Yes, I do mean the classic faeries, dragons, wizards, and warlocks. The stuff of D&D games and legends. But I also mean every-day magic. Someone surviving an unsurvivable crash, a child knowing to call 911 by a winged stranger telling them, or perhaps a prisoner praying for his release and is bailed out minutes after his prayer. Where does the magic end and every day miracles begin?

My dear Menewshians, I've always been fascinated with magic since I was a child. I've been a Christian and taught from the bible since I was very young as well. With all the miracles of God and a big imagination, it was easy to believe. But as I got older, I started wondering why people drew a line between faith and fantasy. When my family joined a pentecostal church, I was even more confused. You'd have this man speaking in tongues over here and this woman dancing with the spirit over there. And this person would have a vision from God that they share with the church. There are phenomenons that happen all the time that are unexplainable- even life itself. You might be able to clone cells, but you cannot create a soul. A living, breathing being out of nothing at all. There has to be the sperm and the egg first. Manipulate the genes all you like, but the soul you cannot tamper with.

My deep question to you all, which really does not have an answer that is known as THE answer: Where is the line between myth and reality?

A minor note -- the soul is a theory, and not one that has a great deal of support. It's fine if you believe in it, but expecting science to be able to explain it is like asking them to explain reincarnation; you can't start with an assumption that has no basis and expect someone who doesn't believe in it to describe how it works. I believe in a soul, but the only thing we know for sure is that we can manipulate the physical and affect things that would normally be attributed to the soul. This ties into your statement about cloning cells -- if what all the tangible, non-subjective (though I don't think objectivity is possible, you know what I mean XD) evidence is pointing to is true, we are nothing more than cells. Would someone produced through cloning not have a soul? And would you honestly be able to treat her as such?

As to the actual subject of the thread, though, I don't think there is a line. How we understand the world is inherently subjective. To you, for instance, your god is real. To someone who does not believe in her, she is the equivalent of a unicorn or gnome. There are still people who believe in fairies, and they live their lives according to that belief. Whatever you believe is real, is real for you.

Before anyone says anything, that doesn't mean we shouldn't feign objectivity. By that I mean, we need some things that we consider objective -- how we define things, for instance. It's impossible to live our lives or communicate with one another otherwise. It also does not excuse people from lying. If they are presented with evidence from a source they would accept if it did not conflict with their opinion, they cannot be allowed to claim that it is because the truth is subjective. What I'm trying to say is that it's a very fine line, but it's one we need to maintain our sanity.

Originally Posted by Philomel

What I'm trying to say is that it's a very fine line, but it's one we need to maintain our sanity.

Indeed, if magic were accepted as fact we would have to rethink almost every fact of science we have. And re-observe every falsity we've deemed unbelievable.

I'm not sure if I fully believe in the essence of "magic", nor believe in the things called "coincidences". I fully believe things will happen for a reason, and thus the world around you is changed because of that occurrence.

I think you'd be the most of anyone interested. Have you ever heard of a theory called "The Secret". I really know only the minimum about it, but I remember is being super popular a little while ago, and ended up waking up to one of the episodes explaining it. Not sure what I think about it, but I'd love to hear your insight on it. xD I think you'd be the one most of all who'd be interested.

Originally Posted by SaetonChapelle

I'm not sure if I fully believe in the essence of "magic", nor believe in the things called "coincidences". I fully believe things will happen for a reason, and thus the world around you is changed because of that occurrence.

I think you'd be the most of anyone interested. Have you ever heard of a theory called "The Secret". I really know only the minimum about it, but I remember is being super popular a little while ago, and ended up waking up to one of the episodes explaining it. Not sure what I think about it, but I'd love to hear your insight on it. xD I think you'd be the one most of all who'd be interested.

If you're talking about that thing Oprah was going on about, I don't care for it.

I have no honest idea (never seen Oprah, never have any intention to). All I remember about it is something like "if you truly desire something (a child wanting a bike for Christmas) then by focusing all your mental energy, by wanting that item so bad, the world will change around for you to receive that item". I find this to be very flawed (where are MY million dollars!), however there seems to be quite a fallowing. Oo

I honestly think by experimentation with people who have open minds and are willing to take experimenting with magic seriously and give it a chance may be surprised by the sudden coincidences or results. Take for instance a quick resulted test that I've observed to work most of the time is the Light as a Feather stiff as Board experiement.

Originally Posted by SaetonChapelle

I have no honest idea (never seen Oprah, never have any intention to). All I remember about it is something like "if you truly desire something (a child wanting a bike for Christmas) then by focusing all your mental energy, by wanting that item so bad, the world will change around for you to receive that item". I find this to be very flawed (where are MY million dollars!), however there seems to be quite a fallowing. Oo

Yeppers, that's the Oprah thing.

