Harry Haters and the Lack of Proof - a canon point

[Haggridd]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "David" <dfrankiswork at n...> 
wrote:

> It's fairly obvious, IMO, that much magic can be regarded as 
morally 
> neutral, but capable of being pressed into the service of either 
> good or evil just like, say, high explosive, but *some* magic seems 
> somehow to be intrinsically evil - though as yet we have seen 
> remarkably little in the way of examples.  We haven't had much 
> evidence of magic that's intrinsically 'good', either.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> David

Please forgive me if these points have been addressed before.  This 
has been an awfully long and stormy thread.

It is my understanding that those who condemn HP and magic do so 
because their "theory of magic" (for want of a better term) mandates 
drawing power from a supernatural being.  Since, in their belief 
system, the only available supernatural powers are diabolical, or, at 
best, pagan gods, then for them, magic must always be a bad thing.

This is only one theory of magic, however.  Since I am not privy to 
the Hogwarts textbook on the subject, I have to speculate.  There is 
also what I might term the "alchemical" kind of magic-- potions being 
the most concrete example.  The various ingredients are combined by 
rote, with only an empirical knowledge of the various chemical 
reactions operating.  "Veritaserum" might well be a drug akin to 
sodium pentothal, but the Wizarding World never learned Avogadro's 
number, and has no science of biochemistry, other than whatever is 
included in Muggle Studies. So it is magic to them.  A rifle might be 
perceived as a fire breathing wand to peoples unfamiliar with black 
powder.  Analogously, There might be some change in the atmospheric 
vibrations around an object when one says "Wingardium Leviosa" in 
PRECISELY the right way.  Magic, yes, in theory (for a given theory 
of magic), but not necessarily drawing upon a higher-- or lower-- 
power.

Then again, many of these people reject the theory of evolution, so 
they might not be receptive to theories that challenge their 
preconceived notions.

Haggridd  (with gratitude to Aristotle, Gallileo, Kepler, Newton, 
Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, Mendeleev, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, Watson & 
Crick, the entire DARPA establishment and Nicholas Flamel!)