Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
More about the question
of religion in WE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John &
Wendy Morehead
Subject: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 15:43:16
In an earlier message, I was asked to provide
a definition of religion, which would then be used to objectively
determine whether Anthroposophy was properly defined as a religion.
In my first response I provided legal considerations as an answer
to this question, based upon previous court decisions. In this
second installment, I offer scholarly definitions of religion.
Professor Irving Hexham, Professor of Religious
Studies at the University of Calgary, is the author of the _Concise
Dictionary of Religions_ (Regent College Pres, 1999). Under the
entry "RELIGION," he has the following:
'RELIGION: hundreds of
different definitions of religion exist each reflecting either
a scholarly or a DOGMATIC bias depending in the last resort on
the PRESUPPOSITIONS of the person making the definition. Religion
clearly contains intellectual, RITUAL, SOCIAL and ETHICAL elements,
bound together by an explicit or imiplicit BELIEF in the REALITY
of an unseen world, whether this belief be expressed in SUPERNATURALISTIC
or IDEALISTIC terms."
Hexham then goes on to list common scholarly
definitions of religion in addition to his own provided above.
Some of these include:
BERGER, Peter - "the human enterpreise
by which a SACRED cosmos is established"
DURKHEIM, Emile - "a unified system of
BELIEFS and practices relative to SACRED things"
<www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/concise/WORDS-R.html>
Other scholarly definitions might include,
"Religion, then, can be defined as a system of beliefs and
practices by means of which a group of people struggles with
these ultimate problems of human life" (Yinger, _The Scientific
Study of Religion_). Another definition is provided by Dr. Keith
A. Roberts in _Religion in Sociological Perspective_, a textbook
used in many college and university religion courses (Wadsworth
Publishing, 1995). Here, Roberts defines religion as "a
social phenomenon--involving a group of people with a shared
faith or a shared meaning system." He then lists certain
criteria within that system, such as beliefs, rites, an ethos,
a worldview and a system of symbols, so that the "criteria
for identifying religion religion are sufficiently broad so that
we do not miss the religious significance of nontraditional groups,"
which is where Anthroposophy would fall.
It would seem, then, that Anthroposophy does
meet accepted scholarly definitions of religion, although Anthroposophists
might prefer the term spirituality or religious philosophy. Because
Anthroposophy meets this definition for religion, it is included
in various scholarly reference works, including the Encyclopedia
of American Religions, Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America,
Biographical Dictionary of American Cult and Sect Leaders, The
New Age Dictionary, Encyclopedia of Religion, and the Encyclopedia
of Occultism and Parapsychology.
I would further aruge that Steiner himself
recognized the religious nature of Anthroposophy *and* Waldorf
education. He stated:
"...we have to treat
the religion lessons just as we do the lessons in the other subjects.
They must all work on the child's soul through the power of imagery;
the child's soul life has to be stimulated. It is possible to
introduce a religious element into every subject, even into math
lessons. Anyone who has some knowledg of Waldorf teachings will
know that this statement is true...This fundamental religious
current flows through all of education." (The
Child's Changing Consciousness, 94)
"It
[religion] must permeate
the teaching of every subject...No education can be conducted
without a religious foundation."
(The Education of the Child, 69)
"Insofar as only pedagogical
principles are being deffended and pedagogical impulses scrutinized
here, the necesssity of religious teaching certainly follows
from the pedagogical point of view...there is no student in the
Waldorf school who does not have religious instruction."
(The Child's Changing Consciousness, 96-97)
Steiner then went on to boast,
"I consider it a certain
success for the Waldorf school to have brought religion to the
children of religious dissidents." (Ibid.)
In summary, Anthroposophy as a religious worldview/philosophy,
meets a scholarly definition of religion, therefore Anthroposophy
is religious. I believe it has been agreed by at least some on
this list that Anthroposophy serves as the foundation for Waldorf
education. Steiner certainly said so. In fact, he felt that a
religious element was essential to the pedagogical method.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
[Sune
responds in a different thread.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:31:21 +0100
Aha -- got it at last!
John & Wendy Morehead wrote:
In an earlier message, I was asked to provide
a definition of religion, which would then be used to objectively
determine whether Anthroposophy was properly defined as a religion.
In my first response I provided legal considerations as an answer
to this question, based upon previous court decisions. In this
second installment, I offer scholarly definitions of religion.
Thank you, John -- I don't recall seeing these
before. You call these "accepted" definitions. I am
prepared to concur with that acceptance until it can be shown
that there are things which are embraced by the definitions which
reasonable people would agree are not religions.
For example, I am sure atheist Marxist-Leninists
would argue that Marxism-Leninism meets the criteria of the following
definition, in that it is a system of beliefs and practices by
means of which a group of people struggles with what *it* sees
as the ultimate problems of human life. For early Man, food-gathering
could conceivably have met these criteria for the same reason:
"Religion, then, can be defined as
a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of
people struggles with these ultimate problems of human life"
(Yinger, _The Scientific Study of Religion_).
The main problem I have with fitting anthroposophy
into these definitions is the inclusion of "belief"
and "rite/ritual" in the definitions. I would be interested
to hear what you believe the beliefs and rituals *prescribed
by anthroposophy* to be. As I have said elsewhere, I accept that
implicit in anthroposophy is the general belief that there is
an "unseen" spiritual reality, but is that belief alone
sufficient to class something as a religion? (Not rhetorical.)
I have been a member of the Anthroposophical Society for 15 years
and have *never* been told that my membership was dependent on,
for example, my practising any rites or rituals. In fact, since
I joined no-one has made any effort to instil any belief or ritual
into my life. (Lost cause, perhaps? <g>)
I am not suggesting that there are no anthroposophists
who have developed rituals which they believe to be based in
anthroposophy and which they practice; my point is that these
are not actually part of anthroposophy as such in that one can
be an anthroposophist without engaging in those practices.
Another definition is provided by Dr. Keith
A. Roberts in _Religion in Sociological Perspective_, a textbook
used in many college and university religion courses (Wadsworth
Publishing, 1995). Here, Roberts defines religion as "a
social phenomenon--involving a group of people with a shared
faith or a shared meaning system." He then lists certain
criteria within that system, such as beliefs, rites, an ethos,
a worldview and a system of symbols, so that the "criteria
for identifying religion religion are sufficiently broad so that
we do not miss the religious significance of nontraditional groups,"
which is where Anthroposophy would fall.
I don't quite see that anthroposophy falls
there. I suggest that it demonstrably fails on the "rites"
and "system of symbols" criteria. If only some of those
criteria are necessary then there are many non- religious things
which meet the criteria of beliefs (e.g. atheists believe that
there is no God), rites (e.g. the All Black's haka), an ethos
(e.g. legal systems), a worldview (e.g. political dogma), or
a system of symbols (e.g. mathematics).
I am not offering this as "proof"
that anthroposophy is not a religion, but am trying to point
out the difficulties in formulating definitions which are sufficiently
broad that they encapsulate all those things which are religion
without also trapping some things which aren't.
It would seem, then, that Anthroposophy
does meet accepted scholarly definitions of religion,
I am certainly prepared to concede that it
meets *some* of the criteria of the definitions. The problem
is that so does soccer! (Which some people would argue *does*
have the status of religion on the terraces <g>).
although Anthroposophists might prefer
the term spirituality or religious philosophy.
Call it a spiritual philosophy and I'll happily
agree with you. I don't think it's splitting hairs to suggest
that there may be a distinction between a spiritual philosophy
and a religion.
Because Anthroposophy meets this definition
for religion, it is included in various scholarly reference works,
[...]
I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about
religion to know what the scholarly status of Ninian Smart's
_The World Religions_ (Cambridge University Press, 1989) is,
but it's the only book about religions on my bookshelf and both
"anthroposophy" and "Steiner" are notably
absent, even from the (admittedly small) section on _New Forms
of Religion_.
I would further aruge that Steiner himself
recognized the religious nature of Anthroposophy *and* Waldorf
education.
Absolutely! But, again, IMHO there is a distinction
between something having a religious nature and being a religion.
I would argue that what Steiner meant in those translations you
quoted was that underlying our teaching must be the acceptance
*by the teacher* that there is an "unseen" or "spiritual"
or "supersensible" (choose whichever suits you) reality.
The religion lessons he mentioned were (as you probably know),
the non-denominational "free religion lessons" given
to children who did not attend the denominational religion lessons
given by priests, pastors, etc. of those denominations.
Even with my minimal knowledge of the US constitution,
it seems clear to me that such religion lessons (free or denominational)
would be entirely out of place in the US public education system.
As for other lessons, let us take a quote
like:
"It [religion] must
permeate the teaching of every subject...No education can be
conducted without a religious foundation."
(The Education of the Child, 69)
If we interpret Steiner to mean that the teacher
should, when preparing and delivering a lesson, keep in mind
that there is an "unseen spiritual world" and that
each child has a spiritual nature, then I am in complete agreement
(although I fall very short of this ideal!). If we interpret
it to mean that we must teach a specific religious view in every
lesson, then I completely disagree with him.
Somewhat tangential to this is the following
question: If keeping in mind the spiritual nature (above) whilst
preparing and delivering public school lessons is found to be
contrary to the US constitution, how, in practice, can it's exclusion
be ensured if there is no outer evidence of its inclusion? Or,
put another way, how is it possible to legislate against that
which cannot be detected?
I guess those are problems best left to the
legislators -- I am, however, interested in the moral/philosophical
aspects of this: If(*) there is no tangible evidence of anthroposophy
in the lessons given in a Waldorf school, can it be said that
Waldorf schools teach or further anthroposophy? This is not a
rhetorical question.
(*) We are all, I imagine, aware that there
are cases where anthroposophy has been taught in the classroom.
Some of us believe that this is *not* the remit of Waldorf education
and actively try to make sure this doesn't happen. My question
is "IF ...", which implies that I believe it to be
possible (e.g. I don't believe that I teach anthroposophy and
would be glad to hear if anyone believes they have evidence that
I do.)
Thank you, John, for posting those definitions.
