Metaphysics, Magic, Ecumenicalism, and other sundry matters

[TheAtheist]

Ok, let me just fire this off point blank: i’m not looking for a debate. Rather an explanation. I’m trying to process differing competing stories i’ve heard that involve the Catholic rendition of the above topics. Its all kind of linked, and it starts with Metaphysics.

(Caveat: I’m really on a fact finding mission on this one folks, so please for the social agitators and incessant debators of any stripe who have an axe to grind - please park it at the door).

1.) Metaphysics and Magic

From the secular mind, magic does not exist. From the completely untutored mind, magic is something that stupid people did in the past and the scientific method dropped out of the heavens in the late-1600s - ta da.

To those who actually pay attention, there is a great deal of correlation between certain “occult sciences” and the modern sciences that prevade today. The most obvious of course is Alchemy as flawed forerunner of Chemistry. Chemistry, as a discipline, really grew out of experimental alchemy. Astrology and Astronomy were essentially linked in the ancient world as well. So from the historian of science viewpoint, the so-called “occult sciences” are really just unsystematic methodologies attempting to influence the world using incorrect theoretical structures. They are man’s first foray into attempting to manipulate reality, and are therefore part of the structure that gives birth to the natural sciences (after all, making lots of mistakes allows one to correct the methodologies and the theories).

When i review the Catholic standpoint on things, i get two very distinct stories. Track 1 agrees with what i’ve stated above, mainly an argument (this is where the metaphysics comes in), that there’s really only one being in existence who could contort reality to its whims. And He works through methods of Final Causation a la Aristotle. Therefore, magic does not exist and such practices were merely the flawed forerunners of modern day science.

But then there’s Track 2. And Track 2 which i’ll dub the “Demon-Haunted World” version has people worried about “occultism” and of all things, fictional works like Harry Potter. Astrology (which is even denied efficacy by some of the earliest christian thinkers), Oujia boards, fortunetelling, etc. etc. are not merely just brushed aside as silly superstition, but they’re given a kind of menacing character, dare i say Satanic.

And from my outsider’s perspective i have to kind of go: “huh?” Track 1’s narrative and metaphyics clash directly with Track 2’s. Track 1 may make certain exceptions in the case of the deity and might acknowledge demonic possession, but the idea that a person could say cast death spell on another is quite alien. I mean, if i walked up to a priest and said that he’d probably laugh at me (and with good reason).

Track 2 however, really honestly lives in fear of the “Demon-haunted world.” Its not just foolishness or superstition, rather there’s a real projection of danger. And the metaphysics that supports Track 2’s viewpoint implies that there’s a whole range or set of phenomena that is occurring as we speak - not just the occasional miracles pulled off by the deity.

2.) Metaphysics and Other Religions

Alright extending the two tracks, we come to the question of ecumenicalism and other religions. Huh? How does that relate you might ask?

Track 1 will tell me that, for obvious reasons, that other people’s religions are flawed. But despite that, its not like the person worshipping Vishnu is out of the sight of God, esp. if he/she has never even heard of the Christian god - that would be non-logical. So, while the rites and rituals they commit have no real effect beyond a psychological one, God in his wisdom and by his will might step in and fufill a request or 2.

I think this is basis for many of acknowledgements that the Vatican currently gives to many other religions outside the Judaeo-Christian heritage. They obviously aren’t preaching a Syncretism, but saying that these various religions have a bit of the divine yearning for God. So quick recap, either nothing happens or God’s unforeseen plan is carried out when something happens from a foreign religion’s blessings.

Track 2 tells me they are worshipping demons. Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Guanyin, etc. etc. Poor villager in Africa worships tribal god - that’s a demon. Daoist priest in Taiwan goes to temple and prays for health of the community - demon. Dalai Lama blesses a crowd in Toronto - poor Dalai, he’s doing it in the name of a demon.

In fact, Track 2 is essentially equating other religions (excluding Judaism for historical reasons) with occultism a la St. Augustine.

It seems that those who would espouse Track 1 would feel very uncomfortable with that assessment, since it would essentially be an indictment of say 80% of India.

Again - huh? What’s going on here? We’ve got two different tracks on how the “behind the scenes” metaphysics are supposed to work.

How does one account for the enormous disparity in viewpoint?

 

[James_S_Saint]

NON-CONFRONTATIONAL

The ONLY problem between Atheism that is not emotionally based, is in the understanding of the concepts that you mention and are questioning.

Metaphysics is about abstract concepts. The entities are ALL only concepts. Misinformed and manipulative people (in all organizations) speak of those concepts as though they were physical entities that can float down dark hallways and hide under your bed.

Concepts are eternal. Take the concept of a perfect circle for an example.

A perfect circle, although used thoroughly throughout Science and mathematics, CANNOT exist in the physical world. Science can verify that for you if you like, but as a metaphysicist, I can tell you without any empirical evidence that it is definitely an impossibility. But the concept of a perfect circle, although perhaps called something different in a different time, will always be that exact same concept - it is an “eternal” entity.

