership is threatened by open inquiry and honest questioning, you have this.

I think that anytime ego comes into play, you are going to have the expectation that people are supposed to ignore the elephant in the room and pretend that there are no inconvenient facts.


Are signs of intellectual rigor automatically taken as signs of a lack of intuition?

I think that there are certainly people out there who would like to think that they are more intuitive, simply because they don't devote much of their time to books, but most of the people I know well, and deal with frequently are more effective witches because they are learned.


If any of these are true (and I suspect many of them are), I can almost understand some of Hutton's motivations --- to cut through the B.S. with an adamantium criteria of only allowing that which is strictly and historically documentable ---- going too far, perhaps, but setting up a filter of rigor which weeds out a great deal of nonsense, and ups the ante in terms of intellectualism. (The fact that I disagree with much of his theorizing does not mean that I disagree with his freedom to theorize.)

It's really a shame that you have to resort to bashing Hutton at every turn. No one with a clue really cares.

[RainInanna]

I think that there are certainly people out there who would like to think that they are more intuitive, simply because they don't devote much of their time to books, but most of the people I know well, and deal with frequently are more effective witches because they are learned.

I find this subject interesting as a subset of the "anti-intellectualism current in Wicca" we're discussing.

You have people on polar ends of a spectrum, once again, from "Research is absolutely necessary to serious Paganism" to "Books are a waste of time because practice and intuition are the only things integral to Paganism".

Yet I don't think anyone would argue that actively practicing Paganism is not a very meaningful part of the spirituality - even those who are extremely focused on Rational book reading, as far as I can see, would never see actively practicing as "a waste of time". The Rational is saying "research is important" but would not deny the importance of intuition. Conversely, the Intuitive is often saying "research is a waste of time" and thereby dismissing the Rational's idea of what is important.

And I do think there is a higher propensity of Intuitives dismissing Rational inquiry, at least in my experiences. Even when I do join discussions with Reconstructionists and Traditionalists they all seem to accept the importance of the Intuitive view as well as the Rational, rather than despite it. It seems those who lean towards Rational tend to be more likely to see both as necessary parts of a complete spirituality, again at least in my experience.

Your mileage may vary and all that of course.

[Xentor]

I personally underwent an anti-intellectualist attack right here on this board, one or two years ago. I asked a seemingly harmless question, yet a couple of my fellow members told me in unmistaken words, that one wasn't supposed to ask such questions, because:

a) 'we' supposedly are unable to know it anyway.
b) pursuing such knowledge supposedly takes away one's focus from the supposed 'real' purpose.
c) what possible good could it do to know?

After these and similar responses, I quietly continued my path to find an answer myself, and maybe in 5 years, when the environment is a bit friendlier to my questions, I'll repeat them.

Does that mean everyone on this site is an anti-intellectualist? By no means. It merely means that some are, and I encountered some. I also encountered intellectualists.

[Philosophia]

I don't think there is a stong current of anti intellectualism in Wicca anymore than there is in other religions. You'll always have your extreme polar opposites, i.e. people who rely on intuition only vs. people who rely on books only. Its better, and safer, in my opinion to be in the middle. Not everything you experiance is going to be "right" nor everything you read either.

I like the saying "take everything with a grain of salt". People (whether from book learning or have a UPG), who feel inferior in their path but hate to show it (or don't realize it), will hate to be challenged anyway. Science doesn't have all the answers but neither does religion. Relying on your own experiances (UPG, non-spiritual personal experiances, and/or intuition) and knowledge gleaned from books is, in my opinion, the best way of forging your path.

[Carla O'Harris]

It's really a shame that you have to resort to bashing Hutton at every turn. No one with a clue really cares.

Now, hold on! I'd be willing to cop to a harsh critique of Hutton at times, but I don't think in any way I was bashing Hutton when I just said,


If any of these are true (and I suspect many of them are), I can almost understand some of Hutton's motivations --- to cut through the B.S. with an adamantium criteria of only allowing that which is strictly and historically documentable ---- going too far, perhaps, but setting up a filter of rigor which weeds out a great deal of nonsense, and ups the ante in terms of intellectualism. (The fact that I disagree with much of his theorizing does not mean that I disagree with his freedom to theorize.)

