It’s no accident that the study of magic and ritual flourished during the wane of the British empire; the beliefs of native cultures were collected and studied so they could be corrected. The study of magic was important, the ethnologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard would later explain, “not only for the anthropologist but also for the colonial administrator and missionary, if they wish to show to the peoples whom they govern and teach that they understand their notions about right and wrong.” For some, the main reason for studying sympathetic magic was to eradicate it.
For all its erudition and analysis, The Golden Bough has for more than a century helped cement the idea that magic is inappropriate, wrongheaded thought. Yet what separates magic from religion or science is not its methodology—Frazer himself notes that it “is therefore a truism, almost a tautology, to say that all magic is necessarily false and barren; for were it ever to become true and fruitful, it would no longer be magic but science”—it’s that ordinary people can do it, transforming their lives with the ambitious power of everyday thought....
As the world was becoming more ordered and codified via patriarchal religion and a burgeoning system of capitalism, magic was seen as a threat because it circumvented these structures: it offered a life outside the authority of the Church and the hierarchies it had carefully cultivated. Little had changed; people still felt powerless in the face of nature, but now instead of turning to magicians, they blamed them. The Church, after all, rarely attacked sympathetic magic on the grounds that it was empirically fallacious or ineffective—rather, it was a rival source of power. Among the many scandalous aspects of witches’ sabbaths as they were popularly depicted was the commingling of social classes: women—and increasingly men—of all walks of life, from peasants to the aristocracy, all were equal at the Midnight Mass. This vision of a dark Utopia was as threatening—if not more so—than any of the black rites practiced therein....
Perhaps this explains why a belief in sympathetic magic—irrational, superstitious, glorious—continues unabated in our hyperrationalist age. If anything, the ascendancy of science has clarified these beliefs, and the degree to which we’re willing to cling to them despite a cognitive awareness of the fallacious nature of magic. In the past few decades, celebrity and sports memorabilia have become big business; at auction sites like gottahaverockandroll.com, one can bid on all manner of ordinary items that have been imbued with the proximity of the famous: the site boasts of having auctioned John Lennon’s talisman necklace, worn on the cover of his and Yoko’s Two Virgins album, for a record $528,000, and recently auctioned a small amount of hair collected from Michael Jackson’s stay at the Carlyle Hotel, bought by a gambling website with an eye toward turning it into a roulette ball. “Together,” onlinegamblingpal.com proclaims, “we can ensure Michael Jackson continues to rock and ‘roll’ forever,” while meanwhile, the Hard Rock Cafe continues to build on its successful business model of serving mediocre food magically enhanced by its close proximity to the guitars of the famous suspended above diners’ heads. Sympathetic magic was once employed to protect us from chaos, to offer a measure of control over the caprices of nature. Now it offers a chance of escape, however fleeting, from a world of hierarchy and order. In a world where each of us is assigned a place, to hold Elvis Presley’s shirt is, for a moment, to capture some of the magic of Presley’s life, to inhabit a life other than one’s own. It’s a way of making it through life.
Magic vs Religion vs Science
I think it's even more telling that the purveyors of magical thinking, such as Deepak Chopra and Rhonda Byrne (author of The Secret) append the terms of science to what is essentially magic - quantum this and that, "law" of attraction and so on. Magical/superstitious thinking is alive and well, it just changes form with the age.
I think Clarke's equation of the two - that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - gets more to the heart of it.
Tricksters, and misinterpretation of physical laws are one thing, but when it comes to real magic, I don't think physical laws and magic are mutually exclusive because magic - from talismans to illusion to visualization - is something which happens in the mind.
The fact that there might be a physical explanation for something does not in any way take away from its magical aspect.
Likewise, the reason why churches and states attack rival sources of power is because very often they WORK. If they didn't what would be the point?
Two months before the Wright brothers historical flight, a leading scientist declared that "no possible combination of known substances, known forces of machinery and known forms of force can be united in a practical (flying) machine..."
Germ theory was first proposed in ancient Sanskrit texts in a previous millenium. Germ theory wasn't widely accepted by modern science until the late 19th century.
Space travel was declared "utter bilge" in 1956 by the British astronomer Royal, one of a long line of scientists who "proved" it was impossible.
Throughout time, it has been difficult next to impossible to promote the acceptance of new scientific discoveries. And yet over the last two hundred years, there has been an acceleration of new cures, theories, techniques, and inventions that have revolutionized aviation, space travel, communications, medicine, and warfare.