The same is true of ALL abstract concepts. A “tree” is an abstract concept. There can never be anything physical that is only the exact concept of a tree. Every instance of a tree, is a variation of the abstract concept. We place all said physical trees into the category that we call “tree”. That concept never changes but might get renamed.

Science is for the express purpose of verifying concept usage. Science does not discover truth, but verifies truth. Upon verifying or discovering that something cannot be verified, Science instigates questions and new concepts get defined so as to answer the questions. But the “truth” is built by defining those concepts and deciding which ones you want to live by - Philosophy, not Science.

The word “supernatural” merely refers to those concepts that are “above” the natural physical world and are said to “govern” the physical world. They are the eternal principles and include the “laws of Science”. Sometimes, as Science discovered, principles can be verified as false (fallen “angels”).

The word “superstition” refers to invented concepts that are used to connect events (stitch) but are not in themselves verified and sometimes not even rational. Science is using many such entities today so as to attempt a complete explanation before it has actually finished its job.

A “demon” is merely a concept that divides an otherwise monolithic entity (de-mon).

The word “demonstration” comes from “demon-stration”, meaning to “straighten out the demon”, “bring light into the darkness of thought” or simply “remove doubt”. Doubt is a concept that is a demon. This is why “Faith” is such a big issue in Christianity.

That help any?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I might add that the concept of the eternal God is “Who/Whatever it is that causes both the consistency and the inconsistency within the physical world.”

To deny that God exists, is actually denying that the universe has either consistency or inconsistency which means that it could not exist at all.

Hence C.S. Lewis’ statement, “There is no excuse for Atheism.”

People can argue about the characteristics and attributes of God, whether He is big or small, smart or dumb, or even a “He” at all, but to deny that God exists at all, is simply ignorant of what God is.

 

[Betterave]

1.) Metaphysics and Magic

From the secular mind, magic does not exist. From the completely untutored mind, magic is something that stupid people did in the past and the scientific method dropped out of the heavens in the late-1600s - ta da.

To those who actually pay attention, there is a great deal of correlation between certain “occult sciences” and the modern sciences that prevade today. The most obvious of course is Alchemy as flawed forerunner of Chemistry. Chemistry, as a discipline, really grew out of experimental alchemy. Astrology and Astronomy were essentially linked in the ancient world as well. So from the historian of science viewpoint, the so-called “occult sciences” are really just unsystematic methodologies attempting to influence the world using incorrect theoretical structures. They are man’s first foray into attempting to manipulate reality, and are therefore part of the structure that gives birth to the natural sciences (after all, making lots of mistakes allows one to correct the methodologies and the theories).

Right, except it is important to note that we don’t view all attempts to manipulate reality as innocent, as you seem to suggest - so it will not follow that the view of ‘occult scientific’ “attempts to manipulate reality” as forerunners to modern science is antithetical to taking demons seriously. There is also no reason we couldn’t say that there is something demonic in certain manifestations of modern ‘systematic’ science and its attempts to manipulate reality. Also, you seem to make a false dichotomy between primitive, unsystematic theory and the systematicity of modern scientific method. It’s not that there’s nothing to the distinction, of course, but hopefully you understand what I mean.

When i review the Catholic standpoint on things, i get two very distinct stories. Track 1 agrees with what i’ve stated above, mainly an argument (this is where the metaphysics comes in), that there’s really only one being in existence who could contort reality to its whims. And He works through methods of Final Causation a la Aristotle. Therefore, magic does not exist and such practices were merely the flawed forerunners of modern day science.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. No informed, believing Catholic believes in a God that only works through methods of Final Causation. And certainly all beings with wills can “contort reality to their whims,” although the application of the term “whim” to the will of God is not really appropriate, I think, from a Catholic perspective.

But then there’s Track 2. And Track 2 which i’ll dub the “Demon-Haunted World” version has people worried about “occultism” and of all things, fictional works like Harry Potter. Astrology (which is even denied efficacy by some of the earliest christian thinkers), Oujia boards, fortunetelling, etc. etc. are not merely just brushed aside as silly superstition, but they’re given a kind of menacing character, dare i say Satanic.

I don’t think it’s that they’re necessarily Satanic. But superstition is a sin against faith (a futile, self-destructive rebellion against the sovereignty of the absolute source of all life and love) and as such all superstition is Satanic in a sense, where Satan is the Father of Lies. Remember, too, that a lie is not a lie when the ‘liar’ thinks he is telling the truth. So there are different standards that apply to the evaluation of different attitudes towards various ‘scientific’ or ‘superstitious’ practices depending on the historical situation of whoever is being evaluated.

So… I don’t see the great antithesis that you do between tracks 1 and 2.