I actually think that Hutton is tremendously important, and I appreciate him more and more as time goes on, even though I think his contribution has only been partial and must be balanced out by many other factors.

But I have gone on record, here, at Mystic Wicks, and in other forums, to say that the gauntlet he threw down (even though I again disagree with his particular theories) of intellectual rigour will ultimately prove to be beneficial to the pagan community, precisely because of the rigour it will take to rebut him where he is wrong!

[Carla O'Harris]

Anti-intellectualism always leads to authoritarianism and usually to cultish behavior, because the moment that people cannot ask questions, and the moment that a group refuses to engage in healthy self-critique, it's all about cultishness from that moment on.

For example, I have participated in a few discussions where people were unwilling to discuss some of the deplorable behavior some witches have demonstrated towards each other. Let's start with a couple : 1) According to Valiente, Alex Sanders cursed someone in a horrible way merely for some deviation from witch dogma, 2) Valiente testifies to multiple curses and ill-wishes she received from people merely for deviating from someone's idea of witch dogma, 3) Online there is a copy somewhere of a deplorable letter the Frosts wrote to someone where they cursed them for some minor deviation.

Now, this is sectarian garbage and nastiness that does not speak well to anything unless it is cleared out and critiqued, so that newcomers have assurances that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. That cannot happen unless people feel free to ask questions, and even to push the envelope a little with such questions. Yet I have found that when someone really presses to see whether the ethical rigour exists to ensure against toleration of such crap, sometimes those individuals are treated as if they are asking too much. That's ridiculous, plain and simple.

That's one of the beautiful things about Triumph of the Moon (better call Ben and Silverfire Darkmoon in the room so they can know that hell froze over and that I called Hutton's book "beautiful"). It's brilliant inasmuch as it exposes so much of the nonsensical charlatanish cultish nonsense that took place in the movement by egotistical power-hungry individuals making s**t up to manipulate others. In response to this, the book lays down a gauntlet that things must be proven in documentable terms in order to be believed, and before I had fully digested the book, I reacted against this sort of restrictive criteria (for it is restrictive) without understanding where it may have come from or why, but when one really gets an understanding for the level of dishonesty and lack of integrity that manifested, it's perfectly understandable that one would want to clear the air by drawing up a new standard. (And by the way, for clarification sake, I don't think that witchcraft in this regard has been any worse than other religions with their sectarian nastiness either, which always makes atheism appealing (except atheists often have their own sectarian nastiness, too!), and in fact, on record, Wicca may end up having one of the best records for the speed with which such things have been critiqued and addressed. But that progress will only continue with an environment of rigorous critique and open questioning.)

Now, is it true that there is a particular kind of scientism and reductionism that has a chilling effect on intuitive exploration, experimentation, and the sharing of such experiences? Absolutely. But the solution to the rational/intuitive split is not to turn off one side to vault the other, but to reachieve wholeness.

[Prophecy]

I don't think there is a stong current of anti intellectualism in Wicca anymore than there is in other religions. You'll always have your extreme polar opposites, i.e. people who rely on intuition only vs. people who rely on books only. Its better, and safer, in my opinion to be in the middle. Not everything you experiance is going to be "right" nor everything you read either.

I like the saying "take everything with a grain of salt". People (whether from book learning or have a UPG), who feel inferior in their path but hate to show it (or don't realize it), will hate to be challenged anyway. Science doesn't have all the answers but neither does religion. Relying on your own experiances (UPG, non-spiritual personal experiances, and/or intuition) and knowledge gleaned from books is, in my opinion, the best way of forging your path.

_handclapp _handclapp very well put Minerva.

[Prophecy]

I personally underwent an anti-intellectualist attack right here on this board, one or two years ago. I asked a seemingly harmless question, yet a couple of my fellow members told me in unmistaken words, that one wasn't supposed to ask such questions, because:

a) 'we' supposedly are unable to know it anyway.
b) pursuing such knowledge supposedly takes away one's focus from the supposed 'real' purpose.
c) what possible good could it do to know?

