Wicca and Teens

[kenofken]

Of course, ALL religious faith is based on a feeling. If we based our beliefs on what is provable in the intellectual sense, everyone in the world would be an agnostic.

But as far as teens go, you are right. A lot of them don’t have much faith in the gods. They just jump on board to be with their friends, or to affiliate themselves with making what looks to them like a liberal social statement. But the ones who stick with it for a long time are the ones who truly believe in it.

Just like the Catholic religion has a lot of CINOs, we’ve got a lot of WINOs.

We are touching on a universal issue with religion I think. I don’t think we can presume too much to judge the validity of a religion based on the fact that teenagers often approach it in a shallow or partially informed manner. They’re not doing so to tick us off. They’re young. It takes till your mid-20s at a minimum to begin to figure out who you are, let alone why you believe what you do. And that’s if you put some effort into it.

People approach any faith at the level they’re capable of at the time. I was raised Catholic and I know full well that none of the 14-year olds in my confirmation class took the sacrament because they had done any deep discernment. We did so because Catholocism was all we had ever known and because our peers and parents expected us to do so. Some went on to become exemplary Catholics. Many never darkened a church door again or practiced the faith in any meaningful way in adulthood. So too it goes with Wicca. Another thing to consider is that teens simply looking for a way to justify their own inclinations these days aren’t going to bother with Wicca or any religion at all. They’ll content themselves with the values of our secular consumerist culture and worry about nothing deeper then next weekend’s party and the latest video game and iPhone system.

I’ve no doubt there are plenty of teen dabblers in Wicca now as there have been since the 1980s. However most people I see in attendance at events and in organized circles range from around 30 to 60+. Increasingly many teens and younger kids are not on the path to rebel against their parents: they are growing up in Wiccan/pagan families. It is something as ordinary to them as Catholicism or Lutheranism have been to mainstream Americans for centuries. No doubt some of them will rebel to secularism or Christianity or someplace none of us has even thought of.

 

[Shawn_Ravenfire]

Increasingly many teens and younger kids are not on the path to rebel against their parents: they are growing up in Wiccan/pagan families. It is something as ordinary to them as Catholicism or Lutheranism have been to mainstream Americans for centuries. No doubt some of them will rebel to secularism or Christianity or someplace none of us has even thought of.

A very good point. It will be interesting to see what teen second and third-generation Wiccans will do to rebel. I remember a Wiccan friend of mine a while back, saying that her daughter announced at dinner that she was becoming an Atheist. (I don’t know if she still is.)

I’ve noticed that Atheists are kind of “en vogue” these days. I guess Wiccans like us are SO five minutes ago!

 

[rinnie]

We are touching on a universal issue with religion I think. I don’t think we can presume too much to judge the validity of a religion based on the fact that teenagers often approach it in a shallow or partially informed manner. They’re not doing so to tick us off. They’re young. It takes till your mid-20s at a minimum to begin to figure out who you are, let alone why you believe what you do. And that’s if you put some effort into it.

People approach any faith at the level they’re capable of at the time. I was raised Catholic and I know full well that none of the 14-year olds in my confirmation class took the sacrament because they had done any deep discernment. We did so because Catholocism was all we had ever known and because our peers and parents expected us to do so. Some went on to become exemplary Catholics. Many never darkened a church door again or practiced the faith in any meaningful way in adulthood. So too it goes with Wicca. Another thing to consider is that teens simply looking for a way to justify their own inclinations these days aren’t going to bother with Wicca or any religion at all. They’ll content themselves with the values of our secular consumerist culture and worry about nothing deeper then next weekend’s party and the latest video game and iPhone system.

I’ve no doubt there are plenty of teen dabblers in Wicca now as there have been since the 1980s. However most people I see in attendance at events and in organized circles range from around 30 to 60+. Increasingly many teens and younger kids are not on the path to rebel against their parents: they are growing up in Wiccan/pagan families. It is something as ordinary to them as Catholicism or Lutheranism have been to mainstream Americans for centuries. No doubt some of them will rebel to secularism or Christianity or someplace none of us has even thought of.

But what about the Truth. What about The Bible? What about the word of God. Granted many will walk away from the Church for awhile. But when push comes to shove God is planted into that childs mind and with that God is Hope, and belief of a higher Almighty to help. You revert back to what you were taught and what you had.

Many times People only Go back to God like we do to our parents. You know how a child leaves home and then has no where else to go. Where do we go when we have no where else to go. Where is the last place a stuborn child goes. Home to the Parents. Thats how some are with God also. How a child finally caves in and goes back to Mama and Papa when all else fails and it is the only place left, some also do that with God. Instead of going to Mama and Papa in the first place because you know you will get help, your pride gets in the way. Alot of us are like that with God. We have to be completely broken before we can go back. But that GOD we have him to go to. Where thank God many have the parents that love them and are waiting for them to come home.