----------

Originally Posted by Kole_Locke

I honestly think by experimentation with people who have open minds and are willing to take experimenting with magic seriously and give it a chance may be surprised by the sudden coincidences or results. Take for instance a quick resulted test that I've observed to work most of the time is the Light as a Feather stiff as Board experiement.

Indeed, I know a few friends who actually practice different forms of magic. I hear it comes at a cost as well, though.

Originally Posted by Philomel

A minor note -- the soul is a theory, and not one that has a great deal of support. It's fine if you believe in it, but expecting science to be able to explain it is like asking them to explain reincarnation; you can't start with an assumption that has no basis and expect someone who doesn't believe in it to describe how it works.

Believing that science is the only way to find knowledge or proof of things is a THEORY with less proof to it than the belief in a soul. It's called "scientism" and scientism is also based on the THEORY of "empiricism." Empiricism is the belief that we can only gain knowledge through our senses. If we can't taste, touch, smell, hear, or see it, then it either doesn't exist or can't be proven.

There's a branch of philosophy called "epistemology." Where people debate how we know what we know. Can we really trust our senses to teach us everything? (Empiricism) Is there something beyond that, that can teach us stuff too? (Rationalism) Do we create knowledge ourselves? (Constructivism) Is there no such thing as knowledge and being able to prove anything? (Skepticism)

My point is that there is no need for science to prove anything about the soul to anyone because it's a theory to believe that it has to prove something as true for it to be true. A lot of people who hold different epistemological beliefs would disagree with you. I happen to be one of them.

While science teaches us many great things like stuff about medicine and animals and plants (and much, much more), it doesn't have knowledge in every area of life.

If I wanted to know how to learn how to play a piano, would it be better for me to go to a scientist or a piano teacher?

If I wanted to learn about the history of france, should I ask a history teacher about it or a biology professor?

If I wanted to be good at playing basketball, should I talk to a botanist about it or a famous basketball player?

The answers for all of these are obvious. If I want to gain knowledge in certain areas of life, I need to talk to people who have that knowledge and scientists just plain don't know and can't tell you everything using science or prove everything.

Do I need to perform an experiment before I believe my piano teacher when she tells me that a quarter note gets only one beat in four/four time?

Do I need to perform an experiment before I can know that france exists?

Do I need to perform an experiment before I can know how many points a freethrow gets?

And it's the same thing with the soul. Scientists should just be thrown out of the picture. I don't know if you were talking about them because she mentioned not being able to create a soul or why, but the question of the existence of souls is a philosophical one and not a scientific one and the reason that they won't sit around trying to prove that stuff is not because some of them don't believe in it, it's because it has nothing to do with their realm of knowledge in any way, shape, or form.

You are welcome to disagree with me because all these things are just theories and beliefs on how we acquire knowledge, but the idea that you can only gain knowledge about the soul through science is a theory and not a fact.

Although you sound like you might believe in something else.

Originally Posted by The Enchanted Tiara

Believing that science is the only way to find knowledge or proof of things is a THEORY with less proof to it than the belief in a soul. It's called "scientism" and scientism is also based on the THEORY of "empiricism." Empiricism is the belief that we can only gain knowledge through our senses. If we can't taste, touch, smell, hear, or see it, then it either doesn't exist or can't be proven.

Adding onto this point here, in Anthropology a person who holds such a perception of science as being neutral and value free is known as a naive empiricist. One who is ignorant of the fact that science is in actuality a culturally defined set of knowledge.

Originally Posted by The Enchanted Tiara

I don't know if you were talking about them because she mentioned not being able to create a soul or why, but the question of the existence of souls is a philosophical one and not a scientific one and the reason that they won't sit around trying to prove that stuff is not because some of them don't believe in it, it's because it has nothing to do with their realm of knowledge in any way, shape, or form.

It would also be a question which would be quite fitting for an Anthropologist to answer as well. It could prove quite interesting, and beneficial, to gain differing cultural perspectives on the soul. A philosopher who is not sufficiently trained in cross cultural analysis runs the risk of presenting an ethnocentric and limited conception of the soul. While it would still be an interesting conception, we would be selling ourselves short to not try exploring the topic from multiple cultural perspectives.

While I do not desire to speak for God, as they are their own person and more than capable of speaking. When I initially read this thread however, the way they ended their initial post led me to the understanding that they were wishing to discuss this topic relative to science. It did sound like they were implying that scientific though was a leading authority.

