Anti-Mormonism and the Magic World View

[LifeOnaPlate]

Please see Post #23.Thanks.

See post 24, thanks.

And let me be frank: Sam Harris essentially made up his own definition. It is a poorly founded definition. The quote from Dr. Spock also does not refer to magic in the traditional or religious sense.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Im gonna get some popcorn.

[staccato]

The thing that interests me about this discussion is that the parts I really loved about mormonism when I practiced it was its appeal to logic. The glory of God was intelligence. We were here to learn and our knowledge was what allowed us to progress and would ultimately rise with us when we died.

I don't believe magical thinking taps into intelligence at all. I think it taps into emotions. I don't think it is logical. I don't think it is rational. Therefore I do not trust it. And I would never have trusted it back in Joseph's day. And I certainly would not have trusted that an intelligent god would use it as a medium for bringing back critical truths.

[DrW]

As regarding religion, didn't it take you until about 40+ to "grow out of it" DrW? At least you finally made it out.

TChild2,

Sorry, I am getting behind here.

You are correct. I was in my late 30's when I decided that I the doublethink required to be a scientist and a Mormon were too much. I finally became totally inactive while living in Saudi Arabia in my early 40's. I was born in the Church, and I tried, I really did. But the human mind an only take so much cog-dis and mine was full by 40, I guess.

In terms of believing everything the Church teaches, I was past that phase in high school seminary. I can thank Adam ondi Ahmen for that. (What was JSJ thinking with that one?)

Nonetheless, I still paid for all three of my sons' missions, because they wanted to go. My kids will eventually figure it out on their own. They all have high speed internet connections.

How about you? Are you willing to state where you stand personally with regard to all of this?

[DrW]

See post 24, thanks.

And let me be frank: Sam Harris essentially made up his own definition. It is a poorly founded definition. The quote from Dr. Spock also does not refer to magic in the traditional or religious sense.

I understand that. Pahoran seemed to be saying that there was no legitimate scientific or technical use for the term and I was simply demonstrating that such was that is clearly not the case.

BTW: Where is Pahoran?

[DrW]

See post 24, thanks.

And let me be frank: Sam Harris essentially made up his own definition. It is a poorly founded definition. The quote from Dr. Spock also does not refer to magic in the traditional or religious sense.

The definition of faith in that post is directly from Sam Harris. The definition of magical thinking is a slight re-wording of ideas expressed by Dawkins, Harris and Stenger. That is why I included "and others".

[DrW]

Okay,

It's already tomorrow here. Think that I have answered most comments and / or attacks.

Will check back in tomorrow.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I don't believe magical thinking taps into intelligence at all. I think it taps into emotions....

Try "fear" and "greed."

I poke pins into my voodoo doll (say it looks like Osama bin Laden) with the

expectation that I will thus save myself from his evil influence ----- as though

my attempted influence upon him at a distance were not evil in and of itself.

Or...

I fork over wads of cash to a "psychic adviser" who tells me to chant certain

spells and mix certain potions, in order to obtain temporary access to a

"Philosopher's Stone," which will turn all it touches into gold.

In each of these examples I operate out of the most basic animalistic emotions.

I do not think to inquire WHY pins in the voodoo doll might cause harm at a distance.

I do not think to inquire HOW the philosopher's stone will turn base metal into gold.

Were I to begin that sort of questioning, I might lose some of my mindless beliefs.

Were I to begin that sort of questioning, I might refuse to pay the psychic adviser.

A far, far better word of advice (from Delphi): "Know Thyself."

UD

[Tchild2]

Nonetheless, I still paid for all three of my sons' missions, because they wanted to go. My kids will eventually figure it out on their own. They all have high speed internet connections.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I do not think to inquire HOW the philosopher's stone will turn base metal into gold.

Were I to begin that sort of questioning, I might lose some of my mindless beliefs.

Were I to begin that sort of questioning, I might refuse to pay the psychic adviser.

If, when I get it home, the philosopher's stone doesn't turn base metal into gold, then I'm a fool for believing in it. If, on the other hand, it really does, then I'd be a fool to give it back just because I haven't yet figured out exactly how it works.

