What Is Wicca? [An Atheistic Perspective]

Introduction

I actually had a request to write about this topic. It’s not exactly my area of expertise, but I thought I’d give it a shot.

Now, I could go into a bunch of history, specifics as to what Wiccans believe and whatnot, but I think it would be a little redundant. There are plenty of sources for that on the internet. Wikipedia has a great article on Wicca.

My main purpose here is to give an Atheistic, or, maybe the more appropriate term might be Naturalistic, view of Wicca.

Nature-Based

Wicca is referred to as a “nature-based” religion. What seems apparent are the common themes in Wicca that span many different religions. The idea of a trinity, for instance. Many Wiccans worship the “Triple Goddess;” the Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone. We see this idea in Christianity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We also see this in Hinduism (the Trimurti); Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. (More info on various other trinities can be found here.)

Taking into account the very symbolic nature of these trinities, it’s worthwhile to mention that in its basic form, religion seeks to explain the world around us. As opposed to science, religion seeks to explain our world with decrees and absolute statements through divine revelation.

With that in mind, we can see that the Triple Goddess is symbolic of things such as the phases of the moon and stages of life. Attempts to anthropomorphize the world around us.

It is said that the origins of Wicca stem from various pagan beliefs which may have been around since before the Abrahamic religions came into existence.

These religions were developed long before scientific inquiry was the standard for proof of a claim. Before we understood as much as we do today about physics, Newtonian mechanics, relativity and even that the world is round. The standard explanation for anything in those times was that a god was in charge of the workings of nature.

We can see how these symbols of Wicca reflect that idea. Things such as the phases of the moon symbolized by the phases of life of a goddess.

Essentially, by “nature-based,” this means that everything in nature is anthropomorphized and brought to a level where everything around us is somehow expressive of some human quality. It gives everything a more personal quality, and where the feeling of “connectedness” stems from.

We can’t relate with trees, or the moon, or any other species on this planet outside of a human context. But, when we attribute human qualities to them, they soon become more relatable and filled with a certain “energy” which is, in its most basic sense, an emotional attachment.

Magic

A large part of the Wiccan religion is magic. Be it White or Black magic, Wicca centers around this practice.

As with any claims of paranormal activity, be it ghosts, ESP, dowsing, or magic, there is a huge burden on those who make these extraordinary claims to show evidence that these claims are real.

The problem with magic is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that it actually works. The people who propose that magic works use vague terms such as “energy” and “intention” or “will.” These terms are meaningless, for several reasons.

The most basic of these reasons is that “energy” is nothing more than the potential to do work. This can be either kinetic or potential. Energy is not an invisible cloud floating around waiting for someone to tell it what to do.

If the proponents of magic intend to claim that it is anything more than kinetic or potential energy, then it is up to them to provide the mechanism for how it works. To simply say that it is mysterious, or that science cannot understand it is meaningless. Let me explain a little further.

To claim that magic can have an effect on the physical world intrinsically means that this “magic” must consist of something physical. I liken it to when people claim that ghosts can move objects in a room, or that ghosts can walk through walls. If a ghost can walk through a wall, then it obviously does not interact with the physical world.  This is also the same reason why ghosts cannot be visible. If it were visible, it would have to consist of some physical medium which could reflect light back into the eyes of the perceiver.

A ghost cannot walk through a wall, then in the same instance knock a cup off of a table. Those are two contradicting phenomena. It’s not just that I think it probably couldn’t happen. It is physically impossible, no matter what excuses you use. It violates the laws on which this Universe is based.

In this same way, magic cannot perform work and at the same time consist of something that is not physical. By necessity, any energy able to perform work is detectable by scientific instrumentation. At the end of the day, it all boils down to friction.

In order to perform work, or to actually affect the physical world, there must be friction. One surface against another. To open a door, there must be friction between your hand and the doorknob. To push a cup off of a table, there must be friction between your hand and the cup and the surface of the table. Even, as some magic spells claim, to affect emotions such as love, there must be friction in the brain, causing electric activity in the brain to be sparked by a transfer of electrons.

