Print

Print
I'm of the opinion that anything positive about occult or magical traditions
should be easily explainable in rational terms. There are concrete benefits
to esoteric spiritualities which are no more mysterious than other religious
systems. But on the other hand I think it's important to keep in mind that
many magical procedures do not work. We don't necessarily need to find
the occult worthy of study because we believe in magic.

I'm with you in finding the skepticism of Randi etc. uncomfortable. Just like
the New Atheists and the Global Warming Deniers. I'd prefer to have a view
of science that remains within the limitations that we understand very well.
Science does not need to make overreaching demands, nor should it be put
on a pedastal and worshipped. Neither should magic!

cheers,
Ted Hand (MA student, GTU in CA)


On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Alexander Hay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Fellow Subscribers,

As someone from an arts/humanities background, I've had an interest in
the occult for quite a while. On the other hand, I'm also a big
supporter of the scientific method and proof through application. For
example, on one web forum I subscribe to, much is made of how
impractical and unsubstantiated some of the more 'mystical' martial
arts, like Aikido, are in comparison to fighting methods like boxing,
judo or Kyokushin karate as these depend on pressure testing (as in,
full contact sparring) as the core of their training.

I do however feel rather alienated by the 'skeptic' movement, despite
admiring James Randi, as I find it is by definition an ideological
mindset rather than a truly scientific perspective. I thus find myself
in a quandary. Am I a believer or just someone into fanciful ideas?
This leads me onto another thought. If magic is 'real', can it be
proven? By that, I mean can magical events be quantified, can these
results be falsified and can such findings survive vigorous peer
review?

Your thoughts please, and if not, many thanks for your time.

Regards,

- Alexander