Atheists who poison the well by calling things magic

Have you noticed how atheists often like to refer to theistic accounts of various aspects of reality as “magic”? It’s an irritating practice, a juvenile case of poisoning the well. And it’s even more irritating when a professional philosopher like Stephen Law engages in the practice. Here’s the summary of my recent twitter exchange on the topic. (Note, I have linked the original tweet if you want to follow up on Twitter. If there are further tweets in the conversation I won’t be including them below.)

Randal: If I had a dollar for every “skeptic” who objected to the resurrection of Jesus by saying “Dead people don’t rise”, I’d have enough money for an Alaska cruise. I mean, don’t these folks understand the concept of a miracle?

Stephen Law: You see how this can be said, with similar effect, about belief in fairies tending our gardens, Santa delivering our presents, etc.? I mean, don’t these folk understand concept of a magical being? I know you say we shouldn’t compare belief in God/fairies but seems right here.

Randal: Your comment is a classic example of the poisoning the well fallacy. Atheist apologists like yourself use the word “magic” not to appeal to a concise, clear, technical term but to play to the peanut gallery. It’s simply juvenile.

Stephen: not at all. by magic i mean powers etc trascending and free of naturalistic constraints eg natural laws.

Randal: I see, so if a type IV civilization (Kardashev scale) used their technology to create our universe and subsequently interact within it, you think they use “magic”?

Stephen: From our perspective their power would seem magic but I’d say no as their powers don’t transcend the natural laws of theirs.

Randal: But if they would transcend *our* natural laws, so it’s “magic”, right?

Stephen: I didn’t say ‘our’.

Randal: I see, so “magic” only applies to concepts that transcend all universes and laws of nature, not just that in our universe. Like I said, poisoning the well. Say, do you also call Platonic exemplification “magic”?

Stephen: depends – I think that a nec condition of ‘magic’ is that it transcends naturalistic constraints. that leaves open whether Platonic heaven is magic as I don’t consider the condition sufficient…

Randal: If the universe (or a vast multiverse) just exists as a brute fact, that transcends naturalistic constraints. Very magical!

The post Atheists who poison the well by calling things magic appeared first on Randal Rauser.