{"id":2037,"date":"2009-07-01T01:10:07","date_gmt":"2009-07-01T06:10:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/paganpages.org\/content\/?p=2046"},"modified":"2009-06-25T12:48:31","modified_gmt":"2009-06-25T17:48:31","slug":"pagan-theology-9","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/2009\/07\/01\/pagan-theology-9\/","title":{"rendered":"Pagan Theology"},"content":{"rendered":"

Magic:\u00a0 Made Up Scientific Explanations <\/strong><\/p>\n

My last column was titled \u201c\u2019systematic\u2019 scientific explanations\u201d (for magic).\u00a0 I wasn\u2019t talking about explanations that followed a set of rules, rather I was referring to explanations that were, or claimed to be, within the \u201csystem\u201d of science.\u00a0 I suggested that there were not any explanations that worked in the context of actual science, as they would need to follow the specific rules that science has formulated for things like energy (and quanta) as well as the rules for evidence and verification.\u00a0 This month I\u2019m moving on to the next group of explanations for magic, those that do away with having to play by the rules of real science by simply making up new rules.\u00a0 These systems make up new rules, new criteria of evidence, new \u201claws\u201d that mean you don\u2019t have to play by existing rules.<\/p>\n

There are two versions of this type of appeal to science as an explanation for magic:\u00a0 the near science or, dare I say, pseudo science, and the just plain made up approach.<\/p>\n

Near Science or Near Beer? <\/strong><\/p>\n

The near science approach makes claim on existing categories of science and just \u201cenhances\u201d them by positing something else, most likely psi type powers, that exist.\u00a0 Since in the last column I noted that many refer to science, incorrectly, as justification for magic, what then is the difference in explaining magic between using science incorrectly, and using something that is close to science?\u00a0 The difference is that \u201cnear\u201d science \u201cenhances\u201d science with new ideas that extend it beyond where it currently exists.\u00a0 They do this without appeal to the scientific consensus that I talked about last time, much less rigorous and definitive collection and testing of data [1].<\/p>\n

Once a force is posited that exists outside of normal science, one obviously that cannot be easily detected by obvious scientific measures, then you are pretty much cleared to justify magic in any way you want.\u00a0 Of course since it cannot really affect the actual world, then it can\u2019t be detected by science, nor can it actually accomplish much (otherwise it would have been detected and we\u2019d be exploiting the hell out of it).\u00a0 Its like near beer, it looks the same but doesn\u2019t produce the same effect when you try it out in the real world.<\/p>\n

The most common form of this argument is an appeal to Psi or psychic effects [2]. Bonewitz discusses this approach in Real Magic, as do others.\u00a0 We can either do stuff directly, such as psychokinesis or telepathy, or affect probabilities with our minds as is commonly done during Psi tests with radioactive decay [3].<\/p>\n

The relationship between PSI and magic is both understandable and plausible, if Psi is assumed to exist in the first place.\u00a0 Scrying is just precognition and remote viewing, psychokinesis can explain changes in luck or healing, and telepathy could easily be the reason love and other influence spells work.\u00a0 Of course some spell workings, such as good fortune at some time in the future, or blessings for general wellness and health, would be pretty complicated to accomplish through psychic powers, but if you tried hard enough you could eventually come up with an explanation involving one or more psychic abilities.<\/p>\n

Ignoring the simple argument that psychic abilities have not been accepted by science as existing [4], a number of other questions remain.\u00a0 Does Psi explain everything about magic?\u00a0 If it doesn\u2019t, then something else must be going on.\u00a0 It\u2019s an incomplete explanation.\u00a0 Does appeal to Psi simply represent the explanation of one unknown by appeal to another unknown?\u00a0\u00a0 If so, we are not actually accomplishing very much other than making things more complicated.\u00a0 Or, if Psi explains magic, then exactly how does Psi work?\u00a0 Note that I\u2019m using Psi here as an example, you could easily substitute \u201corgone energy,\u201d animal magnetism, or any number of other ideas and come up with the same result [5].<\/p>\n

So, does Psi ability explain everything about magic?\u00a0 That would depend on how narrowly you define Psi I suspect.\u00a0 If you were appealing to what has been done to research Psi in the laboratory, then you have a very narrow set of tools to draw from, primarily precognition, remote viewing, telekinesis, and telepathy.\u00a0 Of course in some cases it\u2019s hard to figure out where one of these, such as remote viewing, leave off and others, like precognition, begin.\u00a0 What you can say is that, if you go beyond the range of current experimentation, then you are no longer able to appeal to \u201cscience\u201d to explain your magic, and the line of your argument has run off the rails.<\/p>\n