 

[TheAtheist]

Right, except it is important to note that we don’t view all attempts to manipulate reality as innocent, as you seem to suggest - so it will not follow that the view of ‘occult scientific’ “attempts to manipulate reality” as forerunners to modern science is antithetical to taking demons seriously.

But then where exactly is the dividing line between what is deemed innocent/mere superstition versus “placing one’s soul in mortal peril.” Is there an established criterion that can be looked up? If such a criterion exists, how has it changed throughout the ages?

There is also no reason we couldn’t say that there is something demonic in certain manifestations of modern ‘systematic’ science and its attempts to manipulate reality. Also, you seem to make a false dichotomy between primitive, unsystematic theory and the systematicity of modern scientific method. It’s not that there’s nothing to the distinction, of course, but hopefully you understand what I mean.

Ok, now you’ve confused me even more - are you saying there’s something demonic about science?

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. No informed, believing Catholic believes in a God that only works through methods of Final Causation. And certainly all beings with wills can “contort reality to their whims,” although the application of the term “whim” to the will of God is not really appropriate, I think, from a Catholic perspective.

You can place the blame for that comment squarely at the foot of a few good Aristotlean-esque Jesuits i know for that one. As for “contort reality to their whims,” yes we can certainly try, but miracles or magic implies a sort of “shortcut” that bypasses the hardwork that we do.

I don’t think it’s that they’re necessarily Satanic. But superstition is a sin against faith (a futile, self-destructive rebellion against the sovereignty of the absolute source of all life and love) and as such all superstition is Satanic in a sense, where Satan is the Father of Lies. Remember, too, that a lie is not a lie when the ‘liar’ thinks he is telling the truth. So there are different standards that apply to the evaluation of different attitudes towards various ‘scientific’ or ‘superstitious’ practices depending on the historical situation of whoever is being evaluated.

But what i’m asking about is the treatment of the topics within the Catholic community. There is a mighty bandwidth between those who wouldn’t be bothered with such things calling it completely and totally rubbish, and those who for some odd particular reason believe reading Harry Potter opens one up to occult forces. To them the threat isn’t merely a violation of one’s faith, they believe in a true palpable existence of some harmful entity who specifically targets you for moving a oujia board plastic piece around.

So who is right? Or rather, whose opinion is more orthodox?

So… I don’t see the great antithesis that you do between tracks 1 and 2.

Nuances my friend, its about nuances. That and there’s the 2nd half of the matter involving the Metaphysical overlay of how the invisible world works, and what that implies for other religions.

 

[TheAtheist]

NON-CONFRONTATIONAL

The ONLY problem between Atheism that is not emotionally based, is in the understanding of the concepts that you mention and are questioning.

Metaphysics is about abstract concepts. The entities are ALL only concepts. Misinformed and manipulative people (in all organizations) speak of those concepts as though they were physical entities that can float down dark hallways and hide under your bed.

That help any?

Umm. Thanks for trying James. I’m really just looking for what the “standard opinion” in Catholic dogma might be. That is of course if there is a standard opinion.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Umm. Thanks for trying James. I’m really just looking for what the “standard opinion” in Catholic dogma might be. That is of course if there is a standard opinion.

I have found Catholics who agree (Thomas Aquinas for one), so I don’t think there is anything non-Catholic to what I explained. And I have found nothing of their Dogma to disagree. I hope I don’t.

 

[Areopagite]

An admirable post, TheAtheist.

From the secular mind, magic does not exist. From the completely untutored mind, magic is something that stupid people did in the past and the scientific method dropped out of the heavens in the late-1600s - ta da.

…

So from the historian of science viewpoint, the so-called “occult sciences” are really just unsystematic methodologies attempting to influence the world using incorrect theoretical structures.

From the little I’ve read of Thorndike’s History of Magic and Experimental Science, it seems that some magical systems were not at all unsystematic. They were indeed theoretical structures. And of course they were incorrect (at least, it’s safe to assume that … I think). Hence, most of your definition of “occult science” seems … okay, except for when you say “unsystematic.” You see, even if most kinds of magic were not as systematic as you’d want, I don’t think an occult science would cease being an occult science if one simply adds more systematization to it. Would adding systemization to the alchemical process of supposedly producing the philosopher’s stone make it no longer an occult science? Hm. No. So, is the distinguishing factor between magic and science be that magic is incorrect? Or can incorrect science simply be incorrect science and not necessarily magic? Probably. So what is magic?

I think that’s one of the toughest questions in existence. The lame but probably true answer is that there’s many definitions of it. Or not.

Think though: what were the medieval alchemists trying to accomplish? What really distinguished them from modern scientists, besides the fact that they were incorrect on some things and lacked the breadth of research that we have today? Anything? It’s a good question. I’m not sure if I know the answer (but I have some theories).

I would ask you, TheAtheist, however, if you can, to refine your definition of magic. Good luck. I’m not sure if I can do any better.

