> > I'm not very clear on the "faulty concept" statement, either. Logically, following any faith is a "faulty concept." Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)
>
> In a nutshell, I was asking whether one knows if one's beliefs in magic are the result of deception. You can rightfully ask that question of any religious doctrine. Indeed, my answer to that is that one must apply reason and logic to the situation.
>
Immanuel Kant examines this exact possibility in regard to Christianity in his /Religion within the Constraints of Bare Reason/. Read that for a class last term--interesting thought patterns, but hard get in an overall concept. Some of it seemed to me to foreshadow Kierkegaard's existential philosophy. Of course, i've never actually read Kierkegaard, so i could be way off with that.

> > Personally, I've believed that anything that is well-intentioned and/or has good results *is* good, whether with the involvment of a deity or not. The Wiccan law of "harm none, do what you want" is pretty much my Law, too.
>
The age-old Platonic question: If good or bad is left up to the individual, how can it been known without some universal standard? And what if two individuals' conceptions of what is good clash, and either choice will hurt at least one of them (i.e., how one discerns, when harm MUST occur)?

> The Christian version of the "harm none" conviction is reflected in the Golden Rule. However, I would disagree with the "do what you want" part because it's logically impossible.
>
Not sure whether non-Christians here may
or may not know this "rule," called by Jesus the second great commandment of Hebrew Law (after "Love the LORD Your God with all ..."), it follows to "love your neighbor as yourself.

[skipping ...]
>
> > How does anyone know that any *prayers* actually work? (The prayers that are asking for something, that is. Of course not all prayers are requests.)
>

Drawing on the New Testam