Most of them, of course, were deemed "impossible." (Stanton Friedman, Canadian physicist)
They WORK in that they control people - they don't work in any real sense. Just because you think something works doesn't mean it has any effect on reality at all. The power is real only because people act on beliefs in powers that are not real.
Physical laws and magic are mutually exclusive because magic is a supernatural force that effects the natural or physical world - and does not exist. Not understanding a physical law or technology that creates an effect does not in any sense make magic real.
The best research we have would seem to indicate that the human mind is only in part governed by reason, and that we are all, to some degree influenced by non-rational values and beliefs. We spend about a third of out lives in that dream-state. How rational is it to deny that fact?
And as for "they" controlling us, those symbolic and non-rational aspects of our psyche were there long before some hucksters figured out how to use them to trick people. They always will be there, and they are not, by definition negative. They are there to help us make sense of the world, and I believe there is some reason for that, even if we don't entirely understand it.
I agree with you when it comes to squaring our physical world with the scientific method, debunking myths and misinterpretations... like pretending that quantum mechanics function on something other than a subatomic level.
On the other hand, I am not automatically suspicious of things which are not entirely understood, or which are unknown.In fact, I think we risk sucking the life out of the world by denying that things can have meaning for people beyond their physical form.
Someone wants to have a lucky charm, let him have his lucky charm. For me the ultimate rule is whether it does harm or not. I am under no illusions that we can ever be completely rational.
Of course this picture isn't moving. It's completely static. How could anyone ever imagine that it is?
The best research we have would seem to indicate that the human mind is only in part governed by reason, and that we are all, to some degree influenced by non-rational values and beliefs. We spend about a third of out lives in that dream-state. How rational is it to deny that fact?
And as for "they" controlling us, those symbolic and non-rational aspects of our psyche were there long before some hucksters figured out how to use them to trick people. They always will be there, and they are not, by definition negative. They are there to help us make sense of the world, and I believe there is some reason for that, even if we don't entirely understand it.
I agree with you when it comes to squaring our physical world with the scientific method, debunking myths and misinterpretations... like pretending that quantum mechanics function on something other than a subatomic level.
On the other hand, I am not automatically suspicious of things which are not entirely understood, or which are unknown.In fact, I think we risk sucking the life out of the world by denying that things can have meaning for people beyond their physical form.
Someone wants to have a lucky charm, let him have his lucky charm. For me the ultimate rule is whether it does harm or not. I am under no illusions that we can ever be completely rational.
Of course this picture isn't moving. It's completely static. How could anyone ever imagine that it is?
You are right, it appears to move. Amazing!
And speaking of amazing, the Amazing Randi talks about his murky past as The Magic Clown (mp3)
I mistakenly thought Randi might have a scientific background considering that he and his groupees often criticize actual scientists, engineers, architects etc.
@Smith - I'm not suspicious of things not understood. I'm suspicious of people explaining them without evidence. That's what religions and superstitions do, and I fail to see how that's a positive thing. Wouldn't it be better to just make peace with the idea that there will be some things we don't entirely understand? At least that leaves the door open to finding out, rather than shuttering the minds of followers against reality.
I understand that the human brain reacts to and searches for patterns in its environment - so what? An optical illusion that appears to have movement isnt magic, it's a perception of the nervous system. It has a physical explanation. We can therefore put away the notion that it is either a miracle or a magic picture.
That the tendencies for irrational conclusions we pattern-monkeys tend towards have been there since before religion or politics - again, so what? The point is that leaders of religions, enforcers of social hierarchies have used them to manipulate people from time immemorial. That is what's important, not which came first.
And neither has anything to do with the fact that magic isn't real and that religions are no more than systems that depend on buy-in to the false.
I agree with you when it comes to squaring our physical world with the scientific method, debunking myths and misinterpretations... like pretending that quantum mechanics function on something other than a subatomic level.
So you agree with John Stewart Bell's mathematical expression showing the correlation between particles at any distance from the other exhibit three rational characteristics?: 1. That particle properties measured are real and pre-existing and not just occurring at the time of measurement 2. Free will is in play when scientists arrange conditions of the experiment, and 3. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
I agree with you when it comes to squaring our physical world with the scientific method, debunking myths and misinterpretations... like pretending that quantum mechanics function on something other than a subatomic level.