They are man’s first foray into attempting to manipulate reality, and are therefore part of the structure that gives birth to the natural sciences (after all, making lots of mistakes allows one to correct the methodologies and the theories).

Could you explain what you mean by “manipulating reality”? Here, of course, you imply that science and magic both give us the power of manipulating reality. So, “manipulating reality” is not something that distinguishes them. But also, can’t we manipulate reality without magic or science? It all depends what you mean by manipulating reality.

Track 1 agrees with what i’ve stated above, mainly an argument (this is where the metaphysics comes in), that there’s really only one being in existence who could contort reality to its whims. And He works through methods of Final Causation a la Aristotle. Therefore, magic does not exist and such practices were merely the flawed forerunners of modern day science.

And Track 2 which i’ll dub the “Demon-Haunted World” version has people worried about “occultism” and of all things, fictional works like Harry Potter. Astrology (which is even denied efficacy by some of the earliest christian thinkers), Oujia boards, fortunetelling, etc. etc. are not merely just brushed aside as silly superstition, but they’re given a kind of menacing character, dare i say Satanic.

First of all, I love Harry Potter. And I think the Catholics who condemn him are doing one of the greatest disservices to Christian evangelization in recorded history.

Nonetheless, I do believe in a Demon-Haunted World, and Astrology, Oujia boards, and fortunetelling should be rightly condemned. I believe in witches, evil spells, and all that jazz (and they’re all very bad).

Nonetheless, Track 1 and 2 can be harmonized. I think the understanding of this resides in the distinction between Primary and Secondary Cause. I admit, I’m not a wizard in this particular branch of metaphysics, so I implore the greater metaphysicians here to explain it better (and correct any errors that I may speak).

God is the primary cause of all changes in creation. That is, he is responsible for all things involved in that change. Humans (and angels/demons) can be secondary causes of changes in creation. Secondary causes do not provide all that is necessary in a change. Also, it is only by divine causality (primary cause) that secondary causes can happen at all. The only way a change by a human or angel can happen is by God allowing it to happen (and, in fact, causing it to happen). For example, I can choose to move my arm, but that only happens if God chooses to make that happen.

Now that can get into some interesting issues regarding morality and God, but that, I think, would be more appropriate on another thread.

Anyway, angels and humans can cause things to happen in reality (either “paranormally” or “normally”) as secondary causes, but God would always be the primary cause of such things.

Hence Tracks 1 & 2 are reconciled … at least insofar as one can say that “God is the cause of everything in reality” AND that demons infest the world and cause things to happen.

… but the idea that a person could say cast death spell on another is quite alien. I mean, if i walked up to a priest and said that he’d probably laugh at me (and with good reason).

Most priests I know believe in “death spells.” In fact, I don’t know if any of the priests I know deny their existence. It’s true that priests don’t seem to talk about it very much, and many times the reason is (apparently) that people may become interested in the occult and start reading witchcraft. It also scares the heck out of people when perfectly respectable priests say that spells exist.

 

[Areopagite]

But then where exactly is the dividing line between what is deemed innocent/mere superstition versus “placing one’s soul in mortal peril.” Is there an established criterion that can be looked up? If such a criterion exists, how has it changed throughout the ages?

I’d be interested to know if there is some rigorous guideline for determining sinful superstition.

However, certainly if you practice superstitious actions thinking they have some power to even overrule divine power, then it’s sinful. It is possible that most acts of superstition are not this … but perhaps there are more of them in our life than we care to admit.

Betterave:

I don’t think Betterave was saying that. He’s saying that just because someone uses legitimate science, doesn’t mean there’s necessarily nothing demonic about the scientist’s attempts to manipulate reality (with that science). Betterave (I think) believes that science can be used for good or evil. When science is used for evil, it becomes demonic in that way (not intrinsically though). That’s what I understood Betterave to say.

You can place the blame for that comment squarely at the foot of a few good Aristotlean-esque Jesuits i know for that one. As for “contort reality to their whims,” yes we can certainly try, but miracles or magic implies a sort of “shortcut” that bypasses the hardwork that we do.

Those Jesuits weren’t necessarily wrong depending on what they meant by that. What do YOU mean, TheAtheist, when you talk about “manipulating reality.”

But what i’m asking about is the treatment of the topics within the Catholic community. There is a mighty bandwidth between those who wouldn’t be bothered with such things calling it completely and totally rubbish, and those who for some odd particular reason believe reading Harry Potter opens one up to occult forces. To them the threat isn’t merely a violation of one’s faith, they believe in a true palpable existence of some harmful entity who specifically targets you for moving a oujia board plastic piece around.

So who is right? Or rather, whose opinion is more orthodox?