Originally Posted by The Enchanted Tiara

-snip-

You're doing it again, Ti. I never said that empirical evidence was the only evidence, or that things must be proven empirically for someone to have a right to believe them. I know this probably a lot better than you do, as I follow a faith based solely and entirely on experience and personal gnosis. But note what she said to elicit that response from me:

There are phenomenons that happen all the time that are unexplainable- even life itself. You might be able to clone cells, but you cannot create a soul. A living, breathing being out of nothing at all. There has to be the sperm and the egg first. Manipulate the genes all you like, but the soul you cannot tamper with.

She was stating that there was a soul, objectively, and that you cannot create a soul, objectively. You cannot do that when the subject is by its very nature subjective and unprovable and not something that can even be examined, and if you do, you should be expected to prove it objectively because it was you who brought it into that sphere to begin with. You obviously thought it could be proven, otherwise you would have left it in the sphere of the subjective or hypothetical.

That was my entire problem with what she said, that she was stating this baseless theory like it was fact and starting with that as the base line. There is no room for differing opinions when you start off like that. I'm fine keeping things in the subjective, but not when one person places their personal experience in the objective. It is why I have, aside from a very few choice people, stopped discussing religion and spirituality with Christians. I know you'll take that as an inflammatory statement, but they just by and large cannot view me and my beliefs as equal, and are so quick to talk about their faith as objective while guffawing when I do the same about my own. It's rude and more than a bit self-absorbed, and I just will not put up with it.

And I'm fairly certain Amy understood all this (correct me if I'm wrong), so that whole post really wasn't necessary.

Originally Posted by Philomel

You're doing it again, Ti. I never said that empirical evidence was the only evidence, or that things must be proven empirically for someone to have a right to believe them. I know this probably a lot better than you do, as I follow a faith based solely and entirely on experience and personal gnosis. But note what she said to elicit that response from me:



She was stating that there was a soul, objectively, and that you cannot create a soul, objectively. You cannot do that when the subject is by its very nature subjective and unprovable and not something that can even be examined, and if you do, you should be expected to prove it objectively because it was you who brought it into that sphere to begin with. You obviously thought it could be proven, otherwise you would have left it in the sphere of the subjective or hypothetical.

That was my entire problem with what she said, that she was stating this baseless theory like it was fact and starting with that as the base line. There is no room for differing opinions when you start off like that. I'm fine keeping things in the subjective, but not when one person places their personal experience in the objective. It is why I have, aside from a very few choice people, stopped discussing religion and spirituality with Christians. I know you'll take that as an inflammatory statement, but they just by and large cannot view me and my beliefs as equal, and are so quick to talk about their faith as objective while guffawing when I do the same about my own. It's rude and more than a bit self-absorbed, and I just will not put up with it.

And I'm fairly certain Amy understood all this (correct me if I'm wrong), so that whole post really wasn't necessary.

No, you're just putting words in my mouth. I ended the post saying that you might believe in something else. I also didn't say once that it was what you believed, just talked about how it wasn't the right thing to believe and quoted your post because it was the thing that made me want to bring it up.

And Amy said that if there was a soul, we'd have to: "rethink almost every fact of science we have."

I actually was talking about how the two things . . . science and the existence of souls were unrelated. Honestly, whether I believe in souls or not, doesn't make me doubt science and a lot of its findings.

I don't ask for science to teach me whether something has a soul or not.

And I don't expect my beliefs on the existence of a soul to influence pretty much any scientific discoveries I've ever heard of. They are two different branches of knowledge.

@The Enchanted Tiara-
I think you are being somewhat unfair in your responses to God. Now I may not be no inter...intellick...intolick.. well thinky person but it seems your clash came more from (mis)communication. When you quote someone, it is quite commonly forum etiquette that you are in actuality speaking directly to the quoted person. Your initial response to God did not adequately clarify that you were not attributing those views to her. Even the single sentence at the end did not detract from the perceived attack. It might have made for better clarity to specify at the start of your post that you were not attributing certain views to them. This seems all the more disheartening as when I reread both their posts and yours, it was my understanding that your view points on this topic are remarkably similar.

On a final note, apologies to God. I do not like speaking for people but this exchange was starting to irk me. I hope this does not come off as misogynistic/condescending. For the record I am well aware that you have the intellectual capacity to speak for yourself! T-T

Originally Posted by Enchanted Tiara

Do I need to perform an experiment before I believe my piano teacher when she tells me that a quarter note gets only one beat in four/four time?

Do I need to perform an experiment before I can know that france exists?

Do I need to perform an experiment before I can know how many points a freethrow gets?

The engineer and scientist in me is absolutely screaming right now, so please excuse me for jumping in so suddenly.

