Print

[corzine]

OK...I thought that this might be an interesting topic.  I don't know if it really reflects the spirit of the "science and religion" category, but I doubt it's the end of the world if it doesn't.  Personally, I have other views about the end of the world.  But that's for another thread.

Someone commented in a thread about anime that the comic was bordering on the line between science and occult magic.  He then indicated that the bible frowns on occult magic.  Is there a difference?  Can there be bad science, or good magic (is occult magic something apart from everyday magic?)

That is my question.  My initial inclination as an answer is that bad science is no worse than bad magic.  But i'm ready to be taught.  Except by violations of sntjohnnys epistemological golden rule.  Yes I'm quite aware that I've been guilty of violating said SEGR on occasion, but just think of it like this: I have a low self-esteem and thus expect more from others than from myself.

OK enough filler...sntjohnny said too that I get to own this thread, or be its emperor or something.  As your emperor, then, I declare the length of this post, as determined by the number of lines, whether they contain text or not, it contains, to be the maximum length of any post in this thread.  Please try to see the spirit of the law and not just make four shorter posts "hintereinander" (doesn't have anythign to do with your "hinter") instead of one long one.

corzine

[Anthony Horvath]

I moved your post so that you now have enforpement powers. 

This is a test of my enforcement powers.  I made sntjohnny misspell enforcement.

[Deep Thought]

Magic is magic, science is science. Forgoing for now discussion as to whether the former exists, it's my belief that such things--which are, for all intents and purposes, means to an end (but such different ends they are, indeed!), and thus can not be called inherently "good" or "bad," just as a gun cannot be called good or bad. It is the hand which wields it, and the result of the gunshot, that is judged, not the gun itself. The same would hold true for science and for magic, no?

[corzine]

That's probably the reasonable conclusion to draw.  But whereas science is initially depicted as neutral, with magic you have the immediate discussion of "white magic" or "black magic".

Am I fooling myself in thinking that science is generally considered neutral?

[cimics]

While I am an avid science fiction / fantasy fan (I have recently slogged through 10 books of Jordan's "Wheel of Time Series"), I would say this on the topic:

Where does the "magic" come from?  If the source is spiritual, then it either would be from God or the devil.  Spiritual power from God is God-directed, but power from the devil can be self-directed.  "Magic" is ordinarily identified as the self-directed power sort, and thus, "magic" would necessarily be evil.  At least, that's how it seems.

[Deep Thought]

The source of magic. There's a question for ya.

Could be the same no matter what. Could be a case of Good Spirits vs. Evil Demons. Could be God vs. Satan, in some obviously non-orthodox version of Judeo-Christianity. But I don't think it matters.

The source (if sentient, as opposed to some other realm of existence that may have endless banks of accessible power, or something like that) could be evil or good, yes, but the source and its output are two different things. A black mage might invoke the power of Satan and intentionally save the life of an innocent child, and that would be a good thing, and maybe this misguided (hypothetically) mage would even be one who has overall good intentions (mayhap not knowing he's working for Satan). Conversely, one who can use white magic (here I'll leave the source up in the air--perhaps it's fairies, dragons, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn that does it) may use said powers to heal an evil dictator, knowingly or even intentionally prolonging the suffering of those said dictator dictates. That would be bad.

This is why I most approve of fantasies--like Final Fantasy--that give both heroes and villains aptitude in both (or all, if other categories of magic come into play--Blue, Green, Arcane, Time, etc.) schools of magic.

Talking of the real-world distinction between White and Black Magic, though, it's clear that there's presumed sources in most cases. If we were to hypothetically assume such magic worked, then, how would we view the magic?

I would view it as a tool. If the result--that the user was driven from God, or something like that--was bad, then I guess that's wrong, but was it the magic that was wrong, or the person who used it? ...I'd blame the person before I even considered the magic.

[cimics]

The source (if sentient, as opposed to some other realm of existence that may have endless banks of accessible power, or something like that) could be evil or good, yes, but the source and its output are two different things.

We could certainly envision made-up worlds in which there is both good and bad magic.  It seems Corzine's question is what about this world, and perhaps, further, from a traditional Christian (or Jewish) perspective?  Looking at it from a traditional Christian perspective, I would comment:

The source would constrain the output.  God wouldn't let His power be used for evil.  The devil might not either, in which case you could self-direct but only for evil.  Even if the devil were less picky, any invocation of evil power would be an evil act even if done to do something that might otherwise seem good. 

[Deep Thought]

Fair enough. But even then, what defines it--the magic itself, or the result of said magic? (Bearing in mind that one's own deteriorated spiritual condition is included as a "result" of them using the magic?)

[cimics]

I think the magic itself would define whether it is bad.  Dealing with the devil would be a no-no, regardless of the supposed reason.

[Deep Thought]

Well, maybe so, if one were to assume a Christian viewpoint when considering the question. Under that assumption, yes, magic is bad.

[corzine]

In part, it's an end-justifies-the-means question, isn't it?  "Can I use bad magic for good stuff?"  Or is magic not necessarily a bad thing?  I guess that's really my question, "is magic bad and science neutral"?
Maybe magic is bad, because it comes from the devil.
Is science's moral worth completely dependent on it's effect?

[TheDoctor]

I think we need a solid definition for both magic and science.

[Deep Thought]

Maybe magic is bad, because it comes from the devil.

I would say yes, but to be clear on this--it's not sheerly for the magic of it. If we were to assume that magic came from the devil, it would logically follow that because this source is sentient, and regulates the flow of magic, then magic would do nothing but what the devil wants it to, which is probably always at least partly bad--even if the only adverse effect were the spiritual "decay" of the one who used it and the conversion of those convinced by the display.

Is science's moral worth completely dependent on it's effect?

Its effect, and its application. Honesty effects it, too. Creating a fake apeman skeleton to score some quick fame and quick cash, for example, would definitely be filed under "bad science."