After these and similar responses, I quietly continued my path to find an answer myself, and maybe in 5 years, when the environment is a bit friendlier to my questions, I'll repeat them.

Does that mean everyone on this site is an anti-intellectualist? By no means. It merely means that some are, and I encountered some. I also encountered intellectualists.

I would like to hear/read these questions of yours Xentor.

[Prophecy]

Anti-intellectualism always leads to authoritarianism and usually to cultish behavior, because the moment that people cannot ask questions, and the moment that a group refuses to engage in healthy self-critique, it's all about cultishness from that moment on.

I have to somewhat dissagree here. Anti-intellectualism is against intellects.Even I would turn to an intellect for an answer that I could not find in searching. Cultish and Authoritarianism can be grouped in the same group. It is with that behavior that one cannot ask questions but do as told.



For example, I have participated in a few discussions where people were unwilling to discuss some of the deplorable behavior some witches have demonstrated towards each other. Let's start with a couple : 1) According to Valiente, Alex Sanders cursed someone in a horrible way merely for some deviation from witch dogma, 2) Valiente testifies to multiple curses and ill-wishes she received from people merely for deviating from someone's idea of witch dogma, 3) Online there is a copy somewhere of a deplorable letter the Frosts wrote to someone where they cursed them for some minor deviation.
Now THIS crap, if it is true that these "Witches" have done these things "curses" they will answer for it. As much as you and I have had our "debates" on cursing this I don't even agree with and goes against what I have been raised to believe. It is against all the tenets of Witchcraft.


Now, this is sectarian garbage and nastiness that does not speak well to anything unless it is cleared out and critiqued, so that newcomers have assurances that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. That cannot happen unless people feel free to ask questions, and even to push the envelope a little with such questions. Yet I have found that when someone really presses to see whether the ethical rigour exists to ensure against toleration of such crap, sometimes those individuals are treated as if they are asking too much. That's ridiculous, plain and simple.
True, something else I do during lectures. I open up the floor for all questions as long as they stay within the "scope" of the lecture.

[Twinkle]

I don't think there is a stong current of anti intellectualism in Wicca anymore than there is in other religions. You'll always have your extreme polar opposites, i.e. people who rely on intuition only vs. people who rely on books only. Its better, and safer, in my opinion to be in the middle. Not everything you experiance is going to be "right" nor everything you read either.

I like the saying "take everything with a grain of salt". People (whether from book learning or have a UPG), who feel inferior in their path but hate to show it (or don't realize it), will hate to be challenged anyway. Science doesn't have all the answers but neither does religion. Relying on your own experiances (UPG, non-spiritual personal experiances, and/or intuition) and knowledge gleaned from books is, in my opinion, the best way of forging your path.


I would agree to this up to a point. But we're talking about Wicca here....and there is a huge problem with Wicca....as a friend of mine said, Wicca has become like Kleenex....a generic term.

We have some Wiccans from the Brit Trads that work very hard, take both book learning and personal experience....blood, sweat and tears to understand the Mysteries and become initiated and earn the the Title Wiccan.

Then we have some people that read a SRW book and call themselves High Priestess.

IMO the current trend is that Wicca has lost it's integrity, has been watered and dumbed down to reach the masses...and has therefore lost it's intellectualism.

[Greyharp]

That's one of the beautiful things about Triumph of the Moon (better call Ben and Silverfire Darkmoon in the room so they can know that hell froze over and that I called Hutton's book "beautiful"). It's brilliant inasmuch as it exposes so much of the nonsensical charlatanish cultish nonsense that took place in the movement by egotistical power-hungry individuals making s**t up to manipulate others. In response to this, the book lays down a gauntlet that things must be proven in documentable terms in order to be believed, and before I had fully digested the book, I reacted against this sort of restrictive criteria (for it is restrictive) without understanding where it may have come from or why, but when one really gets an understanding for the level of dishonesty and lack of integrity that manifested, it's perfectly understandable that one would want to clear the air by drawing up a new standard.

