So do you believe in magic or sorcery?

[Anders]

I was just wondering for those who believe in the Bible, do you believe in magic or sorcery? That witches and wizards truly walk the earth?

And do you have an evidence or anecdotes to back this belief up?

Or is it because the Bible mentions it so it must be true?

I would say that one has to accept the whole package. Either you believe in no supernatural “things” whatsoever, i.e. you’re a skeptical atheist, or you accept that everything is true and exists: god, gods, dragons, daemons, goblins, magic, satan, the tooth ferry, xemu, homeopathy, reflexology, atlantis, lemmuria, mu, big foot, the greys, nirvana, etc, etc.

There is no way, IMHO, that you just can take the raisins out of the cake.

 

[Irish Murdoch]

I would say that "magick," or actual sorcery, is quite real and valid in its own right. It is a religious philosophy, and does not claim to offer scientifically objective explanations of observed phenomena.

Your post is probably the most sensible thing I've ever read on this topic. But your way of looking at things does put you in the minority of people into magick doesn't it? (That's a genuine question--I would assume that it does, but I don't know.)

I used to know a chap, back in my teens, who was heavily into magick. He, and other people he knew and whom I met, claimed that they performed evocation rituals and all that sort of stuff. I doubt they were all lying when they described their experiences of entities they had conjured up, etc (and that, if you were to believe them, they could "see"). I do, of course, (more than) doubt that those experiences corresponded to anything "out there". So the interesting question about these people--assuming, again, that they weren't simply lying about their experience, or even, come to think of it, if they were lying--is what was going on with them? I mean, psychologically speaking? Do you yourself have any such experiences, despite your thinking that Gods and Goddesses represent poetic ideas and so on, without being objectively real?

 

[Bubbles]

Re: Re: So do you believe in magic or sorcery?

I would say that one has to accept the whole package. Either you believe in no supernatural “things” whatsoever, i.e. you’re a skeptical atheist, or you accept that everything is true and exists: god, gods, dragons, daemons, goblins, magic, satan, the tooth ferry, xemu, homeopathy, reflexology, atlantis, lemmuria, mu, big foot, the greys, nirvana, etc, etc.

There is no way, IMHO, that you just can take the raisins out of the cake.

I don't follow your logic. Now, if you said that if one asserts the existance of any purely spiritual being, one must allow the possibility of the existence of other, I would have no problem with your statement.

To put the matter another way, if we begin by assuming that God exists, does it follow of nessecity that the tooth fairy exists? I think the assertion is silly. If you have logic that shows me otherwise, I would love to hear it.

 

[True-Gossiper]

I'm an christian, tho would easily (and proudly) be labeled as 'atheist' by other common christians because of my skeptical attitude. I believe there are some real sorcerers in the Bible era, but of course there are also ones that are fake. I havent got any evidences, but probably in the future I will. Btw I myself also perform magic, mentalism and psi-games. It's so easy to fool christians that what I'm doing is a mind manipulation. ^^

 

[Anders]

Re: Re: Re: So do you believe in magic or sorcery?

I don't follow your logic. Now, if you said that if one asserts the existance of any purely spiritual being, one must allow the possibility of the existence of other, I would have no problem with your statement.

To put the matter another way, if we begin by assuming that God exists, does it follow of nessecity that the tooth fairy exists? I think the assertion is silly. If you have logic that shows me otherwise, I would love to hear it.

Yes, if you do believe in a supernatural being as the Christian god, you better believe in al supernatural beings! As it has been pointed out several times in this forum, believing in the tooth ferry is as logical as believing in Christian god. No one has ever seen god or the tooth ferry. Much text has been produced to describe both the tooth ferry and god. They both can do supernatural deeds, as transforming a tooth to a coin, or feeding 5000 people with a fish.

So basically they, god and toothy, are the same, supernatural, described in text, have magical powers. It’s just pure logic to say they are the same.

But of course they don’t exist, not any of them, not god and not toothy.

 

[Bubbles]

Simply bad logic: Either every unverifiable entity must exist or none of them. How can I use logic to argue with 'rational' people being irrational!

As regards the question of whether belief in God is any more or less rational than belief in the tooth fairy, I would argue that the belief in God is a rational explanaition for a particular set of observations (such as that things that do not of nessecity exist existing). Is it the only logically consistent explanation? Probably not. Is it the most likely? I don't even know how anyone would calculate such a thing.

The tooth fairy (other than the possibility of it existing) is not a philosophical problem. It is simply an explanation of an evident material fact. I don't think it a particularly convincing explanation; I think there are others that fit the facts better.

It has been pointed out a number of times on this forum? Well then, it must be true!

