Talk:Anthroposophy

message: Hi, . We are not Kuhnian purists. I don't say that Kuhn isn't important, but he is not begin all and end all. Some epistemic choices have been ready-made for the Wikipedia Community, I mean the website policy WP:PSCI. Or if you want a hardcore introduction to that policy, read WP:LUNATICS.
Stated otherwise, let's say you're studying chemistry. If you learn well the paradigm of chemistry, you become a good chemist-scientist. If you don't, then you become a maverick. Same applies to Wikipedia, but in place of a scientific paradigm we have WP:RULES about which sources are relevant, how to mediate disputes, and so on. One who learns well these rules becomes a good Wikipedian, one who doesn't becomes a maverick and gets blocked and topic-banned. tgeorgescu (talk)  19:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Kuhn himself opposed the attempts to use his work to support nonsense. Using him for such purposes does not fly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience, again 

message: Since I'm taking a break from editing this subject, there is one very big accusation I seek to clear my name of, see User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2023/November#AE discussion closed. tgeorgescu (talk)  19:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mussolini and the label of neognostic heresy 

message: Karen Swartz and Olav Hammer say it is a new religious movement. Martin Gardner called it a cult.
Some have argued that there are court verdicts that Anthroposophy isn't religion (). To such argument I reply:
* the claim that occultism isn't religion is ridiculous on its face (a mockery of justice, a hoax, a farce);
* court verdicts are not WP:RS, and do not trump WP:SCHOLARSHIP; court verdicts are a matter of getting the popcorn;
* I'm not bound by such verdicts. Nor is Gardner, who is now deceased, and could get sued for his 1952/1957 claim for decades. Nor are Swartz and Hammer, whose disregard for such verdicts is obvious. WP:MNA, they were fully aware of such verdicts when they wrote their scholarly article;
* according to WP:NLT, those threatening with court actions should be indeffed on the spot. Yup, even insinuating they are willing to take legal action against me or the WMF means they get banned from Wikipedia;
* in the Netherlands one is allowed to register a penal complaint for libel, but such complaints never get prosecuted. The fact that libel is a felony is "dead letter law";
* I have WP:CITED a plethora of other scholars who state that Anthroposophy is neo-Gnosticism and/or neo-Rosicrucianism, including the view of the Catholic Church that Anthroposophy is heresy (AFAIK the Pope has never retracted it). And that can only be retracted if the Catholic Church loses its theological identity;
* And, yup, I fully agree that the academic field of Western esotericism is not religion, since the religious studies of occultism are not occultism. A researcher of occultism does not even have to endorse occultism or the supernatural. They can very well be materialistic and rationalistic in all their approach to occultism. But Anthroposophy is not religious studies, it is occultism. E.g.:
**
**
**
* I have added more WP:RS which WP:V my claim. If the Antroposophists want to sue, they would have to sue many scholars, from many countries. Two of them could have been sued for decades, eventually they died of old age without getting sued. Shooting the messenger would result in the Streisand effect. Again: the fact that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement is known to scholars for a century, and very recent mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP still agrees with that. This is not information Anthroposophists can delete from the public record through barratry (common law);
* Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a reason for deleting from the article information supported by multiple mainstream WP:RS;
* Also, there is a big difference to be made between Waldorf schools not overtly teaching a religion, and Anthroposophy overtly teaching occultism (which is a religion). While the status of Waldorf schools as religious education has been litigated in the US (not worldwide, mind you), the fact that Anthroposophy is not a religion was part of the 2012 US verdict; but judges are not experts in religious studies, and do not decide matters pertaining solely to WP:SCHOLARSHIP; deciding that is the privilege of the scholarly community, not that of courts of law. E.g. the Camphill movement was found not to be a religious organization for US immigration/visa purposes, but no judgment has been passed upon Anthroposophy itself. Also, the status of being a religious organization is not granted by default in the US, but the organization itself has to actively ask for it (exception: churches);
* Whether Anthroposophy should be considered a religion has been litigated in 2012 in the Eastern District of California. Wikipedia very much privileges the worldwide mainstream academia over issues belonging to national law of some countries/states. Wikipedia serves a global view, not a Californian POV. US courts have no jurisdiction over the free speech of religion scholars all around the world. This is a matter pertaining solely to academic freedom, not to vexatious litigation in some countries/states. Religion scholars have for a century print-published the view that Anthroposophy is a new religious movement, an occultist movement, or an offspring of Christian Gnosticism, or of Christian Rosicrucianism. This is no longer a matter that can be litigated. The conventional wisdom of the mainstream academia can only be changed through peer-reviewed publications, not through litigation. E.g. the