Sorry for the long way around it but the point is God is there, And they KNOW God. And just to know him, is all you really need no matter how bad things are . And when you go back you will make it. And you Know who to go to. And how to reach him. Prayer.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Of course, ALL religious faith is based on a feeling. If we based our beliefs on what is provable in the intellectual sense, everyone in the world would be an agnostic.

But as far as teens go, you are right. A lot of them don’t have much faith in the gods. They just jump on board to be with their friends, or to affiliate themselves with making what looks to them like a liberal social statement. But the ones who stick with it for a long time are the ones who truly believe in it.

Just like the Catholic religion has a lot of CINOs, we’ve got a lot of WINOs.

I disagree. I don’t believe faith and reason should ever contradict.

God cannot be proven, but his existence can be made known to be highly probable.

 

[AntiTheist]

They don’t put real stock into how True it is or isn’t. The TRUTH is that a feeling proves nothing one way or the other. It’s only a feeling.

This is a pretty dangerous thought for a religious person to be expressing.

Sure, I know you probably think that quaint intellectual claptrap like the “first cause argument” or “the anthropic principle” or “liar, lunatic, lord,” and “who would die for a lie?” are all airtight rational arguments that make your particular supernatural beliefs “highly probable,” but in point of fact, those are easily-refuted lightweight arguments whose sole purpose is to galvanize the already-faithful.

Religious belief is usually very much rooted in vague “feelings” of what’s true or (worse) “personal experience” of daydreams that later get labeled as “visions” or “mystic experiences” or “the presence of god.”

It’s only after the fact that people turn to weak apologetic arguments to bolster a faith that grew out of feelings.

 

[PeaceSerenity]

Of course, ALL religious faith is based on a feeling. If we based our beliefs on what is provable in the intellectual sense, everyone in the world would be an agnostic.

But as far as teens go, you are right. A lot of them don’t have much faith in the gods. They just jump on board to be with their friends, or to affiliate themselves with making what looks to them like a liberal social statement. But the ones who stick with it for a long time are the ones who truly believe in it.

Just like the Catholic religion has a lot of CINOs, we’ve got a lot of WINOs.

Faith is not based on feeling, it is based on knowledge and intellectual belief. Those who base faith on feeling have no real foundation since feeling can easily change while logic is strong. At least in Christianity this is very evident since we are asked to love God with “all our mind”. We do not love God because we feel like it, but because we know He is there. Feelings are easily swayed, and usually utterly useless in terms of religion.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This is a pretty dangerous thought for a religious person to be expressing.

Sure, I know you probably think that quaint intellectual claptrap like the “first cause argument” or “the anthropic principle” or “liar, lunatic, lord,” and “who would die for a lie?” are all airtight rational arguments that make your particular supernatural beliefs “highly probable,” but in point of fact, those are easily-refuted lightweight arguments whose sole purpose is to galvanize the already-faithful.

Religious belief is usually very much rooted in vague “feelings” of what’s true or (worse) “personal experience” of daydreams that later get labeled as “visions” or “mystic experiences” or “the presence of god.”

It’s only after the fact that people turn to weak apologetic arguments to bolster a faith that grew out of feelings.

Please don’t presume why I believe what I do.

I consider the “liar, lunatic, lord” arguement a ridiculous one, for the record.

As for the “first cause” arguement, which one? There are several. I’ve seen an atheist refute them all and then I’ve seen the religious defeat the refutations. So I consider atheistic philosophy rather easy to refute. But no, I don’t think all theistic arguements valid. I heavily considered atheism and I confess I still don’t think it makes sense. You’re allowed to be atheistic, but I consider myself to have a reasonable faith, yes.

Wow, what an insulting comment.

 

[AntiTheist]

Wow, what an insulting comment.

Sorry about that. It was a little hasty of me, and I certainly did not intend to make presumptions about your reasons for believing. I was merely trying to list the kinds of arguments that you were probably thinking of.

I’ll rephrase: in my experience, the vast majority of believers (not necessarily you) were not actually initially convinced by any of the “philosophical” arguments they espouse. As far as I can tell, the philosophical arguments mainly exist either to bolster a faith that already exists or to enable believers to present “reasonable” arguments to non-believers. In either case, the faith was already there, and it has its roots in feelings, experiences, and all of the things that you say are true about Wicca.

I suppose if you give Wicca enough time and enough followers, they’ll start developing “Wiccan Theological Arguments” and such, though as I understand it, they consider their myths and gods to be poetry, rather than literal fact (“thealogy,” they sometimes call it). Hey, at least they’re up front about it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Sorry about that. It was a little hasty of me, and I certainly did not intend to make presumptions about your reasons for believing. I was merely trying to list the kinds of arguments that you were probably thinking of.

