Degrance: Oh come on, could you possibly have been more cryptic in that “I’ve seen magic!” post? Put up or shut up.
Gary: I for one am not trying to disprove, as a general matter, that magic exists in this thread. I just want to see if somebody who claims it exists can actually do it. Wanna give that a shot, Degrance?
How does magic work?
What did you do with it?
What did you see when it was performed?
What things have you seen magic change?
The valuation of sculpture or poetry is subjective, but they both produce an objective result. I can see and touch a sculpture, I can read poetry or hear it read. Whether the sculpture appeals to me or I enjoy the poem are subjective evaluations that I make - but the evaluation does not change the fact of the existence of said sculpture or poem.
Are you saying that magic is your subjective valuation of an objective event? If so, then what makes your valuation so special as to warrant giving it its own name? What objective events have you observed through your subjectivity and thereby embued with magic?
Anyone can make claims. Without even anecdotal evidence, however, claims are only so much bluster. Repeating a claim only adds to the bluster, it does not lend credence to the claim.
Degrance, if you had been clear, I wouldn’t be sking.
If you did magic successfully, tell us the details. Where did the act take place, what equipment (if any) did you use, what was the purpose of the act, and what was the result?
I’m almost ready to conclude that this conversation is as silly as putting a consecrated host in a gas chromatograph–except for Freyr’s statement which includes as part of the definition of magic “the uses…of …psychic talents to change…exterior realities”. I think that’s what us skeptics are interested in here.
Gary Kumquat: Surely in the absence of evidence, the burden of proof lies on those making the assertion that an entity or phenomenon exists; therefore I think the thread title “Does Magic Exist?” is legitimate. If those defending the affirmative go on to define magic as “the feeling they get when they look at a sunset” or “the inner peace that comes from meditation”, we will no doubt quickly accept the reality of those experiences (unless someone insists on veering off into solipsism), although I might venture some mild disagreement about their word choices. But, if they define magic as something which includes “changing exterior realities”, then I think it’s legitimate to ask for evidence, and to refuse to accept the claim until such evidence is presented.
I think the resistance we’re seeing to Czarcasm’s and MEBuckner’s definitions of magic can be explained by the supposition that acceptance of those definitions would threaten the fundamental articles of faith of the typical pagan/Wiccan/magick-user. These people, it seems to me, hold to an expanded and flexible definition of magic that is integral to the mysteries of their religion. If a Wiccan cannot claim a magical explanation for the benefits he derives through ritual and spells, if he must admit that mundane psychological phenomena are responsible for his sense of inner well-being, or that established laws of physics, pharmacology and chemistry determine the outcome of his spells and potions, he must then relinquish the very thing which attracted him to a pagan religion in the first place.
IMHO, belief in “magick” and magical experiences is for those who desire wonder and mystery in their life, but do not have the patience for the dogmatic rigidity of theology, or who cannot bear the intellectual rigors of philosophy and scientific inquiry. Therefore, those who believe in magic will not be held to any objective definitions and demonstrations.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *
[B[li] Attempt to justify their magical ability as a subjective thing*[/li][/QUOTE]
Now just a darn tootin’.
You come to me and define my religion for me.
You tell me that you have decided that I think I can do impossible things.
You demand that I do impossible things.
When I decline to do impossible things you tell me that me and my religion are a crock.
When I point out the HUGE error you made and try to set the record straight you tell me that I am “justifying my magical ability.”
What’s wrong with this picture.
Look bucko you screwed up. Don’t lay your errors at my door.
You made up your own definition of my religious practices. Now you are telling me that if I don’t live up to your mis-definition of my religion then the whole thing is nothing but a load of BS.
I will say it again. Pagan magic is subjective.
I’m sorry if this causes you cognitive dissonance. I didn’t make it that way. No amount of shouting and saying that you “just can’t accept that” will make it any other way.
Oops!
Terribly sorry about the double post. That should teach me to make posts during the midday rush hour.
Degrance:
Settle your feathers. This whole thing started in another thread in which there were claims made to the effect that magic can cause objective effects. (I would provide a link, but the response time is so bad right now that it would take forever to find the right reference. Check the first page of this thread, though. If I remember, there are some links there.) All anyone here is trying to do is get someone to back up those claims. If your definition of magic does not include objective results, then I apologize for trying goad you into providing some kind of objective effect.
