Peter Caroll, yea. I got confused. The danger of quoting from quotes  
and such.

I think therein lies the key to your being unconvinced. I had 4  
different physics professors before I encountered one who helped me  
"get it". The material was the same, but the style was different. It  
was less the relevance of the material, or its ability to provide a  
viable explanation, and more the ability of teacher to explain it in  
a way that palatable or convincing.

The difference as far as being convinced lies in the nature of the  
means of convincing. Though simpler, saying "believe in some  
invisible entity" may be hard to swallow, but a discussion of complex  
themes like physics might get though despite them being more  
difficult to comprehend simply because it is "scientific" in nature,  
and as such carries with it some sense of real world validity. People  
scoff at pilgrims who traverse Europe with just the clothes on their  
back and the hand of God to guide them, yet have no problem getting  
into their cars and turning on their magic GPS box powered by some  
invisible force from the sky that will tell them how to get someplace  
they've never been before. But that's scientific, and has a  
demonstrable origin. A round about way of explaining my point, but do  
I make some sense?


I think the latent question here is one of paradigm and how we view  
"science" in that framework.

On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:16 PM, mandrake wrote:

> Dear Friend
>
> Interesting - although I wonder sometimes whether there isn't a  
> certain vagueness about this word "science" -
> as to your example of using quantum physics to "lend credence" to  
> the existence of spiritual entities -
> that's something that I find very unconvincing when its brought up  
> - i just don't see the relevance and to be honest am
> not always convinced that those making the arguments are
> really competant to deploy them - and it ends up just another form  
> of "mystification" - which is ironic i know.
> If you cannot accept the existence of a spiritual entity - why  
> should you be persuaded using a complex argument -
> I can't see the point?
>
> By "Liber Null" is that Peter Caroll?
> But again not sure of the point there -
> For me its more a question of I believe that (for example) ancient  
> paganism has some of value that is relevant to our modern life -
> this may be to do with a lost technology - but more likely a  
> philosophical attitude - such as holism - that we need to remember.??
>
> "Love and do what you will"
>
> Mogg
>
> ps: anyone read W V O Quine "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" ?
>
>
> Ty Falk wrote:
>> There seem to be three general categories of people in that  
>> regard. There are those who view it as some sort of pseudo  
>> science, some who eschew science all together, and some who find a  
>> way to unify the two. For example, one of the workshops I've  
>> attended regarding deity and thought-forms said that yes, we are  
>> creating psycho-spiritual entities that exist on their own, but if  
>> you can't take that on faith, here's the science (quantum physics,  
>> what have you) that lends credence to the theory behind our practice.
>>
>>
>> As for Phil Hine, one of the main themes of Liber Null (at least  
>> as I saw it) was to allow tradition to persist but only to the  
>> point that it did not stifle or limit innovation and exploration.  
>> I think that is particularly applicable to the current  
>> conversation, as evidenced by the seemingly self evident notion  
>> being professed not just in this thread but in the practicing  
>> community in general, that there is a line to be drawn between  
>> science and faith, and that the two are some how in opposition.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2008, at 12:33 PM, mandrake wrote:
>>
>>> Ken et al
>>>
>>> Any chance that you might summarise what they have to say that is  
>>> so crucial?
>>> I thought Daniel's post was reasonable enough
>>> - for me personally magick _is_ more
>>> about religion and theology than some form of pseudo-science -
>>> some of the arguments from quantum mechanics etc., leave me a bit  
>>> cold.
>>> Not to say religious views haven't opened the way to some  
>>> naturalistic advances -
>>> so for example the Tamil Siddhas developed a medical system in  
>>> order to keep
>>> their bodies healthy so they could write more poetry -
>>> but it was a spin off not the essence of what they were doing.
>>>
>>> Mogg
>>>
>>> smiling and not grumpy
>>>> Where is Phil Hine when you need him...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Daniel Harms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the virulence of discussion on these topics has to do  
>>>>> with how
>>>>> much people have internalized the rationalistic view of the  
>>>>> world. The
>>>>> more I hear skeptics and practitioners debate about whether magic
>>>>> "really" exists in scientific terms, the more it seems to be  
>>>>> using a
>>>>> commonly-recognized paradigm as an attempt to bring about  
>>>>> validation of
>>>>> personal experiences and worldviews. As most people involved  
>>>>> choose to
>>>>> ignore that aspect, debates are highly contested and rarely  
>>>>> lead to the
>>>>> resolution of the stated or unstated goals.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find science to be a particular method (with formal and informal
>>>>> components) of understanding the world that works well for some  
>>>>> topics
>>>>> and not so well for others. I seriously doubt that magic as it is
>>>>> currently understood will ever be validated by science, but I  
>>>>> could very
>>>>> well be wrong. I do think that certain phenomena and aspects of  
>>>>> magic
>>>>> are open for study, but whether that validates magical  
>>>>> paradigms as a
>>>>> whole is open to debate. On the whole, what science "proves" is of
>>>>> intellectual interest to me and nothing more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan Harms
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>