This makes ideas such as candle magic, herbal magic, summoning, and healing somewhat awkward to fit into a system that only appeals to Psi for its explanation.\u00a0 Typically what has to happen is that some other effect or energy must be posited, such as \u201centities are Psi energy that exist independently from corporeal bodies\u201d or \u201ccandles and herbs (or crystals or wands) serve as a focus and amplifier for Psi energy.\u201d\u00a0 These are all fine, however they move away from a purely Psi explanation toward a more \u201csciencey sounding\u201d explanation with no basis in actual research.<\/p>\n

This move away from \u201csciencey science\u201d is fine and perfectly acceptable, except you have now also lost the ability to claim Psi research supports your explanation for magic.<\/p>\n

Even if you ignore the problem of magical practices that do not conform to current concepts of Psi, you have the problem of explaining exactly how Psi works.\u00a0 Is it some form of quantum coupling?\u00a0 Then why don\u2019t the mathematics work out in terms of distance and energies? Is it some ability to see through time?\u00a0 How, exactly, would that work?\u00a0 Given that time and space are linked through the need for light to have a fixed speed no matter the frame of reference [6], being able to see the future most likely implies some ability to perceive something faster than the speed of light (otherwise you\u2019d have to wait for those pokey photons to bring you the information in \u201creal\u201d time).\u00a0 Ignoring the fact that this can\u2019t be done at macroscopic levels even with quantum tunneling and coupling, how would you explain it?\u00a0 A particle that moves faster than light that can somehow still interact with the stuff in your head?\u00a0 A particle that moves faster than light that interacts with spirit which then interacts with the stuff in your head?\u00a0 A set of quanta in your neurons that are somehow linked to a complex and moving set of photons from the stuff you are seeing in the future?<\/p>\n

None of this seems very plausible.\u00a0 And lets not go into the problem of telekinesis where the question of how exactly you would exert a force on an object remotely comes into question.<\/p>\n

Ultimately this process leads to an infinite regression where one explanation leads to another, which leads to another, and nothing ever really gets explained.\u00a0 Just like in the story of the Earth being held up by a turtle.\u00a0 Eventually some wag like me will come along and ask what the turtle is standing on.\u00a0 The elephant, of course.<\/p>\n

Now let me be clear, I\u2019m not trying to enter into a detailed argument about whether Psi effects exist [7].\u00a0 I\u2019ll leave that to others.\u00a0 What I am trying to say is that Psi effects are sufficiently indeterminate in their underlying cause that claiming they explain magic is simply using one unknown concept to explain another unknown concept.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know much more about magic after you are finished than I did before.<\/p>\n

Just make it up <\/strong><\/p>\n

Making up a system that creates a science of magic is almost as old as magic (and science) itself.\u00a0 Magic most likely developed right alongside science as we evolved from thinking monkeys to thinking about monkeys.\u00a0 Both disciplines are ways of organizing what we see and feel in the world in ways that make sense.\u00a0 Science, and in particular engineering [8] allowed the early humans to understand and organize their environment.\u00a0 How rocks worked allowed the development of tools, an understanding of how animals moved and fed allowed more effective hunting, and, ultimately, observation and experiment with grain led to whiskey.\u00a0 We didn\u2019t just sit up and realize \u201coh, ferment this crap and heat it up and condense it and then put it in a barrel and drink it,\u201d rather a lot of trial and error, and incremental understanding of the workings of things led to the development of rather sophisticated technologies.<\/p>\n

At the same time, however, there were things we thought we should understand, but didn\u2019t.\u00a0 Coincidence.\u00a0 Disease.\u00a0 Death.\u00a0 The weather.\u00a0 Magic, and its upstart brother religion, allowed us to organize our thinking about things we could not control, or affect with our efforts.\u00a0 In the same way that science developed formalisms, rules and concepts that explained how nature worked, magic also developed similar formalisms.\u00a0 These formalisms have been used to establish an \u201calternate\u201d science of magic, one that follows its own rules, and makes no appeal to the real world for underlying casual explanations [9].<\/p>\n

