Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by MoosekeeterProbably with the arrival of science and logic? I mean psychological symbolism and archetypes etc, lean heavily on the knowledge of the ‘Old religion’ but strip them of their roots with nature. I find psychology and such very clinical compared to shamanistic/nature ‘magic’.
It is as if science regards nature as primitive and unclean.
I don't know actually, though I understand what you are saying, I have always felt science being in awe of Nature and its processes, but also trying to explain and decorticate it. I think Nature is to scientists the ultimate quest. To understand exactly how this vast universe of ours works is to most scientists their "holy Grail".
I don't think scientists view Nature as primitive and unclean , but they are bemused and fascinated by its wonders.
At least that's my experience of science, it's all about finding answers, the more difficult and elusive the questions the better !
A lot of scientist think they can "improve" on Nature some have certainly helped make our modern world a little bit safer for us.
The thing is that when you pick things apart to see how it works, lots of the unknown will stop being mysteries. Nature will then be seen more as a machine than as something unpredictable (thus respectful) or even ‘divine’.
Your great grandmother sounds like she would have been a very interesting lady to talk to and learn from.
Absolutely!! I was enthralled reading Moosekeeters post regarding his great grandmother..a person from his discription I would have been honoured to know
The thing is that when you pick things apart to see how it works, lots of the unknown will stop being mysteries. Nature will then be seen more as a machine than as something unpredictable (thus respectful) or even ‘divine’.
I agree that science takes away a lot of the "romance" of life as does exploration but there is a certain beauty also in the answers provided by scientific research and experiments.
I am one of the old fashioned people who still bemoans the fact that so little of our world is now undiscovered, but I am also very grateful that scientists have had the intellectual curiosity to explore the world of physics medicine, biology, etc... To me the next frontier isn't space but the Oceans, the human Brain, consciousness, and these are exciting too.
The fact that we can explain a lot of phenomena nowadays still does not take away from their wondrous side and I still feel quite amazed at our wonderful and sometimes terrible universe. Science to me might explain things but I still feel very humble at the wonder of it all.
I also firmly believe that scientists have been greatly instrumental in ringing bells of alarm about a lot of the destruction we have unleashed upon the world. A lot of environmentalists are scientists too and their creed is respect for nature and how to halt the madness of environmental destruction.
Not all science is good , I think no one would deny that ( the Atom bomb was hardly a brilliant development for mankind!) but without it I cannot help and feel that we would all be stumbling in the dark . Questioning and challenging everything, a never ending curiosity are to my mind what makes us human.
Umm, book burnings, witch burnings, book burnings, witch hangings, book burnings, witch burnings...ad nauseum blah blah blah.....did I mention the BOOK BURNINGS?
The 'witch hangings' of early Salem had nothing to do with Wicca, in any fashion, nor did any book burnings of later history.
As stated earlier in this thread, there is no historical evidence whatsoever to support the existance of a religion called 'Wicca' any earlier than the late 1950s. Were there witches? Quite possibly, but there are no documents, no records, no mention of any formal 'Wiccan' religion earlier than approximately 1957.
It's been speculated, in some circles, that some of the many accusations of 'witchcraft' during the Salem trials may have been a ploy to obtan the land of the accused. While I'm not sure if it's ever been formally established, in many cases, the land of the accused 'witch' may have been given to the church, or the accuser.
There is zero historical evidence of any kind that Wicca traces back farther than 1950. Not one single scrap of documentation proving otherwise, including supposed grimoires predating that date, has ever been produced. Did people study and practice herbalism prior to 1950? Certainly. Did some keep notes or write books about it? Certainly. Herbalism is not a religion. Were they grimoires about Wiccan religious practices and rituals? No. If you have such documentation, please let me know, because I know of an Oxford historian who would love to see it.
I thought Wicca was the same as/evolved from pagan beliefs. Is this incorrect? A lack of a formalized "guide book" doesn't negate anything to me. I don't feel wicca or any other belief system neccessitates a book such as a Bible is to judaeochristianity.
Not stating facts here, just trying to put into words my understanding of wicca/pagan beliefs.
Herbalism may not meet the criteria of a religion, *I hate to use the word "religion" when discussing native american beliefs, but ethnobotany certainly takes on a very strong spiritual role in Native American beliefs.
Example: I have always been taught to offer tobacco to the spirits when we go to sacred places to gather plants to be used in traditional ceremonies. So, herbalism does not qualify per se as a religion, but I have never felt compelled to equate Native beliefs with religion, but herbalism was a central core of the overall life of prehistoric peoples.
I know many folks take a hodge podge of all world beliefs, and make it their own.
I thought Wicca was the same as/evolved from pagan beliefs. Is this incorrect?
Not incorrect, per se, but slightly inaccurate. Wicca is largely a reconstruction of pagan belief, based on what historical information is available (since many cultures practiced an oral tradition, written records are sparse, if they exist at all).
What we mean when we say 'zero historical record' is simply that there is no evidence, of any kind, to support the existance of a formalized religious movement called 'Wicca' prior to the 1950s. There may have been witches (and there probably were), but they probably didn't call themselves Wiccans.
It's been speculated, in some circles, that some of the many accusations of 'witchcraft' during the Salem trials may have been a ploy to obtan the land of the accused. While I'm not sure if it's ever been formally established, in many cases, the land of the accused 'witch' may have been given to the church, or the accuser.
The circles you are referencing are those of US History scholars.
It has definitely been established that many of the women who were killed in Salem Village were widows who had ownership of their land after their husbands died. Also, accusers were often the same people who had sold the land to the deceased husbands, and who would be re-entitled to the property in the case of death of the current owner.
Coincidence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find psychology and such very clinical compared to shamanistic/nature ‘magic’.
