[Opinion] Is magic part of religion, or can it be separated from religion?

[Angelkesfarl]

Is magic part of religion, or can it be separated from religion?
Hello, everyone. I wanted to start a discussion about magic and religion.
Is magic a product of religion?
Or is religion merely a veneer for magic, and does true magic not require religiosity?
Your opinions and experiences would be helpful.

 

[MorganBlack]

Man, I think about this a fair amount.

A lot of 20th-century modern magic is an attempt to build a ritual system that stands outside Christianity. That's a completely legitimate project, so not trying to say stop. But many of the efforts here only makes sense if you already accept the religion/magic/life split as real categories .

For most New World indigenous people there is no such thing as "religion," there is just reality. And that sense of reality can be expresses in what Anglos would call a "religion" - and sometimes more than one simultaneously, which just makes their heads pop, and smoke come out of their ears.

"Religion" as an abstract category (an "ism" among "religions") took shape only in the early modern period, especially after the Reformation, when "religion" could be reified and spoken of in the plural as "religions."

"Belief" is likewise a Middle English word from around 1175. But its original meaning differed in significant ways from our more modern understanding, and is more like... religion, but the lived, experiential kinds.

Etymologically, "believe" comes from Proto-Germanic word meaning "to hold dear" and related to love and trust, not "accepting a proposition as true with our thinky-think left-hemisphere brain," as we come to thinky-think of it

"Belief" of modern meaning of "conviction of the truth of a proposition without knowledge" emerged around the 1530s. The catalyst here was the Reformation. Protestantism emphasized the individual's "interior assent to the propositional content of doctrinal truth," while the more Catholic lived experiences of "implicit faith" was criticized as "false belief." Pfft Like get out of here kids. From then on, "belief" increasingly came to be understood as the individual mind's acceptance of certain statements, rather than a way of life embedded in ritual and community

All this is worth noticing and keep in in mind here , because the modern split between "religion" and "magic" isn't a neutral description of how people practice in the real world . It's a historically specific sorting that comes one from early modern Europe, and especially in Protestant Anglophone thought, where inward "belief"became the marker of "real religion" and outward ritual got reclassified as either superstition or magic.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Is magic part of religion, or can it be separated from religion?
Hello, everyone. I wanted to start a discussion about magic and religion.
Is magic a product of religion?
Or is religion merely a veneer for magic, and does true magic not require religiosity?
Your opinions and experiences would be helpful.

My opinion is that many religions (not all) contain half-assed ways of doing magic.

Intent - compose your prayer
Externalise that intent - pray to God
Gnosis - well, apart from ecstatic nuns and the like, we kind of lost that bit
Without lust of result & Forget about it - "God's will be done"

As I've said before, my opinion is that magic is an unexpected by-product of normal human consciousness. So I would say that religion evolved as an expression of magic (especially the more mystical religions) and then, in many cases, got codified, pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, and numbered

 

[Firetree]

Religion uses magical technology . Magick teaches that one can use the technology themselves without the 'intermediary ' ( 'priest' , church , hierarch. etc. )

It can be separated from religion ; eg, in the school of 'Scientific Illuminism ' .

It does not have to be a product of religion at all . Unless you define it that way .

Does true magic require religion ? ....... adding a 'true' makes that question rather loaded .

 

[JJB5]

I’d like to think of it as different from religion

 

[duncanhillscoffeeco]

Magick can be reconciled with religion, but religion is not necessary for the practice of magick. Magick can be used simply as a technological interface.

 

[Angelkesfarl]

"Religion" as an abstract category (an "ism" among "religions") took shape only in the early modern period, especially after the Reformation, when "religion" could be reified and spoken of in the plural as "religions."

As I've said before, my opinion is that magic is an unexpected by-product of normal human consciousness. So I would say that religion evolved as an expression of magic (especially the more mystical religions) and then, in many cases, got codified, pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, and numbered

Does true magic require religion ? ....... adding a 'true' makes that question rather loaded .

I’d like to think of it as different from religion

Magick can be used simply as a technological interface.

Well, since magic is different from religion, and religion is different from magic—or perhaps they are similar in that there is an entity you invoke and rituals for calling upon or worshiping that entity....
So if we say that magic is different from religion, how do we view the magical entities that have come to us in the form of religion—such as angels, demons, idols, and deities? Are they merely made-up names?
Or are they conscious entities? And why do they submit to certain powers—for example, the Abrahamic names of God—while other names, which are the same, are invoked in connection with other entities?
For example, an entity is invoked by the names Al-Wahim and Jibour. Yet the sorcerer also invokes names like Hija and Than al-Shifa alongside them. How can a single entity be subject to both one thing and its opposite at the same time?
Are they the same entities, or are they different, or do they not exist at all????

 

[Firetree]

Well, since magic is different from religion, and religion is different from magic—or perhaps they are similar in that there is an entity you invoke and rituals for calling upon or worshiping that entity....
So if we say that magic is different from religion, how do we view the magical entities that have come to us in the form of religion—such as angels, demons, idols, and deities? Are they merely made-up names?
Or are they conscious entities? And why do they submit to certain powers—for example, the Abrahamic names of God—while other names, which are the same, are invoked in connection with other entities?
For example, an entity is invoked by the names Al-Wahim and Jibour. Yet the sorcerer also invokes names like Hija and Than al-Shifa alongside them. How can a single entity be subject to both one thing and its opposite at the same time?
Are they the same entities, or are they different, or do they not exist at all????