 

[Anders]

...I would argue that the belief in God is a rational explanaition for a particular set of observations (such as that things that do not of nessecity exist existing). Is it the only logically consistent explanation? Probably not. Is it the most likely? I don't even know how anyone would calculate such a thing....

In that case, which observations? Let us see them, pleeeeease! “things that do not of nessecity exist existing“. Oh, please, come up with something new! It simply not in any way implicates a god. Saying that is god that’s responsible is the same as saying that it is my pink invisible dwarf elephant that lives under my bed, that’s responsible for the existing of not out of necessity existing things.

The tooth fairy (other than the possibility of it existing) is not a philosophical problem. It is simply an explanation of an evident material fact. I don't think it a particularly convincing explanation; I think there are others that fit the facts better.

Of course thooty is a philosophical problem for you theists. If you can’t prove she exists you can’t prove god exists.

It has been pointed out a number of times on this forum? Well then, it must be true!

I give you that! True! I take that back!

 

[Bubbles]

If I looked back far enough, would I find a refutation of the argument that contingent being requires nessecary being? I mean, I find interesting discusions of it and I find a lot of people (like you) who mock the argument as if it had been disproved. Nowhere, on the other hand, do I find the argument that so proves your position. I was not aware that novelty in any way made an argument more likely to be true. Perhaps I am not rational enough.

I do not claim to have proven the existence of God. I have weighed the philosophical evidence and my own experience and have made a descision on a matter of inadequate evidence (the same thing that I would do if I were on a jury in a trial). I do not claim to have disproven the existence of the tooth fairy. I have weighed what evidence I have and have made a descision. As the evidence for the two is not identical (neither the objective nor the subjective), it is in no way illogical for my beliefs on the existence of the two possible beings to be different.

 

[evilgoldtoesock]

Many magickians will insist that their experiences are very very real... If you experience an intense ritual, it likely you will find it rather real as well.

That said, if you are convinced that magickal phenomena is real in the exact same way that walking down the street is real, then you probably need some strong medication. The practice isn't exactly beneficial if you start confusing the different states.

I suppose I am more of rationalist than many who are into this stuff, still...

Your friends were probably not lying. The techniques of magick, as I've heard and experienced to some degree, make visualization of ideas very effective. You can really learn to "see" entities. If a certain number of people are visualizing a similar thing, then they will likely all "see" it. (Please note though, that as each person is different, the entity they see will be slightly different.)

You can see how this has an appeal to artists.

The comic book writer Alan Moore has very sensible views on Magick. He doesn't deny that it can get quite kooky, but he also explains its validity in relation to his work and his life in several interviews. I believe you can find some online, if you search.

I have had out of body and "astral" experiences. To me, these demonstrate the creative potential of the human brain. It's amazing what your mind can generate, and how many different states of sensation chemical conditions and electric signals can create. The sensation of the "astral body," is ultimately (in my opinion) generated by physical phenomena. It is, for practical purposes, in your head. This makes it no less interesting, as far as I am concerned. But yes, my views are unusual in this regard.

It's hard to contemplate how and why all this stuff evolved, but it did...I have to admit we're a strange species.

 

[Anders]

I do not claim to have proven the existence of God. I have weighed the philosophical evidence and my own experience and have made a descision on a matter of inadequate evidence (the same thing that I would do if I were on a jury in a trial). I do not claim to have disproven the existence of the tooth fairy. I have weighed what evidence I have and have made a descision. As the evidence for the two is not identical (neither the objective nor the subjective), it is in no way illogical for my beliefs on the existence of the two possible beings to be different.

In what way are the evidence for thooty and goddy not identical? There are writings about both, the both have magical powers, and it seems to be very hard to get an appointment with any of them. I would say, can you prove the existence of toothy, you will have no problem prove the existence of Goddy!

 

[Bubbles]

I won't hijack the thread any more than I already have (mercifully it was unsuccessful).

If I may offer an analogy:

Situation 1) Ray Lewis (linebacker for the Baltamore Ravens)says, "If I don't skip breakfast before the game, it will help us win."

Situation 2) Ray Lewis says, "If I wear my Miami Hurricanes T-Shirt under my shoulder pads, it will help us win the game."

Situation 3) A Ravens fan who will be watching the game at home says, "If I wear my Ray Lewis replica jersey, it will help the Ravens win the game.

Each statement asserts a causal relationship. I would assert that the first is objective (presumably eating breakfast would help him keep his energy level up, which would help him play better, which would help his team the game).

The second is subjective, in that while there is probably no direct relationship between the shirt and a victory, wearing the shirt (because he believes in it and it is part of a ruitine) will help him relax and focus, and hence play better, and then help his team win.

