• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Magic

exchemist

Veteran Member
Absolutely amazing... and magical
Ha ha.

But you illustrate an important point. People without understanding are liable to attribute phenomena to magic or the supernatural. The more we learn, the less we fall back on these as "explanations" of last resort.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Energy flow sounds like physics -- the opposite of magic.

Why should they be opposites?

The assumption is that "magic" represents supernatural power, I assume? That is one way of defining it. But magic has always been simply science unexplained.

Those who use "magic" as part of their spiritual expression (Wiccans, for example, and some mystics), understand magic as something not supernatural at all. Some do, but often the understanding over time becomes that magic is about influencing emotions and psychology to act. For instance, natural processes are wondrous and lead to amazing results such as life, and we feel awe in that, or wonder in the star studded sky.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't think magic is usually conceived of as science unexplained. I think it's more like change without mechanism.
Science assumes a reasonable, explainable mechanism; in compliance with the laws of chemistry and physics, and seeks to discover it.
Magic ignores the question of mechanism. It's not a research modality. It's just an assertion that things happen, apparently without mechanism.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I'm a firm follower of Clark's three laws,
Let's remember that Clark, who was a brilliant writer, was also a bit of a kook.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The point is, that if any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, that is, you CAN'T TELL THEM APART, then (whisper this) They are the same thing.

Nonsense.

Some aspects of sufficiently advanced technology may be indistinguishable from what we currently consider to be supernatural nonsense. However, even if we can't tell them apart, they are not the same thing:
Technology is technology.
Supernatural nonsense is supernatural nonsense.

People living on a remote island saw planes for the first time and created a religion based on them
A religion that worships aircraft was started by a group of people who saw their first plane fly over Vanuatu, a remote island in the South Pacific of Australia, during the Second World War.

After the planes delivered food and supplies to the islanders, the group began to believe that cargo would be brought to them by a Messiah. Consequently, whenever they saw a plane fly overhead they would build a replica - in the hope of more bounty.

The islanders did not know where the objects were coming from; which led them to believe that the objects derived from magic. The religion was first discovered in 1946 by Australian government patrols, and there are a few but diverse number of cargo religions left.

 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
"Energy Flow" as used by Guitar's Cry sounds like woo.

How so? Don't we experience the Universe as something dynamic and always in flux?

Edited to add: So if "magic" represents that sense of wonder and awe that folks get when they experience something mystical, or that sensation that emotions and actions have effects beyond our ken, then the Universe in all its dynamic glory can be equated to magic.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How so? Don't we experience the Universe as something dynamic and always in flux?

Edited to add: So if "magic" represents that sense of wonder and awe that folks get when they experience something mystical, or that sensation that emotions and actions have effects beyond our ken, then the Universe in all its dynamic glory can be equated to magic.
That's not what magic is. It has nothing to do with feelings. It's a denial of mechanism.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Ok, sure. Tell me, what is the scientific definition of magic? Or at least in the context of Clarke's essay, in his use of the term, what do you think he meant?

One dictionary definition of 'magic' is the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Please note the phrase 'mysterious or supernatural.' Note, especially, the "OR".

I think he meant precisely what he said. The words are simple enough. Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.

"Magic,' being the ability to influence the course of events by using mysterious (we haven't a clue how to do that, but someone did, and he did it using mysterous means...or means we don't know about.) means.

the thing about mysteries is....they are solvable. If not now, then someday. As I mentioned...and you haven't responded to that mention, I notice...there are, perhaps, one or two miracles of the bible (attributed to 'magic') that we can't duplicate; the world wide flood, the stilling of the sun in its course at Jericho (which is really either the stopping of the earth's rotation or a real compression/expansion of time....and we even have a theory or two about how to do THAT). Other than that, I can't think of any that we can't duplicate with technology now. It may take a lot of money, time and effort for some of 'em, but shoot...I have walked on water, and we can even duplicate the virgin birth.