\u201cAs above, so below,\u201d \u201cthe microcosm is the macrocosm,\u201d and \u201clike begets like\u201d are all fundamental principles of various magical systems.\u00a0 The circle as a container for the magician, or magical energy, goes back to the Greeks if not beyond [10].\u00a0 The unbroken circle with no corners or edges, and its mysterious mathematical properties, most likely represent a fundamental meme of a lot of western magical practices.<\/p>\n

These underpinnings have been built on through the various stages of magical practice (ancient, medieval, modern) and accreted more and more rules and principles.\u00a0 Of course here I\u2019m talking primarily about ritual magic, as opposed to witchcraft or informal magical practices such as herbal magic [11].\u00a0 Astrology, kabala, herbalism, and angelic\/demonic relationships are three examples of formalisms that are frequently used to undergird ritual magical systems (and often witchcraft systems as well).<\/p>\n

These systems give a rationale and structure to magic, you call east first because that is where the sun rises, you bless your wand in fire because wands are associated with that element, etc.\u00a0\u00a0 In systems that rely on astrology certain actions can only be taken at certain alignments, while herbals dictate various correspondences for herbs and the magic that can be done with the herbs.\u00a0 Many of these associations date back far into history, coming from the time of the grimoires (medieval magic) or even earlier.<\/p>\n

But how does magic work?\u00a0 The answer from these systems would be:\u00a0 it works because it follows our laws, and those laws are universal and as trustworthy as any from science.\u00a0 In other words:\u00a0 we don\u2019t need your stinking science, we got our own.<\/p>\n

From a scientific view this is actually far more acceptable than those systems that attempt to justify magical action by appeal to science or pseudo science.\u00a0 These laws make no claim that what is happening is happening in a way that can be examined or validated using scientific process, or that known or unknown physical processes are at work in making the magic happen.\u00a0 Just like science does not really say much about faith, despite the recent attempts at making a biological association between religious experience and neurology, science really doesn\u2019t have much to say about rules and regulations that claim to exist wholly outside of science.<\/p>\n

Thus the split, the separation of magic and science, is probably the strongest way in which to \u201cexplain\u201d magic.\u00a0 Magic appeals to laws and processes that are not related to science, or the physical world.\u00a0 In this sense magic is like religion, it is a subject of faith and belief, not process and verification.\u00a0 We don\u2019t\u2019 need to apply the same logical or rational principles to magic that we would to a scientific subject because magic and science address two radically different human conditions.\u00a0 Case closed, what we need is a theology of magical faith.<\/p>\n

But wait, while magic is a lot like religion there is one huge difference.\u00a0 Magic has effects in the physical world.\u00a0 Claims about the physical world belong to science.\u00a0 If you make them I\u2019d better be able to verify them.\u00a0 This is the fundamental reason why magic so confounds both religion and science; it makes claims on both of their domains.\u00a0 If we are to really explain magic, then there has to be another way.<\/p>\n

There is another way.\u00a0 One that requires us to move into the world of the imagination.<\/p>\n

Notes and citations <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

[1] The PSI researchers would disagree strongly that they have not brought forth solid, data based, evidence of effects.\u00a0 I won\u2019t argue the individual cases; instead I\u2019d argue the application.\u00a0 If there were evidence that such an effect existed, we would exploit the hell out of it.\u00a0 I don\u2019t see that happening and so I\u2019d argue that if the effect exists its too weak to have any application in the world.<\/p>\n

[2] I\u2019m going to use the term Psi to stand in for psychic abilities and effects.\u00a0 It\u2019s a pretty common term in the more \u201cscientific\u201d literature on the subject.<\/p>\n

[3] The general idea is that a radioactive source will randomly emit neutrons as it decays, producing what is probably the most absolutely random process known.\u00a0 The ability to influence that process would require the ability to influence the probability of decay (or whatever was being measured).\u00a0 While I\u2019m not a statistician I do know better than to think that it\u2019s easy to prove something by appeal to short (or long) runs of statistically random events being non-random.<\/p>\n

[4] I\u2019m being pretty careful in my wording here.\u00a0 Sure, psychic abilities could be present in some people, but the scientific community at large (as opposed to a few individuals) has not generally accepted them as valid.\u00a0 But if they are I argue that they are either very well hidden, or so weak as to be irrelevant.\u00a0 Its like a lot of stage card magic, sure, I\u2019m puzzled by your telling me what card I\u2019m thinking about, but I\u2019m not sure why its important.<\/p>\n

