ft has been found to exist in all corners of the globe at some point. It is no coincidence that during the Enlightenment, witch hunts in Europe and North America became common. The aim was to rid society of these people regarded as unreasonable and dangerous. By contrast self-proclaimed witches still have a function in some societies today, mainly in the developing world. Magic however is often a word used to describe certain people’s modes of divination, mainly those in the developing world. It is my view though that magic and the institution of religion are not as different as it may first appear. The Yorubas chanting to the god Shango is no different to the congregation of a church singing hymns. Both are with good intentions, and both may ask for some divine intervention. Labelling one form magic and one religion is just semantics. To question whether it is rational to believe in witchcraft and magic is in fact just a question as to whether the belief in supernatural intervention is rational. Is it irrational to believe in things that we cannot prove in a rational manner? At this point I would say ‘Yes’. It is illogical to believe in things that cannot be proven. Proof must be a condition for belief or we could believe almost anything to exist, for example flying pigs. It is evidence that makes belief different from faith, which is having trust in things that often appear to have no substantiation. However to use rationality as a determining factor of proof, and therefore belief, means that it must be a flawless concept within itself. But is this so?If we decide that it is irrational to believe in things that cannot be proven then we are at the same time saying that it is only rational to believe in things that can be proven. However there are many things that evade the boundaries of Western science, for example emotions. Can we prove love exists? It is something invisible, intangible and there is no ...