[Uncle Dale]

If, when I get it home, the philosopher's stone doesn't turn base metal into gold,

then I'm a fool for believing in it. If, on the other hand, it really does, then I'd

be a fool to give it back just because I haven't yet figured out exactly how it works.

You'd be a fool for ever obtaining the cursed thing in the first place.

But, if you had some kernel of wisdom in you, then you might search

out a righteous answer.

Suppose the answer came to you, that all your turning base metal into gold

was making you incurably greedy -- and that, in the end, none of the gold

would be put to good use.

Suppose you learned that for every action there is an opposite reaction,

and that the gold you were piling up for yourself was coming from the

honest earnings of other people -- zero sum game.

Suppose you learned that the power effecting the metallic transmutation

incurred a highly radioactive by-product that was slowly killing your family.

Fools can be cured -- but the cure is often a very sobering experience.

UD

[Hamba Tuhan]

You'd be a fool for ever obtaining the cursed thing in the first place.

Suppose I discovered that possessing it had permanently altered me for the better.

Suppose it filled me full of love and compassion, erasing enmity and strife from my life.

Suppose it ennobled my best traits and reversed my worst ones.

Suppose it made me selfless and generous, kind and true.

Suppose these benfits spread to my family and then to my friends and then to the people around me.

Then what?

[Uncle Dale]

Suppose I discovered that possessing it had permanently altered me for the better.

Suppose it filled me full of love and compassion, erasing enmity and strife from my life.

Suppose it ennobled my best traits and reversed my worst ones.

Suppose it made me selfless and generous, kind and true.

Suppose these benfits spread to my family and then to my friends and then to the people around me.

Then what?

Then Dr. Faustus would have to move over, for you would have accepted

the temporal in place of the eternal.

If you knew full well, in advance, the source of your "magic," you might at least

inquire for wisdom from that Source.

Perhaps a talent was being bestowed upon you, which you could return

ten-fold, though decent, honest endeavor.

But -- if a thing looks too good to be true -- it probably is just that.

UD

[Hamba Tuhan]

But -- if a thing looks too good to be true -- it probably is just that.

Ah, that's exactly what the children of the Puritans said to me when I was a missionary in their midst, so they held onto their cold, hard hearts, smug in their assurance that they'd avoided being duped.

[Uncle Dale]

Ah, that's exactly what the children of the Puritans said to me when I was a missionary in their midst, so they held onto their cold, hard hearts, smug in their assurance that they'd avoided being duped.

Like I said:

I fork over wads of cash to a "psychic adviser" who tells me to chant certain

spells and mix certain potions, in order to obtain temporary access to a

"Philosopher's Stone," which will turn all it touches into gold.

Best to learn what those spells and potions are first of all.

Best to learn the source of those potions and spells.

Best to learn the credentials of that "psychic adviser."

Sometime back I went looking at used cars for sale -- saw one that seemed

affordable. The salesman told me that another customer was on his way, coming

back in a hurry, with cash-in-hand ----- but if I would sign the sales contract

immediately, the salesman would let me have it for "half off!"

Three days later the same car was still sitting on the same lot, with even

a lower price written on the windshield. As for the salesman, somebody told

me the sheriff had inquired about him and he had suddenly left town.

Maybe I should have bought the car --- after all, the guy looked honest...

UD

[Hamba Tuhan]

Sometime back I went looking at used cars for sale -- saw one that seemed

affordable. The salesman told me that another customer was on his way, coming

back in a hurry, with cash-in-hand ----- but if I would sign the sales contract

immediately, the salesman would let me have it for "half off!"

Three days later the same car was still sitting on the same lot, with even

a lower price written on the windshield. As for the salesman, somebody told

me the sheriff had inquired about him and he had suddenly left town.

Ah, now you're introducing a whole new element. Nobody said anything about high-pressure sales tactics. That's why I'm personally in favour of test drives, multiple ones if necessary, and mechanical inspections. It would be silly, though, never to consider a secondhand car just because the salesman wears loud plaid jackets....

[Uncle Dale]

... Nobody said anything about high-pressure sales tactics.

...