There's even a TV show based on that one.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a theist and a deep believer in the Bible, and in the miracles described there, even if some of them might be more metaphor than miracle. I am just pointing out that looking at some event someone ELSE attributed to 'magic' doesn't automatically mean one can dismiss it as 'it didn't happen either,' or as a hallucination, and thrown out as something not worth examining.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Let's remember that Clark, who was a brilliant writer, was also a bit of a kook.



Nonsense.

Some aspects of sufficiently advanced technology may be indistinguishable from what we currently consider to be supernatural nonsense. However, even if we can't tell them apart, they are not the same thing:
Technology is technology.
Supernatural nonsense is supernatural nonsense.

People living on a remote island saw planes for the first time and created a religion based on them
A religion that worships aircraft was started by a group of people who saw their first plane fly over Vanuatu, a remote island in the South Pacific of Australia, during the Second World War.

After the planes delivered food and supplies to the islanders, the group began to believe that cargo would be brought to them by a Messiah. Consequently, whenever they saw a plane fly overhead they would build a replica - in the hope of more bounty.

The islanders did not know where the objects were coming from; which led them to believe that the objects derived from magic. The religion was first discovered in 1946 by Australian government patrols, and there are a few but diverse number of cargo religions left.



I would call cargo cults a prime example of the truth of Clark's third law, myself, It certainly is from the POV of those believers.

The problem here is that if there were an 'atheist' among the folks of the cargo cult, who utterly dismissed the idea of planes dropping goodies when they flew over the island as 'supernatural nonsense,' he would have been utterly wrong, wouldn't he?

I mean, those planes did exist. They did deliver food and supplies. (shrug)

My point is, taking something that someone else attributes to 'magic,' and dismissing it as impossible BECAUSE it is attributed to magic, is probably a stupid thing to do. It might not have been caused by 'supernatural' means. it just may have been caused by 'mysterious' (meaning, we don't know...) means, that we might eventually figure out.

Or we might find out that some contrary 'law of nature' forbids it.

....but I'll bet you SOMEONE figures out how to make a flying device (broom?) that people can play Quiditch on, using methods and laws of physics that we can understand. Just wait. Not sure about teleportation through chimneys or instant "Parselmouth," but hey...we have i-phone translating devices....
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
One dictionary definition of 'magic' is the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Please note the phrase 'mysterious or supernatural.' Note, especially, the "OR".

I think he meant precisely what he said. The words are simple enough. Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.

"Magic,' being the ability to influence the course of events by using mysterious (we haven't a clue how to do that, but someone did, and he did it using mysterous means...or means we don't know about.) means.

the thing about mysteries is....they are solvable. If not now, then someday. As I mentioned...and you haven't responded to that mention, I notice...there are, perhaps, one or two miracles of the bible (attributed to 'magic') that we can't duplicate; the world wide flood, the stilling of the sun in its course at Jericho (which is really either the stopping of the earth's rotation or a real compression/expansion of time....and we even have a theory or two about how to do THAT). Other than that, I can't think of any that we can't duplicate with technology now. It may take a lot of money, time and effort for some of 'em, but shoot...I have walked on water, and we can even duplicate the virgin birth.

There's even a TV show based on that one.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a theist and a deep believer in the Bible, and in the miracles described there, even if some of them might be more metaphor than miracle. I am just pointing out that looking at some event someone ELSE attributed to 'magic' doesn't automatically mean one can dismiss it as 'it didn't happen either,' or as a hallucination, and thrown out as something not worth examining.

Ok, fair enough, just understand my use was in the sense of the supernatural. Clarke, in this case used it in a different sense.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Ok, fair enough, just understand my use was in the sense of the supernatural. Clarke, in this case used it in a different sense.

Agreed.

My point here is the obvious dismissal made by sceptics, that if the word 'magic' is used in any sense, that is an automatic 'it didn't happen,' or 'it can't happen,' or 'it's nonsense and we don't have to deal with it."

I just think that, whenever we come up against something someone ELSE ascribes to 'magic,' we make very sure that there is absolutely nothing about it that we can't figure out.

