CRI article, part 1 of 2, Witchcraft (fwd)
Richard Masoner (richardm@cd.com)
Thu, 26 Oct 1995 16:45:22 -0500 (CDT)
Forwarded...
Subj: CRI-ARTICLES : Modern World of Witchcraft, Part 2 (1/2) (fwd)
From: Gary Bogart <gsb1@cornell.edu>
Subject: CRI-ARTICLES : Modern World of Witchcraft, Part 2 (1/2)
[This is a send-only list....please do not respond]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The Modern World of Witchcraft: Part Two" (an article from the
Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990, page 22) by Craig S.
Hawkins.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------
In Part One of this series we briefly examined modern and
contemporary witchcraft, discussing some of the major beliefs of
this syncretistic movement. The present article will further
expound on witchcraft, and also critique it from a biblical,
metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical basis.
It is essential to keep in mind that this movement encompasses
a wide range of practices and beliefs. Consequently some of the
critiques presented in this article may require some adaptation or
modification in order to be applicable to certain variations of
belief within the broader system of witchcraft and neopaganism.
Nonetheless, the body of critiques presented here apply
_substantially_ to most witches and neopagans.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Glossary*
*epistemology:* The study of the origin and nature of
knowledge. Deals with questions like: What can we know? How do we
know it? How do we know it is _true?_ To what extent can we know
it? And so forth.
*ontology:* As used here ontology is a branch of metaphysics
(which in turn is a branch of philosophy -- _see_ Part One) and,
more specifically, is the study of the nature or essence of Being
-- the One -- and its relationship to creation and vice versa.
*panentheism:* The view that the world is _contained in_ and is
a _manifestation of_ the divine. Although the divine is immanent
_in_ and _to_ the world, it still transcends the universe to some
degree. As the human body is to the soul or mind, so the universe
is to the divine.
*problem of evil:* The origin and existence of evil in the
world. Traditionally, there are three main categories of evil:
metaphysical, moral, and physical or natural. Blindness, deafness,
and lameness are examples of _metaphysical_ evil; cruelty and
malevolence are examples of _moral_ evil; and earthquakes,
droughts, and tornados are examples of _physical_ evil. All moral
evil is the direct or indirect result of moral agents' free wills
or ability to choose. Physical and metaphysical evil may or may not
be the result of moral agents' choices.
*syncretism:* The combining or merging and synthesizing of
religions or religious beliefs, practices, and philosophies. This
results in new or hybrid religions that are composed of diverse
elements of the religions from which they were derived.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*MAGICAL MANIPULATION*
Many witches do not believe in spirits, and most if not all
reject belief in a literal Devil or demons. Naturally, therefore,
they reject the idea that sorcery and divination are accomplished
by the agency of evil spirits. Many offer naturalistic explanations
for the working of magic and divination and other "psychic
technologies." On the whole, the occult community today has
expanded its definition of "the natural" to incorporate elements
that were earlier considered supernatural, placing them in the
category of the super- or paranormal instead. Yet, they are still
involved in the "old ways" -- that is, the occult.
*Now You See it, Now You Don't*
What has happened in the occult world in the past two or more
decades is just what C. S. Lewis described in his classic work,
_The Screwtape Letters_ -- which portrays an experienced demon
(Screwtape) writing letters of advice to a novice demon (Wormwood):
I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to
emotionalize and mythologize their science to such an
extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us, (though
not under that name) will creep in while the human mind
remains closed to belief in the Enemy [i.e., God]. The
"Life Force," the worship of sex, and some aspects of
Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can
produce our perfect work -- the Materialist Magician, the
man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he
vaguely calls "Forces" while denying the existence of
"spirits" -- then the end of the war will be in sight.[1]
Lewis's insights on the insidious strategy of Satan -- the
archenemy of our souls -- appear to have been right on target in
regard to modern occultism.[2]
When observations like Lewis's are made, however, it is not
uncommon to hear remarks to the effect that Christians attribute to
the supernatural everything they cannot comprehend -- if it cannot
be understood, it _must_ be the Devil. However, this charge is
unwarranted.
While it is unfortunately true that some Christians tend to
hyperspiritualize events and exclaim "the Devil did it," or "the
Devil made me do it," this is certainly _not_ the case with all.
Many Christians have pointed out alleged demonic (or divine)
occurrences which were -- in fact -- instances of fraud, anomalies,
psychosomatic phenomena, auto- or heterosuggestion, and so
forth.[3] Such Christians have demystified baffling occurrences and
accounted for them by their natural causes.