This side of things is something that interests me and I hope
you will be able to engage me in debate about the questions I
have asked above. Whilst I still do not believe that anthroposophy
is a religion, I hope I am able to engage in reasoned debate
about it. However, I shall understand if you feel that, in the
context of this mailing list, it is a bit of a dead-end issue.
I should also tell you in advance that in a few days my workload
is about to escalate (summer term begins) and I will attempt
to withdraw to semi- lurker status on the list.
Best Wishes,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:47:11
At 09:31 AM 4/12/99 +0100, you wrote:
Thank you, John -- I don't recall seeing
these before. You call these "accepted" definitions.
I am prepared to concur with that acceptance until it can be
shown that there are things which are embraced by the definitions
which reasonable people would agree are not religions.
They are accepted by the scholarly community
with regards to religious studies. I suppose if one wants to
take this up with the academics, they have that right.
For example, I am sure atheist Marxist-Leninists
would argue that Marxism-Leninism meets the criteria of the following
definition
Yes, and some scholars, and the courts, have
defined Secular Humanism as a religious worldview because of
such definitions. I am not arguing that at this point. I am simply
providing a brief sampling of scholarly definitions of religion
as a criteria for consideration on this list with reference to
anthroposophy.
[snip]
The main problem I have with fitting anthroposophy
into these definitions is the inclusion of "belief"
and "rite/ritual" in the definitions.
Anthroposophy does indeed have beliefs. Wouldn't
it be impossible to have any belief system without them? For
example, a belief in reincarnation, the fourfold nature of the
human being, monism, the existence of "higher worlds"
which can be tapped into through various occultic means. These
surely qualify as beliefs.
As to rites and rituals, I am aware of the
nature tables in at least private Waldorf settings, and I belief
churches associated with anthroposophy have some type of rites.
Regardless, it could be argued that a belief system is religious
without incorporating each and every element in a given definition.
I would be interested to hear what you
believe the beliefs and rituals *prescribed by anthroposophy*
to be. As I have said elsewhere, I accept that implicit in anthroposophy
is the general belief that there is an "unseen" spiritual
reality, but is that belief alone sufficient to class something
as a religion? (Not rhetorical.) I have been a member of the
Anthroposophical Society for 15 years and have *never* been told
that my membership was dependent on, for example, my practising
any rites or rituals. In fact, since I joined no-one has made
any effort to instil any belief or ritual into my life. (Lost
cause, perhaps? <g>)
Granted, anthroposophy is very individualistic
with little structure which would require a certain practice
on the part of an anthroposophist. But this does not mean it
is not religious. Anthroposophy fits nicely into the New Age
movement, which also puts an emphasis upon an individualized,
eclectic spirituality with little or no ritual, yet this is surely
religious in nature, as recognized by New Age adherents and scholars
of religion.
I am certainly prepared to concede that
it meets *some* of the criteria of the definitions. The problem
is that so does soccer! (Which some people would argue *does*
have the status of religion on the terraces <g>).
Just how does soccer meet these definitions?
And if you would hesitate to define anthroposophy as a religion
would you consider it a spirituality then? A spiritual or religious
philosophy is still religious in nature, no matter how you slice
it.
I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about
religion to know what the scholarly status of Ninian Smart's
_The World Religions_ (Cambridge University Press, 1989) is,
but it's the only book about religions on my bookshelf and both
"anthroposophy" and "Steiner" are notably
absent, even from the (admittedly small) section on _New Forms
of Religion_.
Unfortunately, many reference works omit it,
but again, this does not mean it is not religious. No reference
work is all-encompassing and exhaustive now is it? This sounds
like you're making an argument from silence, which does not negate
the weight given to those reference works which do classify it
as religious.
Absolutely! But, again, IMHO there is a
distinction between something having a religious nature and being
a religion. I would argue that what Steiner meant in those translations
you quoted was that underlying our teaching must be the acceptance
*by the teacher* that there is an "unseen" or "spiritual"
or "supersensible" (choose whichever suits you) reality.
The religion lessons he mentioned were (as you probably know),
the non-denominational "free religion lessons" given
to children who did not attend the denominational religion lessons
given by priests, pastors, etc. of those denominations.
Then if the teacher must recognize the religious
basis for Waldorf, and must pass an unseen stream of consciousness
to the child to instruct the child's developing fourfold being,
just how does this not consitution religion in the Waldorf methodology?
As for other lessons, let us take a quote
like:
"It [religion]
must permeate the teaching of every subject...No education can
be conducted without a religious foundation." (The Education of the Child, 69)
If we interpret Steiner to mean that the
teacher should, when preparing and delivering a lesson, keep
in mind that there is an "unseen spiritual world" and
that each child has a spiritual nature, then I am in complete
agreement (although I fall very short of this ideal!). If we
interpret it to mean that we must teach a specific religious
view in every lesson, then I completely disagree with him.
In context, Steiner appears to be taking the
position you disagree with. The Anthroposophical press states
that Steiner's writings serve as "the authoritative foundation"
for Waldorf education. While your disagreement is important,
and noted, the "discoverer"/creator of Waldorf education
must be regarded as a higher authority according to those who
promote this methodology!
Somewhat tangential to this is the following
question: If keeping in mind the spiritual nature (above) whilst
preparing and delivering public school lessons is found to be
contrary to the US constitution, how, in practice, can it's exclusion
be ensured if there is no outer evidence of its inclusion? Or,
put another way, how is it possible to legislate against that
which cannot be detected?
But there is evidence of the inclusion of
a religious elemnt which has been included in the Waldorf pedagogy.
That's the problem. The question is not whether or not these
supersensible realms exist.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:55:57 +0100
John,
Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
ST:
The main problem I have with fitting anthroposophy
into these definitions is the inclusion of "belief"
and "rite/ritual" in the definitions.
JM:
Anthroposophy does indeed have beliefs.
Wouldn't it be impossible to have any belief system without them?
For example, a belief in reincarnation, the fourfold nature of
the human being, monism, the existence of "higher worlds"
which can be tapped into through various occultic means. These
surely qualify as beliefs.
ST:
OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one believes
those things, does that make one an anthroposophist? I believed
them before I discovered anthroposophy, so I have never considered
them to be specific tenets of anthroposophy. If such belief does
make one an anthropop, there must be a lot of anthropops who
don't know that's what they are. If not, what belief do you think
does define an anthropop and sets him apart from others who believe
in the above?
JM:
As to rites and rituals, I am aware of
the nature tables in at least private Waldorf settings,
ST:
A nature table is an anthroposophical rite?
We had them when I was a kid in my (Rhodesian government) kindergarten
-- if that was a Waldorf school, my nose is a kipper!
JM:
and I belief churches associated with anthroposophy
have some type of rites.
ST:
I am not disputing that the Christian Community
is a religion. The question is whether or not *anthroposophy*
is a religion, not whether or not the religion associated with
it is a religion.
The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has daily
prayers; the Church associated with it (Church of England) has
rituals. Does that make Her Majesty's Government a religion?
JM:
Regardless, it could be argued that a belief
system is religious without incorporating each and every element
in a given definition.
ST:
That could indeed be argued -- the question,
as far as a working definition goes, is precisely which elements
need to be incorporated? If a religion need not incorporate each
and every element, then some of those elements must be redundant
-- which ones, and why have them in the definition if they need
not be incorporated?
Perhaps I am seeking the impossible: a definition
which is akin to the sort of thing I meet in science.
JM:
Granted, anthroposophy is very individualistic
with little structure which would require a certain practice
on the part of an anthroposophist. But this does not mean it
is not religious. Anthroposophy fits nicely into the New Age
movement, which also puts an emphasis upon an individualized,
eclectic spirituality with little or no ritual, yet this is surely
religious in nature, as recognized by New Age adherents and scholars
of religion.
ST:
I dispute that anthroposophy fits into the New Age movement;
ISTR others (Tarjei? Sune?) have recently gone into detail about
this, so I'll not do so here.
ST:
I am certainly prepared to concede that
it meets *some* of the criteria of the definitions. The problem
is that so does soccer! (Which some people would argue *does*
have the status of religion on the terraces <g>).
JM:
Just how does soccer meet these definitions?
ST:
E.g. adherence to a set of beliefs and rituals.
As one team manager famously said, "This game isn't a matter
of life and death -- it's much more important than that."
JM:
And if you would hesitate to define anthroposophy
as a religion would you consider it a spirituality then? A spiritual
or religious philosophy is still religious in nature, no matter
how you slice it.
ST:
Do I take it you are arguing that anything
that has a religious nature is a religion? The direct answer
to your direct question is that I consider it to be a spiritual
philosophy (which, I submit, is distinct from a religion).
ST:
I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about
religion to know what the scholarly status of Ninian Smart's
_The World Religions_ (Cambridge University Press, 1989) is,
but it's the only book about religions on my bookshelf and both
"anthroposophy" and "Steiner" are notably
absent, even from the (admittedly small) section on _New Forms
of Religion_.
JM:
Unfortunately, many reference works omit
it, but again, this does not mean it is not religious. No reference
work is all-encompassing and exhaustive now is it? This sounds
like you're making an argument from silence, which does not negate
the weight given to those reference works which do classify it
as religious.
ST:
No, I'm not arguing from silence, but one
would hardly expect books to have a paragraph stating "The
following things are not religions: ..." My intention was
to convey that it is not necessarily a clear-cut case, and it
might be that some scholars believe it is and others believe
it isn't. Groliers calls it a "social philosophy",
not a religion; Hutchinson's has it as a "mystical philosophy"
and again, not a religion. Next time I go to the library I'll
look up "anthroposophy" in Britannica and Colliers
and see if they describe anthroposophy as a religion. If not,
may it be that the scholars who wrote those entries did not consider
it to be a religion?
I certainly concede that it is not a clear-cut
case, either way.
ST:
Absolutely! But, again, IMHO there is a
distinction between something having a religious nature and being
a religion. I would argue that what Steiner meant in those translations
you quoted was that underlying our teaching must be the acceptance
*by the teacher* that there is an "unseen" or "spiritual"
or "supersensible" (choose whichever suits you) reality.
The religion lessons he mentioned were (as you probably know),
the non-denominational "free religion lessons" given
to children who did not attend the denominational religion lessons
given by priests, pastors, etc. of those denominations.