I’ll rephrase: in my experience, the vast majority of believers (not necessarily you) were not actually initially convinced by any of the “philosophical” arguments they espouse. As far as I can tell, the philosophical arguments mainly exist either to bolster a faith that already exists or to enable believers to present “reasonable” arguments to non-believers. In either case, the faith was already there, and it has its roots in feelings, experiences, and all of the things that you say are true about Wicca.

I suppose if you give Wicca enough time and enough followers, they’ll start developing “Wiccan Theological Arguments” and such, though as I understand it, they consider their myths and gods to be poetry, rather than literal fact (“thealogy,” they sometimes call it). Hey, at least they’re up front about it.

Thank you for the apology, I appreciate it.

But yeah, you do have a point. I just don’t get it. I can’t wrap my head around it. If you don’t believe that what you’re doing is right, why would you believe it? I suppose there are other reasons, but that’s so contrary to how I think. I really can’t fathom how you can believe in something if you’re not convinced it’s true. It just strikes me as illogical.

 

[AntiTheist]

I can’t wrap my head around it. If you don’t believe that what you’re doing is right, why would you believe it?

Well, the people I’m talking about do believe that they are right and that their religion is the truth – they honestly think that “personal experience” or “inner feelings” are valid ways to draw conclusions about the world outside of their heads.

Usually, this kind of attitude is taken by someone who has not spent any time at all seriously thinking about their beliefs (sometimes out of fear that thinking about their beliefs too hard is a “sin” of some kind). Occasionally, this attitude will be taken by the most dreaded members of the human species: people who have taken a first year philosophy course and/or who just watched the Matrix for the first time. They’ll tell you how they can’t know anything and about how your subjective experience is the same as their subjective experience and that their feelings are just as valid as anything else, etc., etc.

If you’ve never had the dubious pleasure of speaking to one of these specimens, then consider yourself lucky.

 

[Shawn_Ravenfire]

Faith is not based on feeling, it is based on knowledge and intellectual belief. Those who base faith on feeling have no real foundation since feeling can easily change while logic is strong. At least in Christianity this is very evident since we are asked to love God with “all our mind”. We do not love God because we feel like it, but because we know He is there. Feelings are easily swayed, and usually utterly useless in terms of religion.

I think the opposite is more likely true. Some feelings can be swayed, such as what I’m in the mood for for dinner. But some feelings can be VERY strong, such as love or hate, which both have a history of causing logic to fly out the window.

Logic, on the other hand, is passive. Any new idea or new information forces you to question and re-examine your previous conclusions. Just look at scientists. They’re idea of how the universe works radically changes every few years, based on new evidence.

To look at God logically, you can decide that a god is probable, or improbable, based only on what you know so far. But you have to keep your options open, because you might learn something new, or have miscalculated somewhere. Faith is basically accepting something as certain, when logic says it isn’t certain.

This is why I think that religion is a matter of feeling. The brain is never 100% sure of anything, but the heart can be.

 

[Ahimsa]

Faith is basically accepting something as certain, when logic says it isn’t certain.

In other words, logic works on a set of presuppositions. But what those presuppositions are, depends upon something non-logic.

 

[AntiTheist]

This is why I think that religion is a matter of feeling. The brain is never 100% sure of anything, but the heart can be.

Well, it depends on what the claim is. If you’re making a claim about your internal state of mind (“I feel angry right now!”), then yeah, your “heart” can be sure about that, and you can’t demonstrate that with science.

But if you’re making a claim about the external world (“A discarnate intelligence exists and intervenes in the world” or “magick affects the physical world”), then those are claims that require evidence drawn from the physical world. How you feel internally is no evidence when you’re making claims about the external world.

Ahimsa:

In other words, logic works on a set of presuppositions. But what those presuppositions are, depends upon something non-logic.

I’m not sure that’s an accurate paraphrase of his point. But at any rate, logic is grounded on logical absolutes, such as the law of identity, which we’ve derived from our observation of the world. The absolutes aren’t “things” that have natures – they’re the nature of things. They’re our expression of how stuff works.

All of this is based on observing the world.

 

[Windfish]

CAF must be over-looking this one. This thread is full of fluff.

 

[Shawn_Ravenfire]

Well, it depends on what the claim is. If you’re making a claim about your internal state of mind (“I feel angry right now!”), then yeah, your “heart” can be sure about that, and you can’t demonstrate that with science.

But if you’re making a claim about the external world (“A discarnate intelligence exists and intervenes in the world” or “magick affects the physical world”), then those are claims that require evidence drawn from the physical world. How you feel internally is no evidence when you’re making claims about the external world.

