The Church and Clarke's Third Law

[Lost_Wanderer]

I know I’ve been posting around already but this is so far the first thread I’ve opened since my return to the forums. But saying that, lemme cut to the chase:

If you’re thinking that this might have something to do with A Canticle of Leibowitz, you’d be half right. I’ve never read it myself but I’ve officially given up on how Catholics seem to define ‘magic.’ They cite exorcists chastising those who engage in divination, tarot blahblahblah but now I’ve often wondered at the possibility if such things could be subject to Clarke’s Third Law one day.

Take prediction for instance. I’ve never watched The Minority Report but I’ve seen it referenced more than a dozen times whenever I read about data and analytics technology. The recent Captain America movie touched on the possibility of technology learning everything about you to foreshadow your future behavior.

One might say that the ability to ‘see’ the future is simply a highly advanced ability to absorb and process already existing information. After that it’s just a matter of theorizing what’s most likely to happen. The concept is there whether you put it in a mutant, a magician, computer etc.

That’s just one observation mind you. Let’s suspend our disbelief further and look at the Third Law from a fantasy perspective. When I draw a symbol on a wall that causes ice to form upon it, is it occult or is it some form of technology? Seriously, suppose someone managed to discover something that allowed humans to perform similar feats. Is it the occult or is it just some form of new science that needs to be further explored?

This may all very well be in the realm of fiction. But hey, I’ve learned that fiction could very well be the strongest reflection of how real people think and react to certain ideas.

 

[St_Francis]

The way something looks is not necessairly the same as what it is. The fact that we now have the computational ability to squash numbers together and come up with an idea of where current trends will lead us is not the same as telling the future from a crystal ball.

Scence is based on the idea of sufficient cause: that that which gives the resilt is capable of giving the result. We can see that a computer is capable of squashing all those numbers, and that a crystal ball is incapable of telling us the future.

Thinking that something can give a greater result than it can by its nature is superstition. Thinking a rabbit’s foot can help us do well on a test, for example, is clearly superstition.

The thing about forecasting the future by numbers-crunching is that sometimes some anomolous thing happens which negates the numbers. I always think of the Pet Rock phenomena: who woulda guessed people would go nuts for Pet Rocks? So we can see that the forecast is still subject to its (name removed by moderator)ut and so scientific, even tho it often “appears to be” magical.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I know I’ve been posting around already but this is so far the first thread I’ve opened since my return to the forums. But saying that, lemme cut to the chase:

If you’re thinking that this might have something to do with A Canticle of Leibowitz, you’d be half right. I’ve never read it myself but I’ve officially given up on how Catholics seem to define ‘magic.’ They cite exorcists chastising those who engage in divination, tarot blahblahblah but now I’ve often wondered at the possibility if such things could be subject to Clarke’s Third Law one day.

Take prediction for instance. I’ve never watched The Minority Report but I’ve seen it referenced more than a dozen times whenever I read about data and analytics technology. The recent Captain America movie touched on the possibility of technology learning everything about you to foreshadow your future behavior.

One might say that the ability to ‘see’ the future is simply a highly advanced ability to absorb and process already existing information. After that it’s just a matter of theorizing what’s most likely to happen. The concept is there whether you put it in a mutant, a magician, computer etc.

That’s just one observation mind you. Let’s suspend our disbelief further and look at the Third Law from a fantasy perspective. When I draw a symbol on a wall that causes ice to form upon it, is it occult or is it some form of technology? Seriously, suppose someone managed to discover something that allowed humans to perform similar feats. Is it the occult or is it just some form of new science that needs to be further explored?

This may all very well be in the realm of fiction. But hey, I’ve learned that fiction could very well be the strongest reflection of how real people think and react to certain ideas.

If ESP exists and allows precognition, it would simply be another form of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and would not be immoral, unless one requested assistance from the devil or his minions. Any number of people can and have predicted the future due to a keen knowledge of the stock market or technology (as when Vannevar Bush predicted the Internet during WWII), wild guesses, a knowledge of military strategy, a highly developed sense of how trends develop. Numerous SF writers have made some pretty amazing predictions (Heinlein predicted everything from atomic weapons, Camelbak hydration bladders, and waterbeds. Ray Bradbury, not normally considered a very “techie” writer, accurately predicted political correctness as the greatest cause of censorship, MTV-style entertainment, the negative effects of video games on the young, and so forth. Of course, SF writers scattershot their predictions and they are wrong as often as they are right, if not more so.

