The end of magic?

I have recently purchased a facsimile copy of Reginald Scott's The Discoverie of Witchcraft (originally published in 1584).

This is an important book in the history of Western civilisation as it is the first ever book in which methods for creating magic are explained. This might seem an overstatement, as magic is nowadays a trivialised from of theatre which barely has any influence on the way we think.

Scott's book is important because it was the first time somebody openly challenged the belief in witchcraft and supernatural powers by exposing conjuring methods. The book contains some interesting magic; there are pictures of trick knives that make it seem like you are cutting your nose or finger. The picture on the left shows a contraption used to create the illusion of somebody's head being severed. There is also a description of a Magic Colouring Book, which is still used in children's magic shows and many other tricks still performed by contemporary magicians.

The book was published in the Renaissance, a period which heralded Western culture as we know it today. Although many people see the renaissance as a period where Europe emerged from the Dark Ages, some do not see this as a positive development. Dutch historian Johan Huizinga, for example, questioned whether the renaissance was a positive change and argued that it was a period of decline from the High Middle Ages, destroying much that was important.

One of the important things that was destroyed is a sense of magic and The Discoverie of Witchcraft illustrates, if not helped the cause, this development. It might seem strange for an engineer/philosopher like myself to argue that dispelling a belief in magic would not be a good thing. Magic is, however, more than a simplistic belief in supernatural forces that control our lives.

Magicians have been part of human civilisation for as long as there are records - and possibly as long as human culture exists. There are many anthropological accounts of medicine men and shamans using conjuring skills as part of their healing and rituals. Most magic history books interpret this use of sleight of hand as an attempt by the shaman to obtain power mischievously. But there is much more to magic than one person gaining power over others.

Magic is a psychological force - a means to understand our position in nature. Although some might argue that magic has been wiped from contemporary culture, it has never actually disappeared from our psyche. Simple acts, such as writing your name on a wall are in fact magical. To some this is a simple act of vandalism, but that is not the real motivation for people to do this.

Writing your name on a wall makes the wall becomes an extension of yourself and you become part of the wall. It is a way to exert our self onto the world. This is I think the deeper psychological reason for the popularity of tagging. Tagging is a way to impart part of your self onto the environment in which you live. This is in essence an act of magic because it is a way to connect the inner world (psychology) with physical reality. There is no rational reason to write your name on a wall

There are many more examples of non rational behaviour; why do we prefer one brand over another? Why we choose one political party or football team over another? When analysing motivations in every day choices we see that people often cross the horizon of reason and this is the realm of magical thinking. Magic, as a psychological force, is still alive and kicking in a hyper-modern world.

Torchwood

The first episode of Torchwood has finally aired on Australia television! This contemporary Doctor Who spin-off is more than just another way to cash in on the popular science fiction series. Torchwood is more violent and daring than the series that spawned it, but underneath the sex and violence the stories deal with philosophical issues, some of which deserve exploration beyond the screen narrative.

The Torchwood people have a metallic gauntlet by which they can revive the dead for a short period. Several people are killed by the same method and knife. When John Tucker, one of the victims, is revived, Jack Harkness asks him:

"What was it like when you died? ... Nothing, I saw nothing. Oh my God, there is nothing."

John is clearly disturbed by this prospect, specially because he knows that he will die again soon. The idea of total blackness and nothing seems to scare him profoundly.

This fear of nothingness is a fascinating aspect of the human condition. When analysing the problem it is clear that this fear is not rational because when there is nothing, there is also no threat. A state of not-being is not something to fear because it is not rational (not justified) to fear something that does not exist. So why are people not content with a prospect of an absolute end to life?

Leo Tolstoy thought that if there was no life after death, then life would be meaningless. This approach is, however, not satisfactory because it relocates the problem of whether there is meaning to a life after death. If there is life after death, then what is the meaning of that life? Is there a life after life-after-death to provide meaning? Ad infinitum ...