While I defend Harry Potter, it is true that physical objects can be means to open one up to occult forces. But of course, the phrase “open one up to occult forces” is extremely vague. Anything could do that. Anything that makes one think about the occult in any way could “open one up” to that, including Lord of the Rings or fairy tales, for example. Here, I’m more talking about the psychological/artistic influence of getting one to think about the potential enjoyment of summoning demonic spirits in some way to do your will. When you choose to become willing to invite such things in, then demons are able to influence you even more. That may sound stupid, but it’s I think it’s obvious true on a natural level with regard to human-to-human influence. If you are willing to be vulnerable and let someone influence you, that person gain greater power to do just that. If you are willing to allow spirits to talk to you through a Oujia board (which is kind of the point of a oujia board, right?), then … there you go.

There is also the other topic where demons get attached to particular things (cursed objects) but we don’t have to go into that if you don’t want to. But if you do, no problem. I don’t want to throw too much crazy stuff at you.

 

[HelenaMT]

On Metaphysics and Magic, track 1 and track 2 are not very different, since demonic possession accounts for any extraordinary effects. As far as I know, Catholics who have a problem with people using Ouija or trying to cast spells don’t really believe it is the individuals who are doing the magic, but that demons find it easier to get in and act through them when they engage in those practices, as if they’ve opened up a psychic channel or something.

I don’t know anyone who thinks that a person can actually cast spells, or gain some power of their own through ritual. But yes, it would be more than a little incoherent to hold that only God can work “magic” ( defined by something that violates natural laws) but also acknowledge that demons can, too. If I were going to make sense of that, I would have to say that if God can allow pedophiles to operate, He can certainly allow demons to do their thing to people that ask for it.

As far as Metaphysics and Other Religions ,I don’t know anyone who seriously believes people of other faiths are actually worshipping demons (unless their god is demanding human sacrifice or orgies or something). I think most people exposed to any of the social sciences would tend to go with track 1 on this one. However, if one seriously believes in demons, whose to say that they can’t masquerade as gods and take advantage of people who don’t know any better? That’s how a few people I have spoken to reconcile track 1 and 2 on this one.

 

[Betterave]

But then where exactly is the dividing line between what is deemed innocent/mere superstition versus “placing one’s soul in mortal peril.” Is there an established criterion that can be looked up? If such a criterion exists, how has it changed throughout the ages?

I’m not sure what you’re asking about here. If you want to know in general when it is that one places one’s soul in mortal peril, this is a very general question which is answered by giving the general conditions for committing mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, full acquiescence of the will. This doesn’t change just because we are dealing with demons or the possibility of exposing oneself to demonic influence.

Ok, now you’ve confused me even more - are you saying there’s something demonic about science?

I think Areopagite’s reading of what I meant was pretty accurate. Here’s an example: The practice of vivisection is very much a practice that would fall within the gambit of modern systematic scientific inquiry (I think of Robert Boyle here, one of the great pioneers of modern science), but here scientific enquiry takes its pursuit of power in the direction of the destruction of compassion and love. BTW, Catholics do not limit Satanic/demonic activity to things that are palpably ugly and scary - deception, not fear, is Satan’s primary weapon (you remember the story about the beautiful apple).

You can place the blame for that comment squarely at the foot of a few good Aristotlean-esque Jesuits i know for that one. As for “contort reality to their whims,” yes we can certainly try, but miracles or magic implies a sort of “shortcut” that bypasses the hardwork that we do.

I was just talking about the ordinary operation of efficient causality found throughout nature, including in beings with wills (i.e., voluntative faculties, not instructions about what to do with their belongings after they die).

But what i’m asking about is the treatment of the topics within the Catholic community. There is a mighty bandwidth between those who wouldn’t be bothered with such things calling it completely and totally rubbish, and those who for some odd particular reason believe reading Harry Potter opens one up to occult forces. To them the threat isn’t merely a violation of one’s faith, they believe in a true palpable existence of some harmful entity who specifically targets you for moving a oujia board plastic piece around.

So who is right? Or rather, whose opinion is more orthodox?

In terms of orthodoxy, the complete rubbish crowd are too secular in their thinking and are not orthodox at all. On the other hand, an assessment of particular situations (e.g., reading Harry Potter) as being near occasions of demonic involvement (or not so near, or not at all) is a matter of casuistry and we can’t really give an ‘orthodox’ view in such matters. Such questions are necessarily matters to be entrusted to the mature judgment of those who have the relevant experience.

Nuances my friend, its about nuances. That and there’s the 2nd half of the matter involving the Metaphysical overlay of how the invisible world works, and what that implies for other religions.

I’d like to address part 2 but I just wanted to start at the start and try to get clear about part 1 first.

 

[TheAtheist]

An admirable post, TheAtheist.

Hence, most of your definition of “occult science” seems … okay, except for when you say “unsystematic.”

I think that’s one of the toughest questions in existence. The lame but probably true answer is that there’s many definitions of it. Or not.