Thinking back, I haven’t seen a post for quite some time from any of the folks on the magic side of the earlier threads. Perhaps we are beating a dead horse here and splitting hairs with people who have no connection to the original question.
Degrance: I’m sorry if this causes you cognitive dissonance. I didn’t make it that way. No amount of shouting and saying that you “just can’t
accept that” will make it any other way.
By the way, your arguments seem to be of the “shouting and saying that you just can’t accept that” sort. Make a coherent argument, or protest that the premise is improper, but try to avoid hollering “I’m right! Because, because!!”
So you’re saying magic can’t do anything that alters the physical world, Degrance? Fine, then I have no quibble with you or anyone else who says magic is inner peace or pretty landscapes or whatever.
Nevertheless, at least a couple of self-described pagans have been claiming the ability to magically alter the material world, then weaseling out of all attempts to get them to demonstrate these alleged abilities. It’s unfortunate that these folks are lumped into the same general category as you and some of the other pagans who hold no truck with such claims. But, as Freyr says, paganism is apparently a pretty big tent.
And I can I can see and touch the components of a spell, I can read a spell or hear it read.
I would say that you are getting pretty close. What makes the whole experience so special that it requires its own name is that it is central to the way Pagans define and interact with the world. Magic is a sort of philosophical filter through which to view reality.
The flowers are going to bloom every year but we still celebrate Beltaine to become part of that process. We don’t become flowers in the sense that we physically transform into plants. We become spring! in a deeply satisfying and deeply spiritual sense. We don’t have to change the laws of physics to do this all we have to change our perceptions for a little while.
So I guess there you go. I have become spring. There disprove that.
So how can my claim lack credence. I have had a very profound religious experience by becoming spring. You can’t believe or disbelieve that. You can only allow that my experiences are valid for me.
You don’t want to become spring? You don’t see any practical use for becoming spring? You don’t see any validity in trying to become spring? Fine don’t do it. Central to the Pagan belief is that there is no one true way. So you go your way and I’ll go mine.
But stop calling my life a crock.
Degrance:
But stop calling my life a crock.
I didn’t call your life a crock. It is just that you are a little lost as to the subject of this thread. As I said before, this thread was started in response to claims made by other people. I was reacting to your post in light of the things that had gone before, and expected you to be a member that group of magicians who made those claims. Since you don’t belong to that group, then it is obviously improper to ask the things of you that were being asked of them.
Viewed in the light of the discussions we have been having here, your post that included the sentence **Magic works. I have done it. I have seen it done. It works. **looked like an out and out claim to be able to perform some objectively verifiable magic. Sorry about the miscommunication, and may I suggest reading the whole thread and associated links first before you jump into the next thread?
I have read both of the other threads that are being referenced here.
I keep reading in all of the threads that ALL Pagans are kooks or lying or “weasels”, etc. simply because we are taking exception to being lumped in with a couple of idiots who said they could throw fireballs. The “rationalists” have set up the following line of evidence. Re read the posts and you will see it clearly.
Pagans think they can violate the laws of physics when they say they work magic.
Anyone who says they can work magic is lying or nuts.
Anyone who says they are Pagan is lying or nuts, (See #2)
Anyone who tries to prove they are not lying or nuts by arguing with the original premise is a “weasel” or worse.
I have simply been trying to show that:
Magic is real.
Magic does work.
Magic does not violate the laws of physics.
Magic is important to those who practice it.
There can be legitimate reasons for doing something that have nothing to do with quantification of data.
None of these points is getting a fair hearing here because the “rationalists” are so tied up in their attacks that they don’t take the time to consider that there are other legitimate world views.
BTW: I keep putting rationalist in quotes because I really am one and I will not cheapen the term by applying it to behavior like I have seen here.
But that was my whole point in the post. Real magic isn’t verifiable.
I swear some people would take one look at Michalangelo’s David and go for a pick axe so they could take a mineral sample and analyze it to see what the big deal is. There is more to life than numbers folks and magic is one of those things.
The entire flame war started because one person said they could throw fireballs. From that beginning certain individuals have created a holy war against Paganism.
Well guess what? If you start with a faulty premise you get bad results. Ever hear that anywhere?
Don’t blame me or my religion when your own faulty practices give you lousy results.