[5] Orgone energy was an invented energy related to the human libido.\u00a0 Which I guess is very convent if you\u2019re an older psychologist looking to raise yourself some energy.\u00a0 It\u2019s related to Mesmer\u2019s animal magnetism.<\/p>\n

[6] I make no claims to being a relativist.\u00a0 This is approximately right, I\u2019m sure my friends who are relativists (yes, they exist, and yes I do have one as a friend) would find many problems with these statements.<\/p>\n

[7] Though to be equally clear, I am very skeptical, and do not believe there has been any effective demonstration to date.\u00a0 And don\u2019t get me started on key and spoon benders.\u00a0 Why, exactly, when you could exert that much force with your mind, would you choose to bend a spoon?\u00a0 Wouldn\u2019t have to do with the fact its readily available for a trick, most look alike, and can easily be manipulated in your hand would it?\u00a0 When I see someone play ping-pong using their mental abilities then I\u2019ll believe it.<\/p>\n

[8] Always have to get in a plug for engineering when I\u2019m talking about science!<\/p>\n

[9] OK, these are my fulminations on the early history and concept of magic and religion.\u00a0 Much has been written on the origins of religion in how we confront death, how we relate to the special world, and how we see the world as alive (animism).\u00a0 At the same time less has been written about magic.\u00a0 However Fraser and others have held forth similar opinions to the ones I advance here about magic being a way to control the world (as is science) while religion is for when we give up controlling the world.\u00a0 For a discussion, however brief, of this subject see Bronislaw Malinowski, \u201cMagic, Science, and Religion,\u201d in Seth D. Kunin (ed.), Theories of Religion:\u00a0 A Reader, Edinburgh, 2006; George B. Vetter, Magic and Religion:\u00a0 Their Psychological Theory, Origin, and Function, Philosophical Library, 1958; Mircea Eliade, A History of Religious Ideas Vol. 1 From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries, Chicago 1978<\/p>\n

[10] See, for example, Daniel Ogden, Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds, Oxford, 2002<\/p>\n

