Atheistic and Skeptical Witchcraft with @theskepticalwitch

From a chaos-like perspective, science can be just as effective a context to work in as the devine. - consider that general/special relativity proves we all exist in subjective universe or that quantum theory posits probabilities of realities that can be born.- there for sure is an aesthetic path.

Great conversation! Congratulations on a good video.

For anyone who is interested in atheism from an academic perspective, Matt Baker from UsefulCharts - who got his PhD researching atheism and psychology - made an excellent video outlining different types and approaches to atheism and nones. Though not to be used in strictly binary manner, terms like positive/negative and implicit/explicit atheism are helpful to understand what beliefs are a said atheist hold, and would certainly benefit philosophical understanding of atheism in witchcrafts and some ritualistic practices.

What Sarah said about using witchcraft to transform internal and mental landscape (s)of an atheist practitioner is very fascinating to me. In the Lutheran Protestant Christian environment I was raised in, I was heavily discouraged from praying for external changes, especially when they lead to specific outcomes that may conflict with God’s will. So it’s best to pray for internal psychological and spiritual transformation/illumination/boost for the person to be praying, hence be simultaneously experience metaphysical effects while not conflicting with God’s will. My religious household are especially keen to this idea as most of us (except myself) have natural science studies background, so it’s simply unrealistic for us to expect external (and especially material) changes from our spiritual practices. I suppose what differentiates the practice in my family and Sarah is the presence and absence of a deity. It’s a delight to hear that an atheist witchcraft practitioner who share similar thoughts as I do, since I’m no longer aligned with Christian theology though still very much into nurturing my spirit.

I don't think I heard it discussed, but I wonder is there has been any investigation into similarities with Non-theistic Satanism. It seems like there could be some overlap or similarities. Especially since Non-theistic Satanist are usually atheists too.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that the issue lies in variations between what is meant by "God" or "the supernatural." I suspect that if you surveyed most atheistic or skeptical pagans, you would discover that, until later in life, they rarely encountered non-Christian spiritualists who could explain their perspectives without the filter of either an atheistic perspective, or a fundamentalist Christian lens. They associate terms like "faith" with an unyielding certainty that does not evolve ideas, "God" with a perfect, omnipotent and omnipresent being, "worship" with a mentality of being utterly unworthy, and "belief" with a crystalized worldview. Sarah mentioned her parents were atheists and, based on my experiences in the atheist community, most atheists operate as reactionists to a fundamentalist Christian worldview, and project these ideas about religious beliefs onto all religious practices. Therefore anyone who rejects the idea of absolute faith in an omnipotent deity feels like an atheist.

It took me a long time to realize that many religions (if not most) consider practice more important than belief, tolerate doubts and variations in interpretations of scripture, and worship gods who, despite their power, still have limitations. Witchcraft in particular can often frame their practices as "working with energies and spirits" rather than "worshipping gods." If you haven't realized that, practicing witchcraft in the normal way feels incredibly atheistic. There is a perception of difference based on deictic (I might have misspelled that) definitions of the relevant terms.

Thank you for this talk ladies! Love the symposium. 🤓🤙

Super into this. Will have to continue to watch later

Wow, this is amazing and I’m just 20 minutes in!

I have been ‘practicing’ atheopaganism for about half a year now. Marks community welcome me and helped me in so many ways. There isn’t just one way to do ritual there also isn’t a wrong way. I do ritual to make myself happy it is a part of my self care. I reflect on myself what I want to achieve how I want my own day to go. It helps me put my best foot forward of making sure I accomplish what I want and hold myself accountable and not blame others for my doings or if it isn’t a good day find a positive about it. My ritual could be meditation, an intention braid under my hair to help calm my nerves if I am doing something that I have anxiety about, and sometimes a ‘spell’ to help me bring out my inner child. It is fun. You can’t make a difference in the world if you can’t make the changes you want to see in yourself.

It Is a confusing thing to get past.. To have in your mind the Dictionary understanding of 'Atheis' and then try to reconcile it with what is Universally understood as a Belief system if not a Religion in and of it's self..! And Then have a person engage Both of them as One!.. I'm almost left without a way to mentally handle that. I watched the Live stream and only now can make a comment! I have worked with Chaos Magic and it helped me come to a greater and deeper understanding of the Magic itself..! But to use even That with an "Atheistic" mindset leaves me Blank!..🙄

After watching most of the symposiums videos I feel like an academic approach to occult matters is like lifting the scab 50% off a wound revelling the wet red epidermis and marveling at the living flesh pulsating beneath ,then allowing the scab to spring back into position no longer fully sealing the wound. leaving an itch that's hard to ignore .Without tearing the scab off to spite the itch , only patience brings relief.