I take it you've never been confronted with a Reorganized LDS baptismal challenge,

and a promise that the font was already filled and ready for your immediate appointment?

UD

[DrW]

So what constitutes a "top scientist". Tarski on this board maynot be a "scientist" but he has a PHD in mathematics and I don't recall him using the term "magical". He seems to follow your same athiest dogmatic assertions.

I would disagree that science and relgion are diametrically opposed as well. I think there is a great deal that science can explain that relgion does not. On the other hand there is a great deal that science cannot expalin that religion can. I am sure you would disagree. However in doing so I would never stoop so low as to call you "magical" in your thinking. From my perspective there are a great deal of many things to still be learned but certain things in the scientific community are taught as if you had all of the puzzle pieces and could see all anlges. You know and I know that there is a great deal of many holes out there. I do not wish to get into a debate on that. I also will not be surprised if you deny that. But like I said I would never call you magical, being serious. As you may tell I like to get a little sarcastic in my posts from time to time.

It may do you well not to approach us in this "magical" way. You may get a little further in your discussion. But by all means don't take my word for it.

MRSR,

"Top scientists", as used here, would be those who are members of the National Academy of Sciences. In a recent pole of this group, it was found that 93% identified themselves as not believing in a supernatural God (i.e. agnostic or atheist). And, as I have stated before, you can bet that the other 7% have their doubts.

In response to your other comments:

I would agree with you that there are lots of "holes" (I prefer the term gaps) in the knowledge that science has generated about how the universe works. There always will be gaps. The universe is a big place.

Along with many authors on the subject, I cannot agree that religion is a source of useful knowledge. Religion has produced no useful new knowledge, whatsoever. Here is the way many scientists, myself included, view the situation (and there are plenty of data to support this viewpoint):

The evolutionary roots of religion are in primitive superstition and magic. Early humans made up stories to explain things they did not understand about how the world worked. These were eventually adopted into group narratives, and later into codified belief systems, or religions.

Prior to the the 18th century, we did not really have rational math and logic based science. Instead of physics, for example, we had metaphysics, instead of chemistry, alchemy. (Metaphysics is probably the most appropriate overall term here to describe how secular knowledge and belief was generated and passed down prior to Newton, for example.)

With the work of Newton, and just as importantly with the Enlightenment of the 18th century, rational math and logic based science emerged. Mankind began to replace superstition and unfounded belief with knowledge based on verifiable, reproducible, physical evidence. Mankind learned to generate, test, and refine hypotheses, and developed useful rules of logic.

As science advanced as a means to generate and use new knowledge, religion was no longer able to credibly claim (if it ever could) that it represented "absolute truth.â?

As shown by any number of authors, religion has never produced one iota of useful new knowledge about how the world works. The â??knowledgeâ? claimed in the scriptures simply reflects the previously held and recorded beliefs that turned out to be true or valid. Thus, we have post facto selective use of scriptures and revelation. Religionists select from scripture that with which they are comfortable, and often that which reflects the current overall views of society as a whole, and disregard the rest.

A recent example from FAIRS (posted on another thread) is the written admonition to investigators to concentrate on the Mormon message of salvation in Jesus Christ, and donâ??t pay too much attention to Adam ondi Ahman. This is the process by which much of the â??knowledgeâ? in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (putting disobedient children and Sabbath breakers to death, etc.) is now (thankfully) ignored by religionists.

So, in this model (and in fact) science and religion are diametrically opposed. Religion claims to have absolute truth and yet has produced no new useful knowledge whatsoever. Science is the process of gaining useful knowledge through observation, experimentation and hypothesis generation and testing, followed by further confirmation and refinement.

As we have seen played out in the documented origins and history of Mormonism, as described by faithful and qualified LDS historians, religion is based squarely on magic and magical thinking.

Faithful Mormons might not feel comfortable with that inconvenient truth, but that does not mean that it isnâ??t so. Perhaps this is one of the truths that Boyd K. Packer considers as â??not very usefulâ?.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I understand that. Pahoran seemed to be saying that there was no legitimate scientific or technical use for the term and I was simple demonstrating that such was that is clearly not the case.