These questions all seemed framed in the modern 2 part view of reality ; either / or , 'digital' .... 'reality' was always seen (previously) as 'analog ' .

Have you read this yet ?

( an alternative 3 part view of reality )

and this ;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

( how the form does not matter so much but certain 'rules and principles' apply 'across the board' )

and this ( even just the first few chapters ) ;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

( How 'we' { people - as a collective consciousness} went from the old 3 part reality model to a modern 2 part one )

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Well, since magic is different from religion, and religion is different from magic—or perhaps they are similar in that there is an entity you invoke and rituals for calling upon or worshipping that entity....

I should clarify my opinion somewhat, in that I believe as far as magic goes, religions are magical models, the same as any other magical model. I know that this is not a popular opinion.

 

[ahathoor]

I vibe with @MorganBlack here, the more i read your posts the more i feel we might think similarly in many ways. Calling back to a post some time ago, I'd be delighted to sit in an order with you and discuss the cthonic / celestial divide while we sip amanita wine.

I'd argue the question itself is not necessarily a helpful one. The ways in which religion, art and magic are distinct are mostly arbitrary, and historically insisted upon by actors who sought to intellectually and politically control or monopolize either or all of them.

If the question is, can you do magic without ascribing to a creed and following an institutionalized religion, sure. But it's possible that through magic you'll find affinity for a religious tradition, it's a path many have walked. (And while the gatekeepers and policemen of thought might frame it as a fall or redemption, in reality it is a new understanding and gnosis of truth expressed in the tradition that only become visible with the new eyes and new mind tempered by practice.)

To close off, a few trolly nitpicks, all in good spirit...

@Robert Ramsay

unexpected by-product of normal human consciousness

um... having some understanding of your worldview, pray tell unexpected by whom or what??!

@Angelkesfarl

or perhaps they are similar in that there is an entity you invoke and rituals for calling upon or worshiping that entity

i'd argue that sentence implies a very limited definition of both religion and magic...

 

[OberonFromTheHills]

Religion is believing french cook is better than everything else. Only cooking/eating from that particular type of food.

Magick like religion is like style preaching for french gastronomy.... But trying to adapt and switch.

Magick with an order is agreeing a type of regimen (low carbs, plant based, paleo....) is a solid system that allow yourself to feeling better and make you healthier.

Eclectic Magick is understand how cooking work but using types of meals you like, with no group to reference it as a whole.

 

[Kepler]

Religion is a product of social and spiritual civil engineering created from models of the physical cosmos and life's experiences within it.

When defining high magick as the means to engage and explore the nature, qualities and abilities of consciousness and life within cosmology to create the underlying model that religion is founded upon then it shows how they are intertwined in an intimate way with religion following.

Low magick, contrasted with high magick as defined above, wouldn't be exploration of the unknown and occult rather it would be end user applications with the religious interface developed from the high magick R&D.

The Ptolemaic state religion of Serapis is good example of how this flow works and the perspective applicable to all religions.

 

[Eldros]

Magic and religion can overlap, but they aren’t necessarily dependent on each other. You can have religion without magic, and also magical practices without believing in a god.
I think it depends on what we mean by ---magic. If it’s about using rituals to cause something to happen, then I don’t think it necessarily needs religion....
.They’ve been so intertwined historically that it’s hard to separate them. I think they’re less like two separate things and more like two things that grew together. \

 

[Robert Ramsay]

um... having some understanding of your world-view, pray tell unexpected by whom or what??!

By scientists and occultists, at least

When amongst IT people, I normally talk about "an edge condition of normal human consciousness" but for non-IT people, 'unexpected' is probably the closest translation.

 

[stalkinghyena]

For a while I had settled on Fritz Graf's formulation that, historically, magic was the personalized aspect of religion that was done in private, "at night", for selfish ends - basically a parallel "shadow side". And this was seen as bad by the community religion because those ends were suspect, a perversion of rites, and the Gods might punish everyone for the activity of just one person. Graf was countering Frazer's idea that magic was "proto-science" and "proto religion". Still, Frazer has some good mechanical ideas, and I think there's truth in more than one formula.

Lately, I have been more inclined to think that, again historically, "magic is what your enemies do". It could be a legit religion in a broader sense, but because the dominant culture doesn't like it, it gets a label. I mean, etymologically speaking, the word "magic" itself for the Greeks wasn't exactly a friendly term - they were sneering at the Persians, old grudges and such.

For all practical purposes, though, magic as present in religion can be applied to the structure of rites. A typical example is the Eucharist, with transubstantiation as literal transformation, or even consubstantiation for the protestors - Zwinglian memorialism as heresy must have been so boring because it was too reasonable and far less fantastic. The dogmatic difference is still in intention (personal vs. communal).

But you can slice the cake so many ways and still come out with cake.