The Epicureans did not agree with this line of thought and were right in arguing that death is inconsequential to the question whether life has meaning or not. Although death may be final and could make all our efforts futile from a perspective of eternity, we can only judge life from the internal perspective. The idea that death only removes meaning is forced upon us
when we look upon life from the eternal perspective.

We can, however, not view life from an external perspective, because we are bound by our internal point of view. Any attempt to take an external perspective, such as religion, can not provide a final answer to the quest for a meaning of life.

The meaning of life is embedded in life itself and we should not hope, nor fear for anything after death.

Red Dwarf and the Meaning of Life

I have been watching episodes of the science fiction series Red Dwarf over the past few weeks. Most episodes are delightfully silly, filled with absurd plots and cheap laughs. The second episode of the fifth season is very different, as it deals with the ultimate question: the meaning if life. Kryten tells the tale of the Inquisitor:

Well, the legend tells of a droid -- a self-repairing simulant, who survives till the end of eternity; to the end of time itself. After millions of years alone, he finally reaches the conclusion that there is no god, no afterlife, and the only purpose of existence is to lead a worthwhile life. And so the 'droid constructs a time machine, and roams eternity, visiting every single soul in history, and assessing each one. He erases all those who have wasted their lives and replaces them with those who never had a chance of life -- the unfertilised eggs, the sperms that never made it. THAT is the Inquisitor -- he prunes away the wastrels, expunges the wretched, and deletes the worthless!

After hearing this story, Lister asks how to determine who is worthless and that is a profound philosophical question. No so much the question who is worthless and who is not, but the question whether there actually can be rational demarcation criteria to seperate the 'wastrels, wretched and the worthless'.

Dealing with these issues is seen by some as philosophical Russian roulette because the answer might lead to a totally different view of the world - some pointing directly to the Nazi eugenics projects. But this question is not about that - it is a meta question. Can we find rational means to determine which lives are worth living and which are not. The question whether a life that is found not worth living can be expunged is an ethical question and a whole different mater all together.

Is, as Rimmer eloquently puts it "eating sugar puff sandwiches for eight hours every day" more or less valuable than writing symphonies or painting the Sistine Chapel? The immediate gut feel answer is that the latter is more valuable than the former. The silent premise of this reasoning is that something has to have external value, e.g. value to something outside the person themselves in order to be worthwhile.

Kryten clearly follows this external view when he argues that: "you don't have to be a great philanthropist, or a missionary worker, you simply have to seize the gift of life! ... Make a contribution!"

If this would be the case, if a life was only worth living if it has external value, then all animals are leading worthless lives. Looking at our cats, I see totally egocentric beings, who do not care about anything else but their own please. To them, eating the feline equivalent of sugar puff sandwiches is a perfectly good life, most certainly worth living.

I don't think there are rational means of finding absolute criteria to determine which life is worth living. My essays on Values and the Meaning of Life I have already argued that there are no rational means to determine which life s worth living. Religion provides no philosophical justification and philosophical reasoning often leads to concluding that there is no meaning of life, outside life itself.

In Red Dwarf, the Inquisitor determines whether somebody's life is worth living by letting people judging themselves: "a bit metaphysical ... but it is the only fair way". The Inquisitor thus judges each life on internal values. It is indeed the only fair way. Not very rational or scientifically justified and theologically surely not satisfactory, but it is the only thing we got!

The limits of Dawkinism

I have been reading Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. Although I largely agree with his atheist point of view, I think he stretches his argument a bit too far as he does not seem to acknowledge that there is a limit to what we can achieve with reason, a horizon across which rational thinking can not take us.

His view can be summarised by Wittgenstein's famous proposition: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Dawkins places the limits of knowledge at the limits of reason. His view of religion, which lies largely outside the limits of reason, is directly derived to this assumption. I would, however, like to argue that the limits of knowledge are not formed by the limits of reason.

One of his arguments is that there is a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, e.g. the higher the IQ, the less likely somebody is religious. This seems to give the impression that religious people are generally less smart than atheists, thereby labelling most of the world population as dumb.