*Black, White, or Neutral?*
The critical question is, What is the actual source or causal
agent(s) of the occult (i.e., of divination, sorcery, and
spiritism)? Some witches like to make a distinction between black
and white magic/sorcery and divination. They claim that sorcery or
divination performed for unselfish and/or "benevolent" purposes (to
help others) is good. Thus, magic done with good intentions and
desired results is classified as _white_ magic. Conversely, sorcery
performed with selfish and/or malevolent motives and means (to harm
others) is classified as _black_ magic.
Other witches deny the validity of this distinction or find it
useless. Since they regard magic as a natural force they view it as
_morally neutral_ (i.e., not intrinsically good or evil). Like
electricity, some say, magic can be used _for_ good or evil -- but
just as one would not speak of black or white electricity, one
should not do so with magic either.
Christians too deny the validity of a distinction between black
and white magic or divination, albeit for entirely different
reasons. Whether called black, white, negative, or positive -- any
such distinction is illegitimate. Where the Christian and all
witches disagree is on the ultimate source, the actual identity,
the who or what behind the scenes of the occult.
It is the Christian's conviction that despite all their magical
theories, witches (and all other occultists) have failed to grasp
the true source of the occult. I therefore offer the following
biblical perspective on their beliefs and practices.
*WHAT SAYS THE WORD?*
Since witches do not generally accept the teachings of the
Bible, we will not spend much time on a biblical critique.[4]
However, even a cursory review of Scripture is enough to
demonstrate that the beliefs and practices of witches are utterly
incompatible with the Bible. Witches who honestly examine the
Scriptural testimony will have no choice but to admit that the
Bible condemns their beliefs and practices.
In fact, Scripture gives a blanket condemnation of _all_ forms
of the occult -- divination, sorcery, and spiritism -- in diverse
passages throughout the Old and New Testaments. For instance, in
Deuteronomy 18:10-12 God's view of occultism is expressed in the
following warning: "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices
his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or
sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells,
or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone
who does these things is detestable to the LORD..."
If this were the only biblical passage dealing with this issue,
it would be clear that all forms of the occult are denounced by
God. Yet, this is only one of many condemnatory references (see,
e.g., Lev. 19:26, 31; 20:6; 2 Kings 17:10-17; 21:1-6; 23:4-7,
24-25; 2 Chron. 33:6; Acts 13:6-12; 16:18; Gal. 5:20; Rev. 9:21).
Moreover, numerous forms of god and goddess worship are
explicitly condemned in Scripture. There are, for example, a
multitude of denunciatory references to worshipping or invoking the
various gods and goddesses of the Near Eastern religions: the
Assyrian and Babylonian Ishtar, the Ashtoreths of the Canaanites
(e.g., the Sidonians and Phoenicians), and so forth (e.g., Deut.
16:21; Judg. 2:10-14; 10:6-16; 1 Sam. 7:3-4; 12:10; 1 Kings 11:33;
2 Kings 23:13-15). Ashtoreth is described in 2 Kings 23:13 as "the
vile goddess of the Sidonians" (NIV), or -- as the KJV and NASB
translate it -- "the abomination of the Sidonians." The Bible
speaks out not only against worshipping, invoking, and consulting
pagan gods, but also against the idea that human beings --
individually or collectively -- are divine.
In one sense, witches are right about the antiquity of some of
their beliefs and practices. The belief that human beings are or
can become divine is a good example. In the first book of the Bible
(Gen. 3:5) we find the original proposal -- made by the serpent --
of the idea that we could become "like God." But Scripture
emphatically states that there is only one being who is God (Deut.
6:4; 32:39; Isa. 43:10-11; 44:6-8; 45:5-6, 14, 22; 46:9; Jer.
10:10-11; Mark 12:29-31; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19). Though there are
many so-called gods or goddesses -- in the sense that people
worship entities conceived by their imaginations -- there is only
one God _by nature_ (1 Cor. 8:4-5; 10:20; Gal. 4:8). As one astute
observer remarked: "There are two foundational facts of human
enlightenment: (1) There is a God; and (2) You are not He."
Humankind has not only demonstrated a great proclivity towards
self-deification, it has also been strongly inclined to confuse
God's creation (or _His_ creative process) for the Creator Himself
(Rom. 1:21-25). This is certainly the case with those entangled in
the teachings of modern witchcraft.
Some witches have actually tried to reconcile the above
passages and others with their own practices. Nonetheless, the
Bible -- particularly in the original languages -- renders any such
maneuvering futile.[5] We therefore ask that witches at least
acknowledge that the Bible in no sense condones their practices,
but rather expressly condemns them.
