Monday 2 March 2009

Why?

If a person claims to have a magical power, and then that power is shown to be indistinguishable from a simple sleight of hand, then that is sufficient to show the power is not magical.

In fact, if any apparently supernatural event is shown to be indistinguishable from an event with a natural origin, it is sufficient to show that the event is not supernatural.

Why then is religion, which is indistinguishable from a man-made system of myths and dictated laws, considered by so many to be supernatural and divine?

Question

15 comments:

ZAROVE said...

You know, using derogetory insults like "Magic" may be fashionable with the New Athiest crowd, but it harldy does the otpic justice, and its clear you don't relaly care about hat Religion is or why its beleived.

Instead, you want ot mock the religious and show them how silly all rleigion is, and get htem to embrace reason. By reaosn you mean only things that agree wiht you, becaue your definition of reason is that which is in line wih how you think.

Noen of this is true of coruse. As I said on the Watchmen blog, your whole approach is wrongheaded. Not all theologians even beleiv ein the Supernatural, for example, and there ar eplenty of brilliant and well respected thelogians and Philosophers,a nd even Scientists, who advance beelif in God or other htings you'd scoff at.

That said, how is Hmanism not a Religion when it operate sin the same way a Religion does?

Hypocritical attacks on things you dont understand relaly do get tiring.

Matt said...

I notice you haven't answered my question.

ZAROVE said...

Because its not base don anyhtign I can answer. Its not a real question.

You start off insulting Religion by claign it Magic, which means you really arne't intereste din an answer anyway. Pweople refer to things in Religion as Magic for the same reaosn theyr efer to them as Fairy Tales, they do this to make Religion soudn stupid to beleive in, so they can sound liek they are vastly mentlaly superior. You get this a lot from the Dawkins Drones or the peopelwho frequent other Ahtistic sites that promote Anti-Theism.

By callign it "Magic" when tis relaly not Magic you also conflate the terms, makign them indistunguishable, and by the time we cover that Miracles arne't Magic, and for that matter the Supernatural isn't Magic either, you woudl then contest it because enough posts had been made so that you'd hope peopel had forgotten.

Since your whole poitn is to disparage Religiona nd Religious beleifs, and that is why you call it magic, then there relaly cna't be an address isnce you won't take the tiem to be serious abtthe topic.

We know this form you post abut the Pope as well, since you there assume that all Raitonal, well edcuated peopel understand the need to give condoms and educat epeopel as ot their use ot end HIV, and ince the Pope is an educate dman he simply doens't care about Human life and has palced dogma and the teahcign of the HCurhc over helpign peole.

Its spurious logic base don an arrogant conclusion that everyone who is educated agrees with you persoanlly.

In this case, its basiclaly a mean of diminishing Religious claims by callign them Magic and Myth, and shows how little you care about actulaly engaging in what pepel acutlalythink or what Religion actulaly is.

You wont even admit that your Religious, even though you clearly are.

Religion is a Philosophical framework from which we contextualise our understanding of the world, tis the framework we use to understand our world. Everyone has a Religion, this includes you.


Religion wasn't created by anyone, its emergent, and Religion really just deals in what one beleives to be true. As a result, any Philosophical model we develop is essentually Religion if we use it to understand our world and place in it, and apply it to our lives as how we describe reality. There is no real difference between Atheistic modles and theistoc ones aside from conclusons, and htis is true of naythign else besides theism and atheism.

even your Humanism is a Religion. It acts to tell you how the world works, to define your rle in it, and to help you explain your relationship to said world, and the peopel in it. It is the basis of your moral and ethical values. It is how you interpret the informaiton you get.

In what way is it non-religious? SImply because your an Atheist? That harldy makes it non-Religion.


As to the rest, Religion is fundamental to Humanity, even though spacific religions like Humanism or CHristianity develop out of cultural milies, they still ultimately address the world we see around us, and build form the apst cultures and beleifs.

Your never goign to get id of Religion even if you ocnvince everyoen Religion is bad, and get htem to all accept Humanism. There woudl still be shrines to great "Freehtinekrs" of the past, pilgrimages to Sacred sites ( If not called sacred) and teahcigns abse don hat hey said. In no way is htis diffeent from Christianity except in the content of what is taught.

