In today's scientific world, there is a habit of commonly designating anything not reinforced by science as "superstition." Because neopagans commonly accept that the world can be manipulated through "magic," which in turn is also commonly called superstitious by wider Western culture, neopagans tend toward the notion that labelling anything as superstition is wrong.

The fact is just because we hold a minority opinion does not mean we should stop thinking critically. Just because we respect some ancient beliefs does not force us to accept all ancient beliefs as valid.

We all structure ritual differently. Some of us work on elemental models, some use tables of correspondences (with various logic systems behind those tables), some work with few accouterments, etc. We all find different things that work...and different things that do not work.

When you incorporate an item into ritual for no better reason than some book says you should, that's superstition. Minimally, you should understand why the source is suggesting such a use and then make a judgement on that reasoning.

This issue recently came up for me in a discussion on the use of herbs. Personally, I'm not a big fan of herbs. I often use a pleasing incense, but the choice of scent is almost entirely personal preference, not supposed mystical properties.

In my experience, the different meaning associated with plants varies wildly from source to source, and the majority do not even indicate what logic they base their suggestions on. For all I know, they've developed their list through use of a magic 8-ball. Even if the writer is working from older sources, they're all using different folklore, different cultures, etc. These older sources are working on the idea that plants have inherent magical properties, in part because they didn't differentiate between magical and mundane properties. I accept that many plants of mundane properties, which can be tested. But when every source is saying something different about a claim that cannot be verified, I am left with the conclusion that we are dealing with superstition rather than an accurate understanding.

The ancients didn't actually have all the answers. While they certainly should not be discounted just because they are from a time long ago, they likewise should not be accepted solely because they are from a long time ago. That is counter to reason.

2 comments

  1. Cameron // January 19, 2009 at 8:44 AM  

    When I saw the title for this entry, I was hoping you were going to address the common skeptical argument that, if there is a non-magical explanation for an event, then to accept a magical explanation is an act of superstition. While I'm not Wiccan myself, I'm interested in the religion and I don't remember seeing that particular challenge addressed in anything I've read.

  2. Catherine Noble Beyer // January 20, 2009 at 5:00 PM  

    That would make a great follow-up article. Thanks for the suggestion!