Do you believe in Magic, or the Supernatural?

I'm pretty sure that is a quote, or at least of paraphase from Walt Disney, Rosborne, which is why I used it, sort of in response to the begininng of your title, which is from a song I grew up with.

As to a deep longing for mysticism in life.... hmmm. I don't need to long for it -- I see a lot of mystery in life. I am overwhelmed every day by the simplest of things -- the humming of a bird, the rising of the tide. You can "explain" that in terms of mechanics and the gravitational fields of the moon and sun and the liquid dynamics of water. But still, you're left with a lot of mystery. Where did it all come from, anyway? Can we order it to our own devices?

Science has so far been able to pinpoint many specific (and very interesting) things. But because of the quantum dynamics of the universe, I doubt that we'll ever be able to reach a full understanding of it through experimentation alone. The expected span of human life -- in the long-term range of the extinctions and dying off of species, we just won't have the time.

I don't "choose a world view that accepts something beyond science." I see it every day. For example, I took a class last winter in bird song, thinking it would be about birds singing. It turned out to be a very high-level discussion of the science of how birds sing their species-specific mating songs -- not just their run-of-the-mill calls. There is indeed a complex set of chemical changes occuring not just in the bird who is learning to sing, but in the father bird who is teaching it. There is a timeliness about it, factors as diverse as the amount of sunlight, barometric pressures, availability of food and precise internal chemical changes. While it is possible to isolate the various chemicals and through micro-surgery and the "sacrificing of the subject" determine just where these very specific hormones reaching the individual brain sites which may or may not increase in size to accept the hormones... in the end, what have we learned? Can we ourselves teach a young bird to sing? Will we ever be able to teach all the different species their own songs? That is magic of the best kind. And that is only one small example.

rosborne

I think "scientists" and "scientific method" were ostensibly debunked by Thomas Khun, in favour of the concept of "paradigm shifts". There is no reason why a conventional scientist should not question orthodoxy. Newton for example wrote more about alchemy and religion than he did about physics, and a contemporary of Einstein, David Bohm ("Wholeness and Implicate Order") risked his reputation in a move towards "the mystical".

I like science. I enjoy the idea that many things can be explained. I don't mind a paradigm shift, though I admit when I was taking chemistry in college and was told that everything I was learning would be bunk in twenty years I was.... well... disappointed.

When I do a crossword puzzle, I put in the good-guess letters even though they're not necessarily right. They can be changed to fit with the letters that come after. I figure the same thing works with science. Those good-guesses can be changed.

I think there's room for science & the scientific method along with a greater appreciation for things that cannot be well understood by measuring, repetition or scientific analysis.

Fresco and Piffka,

I like science too. Science is adaptable. It questions itself and it should. Also, science doesn't explain everything and it never will, and that's perfectly fine. However, knowing this does not imply that things which are currently unknown are therefor supernatural.

I feel like the question still remains.... do you (anyone) approach the world from a viewpoint which assumes the possibility of Magic (specifically supernatural magic). And if so, why?

Sorry to be single minded about this, but unless I'm misunderstanding the replies, then it seems like I'm not asking my question very clearly. Does anyone see a better way to state what I'm trying to get at?

Thanks,

I don't think it's necessarily as clear-cut as you are stating -- two different mindsets. Rather, I think it's a spectrum, with absolute scientific explanation or yet-to-be-found explanation at one end, and absolute magic and mystery at the other. I'm very close to the science side of the spectrum, and am generally quite cynical/ skeptical, but a few magic and mystery elements creep in.

For example, one of my students was very very mystical, put a great deal of stock in dreams and portents. She often talked to me about the fact that she would die at a young age. She had a cancer scare, etc., and I always talked her through it, made sure she got scientific corroboration that things would be fine. She was a young mother, and terrified of what would happen to her son when she died, and we talked about motherhood a lot. She couldn't wait until I had kids -- she said she thought I would be a great mom, and would love having kids. I was about 8 weeks pregnant when she was killed in a car accident. I was in shock for a bit, and really started crying when I found out that the "secret" (I had told only a few people) had leaked out (by that time she was working, though we kept in touch), and she knew I was pregnant before she died, and was incredibly happy for me.

