Margaret Murray

[TeaDidikai]

Starlock

Well then. You've made your intentions clear.

Yes. I am a very bad person to expect intellectual honesty in a forum dedicated to education. :nod:

Quote:

Secondarily, there are implications within the mythos that are empowering to some of those who believe it fact.

Except- what they believe to be fact is a far cry from Murray. I have never seen a neo-pagan who believes in an unbroken Witch-Cult tradition suggest they are worshipping the Devil.

Why not accept that Murray's text is not the sum total of this mythos?

Quote:

That emotional charge will tend to stick people into believing since it is important to their spirituality.

Is it really? How does a belief that has been proven to be wrong enhance the spiritual path? We aren't speaking of non-falsifiable concepts here- the nature of deity or divinity, the essence of spiritual practice, or even a creation mythos as an analogy. We're talking about history.

Quote:

In essence it's the same thing that drives some Abrahamics to believe in Biblical creationism on a literal level.

I completely disagree. The ability of a reported all powerful being doing something is not the same as saying Joan of Arc was a heathen.

Quote:

It's a psychological thing,

This much I agree with. It's a very special form of false thought- that age lends legitimacy.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem at it's most absurd.

Quote:

Or is this a false dichotomy?

I think it more of a false analogy when suggesting that objective fact and myth are the sides of the coin. This would be the case if this wasn't meant to be an academic account.

Quote:

Is it possible to believe in the mythos and attain that richness while also acknowleding the dubious/false literal nature of the claims?

The mythos? The one that Murray suggested? Likely not- as to assert that Murray's work was actuate is met time and again with afront by the people it is suggested believe in it.

If we weren't talking about Murray- if it was a stand alone myth, then likely so. But we are talking about one very real doctument.  

[MaddLlama]

This is exactly what I'm talking about - people who scoff at history and say "I don't need to agree with that. We all create our own reality, so I can believe what I want, and it will be real, and that's perfectly OK"

Well, I don't think it is at all. How can you base an honest and deep spirituality on something that is proven to be a historical lie? It's one thing to realize that bits and pieces of history are missing and so we have to fill in the blanks. It is a totally different monster to say that history doesn't matter at all - so much so that it's ok to ignore it just to be happy with a belief that feels good.

Such systems of spirituality are superficial, and lack depth and meaning.  

[TeaDidikai]

There are two sides to this from a logical standpoint.

Argument from Ignorance and Appeal to Tradition.

While we are able to prove that Murray was wrong, the idea of a witchcult being maintained isn't something we can prove. Thus to suggest that just because we cannot prove it- it isn't possible is a flawed line of logic. We can however state Murray's thesis is wrong. The belief that spawned from it isn't falsifiable.

However, to suggest that because people have thought that there was a hidden witchcult for so long, that it is valid is also flawed.

For what it's worth, I can relate to your frustration.