The third, I would think, is wholly imaginary. Assuming a basically scientific view, we would think the cause could have no ability to contribute to achieving the desired affect.

The question, then, is which of the three fits the practice of magic. I'm inclined to believe in a mixture of 2 and 3. I believe that much of magic was the finding of causal relationships where none existed.

 

[Irish Murdoch]

Many magickians will insist that their experiences are very very real... If you experience an intense ritual, it likely you will find it rather real as well.

Interesting stuff! You have a commendably level-headed approach.

 

[KAW143]

I must agree with Bubbles, here. Anders is being just the tiniest bit preposterous, here. (Actually, he is being very preposterous, but I don't wish to be impolite).

Asserting a belief in god is not the same as asserting a belief in the tooth fairy. Though it is true that writings exist regarding both characters, I think it can be easily shown that none of the writings about the tooth fairy are held to be true. The tooth fairy is a construct (and a fairly modern one, at that), designed for children. God, however, is a rather ancient idea whose writings are said to hold the power of truth. One (the tooth fairy) has never been claimed to be real; the other (god) has always been claimed as real. Therefore, it is decidedly less logical to "believe" in the tooth fairy, since most accept that the tooth fairy is, in fact, not real. The same, however, cannot be said for god; most feel that he *is* real. Whereas a sceptic might point out that both have similar powers, or some such; but that does not show that such a similarity equates the two. Janet and Michael Jackson have similar attribites and abilites, as well; yet, by this logic, they are the same person -- a theory I am certain that both would have a problem with. . . .

Likewise, it is possible to believe in that Bible as a whole and yet reject certain parts as incorrect. Questionable translations, and the origins of certain scriptures allow some to accept that parts of the Bible might be incorrect. This is not the same as saying that it is all incorrect, any more than a single flaw in the weave of a sweater renders the sweater useless. Certain Christians do not make a distinction between this part or that part, because they believe that god has somehow protected the document from forgery and hijack throughout the ages. (Though I would think that a quick study of the various bibles available throughout the mellenia would allay that one FAST: there are all kinds of "official" bibles with amusing type-os and glaring mistranslations. . . It is not a far logical leap to presume that one or two errors made it into the KJV or even the NIV, for example. But that's just my opinion. . . .)

Hijack back at 'cha, Bubbles.

 

[sackett]

Thank you, Bubbles, for your sane and thoughtful posts.

You alone know the quality of your inner experiences, but, with great submission, I doubt that you have really "chosen" to believe in God. I doubt that anyone can genuinely believe whatever he wants to believe.

The tooth fairly is probably not a good example to use when comparing supernatural beings; only little children believe in it, and their belief doesn't survive rational explanation.

You've weighed the philosophical evidence and your own experience, and you've chosen to believe in God. Well and good; I have no doubt you could weigh the evidence and choose to reject John Frum. But have you weighed the evidence about Odin? Thor? Ra? Satan? There have been many, many deities, demons, and invisible beings in history - and prehistory, to judge from the mighty leavings around the world: Avebury, the pyramids of Shaanxi, Tenochtitlan, the ritual terraces of Polynesia, and so on. People were once stirred to believe in supernatural beings completely unrelated to our latter-day God; in India, as we speak close to a billion people believe in Kali and Krishna; they bow respectfully to elephant- and monkey-headed gods; and I fear that they too could weigh the "philosophical evidence" and continue to believe. (One helluva lot of them also believe in magic; and no wonder, because what is religion, after all, but magical thinking?)

A weak or poorly provided mind can fall into almost any sort of belief; superstition opens the door to madness. You, being neither weak nor ignorant, keep yourself safe by applying good old sweet reasonableness - but not strict logic, I would submit.

 

[Gestahl]

As portrayed in the old testiment probably. Wern't the magicians of egypt also able to do the rivers of blood thing?

IIRC, the priests were able to do it with water in a bowl, but not the entire river.

Of also particular note is the phrase used repeatedly "and the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart." Seems to me God never gave the poor guy a chance to surrender...

 

[Anders]

Dear Kaw143,

Thank you for being so polite. I also want to thank you for submitting so easy targets for me. And now I'm going to drive a truck through the logical holes you’ve provided.

I must agree with Bubbles, here. Anders is being just the tiniest bit preposterous, here. (Actually, he is being very preposterous, but I don't wish to be impolite).

Asserting a belief in god is not the same as asserting a belief in the tooth fairy. Though it is true that writings exist regarding both characters, I think it can be easily shown that none of the writings about the tooth fairy are held to be true. The tooth fairy is a construct (and a fairly modern one, at that), designed for children. God, however, is a rather ancient idea whose writings are said to hold the power of truth. One (the tooth fairy) has never been claimed to be real; the other (god) has always been claimed as real.