I try - after all i find hammering out particulars to be much more interesting than what normally goes on in these forums.

As for the definitional issue: the problem is that the category of “magic” seems to encompass a lot of practices besides the systematic ones you have alluded to. Not everything is Alchemy or Astrology, or Hermeticism. I’m reminded for instance, of the various Greek Magical papyri of late antiquity that we still have inherited. Its a hodgepodge of flawed chemistry/alchemical beliefs, what i can only identify as “folk superstition,” and things that pull more systematized ceremonial rubrics.

Could you explain what you mean by “manipulating reality”?

let me take another stab at this. We can manipulate reality simply by pushing a pen off a table. But what magic, religious ceremonial rituals, and science attempt to do is manipulate reality in such a manner that relies upon principles that are not necessarily intuitive or experiential.

The scientist would of course say, that the “map” of those principles that we have generated is more accurate due to the fact that there’s a higher degree of precision and reproducibility of the effect.

For example, I can choose to move my arm, but that only happens if God chooses to make that happen.

Hmm, sounds a bit like Descrates’ Occasionalist descendants.

Most priests I know believe in “death spells.” In fact, I don’t know if any of the priests I know deny their existence. It’s true that priests don’t seem to talk about it very much, and many times the reason is (apparently) that people may become interested in the occult and start reading witchcraft. It also scares the heck out of people when perfectly respectable priests say that spells exist.

Interesting thing is, i’ve heard something more along the lines of what Helena has encountered:

I don’t know anyone who thinks that a person can actually cast spells, or gain some power of their own through ritual.

Ergo - my confusion.

 

[TheAtheist]

I’d be interested to know if there is some rigorous guideline for determining sinful superstition.

However, certainly if you practice superstitious actions thinking they have some power to even overrule divine power, then it’s sinful. It is possible that most acts of superstition are not this … but perhaps there are more of them in our life than we care to admit.

Ah see, that is exactly what i meant - perhaps you should serve as the translator between myself and Betterave Areopagite, since you seem to be hitting the nail on the head and clearing up our miscommunications.

I’m still having an issue though of p(name removed by moderator)ointing when a superstition is ruled out as “silly” or “dangerous” by your Church. Goes back to the attitude of either “the Oujia board is just some paste board and a plastic piece of no consequence” to the “Oujia board is dangerous.”

While I defend Harry Potter, it is true that physical objects can be means to open one up to occult forces. But of course, the phrase “open one up to occult forces” is extremely vague. Anything could do that.

If anything can do that, then why are those particular actions associated with what the common man would call “occult” under heavy scrutiny? What makes them “special?”

 

[sidbrown]

NON-CONFRONTATIONAL

The ONLY problem between Atheism that is not emotionally based, is in the understanding of the concepts that you mention and are questioning.

Metaphysics is about abstract concepts. The entities are ALL only concepts. Misinformed and manipulative people (in all organizations) speak of those concepts as though they were physical entities that can float down dark hallways and hide under your bed.

Concepts are eternal. Take the concept of a perfect circle for an example.

A perfect circle, although used thoroughly throughout Science and mathematics, CANNOT exist in the physical world. Science can verify that for you if you like, but as a metaphysicist, I can tell you without any empirical evidence that it is definitely an impossibility. But the concept of a perfect circle, although perhaps called something different in a different time, will always be that exact same concept - it is an “eternal” entity.

The same is true of ALL abstract concepts. A “tree” is an abstract concept. There can never be anything physical that is only the exact concept of a tree. Every instance of a tree, is a variation of the abstract concept. We place all said physical trees into the category that we call “tree”. That concept never changes but might get renamed.

Science is for the express purpose of verifying concept usage. Science does not discover truth, but verifies truth. Upon verifying or discovering that something cannot be verified, Science instigates questions and new concepts get defined so as to answer the questions. But the “truth” is built by defining those concepts and deciding which ones you want to live by - Philosophy, not Science.

The word “supernatural” merely refers to those concepts that are “above” the natural physical world and are said to “govern” the physical world. They are the eternal principles and include the “laws of Science”. Sometimes, as Science discovered, principles can be verified as false (fallen “angels”).

The word “superstition” refers to invented concepts that are used to connect events (stitch) but are not in themselves verified and sometimes not even rational. Science is using many such entities today so as to attempt a complete explanation before it has actually finished its job.

A “demon” is merely a concept that divides an otherwise monolithic entity (de-mon).

The word “demonstration” comes from “demon-stration”, meaning to “straighten out the demon”, “bring light into the darkness of thought” or simply “remove doubt”. Doubt is a concept that is a demon. This is why “Faith” is such a big issue in Christianity.

That help any?

No it does not help because demonstration comes from de- meaning entirely, and monstrare meaning to point out or to show.

 

[Betterave]

Hmm, sounds a bit like Descrates’ Occasionalist descendants.