JM:
Then if the teacher must recognize the
religious basis for Waldorf, and must pass an unseen stream of
consciousness to the child to instruct the child's developing
fourfold being, just how does this not consitution religion in
the Waldorf methodology?
ST:
John, the context of the above is the religion
lessons. Of course the religion lessons in a Waldorf school are
religious! I had religion lessons in my school -- that did not
make the Rhodesian government a religion. My understanding is
that the Waldorf schools in the US public school system do *not*
have religion lessons. Is this correct?
ST:
If we interpret Steiner to mean that the
teacher should, when preparing and delivering a lesson, keep
in mind that there is an "unseen spiritual world" and
that each child has a spiritual nature, then I am in complete
agreement (although I fall very short of this ideal!). If we
interpret it to mean that we must teach a specific religious
view in every lesson, then I completely disagree with him.
JM:
In context, Steiner appears to be taking
the position you disagree with.
ST:
It wouldn't be the first time -- but I also
submit that a large (and growing? majority?) number of Waldorf
teachers share my view on this.
JM:
The Anthroposophical press states that
Steiner's writings serve as "the authoritative foundation"
for Waldorf education.
ST:
I take Steiner's writings to serve as *indications*,
not as *prescriptions*. There was a time, when I was new to Waldorf
teaching (I was previously an A-level (top end of high school;
university entrance) physics teacher, so I wasn't new to teaching),
that I tended to take them as prescriptions -- it didn't work.
I do concede that one of the problems Waldorf education faces
is that inexperienced teachers can tend to take Steiner's writings
and, more importantly, "fundamentalist" interpretations
of them like those of Roy Wilkinson, as gospel prescriptions.
To my mind this is antithetical to effective teaching in a modern
Waldorf school.
JM:
While your disagreement is important, and
noted, the "discoverer"/creator of Waldorf education
must be regarded as a higher authority according to those who
promote this methodology!
ST:
I guess I'll have to concede that one as well.
<bg>
ST:
Somewhat tangential to this is the following
question: If keeping in mind the spiritual nature (above) whilst
preparing and delivering public school lessons is found to be
contrary to the US constitution, how, in practice, can it's exclusion
be ensured if there is no outer evidence of its inclusion? Or,
put another way, how is it possible to legislate against that
which cannot be detected?
JM:
But there is evidence of the inclusion
of a religious elemnt which has been included in the Waldorf
pedagogy.
ST:
I'm not sure quite what you mean here.
Do you mean the free religion lessons? They
were one of Steiner's "afterthoughts" in the context
of a situation where many pupils were leaving class for denominational
religion lessons (which have been given in schools (not just
Waldorf ones) in many European countries until very recently.
Do you mean the teachers who do teach anthroposophy
in the classroom? This aspect has been addressed adequately by
Robert Flannery and I have nothing to add other than that I am
in full agreement with him that it is wrong.
Do you mean something else?
John, do you think we are getting anywhere?
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:27:01
At 08:55 AM 4/13/99 +0100, you wrote:
ST:
OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one
believes those things, does that make one an anthroposophist?
I believed them before I discovered anthroposophy, so I have
never considered them to be specific tenets of anthroposophy.
If such belief does make one an anthropop, there must be a lot
of anthropops who don't know that's what they are. If not, what
belief do you think does define an anthropop and sets him apart
from others who believe in the above?
Then regardless of whether you would have
classified yourself as an anthroposophist, you did hold to a
religious worldview. There are *man* Americans who hold to an
individualized, eclectic New Age spirituality which is religious
in nature, while not necessarily identifying with one particular
religious group or tradition. This is still a religious worldview
regardless of the personal affiliation. This is relevant to the
Waldorf case in that the question is should a pedagogy which
flows from a religious worldview/philosophy/spiritual science
(pick your term) be allowed in public schools or is this a violation
of the establishment clause?
ST:
I am not disputing that the Christian Community
is a religion. The question is whether or not *anthroposophy*
is a religion, not whether or not the religion associated with
it is a religion.
The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has daily prayers; the Church
associated with it (Church of England) has rituals. Does that
make Her Majesty's Government a religion?
But I think it is clear that Anthroposophy
does meet such a definition, examples of which I've provided
by religious studies scholars. Now another individual questioned
my ability to tackle the legal ramifications of Waldorf education
due to a lack of a background on my part in legal studies. So
the implication is that those trained to specialize in certain
disciplines know what they're talking about. I can agree with
that. Religious studies professors have defined religion variously,
and because anthroposophy *does* meet such definitions, they
include it in standard reference works on religion. The burden
of proof is thus on those who would argue contrary to this position
that it should not be so included.
ST:
That could indeed be argued -- the question,
as far as a working definition goes, is precisely which elements
need to be incorporated? If a religion need not incorporate each
and every element, then some of those elements must be redundant
-- which ones, and why have them in the definition if they need
not be incorporated?
The elements need not be redundant, simply
that a group does not necessarily have to incorporate each and
every element to meet the definition. Many expressions of New
Age religion do not have formal rites, putting the emphasis on
individual expression in a variety of forms without the necessity
of traditional religious rites. But these New Age spiritualities
are still part of a religious worldview.
ST:
I dispute that anthroposophy fits into
the New Age movement; ISTR others (Tarjei? Sune?) have recently
gone into detail about this, so I'll not do so here.
Then you disagree with leading Waldorf educators
(such as M.C. Richards who included a chapter on Waldorf and
"New Age education" in his book _Toward Wholeness_),
and religious studies scholars operating in their area of speciality
and scholarship. The burden of proof is again on those who would
seek to counter the weight of this evidence.
ST:
E.g. adherence to a set of beliefs and
rituals. As one team manager famously said, "This game isn't
a matter of life and death -- it's much more important than that."
Please look at the definitions more carefully.
Religious studies scholars have been very careful to try to define
religion in such a way to include both "tradition"
theistic religions, as well as non-theistic religions and the
so-called "new spirituality" and new religious movements,
while not providing a definition so broad as to incorrectly incorporate
clearly non-religious groups or belief systems (such as soccer).
ST:
Do I take it you are arguing that anything
that has a religious nature is a religion? The direct answer
to your direct question is that I consider it to be a spiritual
philosophy (which, I submit, is distinct from a religion).
I was asking your view. I think anthroposophy
has both a religious nature and is a religion, and have provided
the reasons for that, contrary to your denials. To call anthroposophy
a spiritual philosophy or spiritual science does not mean it
does not meet the definition of religion, either according to
religious studies or the courts. For example, Transcendental
Meditation/Science of Creative Intelligence called TM a secular
meditation technique. But the courts ruled that it was religious
in nature and the public school's promotion of it involved a
violation of the establishment clause. We must look beyond preferred
labels to other elements which would define a given philosophy/religion/technique,
etc.
ST:
No, I'm not arguing from silence, but one
would hardly expect books to have a paragraph stating "The
following things are not religions: ..." My intention was
to convey that it is not necessarily a clear-cut case, and it
might be that some scholars believe it is and others believe
it isn't. Groliers calls it a "social philosophy",
not a religion; Hutchinson's has it as a "mystical philosophy"
and again, not a religion. Next time I go to the library I'll
look up "anthroposophy" in Britannica and Colliers
and see if they describe anthroposophy as a religion. If not,
may it be that the scholars who wrote those entries did not consider
it to be a religion?
I think you did argue from silence. I provided
definitions of religion, and then argued that because Anthroposophy
meets these definitions, it is included in scholarly reference
works on religion. You then came back and said something to the
effect of, "Well, I check some of my religious reference
works and they don't include anthroposophy." This is an
argument from silence. No reference work is comprehensive, and
you've got to deal not only with what your books don't say, but
what the sources I cited do say.
I certainly concede that it is not a clear-cut
case, either way.
I am arguing to the contrary.
ST:
John, the context of the above is the religion
lessons. Of course the religion lessons in a Waldorf school are
religious! I had religion lessons in my school -- that did not
make the Rhodesian government a religion. My understanding is
that the Waldorf schools in the US public school system do *not*
have religion lessons. Is this correct?
Yes, that's the context, which I made clear
in my posts (if I remember correctly) and in my article where
I quote Steiner here. But then Steiner proceeds and says religion
can be introduced in *any* subject and that education is an illusion
without religion. Steiner was not talking about a comparative
religion study as one would find in traditional public education.
He's referring, in context, to the religion undergirding anthroposophy.
ST:
It wouldn't be the first time -- but I
also submit that a large (and growing? majority?) number of Waldorf
teachers share my view on this.
Glad to hear it. Maybe they'll join with Waldorf
critics then to move Waldorf education to private school settings
only where it belongs as a religious pedagogy.
ST:
I take Steiner's writings to serve as *indications*,
not as *prescriptions*. There was a time, when I was new to Waldorf
teaching (I was previously an A-level (top end of high school;
university entrance) physics teacher, so I wasn't new to teaching),
that I tended to take them as prescriptions -- it didn't work.
I do concede that one of the problems Waldorf education faces
is that inexperienced teachers can tend to take Steiner's writings
and, more importantly, "fundamentalist" interpretations
of them like those of Roy Wilkinson, as gospel prescriptions.
To my mind this is antithetical to effective teaching in a modern
Waldorf school.
Anthroposophical Press disagrees with you.
How can the writings of the man who pioneered the discovery of
the supersensible worlds have less authority in understanding
anthroposophy and Waldorf than contemporary anthroposophists?
JM:
While your disagreement is important, and
noted, the "discoverer"/creator of Waldorf education
must be regarded as a higher authority according to those who
promote this methodology!
ST:
I guess I'll have to concede that one as
well. <bg>
Ok. Goes with my point above.
John, do you think we are getting anywhere?
Sure. At least we are dialoguing patiently
and trying to understand one another, without resorting to personal
to personal attacks, unlike a certain other dialogue I've had
recently. :)
John
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:27:37 -0400
Then you disagree with leading Waldorf
educators (such as M.C. Richards who included a chapter on Waldorf
and "New Age education" in his book _Toward Wholeness_),
and religious studies scholars operating in their area of speciality
and scholarship. The burden of proof is again on those who would
seek to counter the weight of this evidence.