You've had on a lot of great guests, but Sarah Lisbeth is definitely one that has spoken to me more than most, I really really enjoyed this interview and the thinking it provoked in me. Thank you for having her on!

Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Chaotes make the ultimate atheist witches.

The power of witchcraft is basically scientific because the placebo effect IS perfect cellular kinesis. It transcends religion. Science is forever striving to develop the tools and techniques to isolate, replicate, measure and study the power of the mind and we are getting closer each year. Great interview 👍

A few months ago I was having a conversation with a friend who is very interested in religious studies and I was like "oh yeah, there are like atheistic pagans and stuff" and he was like "really? I've never heard of that" and I...had to pause, I was like "I think so?" Glad to see this video and see that I wasn't making it up! (Or at least if I was making it up, the universe had been simultaneously manifesting it for at least the past few years!)

This is very confusing. Thank you Angela for stating the obvious and not holding back saying and asking what almost everyone viewing is thinking. Without any offense to anyone it is a made-up concept for people who want to get the benefits but want to “tote the line”, therefore being accepted and not getting called crazy or out there by the so-called “normal” people. It is very confusing and not for the reason of complexity but the very simple reason that it is nonsensical.
I maybe can see it as useful as a jumping board perhaps. For people who are just coming out of no religion/spirituality or for the mentioned people that are coming from a strict dogmatic background.
Being skeptical is very healthy. Especially when one is first starting their voyage on this path. I’m the beginning I believe, the more skepticism, the better.
That being said I believe after a healthy sense of discernment and finding one’s self holding on to beliefs that don’t make sense start doing just that and really only offer boundaries that are probably very unproductive for this path in particular.
I’m sure it has its value. But a very limited one.
Just my opinion.
Thank you for exploring and at least trying to shed light(if even possible) on this interesting (for that very reason) topic!

Witchcraft is not religious

Interesting, I appreciate the emphasis on the environment… kind of reminds me of reading about the Rounwytha witches. In regards to atheopaganism, there’s an article by Will Gervais called “Perceiving Minds and Gods” that describes neuroscience demonstrating that people who believe in spirits speak to them in a way that is neurologically similar to how we speak to and empathize with different people, whereas atheists can say the same things to a spirit they don’t believe in and have a very different psychological experience. So the experience of a deity for a polytheistic pagan would maybe feel more “real” to them than it would be for an atheist who is doubting the reality of a visionary experience even as it arises.

Great discussion! I've been "probably Atheopagan but reluctant to label myself" for just over a year now, and it's been great. I'm not very into ritual actually, but I think that's partly just due to finding it hard to do alone (plus singing in a church choir every week means I experience ritual I disagree with often enough to find myself uncomfortable with ritual as a whole). What Atheopaganism/naturalist paganism brings me is a sense of structure, a sort of framework I can base my life around. Celebrating the solstices and equinoxes - observable phenomena - makes more sense to me than celebrating Christmas, and the Atheopagan ethical principles give me a way to hold myself accountable to the ethical values I already hold. I think the earth is sacred because it is beautiful and complicated and it gives us life; I don't need to believe it is sentient or enchanted with magical spirits to see it as worthy of reverence in itself, and I don't need to call upon a god or spirit to help me feel connected to it.

Rhetoric is the atheistic version of magick at a distance. You can change someone else’s perspective through words.

I'll be honest I was a little disappointed by Dr Puca's responses here. I don't see how this is any more difficult to grasp than the commonly atheistic perspectives among Satanists who nonetheless find value in symbolic ritual, or the non-theistic takes on Buddhism. Her responses feel more like she's just opposed to the concept than is actually struggling to get it.

I would consider myself to be part of this sort of atheistic mysticism/occult/alt-religious milieu and have often felt marginalized within most (tho not all) explicitly religious spaces. I honestly would love to talk with Sarah and ask her what other communities of this sort because most communities have not been welcoming to me.

I don’t want to be critical but constructive. It seems like your guest had few answers for a field she is studying. I find it puzzling that there can be practitioners of an art that derives its power from outside source but these people would refuse to believe in these sources. Seems odd but I guess it’s no difference then chaos magick. I just kept waiting for more explanations and all that I was left with was more questions. You showed great patience and are to be applauded for that.

Very interesting discussion! I suspect that the scholar that you were trying to recall was Martin Stringer and his model of 'situational beliefs.' Stringer's argument is that most people are non-systematic in their beliefs but nonetheless express them with great sincerity in specific contexts even if they seem contradictory, i.e. some of his informants would sincerely express Christian, 'New Age' and sceptical views of the supernatural in the appropriate contexts. His 2008 book 'Contemporary Western Ethnography and the Definition of Religion' is a small gem of a book, well worth checking out.

