Angry in the Great White North

First, let's define "science". It is a human activity that is characterized by the systematic classification of, and the search for, knowledge that describes the natural universe. Moreover, the accuracy of that description is put to the test when it is used to guide the manipulation of the immediate environment, in that sister to science we call "technology".

Science is the drive to improve the accuracy of that description, sometimes by means of small incremental improvements in knowledge, and sometimes by a revolutionary rethinking and reevaluation of the existing body of knowledge with an mind to significantly changing it.

For instance, a geocentric and heliocentric model of the universe are equally adept at describing the motion of the stars and planets in the night sky visible to the naked eye. However, if you want to send a probe to intercept one of those planets, the heliocentric model is clearly the right one, suggesting that it is a better description of the truth, that is to say, of the objective truth.

Fundamentally, we cannot know objective truth, since all knowledge is subjectively obtained. But part of science is a self-checking process involving the dissemination and critiquing of new knowledge. Suggested additions to the body of scientific knowledge that survive this process are generally accepted to be close to truly objective, since the multiple levels of checking is expected to help filter out knowledge that was arrived at by subjective wishful thinking. Thus, at its core, science is a collaborative activity.

No special skill is required to understand science. Training might be required to build up the necessary body of mathematical and scientific knowledge before one can be called a scientist, but scientists do not need to be telepathic, or be able to see ley lines, or otherwise have powers not available to a "normal" person. Moreover, understanding science does not convey any supernatural power.

The fruits of science, the technology, can be used by anyone, utterly unaware of the scientific principles guiding the operation. Science works regardless of your belief in it.

As science progresses, and more and more the universe finds itself described in terms of science, ignorance recedes. Thus science is not culturally sensitive. For a scientist, the world works in a certain way. A non-scientific explanation is simply wrong.

So what does this have to do with magic? Magic is usually depicted in fantasy literature as a craft utterly unlike science. It is practised by loners or smallish organizations who jealously guard what unique magic knowledge they have. Depending on the author, some magic systems require a genetic quirk that allows the individual to tap into the magical power. Magical research is usually depicted as a hit-or-miss affair. Magical objects are generally depicted to be inert in the hands of a non-magician.

So magic is different from science. So what?

Consider this: in most literature, science and magic are incompatible. In most stories, as science progresses, magic recedes. Tolkien called this "thinning".

You might point out that in the Harry Potter universe, the wizard world and the muggle world co-exist. But even in the Harry Potter universe, the wizard world and the muggle world might as well be different planets for all the interaction that takes place. I give this more significance than most, but more on that later.

Here is the crux of my thinking: Albert Einstein heavily depended on the principle of equivalence. When he recognized that gravity and acceleration follow the same rules, he stated that gravity and acceleration were the same thing (I'm simplifying here).

I just finished saying that the advancement of science pushed back ignorance. Likewise, the advancement of science pushed back magic. Does that mean magic and ignorance are the same thing?

I think in the real world, they are. I think that understanding of the equivalence of the two is why the idea of science pushing back magic comes up over and over again in literature.

It's more than just the notion that ignorant people dream up magical ways to describe the universe. It's more than just the notion that ignorant people are fooled into thinking a natural phenomenon like flash powder exploding is a magical effect.

What I mean is that magic, if we accept that it is real, is actually a manifestation of the ignorance of those around you. A critical mass of ignorance interacts with the universe in such a way as to become a source of power for magic. A science depletes that store of ignorance, magic fades.

Magic is the celebration of ignorance.

Think I'm off my nut? Remember, I'm just synthesizing common themes in fantasy literature. Consider the Harry Potter universe. Magic is alive in well in a world where science rules. But the wizard world is utterly and completely ignorant of science. JK Rowling uses that as a source of amusement, as various wizards and wizards-in-training ask ex-muggle Harry for instructions on how to use the most mundane muggle devices.

I think it runs deeper than that, though.

Indeed, wizards are trained to be dismissive of muggle technology and muggle society. The word "muggle" sounds demeaning. Hagrid's taunt of Uncle Vernon -- "a great muggle like you" -- is not open to interpretation: to Hagrid muggles are anything but great.

