Aren't practically all religions "magical" in one form or another?

Great Debates
21

cjgurl, as I understand things, during the sacrament of Marriage, a bond which did not previously exist is created between two people. Baptism has been hazier through the years and is still subject to different interpretations among different denominations, but even this Episcopalian would argue it’s creating a bond between the person being baptized and God.

I’m not sure exactly what happens during Holy Eucharist, but, while I don’t believe the bread and wine become literal, DNA-containing flesh and blood, I do believe they become more than just the sum of their physical and tangible components.

Basically, to me, when Christians bless something during a formal church service, we are adding something intangible to it which wasn’t there before.

On a more down to earth note, I know I’ve been on my old church’s prayer list for a new job. By ritually reading my name aloud, along with other people’s, they have been trying to influence a physical change in the real world which results in a specific outcome. Sometimes, as in my case, it works. Sometimes, as in the case of someone else on the list who recently died of cancer, it doesn’t. By the way, since you’re new here, I should warn you I’m a pretty unorthodox Christian. Welcome to the Board, though.

Lothos, I’d like to agree with you, but what I know of human nature gets in the way. It’s a very fine line, isn’t it? Objectively, I know I’ve done a lot of spiritual growth the past 7 months which I wouldn’t have done otherwise. As a devout Christian, I am therefore forced to assume, by me, if no one else, that it was God’s will that I be unemployed for so long. To be completely honest, though, when I pleaded with God, there was probably more “Help me!” in it than “Thy will be done.” It’s an interesting thought, though.

CJ

22

Perhaps not, but most practicing Zen Buddhists do think they will be reincarnated. OTOH, Theravada Buddhists apparently don’t concern themselves much with reincarnation, certainly not as a literal transmigration of souls or essences. It’s more of a pure and simple “way-of-life blueprint” rather than a “way-the-world-is blueprint.” Most religions contain metaphysical claims about the way the world is, and if that’s essential to the definition of religion then I’d suggest that at least Theravada Buddhism is not a religion, and maybe westernized Zen Buddhism as well.

As for “magic”, I think it’s key to remember that magic, as Apos’ definition aptly points out, is a process designed to bring about a tangible result. If a religion thinks that a particular ritual always brings about a particular result, I’d say that’s magical. If it believes that some individuals have the ability to manipulate reality in this way, or had that ability at some distant point in the past, that’s magical.

OTOH, praying for “god” to do something for you might not be magical, unless you think your deity is obligated to perform. If it doesn’t always work when performed correctly, then it isn’t magic. For it to be magic, the practitioner has to be the one causing the result. If some god does it, then it’s the god doing magic not his followers.

23

In the case of the Eucharist, there is no magical thinking involved, as per the definition I put forth before. The priest does not force the bread or the wine into becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, but asks God for it to become so, therefore, no magic is involved, but an intervention by the Divinity in question. The same holds for prayer in general. When you pray, you are asking for God, or the Saints or the Virgin Mary to help you out, not trying to coerce them into helping you.

Cjworth I don’t understand what you are saying, and I think that causes many people to loose their faith. Many people (I’m not saying this is your case) expect a certain outcome because of their prayers. In this sense, there is magical thinking involved, since, in a way, people are trying to coerce God into helping them (in their mind), and when it doesn’t happen they feel “let down”. A religious stance would preclude human beings from being able to alter the outcome of events by prayer, since that would mean they “forced” God into action.

24

In the case of the Eucharist, there is no magical thinking involved, as per the definition I put forth before. The priest does not force the bread or the wine into becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, but asks God for it to become so, therefore, no magic is involved, but an intervention by the Divinity in question. The same holds for prayer in general. When you pray, you are asking for God, or the Saints or the Virgin Mary to help you out, not trying to coerce them into helping you.

Cjworth I understand what you are saying, and I think that causes many people to loose their faith. Many people (I’m not saying this is your case) expect a certain outcome because of their prayers. In this sense, there is magical thinking involved, since, in a way, people are trying to coerce God into helping them (in their mind), and when it doesn’t happen they feel “let down”. A religious stance would preclude human beings from being able to alter the outcome of events by prayer, since that would mean they “forced” God into action.