*The Source of the Force*
Like a drunkard who continually returns to the bottle, so
mankind's bent toward self-deification and creation worship has
been irrepressible, as has been its blindness towards its own
deplorable predicament due to the ravaging effects of sin. To wit,
witches are deceived _not only_ about the inherent falsity of their
often sincerely held beliefs (see Prov. 14:12), but as well about
the _source_ of their misguided belief system. Despite what witches
claim, witchcraft originates from Satan -- the "father of lies" and
the "god of this world," and from man's corrupt nature. Thus,
though witches do not acknowledge the Devil's existence, they are
nonetheless (all the more so) trapped in the talons of his
tyrannical grip (2 Tim. 2:25-26).
To witches who believe that magic is a natural, neutral force
or power, Christians reply that it is rather empowered by "the
prince of the power of the air that now works in the children of
disobedience" (Eph. 2:2).
As such, whether witches acknowledge it or not, _all_ occultism
involves interaction and trafficking with demonic spirits (_see_
Lev. 17:7; 20:6; Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:36-39; 1 Cor. 10:20-21; Rev.
9:20-21).[6] As W. Foerster comments, "For Paul witchcraft is
meddling with demons....But there can also be intercourse with
demons in the normal heathen cultus (1 C. 10:20f.)....While idols
are nothing...demons stand behind paganism."[7] Or, as Bietenhard
informs us, "Since dealing with demons lies behind sorcery...it is
rejected (Gal. 5:20)....Heathen worship brings men into contact
with demons (1 Cor. 10:20f.), for demons stand behind paganism in
general (Rev. 9:20)."[8]
This is why occultism in all its forms is condemned in the
Bible. Occultists therefore fall under the judgment of God for
participating in such inexcusable activities (Rom. 1:18-25; Eph.
4:18-19; Rev. 21:8; 22:15).
Since witches generally do not accept the Bible, and because
there are other inherent weaknesses and failings in their world
view -- metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical -- we can and
should critique witchcraft in these areas as well. This I shall
do in the remainder of this article.
*METAPHYSICAL MALADIES*
In Part One I discussed the importance of polytheism as
understood by witches and the related concept of an "open"
metaphysic -- that is, the position that there are multiple levels
of and meanings to reality. This is expressed in the belief that
there is "no one way or right religion for all," and no "one
truth."[9] We are told by witches that all religions lead in the
same direction; they simply take different paths to get there.
*Existential Essence*
Witches further believe that everything one experiences is in
some sense real and _therefore_ true. Since reality is multiple and
diverse, and since the possible levels or planes of meaning are
infinite, there is always _more_ to experience. We should therefore
remain open-minded and tolerant of differing views.[10]
Witches who think along these lines hold that everyone has a
_part of_ the truth, for every person operates from a limited
subjective perspective of the world.[11] And since no one has an
absolute knowledge or perspective of reality (ultimate reality is
inaccessible to us), all views and experiences must be seen as
equally valid. One view is as good or true as another (minimally,
it is true for that individual). Reality, then, is a matter of
perspective -- and everyone has a different one.
*Romantic Rationalizations*
Christians certainly grant that witches have the right to
believe whatever they choose, as much as we might disagree with
their views. However, we reject that logic and reason should be
ignored when we encounter two different views that are obviously
incompatible.
We also grant that life is complicated and diverse, and that
people can and do have an incalculable number of experiences.
However, this does not prevent us from knowing many significant
truths and facts about ultimate reality. We need to distinguish
between knowing _all_ about life or ultimate reality, which no
human being is capable of, and knowing _some_ true things about it.
These are two different issues. Without this distinction, we could
not make _any_ meaningful statements about reality.
*Experience and Truth*
Many witches fail to recognize a key distinction regarding the
validity of experiences. Over and over again, one finds a failure
on the witches' part to distinguish between _real_ experiences that
people actually have versus experiences that are _true._ For
instance, a man could have an experience or sensation of falling.
The feeling might be quite intense. Upon awakening from his sleep,
however, he realizes that he was not falling at all but lying on
his bed. Did he have the experience of _feeling_ like he was
falling? Yes. Was he _really_ falling? No! The latter question is
not "Did he have this experience?" but "was he _really_ falling?"
These are two entirely different issues. To confuse the two is to
commit the fallacy of equivocation.
We do not dispute that witches have many experiences that may
_appear_ to support their religion, but we must ask: Do these
experiences really prove their assertions or only prove that they
had some type of experience? Appealing to experience only
establishes that one might have _had_ one, not that one's world
view is _true._
The idea that each world view is like one more flower in the
garden of life is a nice sentiment, but it does not fit the real
world. In fact, it is nothing short of metaphysical madness. To
paraphrase and adapt a quip by Edgar Sheffield Brightman, "In a
world where Christianity and witchcraft are both true, we do not
have a universe, but a cosmic nut house!"
As we shall see presently, the metaphysical framework of the
witches' world has important implications in the realm of testing
truth claims.