The cause of the car accident was a mystery -- her fiance, the passenger, survived, and said he didn't know what happened.

When the sozlet was about 3 months old, I realized that Perla was keeping an eye on us. This makes sense in absolutely no empirical scientific way, but it is more than wishful thinking -- it is something. I just accept it, and go on my way.

Rosborne

I certainly do not -- but I am willing to acknowledge that damn near anything that can be imagined is possible.

I definitely think that some of the things we think of as "supernatural" at the moment -- are not so supernatural at all. We simply do not understand them yet.

After all, there can be an "afterlife" that has absolutely nothing to do with any God or gods -- but is simply a function of nature as yet undetectable by us.

I must say that I like the way you have changed the question from "Does anyone belive in..." to "Does anyone approach the world from a viewpoint which assumes the possibility of..."

Aside from the thrust of your question (which I have answered as it applies to me) -- I hope you see the difference between those two presentations of your inquiry -- and the value of the second over the first.

(If you don't, by the way, I still consider this an interesting bit of speculation and discussion.)

Hi Frank,

Yeh, I changed the phrasing of the question to get away from the word "belief" which people are using different definitions for.

The same thing seems to be happening with the word "magic". Some responders seem to be using "magic" to mean the unknown, or even something which just moves you emotionally, like "the magic of a kittens purr".

I'm trying to focus on the motivations for acquiring different viewpoints when options seem equal, and what that acquisition tells us about the mind that accepts the view.

Best Regards,

I think Sozobe's got it just right describing this as a continuum with only science on one end to only magic on the other. It works for me.

As to your question, Rosborne, I don't count on the supernatural occurring, but I don't discount it either. Strange things happen.

As Shakespeare wrote:

rosborne

There is an argument from developmental psychology about "word magic". The apocryphal child utters the word "ball" and miraculously (for the child) the ball appears. This early association of language with "power over the world" may leave residues in the adult mind which in some contexts become ritualistic, and in others may account for the power of oratory or the phenomenon of hyponosis.

It is easy to extrapolate from the "word" as "power token" to the other signs and symbols which form the basis for general magical (or religious) practices. Perhaps this goes some way towards an answer for you.

It sounds like you're saying that most people are agnostic in their view of the world when it comes to a naturalistic view versus a supernatural view. That should make Frank very happy

But then doesn't the question just become, "why *lean* in a given direction"?

Also, naturalism and the supernatural are mutually exclusive by definition, so I'm not sure how you can have any view of things which includes both. Can you really construct a world view which contains both concepts?

Fresco,

Even if your conjecture of word magic flowing into magical practice is true, it only suggests that *a* world view is being constructed. It still doesn't seem to answer why a *particular* world view is constructed. Unless your point is that our world view is purely determined by the type of input we're exposed to, and that we have no ability to alter the resultant construct. Is this your point?

rosborne, I'm not sure if you saw my post, which Piffka quoted -- my world view contains both concepts. I am extremely skeptical and can usually find a scientific explanation for most any phenomena -- I love Ricky Jay and Snopes. But I still have some room for stray bits of the supernatural. Which is why I put forth the idea of a spectrum. You don't seem to think that is possible -- why?

Rosborne -- I think you're seeing differences and separations where I'm not. By bringing up the naturalism vs supernaturalism duality I fear you're hoping for an evolutionary argument, from which I will carefully back away, except to say that the Evolution House in Kew Gardens in an excellent place.

I'm a Taoist in my beliefs. I've studied most religions and came to the conclusion that Taoism most mirrors what I feel, including that there is no difference between what seems real and material and what seems unreal and ethereal. Here's a copyrighted website that does a fine job of explaining Taoism as I see it. According to this fellow, I would be considered a primitive Taoist.

Taoism as an Earth-Based Tradition

Hi Soz, Yeh, I saw your post. Thanks for taking the time to comment

The philosophy of naturalism is the antithesis of the supernatural. They are mutually exclusive concepts. As far as I know, you cannot have a single world view which allows both concepts to be reality.