The reason for this correlation is, however, that measurement of IQ is totally biased towards rational thinking. Tendencies towards religion or spirituality in general are not part of an IQ test. This does not explain the correlation, but shows the limitations of comparing religiosity and intelligence.

Religion should be considered as a Vehicle for Meaning. Rational thinking can not provide us with the meaning of life and religion is a way to deal with the vacuum.

Religion is not my preferred way if providing meaning to life; I choose an existentialist point of view - flying in a metaphysical hot air balloon. This attitude is, however, only possible after deep and complicated rational thinking. Most people do, however, not have the energy or capability to live this way and religion is an 'easy' way out.

Dawkins does not seem to consider the provision of an answer to meaning to life questions. He places a very high burden on the rational abilities of people. The creation versus evolution question is an example of this.

Dawkins might reply that this is all very well, but what it is about is the provision of truth. This is philosophically very slippery ground. Science is based on presuppositions, as much as religion is. Science is only confirmed by its own rules, it is a self fulfilling prophecy. The same can be said for religion.

I think truth is not important, if truth exists, we will not be able to find it. Knowledge is more important than truth and knowledge is nothing more that that which is able to provide the outcomes we desire. Both religion and science are very capable of doing this.

Does God have a sense of humour?

This photo arrived in my mailbox with the subject line: "FW: Someone's going to hell for this!!!".

I found this statement a bit strong because, I figured that if God is by definition a perfect being, then he (or she) surely would most certainly have a great sense of humour.

He or she would be rolling on the floor with laughter when receiving this photo in his mailbox!

There is, however, not much in the Bible - or any other religious book for that matter, which would indicate that God, the gods, or whichever way you might swing, has a sense of humour.

One story of the Bible that comes in mind though is the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), were Jesus provided the booze when they ran out of wine.

Jesus and his disciples were invited for this wedding and it only seems logical that they were drinking as well. Following the grammar, it seems that they already had been drinking when the wine ran out. I love this passage because it shows how human Jesus was - and in a roundabout way that he had a sense of humour.

Therefore, in my humble theological opinion I do not believe that the guys in this photo will go to hell because they have a great sense of humour.

Magic and Philosophy

I recently turned back to pick up my teenage passion of performing magic tricks. Some might think that it is quite a big step from the seriousness and heaviness of philosophy to the giddiness and lightness of magic. The two are actually much more closely related to each other than obvious at first glance.

Both the magician and the philosopher have arisen from the same archetypical and historical figure of the shaman. The anthropological record shows that shamans use technical and psychological principles, similar to those used by contemporary stage magicians, to aid there spiritual work.

I became interested in philosophy as a teenager by reading books about the history of magic that refer back to the shamanistic origins of the craft. Snowballing my way through literature I eventually stranded at philosophy itself. My journey has gone full circle and I am back at studying magic tricks!

Immanuel Kant the Mystic?

Some time ago, I found this picture of Immanuel Kant on the web (I forgot which website) and used it on my page with Ethics essays. The interesting thing about this engraving is that Kant is surrounded by the mythical snake Ouroboros. I have yet to find out exactly what is meant with this etching, as the combination of Immanuel Kant and mysticism is a bit puzzling. I recently bought an English translation of the Critique of Pure Reason, which has this picture on the front page. According to the book, it is an engraving by J. Chapman. There is a John Gadsby Chapman (1808-1889) who was a Freemason, judging by the painting The Masters Carpet in the George Washington Masonic National Memorial. I would love to know more about this portrait of Kant and what the idea is between the combination of him and the mystical snake. Any answers?

Death

During our lifetime we have to deal with crises. Some might loose a leg, but that doesn't stop them from having a meaningful life. Some can go bankrupt, but most bounce back. A natural disaster wipes somebody's house away and they build a new one. The one problem, however, that we can not fix is death.

I have written about this topic several times from a rational point of view. The Egyptian pyramids and the monuments at Avebury are testaments on how humans deal with death. I have also tried to analyse reasons behind strongly held beliefs in a life after death and have argued that life only has meaning because there is death.