Sarah was also asking about histories of atheism and such. I recently taught on an RS course on atheism and non-religion and had to cram the scholarship on non-religion hard (though unfortunately as it was quickly acquired, most of it was quickly lost!). Hopefully her institution would have online access to the Oxford Handbook of Atheism and Cambridge Companion to Atheism, they would be a good place to start. Digging out the course handbook: JN Bremner, David Sedley, Gavin Hyman, Stephen Le Drew, Alan Kors, David Nash, Dorothea Weltecke and Michael Ruse (most of whom have contributed to the Oxford and Cambridge volumes in some capacity) are some of the scholars who have covered different periods of that history and might be worth looking into. James Thrower and Colin Campbell were some early pioneers of studying 'non-religion' within RS as well, Campbell's 'Towards a Sociology of Irreligion' is still a cracking read.

From what I remember from the course, 'atheism' in the west at least, was effectively a term of accusation and castigation from the time of Ancient Greece on, becoming an imagined opponent against which theistic philosophies were tested in the early modern period and was not seriously taken up as a term of self-designation until the 18th century with the writings of Baron d'Holbach and Naigeon. Some historians have speculated that some of the alarm about atheism in the ancient world was a response to genuine materialist-naturalist intellectual circles and there was some concern about scepticism among the general population, including by the inquisition in the middle ages (I believe Callum Brown wrote a bit about this a few years ago) but how far any of this conforms to modern forms of atheism, scepticism or materialism is debatable of course. One non-western example is the Carvaka school of thought in India but there is very little concrete evidence about who they actually were and what they thought, only fragments of writings survive and we are dependent on their opponents to represent them, as is often the case. Please take that potted history with a bucket of salt though!

Lastly, some of the discussions of whether there can be an atheistic form of 'religion' brought to mind Auguste Comte's attempt to found a 'Religion of Humanity' (though I don't know much about this, as interesting as it sounds). The philosopher Alain de Boutton penned a book called 'Religion for Atheists' in the 2000s in which he set out a whole kind of symbolic pantheon based on what he took to be the functions of different types of deities and rituals to be. From what I can recall, there would be different temples for these different 'deities' (or roles?), the concept of a sort of general temple to motherhood was the only example that stuck in my head. Neither had much success though, philosophers have limited success at founding movements I suppose! Colin Campbell in 'The Sociology of Irreligion' also gave some examples of what could be described as Anglican atheist churches in the 19th century, complete with hymns to the natural world, organs and vestments (Ethical Societies if memory serves). To some extent Humanism plays that kind of ritualistic role for many 'non-religious' people in the UK now but in a very 'low church' Protestant, no frills or incense kind of way, and mostly just for life cycle ceremonies. Even more recently, within the last decade or so, we have the Sunday Assemblies popping up which have tried to create a kind of atheist church experience, which seem to have a much more Pentecostal flavour. Anyway, lots of interesting points raised in the video!

thank you dr puca and soon to be dr sarah —i have a few points. 1) to me it seems that this whole time you've been talking about Agnostics. 2) i was raised Catholic, and was even in the Seminary during my highschool years (age 15-18). i left because i was studying anthropology & social psych, and decided that all religions were valid, nobody had a right to decide who god is, or change anybody else. 3) i became an Agnostic, someone who believes there may or may not be some higher power, but is uncertain as to what to call that thing; someplace between Athiesm and Religiosity. i often say that "i am spiritual but not religious." 4) although i can never bring myself to "worship" anything, i do sometimes, kinda rarely, "work with" spirits, planets, deities, etc... —thank you again, peace!

I would describe myself as an agnostic/hopeful user of placebo magick. It's psychology/placebo effect with occultic aesthetics and hope.

It reminds me of Jacques Derrida saying, on the one hand, "I rightly pass for an atheist" and on the other hand, "If you understood how I pray, you would understand everything [about my work, deconstruction, etc.] Derrida was by no means traditionally religious, and took for granted many naturalistic presuppositions, but he was also engaged in a kind of neo-Midrash and obviously would've deconstructed scientific naturalism itself

The Church of All Worlds had an atheist pagan or two in the 1970s. See Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon.

I'm an atheist and a norse pagan so an atheopagan I guess.
I do not believe in gods ontologically, as parts of reality but view them as potent archetypes and metaphors. At the same time I'm not closed off to changing my mind with respect to gods and similar beings as part of reality but even then, I probably wouldn't consider them or for that matter, any other existing phenomenon, as "supernatural" or "spiritual", but rather as some, as of yet unknown or not well understood part of nature.
Science itself is heuristics as well as is philosophy, which tends to go in tandem with science these days and this has been the case for the past couple of centuries or so. Personally I don't think we need another layer of heuristics upon the already existing ones while terms such as spiritual or supernatural seem as precisely that...only muddying the waters further, instead of clearing them up.