Agreed. Not really a Catholic kind of view, I’d have thought.

Interesting thing is, i’ve heard something more along the lines of what Helena has encountered:

“I don’t know anyone who thinks that a person can actually cast spells, or gain some power of their own through ritual.”

Ergo - my confusion.

Well I wonder what Helena means. She says “power of their own”; and I think we’d all agree with that. But it doesn’t seem that she’s saying that she doesn’t know anyone who thinks that a person can channel powers that are not their own by means of spells. Helena?

Ah see, that is exactly what i meant - perhaps you should serve as the translator between myself and Betterave Areopagite, since you seem to be hitting the nail on the head and clearing up our miscommunications.

I’m still having an issue though of p(name removed by moderator)ointing when a superstition is ruled out as “silly” or “dangerous” by your Church. Goes back to the attitude of either “the Oujia board is just some paste board and a plastic piece of no consequence” to the “Oujia board is dangerous.”

Quote:
While I defend Harry Potter, it is true that physical objects can be means to open one up to occult forces. But of course, the phrase “open one up to occult forces” is extremely vague. Anything could do that.

If anything can do that, then why are those particular actions associated with what the common man would call “occult” under heavy scrutiny? What makes them “special?”

First of all, Areopagite’s “anything could do that” is obviously hyperbolic. Second, could you clarify: is your question about the reality of demons, magic, witchcraft, etc.; or about the criteria for assessing superstitious practices? It seems to me that you were after the former to start with, but now you’re after the latter? As for the specialness of things like a ouija board, it seems fairly obvious to me. It’s not a silly reliance on lucky underwear, it’s seeking to be guided by unknown spiritual forces, inviting them to influence oneself. In all monotheistic religion, so far as I know, this kind of thing is thought of as committing adultery, or going ‘whoring,’ in your relationship with God.

 

[Betterave]

One more thing: I’m not sure what you mean by “under heavy scrutiny,” but ouija boards, for example, are not under heavy scrutiny, they’re simply strictly forbidden, just like commonplace, purely natural adultery.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think these two views are actually compatible, though people often stick to one or the other.

Part of the trouble is with what people mean by “magic” which can vary widely.

Sometimes they mean something like Satanism - making deals with evil spirits in order to manipulate others and gain power etc. The Church does believe such spirits exist, and obviously that this kind of thing is wrong, even if it is in the short term for “good” ends. It also believes that at times they can explain otherwise inexplicable phenomena - but not always by any means. One can easily ascribe too much to demons.

Another kind of “magic” is more like what is practiced by some neopagans. It does not involve demonns, (although I will add a caveat to this…) It is rather the attempt to assert ones own will on reality to achive some end. The explanation of how this occurs is not necessarily that it has to do with appealing to spirits, or gods, but rather to one’s own, personal, psychic energy.

THis can be more morally ambiguous. In some ways, it can be compared to prayer, or even practicing Sacraments, depending upon how it is understood. It has a lot in cmmon with “the power of positive thinking”. And at that level it is probably ok. The biggest problem with it though at the level of practicing “magic” from a Christian perspective is that it centers on the will of the individual, rather than the will of God. THat is in many ways the opposit of Christian spiritual practice (and that of a lot of other religious groups too.)

The other thing is, it could unwittingly intersect with the first kind of “magic”. If there are indeed evil spirits, attempts at this kind of magic could easily be turned to other ends, because the human will is fallible and corruptible. So there is the possibility of opening oneself up to evil influences.

I think in many cases, some people are assuming all cases of this second kind of magic are actually the first kind. But the Church does not think this is always so.

Then there is magic in literature, which is really often symbolic of something else, a literary device. Often one sees that “good” magic is in accordance with truth and nature, while “bad” magic works against it, as a kind of external version of what happens internally in real life. But again, some (very silly) people think that this too must be some form of Satanism.

The same is true for the metaphysical dichotomy that you speak of.

The Church has always understood that natural religion exists and can lead us to to Truth, if incomplete Truth. Even those who have rejected parts of the revealed Truth are often still understanding other parts of it.

So natural religion, or human reason, can lead us astray by either not showing us the whole truth, by leading us to mistakenly think untrue things are true, or to reject truths unwittingly. As a Christian, I would tend to think that the average Muslim, for example, is in this position. Honestly searching for God, and indeed finding him, but for a variety of reasons making some errors about his nature.

But again, the Church does think there are darker forces that can at times play a part. Natural religion could be perverted deliberately by such a force. A fallen angel could make a false revelation to people, or a person. It could be that Joseph Smith, for example, was working too long in the hot sun, or a demon misled him by planting evidence, or something inside himself caused him to make false claims (though some might say that is the same as saying a demon was at work, just in a more modern way.)

But for some reason many people see only the idea that these things are related to some dark entity, and so assume they cannot be in any way even related to the God they know.

