Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greg,
>
> I'll do my best here.
>
> Religion is almost invariably made up of
> irrational, unevidenced postulates that explain
> how and why the universe works the way it does.
> Religion is rarely "rational" or requires
> "intellectual" effort to comprehend. Religion
> creates a worldview. It is a given. It is
> tradition. It is dogma.
>
> Magic, on the other hand, is the manipulation of
> one's surroundings based on the best understanding
> one has of those surroundings as supplied by one's
> worldview. Magic is dynamic. It is not static or
> stagnant. Practitioners of magic are often
> insightfully and frequently intellectually looking
> for new ways to work within their prescribed
> worldview to affect changes in themselves or their
> environments. A practitioner of magic will try
> different combinations of spells, potions and
> charms to create the most beneficial outcome to
> the recipient. They will then judge those actions
> against the results and modify their spells for
> the next situation, should the results be less
> than perfect.

I'll chime in since I posted on the "laws" of magic. As I pointed out, pioneering students of the topic, say that science and magic are similar in that they are attempts to control the world, but that they differ in that science excludes the supernatural and magic does not. "Intellectual" is too broad a word and has too many connotations. I like logic better. Basically, the way the Laws of Magic can be derived is by following the logic of the intent of magical procedure in question. And reversibly one can use the Laws to analyze and categorize any magical procedure.
. . . .

> Just because at some later time our science has
> shown us that our previous worldviews were
> probably wrong does not mean that people who
> investigated and attempted to understand and even
> manipulate the factors in their known worlds were
> any less intellectual in that pursuit than a
> modern theoretical physicist. If you were taught
> bad postulates in geometry, would that make your
> logical proofs less logical? No. When you found
> out a postulate was bad, you would have to revisit
> every argument that USED that postulate to
> investigate the change the correction would
> necessitate, but your original logic you employed
> is still perfectly valid.
>
> Even the proponents of Intelligent Design are
> engaging in an intellectual investigation. We may
> find holes in their arguments big enough to drive
> a Mack truck through, but they are still
> intellectuals, doing the best they can within a
> worldview that gives them a false, flawed platform
> for their arguments. Once you accept that false
> platform, however, their argument becomes
> completely rational... and intellectually sound.

Actually, when you really look into it proponents of ID do intellectually dishonest things in terms of misquoting papers in the literature and ignoring relevant data. (but I digress)


> When Einstein showed that certain physical
> constants were actually relative, did Newton
> suddenly become "unintellectual'?

again, a digression but Einstein did not show Newton to be "unintellectual" (I really don't like this word) nor even wrong. Newton is perfectly valid today. Einstein just showed that Newton's laws were a special case of quantum theory applied to slow and heavy (relatively speaking ) things. If one plugs in items in grams and speeds in meters/sec (for example) into Schrodinger's equations you come out with Newton's results.

Bernard
>
> I hope that makes sense.
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
> [www.GizaBuildingProject.com]
>
Quote:"Men are apt to mistake the strength of
> their feeling for the strength of their argument.
> The heated mind resents the chill touch and
> relentless scrutiny of logic." -- William E.
> Gladstone
>
> For magic is so mixed up with the world's history
> that, if the latter is ever to be written at all
> in its completeness, giving the truth and nothing
> but the truth, there seems to be no help for it.
> If Archaeology counts still upon discoveries and
> reports upon hieratic writings that will be free
> from the hateful subject, then HISTORY will never
> be written, we fear.-- H.P. Blavatsky
>