Any other use of the word “energy” outside of the realm of physicality and friction is simply a ruse to make a claim sound mysterious and beyond our comprehension, to bring the claim beyond the realm of questioning. The word “energy” used in this way is, again, meaningless.

Conclusion

While I am far from an expert on Wicca, there are some glaring similarities between it and many other world religions. The anthropomorphizing of nature, the idea of a trinity, forms of magic and spells and an overall manifestation of mystery around normal, everyday phenomena.

From a Naturalistic or Atheistic perspective, Wicca really is no different from any other religions except maybe for the fact that personal control over the environment is deemed possible through the influence of magic. In most other religions, this control over the environment is only possible through the influence of the godhead, or in the case of monotheism, the god of that particular religion.

Essentially, Wicca is another attempt to explain the world through supernatural means. A way to get easy answers to the complicated questions, such as the origin of the Universe.

Is Nonsense A Good Measure Of Reality?

Recently, I’d read a post on the existence of ghosts, and left a comment. A very short comment…

I’ve written a logical refutation as far as the existence of ghosts goes. It’s actually impossible for ghosts to exist in the way that people claim they do.

There Are No Such Things As Ghosts

Now, I know what you’re thinking. I’m just asking for trouble, posting on an entry like this. Call me a glutton for punishment.

Needless to say, I got what I was looking for. Immediately, Middle Man replied to me. I couldn’t have asked for more nonsense in a single reply. But why try to describe it? Take a look for yourself.

Oh godkillzyou if only logic and science was the measure of reality. Ghosts, like alien abductions, are because we fall asleep?

Belief in things makes things real. For some, God is real because of religion. For others, vodoo can inflict real pain and hurt. Others, believe in ghosts.

The psychic can be powerful from the intuition or instict that makes children afraid of natural dangers such as spiders, through to the inner power that enables small women lift heavy cars to free a trapped child.

In theory, if you build a big enough telescope you will be able to catch up with the light emitted from planet earth and view history being played out in real time.

Ghosts, real? Trapped energy? Psychic imprints? Dunno. But, you cannot tell me that what I have personally experienced was not real. Your logic may tell you so but you have no theory to give me an alternative cause of what I have seen, felt and heard.

That aside, how is life on planet Vulcan?

Thanks for visiting.

I’m just going to come out and say it. This guy is a nutcase. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but let me dissect this big ol’ pile of poopy.

Let’s take a look at his first mal-formed paragraph.

Oh godkillzyou if only logic and science was the measure of reality. Ghosts, like alien abductions, are because we fall asleep?

This guy obviously has no interest in facts, or reading the entire entry he’s commenting about. Ghosts, alien abductions and the like can be explained by sleep paralysis, not “because we fall asleep.” Nice try, though.

Now comes some real nonsense for you…

Belief in things makes things real. For some, God is real because of religion. For others, vodoo can inflict real pain and hurt. Others, believe in ghosts.

Wow. This guy is really detached from reality. And he’s trying to tell me logic and science aren’t the measure of reality? I believe that gas only costs $1.00 per gallon. Guess what? That didn’t work.

This guy has absolutely no critical thinking skills, whatsoever. What would make him think that belief in something makes it real? Does he really believe this? How deluded must one be to think this way?

And just how easy is it to test this idea? Well, there some very simple ways to disprove it right here.

People used to believe Thor caused lightning. Nope, that’s not real. There are countless religions in the world. They can’t all be right. They, for the most part, all make contradictory claims. Christianity and Islam can’t both be true.

Why is this kind of thought process detached from reality? Because he’s created for himself a paradigm where nothing can be proven incorrect. Unfalsifiable. Nothing is open to testing. If you believe it, it’s true and that’s all there is to it – regardless of evidence to the contrary. That is a chaotic existence that I would want no part of.