Atheism is not = "psychological magic" You do not have to believe in a creator god to be able to work with the energies of the world.

Really the only thing P.H.D. means is that you have money. That's it. People can all the same things for free, but don't have a special paper with approval of the worst in society.

Seema you want to have your cake and eat it too

It connects with atheistic pantheism too where the theistic part is metaphor for oneness with the cosmos as opposed to a literal god - seeing nature itself as sacred.

Interesting analysis. I am an atheistic freethinker, but love using imagery, symbolism, myths and archetypes to elucidate psychological truths and enrich my life. Fascinated by modern day paganism and witch-craft and am educating myself - this might be a path I will pursue.

I'm sensing rigidity in Dr Puca. 😅

In science, energy takes many forms. Because we don't entertain deities doesn't mean we don't seek knowledge of how energy presents itself.
Dr Puca seems to think atheism is rigid, it's not.
It's part of being an atheist.
Nature bends, is flexible, unlike deity worship.

Religion is defined as a practice. Period.

There is also Buddhist version Atheism which I personally subscribe to.Terrence McKenna talked about an ecology of souls..It seems to me that certain types of non corporal spiritual entities are quite happy to be worshipped as Gods though to my mind they are in a sense more like a basic primal states of Anmistic Psychic phenomina tide entrinsicly to the esscence of being itself .I speculate they have a tendency or want to take descrete forms often encourageing their acolytes to feed into there more classic mytological forms by devotion and psychic attention.I have the intuition with enough attention or ritual it is not a n overly difficult thing to generate a brand new Godform ,not directly related but extremly facinating is the famous Phillip experiment.

Atheistic religion is literally an oxymoron given the historical meaning of "committed to divine work".

Late to this video, but I appreciated this conversation SO MUCH, thank you for having a platform to share these ideas!

I define a "spiritual" person as someone who believes in The Spirit, that is to say that consciousness does not arise from our brain matter, but that there is a universal consciousness that our bodies serve as a vessel for. That then assumes that The Spirit comes from some*where* - it existed before we were born and will continue to exist after we die. From there one can have a million different interpretations of what that is; a divine or benevolent creator, a diety or dieties, "the universe", "The All" from Hermeticism, etc. For a religious person, they might belive that their spirit is a distinct entity that can go to heaven or hell, or serve some sort of karmic justice or reincarnation, whereas for someone else it could be more of a non-dualistic understanding.

I love how Angela brought up this idea of "provisional belief". I wrote this down so I can do further research on the topic.😅 I often struggle to relate to other practitioners or gather in community with other pagans/witches/mystics because I see and relate to "the spirit" so differently, and I wasn't able to put my finger on it until now, that my beliefs are not only different from those commonly held, but are also quite fluid and changing constantly. You can even say paradoxical. For example, I can get behind the idea that plants and trees have a spirit, but it's hard for me to believe the same thing about water or crystals. But I revere the elements and minerals as further manifestations of "The All" unfolding in a myriad of ways.

I guess my sense of awe or reverence for the natural world is what drives me to devote myself to an elemental practice, rather than any animistic instinct. I don't work with any deities in my practice and I can't imagine that ever changing, but who knows! I couldn't relate to the Chakra system until I started using them as metaphorical or psychological tools in meditation, yoga and art, and now I can literally feel these energy centers in ways that I can't deny. I think as one's spiritual journey unfolds, one has to suspend their ego and let go of their preconcieved notions to really feel a fundamental shift in consciousness. Does believing that it's probably just a placebo effect in the back of your mind, even if you're trying to convince yourself "THIS RITUAL WILL WORK!", reduce the likelihood of the desired outcome? I'm not sure. But also maintaining a scepticism and grounded approach, especially to harmful spiritual bypassing, is incredibly important to avoid toxic denial of real-life dangers such as a lack of personal accountability, or being particularly vulnerable to manipulation or abuse. It's the same reason why most people are weary of the Catholic church, or Gurus that turn into cults of personality and unchecked power.

I can go on and on but I'll leave it at that. Lots of food for though for journaling later tonight. Thanks again to you both for your brilliant work!

tnx for the conversation, i am not a proper practitioner, but i had the same thoughts about psycological usefulness of rituals.

How much does direct experience effect any belief system? Different types of personality and character will accept or reject a belief system either quickly or with eternal skepticism. Sometimes psychological terminology works well with people who prefer a more complex definition of the general concept of belief.

I have no issue in anything Sarah says. Thanks, Sarah.

What I have learned and heard in my country has always been that witchcraft is a craft not a religion. You can be witch with no religion at all. As a witch you can also choose to believe in something but that is not a must.

this sounds like me