Claiming something doesn’t make it real, even if it has been claimed by millions and millions of people. Should that be true, it would be more “logical” to believe in a god that has an elephant trunk.
Also, an ancient construct is not necessarily no truer than a recent construct. An example to prove my point: Many years ago, people believed earth was flat=wrong; nowadays people know earth is spherical=correct. Or, millennia ago people believed in a god who had his uncle as father. (its Horus for those of you who don’t follow logic, and the father is Osiris, and mother Isis)

Therefore, it is decidedly less logical to "believe" in the tooth fairy, since most accept that the tooth fairy is, in fact, not real. The same, however, cannot be said for god; most feel that he *is* real.

Feeling what is correct does not necessarily mean it is correct: I sometimes feel I’m correct during arguments, but I’m sometimes proven wrong (“I feel I don’t have to do the dishes tonight". "Oh yes you do!”)

Whereas a sceptic might point out that both have similar powers, or some such; but that does not show that such a similarity equates the two. Janet and Michael Jackson have similar attribites and abilites, as well; yet, by this logic, they are the same person -- a theory I am certain that both would have a problem with. . . .

Toothy is an example in the same line as our famous invisible pink unicorn. My argument is based on the fact that the neither Toothy nor goddy exists. Giving them different attributes and powers in descriptions doesn’t change that fact.
Janet and Michael Jackson exist, that’s a fact, and they has nothing to do with this discussion.

Likewise, it is possible to believe in that Bible as a whole and yet reject certain parts as incorrect. Questionable translations, and the origins of certain scriptures allow some to accept that parts of the Bible might be incorrect. This is not the same as saying that it is all incorrect, any more than a single flaw in the weave of a sweater renders the sweater useless. Certain Christians do not make a distinction between this part or that part, because they believe that god has somehow protected the document from forgery and hijack throughout the ages. (Though I would think that a quick study of the various bibles available throughout the mellenia would allay that one FAST: there are all kinds of "official" bibles with amusing type-os and glaring mistranslations. . . It is not a far logical leap to presume that one or two errors made it into the KJV or even the NIV, for example. But that's just my opinion. . . .)

The bible is a novel with certain historical passages, nothing more nothing less. And to be frank, the prose in the bible is terrible. There are tons of novels out there that are partly fictional and partly historical, nothing strange, and people don’t go around claiming these novels describe a supernatural being as goddy!

 

[Dancing David]

That said, if you are convinced that magickal phenomena is real in the exact same way that walking down the street is real, then you probably need some strong medication. The practice isn't exactly beneficial if you start confusing the different states.

This is the total truth, magical practises cause a change in consiousness that causes a change in 'reality'. It is important to 'ward' the spiritual from the mundane and to not mistake the two for each other. I believe that invokation can cause real changes in people lives but it also can only work with the material at hand. One can not turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, maybe a smallish football.

I have seen many a strange thing, I have even seen people succsefully curse each other. But at the basis there is always a rational explanation that is totaly material.

Somewhere in Crowley's writing there is a great story that puts it to light as well, a sadhu practises meditation by the river for years and years and after decades of practise they learn to walk on water. The sadhu then goes to thier guru and says "Oh master i have learned to walk across the river.", thier guru replies "That is great but people have been using the ferry for years."

 

[Dancing David]

IIRC, the priests were able to do it with water in a bowl, but not the entire river.

Of also particular note is the phrase used repeatedly "and the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart." Seems to me God never gave the poor guy a chance to surrender...

I always thought that Moshesh was an egyptian that just stole the best tricks, and the rest is "history written by the victors'.

 

[evilgoldtoesock]

Agreed, Dancing David. There's quite a lot of strange stuff out there, all of which I believe seems even stranger when you realize that it does have a material basis.

Crowley, if I recall correctly, was not fond of spiritualists, psychics, and mediums. He believed they used their "magick" powers (in this case the power to manipulate belief) for immoral purposes.

I am an agnostic, believing that the term "God," is just that, a term. The universe may indeed be self-aware, but I can find no evidence that confirms the existence of a creator.

As an idea, "God" is very powerful, however.

One of my favorite pieces of writing is by Douglas Adams and found in his last book, The Salmon of Doubt. He writes about a phenomena called "The Artificial God," which I find both amusing and true.

 

[Zombified]

Crowley, if I recall correctly, was not fond of spiritualists, psychics, and mediums. He believed they used their "magick" powers (in this case the power to manipulate belief) for immoral purposes.

If I recall Crowley's story correctly, that is really the pot calling the kettle black...