Mary Caroline Richards is a woman.
Robert Flannery
New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:54:41 +0100
John & Wendy Morehead wrote:
ST:
OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one
believes those things, does that make one an anthroposophist?
I believed them before I discovered anthroposophy, so I have
never considered them to be specific tenets of anthroposophy.
If such belief does make one an anthropop, there must be a lot
of anthropops who don't know that's what they are. If not, what
belief do you think does define an anthropop and sets him apart
from others who believe in the above?
Then regardless of whether you would have
classified yourself as an anthroposophist, you did hold to a
religious worldview.
By your definitions of religion/religious,
you are correct. I am still curious to know which of the beliefs
distinguish an anthroposophist from others who believe in those
things. Yes, I agree that this is entirely irrelevant to whether
or not anthroposophy is a religion.
[...]
This is relevant to the Waldorf case in
that the question is should a pedagogy which flows from a religious
worldview/philosophy/spiritual science (pick your term) be allowed
in public schools or is this a violation of the establishment
clause?
Indeed. But these are legal issues, which
I am prepared to leave to the courts.
ST:
I am not disputing that the Christian Community
is a religion. The question is whether or not *anthroposophy*
is a religion, not whether or not the religion associated with
it is a religion.
The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has daily prayers; the Church
associated with it (Church of England) has rituals. Does that
make Her Majesty's Government a religion?
But I think it is clear that Anthroposophy
does meet such a definition, examples of which I've provided
by religious studies scholars. Now another individual questioned
my ability to tackle the legal ramifications of Waldorf education
due to a lack of a background on my part in legal studies. So
the implication is that those trained to specialize in certain
disciplines know what they're talking about. I can agree with
that.
I would suggest that they almost certainly
know more than the non- specialist. I don't agree that it makes
them infallible -- I'm sure we can all find our favourite list
of 50 gaffes by experts, probably with little overlap.
In the context of our discussion I agree that
you are much more knowledgeable than I on the subject of religion
in general and I respect that. However, I am one of these arrogant
iconoclastic types who has almost made a vocation of challenging
experts when I disagree with them <g>. Whilst I concede
that an expert is more likely to know what he is talking about,
I think that what is said is far more important than the source
of the statement. "Appeal to authority" is not, IMHO,
a valid form of argumentation (scientists here will probably
agree with me) -- I detest arguing with the Commies who preface
every second remark with "Marx said..." (or the anthropops
who start with "Steiner said...").
Religious studies professors have defined
religion variously, and because anthroposophy *does* meet such
definitions, they include it in standard reference works on religion.
I still don't agree fully with this definition
fitting (I'll come back to that later with some questions), but
can we agree that "they include it in some (or even "most")
standard reference works on religion." ?
The burden of proof is thus on those who
would argue contrary to this position that it should not be so
included.
In reality, that is probably the case, but
I wonder about the ethics "guilty until proved innocent"
overtones. (No, I am not implying that you are being unethical
-- I accept that you are merely explaining the status quo.)
ST:
That could indeed be argued -- the question,
as far as a working definition goes, is precisely which elements
need to be incorporated? If a religion need not incorporate each
and every element, then some of those elements must be redundant
-- which ones, and why have them in the definition if they need
not be incorporated?
The elements need not be redundant, simply
that a group does not necessarily have to incorporate each and
every element to meet the definition.
I don't feel that you have fully addressed
my questions. May I try rephrasing them? I'll number them for
later ease of reference. Apologies if this reveals my classroom
practice and brings back unhappy memories of schoolroom tests
<g>.
(1) If each and every element need not be
met:
(a) Specifically which, if any, elements *must* be met?
(b) Specifically which elements need not be met?
(c) Is there a minimum number of elements which must be met?
(d) If the answer to (c) is yes, how many?
(2) If there are elements in the definition
which need not be met, why are they included in the definitions?
Do correct me if I am wrong, but it seems
to me that the formulation of the definitions has happened in
a somewhat "retrogressive circular" manner. What I
mean is this: It was decided that certain things are religions,
then attempts were made to formulate definitions which included
those things. Unsurprisingly, those things were found to fit
the definitions. This does not necessarily mean that they are
not religions, but it is (from a logical/philosophical perspective)
not a particularly helpful way to define things.
[...]
ST:
I dispute that anthroposophy fits into
the New Age movement; ISTR others (Tarjei? Sune?) have recently
gone into detail about this, so I'll not do so here.
Then you disagree with leading Waldorf
educators (such as M.C. Richards who included a chapter on Waldorf
and "New Age education" in his book _Toward Wholeness_),
and religious studies scholars operating in their area of speciality
and scholarship.
Yes, I do disagree. I have given some reasons
why in my reply to Michael Kopp.
The burden of proof is again on those who
would seek to counter the weight of this evidence.
Probably, but I suggest that it is essentially
a matter of opinion, and not something which can be unequivocally
decided.
ST:
E.g. adherence to a set of beliefs and
rituals. As one team manager famously said, "This game isn't
a matter of life and death -- it's much more important than that."
Please look at the definitions more carefully.
I have. Given your statement:
a group does not necessarily have to incorporate
each and every element to meet the definition.
Soccer fits some of them on the grounds that
it meets some of the elements. Hence my enumerated questions
above, specifically (1).
Religious studies scholars have been very
careful to try to define religion in such a way to include both
"tradition" theistic religions, as well as non-theistic
religions and the so-called "new spirituality" and
new religious movements,
This is precisely what I meant by "retrogressive
circular" definition! Can you not see that deciding something
is a religion, then defining it, then using that definition to
"prove" that it is a religion is not exactly a process
which enhances knowledge of what a religion is?
while not providing a definition so broad
as to incorrectly incorporate clearly non-religious groups or
belief systems (such as soccer).
From my (admittedly inexpert) perspective,
they have failed in this latter point. You have already, I think,
conceded that Marxism-Leninism and Secular Humanism can be considered
by experts to be religions according to some of these definitions.
ST:
Do I take it you are arguing that anything
that has a religious nature is a religion? The direct answer
to your direct question is that I consider it to be a spiritual
philosophy (which, I submit, is distinct from a religion).
I was asking your view. I think anthroposophy
has both a religious nature and is a religion,
John, I don't think you have answered the
question. Do you, like Michael Kopp, argue that anything with
a religious nature (or spiritual nature) is a religion? If so,
I suggest you may be getting into logical/philosophical hot water.
and have provided the reasons for that,
contrary to your denials.
No, I do not deny that you have provided reasons,
I deny that you have provided *sufficient* reason. My point is
that, whilst anthroposophy certainly fits some of the definitions
of religion which you have posted, so do things which are clearly
not religions -- like Secular Humanism.
To call anthroposophy a spiritual philosophy
or spiritual science does not mean it does not meet the definition
of religion, either according to religious studies or the courts.
I agree, but neither does it mean that it
does. Again, I do not dispute that it fulfils *some* of the criteria
in the definitions you posted, and again I point out that so
do things which "reasonable people" would agree are
not religions.
For example, Transcendental Meditation/Science
of Creative Intelligence called TM a secular meditation technique.
But the courts ruled that it was religious in nature and the
public school's promotion of it involved a violation of the establishment
clause.
I'm not sure that this is analogous -- are
you suggesting that Waldorf schools systematically promote anthroposophy
in the classroom. I know that it is the view of many of the participants
on this list and I know that far too many individual cases of
this have happened (and I have given my opinion on this). As
to the question of it being systematic, I don't think so. I am
not aware that I do it. If I may do what you did and appeal to
the founder of Waldorf education, he (Steiner) specifically said
that we must not teach anthroposophy. I agree with him on this
one.
We must look beyond preferred labels to
other elements which would define a given philosophy/religion/technique,
etc.
Yes, that makes sense.
I think you did argue from silence. I provided
definitions of religion, and then argued that because Anthroposophy
meets these definitions, it is included in scholarly reference
works on religion. You then came back and said something to the
effect of, "Well, I check some of my religious reference
works and they don't include anthroposophy." This is an
argument from silence.
If that was I all I did, you would be correct.
However, I submit that this has not been my sole (or even main)
argument. Do you submit that *all* experts on religion agree
that anthroposophy is a religion, or do you concede that some
may disagree?
No reference work is comprehensive, and
you've got to deal not only with what your books don't say, but
what the sources I cited do say.
John, I have been trying to do just that.
I submit that I have argued that the definitions are flawed,
not only in the process of their formulation, but also in that
they have a catch-all nature that catches too much.
I certainly concede that it is not a clear-cut
case, either way.
I am arguing to the contrary.
Noted.
ST:
John, the context of the above is the religion
lessons. Of course the religion lessons in a Waldorf school are
religious! I had religion lessons in my school -- that did not
make the Rhodesian government a religion. My understanding is
that the Waldorf schools in the US public school system do *not*
have religion lessons. Is this correct?
Yes, that's the context, which I made clear
in my posts (if I remember correctly) and in my article where
I quote Steiner here. But then Steiner proceeds and says religion
can be introduced in *any* subject
What he said in the quote you cited was: "It [religion] must permeate the teaching of every
subject...No education can be conducted without a religious foundation." (The Education of the Child, 69)
I submit that there is a clear distinction
between permeating teaching
and being introduced. I gave my interpretation of what he meant
when I
responded the first time. I note that you believe that other
Waldorf
educators disagree with my interpretation.
ST:
It wouldn't be the first time -- but I
also submit that a large (and growing? majority?) number of Waldorf
teachers share my view on this.
Glad to hear it. Maybe they'll join with
Waldorf critics then to move Waldorf education to private school
settings only where it belongs as a religious pedagogy.
I think you are pre-empting the courts here.
I know what I am about to say is contrary
to the US constitution but I am making a general point, not specifically
directed to the US, when I state that I believe in the principle
that the state should equally support the education of all children
of its (tax-paying) residents and that the *only* criteria on
which a decision to fund education are based must be educational.
Whether or not Waldorf schools should accept
publicly funding in such circumstances would, IMHO, depend on
what "strings" were applied. I'm not convinced either
way.
ST:
I take Steiner's writings to serve as *indications*,
not as *prescriptions*.
[...]