*EPISTEMOLOGY*
With their emphasis on experience and their belief in the
intuitive and existential nature of truth, witches fall into
diverse epistemological sinkholes on the road to truth. One finds
a consistent appeal to "knowing" _not_ by the intellect but by
experience and "intuition." One also finds an implicit or explicit
depreciation or denial of the principles or laws of thought.
For example, Starhawk -- a popularizer of the
witchcraft/neopagan world view -- disdains what she terms "any
beliefs which would...deny the authority of experience...," thus
reinforcing what she calls "the lie that there is only one
truth."[12] In the same way, Margot Adler -- another popular
neopagan writer -- argues for the superiority of experience over
dogma, and metaphor and myth over theology, doctrine, and
creed.[13]
Although one often hears witches downplay or outright deny
doctrines, dogma, and beliefs -- still, they too vehemently
champion _their_ beliefs.[14] To say that experience and ritual are
more important than doctrine _is itself a doctrine._ Besides, how
is it possible to have rituals in the first place if there are no
beliefs to give them meaning? In short: no beliefs, then no
rituals. Additionally, one must assert doctrines or beliefs and use
logic to even refute the idea of doctrine.
*Is Logic Necessary?*
Many people berate the use of logic and talk as if they could
think and do without it. The fact is, however, that it is
impossible _not_ to use logic. Should a person attempt to refute
logic, he or she must use logic in the very process of refuting it
-- thereby refuting his or her own argument. Let us be clear on
this: one must _use_ logic to _disprove_ logic. For instance,
suppose someone asserts that magic and experience are beyond logic
and reason (i.e., logic does not apply to these realms). The person
making this assertion has failed to note that this statement is
itself predicated upon the use of logic -- that is, logic had to be
utilized to even formulate it. Logic therefore _does_ apply.
Due to limited space, we will consider just one of the primary
laws of thought -- the law of non-contradiction.[15] This principle
affirms that a statement cannot both be true and false (A cannot be
non-A) at the same time and in the same sense. For example, it
cannot be the case that one both can _and_ cannot (at the same time
and in the same manner) safely cross a busy street. It is one or
the other, but not both. If one says it _is_ both _and_ attempts to
keep his (or her) actions consistent with his words, he will end up
being run over. When people fail to yield to logic, they will also
end up being run over by their own arguments (i.e., they assert
false, self-defeating, and/or meaningless statements).
Some (many?) witches try to avoid the anvil of logic, but to no
avail.[16] A case in point is Stewart Farrar, who approvingly
quoted C. G. Jung's assertion that "everything human is
relative."[17] To which we respond: Is this statement relative too,
since it was uttered by a human? If it is _not_ relative, then the
statement is not true. But if the statement itself _is_ relative,
that would mean there are times when it is not true -- when some
things human are _not_ relative, and are hence _absolute._ But this
would contradict Jung's original statement. Thus, it is both false
and self-defeating. Clearly, the sword of logic cuts both ways.
*Magical Immunity*
Witches often attempt to defend their magic castle from the
battering rams of logic by erecting supposedly impenetrable
walls.[18] Different explanations and rationalizations are offered
to protect their views. These include the aforementioned
depreciation, denial, or alleged inapplicability of logic and
objective standards for discerning truth; postulating diverse
planes or levels of reality and meaning; dichotomizing between
emotions and the intellect, or between normal versus altered states
of consciousness; and a number of other distinctions. To be fair,
many of these attempts are simply sincere efforts to understand the
mysterious world of the occult. Nonetheless, such attempts appear
to be cases of special pleading and of employing double standards
-- resulting in an assumed immunity from the normal criteria of
truth-testing used to verify or refute a world view.[19]
No matter what explanations and defenses are used, however,
experience and intuitive feelings are often an essential element of
the witches' world view validation -- "It feels right; I have truly
experienced it." Witches "know" via powerful spiritual and
emotional experiences that their views are true. Therefore, they
can at times affirm apparently contradictory assertions.
Again, regardless of which of the above distinctions are used
to advance or protect the witches' world view, _the distinctions
themselves are based upon the validity of logic._ Try as they may,
witches simply cannot _not_ use logic.
Our pagan friends are, so to speak, "up the metaphysical
creek," without a trustworthy epistemological "paddle" -- and are
caught in a whirlpool of subjective circularity that makes one's
head spin. Witches cannot appeal to logic when it suits them and
ignore it when it refutes them and still expect to be taken
seriously.
As we shall now see, the use of logic in the categories of
"both/and" as opposed to "either/or" have implications not just
for _thinking_ but for _ethics_ as well.
*ETHICS*
Witches do not believe in the concept of sin as defined by
(continuted in Part 2, File 2...)