One theory I have is that they forget that Gods special revelation is not his only one, but that he also reveals himself through reason and creation, and that for us humans, even special revelation must be filtered through these things and so does not always get understood properly. Even when people really want to, and there are no demons at work at all.

 

[geometer]

When you say that alchemy brought about chemistry you were well on your way to answering your own questions. It has always been there in the words we use.

Magic is from the sanscrit root mag which means priest. Magic roughly means priestcraft in the failed sense. However, there is the word magisterium which applies to roman catholic practitioners. I would supose the singular form to be magister, magistry.

There is the eclesiastical formula which these magistrates adhere to:

form, substance, intent

I heard a priest say on tv that, catholics do not believe in magic because it does not work, but they would if it did work, and they don’t have to because what priests do, does work…

 

[James_S_Saint]

“Mag” actually referred to “authority” specifically gain through your weakness.

The inability to discern truth creates a weakness of mind. Deception is the result and thus the Magi were experts at utilizing deception to gain power/authority. They were the priests of belief.

Thus the prefix “mag” refers to both authority/strength and to deception. The Christian and Jewish altruistic priests, though both an authority and a defender of belief, block or refuse deception by recognizing it and disallowing it. They have to know of the means of deception in order to effectively do their job of preventing it and thus are both magi, in knowing the methods, and anti-magi, in knowing how to prevent such methods.

The result is that Christian priests are “anti-magic”. They cannot subscribe to the deception in magic because they know it can be defeated.

 

[Areopagite]

First of all: Bluegoat, I agree with everything you said. Very well spoken.

I’m still having an issue though of p(name removed by moderator)ointing when a superstition is ruled out as “silly” or “dangerous” by your Church. Goes back to the attitude of either “the Oujia board is just some paste board and a plastic piece of no consequence” to the “Oujia board is dangerous.”

Fair enough. Disappointingly, I would say that distinguishing a silly superstition from a dangerous superstition is not an exact science. Aristotle said morality wasn’t an exact science either. But it’s more exact perhaps than most people think.

First of all, I would say that a Oujia Board isn’t evil in itself. What’s evil about it … is what it’s designed for. I suppose you could use the Oujia Board for construction material for various innocent and productive 2nd grade building projects. But if you use it for trying to let some kind of spirit tell you something … then it gets a little shady … and needlessly dangerous … and thus condemnable. The same can be said of gas chambers that the Nazis used. I suppose those aren’t evil in themselves, but they were designed for evil purposes. But if you use them for something other than what they were designed for (whatever that might be) then it could be okay (depending on what it is, obviously).

You might have more questions, but I’ll just say that for now.

If anything can do that, then why are those particular actions associated with what the common man would call “occult” under heavy scrutiny? What makes them “special?”

Also a good question.

Obviously, if some thing is used for evil purposes very consistently in a culture, that thing will be associated with that particular kind of evil more and more by people in that culture. Oujia boards are justly categorized under the occult, since they are designed for that the very purpose of indiscriminately invoking supernatural spirits.

I don’t know how to answer you question very particularly. Perhaps you could specify your question.

As for the definitional issue: the problem is that the category of “magic” seems to encompass a lot of practices besides the systematic ones you have alluded to. Not everything is Alchemy or Astrology, or Hermeticism. I’m reminded for instance, of the various Greek Magical papyri of late antiquity that we still have inherited. Its a hodgepodge of flawed chemistry/alchemical beliefs, what i can only identify as “folk superstition,” and things that pull more systematized ceremonial rubrics.

So … what exactly are you saying the definition of magic is now?

let me take another stab at this. We can manipulate reality simply by pushing a pen off a table. But what magic, religious ceremonial rituals, and science attempt to do is manipulate reality in such a manner that relies upon principles that are not necessarily intuitive or experiential.

The scientist would of course say, that the “map” of those principles that we have generated is more accurate due to the fact that there’s a higher degree of precision and reproducibility of the effect.

I gotcha. So, you’re saying magic attempted to do this as well? Both magic and science attempted to manipulate reality in ways that were not intuitive or experiential? What then distinguished the two in your opinion? I’m still not quite clear what you’re saying here.

Hmm, sounds a bit like Descrates’ Occasionalist descendants.

I suppose. However, occasionalism (correct me if I’m wrong) is when human causality is completely taken out of the picture. I’m saying that human DO cause things to happen, but God causes them too … for if He didn’t, He wouldn’t be in control of certain things.

But maybe you have a point, and maybe I have misspoken. I am open to correction. I’m not quite sure why my position would be an occasionalist one.

Interesting thing is, i’ve heard something more along the lines of what Helena has encountered:

I don’t know anyone who thinks that a person can actually cast spells, or gain some power of their own through ritual.

If Helena is saying that no one can cast spells without the assistance of supernatural beings, then I think I agree. If Helena is saying that no one can cast spells even WITH the assistance of supernatural beings, then I would disagree.