IMHO, magic can be religious but it does not equal religion. As I see it
there are two types of magic - Theurgy and Thaumaturgy, the former being
magic as worship, and hence religious, and the latter being magic to do
things, which may also be religious or may not.
If one conceptualises magic as coming from, or through, a god(s) then
all magic could be considered to be religious. If on the other hand one
considers magic to be either a phenomena of the natural world or a skill
of humans, then one might not consider it magical, although if one
admits that a deity(ies) created the manifest universe then arguably one
might have an argument that all magic is religious as it has its source
in a god(s)
The point here though is that magic can be considered to be totally
separable from religion. An atheist magician might well take this
position. For this reason I can't agree with Wouter that we can just do
away with the term magic and consider it to be under the umbrella of
religion.
Regards,
Morgan Leigh
PhD Candidate
School of Sociology and Social Work
University of Tasmania
On 5/09/2011 8:07 PM, HUMBERTO MAGGI wrote:
> I tend to see the separation between religion & magic as artificial, and
> created to protect orthodoxy; this separation has three critical moments
> in history: the defense of public religon in the Roman empire, the
> attack by emergent Christianity and the elaborations of Protestant
theology.
>
> HM
>
> *De:* D G Mattichak jr <[log in to unmask]>
> *Para:* [log in to unmask]
> *Enviadas:* Domingo, 4 de Setembro de 2011 20:34
> *Assunto:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Is Thelema modern?
>
> I can't concur that magick is religion. It seems to me that magick
> is a parallel to religion and as Hutton points out in his book
> Triumph of the Moon, religious practice makes a supplication to the
> divine powers whereas magick attempts to control those same forces.
> I also don't know whether Thelema is what is being practiced by
> those who perform Crowley's rituals such as the Gnostic Mass, after
> all the Book of the Law makes no mention of any such practice. It
> seems that there are those who would follow Crowley as some sort of
> messiah, following his compendium of practices without questioning
> Crowley's ability to actually understand the Book of the Law. The
> text of the Book of the Law is quite clear about Crowley's limited
> understanding of the Law which, to my mind at least, casts doubt on
> the practices that he devised for it. Whilst the ideas behind
> Thelema are not new it can be said that Thelema as we know it began
> in 1904 and so it is a modern interpretation of spirituality and not
> an ancient one.
> Also, I can understand Wicca trying to make a connection with a
> tradition that predates its public emergence in the 1950s but in
> light of the findings of modern historians it seems unlikely. It
> would seem to me to make more sense to embrace the modernity of
> Wicca as a strength, not everything of value spiritually has to have
> its roots in a long forgotten past. Perhaps, like everything else,
> religion must evolve with us in order to remain relevant in the
> present day.
> David G Mattichak jr
> Author of A Comment on the Verses of the Book of the Law
>
|