1.While I understand your point of view, I still think this, in a sense, is an argument (for lack of a better term) from ignorance. In my view it is far better to just say that I don't know than to make up/accept an explanation at face value, especially one that flies in the face of what we currently know about how the universe works. As I believe Hitchens put it; what is more likely, that you have in fact witnessed an event that defies the laws of physics, or, that you have made a mistake? I know where I would put my money.
2.Indeed. However, I subscribe to the definition of atheism that states it as simply not believing in a god or gods, which means that I do not make the positive claim that there is no such thing, but that I see no reason to think that there is. Also, from a scientific point of view, the Null Hypothesis dictates that all concepts that have no positive evidence in favour of their existence are for all intents and purposes to be considered non existent. For instance, if someone develops a new medicinal cure, then the Null Hypothesis is that the treatment does not work. It is then up to the developers to empirically provide evidence to refute the Null Hypothesis. I feel this also applies to all other claims about reality, be it ghosts, auras or witchcraft.
3.While I agree that science cannot answer everything (at least not yet, and perhaps it never will) I'm sure you'll agree that the scientific method is the most powerful idea we humans have come up with, and that while it may not be the only thing we have that actually produces results, the results it does produce far and beyond blow any other method of explanation out of the water.
4.Agreed. While I prefer to rely on scientific discoveries and facts to establish my view of reality, I have no personal need to convince everyone of this. But like I said, if they choose to voice their views in public, then I will have no regrets in pointing out what I see as errors in their reasoning and demanding evidence for their claims. I have a high degree of respect for people and do my best to help them and treat them well. Ideas, on the other hand, enjoy no such protection and they should be viciously attacked and criticised to see which of them stands up to scrutiny.
5.I suppose this, on some level, comes down to the age old chestnut of whether one would rather be happy or right. For the record, I prefer the latter.
I have to apologise again for the delay in replying to you, I've numbered your points and my responses for ease
1. I can see where you're coming from here, though bear in mind that I'm neither stating as a fact that magic exists beyond placebo, nor am I really accepting something at face value. Since my main concern here is that on at least some level magic works, it has required a great deal of experimentation and practice over the years to find a system I'm happy with. As a teen I may have followed the instruction manual and put my faith in the ingredients I used to make my spell work, but not any more.
I guess again, I'm not really concerned with discovering objective truth as I don't believe we
can discover objective truth at the end of the day. In my opinion we all find something that works for us and helps us find our way through life, I just happen to be quite comfortable making up my own way as I go along
2. I can certainly understand that point of view and I'm glad that scientists do follow that method. I don't always follow it myself since at the end of the day it's no biggie if I make a mistake, I'm not going to end up poisoning people. Again, I try to find my own way and tend to trust my own experiences, this is one of the reasons I don't proselytize, they're
my experiences and not necessarily applicable to others.
3. Certainly, it would be incredibly hypocritical of me to belittle science while communicating with you via a computer
when I say science can't answer everything I'm largely concerned with the here and now and how that relates to my own life. Even if we argue that magic is pure psychology for example, we currently know very little about the mind and therefore I have to supplement scientific knowledge with my own conclusions and trial and error approach. I'll stress again that I feel it's important that these personal experiences, ideas and conclusions be kept personal. They're a means of navigating through life and may not work for everybody.
4. I can respect that and I very much agree that ideas need to be challenged. One of the main focuses of my degree is on writing fiction, if we weren't challenged on a daily basis we'd never grow as writers. I'll freely admit that if my beliefs were subjected to thorough scientific investigation, they would be extremely unlikely to stand up to it with the exception of the psychological elements. However, I feel that by examining my own beliefs through such a perspective I've managed to split my beliefs into two categories. The use of placebo is the part that most people are able to understand, it's like having a lucky charm that encourages you to score goals in football even if you don't believe it has any supernatural power (I read an interesting study on how lucky charms improve performance, but I'm not sure now where I found it unfortunately).
The other side is the part that is not at all compatible with the scientific method, this is the theistic part. I believe in all manner of gods and spirits, though they are
my beliefs and I wouldn't feel comfortable expecting somebody else to share them. It's this side that serves as a form of expression, it's my poetic side and my irrational, primitive and chaotic side. Essentially my theism can be seen both as an escape from the mundane as well as an expression of my belief that the world is
not particularly ordered or rational. I can fully understand why somebody who values logic and reason would find this side of me childish, strange, dangerous and outdated. Still, it's valuable to me
5. This is a very interesting point and perhaps the only one that we wildly disagree on. I don't believe in universal right and wrong, I believe that we ultimately experience reality through our own perspectives and that while there may be overlap, it isn't always universal. We both know we will suffer if we put our hand on a hot stove, but a masochist might derive great pleasure from doing so. We could both look at the same apple and agree that it's green while a colour blind person might see a totally different colour. Essentially I'm not so much concerned with what's universally correct or incorrect as I am with asking "what works for me?" I would suggest that we have both asked ourselves this question and found different means of answering it.
Oh just so you know, I'm quite hungover so I apologise if some of this post is rambling and incoherent. Point out to me anything that doesn't make sense and I'll explain it again when I'm more alert