So you agree with John Stewart Bell's mathematical expression showing the correlation between particles at any distance from the other exhibit three rational characteristics?: 1. That particle properties measured are real and pre-existing and not just occurring at the time of measurement 2. Free will is in play when scientists arrange conditions of the experiment, and 3. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
Bell's Theorem showed that you have to give up on either realism or locality. I, reluctantly, give up on locality. There can be quantum correlations arbitrarily far apart, but unfortunately you can't exploit this to build an FTL communication device.
What I am saying, Fidel, is that there's no basis for claiming that the laws of quantum mechanics can be applied to human behaviour - as in that "what the Bleep" movie- any more than the laws of genetics can be applied to human behaviour.
Because some things are in two places at once, that some things can move faster than light, and that time can run backwards under some circumstances, does not mean that those things must be able to happen to large living objects like you and me - at least not without us being ripped into plasma.
Alchemists have spent ages trying to turn lead into gold. Just because it can happen in supernovae or in other high energy circumstances does not mean it is ever going to be financially viable to set up your own mint.
And @ TB.
I certainly recognize how you see things, and that's fine. And as I said, I agree with you on a lot of this. On the other hand, I question the notion that we can just will away non-rational and magical thinking, and personally, I don't think it is such a good idea even if we could, the abuses of religion and superstition notwithstanding.
In that, I think some of the so-called rationalists are going down the same path as the alchemists.
When my dad died I put the ashes that were left over in a river. How does that make any sense? Would it not have been easier and more practical to just throw it in the garbage? After all, he's dead, so nothing I do has any effect on him, no matter what he might have wanted when he was alive. And the notion that that place is somehow special and that I can think about him better there than anywhere else is complete nonsense.
But the fact is that we act and think like that and give value and meaning to things without any evidence - in fact, knowing that there IS no real meaning outside of our minds - all the time. And those ways of looking at the world are very real in that they have an effect on us, and on the world around us - not all of it negative.
Here's my problem: You say you understand where I'm coming from, then append these bizarre notions like "will away non-rational and magical thinking". I don't think I made that claim. However, it would be better for most people if, instead of clinging to magical thinking AND DENYING THAT THE REAL IS REAL when it is made evident, they would be flexible enough to set that irrational belief aside. And note I said belief, not thinking. Belief is often the opposite of thinking.
This has nothing to do with having an emotional life. What you're saying smacks of "atheists/rationalists have no moral compass" - the kind of utter crap the highly religious append to people who believe differently than they do. I've come across very few rationalists who eschew grief and symbolic acts in favour of the garburator when it comes to death and grieving, marking milestones in life, etc. We are, in fact a species that, along with the attraction to pattern, loves symbol. That doesn't necessarily mean we are thinking magically, however. I think people, as a whole, are much smarter than that.
What am I to take from your assessment that religious belief is merely something which controls?
We have had this conversation before, and I accept that that is how you see it, and what works for you. I strongly disagree that that assessment is in any way absolute, or that it is something that will work for everyone, however.
Back to my original statement - organized churches and states have opposed other belief systems not simply because they are a threat, but because they usually work, and often in a positive way.
And you just said that people should be flexible enough to set aside irrational belief. I am trying to say that in the first place, non-rational belief is not always in conflict with reality, and secondly, that that the expectation that people's minds will stop working the way they do is itself wishful thinking, and not based on evidence. And it has nothing to do with how "smart" people are.
You seem to make a distinction between benign non-rational thought (as in my personal example) and the abuses of organized religion. While I agree, and in fact said that there is a difference, I don't think you can draw a hard line, because in principle there is no difference in the root mechanism. Both involve suspension of belief or double-think.
It goes back to the example in the OP of the guitar which magically makes shitty food taste good. How that works on our minds IS real; sometimes it works in a good way, and sometimes in a bad way.
I didn't say that atheists have no moral compass. I am an atheist, but neither do I buy the implication that religious people are brainwashed fools, which would seem to be a corollary to the "control" argument. It is certainly an argument I hear often enough.
What I see is some people being very careful not to delve very far into scientific explanations as to why their understanding of reality, whatever that might be, is the correct one, and implying that mystics and religionists must be wrong. And I think fear of the unknown is a powerful motivation for saying the things we do.
And I can't help but think of 19th century England when mystics and soothsayers were put on trial for duping the public into believing in spirit worlds etc. In the end the spiritualists and soothsayers had the last laugh as far as 19th century judges and expert witnesses were concerned. With quantum and many worlds theories making a comeback in all the prominent scientific journals today, the legal system would likely be even more inclined to side with mystics and soothsayers against their accusers.