Anthroposophical Press disagrees with you. How can the writings
of the man who pioneered the discovery of the supersensible worlds
have less authority in understanding anthroposophy and Waldorf
than contemporary anthroposophists?
No contradictor here. Steiner exhorted his
followers not to simply believe what he said, but to find out
for themselves. He insisted that anthroposophy must develop and
be superseded. I do not accept Steiner (or any other man) as
an infallible authority. However, I don't expect to see a world-wide
(or even local) movement of "Tonkin education" develop
over the next decades <g>.
John, do you think we are getting anywhere?
Sure.
OK -- my replies are, as of tomorrow, going
to be less prompt and probably less comprehensive/voluminous
(probably a relief to all).
May I try to sum up where we have got to --
tell me if you concur.
* We agree that there are scholarly definitions
of religion which anthroposophy fits.
* We disagree on whether these definitions
are capable of catching non- religions.
* We disagree on whether Waldorf education
systematically teaches a specific religious view in the classroom.
(Religion lessons, which would anyway be illegal in the US public
education system excluded.)
Would you care to add to these points?
I suspect that we'll not get far with the
last point, although I'm willing to continue to debate it if
you wish. I do think there may be some mileage in trying to reach
an agreement on the second point.
I appreciate your willingness to argue issues
and the way your posts challenge my thinking and views. I find
it stimulating.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:49:47 -0400
[John Morehead]
The burden of proof is thus on those who
would argue contrary to this position that it should not be so
included.
[Stephen Tonkin]
In reality, that is probably the case,
but I wonder about the ethics "guilty until proved innocent"
overtones. (No, I am not implying that you are being unethical
-- I accept that you are merely explaining the status quo.)
[snip]
The burden of proof is again on those who
would seek to counter the weight of this evidence.
Probably, but I suggest that it is essentially
a matter of opinion, and not something which can be unequivocally
decided.
I think that saying that one side or another
has a burden of proof is really not useful here.
Burdens of proof are sort of like a tennis
match. Within a court-room context, the "burden of proof"
generally rests with the prosecutor, petitioner or plaintiff
who seeks to prove a case. If a sufficient showing of proof is
not made by that person (and the degree of proof which is required
will vary depending on the circumstances), then the case is dismissed.
If the court determines that, absent any rebuttal by the other
side, the case is proved (or if the court simply wants to hear
all the evidence before rendering a decision), then the burden
shifts to the other side to lob the ball back over the net.
Outside of a court of law, I submit that the
burden of proof always rests with any person who seeks to persuade
another person. In a non-legal context, where two people seek
to convince each other of the correctness of their position,
I submit to you that *both* people have the burden of proof insofar
as the other person is concerned. For any one person to say to
the other "you have the burden of proof" imposes a
set of rules that I don't think belong in the context.
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:17:19
At 08:54 AM 4/14/99 +0100, you wrote:
By your definitions of religion/religious,
you are correct. I am still curious to know which of the beliefs
distinguish an anthroposophist from others who believe in those
things. Yes, I agree that this is entirely irrelevant to whether
or not anthroposophy is a religion.
Not just "my" defintions of religion.
I offered several examples, more could be offered, from primarily
secular scholars of religion. If Anthroposophy does not meet
these definitions, I'd be interested in how you would argue that
it does not. I'm open to consideration. :)
Others who might believe in the same metaphysical
principles or doctrines that Anthroposophy might hold while not
holding a formal relationship with Anthroposophy would still
adhere to a religious worldview. The definitions of religion
I provided attempted to provide room for contemporary new religious
movements and expressions where membership in a church or other
social expression of a religious tradition may be downplayed
in favor of individualism.
But I think it is clear that Anthroposophy
does meet such a definition, examples of which I've provided
by religious studies scholars. Now another individual questioned
my ability to tackle the legal ramifications of Waldorf education
due to a lack of a background on my part in legal studies. So
the implication is that those trained to specialize in certain
disciplines know what they're talking about. I can agree with
that.
I would suggest that they almost certainly
know more than the non- specialist. I don't agree that it makes
them infallible -- I'm sure we can all find our favourite list
of 50 gaffes by experts, probably with little overlap.
But do we argue from the gaffs as a correct
classification of these scholars as a whole? Of course not. Of
course mistakes can be made. Has it happened here. No evidence
has been put forward to think so. Certainly a practitioner of
a given religious tradition will have an insider's perspective
on that tradition, but that does not necessarily indicate that
they "know more" than a specialist. I have run into
many Mormons, for example, who know far less of their history
and beliefs than I do as a researcher in new religious movements.
So we must consider both the self-understanding and definitions
of religious "insiders" as well as those from outside
the tradition under analysis.
We might also keep in mind that, at times,
a religious tradition can purposely misrepresent itself so as
to gain acceptance within a particular setting. This is precisely
what happend with TM/SCI in New Jersey. TM presented itself,
dishonestly (allowed for within monistic pantheism where monism
disallows any distinctions whatsoever, including those between
right and wrong, good and evil) as a purely secular meditative
relaxation technique. In reality, TM is religious in nature,
involving the worldview of a "sect" of Hinduism. However,
I think we should assume the honesty of a religious group in
their self-understanding and public descriptions until they give
us reason to think otherwise.
In the context of our discussion I agree
that you are much more knowledgeable than I on the subject of
religion in general and I respect that. However, I am one of
these arrogant iconoclastic types who has almost made a vocation
of challenging experts when I disagree with them <g>. Whilst
I concede that an expert is more likely to know what he is talking
about, I think that what is said is far more important than the
source of the statement. "Appeal to authority" is not,
IMHO, a valid form of argumentation (scientists here will probably
agree with me) -- I detest arguing with the Commies who preface
every second remark with "Marx said..." (or the anthropops
who start with "Steiner said...").
I don't think I've made an illegitame appeal
to authority. I put forward definitions of religion (which could
have been coined by Mickey Mouse or anyone else for that matter)
as possible standards for defining religion, and then included
a second piece of evidence for consideration, namely that these
religious definitions were put forward by individuals with specialized
training (including Ph.D.'s) in their area of specialty. In addition,
these scholars include Anthroposophy in their reference works
on religion. Now, we cannot move from this to say, "Well
sometimes experts make mistakes." Indeed they do. But this
does not invalidate the totality of their training, experience
and scholarship. The definitions of religion, as well as the
qualifications of the experts must be dealt with on their own
terms without giving in to the temptation to discredit the sources
(which has not been done) in order to save Anthroposophy from
a religious definition.
I still don't agree fully with this definition
fitting (I'll come back to that later with some questions), but
can we agree that "they include it in some (or even "most")
standard reference works on religion." ?
They at least include it in some. That has
to be dealt with by Anthroposophists. As I've mentioned, no reference
work is exhaustive and the fact that it may not be mentioned
in a particular reference work cannot be adduced as evidence
that it is not religion (an argument from silence).
The burden of proof is thus on those who
would argue contrary to this position that it should not be so
included.
In reality, that is probably the case,
but I wonder about the ethics "guilty until proved innocent"
overtones. (No, I am not implying that you are being unethical
-- I accept that you are merely explaining the status quo.)
I don't think this is what is going on. Being
religious in nature does not make Anthroposophy guilty. It just
means we understand that it is indeed a religious world view.
I have provided evidence which needs to be dealt with, it doesn't
mean that Anthroposophy/Anthroposophists are somehow "guilty"
in need of proving innocence. Let's keep it academic and not
personal, eh? :)
I don't feel that you have fully addressed
my questions. May I try rephrasing them? I'll number them for
later ease of reference. Apologies if this reveals my classroom
practice and brings back unhappy memories of schoolroom tests
<g>.
(1) If each and every element need not be met:
(a) Specifically which, if any, elements *must* be met?
(b) Specifically which elements need not be met?
(c) Is there a minimum number of elements which must be met?
(d) If the answer to (c) is yes, how many?
(2) If there are elements in the definition which need not be
met, why are they included in the definitions?
In my next post I'll include the URLs from
scholarly websites which address these definitional questions.
Perhaps you can pursue them there. I am not trying to avoid a
resonse here, but am way beind in e-mail and other work to provide
a sufficient response.
ST:
I dispute that anthroposophy fits into
the New Age movement; ISTR others (Tarjei? Sune?) have recently
gone into detail about this, so I'll not do so here.
If Anthroposophy incorporates many of the
elements of a New Age worldview, then it is properly classified
within the New Age movement.
Then you disagree with leading Waldorf
educators (such as M.C. Richards who included a chapter on Waldorf
and "New Age education" in his book _Toward Wholeness_),
and religious studies scholars operating in their area of speciality
and scholarship.
Yes, I do disagree. I have given some reasons
why in my reply to Michael Kopp.
Acknowledged. Obviously I side with Richards
(with over 20 years of Waldorf educational experience as I understand
it), as well as the religious studies scholars.
This is precisely what I meant by "retrogressive
circular" definition! Can you not see that deciding something
is a religion, then defining it, then using that definition to
"prove" that it is a religion is not exactly a process
which enhances knowledge of what a religion is?
You've lost me. Specialists look at the various
expressions of religion and then put forward definitions to incorporate
and account for that religious expression. Then if we come across
a given worldview, we test it against accepted definitions in
order to properly classify it. How is this circular? This list
talks much about the scientific method, and what I've just described
is the process whereby scientific sociologists of religion use
in their enterprise.
while not providing a definition so broad
as to incorrectly incorporate clearly non-religious groups or
belief systems (such as soccer).
From my (admittedly inexpert) perspective,
they have failed in this latter point. You have already, I think,
conceded that Marxism-Leninism and Secular Humanism can be considered
by experts to be religions according to some of these definitions.
Yes, some have done so.
For example, Transcendental Meditation/Science
of Creative Intelligence called TM a secular meditation technique.
But the courts ruled that it was religious in nature and the
public school's promotion of it involved a violation of the establishment
clause.
I'm not sure that this is analogous --
are you suggesting that Waldorf schools systematically promote
anthroposophy in the classroom. I know that it is the view of
many of the participants on this list and I know that far too
many individual cases of this have happened (and I have given
my opinion on this). As to the question of it being systematic,
I don't think so. I am not aware that I do it. If I may do what
you did and appeal to the founder of Waldorf education, he (Steiner)
specifically said that we must not teach anthroposophy. I agree
with him on this one.