BTW: Where is Pahoran?

I agree with you that there are reasonable, responsible, academic approaches to "magic." However, I think such approaches are not found in the work of Sam Harris. Not by a long shot. I also don't believe Dr. Spock was referring to magic in the academic sense.

[Black Moclips]

I like the word magic. LDS do not like it because the word can encompass a lot of different things, from voodoo rituals to Chris Angel mind freak tricks. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like one, well.......

How else can the act of "seeing" using a rock in a hat be described? There is no natural process for rock looking. On the religious side, there aren't any ordinances or rituals governing such a thing (that I know of of). Its just something incredibly weird that you can't explain. Magic is a good word for that. If you believe that such wierd, unexplainable things can and do happen, do you not have a magical world view? I expect many LDS won't like that conclusion, because they are assuming that some natural process does exists whereby rocks are like mini-ipod videos, and we just haven't discovered that process. Well, until that process is discovered, explained, and duplicated, isn't Magic a good word?

(As a side note, the system of magic in a fantasy book is a critical component of the books success. Whether its called the Source, The Will and the Word, Saidin or Saidar, it has to be believable to work. It has to be explained how the magic works, how the user calls forth the power, what the magician's limits are, etc. If all of that isn't explained in well thought out detail, then the story isn't believable and powerful mages just seem too arbitrary. Maybe this is why the rock in the hat story just doesn't work well. Maybe if Joseph explained how he was actually reaching out to he male form of magic called Saidin (Wheel of Time FTW!) and explained the weaves of power through which he used the seer stone, then the story would sound better or be more believable. Okay, maybe not.

[Alf O'Mega]

So there we have it. Magic is not mentioned in any relevant discussions of the beliefs of others.

So there we have it. Another "No True Scotsman" generalization from the king of well-poisoning.

The fact is that, while the term magic can be used pejoratively, it is also still used academically. (John Gee himself presented a paper at a conference on "Magic and Divination in the Ancient World" that was later published in a volume by the same title.) I don't want to overstate my expertise in this area, because my interest is fairly casual, but magic usefully describes some elements of nineteenth-century folk culture that influenced Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. It is a term used by reputable scholars in relevant discussions of Mormonism.

[Analytics]

Iâ??d like to take a step back and put this thread in context.

A while ago, Smac97 said,

Many of the few falsifiable claims [Martha Beck] made in her book have, in fact, been falsified.

So if she cannot be trusted about claims that are falsifiable, why on earth would we trust her about claims that are not?

Itâ??s ironic that he said that because it's a verbatim hackneyed analysis of Joseph Smith. For example, when it come to the ability to correctly describe and/or translate ancient documents, the cases of the Book of Abraham, the Isaiah chapters, and the Kinderhook plates are cases that are falsifiable. His abilities have in fact been proven lacking in those clearly falsifiable cases, so why on earth would we trust him about claims that arenâ??t falsifiable?

Despite so much interaction with critics for so many years, Smac didnâ??t see how ironic his comment about Beck was. This lead to a thread by Smac challenging us to identify falsifiable claims in Mormonism.

What quickly came out of that discussion was the fact that if you hold Mormonâ??s truth claims to the same standards that secularists hold events in the real world, many Mormon claims are falsifiable because in terms of natural law, they are impossible. However, the believers scoffed at this approach. In the words of Pahoran, the very notion is hilarious that â??any plausibly divine being would be subject to these kinds of limitations.â?

That quickly became the theme for the thread. Despite making innumerous claims about things that interact with the real world, none of it is falsifiable because â??plausibly divine beingsâ? arenâ??t subject to â??the kind of limitationsâ? that everything else in the real world is subject to.

So the question is, what is a descriptive, non-pejorative term to describe why â??plausibly divine beingsâ? and such wouldnâ??t be subject to the real-world limitations that everything else is? I get the feeling that the real reason so many people are sensitive about the word â??magicâ? is because it hits too close to home regarding the disconnect between the real world and modern Mormon mythology.

If â??magical thinkingâ? isnâ??t permissible, what is the correct term to describe the thinking that the things of Mormon mythology transcend the natural laws that everything else is subject to?

[DrW]

I agree with you that there are reasonable, responsible, academic approaches to "magic." However, I think such approaches are not found in the work of Sam Harris. Not by a long shot. I also don't believe Dr. Spock was referring to magic in the academic sense.

Right. The quotation from Dr. Spock was contained in a paper he wrote on the pre-operation phase of childhood development. While the quotation did not use magical thinking in the academic sense, the paper did. As described in the paper, this pre-operation (inability to use logic) phase is also designated as the magical thinking phase of childhood development.

[Luigi]

MRSR,

"Top scientists", as used here, would be those who are members of the National Academy of Sciences. In a recent pole of this group, it was found that 93% identified themselves as not believing in a supernatural God (i.e. agnostic or atheist). And, as I have stated before, you can bet that the other 7% have their doubts.

In response to your other comments:

I would agree with you that there are lots of "holes" (I prefer the term gaps) in the knowledge that science has generated about how the universe works. There always will be gaps. The universe is a big place.

Along with many authors on the subject, I cannot agree that religion is a source of useful knowledge. Religion has produced no useful new knowledge, whatsoever. Here is the way many scientists, myself included, view the situation (and there are plenty of data to support this viewpoint):

The evolutionary roots of religion are in primitive superstition and magic. Early humans made up stories to explain things they did not understand about how the world worked. These were eventually adopted into group narratives, and later into codified belief systems, or religions.

Prior to the the 18th century, we did not really have rational math and logic based science. Instead of physics, for example, we had metaphysics, instead of chemistry, alchemy. (Metaphysics is probably the most appropriate overall term here to describe how secular knowledge and belief was generated and passed down prior to Newton, for example.)

With the work of Newton, and just as importantly with the Enlightenment of the 18th century, rational math and logic based science emerged. Mankind began to replace superstition and unfounded belief with knowledge based on verifiable, reproducible, physical evidence. Mankind learned to generate, test, and refine hypotheses, and developed useful rules of logic.

As science advanced as a means to generate and use new knowledge, religion was no longer able to credibly claim (if it ever could) that it represented "absolute truth.â?

As shown by any number of authors, religion has never produced one iota of useful new knowledge about how the world works. The â??knowledgeâ? claimed in the scriptures simply reflects the previously held and recorded beliefs that turned out to be true or valid. Thus, we have post facto selective use of scriptures and revelation. Religionists select from scripture that with which they are comfortable, and often that which reflects the current overall views of society as a whole, and disregards the rest.

A recent example from FAIRS (posted on another thread) is the written admonition to investigators to concentrate on the Mormon message of salvation in Jesus Christ, and donâ??t pay too much attention to Adam ondi Ahman. This is the process by which much of the â??knowledgeâ? in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (putting disobedient children and Sabbath breakers to death, etc.) is now (thankfully) ignored by religionists.

So, in this model (and in fact) science and religion are diametrically opposed. Religion claims to have absolute truth and yet has produced no new useful knowledge whatsoever. Science is the process of gaining useful knowledge through observation, experimentation and hypothesis generation and testing, followed by further confirmation and refinement.

As we have seen played out in the documented origins and history of Mormonism, as described by faithful and qualified LDS historians, religion is based squarely on magic and magical thinking.

Faithful Mormons might not feel comfortable with that inconvenient truth, but that does not mean that it isnâ??t so. Perhaps this is one of the truths that Boyd K. Packer considers as â??not very usefulâ?.

I think this sums up very well my own feelings on the incompatibility of science with religion. Science will never, as you noted, explain everything but as it encroaches more and more on territory that religion has claimed explanatory power (the creatioin, our emotions and other aspects of human behavior) it quickly diminishes credibility in attributing such things to an invisible spiritual realm-though as you stated as well it never really made sense to attribute things to such a supernatural realm in the first place.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Right. The quotation from Dr. Spock was contained in a paper he wrote on the pre-operation phase of childhood development. While the quotation did not use magical thinking in the academic sense, the paper did. As described in the paper, this pre-operation (inability to use logic) phase is also designated as the magical thinking phase of childhood development.

What does that have to do with magic as a practice?