You are free to say that anyone who claims to be able to levitate needs to be tested. You are not free to say that because no one has come forward then you can conclude that Paganism is a sham. It was you who claimed that Paganism held that an individual could change the laws of physics. Well in fact Pagans in general hold no such belief. It is very bad science indeed to claim that you proved that Paganism is worthless because you would like us to be able to levitate and we can’t.
(The word “you” throughout the above paragraph is intended to be plural and general not a pronoun refering to Mort Furd.)
To start with, I’d just like to state that I have already provided one example of “magic” that has been compactly ignored by most of the folks in this thread.
I am of the opinion that if there is such a thing as magic, then it functions in a random and indeterminant manner such as to make it difficult, if not impossible, to pin it down using scientific methods. In addition, the sort of “magic” I was thinking of had very little to do with Czarcasm’s rather crude concept of “magic” as people flying around on broomsticks or dowsing or what not. Nevertheless, you asked for an example of how magic works and I gave ya one – one which has been promptly ignored since amid strident demands for examples of magic. Go figure.
This is the homepage for PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research), a program at Princeton that studies the relationship between human conciousness and “physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice.” According to the site:
They also convienently provide a downloadable PDF file that summerizes their findings.
In addition to claiming scientific evidence for what would normally be considered paranormal phenomena, PEAR makes the delightful observation that:
…just in case you sceptics out there wonder why your lives seem to be lacking in that special “magic” these days.
This isn’t exactly what I would call magic myself, but if it’s what yer lookin’ for, then here you go.
Degrance, nobody here is knocking your religion.
I posted in those threads and saw no such remarks. Cite, please?
“Magic” is commonly understood to mean performing supernatural feats.You can’t get angry if you have a definition of magic peculiar to your co-religionists that nobody else uses. You seem to use it as a form of religious expression; fine, nobody here is slamming Wicca as a religion. If being one with nature is all you mean by “magic,” you get no argument from me.
However, if you say you can work miracles, then I’m going to ask for evidence. That was the bone of contention in the other threads. You have denied that your religion has anything to do with miracles or changing the material world, so there is no problem.
Svinlesha:
Er, yes. It’s been ignored, and why not? It’s anecdotal and nonreplicable, and therefore does not serve to expand a body of supporting evidence.
Degrance, you are free to define “magic” any way you choose. But there’s no need to get pissed off. If the shoe doesn’t fit, stop wearing it. If the definitions of magic that are using do not apply to you, there’s no need to be upset, now is there?
The fact remains that anyone who claims to directly alter reality by magical means should be able to demonstrate this.
I don’t know about random and indeterminate, but I do agree that it is not repeatable, except perhaps by the consciousness that did it to start with. I have never witnessed Pagan magic (or magick… forgive errant spelling, please), but I have witnessed Satanic magic.
Specifically, this is what I witnessed on one particular occasion, I would say about twenty-five years ago or so. I was a practicing Satanist myself at the time, and I was alone with another fellow, famous for his weirdness and evil, spending the night at a friend’s house. Everyone else was in other rooms asleep already, and we were on the floor in a sort of den/library.
“Larry” lit a cigarette and instructed me to read a passage from the Bible, specifically Psalm 83, which we often did as a prelude to desecration. As I read, he crawled over in front of me, pulled out his penis, and pissed on the book. I could no longer read the soaked page, and “Larry” began to masturbate as he finished the passage by heart. He held a lit cigarette in his free hand, and said, “Watch this.” I watched as it burned from nearly the tip all the way to the filter in about, oh, three to five seconds or so.
“There’s a dog out there that loves you,” he said. At precisely that instant, there came a low howl, something like a bitch in heat, just outside the window/French doors. I could see the silhouette of the mongrel dog that sort of hung out around the neighborhood.
Finally, I looked up at “Larry” and he said, “You want me to suck your dick?” I said, “No, thanks.” At that moment, I had a spontaneous orgasm which made me lose my balance and fall over as he laughed and ejaculated on the Bible.
Anyway, I’m not sure exactly what about all that was magic necessarily, I guess, but it sure was weird, and I don’t think I could reproduce it.
Or prove it really happend. (Hallucinations, nightmares, ect.)
That’s true. It is entirely possible that it was all a false memory or a dream (along with other similar things during that period of my life). In fact, it is entirely possible that I am dreaming now.
How’s that for an amusing typo?
I suppose ECT can cause hallucinations. 