There would be nothing demonic or sinful in making predictions qua predictions.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

We can see that a computer is capable of squashing all those numbers, and that a crystal ball is incapable of telling us the future.

But that’s the thing isn’t it? We do so only because we can see it working that way. In plenty of fictional universes, a crystal ball is capable but it’s not just so easily perceived. That’s how ‘magic’ often works with its own body of laws. Those who understand it have their own model for how the artifact works (e.g. just sub mana for electricity and then begin the lecture from there.)

Thinking a rabbit’s foot can help us do well on a test, for example, is clearly superstition.

Unless of course, said rabbit’s foot starts to glow and proves itself with an advanced capacity to telepathically insert answers into your head. (Oh and let’s throw in a connection to some large, unseen database from where it gets the answers. )

If ESP exists and allows precognition, it would simply be another form of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and would not be immoral, unless one requested assistance from the devil or his minions.

This is why I started this thread. When you take the devil out of the picture, fantastical abilities attain neutrality. Unfortunately, when I look at today’s exorcists, they give me the impression that any attempt at developing, researching, or even posing the possibility of people gaining magical powers is occult.

Let’s go back to my example. I mean what if I did wake up one day and found out that I could set something on fire or cause fissures on the ground simply by drawing a symbol or saying a certain word? Why should I go to a priest first instead of a doctor who can make a more thorough analysis/explanation of what I can do?

 

[St_Francis]

This is why I started this thread. When you take the devil out of the picture, fantastical abilities attain neutrality.

No, when a writer creates a fictional world, then he can make it however he wants. When God created reality, He created it the way He wanted it to be.

Theoretically, a writer could create a world in which magical arts are good and scientific ones are bad, but it would bear no relation to our world as it exists.

Unfortunately, when I look at today’s exorcists, they give me the impression that any attempt at developing, researching, or even posing the possibility of people gaining magical powers is occult.

And that would be because they are dealing with the real world as it exists, with demons and evil and all that.

Let’s go back to my example. I mean what if I did wake up one day and found out that I could set something on fire or cause fissures on the ground simply by drawing a symbol or saying a certain word?

Would that not be getting more out of something than it can give? Where is that additional power coming from?

Why should I go to a priest first instead of a doctor who can make a more thorough analysis/explanation of what I can do?

Well, the priest will send you to the doctor first to make sure there is no natural explanation for your situation. Like if you went to a priest and said that you woke up one day being able to read minds, the priest would send you to a doctor to investigate that first. For a major exorcism (like in the movies), apparently they send you to two doctors, one preferably an atheist, for evaluation.

 

[Havard]

First of all, welcome back you old rascal. Your posts are always interesting.

As to Clarke’s third law, I think it’s completely outdated, at least in the U.S. I can’t speak to the Philippines, but virtually nobody here believes in magic as an explanation for any phenomena. Anything fantastical here is assumed to have a scientific explanation.

 

[St_Francis]

First of all, welcome back you old rascal. Your posts are always interesting.

As to Clarke’s third law, I think it’s completely outdated, at least in the U.S. I can’t speak to the Philippines, but virtually nobody here believes in magic as an explanation for any phenomena. Anything fantastical here is assumed to have a scientific explanation.

People in the West may not see it as magic, or may not connect the two, but supernatural phenomena do exist and are becoming more recognized.

 

[Havard]

People in the West may not see it as magic, or may not connect the two, but supernatural phenomena do exist and are becoming more recognized.

My gut tells me that demons are too smart to let infestations become widely recognized. If that did happen, it’d have a detrimental impact on what they’re trying to achieve.

 

[St_Francis]

My gut tells me that demons are too smart to let infestations become widely recognized. If that did happen, it’d have a detrimental impact on what they’re trying to achieve.

That is merely a temporary tactic, not an overall goal.

 

[St_Francis]

I should explain further, perhaps. If the demons can get us fixated on them as purveyors of strange phenomena, people might continue to ignore their more subtle workings on the rest of us, no? And it also seems to me that evil beings, filled with pride, tend to see how far they can go and end up foiling their own plans by their overreaching.

 

[Havard]

I should explain further, perhaps. If the demons can get us fixated on them as purveyors of strange phenomena, people might continue to ignore their more subtle workings on the rest of us, no? And it also seems to me that evil beings, filled with pride, tend to see how far they can go and end up foiling their own plans by their overreaching.