existence of quasicrystals was not recognized through court order, but through freely reached scientific consensus. The issue to be litigated would not so much be whether Anthroposophy is a religion according to the US establishment clause, but whether religion scholars should get muzzled. Even a court which wholeheartedly agrees that Anthroposophy isn't religion would knee-jerk reject censoring mainstream scholars who think it is. If it were a court case in the US, Karen Swartz and Robert A. McDermott would be the main culprits, since Martin Gardner and R. McL. Wilson are already dead. If it were a case in the Netherlands, Brill Publishers would be the main culprit, not me, since they have repeatedly published such claim and Gilles Quispel is already dead. Carl Clemen and Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke are dead, so they can't be sued. Every judge would see that the statute of limitations has been largely exceeded. The complaint of Anthroposophists would come so late after the purported damage, that it would be no longer be regarded as a serious complaint. They will have to explain during the trial, "Yes, your honor, the claim we act against was originally published by the University of Chicago Press more than one hundred years ago. And a famous debunker of pseudoscience also made that claim more than seventy years ago. Most of us weren't even born yet, but our feelings were deeply hurt. In total disregard for our emotions, he repeated the claim verbatim five years later." Anthroposophists were lucky because the 2012 verdict wasn't decided according to mainstream religious studies, but they should not push their luck. Since if they litigate it again, and the judge recognizes the religious studies as a legitimate academic field, they're doomed. If the already published peer-reviewed scholarship will decide their fate, they will lose the trial. It's ridiculous to question witnesses in order to find out if they're part of a religion when the mainstream academic view is that they are. Experts in religions have already answered that question.
Conclusion: Don't ventilate court verdicts around here, Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are. If you are here to deny that Anthroposophy is a religion: that ship has sailed. The dispute lies at the level of emic vs. etic. Hint: Wikipedia rubber-stamps the etic view. Anthroposophists don't agree with mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP because they think it is written by Muggles. And, yup, I can grant them this: from the inside it does not look like you are part of a religion, but more like having the secret key to the mysteries of all religions ever. And that secret key lies in Rudolf Steiner's teachings (for beginners) and in Rudolf Steiner's spiritual exercises (for more advanced adepts) + esoteric school (whose teachings are really secret). 
Also, my approach isn't "stick it to them", but render the WP:CHOPSY view about Anthroposophy. I am not so much opposed to Anthroposophy as "pushing" the mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk)  16:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Who says it's a new religious movement or a religion or occultism or a Christian heresy, such as (neo)Gnosticism or (neo)Rosicrucianism? (counting authors + editors of collective books + translators)
# Jung, Carl Gustav
# Robertson, David G.
# Gilmer, Jane
# Quispel, Gilles
# Layton, Bentley
# van Oort, Johannes
# Carlson, Maria
# Livak, Leonid
# McLachlan Wilson, Robert
# Metzger, Bruce M.
# Coogan, Michael D.
# Diener, Astrid
# Hipolito, Jane 
# Gardner, Martin
# McDermott, Robert A.
# Eliade, Mircea
# Seddon, Richard
# Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas
# Swartz, Karen
# Hammer, Olav
# Brandt, Katharina
# Rothstein, Mikael
# Geertz, Armin
# Warburg, Margit
# Toncheva, Svetoslava
# Clemen, Carl
# Frisk, Liselotte
# Cusack, Carole M.
# Norman, Alex
# Zander, Helmut
# Hoheisel, Karl
# Hutter, Manfred
# Klein, Wolfgang Wassilios
# Vollmer, Ulrich
# Ellwood, Robert
# Partin, Harry 
# Winker, Eldon K. 
# Rhodes, Ron
# Lewis, James R.
# Tøllefsen, Inga Bårdsen
# Gilhus, Sælid
# Bogdan, Henrik
# Partridge, Christopher
# Ahlbäck, Tore
# Schnurbein, Stefanie von
# Ulbricht, Justus H.
# Staudenmaier, Peter
# Hansson, Sven Ove
# Ahern, Geoffrey
# Brown, Candy Gunther
# The Catholic Church (all the Popes and Cardinals, beginning with 1919)
Evidence: User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox2. It lists 31 WP:RS which WP:V the answer to this question.
Note: Diener and Hipolito plead that (maybe) it is not heretical, but what it is then? Religiously orthodox (according to them). So, still a religion — "aspiring to the status of religious dogma" confirms this (page 78).
Also, I am not saying that Jung, the Pope, the Cardinals, Winker, and Rhodes are right. Nor am I saying they are wrong. All I am saying is they are entitled to their own theological opinions, and their opinions are relevant to this article. I am not taking sides whether they express "true" religion vs. "false" religion. I respect learned views (scholarly views), without necessarily claiming they speak WP:THETRUTH. Without implying that either Evangelicalism or Catholicism are "true", I can see why they claim that anthroposophy is a heresy: it abides by a very different set of theological beliefs, so of course the Evangelical or Catholic orthodoxy reject those very different beliefs as being heretical. The claim of anthroposophists that they are theologically non-heretical, compared to mainstream Christianity, is risible. Remember: I'm not saying that mainstream Christianity is right, just that they have different beliefs. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of many 