Worse, your alo a Hypocrite since your OK with Neo-Paganism. This is because htye agree wiht your Humanistic morality. THen you lie about it and pretend they are htiests in intent of not language, and say the same of the Ancint Pagans who acutlaly wherne't anythign at all like their Neo-Pagan counterparts. (Ther ewas no worship of the Goddess for example, and the gods where udnertsood to be external.)

You dont' use the term "Magic" for them, either.

No, lad, ytour use of the word Magic is for Chrisyianity and your attack is unfounded because you don't even condsider that since Religion is a basic unit of Humanity and that spacific religiosu traditions emerge from cultural miliues that of coruse they will seem to be connected to past cultures.


You also are arrogant enough to assume that if someone beelives ina Micles they ebelive in Magic, and worse, theya re irraitonal.

A Raitonal Mind woudkls ee htem as clealry imposisble, because you sid so.

So how can I answer your quesiton? It snot even really a quesiton, its a statement.

And an arrognt one at that.

Matt said...

Zarove,

This post wasn't directed at Christianity in particular.

Please don't feel like your particular myth is being singled out for criticism here. I put all religions, including but not limited to Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and Scientology into the same bucket.

They're all, in essence, the same: outlandish claims about the supernatural without any evidence whatsoever to back them up.

I am curious though. What's the precise difference between miracles and magic? I don't see it.

ZAROVE said...

Matt, by addresisng my faiht as "Myth" you again show what I mean. I am not here to attakc you because Im sensativ abotu attakc on my faith as you asserted in the fear thread, I'm makign a point based upon how your claims are illogical.

Also, you clealry don't put all Religiosn int he same bucket. You refuse to even admit Humanism is a religion, because it doesnt beleive in a god, weven thoguh theism is not a prerequisit to Religion, and said elsewhere Paganism is Atheism in intent if not in language.

Also, your fallign back on "Outlandish claism abtthe supernatural withtu evidence", thats not what Religion is.

You arne't even payign attention to what Im actulaly saying.

Religion is a systematic framework by which we udnerstand our world. It doens't always include beelif in the SUpernatural.

Faith is also not beleif withotu evidence, and if you'd bother to read anything by acutal thinkers you will ee that Religious claism are backed by evidence. Do I need to brign up Paul Tillich or even Anthony Flew?

What your spoutign here is Propogandistic rhetoric, abotu how Ahtiems is science and reason and Religion is Faith and nonsence because its base don beleif wihtotu evidence, btu this is exaclty whats wrong wiht your attack son Religin int he firts place.

You misdefine terms and come up with critisisms that aren't valid because htye are base don false assumptions.

Matt said...

Again, you haven't answered my question.

What's the precise difference between miracles and magic?

ZAROVE said...

I didn't have ot as it was a Periphrial question.

It also illustrates why this "New Atheism" is intellectually bankrupt.

You shoudln't need me to answer this quesiton, since the answer can easily be found if you bothered ot read anythign on the topic by those who jnow. Liekwise, if I answer it, it won't matter since you'll still flal back on clalign them Magic, just as you willr efer to thigns as "Christian Mythology". The real reason you do this isnt because htis is how you honeslty see them, its to denegrate them.

And thats what I noted.

Your tone and choice of words show show little seriosu thought you put into these discussions and your intention of pnly mocking them, jist as your ad hominim attakc on me claimign that Im sensative to percieved threats to my faith showed a willignness to mitigate agaisnt oponants by islatign them, rather htan addressing their actual problems with your thinkign they address.

I'll again say it, you ren't a lotical thinker, you do not beleive in Critical thinking, and you don't concern yourself with anythign approahcign reason. You only laim to be in this for the sake of rean and logic as it bolsters the image you present, and makes you feel superior, just liek refeirng to the doctirnes of CHristianity as "Christian Mythology' does, just as cliamign Miracles are magic does.