Y'know, Clark had two other laws to go along with his third one:

  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
(grin) I'm all for imagination....and pushing it. Those who automatically dismiss, as 'impossible,' everything ever attributed to 'magic' is suffering from a fatal lack of imagination.

I just thought of something that medical science used to put great stock in; leeches. They were used ALL the time, to treat all manner of ailments.

Then things were discovered that put their use out of fashion, not useful for most of the things for which they were prescribed, and in fact, it became an insult to call a doctor a 'leech,' and any outdated, outmoded and old fashioned method of treating anything was called 'using leeches..' it was not considered a compliment.

Now, however, special medical leeches are raised, and used....and people who have hands and limbs reattached or who suffer major bruising from accidents, owe their lives (and limbs) to the use of leeches. Who knew?

The idea here is...don't dismiss stuff just because someone else thinks that stuff is 'supernatural.' It might not be. Or...if it is, we could still learn how to do it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Agreed.

My point here is the obvious dismissal made by sceptics, that if the word 'magic' is used in any sense, that is an automatic 'it didn't happen,' or 'it can't happen,' or 'it's nonsense and we don't have to deal with it."

I just think that, whenever we come up against something someone ELSE ascribes to 'magic,' we make very sure that there is absolutely nothing about it that we can't figure out.

Y'know, Clark had two other laws to go along with his third one:

  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
(grin) I'm all for imagination....and pushing it. Those who automatically dismiss, as 'impossible,' everything ever attributed to 'magic' is suffering from a fatal lack of imagination.

I just thought of something that medical science used to put great stock in; leeches. They were used ALL the time, to treat all manner of ailments.

Then things were discovered that put their use out of fashion, not useful for most of the things for which they were prescribed, and in fact, it became an insult to call a doctor a 'leech,' and any outdated, outmoded and old fashioned method of treating anything was called 'using leeches..' it was not considered a compliment.

Now, however, special medical leeches are raised, and used....and people who have hands and limbs reattached or who suffer major bruising from accidents, owe their lives (and limbs) to the use of leeches. Who knew?

The idea here is...don't dismiss stuff just because someone else thinks that stuff is 'supernatural.' It might not be. Or...if it is, we could still learn how to do it.
The problem with the various myths of the Bible is the massive evidence against them.

For example Noah's Flood would have left undeniable evidence behind, but all of the scientific evidence testifies against it.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Many people who profess to be magic users come to the realization that magic is energy flow.

"Energy Flow" as used by Guitar's Cry sounds like woo.

How so? Don't we experience the Universe as something dynamic and always in flux?

You weren't talking about the universe as being "something dynamic and always in flux". You were referring to "the realization that magic is energy flow".






Edited to add: So if "magic" represents that sense of wonder and awe that folks get when they experience something mystical, or that sensation that emotions and actions have effects beyond our ken, then the Universe in all its dynamic glory can be equated to magic.

I can be in awe of the "universe in all its dynamic glory". I can do this with no need for a sense of anything mystical. In fact, mysticism takes away from the awesomeness of nature.

Consider:
The aurora borealis is the result of atoms rushing around at exceedingly high speeds interacting with the earth's magnetic field. Awesome.

The aurora borealis is the result of GodDidIt. Yawn.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
One dictionary definition of 'magic' is the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Please note the phrase 'mysterious or supernatural.' Note, especially, the "OR".
Aha! We will base our scientific knowledge on the definition used in "one dictionary"

Oh wait. Here are some more...

: the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces
b: magic rites or incantations
2a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source

magic noun (IMAGINARY POWER)
esp. in stories for children) the use of special powers to make things happen that would usually be impossible:

I don't see any "ors" in them. So, maybe dictionaries, while very useful, are not the be-all, end-all for scientific knowledge.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
It may take a lot of money, time and effort for some of 'em, but shoot...I have walked on water, and we can even duplicate the virgin birth.

Complete with a video of the Holy Ghost actually doing the impregnating of the young virgin? Cool!

Please send the URL. Is it on available on PornHub?
 
Top