The examples you listed are all arbitrary. They have been defined and created by people. You can't compare these examples to that of "do you need an experiment to know that a soul exists?" because in traditional thinking, the "soul" is not something that we have arbitrarily created (similar to, say, wind, or the sun, or the fact that leaves contain chlorophyll).

The thing about science is that its laws and theories are expected to apply everywhere, all of the time. For example, if you were to go to Mars, F=ma would still hold true, but if there were a martian colony there that developed independent of humanity, a basketball free-throw might be worth 10 points. We decided where France is and where its borders lie. That was not something born of the earth. We decided how to write music and we have arbitrarily defined 4/4 time and quarter notes to fit a certain way.

I don't disagree with you, about the fact that there are other ways to learn things other than empirically. However, a spirit (or soul or what have you), if it does indeed exist, is a natural phenomenon that we did not make. Therefore, to prove (or disprove) its existence, we must rely on science, especially since we cannot observe a soul the same ways we can observe the moon, or gravity, or a heartbeat, or a rain cycle, or the seasons.

Originally Posted by AmyHeartXVIII

Yeppers, that's the Oprah thing.

----------



Indeed, I know a few friends who actually practice different forms of magic. I hear it comes at a cost as well, though.

Practicing magic that is "white" or doesn't do dark things with negativity usually doesn't have a cost. Things that have anything to do with demonology puts the caster at a huge risk, and is best (if you believe in it) not to mess with it especially when the demon expects payment in return for the favor it may do.

There was actually an old European tale ---although I'm not sure what country is the storie's origin-- but it was about a magician and his young apprentice. The magician had demonic conjuration books which he told his apprentice never to touch and one day when he went out on an errand his apprentice didn't listen and summoned a demon without purpose and the demon killed him. When his master returned he confronted the demon and confined it in and made the demon animate the boy's corpse so it would look like he was alive in front of people so he didn't get accused of murder. (Not sure who all has heard that story) of course it's just a tale.

Kole, you probably knew this was coming, but please define "white" magic. For that matter, define "negativity", since negativity isn't necessarily bad (banishments would be considered negative, would they not?). And please don't speak across the board about magic; every tradition is different, some include a cost for everything (be it physical or metaphysical), and by making arbitrary rules like that you're really just discriminating against different traditions.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Kole, you probably knew this was coming, but please define "white" magic. For that matter, define "negativity", since negativity isn't necessarily bad (banishments would be considered negative, would they not?). And please don't speak across the board about magic; every tradition is different, some include a cost for everything (be it physical or metaphysical), and by making arbitrary rules like that you're really just discriminating against different traditions.

ROFL Yes, Philomel, I knew this was coming. Of course I'm not speaking from magc across the board. I'm speaking from my own personal experiences. As I have said before-- I don't know a lot, my knowledge is limited-- I am a dabbler or a jus beyond an amatuer at best. I do read up and have practiced. When I say white magic, the kind I know of is more or less based on doing enhancement and promtion of a good life. Banishment of evil spirits that would cause you harm-- in some aspects you could say it's negative. I get what you're saying-- it's all subjective and I agree... and NO! I am not discriminating-- that I do not appreciate, but I do respect the wealth of knowledge you possess, you are definitely well read and have lots of experience I'm sure. I'm just using the terminology for arguments sake. I know best about what I have practice for I have not practiced magic from other traditions. You are a true philosopher and good debater-- have you ever thought about being a lawyer? LOL

Oh, I didn't mean anything bad by it. By "discrimination" I mean that such designations of "white" and "black" magic end up portraying those who practice what you deem "black magic" as bad, and "white magic" as good, completely regardless of their intentions, or really even their actions. It reminds me a lot of the discussions of "good witches" versus "bad witches", and that's one that has never turned out well for anyone. I suppose "polarizing" would have been a better term. Isms and schisms, and all that good stuff. The fluffs already hate me without thinking I'm evil, too :P

Originally Posted by Philomel

Oh, I didn't mean anything bad by it. By "discrimination" I mean that such designations of "white" and "black" magic end up portraying those who practice what you deem "black magic" as bad, and "white magic" as good, completely regardless of their intentions, or really even their actions. It reminds me a lot of the discussions of "good witches" versus "bad witches", and that's one that has never turned out well for anyone. I suppose "polarizing" would have been a better term. Isms and schisms, and all that good stuff. The fluffs already hate me without thinking I'm evil, too :P

You're right, I understand that a there probably is a bigger population that sees everything in life more in black and white as opposed to shades of gray. To me, when I say white or black magic (if you want to call it that) or just magic in the broader sense is like having electricity which someone could shock themselves or use electricity to heat a room and to stay warm. It all depends on the motives and the intentions of the individual in my opinion and I will be the first to admit that not all of my intentions are pure. As right now my personal life is becoming increasingly difficult.

