Is all magic bad?

[Etienne]

Magic Sorry

[Judas130]

Necromancy, magic, witchcraft, conjuration are some unscientific, unempirical notions of things. I do not subscribe to such things as they degrade, disgrace human beings to their fall.

In history or in some books of literalness we have read plenty of stories related to necromancy, for instance, we Dr. Faustus who was a good doctor and could do something to help human beings in a humanitarian way, but taking to a world of magic or conjuration he damaged himself and many others. He destroyed himself to an extent that he created a history of debaucheries or decadence of the human soul.

Man came across so many times such cases and there were temptations, too many temptations and man at times exceeding conquering them and at times got routed.

Therefore, dear friend do not try to repeat the history of necromancy and magic and we must collectively object them.

There are many tales of tortures, falls, degradation of human beings and now we do not want such black spots of history, the history of magic and necromancy in human life. Let us live without these things and create a world, a peaceful and beautiful world for posterity without airs of necromancy and magic.

it doesnt change anything, but i wholeheartedly agree, though we must learn from our past, we can't forget or shun these black spots of our history because if we did, we wouldnt learn.

[SleepyWitch]

The only possible magic is undiscovered science. Naturally if it becomes studied, this magic, its properties fall under the realm of science, as it is an attribute of the universe to be studied, just like everything else. Magic, therefore, is science, assuming it exists, though I have a hard time believing lighting candles does anything but create light/heat/melt wax.

hahahhahahah
yep, being an atheist myself, I'm surprised that Christians even take magic seriously enough to condemn it.

[aabbcc]

there is no opinion in science, there is fact and fallacy.

I disagree with this way of wording it, since it might be misleading. Science does not function as a set of hard and indebatable facts; rather, it consists of theories, replacing one another as we advance, which together form the best model we currently have to explain the world. As such, science is inevitably consisted of "opinions" - the difference between science and other explanatory systems (e.g. religion) being that those "opinions" are put to test by scientific method in the empirical world, open to be debated and possibly disputed if somebody comes up with different theory, and are not 'derived' from any specific source (other than our logic) such as religious dogma.

However... If something is not scientifically explained, it does not exclude logical possibility that it might be if we had better instruments and greater understanding of the empirical world. I personally do not think there is "magic" in Hollywood-ish sense, but I do accept logical possibility that there exist forms of manipulation with/over physical world in ways which are yet to be scientifically treated and explained. That being said, I basically agree with JBI that "magic" is yet undiscovered science.

Regarding Atheist's claim that those phenomena have failed scientific investigation... There were scientific experiments which proved the existence of such phenomena, in which they were demonstrated in controlled environment (at the moment I am overly lazy to search for citations and scientific papers, so you will have to either search for yourself, either take my word for it). It means that they were testified. What scientists failed to do was to explain them in accordance with current scientific theories (even though some hypotheses were formulated), which is why those phenomena still have a veil of 'mystery' over them, which will inevitably disappear once a theory is proposed, and tested, which includes in itself explanation of such phenomena as well.

The initial question of the thread, though, dealt with ethical component of practising those forms of yet-unexplained manipulation over physical world. It is, of course, incredibly hard to speak of it before defining "good" and "bad" first (which I am not even going to attempt), since the question is dependent upon it, and upon where does your moral judgement come from in the first place.
Speaking very generally, I would condemn any kind of such practice which attempts to interfere with another person's will (Hollywood example: love spells ), including any act which attempts to change, be it in physical or psychological sense, other person's reality via such yet-unexplained phenomena (because, given that still science says nothing about upon which variables the result is dependant, even good intentions can possibly go wrong). So hypothetically, I would morally condemn both "good" and "bad" magic when done to/for anyone else other than the subject who performs "magic" him/herself.

And, finally, to end my point... Placebo is scientifically proven phenomenon, perhaps some of the "personal magic" can be the result of that, and not of unexplained ways to affect the physical/psychological world?

[Virgil]

I always enjoy reading Anastasija's posts.

[NikolaiI]

Some would say that love is magic...and it seems that some here might be forgetting that science is not only physical science but there's mental science as well-- psychology, and love is included in psychology.

[Judas130]

And, finally, to end my point... Placebo is scientifically proven phenomenon, perhaps some of the "personal magic" can be the result of that, and not of unexplained ways to affect the physical/psychological world?

aye, i'd say that if a person truly believes something, completely, then it is true at least to them. If i <i>completely</i> believe the sky is pink, then its pink. if i believe i'm going to get better through what i think is a real drug (which is actually a placebo) then i can get better...it does happen. Magic can be like this, if it manifests itself into the doubt of a person's mind, events may trigger around that person's actions that, because of his/her doubt (caused probably if you told him/her that there was a spell cast against them), the idea of ''magic'' did infact act out what it was intended for.

