Terminology: Magic vs Religion

Though it has been over a month since our first discussion of A History of Magic, Witchcraft, and the Occult in the classroom, I still have a lingering question from that initial lecture. To recall the content of that discussion, the first chapter of our book focused on the "Ancient Roots" of magic from millennia long ago. Essentially, we discussed that magic has been around nearly as long as human civilization itself. In fact, there seems to be something innate in man that corresponds with belief in the supernatural. For as long as we can date human ancestry, we can similarly find traces of magic and the occult. In light of this discussion, Dr. Williams remarked that all religion has its roots in magic, that originally religion and magic were one in the same. I found this comment thought-provoking and worthy of consideration. Obviously, as can be seen from my previous blogs, my cards are already on the table in terms of the worldview I hold. In this blog, I would simply like to provide some of my thoughts, questions, and reactions to Dr. Williams' comment about magic and religion originally being indistinguishable.

To start, I want to consider the validity in Dr. Williams' remark. As made clear by the book, the presence of magic and religion have always seemed to coincide. In fact, the earliest records of magical spells, practices, orders, and techniques predate most of what people would consider "organized religion" today. Accordingly, I believe it is reasonable for people to think that magical practices ("less organized/civilized") eventually evolved into the "more organized/civilized" religious practices of today. I understand and can see the logic people use to trace the evolution of magic into religion, inherently meaning that religion had its roots (origin) in magic.

Apart from the "evolutionary approach" that can be used to see a similar ancestry, I think that a high-level consideration of many aspects of both magic and religion can easily lead us to see commonalities and perhaps a common derivation. Using recent examples of magic and religion, both involve the supernatural. Both oftentimes involve certain rituals and practices. Both have implications (most of the time) for the afterlife. Both see heightened importance on words (in spells and in scriptures). Both involve the belief that God/gods are involved in the regular, day-to-day affairs of man. Both believe that their practices involve the divine in a way that actually impacts the world. Both can involve the use of relics and objects with supernatural importance. Both can require full devotion from the participants. Both can even involve life and death situations. For all these similarities (and more), I believe it is reasonable for people to think that the terms magic and religion encompass (or, at least, once encompassed) the same general beliefs.

Now, I want to provide some thoughts and questions from an opposing point of view, essentially making the case that calling magic and religion as "one in the same" is a conflation of terms. Moreover, I want to make the argument that the discussion isn't one of mere semantics but actually has important implications for how we handle and consider these two very important aspects of human civilization.

To begin, I want to challenge the belief that religion naturally evolved from magic. The main grounds for this rebuttal is the belief that magic is not "less civilized" or "inferior" to religion. In fact, from what we have read in our book and discussed in class, even in considerably ancient civilizations magical practices seemed to possess a sense of order and structure, even systems at times. Though these practices of magic are markedly different than those of modern-day religion, I question if ethnocentrism is more to blame for our classification of magic being "less civilized/organized" than is evolutionary descent. Whether in Egyptian burial practices or divinations in ancient Greece, occultist practices possessed remarkable thought and structure-- even if being disturbingly different from practices today.

Secondly, I want to consider how we define the terms "magic" and "religion." Now, if we presuppose that magic and religion were originally one in the same, then we don't have to worry about making distinct definitions-- they would essentially be synonyms (at least originally). Though the precision of every word is debatable, I think it is fair to consider a general definition of magic as being the "invoking of supernatural forces to influence the events in time and space." Many of the magical practices we have read, especially in the "Ancient Roots" chapter, focused on calling upon the gods, invoking the gods, conjuring up the supernatural to accomplish some desired end of the magician. The question is, then, does religion do the same thing? Is religion any different?

Here is where the conversation gets nuanced, and even as I write this blog post, I recognize that this debate could be one more apt for a thesis than a blog! Here is also where I want to propose an uncommon definition of religion, being that religion is primarily about what we worship and not about what we believe. Of course, there is certainly overlap between what we worship and what we believe, as we, on some level, must believe in the thing we are worshipping. But, at the heart of the matter, worship encapsulates a devotion of oneself to the thing(s) we primarily desire, even if our stated worship (formal religious affiliation) is different than our actual worship (what we truly desire). In Baal worship, for example, Baal is the recipient of devotion, praise, sacrifice, honor, etc. for Baal is the one desired by the worshipper. Therefore, the argument could be made that religion-- or worship-- is primarily about what we love.

To try and land the plane, I must say that I opened a can of worms that necessitates much more thorough consideration than what I've given here. In fact, I hope to have only further the conversation instead of trying to "resolve" it. As final comments for reflection, I wonder if we use "religion" to haphazardly? Is it fair to categorize all belief systems that have large followings as being "religious?" Is there a distinction between spiritual practices and religion? What is that distinction? Do we use religion as a catch-all term to keep ourselves from having to deal with the beliefs and merits of different worldviews intentionally?

Finally, what is the importance of this conversation? Why does our terminology matter anyway? In my eyes, at least, I think the words that we use to talk and think are indicative of (and form) how we believe and act. The discussion of terminology is not just meaningless semantics. The words that we use have implications, interpretations, connotations that influence how we navigate the subject matter being discussed. Pursuing more precise, fair, and clear terminology (in all aspects of life) will allow for better and truer discourse.