Readers interested in Los' recent online exploits may want to check out a discussion unfolding at Donald Michael Kraig's blog in the comments section on a post called "How Magick Works" (link here).
The discussion began when I pointed out to Kraig that before one can speculate about *how* magick works, one has to demonstrate (to oneself, if to no one else) *that* magick works to begin with. Naturally, this involves taking steps to make sure that one is not fooling oneself, to distinguish carefully between rituals that work and rituals that just seem to work (but actually don't).
Notice how I've consistently been asking Kraig for his method of distinguishing (to him) rituals that "work" from rituals that just seem to work. Just as consistently, he has avoided answering the question. It's all well and good to say that "Success is your proof," but as soon as the conversation turns to demonstrating that these magical rituals are a success at all, it's as if -- *poof!* -- the answer just disappears into thin air, never to be heard.
Readers are encouraged to read this post and this post for a more detailed exploration of my point of view.
If any readers wish to jump into the fray at DMK's blog, I would request that you keep your comments "respectful" -- to use what is apparently Kraig's favorite word. Those who wish to observe from the sidelines are welcome to do so as long as the discussion continues (though it may well be wrapping up).
My thoughts on the discussion -- and the delightfully high number of "believer scripts" employed by Kraig -- will likely be the subject of a post next week sometime. And yes, I'm saving all of the comments just in case they mysteriously...poof...disappear.
I hope people do read the entertaining comments and note how the position Los continually presents is, unfortunately, unscientific and is used not to prove or disprove anything, but rather to simply disprove anything which followers of the paradigm Los presents believe in. As such, the position Los presents appears to be one of religious belief rather than one of science. So by all means do read everything. And contrary to the snide comment in the post here, the comments on my blog to not "poof!" disappear into thick or thin air.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested in learning about the fallacies in the arguments presented by Los, they are the same as were exposed in the famous sTARBABY article which can be read here:
http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html
Mr. Kraig, it seems to be you that represents the typical position held by a religious believer, unable to furnish evidence for the factual claims he makes about his worldview. Before we enquire how something works, it is perfectly reasonable to ask 'if' it works in the first place. The analogy with how Christians view prayer is a good one. They want to be treated as a special case too in just the same way you want your pet beliefs exempted from the normal burden of proof. Myself personally have had the strongest impression that supernatural magick has worked for me (terrifying, churning experience), but I now understand and accept that part of how this kind of 'magick' works is by priming the mind to have a powerful subjective experience. The more we invest emotionally and energetically in a ritual, the greater this effect can be. The Beast did warn us emphatically about accepting the apparent results of our rituals as objectively real, but it seems so many occultists are wont to do just that. If people want to entertain fantasies about the nature of reality it's their concern, but you can't expect rational people to just go along with it.
DeleteBrad writes: "Myself personally have had the strongest impression that supernatural magick has worked for me (terrifying, churning experience), but I now understand and accept that part of how this kind of 'magick' works is by priming the mind to have a powerful subjective experience."
DeleteAs I've noted, I too, once upon a time, had experiences in which it seemed ("to me") as if magick "worked." It was only after I started seriously caring about whether my beliefs were true -- and after I started applying skepticism to my own claims, such as asking, "What evidence is there to support this claim?" "Would I accept this kind of evidence for different claims (such as, for example, the prayers of various religions)?" and "How exactly am I distinguishing this ritual 'working' from this ritual doing nothing at all?" -- that I began to realize that there is no sufficient evidence for these kinds of claims.
Brad writes: "If people want to entertain fantasies about the nature of reality it's their concern, but you can't expect rational people to just go along with it."
Just in the name of fairness -- to Donald et al -- it's perfectly clear that he's not asking everyone to "go along with it." He just wants to do his rituals and believe what he believes. And of course, it should be perfectly obvious that believers are under no obligation to demonstrate their claims or even talk to skeptics if they don't want to.
But at the same time, believers who make claims in public -- especially if these claims form part of the basis for their reputation and part of their income -- should expect that there will be people who will ask them basic questions like these and should also expect that their reluctance or outright refusal to answer such basic questions will appear curious, at the very least.
But it's well within their rights not to answer, and if that's the case, then that's that.
"And contrary to the snide comment in the post here, the comments on my blog to not "poof!" disappear into thick or thin air."
ReplyDeleteThe comments to your blog might not (aside from the few that you have, in the past, decided not to publish and instead just e-mailed me about) but one thing that absolutely does vanish in a "poof!" is the answer to the million-dollar question: how do you distinguish between a ritual that works and a ritual that just seems to work (but does not)?
Here is a perfect chance for you to explain how you distinguish the two (to you).