Wow, if I wasn't sitting down when I read this I think I would've had to. Just when I thought I had you all worked out Carla, you turn my world on its head. :)

[Taliesyn]

this is why I belive in training and inniation. give someone a year to learn the basic tenents, the rules of reality, and a bit of history and theroy, then top it all off with strong divinination skill in one form or another. just like college, training should be just as much about teaching someone how to gain the truths on their own, through personal experiences or books, as learning how things have been done before. true, it is important to learn to old ways, for they are what drew us all here- but to create a new path for tommorow- that requires a bit of spotanaety, in my opinion.

so is Wicca less intellectional? I hope so. I wouldn't want it to get all stodgy.
Is it too free? sometimes- but I've seen that drama from both third degree gardenarians as well as from instant high priestesses (one book wonders) I think that this is why it is important to have someone to talk about your personal visions and such with- a sounding board so you don't fly off the deep end.

[Nemesis Descending]

It's brilliant inasmuch as it exposes so much of the nonsensical charlatanish cultish nonsense that took place in the movement by egotistical power-hungry individuals making s**t up to manipulate others.

Examples?

[*Rasenna*]

I actually think that Hutton is tremendously important, and I appreciate him more and more as time goes on, even though I think his contribution has only been partial and must be balanced out by many other factors.

Ah, the lure of the dark side of the Force….

But one of the serious problems with Hutton’s books is that the errors within any specific title are pardoned in favor of the work as a whole. They have no impact on his credibility nor do they impact the book. That would be fine if it weren’t for the fact that such treatment is not awarded authors without academic credentials. In other words, if a non-academic has a couple of blantant errors in his or her book then most people reject the entire work. But they don’t when the scholar has made the errors.

One example is Hutton’s book The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles, where he writes:

"It would have been inconceivable to any ancient European pagan of whose thought we have evidence, that the purpose of religious ritual was to 'raise' a deity and 'work' with her or him. No ancient goddess or god worth the name could be summoned by worshippers, to a particular place, and there employed."

But such evidence does exist. For example: "Come into me Hermes as children do into women's wombs" (papyr. of London, CXX11, 1ss; cf. Reitzenstein, Poimandres, p. 20). Sounds to me like a literal invocation of a deity into a human body. And what about the idea of a temple itself? Look it up in the dictionary and you’ll find that "temple" is derived from the Latin word templum. “Templum” signified the abode of deity associated with divine worship, which is indeed a “particular place” where a goddess or god is called upon. So again, Hutton is incorrect.

Another example of Hutton’s errors is found in his statement that the concept of a Triformis goddess associated with witchcraft does not appear until the 19th century or later. But that’s also incorrect. Take for example the ancient writer Lucan who writes: "Persephone, who is the third and lowest aspect of our goddess Hecate" (BC. 6:700 01). Ovid, in his work Metamorphoses, quotes the Witch Medea: "I pray only that the three formed Goddess will help me and come to give her blessings to our immense enterprise. Ovid also presents the hero Jason making an oath to Medea in which he says: "I will be true by the sacred rites of the three fold goddess."

Next we have Hutton’s remark that there's no support for the concept of witches practicing nude prior to modern times. But when we look at Sophocles (in his work titled Rhizotomoi) the witch Medea is depicted as being naked while she uses a bronze sickle to reap herbs. Scholar Ruth Martin (Witchcraft and the Inquisition in Venice 1550 1650) comments that it was a common practice for witches of this era to be "naked with their hair loose around their shoulders" while reciting conjurations. In addition we also have several Renaissance era woodcuts that show witches nude at their celebrations. And so yet again Hutton is incorrect.

Hutton also remarks that “No known cult in the ancient world was carried on by devotees who all worshipped regularly in the nude…” But again, he is incorrect as the ancient Luperci practiced ritual nudity in their rites, specifically during the Lupercalia.

If a non-academic made that many blatant mistakes, he or she would be roasted all over MW. But Hutton is excused, pardoned, and praised. What’s up with that!?


But I have gone on record, here, at Mystic Wicks, and in other forums, to say that the gauntlet he threw down (even though I again disagree with his particular theories) of intellectual rigour will ultimately prove to be beneficial to the pagan community, precisely because of the rigour it will take to rebut him where he is wrong!