Perhaps, but I tend to think that it’d just freak people out and fill the pews. Supposedly Mass attendance and confessions skyrocketed after The Exorcist came out. And that was just a film “based upon real events” (which is often taken loosely, and with a grain of salt by the public). Imagine the effect there would be with constant news reports about these things.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Would that not be getting more out of something than it can give? Where is that additional power coming from?

Most exorcists often ask that question rhetorically, implying that the source of the power is demonic since it seems beyond science to explain.

And yet, these are the same religious who claim that science is limited in its current understanding when they try to advance the existence of God.

What if science is just a little underdeveloped for the current time? What if there’s some time in the future it’ll advance to understand more things that were normally attributed to the so-called ‘supernatural.’ What if much of the supernatural itself still comprises of more science we have yet to understand?

This is usually the subject of fiction that plays with Clarke’s Third Law. But whenever I come to the defense of fiction against witch hunting exorcist fans, it makes me second-guess the logical reaction of the religious should magic powers prove a scientific reality. You can say that may never be possible but my issue is really more with the attitude towards the idea than just its possibility.

First of all, welcome back you old rascal. Your posts are always interesting.

Ive probably been more rascally since I started posting again. But as to what you said, I think finding a scientific explanation for everything is one of things that brought this Third Law into much discussion.

The idea that the fantastical have some sort of science behind them demonstrates the purpose of the thread. What if the powers that several religious caution as ‘occult’ could in fact belie a science that is need of exploring?

What if mankind found a way to manipulate matter and physics with thought or enhance his senses to the level of precognition? Is Satan still behind it or are we, as Professor X might say, discovering “a key to our evolution?”

 

[Havard]

What if mankind found a way to manipulate matter and physics with thought or enhance his senses to the level of precognition? Is Satan still behind it or are we, as Professor X might say, discovering “a key to our evolution?”

Interesting question.

I can’t imagine a situation in which Satan or his cohort gives something for nothing. So unless you actively ask for a power, and then you receive it, I can’t imagine assuming an extraordinary ability came from Satan or another demon.

Some traditional (real world) “magic” has turned out to be based in science, such as medicine. Certain herbs actually do have medicinal properties. So clearly, that’s okay. The problem that I think the Church has is invoking spirits. Which goes back to my point about not getting something for nothing.

 

[MPat]

If you’re thinking that this might have something to do with A Canticle of Leibowitz, you’d be half right. I’ve never read it myself but I’ve officially given up on how Catholics seem to define ‘magic.’ They cite exorcists chastising those who engage in divination, tarot blahblahblah but now I’ve often wondered at the possibility if such things could be subject to Clarke’s Third Law one day.

That’s just one observation mind you. Let’s suspend our disbelief further and look at the Third Law from a fantasy perspective. When I draw a symbol on a wall that causes ice to form upon it, is it occult or is it some form of technology? Seriously, suppose someone managed to discover something that allowed humans to perform similar feats. Is it the occult or is it just some form of new science that needs to be further explored?

Well, it could be done using our current technology. Have some camera to get the image, recognise the pattern, pour some liquid air and water on that place - and you will have ice. Although it doesn’t mean that it is easy to conceal all that…

But it looks like the real question is not “Can it be done using technology?”, but “Has it been done using technology?”.

Change exorcists to policemen and you can formulate similar questions. Can men die in accidents as well as in murders? Sure. Does it mean that it is sufficient for the defence lawyer to assert without a proof that “Sufficiently advanced accident is indistinguishable from murder.” and the defendant will go home free…? (I suppose one can think of a scenario with assertion “Sufficiently advanced murder is indistinguishable from accident.” as well.)

And just as cases of possible murder have to be investigated, the cases of possible use of magic also have to be investigated. Just like St. Thomas Aquinas investigates different possibilities in “Summa contra gentiles” (dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#104 etc. - chapters “That the works of magicians are not solely due to the influence of celestial bodies” and the like). Although it doesn’t mean that all cases require equally thorough investigation.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

And just as cases of possible murder have to be investigated, the cases of possible use of magic also have to be investigated. Just like St. Thomas Aquinas investigates different possibilities in “Summa contra gentiles” (dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#104 etc. - chapters “That the works of magicians are not solely due to the influence of celestial bodies” and the like). Although it doesn’t mean that all cases require equally thorough investigation.