Thats what Im actulaly sayuijng, and won't diveryt form my point to cover your question here since in five days time you'll be back onto claimign its all magic, just liek you will ignore that Hmanism is a relgiion by insistign its not beause its not theistic as soon as I leave htis blog.

Matt said...

It's not a peripheral question at all.

In fact, it's one of the key points behind the original article.

If you can show me how miracles are not magic, then you've removed the entire basis for this article, and will be declared the winner of this debate.

But instead of doing this you choose to indulge in another set of ad hominem attacks (interesting that you accuse me of the same . . . the beam in your own eye?).

Would the explanation really have taken more than the almost 300 words you used in your last comment?

ZAROVE said...

Im not issueing Ad Hom, Matt, and the acucsaiton gets as old as you claimign that all raitonal people agree with you.


As I said before, the distunciton is easy to find in any Encyclopedia, but even if I presente dlinks ot them you'd be bakc at htis in a onth.

You dont say Miracles and MAgic are the same htign ebcause you hoenslty can't see a distinction, you do it to make Miralces seem silly to beleiv ein. Its the same reaosn you use the term "Christian Mythology". Peopel associate mythology withthings that didnt relalyhappen or arent really true, and by usignthe lable "Christian Mythology" you can reinforce in your own midn that Christianit isnt true and try to sway the reader into seeing it htis way.

Sayign all of this isnt Ad Hom, its just a simple fact.


Are you really incapable of lookign up the actual definitions of the word Magic and comapre it to Miracles? I doubt it, btu you won't because you prefer htis argument, and are unwillign to listen to what anyone else says.

The claim that I use Ad Hominim is an old one too, and its because Im a CHristain. You can write an enture rant againt hte pope complte wth Profanity that accuses him of beign dilusional, malicious, and carign only for hos theology and not for real people but you accuse me of Ad Hom if I call you on the carpet for it. You sy its Ad Hom when I accuse you of arriving at a conclusion for emotional reaosns on the Fear aritlce. You accuse me of Ad Hom here.

THis isnt Ad Hom, this is the fundamental problem I have with your arguments agaisnt Religion.

Your enture premise exists only to justify your own hatred of Christianity.

Thats why you use these terms, and thats why thes arguemtns seem to work for you.

No Rational person, includign Atheists, wold buy into your claims, and thats the point Im making.

Matt said...

You seem to be struggling Zarove, so I'll start you off. These definitions are from thefreedictionary.com.

Magic adjective
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural.
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

Miracle noun
An event contrary to the laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause.

I don't see the distinction. Over to you.

ZAROVE said...

Of coruse you don't, Matt, necause you don't want to. Thats my whole point. Thew old "Kets play with dictionaries" routine is also pretty standard.

But you won't addres smy overall point, and that is that you don't really see them as indistinguishable becaue this is your hoenst opinion. Yu see them as indistinguishable, and use the word "Magic', along wiht "Fairy Tales" and "Myth", in order to Bolster your ridicukle of Christianity as silly nonsense, not ot be taken seriously.


As for the definitosn above, they arne't relaly the end all be all, and you shoudl kow that DIctionaries ar enotoriosuly limited, and even still they dont spell out hat you have said.


But very well, why not ask the experts, shall we?

If you visit New Advent Cahtolic Encyclopedia onlien they will discuss Miralces and they have aritlces that tell you the distinciton. No doubt you won't read htem or if you do will look for ways tocotnraidct them, because you need Miracles and Magic to be seena s indistinguishable so you cna continue your merciless mockery, but, the hoienst truth is, you arent sincere when you use the terms, they are just used to help ypu show disdane and to minimalise Christian CLaims.


Befofe you sya I offere dno evidence, NEW ADVENT

I supplied no links, but am short on time.

Matt said...

I couldn't find a definition of "magic" in the Catholic Advent Encyclopaedia, nor a discussion on the difference between miracles and magic. So a link to that would be handy if you have one.

I did however find this definition of miracle:

Wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God.

This is the Greek definition so probably the most relevant to the miracles in the New Testament, which reflects the common modern usage of the term.

This matches up nicely with the first definition of "magic" provided above.