But not if people apply a different set of standards to his errors in scholarship. I've seen far too many people regard his work much as Fundamentalists interpret the Bible. It's hard for me to picture Hutton descending the mountain with the set of stone tablets. For me, I'll continue to worship the golden calf. ;)

[Ben Gruagach]

But one of the serious problems with Hutton’s books is that the errors within any specific title are pardoned in favor of the work as a whole. They have no impact on his credibility nor do they impact the book. That would be fine if it weren’t for the fact that such treatment is not awarded authors without academic credentials. In other words, if a non-academic has a couple of blantant errors in his or her book then most people reject the entire work. But they don’t when the scholar has made the errors.

It is not true that those without academic credentials find their work summarily dismissed as a whole because of a few errors. The best example of this is Philip Heselton's work -- Heselton is not a scholar yet his work is frequently cited as valuable despite the also frequently stated concerns about some of his conclusions being questionable interpretation of the evidence.

We've also seen plenty of examples here on MysticWicks alone where an academic (or even all academics) are summarily dismissed -- especially when their work does not support the dismisser's point of view.


(Lengthy examples of Hutton's errors omitted for brevity)...Hutton also remarks that “No known cult in the ancient world was carried on by devotees who all worshipped regularly in the nude…” But again, he is incorrect as the ancient Luperci practiced ritual nudity in their rites, specifically during the Lupercalia.

If a non-academic made that many blatant mistakes, he or she would be roasted all over MW. But Hutton is excused, pardoned, and praised. What’s up with that!?

As has been pointed out in other threads that refer to Hutton's work, there is no doubt that he is a mere mortal just like the rest of us. Yes, he does make mistakes. And if you read more of his work (such as his more recent book "Witches, Druids and King Arthur") you'll find that Hutton admits his mistakes and takes steps to correct them. For instance the issue of ritual nudity is one which he addresses specifically: it's the chapter titled "A Modest Look at Ritual Nudity" in "Witches, Druids and King Arthur."

It's one thing to criticize a book for errors within that book, and another to condemn an author's whole work for mistakes in one book which they publicly acknowledged and corrected in later published material.


But not if people apply a different set of standards to his errors in scholarship. I've seen far too many people regard his work much as Fundamentalists interpret the Bible. It's hard for me to picture Hutton descending the mountain with the set of stone tablets. For me, I'll continue to worship the golden calf. ;)

Personally I haven't seen anyone who recommends Hutton's (or any scholar's) books treating them as some sort of prophet or infallible spiritual guide. Scholars have been wrong in the past, and might be wrong about some (even big!) things but they can still be right about others. I have seen people repeat specific historical claims, insisting they are true and must be accepted by everyone else as true, without being able to provide evidence to support their claims or logical refutations of evidence that we do have which conflict with that claim. Which ones are the fundamentalists sticking to a story despite any inconvenient evidence to the contrary?

There are a lot of very pro-intellectual-rigor people within the Wiccan community. We need these people to help us strip away the half-truths and outright false statements about our history, to find the kernals of truth. I don't doubt that there are also some in our community who dislike anyone who challenges their cherished beliefs about history, mythology, origins, etc. Both extremes will undoubtedly exist in any group of a reasonable size. But overall I do think that Wiccans generally are more inclined to the scholarly side as we do seem to be more literate than average spiritual communities -- we connect a lot more through the written word (books, magazines, online communities like MysticWicks) than many other spiritual communities. That emphasis on the written word for sharing info does tend to lead us towards reading more and scholarly attitudes than a less-literate crowd.

[Greyharp]

But one of the serious problems with Hutton’s books is that the errors within any specific title are pardoned in favor of the work as a whole. They have no impact on his credibility nor do they impact the book. That would be fine if it weren’t for the fact that such treatment is not awarded authors without academic credentials. In other words, if a non-academic has a couple of blantant errors in his or her book then most people reject the entire work. But they don’t when the scholar has made the errors.


If a non-academic made that many blatant mistakes, he or she would be roasted all over MW. But Hutton is excused, pardoned, and praised. What’s up with that!?