Well that’s a pretty cool way to put it. (And yes, I’m aware that the best assassins in fiction always have that as their MO.)

But to be honest, I think the use of the term ‘magic’ needs redefinition in the language of the Church. It’s come to mean so many things to the point that maybe you might want another term for the demonic just so that people won’t be confused.

With that said, the only distinction you have all so far made is really the fact that some phenomenon could have the devil behind it or not.

This leads me to my next question. How does the devil think of mankind’s capacity for progress? You might all think that because of science, he’s cackling because it makes it easier for folks to disbelieve in him. Thus, he gets to carry out ‘supernatural’ attacks more often?

Two things just don’t make sense here. One, the same science that could be used to disprove both the demonic and the divine has the potential to also replicate it. And two, said replication could remove the need to resort to consorting with demonic spirits which in turn goes against their original objective for the occult in the first place.

Let me illustrate my point: Suppose one person sought the occult as a means of awakening psychic powers. A scientist comes in and finds that any person could actually activate those powers after turning the former into a test subject (coupled with maybe some theories he already made beforehand). The replicated method eliminated any need for communicating with the devil and simply ‘turned on’ the same switches the devil apparently activated in the original individual. The scientist manages the publish his findings, prove them, research supporting technology and whole world becomes full of psionics. Meanwhile, the fortune tellers, horoscope readers, and ouija board makers are all put out of business because hey, who needs them when you’ve got a metal helmet that does the job?

On a side note, it also prompts me to reflect the conflict between believers of the occult and skeptical atheism. Jesus once said something along the lines of the Devil’s house could not possibly be divided against itself.

Yet when I look at the occultists and atheists, I find them at each other’s throats as much as they’re at Catholics’. Are both parties really the tool of Satan or has Satan actually picked one to represent his true faction on Earth?

 

[agnes_therese]

LW, I don’t see Clarke’s Third Law as an either/or. I think both of these statements are true:
(a) there are supernatural events, that cannot (as in, never) be explained by physical science, because they are outside its realm of competency; and
(b) there are events that we currently don’t understand, and consider “magic” or “supernatural,” but that will someday be explained by science.

Are you seeing it as an “either/or” situation? I kind of get that impression.

 

[Havard]

LW, I don’t see Clarke’s Third Law as an either/or. I think both of these statements are true:
(a) there are supernatural events, that cannot (as in, never) be explained by physical science, because they are outside its realm of competency; and
(b) there are events that we currently don’t understand, and consider “magic” or “supernatural,” but that will someday be explained by science.

Are you seeing it as an “either/or” situation? I kind of get that impression.

I agree 100%.

Science is based on the premise that the universe is rational and observable. So far, we humans have done well by science because everything we keep learning about the universe complies with these premises.

Which brings us to the limits of science. Scientists have no data regarding what else might exist besides our universe, but more importantly humans have no evidence that anything beyond it are observable or rational. In a sense, it would be un-scientific to assume that science could apply anything beyond our universe. We simply do not know.

So to apply this to an example, let’s say Lost Wanderer develops precognition. We should definitely try to use science to understand why this happened. If it yields some intelligible findings, then we can probably conclude science was helpful. But if it doesn’t, that doesn’t mean science couldn’t be helpful, it just means we don’t know.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Are you seeing it as an “either/or” situation? I kind of get that impression.

It’s more like seeing technology in hindsight as a 21st century human.

So to apply this to an example, let’s say Lost Wanderer develops precognition. We should definitely try to use science to understand why this happened. If it yields some intelligible findings, then we can probably conclude science was helpful. But if it doesn’t, that doesn’t mean science couldn’t be helpful, it just means we don’t know.

I think it’s more about not knowing just yet. Sure science has limits but what of man’s undeniable knack for advancing with each new discovery?

I mean look at how far we’ve gone. There’s a not a century that passes where we don’t invent something that was previously held to be magic.

But because we don’t know just yet, it’s always justifiable to presume a demonic origin for fantastical capabilities?

 

[agnes_therese]

But because we don’t know just yet, it’s always justifiable to presume a demonic origin for fantastical capabilities?

Of course not. But wouldn’t it be equally as ridiculous to presume that nothing has supernatural origins?

 

[Havard]

Of course not. But wouldn’t it be equally as ridiculous to presume that nothing has supernatural origins?

Right.

As the wise man said: “I don’t know.”