The discussion of miracles on this page was also very interesting. It makes a clear distinction between natural events ascribable to God (like the creation of the soul), and true miracles which imply "the direct opposition of the effect actually produced to the natural causes at work."

That matches up nicely with the second definition of "magic" provided above.

Checking there was a good suggestion, Zarove. As you say, they're the experts.

ZAROVE said...

Matt, you said in another post that Im not really interested in Rational discussion. But, this shows hwo little you are.

You want Mitacles and Magic to be the same thing, and to pretned you honeslty see hno difference, when the reality is, this critisism was adiopte dby you form others when you became an Ahtiest, and you use it to minimalise.

Since you have a Bias in midn already, you see int he soruce I suggested evidence, and thus you win. Isnt that nice. Now if Ir efute your conclusions Ill prove how Irraitonal I am and how I dont want aitonal discussions. Of ocurs ehwo cna I be raitonal? Im a Christian, Ahtiest arr raitonal not people like me.

But, Matt, can you dfidn anywhere on the Cahtolci Encyclopedia that says Miracles are MAgic?

ALso, Magic is acutlaly shown on the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Links follow.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11197b.htm

and

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm

THen again you think what you quotes is "The GReek Definition", when its not.

Here is the quote in full.

""In general, a wonderful thing, the word being so used in classical Latin; in a specific sense, the Latin Vulgate designates by miracula wonders of a peculiar kind, expressed more clearly in the Greek text by the terms terata, dynameis, semeia, i.e., wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God.""

This doenst say "WOnders perfomed by supernatural ect..." is the Greek definition, it says IE, do you even knwo what IE means?

No?

Worse still, this is simply one soruce. DO I have to dig up Paul Tillich, or Kalistos Ware, and quote them at length before you see a distinciton anyoen else sees?


Matt, I'll stay here as logn as you want, but guess wjat, in the end you'll still not see a difference between Magic and Miracles. This isn't ebcause ther eis none, tis because you are operatign with a confirmaiton bias. You WANT the soruces to confirm what you alreayd say, and as a result will force the text to read as you want it to read.

As I said, you want to claim Miracles are MAgic so you can make fun of thise stupid relgiiosu people. Just liek Faith is irraitonal befcause its beleif without evidence. Just like the Bibel is a book fo Fairy Tales.

The words are chosen as Derogatives to diminish the concepts, but arne't accurate at all.


Even New Advewnt says htey arne't. But then, your readign skills are so poor you thinkt he Greek Definition of Mriacles is "Wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God." because htye gave a Greek word for Miracles.

Again, you arne';t seriosu about discusisng these topics.

SPar eme future critism of me having no intention fo raitonally discusisng htings, you have no claim to reason.

Matt said...

Zarove, you're wasting my time.

First, you suggested I look at dictionary definitions. I did. That didn't work for you so you suggested I look at the Catholic dictionary definitions. I did that too. That still didn't work for you so now you're sending me off to some authors, without any specific references to books or articles. This is apparently your argument but you're expecting me to do all your work for you!

Second, the links you have provided don't support your case at all. One is not even about "magic": it's about witchcraft and explicitly excludes "magic"! You have provided no explanation or commentary. I suspect you haven't even read them.

Third, you're again misquoting me. I have not used the phrase "supernatural act" anywhere in my previous comments. I used exactly the same quote you did. (This may be your dyslexia playing up - you may want to check a bit more carefully before jumping in with accusations).

Fourth and finally, you're now telling me that the definition of a Greek word is somehow different from its Greek definition. That just makes no sense at all.

Zarove, this has been fun but I'm satisfied that you are not interested in, and possibly incapable of, the kind of discussion I'm interested in having.

At this point you're just wasting my time. If you want to come back with some logical and rational and (most importantly) clear arguments that would be great but if not, I won't be responding to you again.

ZAROVE said...

Zarove, you're wasting my time.

Anyone who contradicts you wastes your time.

But its a waste that is greater, your endless and useless hatred of the CHristian Faith, and need ot mock it.

First, you suggested I look at dictionary definitions.
I did that, but you shoudl realise that I have commented on dictionaries. Not oly did the two Dictionary entries (WHich were not single definitoons) not acutlaly align perfeclty as you presume they do, but I also noted that they arne't even exhaustive.