What I see is some people being very careful not to delve very far into scientific explanations as to why their understanding of reality, whatever that might be, is the correct one, and implying that mystics and religionists must be wrong. And I think fear of the unknown is a powerful motivation for saying the things we do.
And I can't help but think of 19th century England when mystics and soothsayers were put on trial for duping the public into believing in spirit worlds etc. In the end the spiritualists and soothsayers had the last laugh as far as 19th century judges and expert witnesses were concerned. With quantum and many worlds theories making a comeback in all the prominent scientific journals today, the legal system would likely be even more inclined to side with mystics and soothsayers against their accusers.
You're not seriously claiming that the tabble-tappers were doing anything more than exploiting gullible Victorians, are you?
Interesting discussion. My take. I do a lot of my gardening using 'magic' of sorts. It's something I've done for so long now that it just is normal. Things is it works. Sometimes it works despite that I think I'm doing it wrong according to normal garden wisdom and the science of biology. I've learned a lot about the land I garden on from doing it too.
Thing is I'm rational enough to know that I'm not really communing, at least as some sort of physical entities with these nature spirits. From a scientific perspective, what I am likely doing is accessing part of my unconcious or less conscious mind that is taking in loads of information as well as using years of experience, observation and my education in ecology and biology. It's gardening by intuition and feeling. It is 'magical' in that I can't always rationally communicate why I put this plant there vs over there, why I added this fertilizer, in this amount and at this specific time in stark scientific terms.
Thing is that with whatever is going on it works and on many occasions what initially has seemed like a really crazy and irrational thing to do ends up down the line to be pretty amazing. I've had many, 'aha, now I get why it was done that way." I could more then likely do some more in depth scientific study and observation and figure out the 'whys' in biological and ecological terms but the way I look at it is that it would take time that I don't have. I've also found that the whole 'magical' process has brought me closer to really paying attention and caring about what is going on. I notice things more. I notice things that I wouldn't necessarily notice just doing it by the book.
I've thought about it quite a bit over the years because I know that for many it sounds weird and full of 'woo'. I have wondered though whether what I'm doing is really something that many humans have been doing long before we had 'science' to explain what is going on within the natural world. Without delving into stark stereotype I'm thinking of those people who have developed and spirituality and religion based on the world that surrounds them. Many such peoples that still exist today. There may be a spirit or mythological reason that you pick this plant at a time, or that it is taboo to do this or that. There may be a reason not to anger this 'spirit' by taking some action that makes sense and works just as there is a scientific reason that these beliefs end up working.
An example that comes to mind is the mythology and sacred(religious) stories surrounding the planting of the "Three Sisters" (corns, beans and squash) in the Haudenshonee peoples and some of the more southerns peoples. The three plants are spirits, a family and personified. There are beliefs about why they are planted together and planted in a certain way. Now, through science we can explain why these three end up working really well as a synergistic plant community. It can easily be explained in biological terms. It's a form of companion planting. There's no need to delve into the 'woo' or 'magic' part of it to have the exact same success. The stark rational scientist who plants by a science text and the "irrational' spiritual believer who plants while communing with the spirit of their belief will both end up with corns, squash and beans to eat. This summer's babble book club book has many other examples of what many would call 'magical' thinking where 'science' and rational thinking can also explain the 'whys' and why in the context of people's environment and culture make a whole lot of sense.
I dunno I find it interesting to ponder. As irrational as it may seem to some I have no plans on stopping what I do. I've got beyond spending tons of time worrying about or trying to figure out why. I enjoy gardening with my 'elves' and their 'magic.' It works and in the end it's also whole lot of fun. Brings out the kid in me. ;D
What I see is some people being very careful not to delve very far into scientific explanations as to why their understanding of reality, whatever that might be, is the correct one, and implying that mystics and religionists must be wrong. And I think fear of the unknown is a powerful motivation for saying the things we do.
And I can't help but think of 19th century England when mystics and soothsayers were put on trial for duping the public into believing in spirit worlds etc. In the end the spiritualists and soothsayers had the last laugh as far as 19th century judges and expert witnesses were concerned. With quantum and many worlds theories making a comeback in all the prominent scientific journals today, the legal system would likely be even more inclined to side with mystics and soothsayers against their accusers.
You're not seriously claiming that the tabble-tappers were doing anything more than exploiting gullible Victorians, are you?
