Witch Girl answers:
It sounds like they were probably just trying to tweak you in that particular case, so maybe it's not worth bothering with them...
But it is an issue worth addressing in a larger sense, because so many people in the world cultures seem to share similar views.
First, I think it's important to try and figure out just what they think or imagine that we're claiming, when we say that magic works, or that we're witches. Often they just have a misunderstanding of what those words mean, due to their ignorance of the contemporary neopagan movement.
If they understand, for example, that Wicca is a religion, then it would be silly for them to claim that no Wiccans exist; it would be like saying no Buddhists exist. And many Wiccans also call themselves witches, because they practice magic.
So are they saying that nobody practices magic? That's clearly not true, because people in many different religions practice various kinds of magic, including witchcraft. For example, shamans in some indigenous cultures are called witches. They certainly exist, as any anthropologist can tell you. Whether or not you believe they can perform actual magic -- that is, whether magic actually works -- is a separate question.
So let's say that's their main objection: They don't think that any kind of magic works. Many people do assume that, but of course there is no proof of it. Indeed, it would be impossible even in principle to prove that magic is impossible; because it is logically impossible to prove a universal negative. (Such as: Prove that there are no purple unicorns anywhere in the cosmos. It cannot be done, even in principle.)
On the other hand, it should also be honestly admitted that magic is not easily proven, either. Most pagans today see magic as *natural* not supernatural; that means that the laws of Nature are obeyed at all times, and the way that Magic works is more like remarkable coincidences or synchronicities that "just happen" -- and not physically impossible things like flying around on broomsticks.
So their objections to magic -- and their claims that it cannot possibly exist -- where does that come from?
Mostly it comes from an UNQUESTIONED ASSUMPTION that they are making: Namely, the assumption of Philosophical Materialism.
That is the metaphysical idea that the only thing that ultimately exists in the cosmos is physics and physical stuff -- matter and energy and forces. From that philosophy, consciousness and thoughts and all subjective experience only exists as some kind of arrangement of matter and energy. It's not a bad guess to make, as a hypothesis or working assumption -- when and if you are DOING SCIENCE. Just because, when you're doing science, you're trying to figure out how Nature works, not how your mind or consciousness works. So you just fence off all discussion of consciousness, and focus on physical matter.
But that does NOT mean that physical stuff is all there is in the world, or all that can be. And it surely does not mean that everything in the world can or should be explained by science. So the philosophical assumption of Materialism is just that: an assumption. Not a fact. Not proven. Not even capable of being proven. It's just an assumption, and like all assumptions, it could be wrong. So people need to realize that materialism is only an assumption, and not a proven fact.
(And, I would say, it's an assumption that is at odds with the very fact of our own consciousness and subjective experience. Because the ONLY thing that we can know with certainty is our own consciousness. The material world may not be anything at all like we imagine it is, in reality; and indeed, that seems to be just what quantum theory and relativity theory in modern physics have shown us: that our usual experience of the physical world and our usual ideas about it, are just plain WRONG. If even the physical world is so much stranger than we ever imagined, then how can anybody actually think that they can be sure magic does not exist?)
Science is good for only a very narrow range of natural phenomena: namely, those that are repeatable and predictable, so that the laws of Nature can be tested over and over and over again, to confirm them. Science cannot explain poetry or romantic love or why roses are beautiful. Science is only good for one thing: figuring out how Nature works.
Religion is an entirely separate domain from science; and so long as those two domains remain totally separate, there is no reason for any conflicts between them. All the "conflicts" come about by people trying to use religion to explain Nature -- instead of using science for that; or else by people trying to use science to explain the meaning and purpose of life -- which is the job of religion and spirituality. So they need to be kept separate and apart.
The same thing holds for magic and science: they are two very different approaches to explaining how and why things happen. No conflict, if you keep them separate. Magic can be neither proven nor disproven; so people have a right to hold their own beliefs.
.