If what he was saying were true, what could be said about paranoid schizophrenics? They would make our world a living hell with all of the things they believe! Imagine if every delusion any person had became reality!

The psychic can be powerful from the intuition or instict that makes children afraid of natural dangers such as spiders, through to the inner power that enables small women lift heavy cars to free a trapped child.

Again, wow. What exactly is he trying to say? That being afraid of spiders makes one psychic? Children don’t become afraid of spiders until you tell them that they bite. And as far as “small women lift heavy cars,” I’d like him to state his sources. Judging from his earlier statements, I can’t give him enough credit (benefit of the doubt) to assume he’s not just making this up in order to advance his ideology.

In theory, if you build a big enough telescope you will be able to catch up with the light emitted from planet earth and view history being played out in real time.

Now he’s trying to play the part of the physicist. The problem here is that he knows nothing about physics, apparently. Unbelievable. You cannot “catch up” with light emitted from earth. When you perceive light, it is travelling in your direction, entering your eyes. And I’m not just making this up. I’ll even cite my sources. Reality-based, scientific sources. Here’s the study.

And by the way, what exactly does this have to do with being “psychic?” He seems to be making an excuse, or at least a scientific explanation for psychic ability. Do psychics actually just have really big telescopes or something? But then, you can’t catch up with light from the future, right? Maybe in this guy’s mind, you can.

He believes it. Therefore, it’s real.

Ghosts, real? Trapped energy? Psychic imprints? Dunno. But, you cannot tell me that what I have personally experienced was not real. Your logic may tell you so but you have no theory to give me an alternative cause of what I have seen, felt and heard.

I’m not exactly sure why he says that “you cannot tell me that what I have personally experienced was not real.” I mean, judging from his apparently delusional nature, I think I’ve got more than sufficient evidence to think that what he’s “seen” is not real.

Ghosts, trapped energy and psychic imprints. I’m wondering if he even knows what he’s talking about.

As far as not having an alternative cause for what he’s allegedly seen, I wasn’t there. So I have no idea. The possibilities are endless. I could speculate, but I won’t.

I’ll just conclude by saying that, strangely, I love being berated by delusional individuals. I mean, it gives me great material to write about. It also gives my “Bullshit Detector” a thorough workout. Dissecting these little trinkets is a great exercise in skepticism. I fully appreciate all the help I get with that.

So, thanks for reading. Read a book.

What Is Your Standard Of Proof?

At work, I’ve got a lot of time on my hands. That’s not to say that I’m not busy. I should say I’ve got a lot of “thinking time” on my hands. Recently, as my mind’s been wandering, I’d been pondering… perseverating, maybe, on standards of proof.

What is your standard of proof? This could apply to anything. What is your standard of proof for accepting any particular proposition? Do you have a high standard of proof? Low? Any standard? Does it depend on the proposition?

I suppose the reason I pose this question is because I get frustrated when people use false logic in order to add steam to nonsensical beliefs. They may not even realize they are doing it. I think my pet peeve, as far as logical fallacies are concerned, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Basically, it’s when an event (A) occurs, followed by another event (B), and it is assumed that A is the cause of B. There are examples of these types of fallacies if you follow the link. They are excellent examples, but there’s one in particular that really gets my goat…

Let’s just say, for example, someone gets injured. Hypothetically speaking, that is. Let us also suppose that, again hypothetically, this person visits the doctor and the news is given that surgery is not required. The injury should heal on its own.

Now let’s suppose, again hypothetically, that a separate party, upon hearing this news, says, “I was praying for you.” Suppose this other party claims that surgery was not required because of the prayers they had previously offered up to God. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. After it, therefore, because of it. Because B happened after A, it is assumed that A  was caused by B. It is automatically assumed that the prayers were the reason for not needing surgery.

Here’s another example from Infidels.org:

“I was healed from cancer.”

“Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer.”

“So, will He heal others who have cancer?”

“Er… The ways of God are mysterious.”

It makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. If you were to follow this line of logic consistently, you could arbitrarily apply random causes to anything, and it would make just as much sense.

