Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Outside the Charmed Circle

Home
Pagan
Safer Sex Magic: Dancing in the Thicket Between Science and Religion

Safer Sex Magic: Dancing in the Thicket Between Science and Religion

Last updated on: February 8, 2018 at 1:21 am by Misha Magdalene

Safer Sex Magic: Dancing in the Thicket Between Science and Religion 2018-02-08T01:21:35-08:00 Misha Magdalene

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Hello, beautiful creatures. Those of you who’ve made your way here after reading the previous installment in this series may note a slightly less frenetic tone in today’s entry. Some of that might be my decreased caffeine intake, but some of it is probably related to the subject matter. After all, today I’m taking on the definition of magic, which demands a modicum of gravitas and other $5 words, not to mention a Victorian waistcoat and the demeanor of an Oxford don.

[rustles papers, clears throat]

Hrm. Yes. Well. Magic. Right, then.

Magic is notoriously one of those words where, if you ask any ten practitioners, you’ll get thirteen different answers, some of them mutually exclusive, after which the respondents will start arguing about whose definitions are correct, whose are utter tosh, and whose are just reheated Crowley… and since we’re talking about both sex and magic in the context of modern Paganism and polytheism, we’re gonna have to deal with Crowley sooner or later, so let’s just go ahead and get it over with.

An Unavoidably Necessary Detour through Pre-War England

For those of you unfamiliar with the (in)famous magician, writer, and vocational bête noire Aleister Crowley… well, a full biography is beyond the scope of this column, so I encourage you to click that Wikipedia link and do some reading. Go ahead, I’ll wait. (Those of you already familiar with Uncle Al may skip to the next paragraph, and I won’t blame you a bit1.)

Welcome back! As you may have read, Crowley defined magick (with a -k at the end, thank you very much) as “the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.” He would further expand on this definition as “the Science of understanding oneself and one’s conditions” and “the Art of applying that understanding in action,” suggesting that for Crowley, magic is as psychological as it is parapsychological2. Dion Fortune, the grand dame of pre-WWII English magic, modified Crowley’s definition to refer to changes “in consciousness,” amplifying the focus on the mind of the mage as a central component of their approach to magic.

So, is magic all in your head? Well, that kind of depends on what you mean. Crowley and Fortune both stressed the psychological aspects of magic, but also saw magic as a means of changing not only the consciousness of the practitioner, but reality itself. Fortune was expressly concerned with magic’s ability to affect the mundane lives of both practitioners and those around them. She discussed the implications of careless or baneful magic in her nonfiction, as in Psychic Self-Defense, and explored these themes in her fictional works, notably in The Secrets of Dr. Taverner. For his part, Crowley seems to have included both everyday, mundane actions and the more numinous acts of will under the heading of magick, suggesting a lack of distinction between the two. I don’t necessarily dispute this, but I don’t find it an especially useful definition, either. While the magical and the mundane can (and often should) be interleaved, I find it useful to make a distinction between the magical act of weaving a spell and the mundane act of making a cup of coffee.

Which is all well and good, but what is magic?

What We Talk About When We Talk About Magic

In Western culture, we spend a lot of time talking about “science” and “religion” as opposing poles along a single axis. Many people, both deeply religious and deeply areligious, find that framing to be suitable for their endorphin-rush addictions, but personally, I have a lot of trouble with it. For starters, it ignores the lengthy fraternal relationship between religion and science, past and present. It also, I think, misses the point of both. Science is ultimately about causal relationships, those we can observe and those we can infer. It can’t tell us what things mean, only how they behave. Religion is about finding or creating meaning from what we observe. It can’t model the physical universe worth a damn, but it can be a way of explaining to ourselves why we care, or why we should. Rather than being binary polar opposites, I’d suggest that religion and science operate along separate axes. We can call them x and y, if we like.

Magic is the z axis. It’s neither science nor religion, but dances between them. It’s a doing, one which connects the observable phenomena beloved by science with the myth and meaning inherent to religion. Magic has rules, but they aren’t much like the laws of physics or the tenets of faith. They’re more akin to the rules of etiquette, or of fairy tales. They have their own internal logic which, taken on their own terms, are as inevitable and unassailable as the second law of thermodynamics or the golden rule.

Okay, okay, enough poetry. For our purposes here, I define magic as changing reality in a manner not constrained by causal proximity.

That might require a little unpacking, so bear with me while I bust out a box knife and a garbage bag for all the styrofoam peanuts.

In Which We Wander Off Into a Thicket

By “causal proximity,” I’m referring to the extent to which a relationship between cause and effect is readily apparent. For instance, if I push a glass off the counter and it falls onto a slate floor, in all likelihood it’s going to shatter. There’s a simple relationship between cause (I push the glass off the counter) and effect (the glass shatters). In other words, the cause is visibly close—in proximity—to the effect. On the other hand, if a friend across the country tells me they’ve lost an item and I divine its location correctly, there’s not an easily-defined cause/effect relationship at work.

At this point, we’ve left the world of straightforward physics and entered a discursive realm where we’re talking about things like healing, remote viewing, clairaudience, prognostication, psychokinesis, the structure of the cosmos, the existence of intelligences other than human, angels, demons, spirits, gods, and the things that lie beyond them all. These are subjects that can make people reeeeeally uncomfortable, because either we’re having a conversation with a mentally-unhinged person or we’re questioning the very nature of reality, and either one gets us into a tangled thicket in short order.

Of course, some of us LIKE thickets… (Image by Johannes Plenio via Pixabay.)

Well, what can I say? Being the impish creature I am, I’m not here to reassure anyone about their worldview, nor to advance a particular ideological stance. In the Feri tradition, one of the maxims we inherited from our beloved founding teacher Victor Anderson is, “Perceive first, believe later.” Regardless of whether or not you’re Feri, I think it’s a good bit of advice.

Similarly, I’m not here to convince anyone that magic exists and works. If you want to know if magic works, try it and see. Once you’ve done that, you’ll have your own definition of magic, and none of my maundering here will matter one whit.

And that’s exactly as it should be.

Until next time, dear ones, keep your feet underneath you. ♥

The careful reader may detect a note of disgruntled resignation in my discussion of Aleister Crowley. As someone who’s been studying and practicing magic for lo, these past thirty years, it would be foolishly dishonest of me to ignore or dismiss Crowley’s influence on modern magic, Paganism, and polytheism. It would also be dishonest of me to fail to suggest that this isn’t necessarily a good thing. Crowley’s impact on occultism and paganism during his life, and the legacy of his influence, have directly or indirectly contributed to a substantial number of the problems faced by our communities today. Also? The guy was a total asshole. So yeah, I get it, Crowley was important, and I’ll deal with him here because I kinda have to, but… ugh.
Crowley also notoriously identified the demons of the Lesser Key of Solomon as being “portions of the human brain,” which may say more about Crowley’s brain than it does about anyone else’s.
Victor provided us with his own definition of magic: “White magic is poetry. Black magic is anything that actually works.” This definition never fails to delight me.

Previous Post

February 4, 2018

Safer Sex Magic: Let's Talk About (How We Talk About) Sex, Baby

Next Post

February 10, 2018 Safer Sex Magic: Getting Down to Business, As It Were

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Interviews Politics Reviews Social Justice Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month January 2021 December 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz