Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Thoughts on 'magic' as a pejorative argument against theism


Recommended Posts

I just watched this video and found it pretty good:

It sums up the atheistic criticism as follows:

  • A) Explanations without mechanisms are appeals to magic;
  • B) Theistic explanations lack a mechanism; ergo
  • C)Theistic explanations are appeals to magic.

It also concludes with this observation: "When skeptics use the word 'magic' to refer to divine action, I assume they are usually more interested in insulting me than actually having a real conversation."  Yeah, I get that feeling too.

A few additional thoughts:

1. A few years ago I had a conversation with Hope for Things that touched on this topic:

Quote
Quote

My definition for the supernatural in this context would also include the belief that a deity or any extra-natural power of some kind is actively intervening in the natural world and producing miracles. 

Okay.  I just wanted you to understand that "supernatural" does not, for me, work well in this context.  

Quote

Even if a person believes these miracles work by natural means that we don't currently understand.   

But that context matters, I think.  Quite a bit.  If we dismiss "natural means" only because "we don't currently understand" them, then that speaks more to our finite perspective on things, and less to the merits of actually believing in, as Nephi put it, "the God of nature."

I am sitting here at a computer, typing these words that appear on my screen.  In a moment I will click on "Submit Reply," and my words will be published on the Internet, viewable to most of the world.  I only have a minimal understanding of how all that works.  I don't understand the particulars of how my laptop works, or how it is wirelessly connected to the Internet, or how this website hosts the content of our respective writings.  These things work "by natural means that {I} don't currently understand."  But they do work.  Not because they are "magic" or "supernatural," but {because they function} through a set of interrelated technologies that I don't currently (fully) understand.

Hope for Things later responded:

Quote

I understand what you're saying, and modern technology would look like something supernatural to people only a few hundred years ago.  I think its an important point to think about.  Extending this future, remember Elder Uchtdorfs comparison between Joseph's seer stone and a smart phone screen?  He was essentially saying that the seer stone was just a technology that God used to communicate to Joseph using natural means, but apparently some kind of rock communication technology that we just don't comprehend.  I think that analogy may have worked for many members.  

2. John Gee has published some salient thoughts about definitional issues surrounding "magic" (starting on p. 47).

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It also concludes with this observation: "When skeptics use the word 'magic' to refer to divine action, I assume they are usually more interested in insulting me than actually having a real conversation."  Yeah, I get that feeling too.

My thoughts exactly. Once the phrase 'sky daddy' is used to characterize my belief in a god, I will typically back out of the exchange because I think it reveals much about the intent of the person who said it. And I quickly become disinterested in indulging.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No offense, Spencer, but you seem to be trying really hard to find reasons to be insulted. 

EgjNV3fWAAETl_0.jpg

The video provided didn't focus on outrage at all but rather provided a perspective on the intent of those who use such terms. Smac agreed with that position. No outrage noted. And I agree. What do you think? Is it disrespectful to use such terminology?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How can an outside observer distinguish the difference between priesthood power and magic?

Several ways - purpose, usage, attributable source, natural law.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How can an outside observer distinguish the difference between priesthood power and magic?

Clarke's Third Law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

But how much experience with magic does an outside observer have? None. Most educated people don't believe in magic. 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:
38 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How can an outside observer distinguish the difference between priesthood power and magic?

Several ways - purpose, usage, attributable source, natural law.

Active Latter-day Saint here.  

All those things could be just features of a unique magic system in a a fictional book.

I think the only way to really distinguish the two is by experiencing it.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Fether said:

Active Latter-day Saint here.  

All those things could be just features of a unique magic system in a a fictional book.

I think the only way to really distinguish the two is by experiencing it.

I agree in general.
But I stand by my statement.  If the purpose is directed by God, the use is to further God's plan, the source of the power is God then I see a marked difference between that and any claims of magic.

Magic (at least in any attempt to claim it is real) never follows God's laws that I am aware of.  Fantasy doesn't follow any rule but I don't see people claiming Harry Potter spells work.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

The video provided didn't focus on outrage at all but rather provided a perspective on the intent of those who use such terms. Smac agreed with that position. No outrage noted. And I agree. What do you think? Is it disrespectful to use such terminology?

I'm just wondering why drag this into the board when no one here, atheist or not (that I know of) has referred to religious beliefs as "magic."

It's like using the word "cult." It's a conversation stopper. So, again, why bring it up here?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

No offense, Spencer, but you seem to be trying really hard to find reasons to be insulted. 

EgjNV3fWAAETl_0.jpg

Not really.  My point was not to take offense, but to start a discussion as to how, when possible, we can get past the gratuitous jab/insult and have a meaningful discussion.

Neither the video I posted or my comments in the OP were intended to clutch at any pearls (great meme, tho!).

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It also concludes with this observation: "When skeptics use the word 'magic' to refer to divine action, I assume they are usually more interested in insulting me than actually having a real conversation."

For the majority of cases this is probably right. It's sort of like when religious critics refer to the church as a "cult." They are basically just using the word as a pejorative.

That's nothing new though. I believe the Talmud even refers to Jesus as using magic, so at least we are in good company. ;)

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  My point was not to take offense, but to start a discussion as to how, when possible, we can get past the gratuitous jab/insult and have a meaningful discussion.

Neither the video I posted or my comments in the OP were intended to clutch at any pearls (great meme, tho!).

Thanks,

-Smac

How about just asking people to not use that gratuitous insult? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

How can an outside observer distinguish the difference between priesthood power and magic?

I think we first need to discuss if "magic" can be qualitatively and quantitatively defined.  It's use seems to be mostly for its pejorative connotations.

For example, consider Jesus Christ walking on water, or turning water to wine, or multiplying the loaves and fishes, or healing the sick, or raising the daughter of Jairus and Lazarus from the dead, and so on.  These are all "miracles," but then we need to define that.  I sort of like this definition in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

A miracle is a beneficial event brought about through divine power that mortals do not understand and of themselves cannot duplicate. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the reality of miracles as a consequence of their belief in the existence of God and of his power and goodness.

So the defining elements appear to be A) that the event is "beneficial," and B) that the event is "brought about through divine power" that mortals B1) "do not understand" and B2) "of themselves cannot duplicate."

So are any of the above-referenced miracles "magic?"  What is "magic?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

There are a few levels of magic regarding Mormonism. 
1) the general “magic” about an unseen God with “magic” powers. Things people don’t understand so they conclude it must be God.

2) Magic rituals used in the foundation of Mormonism including seer stones, divining rods, magic parchments with spells, Jupiter Talisman, Tarot cards, coffin canes (canes made from Joseph Smiths coffin and including Joseph’s hair in the handle placed across someone’s body to bless or cure them), etc.

https://rsc-legacy.byu.edu/archived/our-rites-worship-latter-day-saint-views-ritual-history-scripture-and-practice/pouring-oil

 

http://www.lostmormonism.com/category/magic/
 

Link to comment
Just now, jkwilliams said:

How about just asking people to not use that gratuitous insult? 

If an individual is so uncouth, so bereft of basic decency, civility and common courtesy as to presumptively resort to gratuitous insults about topics that are both important and sacred, then "just asking" them not to seems unlikely to succeed.  This is all the more so when the gratuitous insult is both a means and an end unto itself: ridiculting people who believe in God.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If an individual is so uncouth, so bereft of basic decency, civility and common courtesy as to presumptively resort to gratuitous insults about topics that are both important and sacred, then "just asking" them not to seems unlikely to succeed.  This is all the more so when the gratuitous insult is both a means and an end unto itself: ridiculting people who believe in God.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah...kind of like comparing SSM to raping babies, incest, and bestiality.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If an individual is so uncouth, so bereft of basic decency, civility and common courtesy as to presumptively resort to gratuitous insults about topics that are both important and sacred, then "just asking" them not to seems unlikely to succeed.  This is all the more so when the gratuitous insult is both a means and an end unto itself: ridiculting people who believe in God.

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess I don't understand why this was brought up here. Carry on.

Link to comment

My thoughts on "real magic" if there is such a thing is that it is a lower level language of the Priesthood power. So take Moses splitting the sea, that is a higher level command. But just like a computer performing a complex task by doing smaller simpler tasks when Moses commands smaller tasks are put in motion such as getting water molecules to be in the right place etc..   So "real magic" would attempt to access these lower level functions to make things happen.  It is only an idea and may not be correct.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

There are a few levels of magic regarding Mormonism. 
1) the general “magic” about an unseen God with “magic” powers. Things people don’t understand so they conclude it must be God.

2) Magic rituals used in the foundation of Mormonism including seer stones, divining rods, magic parchments with spells, Jupiter Talisman, Tarot cards, coffin canes (canes made from Joseph Smiths coffin and including Joseph’s hair in the handle placed across someone’s body to bless or cure them), etc.

https://rsc-legacy.byu.edu/archived/our-rites-worship-latter-day-saint-views-ritual-history-scripture-and-practice/pouring-oil

This link does not seem to address the definitional issue.  From this link:

Quote

[29] The term magic is generally pejorative, even in academic literature, and is of poor analytical and descriptive utility. See Jonathan Z. Smith, “Trading Places,” in Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 215–29.

Yep.

3 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

This link also does not address the definitional issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I don't understand why this was brought up here. Carry on.

I thought the video was worth watching, and thought it might spur some discussion on the topic of atheistic critiques of theism.

I have used this board for many years to examine and re-examine what I believe and why.  Some of this includes assessing countervailing points of view.

I didn't start this thread to clutch pearls, but to examine an argument critical of my faith.  If it turns out that the argument is specious because it is intended principally to provoke offense rather than make a substantive point of reasoned argument, so be it.  But if there is a reasoned argument, I'd like to examine it.

As it is, framing the issue in deliberately provocative terms does tend to undermine the idea that there is a serious point to be made.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

How can an outside observer distinguish the difference between priesthood power and magic?

Did you watch the video?  It made some good arguments.  One being that everyone, atheists included, make personal deductions without mechanisms (without any way to mechanically distinguish they are correct) all the time, and we don't find that at all problematic.   We, atheists included, accept it as a valid way to deduce truth in many many circumstances.

In that sense, the inability of an outside observer to always be able to distinguish the truth of someone else's personal deduction cannot, in and of itself, be a dealbreaker or invalidate the truth of the deduction.

 

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:



Magic (at least in any attempt to claim it is real) never follows God's laws that I am aware of.  Fantasy doesn't follow any rule but I don't see people claiming Harry Potter spells work.

Interestingly enough, magic, in fictional works, almost always (always?) follows rules.  And these rules almost always work (always?) by allowing the person following them to access special powers that are inherent and available in nature already, if you just know how to access them.

So in that sense, fictional magic and God's powers work the same.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we first need to discuss if "magic" can be qualitatively and quantitatively defined.  It's use seems to be mostly for its pejorative connotations.

For example, consider Jesus Christ walking on water, or turning water to wine, or multiplying the loaves and fishes, or healing the sick, or raising the daughter of Jairus and Lazarus from the dead, and so on.  These are all "miracles," but then we need to define that.  I sort of like this definition in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

What see in distinctions like this, and I am really not trying to offend here, is magic is what others do, while miracles is what we do. So when Jesus walks on water, those that do not believe in his divinity see it as magic, while those who do, see it as a miracle. So when we take offense at the use of the term, I think it is special pleading.

"Hey our unexplainable powers are different."

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

No offense, Spencer, but you seem to be trying really hard to find reasons to be insulted. 

EgjNV3fWAAETl_0.jpg

...But at least he is not alone 🤨

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...