You can't even choose not to decide because doing that allows the possibiity of the supernatural, and that mere possibility negates naturalism.

Hi Piffka, I've been in lots of evolutionary discussions, but that's not where I'm going with this.

I'm honestly trying to understand why people form the particular views they do, when the difference between the two is so cut and dry, and when there is no imbalance in viability between them. If two different views are perfectly equal, then how does anyone evaluate which to align with?

Forget about naturalism and the supernatural for a second and look at it more simply:

It's like if I said to you, here's a white thing and a black thing. Which do you want? You might ask what qualities each posesses, but all I could tell you is that one is white and the other black. They are opposite and different, but that is all. How do you choose? My guess is that you pick whichever one pleases you in some way. And maybe that's the answer to my original question, that it's all just an arbitrary choice based on whichever concepts is more pleasing. But this is what I was hoping to get opinions on. Does that make more sense?

Best Regards,

Which do you choose? Like I said, Taoists believe that they're the same.



I think people begin with a normal view of the world... a natural view. Everything is straightforward and the day follows night. Then, suddenly there are things that don't "fit" -- do they disregard that? Or do they assimilate it, assuming that somehow it will eventually fit. I put my best guess letters into the crossword puzzle. To me it is a an expansion of one's concept to make sense of what seems to be the world as we know it. I'm pleased to be able to add it to my growing arsenal of what happens, rather than say... that couldn't be, I refuse to accept it.

So, I just don't see your dichotomy. What I do see, sometimes, is people who apparently either never run into things that don't "fit" or else they are so shocked by them that they deny their existence and assume that they can somehow be explained away by science eventually, even with errors, because otherwise it is just too weird. I guess that pleases them.

rosborne

Along the lines of the last post...

Your "supernaturalism as the antithesis of naturalism" does not seem to me to be a particular world view. Antithesis is dependent on thesis for its meaning. The Hegelian synthesis of the two seems to be the position taken say by "mystical scientists" such as Bohm and they arrive at this position by an appreciation of the limits of ordinary cognition.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your definition of "magic" and "supernatural" but it seems to me that they are adjectives that people apply to particular events, rather than a coherent world view. In essence it is the very "incoherence" of those events that elicits the adjectives.
We should remember too that most events have elements of both coherence and incoherence. Take "Newtons falling apple" or "Childbirth".
We "understand" major elements of these events in as much as we can predict the factors that may affect them, but we are also aware that "gravity is a mysterious force" or "reproduction is an awesome process". Perhaps you are saying then that some people are prone to go for one or the other of these polarities ?

I don't know what I'm saying any more.

It seems that no matter how well I try to define the question, it can still be broken down into smaller and smaller pieces until it looks less like a real question, and more like an uncertainty puzzle in quantum philosophy.

I should have started with something simple, like "is water wet?" ... Uh oh, I probably shouldn't have said that...

It all reminds me of some quotes...

Don't LOOK at anything in a physics lab.
Don't TASTE anything in a chemistry lab.
Don't SMELL anything in a biology lab.
Don't TOUCH anything in a medical lab.
and, most importantly,
Don't LISTEN to anything in a philosophy department.

------------------------------------------------

The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.

Bertrand Russell, Science and Religion

------------------------------------------------



Best Regards,

Here's another one:

A philosophy professor walks in to give his class their final. Placing his chair on his desk the professor instructs the class, "Using every applicable thing you've learned in this course, prove to me that this chair DOES NOT EXIST."

So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing, students are preparing to embark on novels proving that this chair doesn't exist, except for one student. He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.

Time goes by, and the day comes when all the students get their final grades...and to the amazment of the class, the student who wrote for thirty seconds gets the highest grade in the class.

His answer to the question: "What chair?"

And here's the link to the sources: http://www.workjoke.com/projoke70.htm

Have fun

Well good then, we've done our job. We all need ubiquitous luminescence. No hard feelings, I hope?

BTW -- Water is wet, but add soap and it becomes wetter.

No hard feelings at all Piffka, this *is* a philosophy forum after all, so I'm willing to consider any answer I get, even if I don't understand it

Best Regards,