"Faith" should not be part of a Heathen's vocabulary.

[scrwtape]

Faith ... I know this is tossed around a lot ... however, that term and  its origins are Abrahamic.  They use it to describe their covenant and later ways to "interact" with their “white christ” and by the Muslims and Jews to describe their actions.  It is so ubiquitous in religious discussions because Xtianity has dominated Western culture for so

Comments

[razorsharpblade]

You're certainly not the only voice on this, and I think your reflections are useful ones. From a 'cross-cultural' perspective, in the sense of me reading as an outsider to American culture, the role of religion/faith/belief/practice is distinctive and more overt than in other places. This has some benefit in prompting such reflections. It also illustrates how Heathens in America may feel pressure to use similar language to other familiar systems.

One thing that stood out for me in this is the 'experimental' approach to developing practice that you describe. It's distinctively different and fits the way that the modern revival has developed, and neatly side-steps the red herring thrown up by credal or fideistic approaches to religion. It has its own issues for us now, most notably the ways that we as present-day Heathens judge whether something has 'worked', but I think it still holds more worth than trying to impose what you are calling a doxic approach. "Doxic" in my mind relates to devotional-relational-experiential rather than credal approach, and I think devotional approaches are relevant to present-day Heathenry and are a part of Heathen practice, where the credal statements of belief are both different and unhelpful. I get what you're working on in having a neat distinction, just not sure about this choice of term :)

[razorsharpblade]

Oh, and have you seen this? :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t-thorn-coyle/why-i-am-not-a-believer_b_3394044.html

[scrwtape]

Yes, and my view is on my FB.

I can't make the terms to hard

[scrwtape]

Thanks Blade, I really wish you had responded to this at the actual Blog {http://scrwtape.blogspot.com/} (LJ is sort of my backup) You raise some very important points.

"neatly side-steps the red herring thrown up by credal or fideistic approaches to religion"

{Big smile from Rod} That, my friend *is* one of my points. Here in the US the Fideistic approach is *way* to prevelent. I had to argue against just such an approach on the FB thread of this Blog entry.

I know you, and a few others of my acquaintenance, actually know what "credal" and "fideistic" and "devotional" all means in the technical sense. However, most of my "audience" such would just fly over their head. Or I would spend *way* to much time explaining the word and then the concept, that they forget the initial point. They few that *think* they know the terms (they Google it) I then have to get into semantic arguments and end up arguing with a Dictionary.

I mean come on Bourdieu took pages and pages to explain habitus. I'm trying to explain sometimes complex sociological, anthropological, and theological terms to layfolk.

Re: I can't make the terms to hard

[razorsharpblade]

He also took decades to develop the concept :)

I'll happily repost it at Blogspot, will do shortly (and when I can figure out how to do so without linking to my Google account >.<).