But with the death of somebody you know, all rational arguments loose their validity. We have reached the horizon of reason!

The Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster

The battle between evolutionists and creationists is still waging strongly. Evolutionists are propagating "Intelligent Design" - the idea that "certain features of the universe and living things exhibit characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent".

However, the fact that organisms function so well and that nature is very efficient proves the reverse. The perfection and balance we perceive in nature is actually evidence of the fact that living things could not have been designed.

Following the Intelligent Design argument through to its Judeo-Christian roots, we are all created in the image of God. Mankind has, however, never been able to design anything that works as well as living organisms.

Some might argue that we are but imperfect reflections of God's image and that this is the reason that designing anything is always a process of trial and (t)error. God, as a perfect being, would have designed the universe as it is now in only six days. The idea of God as a perfect being has been proposed many times to prove that a god actually exists. It has always struck me as a strange concept. Defining a being as perfect is an enquiry limiting rethorical move. There is no empirical evidence or rational argument that leads to the idea that God is a perfect being - it can only be presumed.

The fact that the universe and living organisms work they way they do is in fact evidence of evolution. Nature has perfected its orginal "design" through billions of years of trial and error.

A vastly superior theory to Judeo-Christian creationism is offered by the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster.


Proponents of this brand-new religion assert that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, starting with a mountain, trees and a midgit. All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by this being. 'Pastafarians', as they call themselves, make some of the same basic philosophical mistakes as Christians.

However, the Spagetti Monster theory is superior to Christianity because there is no dogma that we are created in the image of the monster - as can be clearly seen in the illustration.

If anyone wants or needs to believe that the world was created, rather than evolved, the Flying Spagetti Monster offers a great alternative to established religions.

Uluru

I have recently improved one of my old essays: The Spirit of Uluru. This rock has fascinated many people and it has become one of the icons of Australia.

The rock is sacred to the local Aboriginal people, the Anangu. The many tourist visitors to the National Park who come to see Uluru does, however, cause great tensions, as the values of the Anangu are not recognised by the tourists.

The modern day tourist travels with an ethical rule: 'leave only footprints, take only pictures'. This rule is considered the foundation for ethical tourism.

For the Anangu, however, this principle conflicts with their idea of respect for something as sacred as Uluru. Their culture, which is codified in Tjukurpa, is based on exclusivity of knowledge. This knowledge is only available to those who are initiated and because some of the knowledge is coded within Uluru - its geological features illustrate stories from Tjukurpa - even looking at certain parts of the rock is tabu for those who are not initiated. For this reason, the Anangu do not want certain parts of Uluru to be photographed.

This is hard to understand for visitors from Western and Asian cultures. Knowledge is not considered sacred or secret in our culture. The tension is made greater by the fact that the tourist dollar is an important source of income for the Anangu. The cultural tensions between Anangu and the visitors is a fascinating subject.

Pyramidologists or pyramidiots?

One of my favourite past times is reading different theories about the Egyptian pyramids. I am collecting books on this topic from every available perspective - from the factual archaeological approach, to the, sometimes outlandish, alternative approaches.

An interesting spin-off of this phenomenon is the debate between the rational scientists and the proponents of alternative theories, between the Egyptologists and pyramidologists.

Some scientists refer to alternative theories as Pyramidiocy. I agree that the majority of pyramidological theories is based on speculation and unwarranted arguments. The scientists are, however, missing an important point. There is more to pyramidology than meets the eye. The ongoing disenchantment of the world and the decrease of organised religion causes people to search for meaning outside the normal parameters. The Egyptian pyramids, and many other ancient archaeological sites, are a great vehicle for meaning.

They are enigmatic for many reasons: they are enormous structures, built with perplexing accuracy, built by a civilisation that did not have access to modern technology and that left no writing behind regarding their construction and function.