Ahimsa:I’m not sure that’s an accurate paraphrase of his point. But at any rate, logic is grounded on logical absolutes, such as the law of identity, which we’ve derived from our observation of the world. The absolutes aren’t “things” that have natures – they’re the nature of things. They’re our expression of how stuff works.

All of this is based on observing the world.

I’m not saying the heart is right or wrong about its assumptions. I’m just saying that when the heart makes an assumption, it’s generally an absolute. Things that exist are either 100% true or 100% false. (Unless you want to factor overlapping parallel universe theories, and the Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox, but I’d rather not get into that.) Is it going to rain tomorrow? The answer is either yes or no. The trouble is, the brain has no absolute way of determining the answer. It can only say what it probable, not definite. Not because there isn’t a definite answer – just because the brain knows that the definite answer is not known.

Faith, on the other hand can be absolutely certain. The brain knows full well that the heart might be wrong. But try explaining that to the heart. Hearts don’t give reasonable arguments. They just give an answer, and if the brain doesn’t like it, so what.

 

[ald04]

I’d like to say this, if you dont serve God, whom are you serving. All religions believe in a good and a bad. God is the good, Satan is the bad. If we do things that dont please God, who will it please? Being a pagan and practicing witchcraft is not serving God, whether one sees it or not, paganism, and wicca is serving the lord of evil, Satan.

 

[FaithJoy]

My son graduated boot camp in the air force last August. On base they had Catholic,Protestant,Islam,Jewish,Hindu,and Wicca places of worship. I was shocked. Of course these curious kids go into these Wicca things. It made me mad. My son never did,I was proud .

 

[AntiTheist]

I’m not saying the heart is right or wrong about its assumptions. I’m just saying that when the heart makes an assumption, it’s generally an absolute. Things that exist are either 100% true or 100% false. (Unless you want to factor overlapping parallel universe theories, and the Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox, but I’d rather not get into that.) Is it going to rain tomorrow? The answer is either yes or no. The trouble is, the brain has no absolute way of determining the answer. It can only say what it probable, not definite. Not because there isn’t a definite answer – just because the brain knows that the definite answer is not known.

Sure, but we can know things to certain probabilities, which is exactly what knowledge is.

[quoteFaith, on the other hand can be absolutely certain.
[/quote] It can be absolutely certain of what it feels, sure. It can’t be absolutely certain of things in the external world.

[hearts] just give an answer, and if the brain doesn’t like it, so what.

If the brain deems that the heart’s answer is unlikely to be true, then it can reject that answer while still acknowledging that the heart feels what it does.

For example, if I feel in my heart of hearts that a soul must exist, I can acknowledge that I have such a feeling while still realizing that there’s no evidence that this claim is true and a lot of evidence that would suggest the opposite (that all that I call “I” is a product of brain chemistry that will one day cease to exist).

 

[FaithJoy]

Sure, but we can know things to certain probabilities, which is exactly what knowledge is.

[quoteFaith, on the other hand can be absolutely certain.

It can be absolutely certain of what it feels, sure. It can’t be absolutely certain of things in the external world.

If the brain deems that the heart’s answer is unlikely to be true, then it can reject that answer while still acknowledging that the heart feels what it does.

For example, if I feel in my heart of hearts that a soul must exist, I can acknowledge that I have such a feeling while still realizing that there’s no evidence that this claim is true and a lot of evidence that would suggest the opposite (that all that I call “I” is a product of brain chemistry that will one day cease to exist).
[/QUOTE]
We are a little confused in what a soul is and heart is it seems. The definition of a soul is as follows : body+spirit=soul were the body is the physical,spirit is the essence or mind(you are calling the heart) and the soul is the living soul of the combination of both. You are admitting there is a spirit when you refer to the heart to have answers and feels. Brain chemistry cannot possess these feelings answers and decisions. The body and spirit work together here on this world to interact with it. Body or brain alone is like you said, only brain chemistry and firing nerve nets.

 

[Shawn_Ravenfire]

I’d like to say this, if you dont serve God, whom are you serving. All religions believe in a good and a bad. God is the good, Satan is the bad. If we do things that dont please God, who will it please? Being a pagan and practicing witchcraft is not serving God, whether one sees it or not, paganism, and wicca is serving the lord of evil, Satan.

If you believe that serving God is the primary good, that’s fine. But your comment contains a logic error. If you say “God is the good,” this locks the definition of “God” into whatever is good. Therefor, everyone who does good is serving God. But you go on to say, “Being a Pagan is not serving God.” Now you are changing the definition of “God” to a specific interpretation, which is not about just being good, but rather about following a specific faith. In this, the “God is THE good” premise must be changed to “God is one of many good things.” So the transitive property fails to work.

And just for the sake of accuracy, not all religions believe in a good and a bad. For examples, Nihilism and Zen Buddhism.