I am stating that Anthroposophy is religious,
that it provides the basis for Waldorf pedagogy, a religious
pedagogy, and that Anthroposophy is at least implicit within
Waldorf education. There is a direct parallel between the self-representation
of TM/SCI as a secular technique, and Anthroposophy as a secular,
innovative, non-religious pedagogy. My prediction is that the
courts will decide against Waldorf thus confirming the parallel.
Time will tell.
Anthroposophical Press disagrees with you.
How can the writings of the man who pioneered the discovery of
the supersensible worlds have less authority in understanding
anthroposophy and Waldorf than contemporary
anthroposophists?
No contradictor here. Steiner exhorted
his followers not to simply believe what he said, but to find
out for themselves. He insisted that anthroposophy must develop
and be superseded. I do not accept Steiner (or any other man)
as an infallible authority. However, I don't expect to see a
world-wide (or even local) movement of "Tonkin education"
develop over the next decades <g>.
My point was that those who publish Steiner's
works consider his writings as an authoritative source for understanding
Waldorf education. If an individual Anthroposophist wishes to
disagree with Steiner, that's fine, but I think they'll have
a tough time disagreeing with the man who pioneered the worldview.
May I try to sum up where we have got to
-- tell me if you concur.
* We agree that there are scholarly definitions of religion which
anthroposophy fits.
* We disagree on whether these definitions are capable of catching
non- religions.
Correct.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:23:18
At 11:49 AM 4/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
Outside of a court of law, I submit that
the burden of proof always rests with any person who seeks to
persuade another person. In a non-legal context, where two people
seek to convince each other of the correctness of their position,
I submit to you that *both* people have the burden of proof insofar
as the other person is concerned. For any one person to say to
the other "you have the burden of proof" imposes a
set of rules that I don't think belong in the context.
Bob Tolz
But when arguments, definitions and evidences
have been put forward by a party, those who disagree should seek
to counter that position not only by tearing down the position
with which they disagree, but also by providing reasons for their
view to the contrary. Simply saying you don't agree does nothing
to counter the position put forward and argued for.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:26:50 -0400
[Bob Tolz]
For any one person to say to the other
"you have the burden of proof" imposes a set of rules
that I don't think belong in the context.
[John Morehead]
But when arguments, definitions and evidences
have been put forward by a party, those who disagree should seek
to counter that position not only by tearing down the position
with which they disagree, but also by providing reasons for their
view to the contrary. Simply saying you don't agree does nothing
to counter the position put forward and argued for.
I agree with you 100%, but I wouldn't call
that a burden of proof, which implies something a bit different
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:40:39 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
My prediction is that the courts will decide
against Waldorf thus confirming the parallel. Time will tell.
Care to make a friendly wager, John? I'll
betcha a New York hot dog your prediction does not pan out. What
can you offer me from Loomis, California of equal value?
Bob Tolz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:12:37
At 03:40 PM 4/15/99 -0400, you wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
My prediction is that the courts will decide against Waldorf
thus confirming the parallel. Time will tell.
Care to make a friendly wager, John? I'll
betcha a New York hot dog your prediction does not pan out. What
can you offer me from Loomis, California of equal value?
Bob Tolz
Well, we've got some mean hamburgers around
these parts. Would that do? I'd hate to have you put one of those
fine hotdogs in the mail just for me. I feel pretty confident
about this one, but if you want.... :)
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:15:12 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Well, we've got some mean hamburgers around
these parts. Would that do? I'd hate to have you put one of those
fine hotdogs in the mail just for me. I feel pretty confident
about this one, but if you want.... :)
You've got a deal.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:49:12 +0100
I wrote:
May I try to sum up where we have got to
-- tell me if you concur.
* We agree that there are scholarly definitions of religion which
anthroposophy fits.
* We disagree on whether these definitions are capable of catching
non- religions.
To which John replied:
Correct.
Yet earlier I had said:
You have already, I think, conceded that
Marxism-Leninism and Secular Humanism can be considered by experts
to be religions according to some of these definitions.
And John replied:
Yes, some have done so.
I suggest that this at least implies agreement
that non-religions can be "caught" by (scholarly) definitions
of religion.
To pick up on some other points:
ST:
By your definitions of religion/religious
JM:
Not just "my" defintions of religion.
Apologies -- I could have been much clearer.
I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that you would infer from the
context that I meant "the definitions you have given".
If Anthroposophy does not meet these definitions, I'd be interested
in how you would argue that it does not. I'm open to consideration.
:)
I'm not arguing that it doesn't. I'm arguing
that other non-religions do.
We might also keep in mind that, at times,
a religious tradition can purposely misrepresent itself so as
to gain acceptance within a particular setting. This is precisely
what happend with TM/SCI in New Jersey.
[...]
I contend that arguments about the status
of TM tell us precisely nothing about the nature of anthroposophy.
I don't think I've made an illegitame appeal
to authority. I put forward definitions of religion (which could
have been coined by Mickey Mouse or anyone else for that matter)
as possible standards for defining religion, and then included
a second piece of evidence for consideration, namely that these
religious definitions were put forward by individuals with specialized
training (including Ph.D.'s) in their area of specialty. In addition,
these scholars include Anthroposophy in their reference works
on religion.
My understanding (which you may wish to check/confirm)
is that the Honorary Professor of Religious Studies at the University
of California, Santa Barbara does *not* include anthroposophy
in those things he considers to be religions. Of course, this
(if I am correct in my understanding) does not "prove"
that anthroposophy is not a religion -- however, it does suggest
that expert opinion is not uniform in this regard.
The burden of proof is thus on those who
would argue contrary to this position that it should not be so
included.
In reality, that is probably the case,
but I wonder about the ethics "guilty until proved innocent"
overtones. (No, I am not implying that you are being unethical
-- I accept that you are merely explaining the status quo.)
I don't think this is what is going on.
Being religious in nature does not make Anthroposophy guilty.
It just means we understand that it is indeed a religious world
view. I have provided evidence which needs to be dealt with,
it doesn't mean that Anthroposophy/Anthroposophists are somehow
"guilty" in need of proving innocence. Let's keep it
academic and not personal, eh? :)
I think you know what I meant, John; and that
I was in no way being personal.
I don't feel that you have fully addressed
my questions. May I try rephrasing them?
[snip rephrased questions]
In my next post I'll include the URLs from
scholarly websites which address these definitional questions.
I do not (at the time of writing) appear to
have received this -- could you send me a copy privately, please.
ST:
I dispute that anthroposophy fits into
the New Age movement; ISTR others (Tarjei? Sune?) have recently
gone into detail about this, so I'll not do so here.
If Anthroposophy incorporates many of the
elements of a New Age worldview, then it is properly classified
within the New Age movement.
Ermmmmm -- affirming the consequent.
ST:
This is precisely what I meant by "retrogressive
circular" definition! Can you not see that deciding something
is a religion, then defining it, then using that definition to
"prove" that it is a religion is not exactly a process
which enhances knowledge of what a religion is?
JM:
You've lost me. Specialists look at the
various expressions of religion and then put forward definitions
to incorporate and account for that religious expression.
Exactly. They decide what constitutes an expression
of religion *before* they define it. Obviously those things which
they then wish to include as religion will then fit the definition.
I am stating that Anthroposophy is religious,
that it provides the basis for Waldorf pedagogy, a religious
pedagogy, and that Anthroposophy is at least implicit within
Waldorf education. There is a direct parallel between the self-representation
of TM/SCI as a secular technique, and Anthroposophy as a secular,
innovative, non-religious pedagogy.
Hang on, John -- anthroposophy does not claim
to be a pedagogy. It does, of course, provide the basis for Waldorf
pedagogy (in that the pedagogy is based upon the anthroposophical
view of child development), but it is not itself the pedagogy.
My point was that those who publish Steiner's
works consider his writings as an authoritative source for understanding
Waldorf education.
Yes. "AN", not necessarily "THE"
If an individual Anthroposophist wishes
to disagree with Steiner, that's fine, but I think they'll have
a tough time disagreeing with the man who pioneered the worldview.
Yes, attempting dialogue with those who have
crossed the threshold of death can be a tad frustrating, or so
I am told <g>.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (1 of
2)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:35:36 +1200
John Morehead and Stephen Tonkin are discussing
whether Anthroposophy is a religion (this is part one of two
parts kept small for e-mail limits):
John,
Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
ST:
The main problem I have with fitting anthroposophy
into these definitions is the inclusion of "belief"
and "rite/ritual" in the definitions.
JM:
Anthroposophy does indeed have beliefs.
Wouldn't it be impossible to have any belief system without them?
For example, a belief in reincarnation, the fourfold nature of
the human being, monism, the existence of "higher worlds"
which can be tapped into through various occultic means. These
surely qualify as beliefs.
ST:
OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one
believes those things, does that make one an anthroposophist?
I believed them before I discovered anthroposophy, so I have
never considered them to be specific tenets of anthroposophy.
KOPP:
I'm tempted to say your argument is persuasive
that Stephen Tonkin has invented a religion. And it's nice to
have a clearer picture of what you, personally, believe. However
...
This seems like bad logic to me, Stephen.
The fact that A and B existed simultaneously and unaware of each
other, does not mean that after A and B become aware of their
mutuality they necessarily retain their duality and separatism,
even if A wishes it so.
The fact that you now are a practising Anthroposophist,
and a member of the Anthroposophical society, means that you
MUST, to orginary logic and reason, "consider [these beliefs
that you once held independently] to be specific tenets of Anthroposophy".
(And would you please stop being cute with the small "a".)
The fact that Anthroposophy (Steiner) considered
these tenets to be specific and defining supersedes your clever
attempt to claim that they must be common beliefs that many people
(perhaps even Kopp?) have. The fact that they are codified into
dogma makes Anthroposphy a religion. What _you_ think of them
does not lend deniability to your cause.
[snip]
JM:
As to rites and rituals, I am aware of
the nature tables in at least private Waldorf settings,
ST:
A nature table is an anthroposophical rite?