Because historiographical methodology is not able to provide any certain truth about events from the past, there is a lot of room for alternative explanations. While the Egyptologists, for example, are convinced that the pyramids were tombs, pyramidologists point out that there is no evidence to prove this fact. From a methodological point of view, pyramidologists are justified in denying this. Just because there is an artifact inside the pyramid of Khufu that looks like a sarcophagus does not mean that it is a necessary truth that it is a tomb. History can only deal in likelihoods, not in absolute truth.

It is essential for the pyramid to be a vehicle for meaning that the Egyptologists are proven 'wrong'. Egyptological explanations can not provide meaning because it deals in historiographical, not philosophical truth. Egyptology as a science is necessary rational and dry and stays away from speculation. Pyramidology uses the vacuum created through this exsanguated approach by developing theories that go beyond science. The pyramids thus become a vehicle for meaning, rather than just a huge ancient tomb.

Pyramidology has been around for a while, but has been no more prolific than the second half of the last century. It is an interesting cultural phenomena and scientists should not waste their time on deciding truth or falsity of these theories, but investigate the broader philosophical perspective.

Religion and the meaning of life

The next essay I am writing for the Meaning of Life course deals with the question whether religion can provide a grounding of values which make life meaningful. Here are some preliminary thoughts:

When searching for the meaning of life, this meaning needs to be grounded to something, it needs a vehicle. A vehicle for meaning is something that carries the value, the thing that is valuable, which in turn can provide meaning. The vehicles for meaning that religion can provide are numerous, for example: the church as a community, the relationship to a god, the promise of an afterlife etcetera. To answer the question whether religion can provide a grounding of values, we need to investigate what sort of vehicle religion is, compared to non religious values systems as means for providing meaning.

I believe that religion is not able to provide a solid foundation for values; religion as a foundation for meaning is a metaphysical sky-hook. It does not provide a solid foundation because it can not be rationally or empirically justified. The justification for religion is not based on rational thinking or observation, but on revalation. But, does this really matter?

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that not every true statement can be proven through rational arguments. The incompleteness theorem thus leaves some space for religious and other non-rational statements to provide truth. Religious knowledge can, however, not be verified, as it is based on revalation. Revelation is a very personal experience and therefore neither open to verification nor falsification. Religion can thus not provide a solid (rational) foundation for meaning.

Rational thinking, mainly in the form of science, can, however, also not provide a solid foundation. David Hume has shown that some very basic assumptions we make about the world around us can not be rationally verified (See Origins of Modern Philosophy for some essays on this topic). Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem also limits the reach of rational reasoning, as not all truth can be rationally justified. Hume's scepticism, combined with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem shows us that science is also not able to provide a solid foundation for meaning.

After 2,500 years of philosophical thinking we have come to a point were we are forced to realise that there are no rational justifications for the big questions (See my paper on Joske's concept of futility).

For a lot of people, this understanding that life is essentially futile can be an agonising thought. The thought that life has no meaning whatsoever - the thought the our lives will end in blackness - has driven many people to suicide.

I think this typical human condition is something we have to live with and there are basically two possible reactions. First of all we can 'invent' - without any rational justification - a vehicle for meaning. This is what happens in religion. If there is no rational basis for these beliefs, how can we decide which vehicle is the better one, as there is no truth criterium. The individual systems can only be justified internally, as we have no value system outside religion to make a call.

The other option is to embrace the futility and meaninglessness of life. In this option we need philosophy to be able to cope with this. Our vehicle for meaning is a metaphysical hot-air balloon - not anchored to anything - enjoying a brid-eye perspective upon life.

Satanism

I have been writing some copy for the Dutch Wikipedia in the last few weeks. Most interesting was some work I did on articles on Satanism, specially the contemporary Satanism of Anton LaVey (Church of Satan) and Michael Aquino (Temple of Set).

I have come to respect the satanic philosophy, specially as developed by Michael Aquino. Satanism attracts a lot of attention as soon as the word is mentioned because of its connotations with Christianity. I believe, however, that it is the Christians themselves that have created Satanism. The whole concept of Satanism is nothing more than a counter reaction on Christianity. The knee-jerk reactions of Christians as soon as the subject gets mentioned shows that it has the desired effect! LaVey's Black Mass is a great example of the provocative and theatrical aspects of Satanism.