The definitons you supplied do not, in facxt, support your claim that Miracles and Magic are the same hting, and I said this above. Before condemnign me for not reading your remarks or articles, then try reading mine.




I did.


And you saw int he definitions proof even thugh this wans't quiet what was really there, because you filtered the informaiton, interpretign it in such a way to arrive at your predetermined conclusion.



That didn't work for you


Actually it didnt work for you. The definitiosn you supplied do not, inf act, make the claim that Miracles and Magic are interchangable. Even fi they did ( SUppose I go to their soruce and htye use them as synnyms as an example) I still stand by the fact that Dictionary Definiions arne't exhaustive and arugment by dictionary is not always the best mean, though your misreading of the definitiosn you supplied suffices for now.




you suggested I look at the Catholic dictionary definitions.


No Matt, its an Encyclopedia, not a Dictionary.

And, no Matt, the Catholic Encyclopedia did not actulaly support your claism either. In fact, the Cahtolic Encyclopedia spacificlaly says that Miracles arne't Magic.



I did that too.

No, you didnt. You made a cursory look of the mateiral and spacificlaly sought ways to interpet it as supprot for your original claim, and then twisteds the text to suirt your own ends.

In fact, you thoguth that the Greek Definition of the word was supplied, when in fact, it wans't.

You won't even admit to that error, though.




That still didn't work for you so now you're sending me off to some authors, without any specific references to books or articles.


Kalistos Ware.

St. Augustine.

Thomas Aquinas.

St. Bonaventure.

Rowan Williams.

CHarles SPurgeon.

Deidrius Erasmus.

Paul Tillich

enough names, or shoul I procceed?



This is apparently your argument but you're expecting me to do all your work for you!

No, I'm expectign you to knwo what Im talkign about, sicne your an ex Chrisyain so know all about what Ibeleive and all... didn't you make that claim? THat you where exaclty lie me and know this stuff already?

That said, Mathew, my central point isn't arguing that Miracles nad Magic have seperate definitions, because i know that even if I presented an absoltuely irrefutable case you'd simply insult me, distort what I said, and claim I am beign irraitonal.

Because I am a Christyian, you must see me as innately Irraitonal, especially isnce your whole Ahtiest Identity requires tyou see CHristiantiy itself as Irraitonal and base don beelif withotu evidence, and that now you need proof.

But your comments above, which deride Relgiion as Mythology and your reference ot Miracles as MAgic show that in the end you arne't relaly basing your consideratiosn on anythign but raw passion.

The word selection you use is what I am pointign to. You choose these words not because htye reflect what you hoenslty see, but becaus eby using them you can diminish Religion to somethign absurd not to be taken seirozuly by raitonal minds.

This is also who you, as a Humanist, refuse to admit even the possibiltiy that Humanism can be udnerstood as a Relgiion, because you have loaded the ord Religion with negative baggage, and have attacked it. If Humanism wa sundertsood as a Relgiion that sort of thing woudl be rather hypocritical, so you distiunguish Humanism form Religion even though nothign seperates it form Relgiion, and you call Miracles MAgic and Narratives form Relgiiosu Texts Mythology, to reinforce the rejeciton of it and to get the reader to do the same.

Its not to do withthe definitions, even thoguh you are wrong and htis is demonstratable.

You see in any evidence that you are right simply because you want ot see that. Yoru own dictionary references do nto say Miralces and MAgic are the same htings, you just see thta because you want to see it.

And your word choice reflects that, just as it reflects that the cause to your critisism is ultimatley emotive, and that you arne't intereste din raitonally discussing the otpic.

Which, Iropnicllay, is what you claim to be all about. beleif base don evidence, logic, critical thinking, and Sicnece are what you claim you use now as an Ahtiets whereas before as a Christain you didn't, but when you post rubbish that says Religion is all mythology and Miralce aand Magic, you dont engage in what peopel acutlaly think about htese topics.