But not if people apply a different set of standards to his errors in scholarship. I've seen far too many people regard his work much as Fundamentalists interpret the Bible. It's hard for me to picture Hutton descending the mountain with the set of stone tablets. For me, I'll continue to worship the golden calf. ;)

This is of course a two-way street and it's just as easy for the golden calf worshippers to discount the entirety of Hutton's work, simply because they've found some mistakes.

Some authors will swear black and blue their work is true and correct, refusing to admit errors. Most of us have little sympathy for these when obvious errors are apparent. From what I've read, Hutton has the grace to admit where he is wrong, as he did with some of the material he published in his book The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles.

It is also worth pointing out some of what he says in the opening paragraphs of his preface to The Triumph of the Moon:


The subtitle of this book should really be 'a history of modern pagan witchcraft in South Britain'...The fact that it claims to be a history and not the history is in itself significant....As such it is an exploratory and tentative work, intended as an initial mapping out of an area which badly needs and deserves serious treatment by more scholars in a number of different disciplines....

or to put it in plain and simple language, Hutton is saying, 'this book is my opinion, not necessarily historical fact, it needs further examination by other people'.

Given that this is the author's attitude to his own work, it would be hard for anyone with even a bit of intelligence to become fundamentalist about his writings. It also makes it hard to understand the vehemence of some of the attacks against him.

I think the strong defence of Hutton by some on this forum is less to do with Hutton fundamentalism and more to do with the unfairness of some of these attacks, which often rubbish his entire works, throwing the baby out with the bath water as it were - the exact same thing you are upset about Rasenna, but with respect to non-academic writers.

For many of us, the reason we stand by Hutton's writings is not that we are fundamentalist and blinkered, but that we have found his arguments to be more plausible than those put forward by others - so far.

[David19]

For me, i like Hutton's works, especially what i've read so far of 'Witches, Druids, and King Arthur', and he seems modest, and like Ben said, admits when he's made a mistake, etc.

Some people may dismiss all other scholars and authors in favour of Hutton, but the majority of people i've seen aren't 'Hutton fundamentalists', and read other sources.

Personally, i also like Carlos Ginzburg's works (i've been reading some of 'Ecstasies' in the library and i really like it), and i'd also like to read Hesselton and Lamond too.

[*Rasenna*]

It is not true that those without academic credentials find their work summarily dismissed as a whole because of a few errors.

It is most certainly true, but I'm not going to name them because I don't want to embarrass anyone. But Internet groups and forums are full of such attacks.


The best example of this is Philip Heselton's work -- Heselton is not a scholar yet his work is frequently cited as valuable despite the also frequently stated concerns about some of his conclusions being questionable interpretation of the evidence.

There's a difference between being questionable and just plain dead wrong, which is what Hutton is in the examples I gave. I think if Heselton made blatant historical and literary errors, as did Hutton, then he'd be in worse shape. Personally, I enjoyed reading both Hutton and Heselton, but I do note the difference between opinion, theory, and error.


As has been pointed out in other threads that refer to Hutton's work, there is no doubt that he is a mere mortal just like the rest of us. Yes, he does make mistakes. And if you read more of his work (such as his more recent book "Witches, Druids and King Arthur") you'll find that Hutton admits his mistakes and takes steps to correct them. For instance the issue of ritual nudity is one which he addresses specifically: it's the chapter titled "A Modest Look at Ritual Nudity" in "Witches, Druids and King Arthur."

Good, and that speaks well of his ethics. Hopefully he'll be as vigilant with his research in the future so that he doesn't have to make retractions.


Personally I haven't seen anyone who recommends Hutton's (or any scholar's) books treating them as some sort of prophet or infallible spiritual guide. Scholars have been wrong in the past, and might be wrong about some (even big!) things but they can still be right about others. I have seen people repeat specific historical claims, insisting they are true and must be accepted by everyone else as true, without being able to provide evidence to support their claims or logical refutations of evidence that we do have which conflict with that claim. Which ones are the fundamentalists sticking to a story despite any inconvenient evidence to the contrary?

I'm not fond of anyone who follows blindly, and I'd turn on a dime if my favorite authors screwed up as badly as Hutton has on his research. The quotes I provided from Hutton are things that anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with classical witchcraft literature would easily know. So the fact that professor Hutton was unaware of them makes me leary of his others claims. I mean, what else that he claims is not the case actually is the case?