Originally Posted by Kole_Locke

magic in the broader sense

I have thus far resisted the urge to respond to your posts, but I am quite intrigued to know what magic is in the broader sense. As it struck me as a somewhat unusual phrase to use. When one turns to cross cultural studies into 'magic' we find incredible amounts of variance.

The Ju| Hoansi in their 'traditional' culture perform a trance dance known as the Giraffe dance. It is commonly during this dance that the healers perform their healing by pulling sickness out of people. Which is something I was tempted to raise before, as the cost for becoming a healer is rather steep. It requires the prospective healer...well in many cases it requires them to die. While it is a different understanding of death to what we may hold, this makes it no less real to them. Indeed for several aspiring healers fear of this death can be what prevents them from becoming a healer.

Or how about the Bimin-Kuskusmin who associate 'magical' properties with sexual fluids. According to their culture depending on the gender of the fluid it will have differing properties. On a biological level they are believed to contribute to the creation of differing parts of the body in offspring, with the male's being associated with the more culturally positive and the female with the culturally negative. This is not surprising as the male fluids are more positively associated with life, while the female counterpart is understood to have more of a polluting effect.

These are just two different cultural examples of many. Which I strongly caution I have of course highly simplified for the purposes of this post. If you wish to know more about either of them, I would advise reading work by Richard Katz for the Ju| Hoansi or Fitz John Porter Poole for the Bimin-Kuskusmin. Furthermore I did not even touch on Shaman in this post. They too display amazing variety.

I don't believe there is a line. I think that everything we do, everything that happens has a bit of magic in it. I'm not a Christian, so I can't say much on the line of miracles by God, but I can say, I believe in fairies, and guardians. I believe that as long as there is one person in this world that believes in the next, it is true.

I think magic is very fascinating, it would be nice if it were more widely practiced.

Originally Posted by AmyHeartXVIII

You might be able to clone cells, but you cannot create a soul. A living, breathing being out of nothing at all.

Actually, they can indeed do the latter! They JUST figured it out.

Scientists Create Artificial Life -- a Living Organism from Bottled Chemicals - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Can't speak for the soul of an organism which consists only of a few self-replicating cells, but it certainly is kicking around! Or at least eating up its breakfast and using it to replicate like little asexual bunnies.

Miraculous, mm?

Ta! :D

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Actually, they can indeed do the latter! They JUST figured it out.

Scientists Create Artificial Life -- a Living Organism from Bottled Chemicals - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Can't speak for the soul of an organism which consists only of a few self-replicating cells, but it certainly is kicking around! Or at least eating up its breakfast and using it to replicate like little asexual bunnies.

Miraculous, mm?

Ta! :D

Thank you! Isn't science awesome? :lol:

Originally Posted by Crimson Fang

I have thus far resisted the urge to respond to your posts, but I am quite intrigued to know what magic is in the broader sense. As it struck me as a somewhat unusual phrase to use. When one turns to cross cultural studies into 'magic' we find incredible amounts of variance.

The Ju| Hoansi in their 'traditional' culture perform a trance dance known as the Giraffe dance. It is commonly during this dance that the healers perform their healing by pulling sickness out of people. Which is something I was tempted to raise before, as the cost for becoming a healer is rather steep. It requires the prospective healer...well in many cases it requires them to die. While it is a different understanding of death to what we may hold, this makes it no less real to them. Indeed for several aspiring healers fear of this death can be what prevents them from becoming a healer.

Or how about the Bimin-Kuskusmin who associate 'magical' properties with sexual fluids. According to their culture depending on the gender of the fluid it will have differing properties. On a biological level they are believed to contribute to the creation of differing parts of the body in offspring, with the male's being associated with the more culturally positive and the female with the culturally negative. This is not surprising as the male fluids are more positively associated with life, while the female counterpart is understood to have more of a polluting effect.

These are just two different cultural examples of many. Which I strongly caution I have of course highly simplified for the purposes of this post. If you wish to know more about either of them, I would advise reading work by Richard Katz for the Ju| Hoansi or Fitz John Porter Poole for the Bimin-Kuskusmin. Furthermore I did not even touch on Shaman in this post. They too display amazing variety.

Well when we talk about magic as you said in cross cultural references such as European witchcraft, Santeria, Voodoo, and Shamanism... so many different idealogies and systems. My knowledge is limited but I am just more aware of what is out there but not really all that knowledgeable about it. I learn more by practicing and discussing it with friends who are actual witches.