The Satanic philosophy is ant-Christian. It is the mirror image of Christianity. It does not proclaim that one should go around and whack everybody on the head and other forms of unruly behaviour. Satanism is a philosophy which embraces personal freedom and places the source of morality within ourselves, while Christianity seeks to find truth in a transcendent reality.

It was very amusing and enlightening to discuss Satanism with a Christian :)

The Occult in Modern Culture

The occult - literally the hidden - plays a very minor role in cotemporary society. This is , however, only a recent phenomenon as esotericism has played an important role in Western culture until the early twentieth century. Several well known artists such as Mondriaan, Duchamp and Kandinsky were heavily influenced by esoteric traditions. Nowdays, believers in occultism are put in the same category as those who believe that Elvis is still alive. Occultism has come down in the world and the most important cause of this, according to Gibbons (2003), the meeting between the Beatles and the Maharashi Mahesh Yogi in 1967 and the subsequent mass-popularisation and vulgarisation of esotric knowledge. This popularisation of esotericism is commonly known as New Age.

The explosion of New Age as a social movement and vulgarisation of the estoric knowledge is most likely one of the reasons why esotericism is now not acknowledged as one of the major sources of Western culture.

During a recent visit to Poland I came across some nice examples of esoteric symbolism. This photo is taken at Malbork castle, a former stronghold of the Teutonic knights. This is a detail of a headstone showing some Masonic symbols. The Teutonic knights were a crusading order of knights under Roman Catholic religious vows.

Their christianity obviously did not prevent them from using occult symbolism, a combination which nowdays would be met with great suspicion.
The serious study of esotericism unveils forces within the history of Western culture that contemporary cultural studies ignore. Whether you are a believer or not, the occult can not be ignored.
Some further reading:

• For some excellent studies in Western esotericism, read Esoterica, a free online scholary journal.
• Tom Gibbons, The occult and early modernism, Quadrant (November 2003), p. 82-84.
  

The Epistemology of Religious Experience

The question of the epistemology of religious experience deals with the question whether information obtained through religious experiences can be considered valid knowledge. For a brief introduction into different forms of religious experience, see my paper on that subject.

Information obtained through religious experiences, which I shall further refer to as Revelation, is not considered valid knowledge in contemporary society mainly because the information obtained through revelation can not be verified. Religious experience is thus a very personal experience and unique knowledge, only available to the person receiving the revelation. The receiver of the information is the only one who is able to interpret the revelation and communicates it as thus to the wider world.

In pre-industrial society power was vested in the intermediaries between the transcendent and the immanent. The Latin word Pontifex (priest) illustrates this beautifully as it also means 'bridge'.

Knowledge gained through revelation is unique and invests power into the person receiving that knowledge as they are the only ones capable of interpreting the information. Knowledge in this sense is esoteric -- only available to a small group of people.

Empirical philosophy -- in combination with rationalism has revolutionised human knowledge of the material world. This combination has been an important and powerful tool to

Where does this all leave revelation? Can we simply say that revelation is not relevant and that religious experiences are mere delusions?

Because revelation is always esoteric knowledge, every experience is interpreted different -- depending on the cultural and psychological dispositions of the person receiving the revelation. An important question to be asked is why a Hindu does not receive revelations concerning Jesus Christ or any other cross cultural experiences?

Religious experiences are particular and esoteric. In a society where knowledge is available to anyone through empiricism (although this is not completely true as we do not all have a particle accelerator in our backyard) the Pontifex has lost his power over society as the sole interpreter of knowledge.

The consequence of this, however, is that we have thrown the baby with the bathwater by ignoring religious experience as a valid source of knowledge.

I believe that religious experience can be a valid source of information to make decisions about non material things. It can people guidance about their life, which can have a very profound impact on their lives in the 'real' world. Religious experiences also have an effect on how we interpret the material world which shapes our world views.