Apparently the court judge insisted on bringing in expert witnesses of the day ie. scientists. They were asked if the existence of other realms are possible. And the expert witnesses said then that the possibility could not be ruled out. And so charlatans and mystics carried on as usual. They would likely win in similar judgements today.
The legal system tends to rely on the testimonies of expert witnesses and scientific opinions in general is what I am saying. Cranks and public nuisances making spurious claims to fact are often dismissed for lack of scientific support. 
In Victorian times quantum theory was not widely accepted in the scientific community. Today it is and representing some large percentage of modern economies. Today quantum theory and many worlds theories are everywhere all around us. And, no doubt, charlatans and soothsayers probably still outnumber those with exceptional talents same as in Victorian times. Some services will be in less demand as a result. It's all about reputation and word of mouth. Some things never change.
In Victorian times quantum theory was not widely accepted in the scientific community. Today it is and representing some large percentage of modern economies. Today quantum theory and many worlds theories are everywhere all around us. And, no doubt, charlatans and soothsayers probably still outnumber those with exceptional talents same as in Victorian times.
I agree that, under the best theories we have to date, the world runs on quantum theory, and that the Victorians did not generally embrace it - Max Planck didn't come up with his theory until 1900, so there wasn't a lot of overlap. And I totally agree about the charlatans - I think that's true in every era.
Another thing about the article - I don't think the fact that Europeans began studying others' magic and superstition had any bearing on them looking at their own beliefs, because for the most part they did not put themselves under the microscope. I'd say the article is correct in suggesting it had more to do with discrediting and suppressing. There is no better way to suggest that others' beliefs and values have no meaning, than to label them as memes.
Phrenology, and pseudoscieitific notions of race also grew in that century, so I don't think the move had anything to do with the split between religion and science that was also beginning to happen.Quite the opposite.
Up until that time there was little if any distinction between religion, superstition and science. Alchemy and Chemistry were intertwined, as were Astrology and Astronomy. Likewise philosophy, law, medicine. That Victorian world was coloured with the imagery of classical mythology and magical interpretations of the natural world moreso than that of the religion many of them professed to believe.
Arthur Conan Doyle is a perfect example. In his writing he championed scientific analysis and reasoning, and yet he believed in fairies and communication with the dead, and when Harry Houdini tried to enlighten him about tricksters he became convinced that Houdini himself had supernatural powers, and refused to believe that his stage show was just magic tricks.
At the same time as some were trying to separate those two worlds, there was also an explosion of religious fervor - especiallly in the United States - but also in Europe. I think many nowadays like to believe there was a clear separation between science and metaphysics, but that isn't actually what happened.
In fact, when one looks at how our society is more and more separated from the natural world, and recognition of limits to our growth, and there are many who say that science will somehow save us (because sooner or later we HAVE TO discover a way to do that), I wonder if there is much separation even today. Just because you have hard information doesn't mean you can't be just as non-rational in interpreting it.
The Books of Moses don't just mention a sabbath day. They also talk about a sabbath year; the community was supposed to save up their food and resources and then every seventh year forgive debts, let the land rest, and start fresh.
What a bunch of superstitious nonsense, eh?
An example that comes to mind is the mythology and sacred(religious) stories surrounding the planting of the "Three Sisters" (corns, beans and squash) in the Haudenshonee peoples and some of the more southerns peoples. The three plants are spirits, a family and personified. There are beliefs about why they are planted together and planted in a certain way. Now, through science we can explain why these three end up working really well as a synergistic plant community. It can easily be explained in biological terms. It's a form of companion planting. There's no need to delve into the 'woo' or 'magic' part of it to have the exact same success. The stark rational scientist who plants by a science text and the "irrational' spiritual believer who plants while communing with the spirit of their belief will both end up with corns, squash and beans to eat. This summer's babble book club book has many other examples of what many would call 'magical' thinking where 'science' and rational thinking can also explain the 'whys' and why in the context of people's environment and culture make a whole lot of sense.
That's interesting. Apparently archaeologists believe that religion was born only after we advanced from being hunter-gatherers to agrarians. IOWs, we didn't have the spare time to even consider such things as relgion and who created what until we organized ourselves into sowers and reapers. And then there is Gobekli Tepe in Turkey. Klaus Schmidt believes it was the other way around in this instance. Schmidt thinks Gobekli Tepe upends the standard formula for civilization first followed by fanciful thoughts of heaven and earth.