So, if i told you you're cursed, you'll do everything wrong, you ruins things, your life will from this point forward will be nothing but pain and strife. Then, possibly, you'd laugh at me, but the doubt might nestle in, and affect your actions. However, 'Might' or 'possibly' aren't very concrete words, but you know what i mean.

[The Atheist]

As such, science is inevitably consisted of "opinions" - the difference between science and other explanatory systems (e.g. religion) being that those "opinions" are put to test by scientific method in the empirical world, open to be debated and possibly disputed if somebody comes up with different theory, and are not 'derived' from any specific source (other than our logic) such as religious dogma.

I think you're confusing the issue here as theories are not opinions. Theories grow out of what is known. Scientists don't start with a priori reasoning, so opinion doesn't come into it.

I personally do not think there is "magic" in Hollywood-ish sense, but I do accept logical possibility that there exist forms of manipulation with/over physical world in ways which are yet to be scientifically treated and explained. That being said, I basically agree with JBI that "magic" is yet undiscovered science.

And I'm quite sure you're wrong here. Logic does not in any way suggest that non-physical manipulation is possible. There are certainly unknowns, but none of them have anything to do with non-physical phenomena. As far as I'm aware, no non-[hysical phenonemna have ever been noted.

Regarding Atheist's claim that those phenomena have failed scientific investigation... There were scientific experiments which proved the existence of such phenomena, in which they were demonstrated in controlled environment (at the moment I am overly lazy to search for citations and scientific papers, so you will have to either search for yourself, either take my word for it).

I've spent most of the past 35 years debunking this very subject, so I repeat my comment above that none has ever been discovered, You claim to be too lazy to find and ask for trust, well, I don't accept your word for a second, so I would ask that you present evidence to back up your claim. There are lots of scientific experiments which have failed to find examples of non-physical actions, but not one proving such a thing exists.

It means that they were testified. What scientists failed to do was to explain them in accordance with current scientific theories (even though some hypotheses were formulated), which is why those phenomena still have a veil of 'mystery' over them, which will inevitably disappear once a theory is proposed, and tested, which includes in itself explanation of such phenomena as well.

Unfortunately, unless you can point to these proposed phenomena, the above is meaningless. Science doesn't have "veils of mystery". Good or bad, results of scienitific investigation are published.

aye, i'd say that if a person truly believes something, completely, then it is true at least to them. If i <i>completely</i> believe the sky is pink, then its pink.

Unfortunately, that's not quite how the world works and you are simply describing self-delusion.

[JBI]

No, Judas raises a good point. If someone believes something, then we must accept that, at least to them, that thing is real. To the person who believes it, the religious experience is very real, and very effective, whereas to a skeptic, it is bogus, the question though, is a moral one, and not a logical one. It is really, whether or not such beliefs are really harmful to a) society, and b) the individual. As Henry James seems to discover, the world is a game, where each player makes up their own set of rules. If somebody gives a poor person food, because god told them to, or if somebody gives someone food, because Rousseau told them to, the result is essentially the same.

The question over morality has really nothing to do with truth and falsehood. If people don't kill because god says "Thou shall not murder (mistranslated as kill)" or if they don't kill because they don't want to go to prison, the outcome is still the same. What we need to realize is that science is as dogmatic as religion, it is just founded on a different set of rules, and functions for the most part in a more dynamic way than most religions. Science however, does not function as a moral guidebook, unless you force it too, whereas religion generally is designed, for the most part, to preach the correct way to live/approach life.

The question here proposed however, is whether or not it is contradictory to believe in two separate beliefs, that of candle magic (I admit myself not very knowledgeable on the subject) or that of Christianity. Depending which Bible is being used, the definition of magic can change, but for the most part, most Christian sects at least believe in the evil of a witchcraft, or sorcery, which by my knowledge, has never factually surfaced with any credibility since the church's formation.

Candle magic, assuming it is lighting candles for desired outcomes, is actually part of many religions, including various Christian sects, including Catholicism. If you go to many churches/cathedrals/abbeys/etc. you can actually purchase candles, and light them there, by the alter, as a means of bringing about some sort of humility/sacrifice to god.

I know personally in the Jewish tradition, candle burning is an integral part of worship, as it is done at least 2x a week (on Friday and Saturday night) and on most holidays and festivities. In addition, candles of mourning are lit depending on the desire of the mourner at various times each year, some people actually lighting numerous ones per night.

Light is a complex symbol in both Christian and Judaic theology and spiritualism. Milton, the great poet-scholar defines god as 'holy light'. The Bible itself opens up with the creation of light out of darkness and tovu va vohu (I wish not to give a translation, as an exact definition does not even exist in Hebrew).