It sliek with the Fear STudy when you jump tp the cnclusion that relgiious peopel fear deaht whewas Atheists donmt. THis is personal Bias. Is it science to use one survey? Its nto beem replicated has it? And the survey was of 345 people, too small a sample size. THe Survey also didnt mention why these peopel fohght harder for life.

All fo this is unsicneticif and irrational, but you chose it, jjst liek you chose to call Miracles Magic, and chose to call thigns "Mythology" that eprtain to Chrustendom.

Thats the point Im making.



Second, the links you have provided don't support your case at all. One is not even about "magic": it's about witchcraft and explicitly excludes "magic"! You have provided no explanation or commentary. I suspect you haven't even read them.


I've read them, lad.

But I know you didnt read the firts one when you said this...

"I did however find this definition of miracle:

Wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God.

This is the Greek definition so probably the most relevant to the miracles in the New Testament, which reflects the common modern usage of the term."


Actulaly that wasn't the GReek Defnition.

This also come sinto play later.

But the purpose in linking you to the Witchcraft article was ot show the difference ebtween Magic and intervention by Supernatural forces.

If works of God are, in your mind, Magic, why woudlnt works of the Devil be?

If the article describes a difference between Magic and Withccraft, don't you htink that'd be relevant here too?

Or did you not nitice that?

Of ocruse you didn't, youtr too busy sccannign the articles dfor ways you can claim Miracles and MAgic are the same thing ot notice when this idea is ocntradicted, and fial to realise why that disinciton beitng made in Withccraft is relevant.





Third, you're again misquoting me. I have not used the phrase "supernatural act" anywhere in my previous comments.



I'll quote you.

"This post wasn't directed at Christianity in particular.

Please don't feel like your particular myth is being singled out for criticism here. I put all religions, including but not limited to Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and Scientology into the same bucket.

They're all, in essence, the same: outlandish claims about the supernatural without any evidence whatsoever to back them up.

I am curious though. What's the precise difference between miracles and magic? I don't see it."

And here


""I did however find this definition of miracle:

Wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God.

This is the Greek definition so probably the most relevant to the miracles in the New Testament, which reflects the common modern usage of the term.""


So, Matt, you did make this claim.



I used exactly the same quote you did. (This may be your dyslexia playing up - you may want to check a bit more carefully before jumping in with accusations).



But I quoted it to show you why you misquoted it, after you did. You claimed that THis is the GReek Definition" when in fact its not.

Remember?

Or is yout Humanism makign you think you are incapable of error when speakign to a Relgiious person?




Fourth and finally, you're now telling me that the definition of a Greek word is somehow different from its Greek definition. That just makes no sense at all.



No Im not.

I', sayign what you cited is not the Greek Definiitin accordign to New Advent.

IE doenst mean "Definition", it means "For example".

SO no, Matt, Im not sahignt he Greek Definition is nto the GReek Definition, Im saying what you said the aritles GReek Definition fo the word was isn't the GReek Deifnition at all.




Zarove, this has been fun but I'm satisfied that you are not interested in, and possibly incapable of, the kind of discussion I'm interested in having.



Of ocurse I am. I am a Religiosu person. Worse, I am a CHrisyiam. Athiests only can have logical discussiomns and use Critical thinking, we poor dilusional fools stuck in relgiion must rely on Faith...


It gets old beign insulted, Matt, especially given your inability to actually look at ehat Im really saying.

The usdual Insult that CHristaisn are mentlaly infirior to Ahtits and you use Critical thinkign and Logic is just so many cobblers, it snot true in the elast, as evidenced by your comments here.



At this point you're just wasting my time.


Am I? Maybe if you'd really read what I said wihtotu the blinders on Id not be seen as such a waste.




If you want to come back with some logical and rational and (most importantly) clear arguments that would be great but if not, I won't be responding to you again.

All of my arugments have been logical and Raitonal and clear. But, becuase I am a CHristian, and because I happen to disagree ( And inf act because I cal linto question your rationality) you ar eincapable of ever seeign me as raitonal.

TH eonly way to be Raitonal is to agree wiht your prejudices, and that won't happen, Matt.

Im too well educated and too rational to buy into the rot you churn out, and thats the point.