Arthur Weasley is a wizard fascinated by muggles and their technology. He is treated as an aumsement by his friends, and a freak unworthy of wizardly powers by his enemies.

Harry, and all students at Hogwarts, beginning their schooling at the age of 11. During the next seven years, as their muggle counterparts are exposed to physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and so on, the wizard students learn nothing whatsoever of the real world. They learn their potion recipes and memorize their incantations, but their ignorance of the underlying physical reality of the universe is added to generations of institutionalized ignorance, and thus guaranteeing that magic will carry on for at least another generation.

Salazar Slytherin was against allowing any but pure-bloods into Hogwarts, as we learned in the "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". Was this discrimination mean-spirited, or did he recognize that as half-bloods were allowed in, young as they were, they would bring what muggle knowledge they had accumulated into the wizard world, and thus diminish the power of magic by reducing the level of ignorance?

Similarly, did Uncle Vernon's rant against allowing Harry to go to Hogwarts in "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" come from a vicious desire to visit more misery on Harry, or was it a move to stop Harry from entering the wizard's world of ignorance, knowing that it ultimately was a dead end compared to the open-ended potential of scientific muggle knowledge?

In Isaac Asimov's "The End of Eternity", a secret society of time travelers, with many parallels to secret wizard societies descibed in fantasy literature, manipulated human history and in particular limited advancement along certain scientific avenues deemed to be dead ends. However, ignorance of those "dead ends" ultimately resulted in humanity's destruction in the far future, since knowledge in those scientific fields was required to move humanity to the stars. At the end of the story, the time travelers are ultimately themselves erased from history, and with these "wizards" gone, humanity is able to reach its full potential in the fullness of time.

If magic is ignorance, and as such it impedes humanity's advancement, then it might explain some common themes in fantasy literature. For instance, most societies that use magic are shown to be frozen in time. On Earth we went from armoured knights on horseback to main battle tanks able to hit a target a mile away while driving full speed over broken terrain in a matter of six centuries. We went from the first powered flight to commercial airliners able to cross the Atlantic while carrying hundreds in the space of three generations. Think how fast computing power has increased since the transistor was first invented.

There are other kinds of advancement. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that history is linear, that it is progressing to an end point. JRR Tolkien, a devout Catholic, had the Elves and Sauron join forces to create magical Rings of Power that had the effect of slowing the passage of time, that march to the future being something many Elves feared. That meddling with Eru's plan (Eru being what the Elves called God) is at the root of all the pain and suffering depicted in "The Lord of the Rings".

As scientific knowledge advances, we are all forced to reconsider our assumptions about, well, everything. That is a deeply moral exercise. We grow every time we are faced with it.

So magic must retard the scientific and moral advancement of humanity, not just as an effect, but as a necessary precondition for its very existence. As such, magic can't be seen as anything but evil, and any story that glorifies magic, especially for children, is going to be in for stern criticism from certain quarters.

Do I think magic is evil? How can I? Magic doesn't exist. But for the less discriminating mind, the literary depiction of magic can seem seductive, but with little thought about what it means to society. In JK Rowling's books (so far), it is shown to have no effect whatsoever, and that is dishonest, I think, and it takes away from my enjoyment somewhat.

Since I don't think magic is real, I don't think any child will start casting spells, no matter how hard-core a fan he is. But a child might not appreciate what lies at the heart of magic. Is this a reaosn not to buy or enjoy the books? No. Do I think the books should be banned? Absolutely not. Do I think good Catholic kids should be allowed to read the books? Sure.

But would you let your kid learn to swim by himself? Of course not, because if makes a mistake, the results could be tragic. Though I don't expect a reader to die upon turning the last page of a Harry Potter book, I would always be concerned about what a young mind is taking away from any book. Kids should be allowed a great latitude in selecting reading material, to find what engages them. But having found it, it behooves us as parents to learn as much as possible about what they're reading, and to glean a deeper understanding of the issues and themes. Then, when questions are asked, or opinions are expressed, we are prepared to respond with more than "I don't know, go ask your teacher."

That would be an abrogation of our responsibility as parents. There are enough people out there only too eager to take over all of the responsibility of molding our children's minds and forming their opinions -- I don't think we ought to make it easier for them.