If the original poster's candle-practices are similar to this, than I perhaps may have given enough convincing evidence to prove that you are not practicing witchcraft, or at least, if your beliefs cannot sustain such infringement, a middle-ground alternative. Either way though, as mentioned above, your morality is subject to the rules you created for yourself, and therefore only you can decide whether such practices must stop, or whether they are infringement at all. The Biblical books themselves are rather unclear on the subject, and you must decide what theology to follow in your interpretation.

[The Atheist]

Just a couple of brief comments:

No, Judas raises a good point. If someone believes something, then we must accept that, at least to them, that thing is real.

Yes, to them, but the whole point is that if someone is seeing things which are demonstrably incorrect - pink sky for example - then the person is either deluded or suffering from some physical problem. ("Physical", including brain chemical imbalances resulting in hallucination/psychotic episodes, etc) On your basis, you would argue that in cases of delusional paranoia, the risk actually exists.

To the person who believes it, the religious experience is very real, and very effective, whereas to a skeptic, it is bogus, the question though, is a moral one, and not a logical one.

Although I dislike the term "skeptic", I have to argue that actual skeptics don't see the religious experience as bogus at all - just a simple effect of how we know the brain works.

[Redzeppelin]

I think you're confusing the issue here as theories are not opinions. Theories grow out of what is known. Scientists don't start with a priori reasoning, so opinion doesn't come into it.

Some brief comments:

1. Theories are opinions - opinions based upon observation and speculation. Some have a more solid basis than others, but theories cannot be said to be synonymous with facts.

2. Your final sentence is one of the biggest fallacies in the scientific community - and by clinging to this fallacy, scientists attempt to portray themselves as more "objective" than other types of "knowing." Nobody begins from a blank slate - scientists will begin with one of two possible positions:

a. Naturalism - only the material world is real
b. Religious - there is a spiritual component as well as a material component to reality - and the spiritual component includes an entity known as "God."

Once an individual has established which of these two foundations seems most sensible/believable to him/herself, s/he then proceeds to create arguments to support either position - which is ultimately unprovable by both sides.

[The Atheist]

Some brief comments:

1. Theories are opinions - opinions based upon observation and speculation. Some have a more solid basis than others, but theories cannot be said to be synonymous with facts.

I haven't claimed that theories are synonymous with facts - I said, quite clearly, that theories are based upon what is known - i.e. facts. The theory of evolution is a great example - it fits the known facts.

Please don't be making things up.

2. Your final sentence is one of the biggest fallacies in the scientific community - and by clinging to this fallacy, scientists attempt to portray themselves as more "objective" than other types of "knowing." Nobody begins from a blank slate - scientists will begin with one of two possible positions:

a. Naturalism - only the material world is real
b. Religious - there is a spiritual component as well as a material component to reality - and the spiritual component includes an entity known as "God."

No, sorry. We've tried to discuss points like this before and I'm quite sure you actually have no idea how science actually works, so I'll state this once only:

Science is about observation - no prior opinion or position is necessary. Science has no need to consider the spiritual component (should such a thing exist) as it is not something which is physically demonstable. Science can only consider that which is.

Once an individual has established which of these two foundations seems most sensible/believable to him/herself, s/he then proceeds to create arguments to support either position - which is ultimately unprovable by both sides.

As far as individuals go, that is usually the case, however I repeat that it has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Science does not ask what is believable, it asks what is.

[Shalot]

everything that i refer to says magic is bad and that all magic is directed to satan... as a candel magic practitioner, i have never cast a candel to hurt people or to make one desire me as it is my personal rule and the rules of this magic for say that one may believe in whatever god they like but candel magic is for one's own benefits.

what do ya'll thik

I don't think candle magic is bad. Candle magic is a ritual performed in many differing spirtual settings/religions. Religions are essentially an organzied group of people who agree to a prescribed set of beliefs. The prescription varies from religion to religion, and subscribers argue and debate about which set of beliefs is "correct." I think all beliefs serve some spiritual purpose for both the people who entertain them and the people who oppose them.

[aabbcc]

I think you're confusing the issue here as theories are not opinions. Theories grow out of what is known. Scientists don't start with a priori reasoning, so opinion doesn't come into it.

Theories grow of what is experimentally proven, not of what is "known". And as such, they form the best explanatory model at the present point. As such, they are merely elaborated forms of "opinions" on why something acts the way it acts, as there are no final facts in science.
Citing my father (PhD Chemistry).

Logic does not in any way suggest that non-physical manipulation is possible.

I have not claimed that logic openly points to that, please do not eisegese my posts. "Logical possibility" differs from "logical necessity", remember formal logical from high school?

There are lots of scientific experiments which have failed to find examples of non-physical actions, but not one proving such a thing exists.

Not one exists, or not one you did or you encountered?

EDIT: If you speak Russian, PM me regarding your request.

[Etienne]

http://www.physorg.com/news11087.html
Maaagic