We had them when I was a kid in my (Rhodesian government) kindergarten
-- if that was a Waldorf school, my nose is a kipper!
KOPP:
Stephen, did your childhood nature tables
have candles on them, and did you ceremonially light them of
a morning? Were the things that you put on the table suggested
by your lessons to be of certain classes relevant to unscientific
things you were being taught about nature in your classroom,
such as the relationship between plant form and human form?
If your school was a public school, and was
anything like mine in Middle America of the same generation,
the answer would be no: we just brought in whatever kids found
interesting, and there was nothing special about it. It didn't
have a particular place in the classroom, it wasn't covered with
a special cloth, there was no candle (!), and, in fact, any old
surface usually sufficed, such as the window sills. It wasn't
even called a "nature table", and it wasn't prescribed
by the dogma of any sectarian (or secular) organisation.
[snip]
ST:
The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has
daily prayers; the Church associated with it (Church of England)
has rituals. Does that make Her Majesty's Government a religion?
KOPP:
Stephen, remember saying a few posts back
that you actually thought rather more of the U.S. political system
than your own, peculiarly English (c.q.) one?
I'm sure that despite this Anglophobia, you
know that the answer is that Her Majesty's Government IS a religion?
Britain is the closest thing to a theocracy
left in the modern world. (I'm leaving out the Islamic fundamentalist
states and Israel, which seem to me to have never left the Dark
Ages.) The Queen is the head of the Church of England, and the
head of State as well. The Church of England is not just "the
church associated with [Her Majesty's Government]". It is
still constitutionally accepted as the State Religion, particularly
in relation to Royalty and Government. The British Upper House
is called the house of _Lords_, and had primacy over the House
of Commons. It's only a few short centuries since the King or
Queen of England was, by the principle of Divine Right of Kings,
considered nearly Godlike.
JM:
Regardless, it could be argued that a belief
system is religious without incorporating each and every element
in a given definition.
ST:
That could indeed be argued -- the question,
as far as a working definition goes, is precisely which elements
need to be incorporated? If a religion need not incorporate each
and every element, then some of those elements must be redundant
-- which ones, and why have them in the definition if they need
not be incorporated?
Perhaps I am seeking the impossible: a definition which is akin
to the sort of thing I meet in science.
KOPP:
You're obviously still too much under the
influence of "materialistic" science, and need to study
much harder, and embrace much more determinedly, the only thing
which proves Anthroposophy: "spiritual" science.
But, as you say, it's unlikely that "spiritual
science" will produce a definition of Anthroposophy as clear
as those that science provides for our understanding of the Universe.
And, of course, you will have to stop reminding
the "Anthroposophical Scientists" found on the A-S
list of their shonky practices, as you see them demonstrated
in the work of the likes of Ralph Marinelli, the [re-]discoverer
of "levity", or anti-gravity.
JM:
Granted, anthroposophy is very individualistic
with little structure which would require a certain practice
on the part of an anthroposophist. But this does not mean it
is not religious. Anthroposophy fits nicely into the New Age
movement, which also puts an emphasis upon an individualized,
eclectic spirituality with little or no ritual, yet this is surely
religious in nature, as recognized by New Age adherents and scholars
of religion.
ST:
I dispute that anthroposophy fits into
the New Age movement; ISTR others (Tarjei? Sune?) have recently
gone into detail about this, so I'll not do so here.
KOPP:
I'll agree that there's nothing "new"
about Anthroposphy; it's medieval, pre-enlightenment. Steiner
added nothing except his own hagiography and rehashing of the
"old-age" mystical, esoteric, occultisms.
But that doesn't stop it from being enthusiastically
adopted by many people who identify themselves as "New-Agers".
And it doesn't stop external observers from noting that Anthroposophy
and its educational arm are playing to this "New-Age"
mentality and nebulous world-view for all they're worth.
This is certainly reinforced by the recent
appearance of small advertisements for Anthroposophy and Waldorf
(as well as Anthropospohical medicine and Weleda and biodynamic
agriculture) in the backs of pupular women's weekly magazines,
and the like, along with ads for all the other promises of uncertain
provenance and rationality.
"New-Agers" eat this stuff up, uncritically
(critical thinking having been weened out of education, including
Waldorf education). And they will eat up Anthroposophy as well,
as indicated by some people on this list.
ST:
I am certainly prepared to concede that
it meets *some* of the criteria of the definitions. The problem
is that so does soccer! (Which some people would argue *does*
have the status of religion on the terraces <g>).
JM:
Just how does soccer meet these definitions?
ST:
E.g. adherence to a set of beliefs and
rituals. As one team manager famously said, "This game isn't
a matter of life and death -- it's much more important than that."
JM:
And if you would hesitate to define anthroposophy
as a religion would you consider it a spirituality then? A spiritual
or religious philosophy is still religious in nature, no matter
how you slice it.
ST:
Do I take it you are arguing that anything
that has a religious nature is a religion? The direct answer
to your direct question is that I consider it to be a spiritual
philosophy (which, I submit, is distinct from a religion).
KOPP:
Yes. Anything religious is a religion. Anything
spiritual is religious.
You are using more of what Bob Jones calls
"Humpty Dumpty" language, Stephen. If a philosophy
is "spiritual" then it is religious, in my opinion.
My definition of "religion" subsumes
"religious"; they are inseparable.
My definition of "religion" is "anything
that treats of spiritual or supernatural matters". Broad,
sweeping, all-inclusive of everything outside rational, "materialistic"
scientific reality.
Most of what was "supernatural"
in the dim, ancient past has been brought under the umbrella
of rational science. Some enclaves of belief in things not in
evidence (including scientific theories, if you insist) fit this
definition.
Perhaps someday the etheric spirits of Steiner
will be seen to be some natural phenomenon. Perhaps someday the
gods of various religions will be seen to be some naturally-occuring
life form which has achieved a greater mastery of science than
we poor Earthlings (I doubt this, but I read a lot of science
fiction -- a large formative influence. I suppose Stephen will
now say this is my "religion" <G>.).
Perhaps I will be proved wrong and burn in
hell. At least then I'll have some evidence. OTOH, if I'm reincarnated,
I'll never know. Most likely, I'll die ... and that will be that.
Sure, I'm interested in the ultimate questions
of the Universe. And I'm surprised that even Stephen Hawking
says to know the answer would be "to know the mind of God".
Or was he just having a little joke at our expense?
-------------------------
End of part one.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (2 of
2)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:38:38 +1200
John Morehead and Stephen Tonkin are discussing
whether Anthroposophy is a religion (this is part two of two
parts kept small for e-mail limits):
ST:
I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about
religion to know what the scholarly status of Ninian Smart's
_The World Religions_ (Cambridge University Press, 1989) is,
but it's the only book about religions on my bookshelf and both
"anthroposophy" and "Steiner" are notably
absent, even from the (admittedly small) section on _New Forms
of Religion_.
JM:
Unfortunately, many reference works omit
it, but again, this does not mean it is not religious. No reference
work is all-encompassing and exhaustive now is it? This sounds
like you're making an argument from silence, which does not negate
the weight given to those reference works which do classify it
as religious.
ST:
No, I'm not arguing from silence, but one
would hardly expect books to have a paragraph stating "The
following things are not religions: ..." My intention was
to convey that it is not necessarily a clear-cut case, and it
might be that some scholars believe it is and others believe
it isn't. Groliers calls it a "social philosophy",
not a religion; Hutchinson's has it as a "mystical philosophy"
and again, not a religion. Next time I go to the library I'll
look up "anthroposophy" in Britannica and Colliers
and see if they describe anthroposophy as a religion. If not,
may it be that the scholars who wrote those entries did not consider
it to be a religion?
KOPP:
Britannica is equivocal, calling it in one
article "a philosophy" and in another a "spiritual
philosophy". What do they know? An encyclopaedia whose editor
in chief was an American philosopher. I'll take their second
definition.
[JM?:]
I certainly concede that it is not a clear-cut case, either way.
ST:
Absolutely! But, again, IMHO there is a
distinction between something having a religious nature and being
a religion. I would argue that what Steiner meant in those translations
you quoted was that underlying our teaching must be the acceptance
*by the teacher* that there is an "unseen" or "spiritual"
or "supersensible" (choose whichever suits you) reality.
The religion lessons he mentioned were (as you probably know),
the non-denominational "free religion lessons" given
to children who did not attend the denominational religion lessons
given by priests, pastors, etc. of those denominations.
JM:
Then if the teacher must recognize the
religious basis for Waldorf, and must pass an unseen stream of
consciousness to the child to instruct the child's developing
fourfold being, just how does this not consitution religion in
the Waldorf methodology?
ST:
John, the context of the above is the religion
lessons. Of course the religion lessons in a Waldorf school are
religious! I had religion lessons in my school -- that did not
make the Rhodesian government a religion. My understanding is
that the Waldorf schools in the US public school system do *not*
have religion lessons. Is this correct?
KOPP:
I don't believe, based on the quoting of Steiner
and his successors and interpreters and devotees and defenders
and believers -- and critics -- here on this list for the last
3-1/2 years, that Steiner's exhortations regarding religious
practices by teachers ARE confined to "religion lessons".
You say it is, Stephen, but you also say your
school may be atypical, and you, certainly, are atypical, in
my experience.
ST:
If we interpret Steiner to mean that the
teacher should, when preparing and delivering a lesson, keep
in mind that there is an "unseen spiritual world" and
that each child has a spiritual nature, then I am in complete
agreement (although I fall very short of this ideal!). If we
interpret it to mean that we must teach a specific religious
view in every lesson, then I completely disagree with him.
JM:
In context, Steiner appears to be taking
the position you disagree with.
ST:
It wouldn't be the first time -- but I
also submit that a large (and growing? majority?) number of Waldorf
teachers share my view on this.
KOPP:
How do you know this, Stephen? If SWA is so
amorphous and diffuse, how CAN you know this? Does the new "Waldorf
Teachers" mailing list (to which I subscribe) help you?
I've not seen more than a post or two a week there, and no such
evidence. What about the new Web-based "Anthroposophy Network"'s
teachers' Web discussion area (which refused me entry because
I am not a Waldorf teacher. Are you a member of these, or other
groups of which I am not aware, which you can cite as evidence?