[11] While this is not a history of magic, or a discourse on the practice of magic, I am using a general framework for magical practice that divides magic up into four broad categories: simple superstition (rabbits foot, black cat crossing your path, don\u2019t walk under a ladder, throwing spilled salt), religious prayer and actions, witchcraft, and formal ritual magic.\u00a0\u00a0 Witchcraft tends to occupy a place between the \u201csmells and bells\u201d of ritual magic and the more simple, accessible, activities of prayer or superstitions.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Magic:\u00a0 Made Up Scientific Explanations My last column was titled \u201c\u2019systematic\u2019 scientific explanations\u201d (for magic).\u00a0 I wasn\u2019t talking about explanations that followed a set of rules, rather I was referring to explanations that were, or claimed to be, within the \u201csystem\u201d of science.\u00a0 I suggested that there were not any explanations that worked in the context of actual science, as they would need to follow the specific rules that science has formulated for things like energy (and quanta) as well as the rules for evidence and verification.\u00a0 This month I\u2019m moving on to the next group of explanations for magic, those that do away with having to play by the rules of real science by simply making up new rules.\u00a0 These systems make up new rules, new criteria of evidence, new \u201claws\u201d that mean you don\u2019t have to play by existing rules. There are two versions of this type of appeal to science as an explanation for magic:\u00a0 the near science or, dare I say, pseudo science, and the just plain made up approach. Near Science or Near Beer? The near science approach makes claim on existing categories of science and just \u201cenhances\u201d them by positing something else, most likely psi type powers, that exist.\u00a0 Since in the last column I noted that many refer to science, incorrectly, as justification for magic, what then is the difference in explaining magic between using science incorrectly, and using something that is close to science?\u00a0 The difference is that \u201cnear\u201d science \u201cenhances\u201d science with new ideas that extend it beyond where it currently exists.\u00a0 They do this without appeal to the scientific consensus that I talked about last time, much less rigorous and definitive collection and testing of data [1]. Once a force is posited that exists outside of normal science, one obviously that cannot be easily detected by obvious scientific measures, then you are pretty much cleared to justify magic in any way you want.\u00a0 Of course since it cannot really affect the actual world, then it can\u2019t be detected by science, nor can it actually accomplish much (otherwise it would have been detected and we\u2019d be exploiting the hell out of it).\u00a0 Its like near beer, it looks the same but doesn\u2019t produce the same effect when you try it out in the real world. The most common form of this argument is an appeal to Psi or psychic effects [2]. Bonewitz discusses this approach in Real Magic, as do others.\u00a0 We can either do stuff directly, such as psychokinesis or telepathy, or affect probabilities with our minds as is commonly done during Psi tests with radioactive decay [3]. The relationship between PSI and magic is both understandable and plausible, if Psi is assumed to exist in the first place.\u00a0 Scrying is just precognition and remote viewing, psychokinesis can explain changes in luck or healing, and telepathy could easily be the reason love and other influence spells work.\u00a0 Of course some spell workings, such as good fortune at some time in the future, or blessings for general wellness and health, would be pretty complicated to accomplish through psychic powers, but if you tried hard enough you could eventually come up with an explanation involving one or more psychic abilities. Ignoring the simple argument that psychic abilities have not been accepted by science as existing [4], a number of other questions remain.\u00a0 Does Psi explain everything about magic?\u00a0 If it doesn\u2019t, then something else must be going on.\u00a0 It\u2019s an incomplete explanation.\u00a0 Does appeal to Psi simply represent the explanation of one unknown by appeal to another unknown?\u00a0\u00a0 If so, we are not actually accomplishing very much other than making things more complicated.\u00a0 Or, if Psi explains magic, then exactly how does Psi work?\u00a0 Note that I\u2019m using Psi here as an example, you could easily substitute \u201corgone energy,\u201d animal magnetism, or any number of other ideas and come up with the same result [5]. So, does Psi ability explain everything about magic?\u00a0 That would depend on how narrowly you define Psi I suspect.\u00a0 If you were appealing to what has been done to research Psi in the laboratory, then you have a very narrow set of tools to draw from, primarily precognition, remote viewing, telekinesis, and telepathy.\u00a0 Of course in some cases it\u2019s hard to figure out where one of these, such as remote viewing, leave off and others, like precognition, begin.\u00a0 What you can say is that, if you go beyond the range of current experimentation, then you are no longer able to appeal to \u201cscience\u201d to explain your magic, and the line of your argument has run off the rails. This makes ideas such as candle magic, herbal magic, summoning, and healing somewhat awkward to fit into a system that only appeals to Psi for its explanation.\u00a0 Typically what has to happen is that some other effect or energy must be posited, such as \u201centities are Psi energy that exist independently from corporeal bodies\u201d or \u201ccandles and herbs (or crystals or wands) serve as a focus and amplifier for Psi energy.\u201d\u00a0 These are all fine, however they move away from a purely Psi explanation toward a more \u201csciencey sounding\u201d explanation with no basis in actual research. This move away from \u201csciencey science\u201d is fine and perfectly acceptable, except you have now also lost the ability to claim Psi research supports your explanation for magic. Even if you ignore the problem of magical practices that do not conform to current concepts of Psi, you have the problem of explaining exactly how Psi works.\u00a0 Is it some form of quantum coupling?\u00a0 Then why don\u2019t the mathematics work out in terms of distance and energies? Is it some ability to see through time?\u00a0 How, exactly, would that work?\u00a0 Given that time and space are linked through the need for light to have a fixed speed no matter the frame of reference [6], being able to see the future most likely implies some ability to perceive something faster than the speed of light (otherwise you\u2019d have to wait for those pokey photons to bring you the information in \u201creal\u201d time).