This thermometer goes up to 100 degrees Celsius, therefore water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius. Why does the light turn on when I flip the switch? Oh, because the sun went down first. And for a final example, why hasn’t God ever healed an amputee? Because, since the beginning of the Earth, the sun has always risen in the East and set in the West.

Here’s an important point to be made about this logic from Why Won’t God Heal Amputees:

No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.

The bottom line is in the question what is your standard of proof? Would you accept an ad hoc logical fallacy as genuine proof of something? Do you simply accept anecdotes as proof? Stories and personal accounts? If this is your standard of proof, then you probably do not have a truly firm grasp of reality. You would find yourself in a constant state of delusion. You would find yourself constantly rationalizing your beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary of those beliefs. Constantly seeking ways to discount or ignore that evidence. Arguing emotionally instead of rationally or scientifically.

Again, I stress the importance of science. And even more than that, simple logic and reason. There are ideas in this world that persist despite being completely unsubstantiated. In fact, they persist despite evidence proving the exact opposite of what these ideas claim. ESP, telekinesis, homeopathy, psychic powers, dowsing, ghosts, etc. All of these, and many more, have contradicting evidence that would, to a rational thinking person, completely disprove them all. Yet, the standard of proof for most people is very low.

In many cases, all it takes is someone to simply make the claim that they are psychic in order for people to believe and completely accept it. If the average person exercised even a modest amount of critical thinking concerning these claims, they would no longer proliferate in our society. Montel Williams wouldn’t make Sylvia Browne a permanent guest on his program each week. Wouldn’t it be awesome to see someone with a scientific education on a talk show once in a while?

I think that, for the most part, people accept things based on how it makes them feel. If an idea makes them feel good, then they “believe in it.” The thought of ghosts existing makes people feel good about there being an afterlife. The idea of God makes people feel good about having a purpose or goal in life. Critical thinking is simply tossed out the window.

Sincerity is another basis for proof for a lot of people. Does the person who’s telling the story seem honest? Sincere? Then it must be true.

I respond to this by asking how much more precious is life without God? To know that this is the only life we’ve got? Wouldn’t you want to make the best of it? Doesn’t it make you feel lucky to be alive? Scientifically speaking, the odds of you existing in this point and time (or at all, at any point in time) are astronomically small. And yet, here you are. What more hope, joy and inspiration do you need?

God cheapens the deal. According to basically any religion, this life doesn’t matter. In fact, the Bible tells us that this life is something we have to live through until we get to “Heaven.” We are taught, as Christians, to revile this life, our bodies of filth and sin. We are taught that we are worthless and have nothing to look forward to except death. Only then will we see “Heaven.” How wretched…

Anyone who’s ever gazed through a telescope can testify that they’ve seen “Heaven.” Even looking up at the night sky with the naked eye is awe inspiring. To know that the light you’re seeing from those distant stars is thousands, if not millions, of years old is enough to fill one with awe and wonder. To realize how small of a piece of space we occupy. It is more humbling than any Bible verse telling me that God created me out of sand, or a blood clot, or any other nonsense.

I didn’t really want to get too deep into this just because I’d never stop writing. The basic point I wanted to make was that we need to up our standard of proof. We need to exercise critical thinking. To stop thinking of science as a bad thing, or that it’s just another way out of a myriad of ways you can “prove” something (it’s the only way). Or, thinking that it’s too hard to look for evidence of something. To think that it’s easier instead to just accept it.

I’ve come to revile the word “Faith.” When someone says, “Just have faith,” all I hear is, “Stop thinking about it and just accept it, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. You won’t get anywhere in this life by thinking. You need to just believe everything you’re told… especially if it’s in the Bible. Just believe any kind of woo-woo nonsense people throw at you.”

I usually end with the standard “Read a book,” but this time I’d just like to close with a quote from one of the greatest teachers of all time, the late Dr. Carl Sagan…

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”