This is of course a two-way street and it's just as easy for the golden calf worshippers to discount the entirety of Hutton's work, simply because they've found some mistakes.

Probably so, but I don't. I just realize that because of his errors in scholarship that I have to be careful what I accept when he states something "never was" or that "no one ever" yada yada. It's burdensome now for me to read his books because I have to check even his simple "facts". I like to quote sources and I don't like it when the author is wrong and it bites me in the ass. And please note that I'm not talking about theories or assumptions. I'm talking about historical and literary facts that can be easily proven.



I think the strong defence of Hutton by some on this forum is less to do with Hutton fundamentalism and more to do with the unfairness of some of these attacks, which often rubbish his entire works, throwing the baby out with the bath water as it were - the exact same thing you are upset about Rasenna, but with respect to non-academic writers.

I agree it's not fair or appropriate to trash an entire book because of some errors or even some sloppy scholarship. In fact my point was that this should apply across the board to scholars and non-scholars alike.

[Ben Gruagach]

As has been pointed out in other threads that refer to Hutton's work, there is no doubt that he is a mere mortal just like the rest of us. Yes, he does make mistakes. And if you read more of his work (such as his more recent book "Witches, Druids and King Arthur") you'll find that Hutton admits his mistakes and takes steps to correct them. For instance the issue of ritual nudity is one which he addresses specifically: it's the chapter titled "A Modest Look at Ritual Nudity" in "Witches, Druids and King Arthur."
Good, and that speaks well of his ethics. Hopefully he'll be as vigilant with his research in the future so that he doesn't have to make retractions.

Is that an attempt at an apology for misjudging Hutton?

Oh, wait...


I'm not fond of anyone who follows blindly, and I'd turn on a dime if my favorite authors screwed up as badly as Hutton has on his research. The quotes I provided from Hutton are things that anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with classical witchcraft literature would easily know. So the fact that professor Hutton was unaware of them makes me leary of his others claims. I mean, what else that he claims is not the case actually is the case?

I guess it wasn't an apology.


I agree it's not fair or appropriate to trash an entire book because of some errors or even some sloppy scholarship. In fact my point was that this should apply across the board to scholars and non-scholars alike.

... or is it? (Getting really confused by the see-saw... in a single post!)

[*Rasenna*]

Is that an attempt at an apology for misjudging Hutton? Oh, wait...I guess it wasn't an apology.... or is it? (Getting really confused by the see-saw... in a single post!)

Yes you're confused. I never said I misjudged Hutton and there is nothing for me to apologize for. I merely pointed out the errors in his scholarship by showing (with quotes) what he botched. Pointing to blatant errors doesn't equate with misjudging. And my reservation now with accepting his statements as facts simply because he says so is based upon his record of errors regarding his past statements (as I previously outlined).

I think you're working overtime to misunderstand me.

[Carla O'Harris]

I'm not fond of anyone who follows blindly, and I'd turn on a dime if my favorite authors screwed up as badly as Hutton has on his research. The quotes I provided from Hutton are things that anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with classical witchcraft literature would easily know. So the fact that professor Hutton was unaware of them makes me leary of his others claims. I mean, what else that he claims is not the case actually is the case?...I just realize that because of his errors in scholarship that I have to be careful what I accept when he states something "never was" or that "no one ever" yada yada. It's burdensome now for me to read his books because I have to check even his simple "facts". I like to quote sources and I don't like it when the author is wrong and it bites me in the ass. And please note that I'm not talking about theories or assumptions. I'm talking about historical and literary facts that can be easily proven.

Excellent points.

[SoulFire]

Is there an anti-intellectual current in Wicca?

Just came into this dicussion late. Personally, I think this "anti-intellectual" trend as you call it is more prevalent now that it was 20-30 years ago. The plethora of Wicca books available today are fairly light reading; they don't challenge one's thinking too much. I have had students write to me and say they don't read or they didn't finish such-and-such book, or they don't do the exercises they're given, or whatever. Pagans have gotten quite lazy, intellectually and otherwise, IMNSHO.