Is believing in uncaused events akin to believing in magic?

Question

Is believing in uncaused events akin to believing in magic?

If you imagine a stage in a field. What would it mean for a 1971 Ford Mustang to appear on this stage? Could some sort of casual agent build a car and get it on this stage? Could we purchase such a car and use a crane of some sort to hoist it onto the stage?

What would be the chances of such a car just appearing out of thin air(Without any causal agent making it so.)? If you where to wave a wand around just before this uncaused event would you not have to legally change your name to Gandalf?

It is curious to note that even when a magician takes a rabbit out of a hat is he not still the cause of this rabbits spontaneous creation? When the warlocks use a curse in Harry Potter are they not still the casual agents of the woe than ensues?

Id causality is such a innate part of our universe that even the realms of fantasy adhere to it then what reason do we have to doubt that the life sustaining universe in which we find ourselves is not also privy to such a force?

Answer 1

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer:

For those who believe in magic, magical events are not uncaused; they simply have a different causal chain, one that connects words, deeds and even unseen realms in ways not recognized by science. The magician creating a car out of thin air is causing the car to come into being.

For an event to be uncaused, it must simply happen. No magician waving a wand, no interaction of subatomic particles, no entities operating in an unseen/supernatural realm. It just happens. Period.

So believing in uncaused events is something else entirely, and it's tough for most minds to grasp. Some theologians/philosophers use this to argue for the existence of God as the first cause (the unmoved mover), although those who don't buy it may demand to know where God came from. Still for many, an uncaused cause could be sufficiently difficult that it alone could be argument for something supernatural at the start of the chain.

But we could encounter uncaused causes without theology or magic. We do this by tracing back the chain of causes of the universe. Keep going back. What caused the Earth? What caused the nebula from which the Earth coalesced? Keep going on and two possibilities arise...

There was a first cause that set it all in motion, but this means that the first cause was uncaused.

There was no first cause, but this means that things were happening forever.

Some try to sidestep this by arguing that a cause requires time and when the universe came into being, time was created as well. I don't know how many people would be satisfied with that explanation.

Answer 2

If I may reword your question slightly, I would feel comfortable saying "Believing in uncaused events can be indistinguishable from believing in magic."

I word this not from an ancient philosopher, but from a definition from Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

If you consider his quote to be a valid argument, then you should be able to see why my wording is valid.

However, I will point out a detail that you might want to pull on before calling the topic closed: there is a difference between "uncaused event" and "event with no identifiable cause." The latter includes the individual's interpretation of events, while the former is a universal statement. I point this out because many English speakers will use "uncaused event" to mean "event with no identifiable cause" in some situations because it provides closure. An uncaused event needs no further analysis and can be filed away. An event with no identifiable cause must be remembered and kept open in case a cause reveals itself.

Answer 3

It depends on what meaning we give to "akin." If it means "similar," then the answer is yes, it is similar to believing in magic. If it means "the same," then the answer is no, it is not the same.