Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!news1.best.com!news.texas.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!venus.sun.com!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!news70.West.Sun.COM!usenet
From: markk@West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Open Question: Belief in Magick
Date: 5 Feb 1996 17:35:27 GMT
Organization: SunSoft Platform Engineering, Special Projects
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <4f5f4v$ngm@abyss.West.Sun.COM>
References: <4f0nas$pqn@cybernews.cyberus.ca>
Reply-To: markk@West.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: sagredo.west.sun.com


In article pqn@cybernews.cyberus.ca, rastilon@cyberus.ca (R.D.Lackey) writes:
> Is there any way of proving the existence of magick as a real force?

If you mean a "force" as in "gravitation" or "electro-static attraction",
then, if it was a "real force" there would probably be a way of proving
it.  I, however, do not believe this to be the case.

> Research in mathematical physics suggests that the universe follows set 
> laws consistently. This is in conflict with any belief represented in 
> the postings to this group which suggest supernatural powers.

Physics is not in conflict with Rogerian psychology.  The mere fact
that the former does not predict the latter does not mean that they
are in conflict.

> In short, I am interested in having these ideas discussed:
> a.	Is there any reason for a person to believe in magick?

	People "believe" in a great many things, and there are 
	"reasons" for most of those beliefs.  There are numerous 
	reasons for various people to "believe" in "magick".  
	For some definitions of "magick" and "belief", I believe 
	in magick.

> b.	Can a believe in magick be logical supported (why/why not).

	Can a belief in "love" be supported?
	Can a belief in "greed" be supported?
	Can a belief in "morality" be supported?
	Can a belief in "purpose" be supported?

	I believe that these, and many other such beliefs, can be 
	logically supported ... but suspect that none of these things 
	can be shown to have an existance independent from the minds 
	that conceive or experience them.

	The "logical support" for these beliefs come from empirical
	experience ... where we repeatedly observe that the world
	behaves in a manner that is consistant with the espoused
	principles.

> c.	If magick cannot be logically supported, is there a reason to 
> believe in magick which would not be based in logic?  If so, how would 
> it be valid?

	Beliefs are personal, and the logic that supports them need
	only be cogent to the believer.  It is of little consequence
	whether or not anyone else finds the logic to be compelling.
	None the less, there may be beliefs that exist totally 
	independently from any logical processes.  Often such beliefs
	are adopted because the consequences of not adopting them are
	more terrible than the consequences of logical falacy.

	Whether or not this is valid, depends on how you define "validity".