\u00a0 Ignoring the fact that this can\u2019t be done at macroscopic levels even with quantum tunneling and coupling, how would you explain it?\u00a0 A particle that moves faster than light that can somehow still interact with the stuff in your head?\u00a0 A particle that moves faster than light that interacts with spirit which then interacts with the stuff in your head?\u00a0 A set of quanta in your neurons that are somehow linked to a complex and moving set of photons from the stuff you are seeing in the future? None of this seems very plausible.\u00a0 And lets not go into the problem of telekinesis where the question of how exactly you would exert a force on an object remotely comes into question. Ultimately this process leads to an infinite regression where one explanation leads to another, which leads to another, and nothing ever really gets explained.\u00a0 Just like in the story of the Earth being held up by a turtle.\u00a0 Eventually some wag like me will come along and ask what the turtle is standing on.\u00a0 The elephant, of course. Now let me be clear, I\u2019m not trying to enter into a detailed argument about whether Psi effects exist [7].\u00a0 I\u2019ll leave that to others.\u00a0 What I am trying to say is that Psi effects are sufficiently indeterminate in their underlying cause that claiming they explain magic is simply using one unknown concept to explain another unknown concept.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know much more about magic after you are finished than I did before. Just make it up Making up a system that creates a science of magic is almost as old as magic (and science) itself.\u00a0 Magic most likely developed right alongside science as we evolved from thinking monkeys to thinking about monkeys.\u00a0 Both disciplines are ways of organizing what we see and feel in the world in ways that make sense.\u00a0 Science, and in particular engineering [8] allowed the early humans to understand and organize their environment.\u00a0 How rocks worked allowed the development of tools, an understanding of how animals moved and fed allowed more effective hunting, and, ultimately, observation and experiment with grain led to whiskey.\u00a0 We didn\u2019t just sit up and realize \u201coh, ferment this crap and heat it up and condense it and then put it in a barrel and drink it,\u201d rather a lot of trial and error, and incremental understanding of the workings of things led to the development of rather sophisticated technologies. At the same time, however, there were things we thought we should understand, but didn\u2019t.\u00a0 Coincidence.\u00a0 Disease.\u00a0 Death.\u00a0 The weather.\u00a0 Magic, and its upstart brother religion, allowed us to organize our thinking about things we could not control, or affect with our efforts.\u00a0 In the same way that science developed formalisms, rules and concepts that explained how nature worked, magic also developed similar formalisms.\u00a0 These formalisms have been used to establish an \u201calternate\u201d science of magic, one that follows its own rules, and makes no appeal to the real world for underlying casual explanations [9]. \u201cAs above, so below,\u201d \u201cthe microcosm is the macrocosm,\u201d and \u201clike begets like\u201d are all fundamental principles of various magical systems.\u00a0 The circle as a container for the magician, or magical energy, goes back to the Greeks if not beyond [10].\u00a0 The unbroken circle with no corners or edges, and its mysterious mathematical properties, most likely represent a fundamental meme of a lot of western magical practices. These underpinnings have been built on through the various stages of magical practice (ancient, medieval, modern) and accreted more and more rules and principles.\u00a0 Of course here I\u2019m talking primarily about ritual magic, as opposed to witchcraft or informal magical practices such as herbal magic [11].\u00a0 Astrology, kabala, herbalism, and angelic\/demonic relationships are three examples of formalisms that are frequently used to undergird ritual magical systems (and often witchcraft systems as well). These systems give a rationale and structure to magic, you call east first because that is where the sun rises, you bless your wand in fire because wands are associated with that element, etc.\u00a0\u00a0 In systems that rely on astrology certain actions can only be taken at certain alignments, while herbals dictate various correspondences for herbs and the magic that can be done with the herbs.\u00a0 Many of these associations date back far into history, coming from the time of the grimoires (medieval magic) or even earlier. But how does magic work?\u00a0 The answer from these systems would be:\u00a0 it works because it follows our laws, and those laws are universal and as trustworthy as any from science.\u00a0 In other words:\u00a0 we don\u2019t need your stinking science, we got our own. From a scientific view this is actually far more acceptable than those systems that attempt to justify magical action by appeal to science or pseudo science.\u00a0 These laws make no claim that what is happening is happening in a way that can be examined or validated using scientific process, or that known or unknown physical processes are at work in making the magic happen.\u00a0 Just like science does not really say much about faith, despite the recent attempts at making a biological association between religious experience and neurology, science really doesn\u2019t have much to say about rules and regulations that claim to exist wholly outside of science. Thus the split, the separation of magic and science, is probably the strongest way in which to \u201cexplain\u201d magic.\u00a0 Magic appeals to laws and processes that are not related to science, or the physical world.\u00a0 In this sense magic is like religion, it is a subject of faith and belief, not process and verification.\u00a0 We don\u2019t\u2019 need to apply the same logical or rational principles to magic that we would to a scientific subject because magic and science address two radically different human conditions.\u00a0 Case closed, what we need is a theology of magical faith. But wait, while magic is a lot like…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":1,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2037","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2037","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2037"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2037\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2037"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2037"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paganpages.org\/emagazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}