It's interesting that you say this. I understand that, theoretically, atheism does not have to entail a lack of spirituality. Ostensibly, the word merely means a lack of belief in (or, if you really want to stretch it, a non-acknowledgement of) deity or deities. However, speaking for myself and the majority of other self-identified atheists with whom I've interacted in person, I find that atheism is derived from an empirical worldview which precludes other forms of untestable spirituality as well.
Let's take the example of magick. Yes, in theory, magick doesn't require belief in a deity, but at the same time, I personally find myself unable to dance that particular tango because I come back to the perpetual sticking point of the lack of external (non-anecdotal) evidence that it works. It's the same qualm that prevents me from subscribing to religious beliefs. It's not just a question of there not being "scientific jargon" to describe magick, but of me having no reason to believe it any more than in a God or gods.
You raise points about hermeticism and the various rituals of the Golden Dawn and Thelema as not requiring belief in deity, which is interesting. (Contained somewhere in this quote of yours is the seed of a very interesting debate about the respective values of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but I think that probably belongs more in the Spirituality sub-forum, so I'll leave off on that one.)
In magic, practice and belief are intertwined but belief is used like practice ... it is a tool not a reality ... it is seen as 'belief' and not 'reality - how things actually are'. This may not apply to a Magician that is 'religious' or conforms to a religion ... although such a person can be a magician (of a different type). Its a hard thing to define , e.g. do I believe I will survive death and continue on in some form ? Absolutely ! Do I KNOW I will ? ... I have no idea ... no one 'knows' that !
- Now ask the same question of a devout Christian or Muslim and observe the answers.
It is like fishing ... you have to be connected to the lure via the line to catch the fish ... but you have to disguise the line ... you have to 'trick the fish' ( or one's 'soul' * ) to not seeing the line ... it works even better if the fisherman (magician) can 'trick himself' into believing the line isnt there too - like it easier to tell if a lie is being told when the person telling the lie doesnt even believe it themselves.
A religionist wholeheartedly and without doubt believes in a deity ... a magician uses that process of the psyche, but the belief does not permeate his whole being. According to Crowley this is THE most dangerous magical practice of all ... convincing yourself so much of the reality of a deity, by working the deep unconscious processes for a conscious end, that you actually transfer from being a magician to a religious devotee.
Anyways, yes, you're right that the power of ritual and initiatory traditions does not have to be lessened by a lack of religious belief, although I would add the caveat that for me, this is only true insofar as those rituals and traditions don't rely fundamentally on the belief in supernatural forces or the defiance of the known laws of physics. This is actually a very interesting and relevant point to me, because I do quite a lot of work with the Major Arcana that could be variously described as meditation, active imagination, ritual, or I suppose even a "secularized" form of devotional polytheism. I have worked with the cards to the extent that they've developed autonomous personalities in my mind, and I can interact with them freely, even though I don't literally believe that they exist as entities outside of my own consciousness.
That is a very magical approach. Actually ... you can just drop that belief ... it is immaterial ... in Thelemic magic ( NOT Thelemic 'religion' ! ) - or 'Scientific Illuminism' "entities outside of my own consciousness" is actually immaterial
See
http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib6.html points 1 - 4
And the value of my work with these cards is in no way lessened by that lack of belief. It's very similar to what you describe as working with "anthropomorphised forces of nature", although my work with the Major Arcana would probably better be described as an anthropomorphism of the various elements of the psyche.
I may be talking circles around myself here (it's quite late in France right now, but I really want to get this reply off to you), so I apologize if I'm not getting to the point as expediently as I would be. What I'm driving at is that I agree with you in a very broad sense--atheism does not have to preclude spirituality, and working with spiritual themes in a ritualized context can have immense psychological value that I as an atheist still recognize. However, I personally draw the line when that spirituality starts to cross over into a literal belief in cosmic entities, forces or events that can't actually be shown externally.
Dont worry, you are coming across quiet clear IMO. yes, a BIG danger in misunderstanding is literal belief.
A magical, hermetic or perhaps what you outline, approach is perceived the WORST way via literal belief ... unless that literal belief is part of and identical within the components of the set.
Much of the ideas behind tarot and other 'magical' or 'occult' things we study are totally confused by approaching them with an old/modern mind set ( a modern mind set that has not caught up with 'forefront research' while trying to interpret the old mindset literally ... it just wont work ! ) eg.
there are different levels of knowledge (about 'a' thing ) in all cultures, that operate in similar ways. (The Sufis say to look at a thing 7 ways to understand it )
In many cases, at the deeper levels, the knowledge becomes expressed in a similar form (aboriginal story has deep psychology, base hermetic principles seem reflected in concepts in quantum physics, - and here is a favourite of mine - cultures with no previous contact have the same type of mythological story for some asterisms ).
One has to start operating on that same multi level / view reality oneself to try to understand it.
You need to be introduced into the culture to get the benefit - many of the higher or deeper mysteries require their own language or symbol system ( general eg. alchemical symbolism ) - complex and deeply psychological / mystical experience is often beyond words ... it may take time and familiarity with the communication system of the method and symbols first , before deeper communication can take place.
The indigenous I stay with have several 'creatures' hanging around .... they are like scary boogiemen that are real to many of them. " Their faces and their shapes, are terrible and strange " ... weird forms , like the man that will chase you, ".. he throws one leg over his shoulder and hops after you ... he can hop faster than you can run." .... yet an elder, in private conversation with me, refers to them as spiritual beings and his guardians' and how he has love for them.
For them; this 'here now' , what we call 'reality' is seen as spiritmatter ... not spirit and/or matter (this is a crucial element in understanding too ... to comprehend any of this we have to get out of the dualistic Cartesian mind-set).
Another way of looking at this 'reality' ... to be able to understand this viewpoint (which is really all viewpoints) ... that is, the 7 views of the Sufi { or the 7 / 12 of the astrologer or ... } all meld into one. So really all the levels (including the literal) are THE meaning at the same time ... the only 'one reality' is all of them ... perhaps even 'all possible realities'.
This might help ?
http://www.harpur.or...onicreality.htm
I would add there is a danger in literal interpretation alone ... that is that one might miss the significance;. Aboriginal culture is like Egyptian culture in this regard ... in that just because people of that culture (cultures actually; there were over 600 different Aboriginal languages) in different locations and times said very different things ( creator was a giant snake ... creator was a woman walking out the ocean, etc ) doesnt mean one was right and another wrong ... they are describing different things in different ways; generation, fertility, relationships, laws and NOT ONLY perceived as literal.
One big jigsaw puzzle ... that here would be followed and lived out, moving through the land and country and songs and stories you had access to and where part of your dreaming, your extended family connections, totem and totemic rights ... eventually to build up a big picture.
It is actually the modern mind that sees a distinction in them ... a distinction that they mean one literal thing. And the modern mind is only a few hundred years old and trying to deal with millennia of previous deep programmings - a magician understands that and uses them (well, an 'enlightened' magician does).
* by soul I mean 'that imaginative capacity that demands the consciousness experience certain permeated and 'shuffled' , linear or random, organised or chaotic archetypal themes that 'need' to be brought into a literal reality (or as close to it as possible) and ego-consciousness.
Yes, I was talking about the whatever-there-is-once-you-get-down-to-the-very-core-of-everything, not sure how the science calls this (maybe, you could help me with this one).