Yes, you need to provide evidence, Stephen. At least for the
"large" quantifier which did not have a question mark
after it.
I would submit that it's likely to be just
the opposite, based on the reports of Kathy Sutphen of her Anthrposophical
teacher training, and other reports.
JM:
The Anthroposophical press states that
Steiner's writings serve as "the authoritative foundation"
for Waldorf education.
ST:
I take Steiner's writings to serve as *indications*,
not as *prescriptions*. There was a time, when I was new to Waldorf
teaching (I was previously an A-level (top end of high school;
university entrance) physics teacher, so I wasn't new to teaching),
that I tended to take them as prescriptions -- it didn't work.
I do concede that one of the problems Waldorf education faces
is that inexperienced teachers can tend to take Steiner's writings
and, more importantly, "fundamentalist" interpretations
of them like those of Roy Wilkinson, as gospel prescriptions.
To my mind this is antithetical to effective teaching in a modern
Waldorf school.
KOPP:
Stephen, could you please devote an entire
post to your understanding of the word "indications"
and its application to your teaching?
As you know, most critics believe this is
just another one of Steiner's "guru tricks", designed
to create the appearance of something esoteric and original and
deeply meaningful, but really nothing more than his dogma. And,
as you know, most critics believe that whatever you call them,
current SWA teachers follow them ... religiously [no pun intended,
okay, Robert Flannery?].
But we've never had an elucidation of the
meaning -- either as Steiner meant it or as you or anyone else
understands it today -- that we could discuss.
JM:
While your disagreement is important, and
noted, the "discoverer"/creator of Waldorf education
must be regarded as a higher authority according to those who
promote this methodology!
ST:
I guess I'll have to concede that one as
well. <bg>
ST:
Somewhat tangential to this is the following
question: If keeping in mind the spiritual nature (above) whilst
preparing and delivering public school lessons is found to be
contrary to the US constitution, how, in practice, can it's exclusion
be ensured if there is no outer evidence of its inclusion? Or,
put another way, how is it possible to legislate against that
which cannot be detected?
KOPP:
It can't. The Constitution does not prohibit
a teacher from "keeping in mind the spiritual". It
only prohibits the _expression_ of anything spiritual in the
teaching. If a teacher strays, and includes spiritually-oriented
matter -- say, "creation science", then the teacher
is in violation. The inclusion of spiritual thought or information
or inference IS "detectable" -- even by ordinary folks
like myself.
If the school suborns this behaviour, or if
a local body or state of the union (they control education in
the U.S., not the federal, or national, government) legalizes
it, then they are in contravention of the federal Constitution,
which is paramount when it comes to the First Amendment and the
separation clause. And they will be sued, usually successfully.
Especially where the supposed "science" is in fact
nothing but a religion or religious or spiritual belief dressed
in emperor's new clothes.
(Unfortunately, in New Zealand, teaching religion
in a state-integrated private school is legal, as long as it
is part of a recognized, separate, "special character"
curriculum. But the state-mandated secular curriculum must also
be taught. Unfortunately, in our former Steiner school, for all
the five years of its integrated status, the state school inspectorate
found it to be inadequately delivering the state curriculum.
And *I* found the state curriculum to be riddled with Anthroposophical
spirituality, as I have detailed elsewhere.)
JM:
But there is evidence of the inclusion
of a religious elemnt which has been included in the Waldorf
pedagogy.
ST:
I'm not sure quite what you mean here.
Do you mean the free religion lessons? They were one of Steiner's
"afterthoughts" in the context of a situation where
many pupils were leaving class for denominational religion lessons
(which have been given in schools (not just Waldorf ones) in
many European countries until very recently.
Do you mean the teachers who do teach anthroposophy in the classroom?
This aspect has been addressed adequately by Robert Flannery
and I have nothing to add other than that I am in full agreement
with him that it is wrong.
KOPP:
You and Flannery may say you think it is wrong.
(This could be dissembling, if we were of a frame of mind to
believe in conspiracy theories.)
But the evidence of the personal experience
of almost every critic on this list (certainly all those who
either had children in an SWA school or were involved in one
in another way, such as Kathy Sutphen) is that it IS highly prevalent.
There is no reason to believe otherwise, as
Steiner's "indications" were that it should be there
(in more than "religion" lessons).
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy (1 of
2)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:48:06 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
John Morehead and Stephen Tonkin are discussing
whether Anthroposophy is a religion (this is part one of two
parts kept small for e-mail limits):
I intend to be brief, so I'll put them back
together.
ST:
OK -- I'll concede that one. But if one
believes those things, does that make one an anthroposophist?
I believed them before I discovered anthroposophy, so I have
never considered them to be specific tenets of anthroposophy.
KOPP:
I'm tempted to say your argument is persuasive that Stephen Tonkin
has invented a religion. And it's nice to have a clearer picture
of what you, personally, believe. However ...
This seems like bad logic to me, Stephen. The fact that A and
B existed simultaneously and unaware of each other, does not
mean that after A and B become aware of their mutuality they
necessarily retain their duality and separatism, even if A wishes
it so.
I take, and concede, your point. However,
I'd still like to know what it is that makes belief in those
things anthroposophy, since each of them is found in other spiritual
belief systems.
(And would you please stop being cute with
the small "a".)
I am being grammatically (and pedantically?)
correct.
ST:
A nature table is an anthroposophical rite?
We had them when I was a kid in my (Rhodesian government) kindergarten
-- if that was a Waldorf school, my nose is a kipper!
KOPP:
Stephen, did your childhood nature tables have candles on them,
No that I recall (but it was over 40 years
ago).
Were the things that you put on the table
suggested by your lessons to be of certain classes relevant to
unscientific things you were being taught about nature in your
classroom, such as the relationship between plant form and human
form?
My current nature table has a plant (heather
-- it is tolerant of my plant-care (in)abilities) 3 rocks (one
igneous, one sedimentary and one metamorphic) and the ubiquitous
candle on it.
ST:
The House of Commons (UK Parliament) has
daily prayers; the Church associated with it (Church of England)
has rituals. Does that make Her Majesty's Government a religion?
KOPP:
Stephen, remember saying a few posts back that you actually thought
rather more of the U.S. political system than your own, peculiarly
English (c.q.) one?
Indeed I do.
I'm sure that despite this Anglophobia,
you know that the answer is that Her Majesty's Government IS
a religion?
If HMG is a religion, then so is anthroposophy!
<g>
ST:
Perhaps I am seeking the impossible: a
definition which is akin to the sort of thing I meet in science.
KOPP:
You're obviously still too much under the influence of "materialistic"
science, and need to study much harder, and embrace much more
determinedly, the only thing which proves Anthroposophy: "spiritual"
science.
But, as you say, it's unlikely that "spiritual science"
will produce a definition of Anthroposophy as clear as those
that science provides for our understanding of the Universe.
You misunderstand me (I think) -- what I seek
is a "materialistic" science definition of religion.
KOPP:
I'll agree that there's nothing "new" about Anthroposphy;
it's medieval, pre-enlightenment. Steiner added nothing except
his own hagiography and rehashing of the "old-age"
mystical, esoteric, occultisms.
But that doesn't stop it from being enthusiastically adopted
by many people who identify themselves as "New-Agers".
Yes, but some of the S^HNew-Agers also enthusiastically
adopt happy- clappy Christianity; does that make Christianity
(happy-clappy or otherwise) a New-Age religion?
This is certainly reinforced by the recent
appearance of small advertisements for Anthroposophy and Waldorf
(as well as Anthropospohical medicine and Weleda and biodynamic
agriculture) in the backs of pupular women's weekly magazines,
and the like, along with ads for all the other promises of uncertain
provenance and rationality.
I've not seen these, but then I don't read
that sort of mag. BTW, "pupular" is cute, but perhaps
"papular" would be more accurately descriptive? <g>
"New-Agers" eat this stuff up,
uncritically (critical thinking having been weened out of education,
including Waldorf education). And they will eat up Anthroposophy
as well, as indicated by some people on this list.
My experience is that they generally tire
of anthroposophy, because it doesn't endorse the Newage hunger
for freedom without responsibility.
KOPP:
Yes. Anything religious is a religion. Anything spiritual is
religious.
If those premises are true, then the logical
conclusion is that anything spiritual is a religion. If religion
is defined as "anything spiritual" then yes, according
to that definition anthroposophy is a religion. John Morehead,
do you agree with that definition?
KOPP:
I don't believe, based on the quoting of Steiner and his successors
and interpreters and devotees and defenders and believers --
and critics -- here on this list for the last 3-1/2 years, that
Steiner's exhortations regarding religious practices by teachers
ARE confined to "religion lessons".
No, I don't believe that they are, but I believe
that they can and should be, and that in many cases they are.
ST:
It wouldn't be the first time -- but I
also submit that a large (and growing? majority?) number of Waldorf
teachers share my view on this.
KOPP:
How do you know this, Stephen?
OK -- I could have been more careful in my
wording -- how about "I believe that the majority of Waldorf
teachers I know share my view on this"?
What about the new Web-based "Anthroposophy
Network"'s teachers' Web discussion area (which refused
me entry because I am not a Waldorf teacher.
I don't know that one. URL?
I would submit that it's likely to be just
the opposite, based on the reports of Kathy Sutphen of her Anthrposophical
teacher training, and other reports.
I don't for one moment claim that all share
my view, I put a question mark after "majority", and
I am aware that others have different experiences. I certainly
cannot speak for what happens in the US, never having been there.
KOPP:
Stephen, could you please devote an entire post to your understanding
of the word "indications" and its application to your
teaching?
We'll see -- it'll be necessarily brief --
term starts the day after tomorrow and I'll be up to my eyeballs
in things which detract from participation in this list.
As you know, most critics believe this
is just another one of Steiner's "guru tricks",
Yes, I do know this -- I disagree, however.
MK on teaching religious views in all lessons:
There is no reason to believe otherwise,
as Steiner's "indications" were that it should be there
(in more than "religion" lessons).
I'm still not convinced that this is what he did indicate. I
agree that he indicated that it should be there for the teacher
during preparation and delivery, but not that it should be delivered.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"