message: E.g. only the Catholic Church is prepared to spend many millions of dollars for defending their legal right to call Anthroposophy a heresy. So, Anthroposophists should be careful if they choose the path of litigation, there are considerably bigger players than them involved in this game. Oh, yes, the Vatican is a sovereign state, so it cannot be juridically coerced to retract it. Legally, the Catholic Church is not a religious organization, but it is a sovereign country. Anthroposophists from California enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but so do Catholic bishops from California. Coercing those bishops to say that Anthroposophy is not a heresy would violate their Constitutional rights. And they are prepared to litigate tooth and nail for their rights. Same applies to Catholic bishops from the Netherlands or from Switzerland. They have no other option than to see it as a vicious attack against the Church. So, the only avenue for appealing it is convincing the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that Anthroposophy isn't heretical. But we all know that it does not even stand the chance of a snowball in hell. It's like in that joke wherein the chicken and the pig want to give someone else ham and eggs: for the chicken it's a gift, for the pig it's a sacrifice. Meaning that for Anthroposophists being declared heretics is bad PR, while for the Catholic Church not being able to call Anthroposophy a heresy is an existential threat.
But, wait, aren't my edits a vicious attack against Anthroposophy? Since Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Anthroposophists cannot demand that Wikipedia hide properly attested scholarly facts from public view. See WP:CENSOR. What Wikipedia certainly isn't: a PR venue for new religious movements. We do not pander to piety. “Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Kimball C. Atwood.
Even clearer: the problem of Anthroposophy at Wikipedia isn't me, but mainstream science, mainstream medicine, and mainstream academia. Wikipedia kowtows to these, and they all give the lie to Anthroposophy.
Schnurbein and Ulbricht published their claim more than 20 years ago, so that's also very much past the statute of limitations inside German law. If the Anthroposophical Society did not win by now the trial against Schnurbein and Ulbricht, it no longer has a case against declaring Anthroposophy a religion, in the German-speaking countries. And the journal of the International Bureau of Education stated that Anthroposophy is a religion twice before I was even born. tgeorgescu (talk)  13:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litigation 

message: Court documents are not WP:RS. If no WP:RS rendered the conclusion that verdict, the verdict itself is unusable for Wikipedia.
There are more than 30 WP:RS which support the point that Anthroposophy is a religion, or a new religious movement, or a Christian heresy. No WP:RS has been WP:CITED for the opposite POV.
Before you ask: yes, I have WP:CITED court verdicts before. But never for claims which cannot be WP:V to WP:SECONDARY sources.
Let me say this: I don't contest the result of the verdict, it is just that no WP:RS has reported the verdict remaining definitive (final). An information which made it to no WP:RS is not Wikipedia-worthy, even if it is formally true.
This source only reports the verdict as being a provisional result, and does not exactly agree that Anthroposophy isn't religion. tgeorgescu (talk)  07:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Evidence of WP:MEAT: Google "VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group.  was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about. Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the. EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you".
Also Google "this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp".
Date: 19 October 2023.
Hard to miss: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22shitting+all+over+Anthroposophy%22
Full quote. tgeorgescu (talk)  14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: See Talk:Rudolf Steiner#Drop the claim. tgeorgescu (talk)  01:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of information 

message: I have updated references. I have properly WP:CITED many already existing references, but often I do not know their page numbers, so I cannot provide those. And I certainly did not check them if they pass WP:V. tgeorgescu (talk)  08:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating references 

message: In respect to the claims about Steiner's Docetism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism: I don't believe in the univocality of the Bible, why I would believe in the univocality of mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP? tgeorgescu (talk)  16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Univocality 

message: I don't pretend that "spiritualist movement" is either true or false. It is simply how Anthroposophy got called by mainstream scholars.
The bar of  is a pretty low bar. And if "spiritualist movement" has to go, then "spiritual science" has to go, too, because that's a claim pertaining to :nl:Wij van Wc-eend adviseren Wc-eend. Meaning: WP:IS do not buy into the claim that Anthroposophy is a spiritual science. tgeorgescu (talk)  01:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritualist movement