25

Please disregard the first post (I hit submit too soon… ):smack:

26

If you belived that there was blood and flesh in your mouth, you believe something magical happened-- that is, something that cannot be explained. It doesn’t matter whether the motive force is you or the priest or God.

As regards whether the same result must obtain every time the magic is invoked, I think it need not. Magic can’t be explained, so why need it be reliable?

27

The key to my definition is this: it allows us to be neutral about the controversial questions of what is “really” going on. Just because something cannot be explained should not necessarily make it magical. Televsion would appear magical to a 14th century peasant, but that doesn’t make it magical. If, hundreds of years from now, we find that the communion wafer really DOES change into the body of Christ in one’s mouth through a fully explicable process, then the conventional definition of “magic” which we previously applied will be invalidated. With my definition, that can’t happen, because we are describing the nature of the magical act, rather than its unknown potential for explicability.

28

I’m actually being neutral there as well. And I agree that to a sufficiently primitive person, many things we believe can be explained would be like magic-- the 14th century peasant (or scientist, for that matter) could not possibly understand an explanation of television.

But it still wouldn’t be magic, because it can be explained.

For the wine and wafer, suppose that we do discover it really (i.e. measurably by science) becomes blood and flesh. If we can explain it as you describe, it’s not magic anymore. What makes it magic is believing it can’t be explained-- it’s totally culturally dependent.

I think you may take the word ‘magic’ as pejorative when applied to transubstantiation… I don’t think it should be taken that way.

29

—I think you may take the word ‘magic’ as pejorative when applied to transubstantiation… I don’t think it should be taken that way.—

I don’t believe in transubstantition. My worry is not the potentially prejorative nature of the word (especially its association with cheap slieght of hand) but rather that the conventional definition rests on very a uncertain ground. There are many things which are unexplained, but which no one would call “magic.”

30

I’m not sure what you’re referring to as unexplained. Let’s call it a foobar.

I believe that everything that can be observed can be explained using science sooner or later. “Foobar happens because of some molecular force that hasn’t yet been explained by science.”

If one believe they can be explained by supernatural mechanisms, those supernatural mechanisms constitute religious beliefs. “Foobar happens because the sky fairies don’t like it when I dance.”

If one believes there are causational mechanisms that can’t be explained, they believe they are magical, or what have you. “Foobar happens because I dance.”

31

I think that the motive force is exactly what matters nogginhead. Transubstantiation cannot be explained, but that doesn’t make it “magic”, it makes it a religious belief. I disagree with you that something that cannot be explained constitutes “magic”, since there are many things that I cannot explain, but are by no means “magical”. It is just that some people believe that there are other things that they cannot explain (religious beliefs), but that doesn’t make them “magical” either.

To draw a paralel: I cannot explain why people fall in love with certain other people. That is not magical in and of itself, it’s just something that we cannot explain. Magic would be involved if I believed that I could make a person fall in love with me by following certain rituals, like casting a spell, using certain herbs, or sending a spirit to make it happen.

32

OK, I realize I’m inconsistent in here with some previous things. I goofed. Transubstantiation isn’t magic.

I would have thought you would say that God turns the wine and wafer into the body and the blood, because the priest asked. That’s an explanation. It’s a supernatural, religious explanation. Not magic.

If you believed Cupid shot you, it’s religion, and if you believe it was the potion you drunk, that ‘works’ in some unexplianable way, it’s magic. If you aren’t interested in trying to explain it, I guess you’re an agnostic with respect to that question.

33

You have the gist of it, nogginhead. This is why I don’t think religions are magical, although there might be some magical practices within a religion, which are not part of the religious beliefs. To use your example, a person might perform a ritual that is thought to make Cupid shoot someone in exchange for a sacrifice. In this case, although Cupid is part of the Roman religion, it is still considered a magical practice per the definition I submitted, since the person that performs the ritual expects the outcome of it to be that the other person falls in love. He is not merely asking Cupid for love, but, in a way, forcing Cupid to make that happen.

I think we should also explore the difference between mystical and magical, since the OP seems to consider both of them synonims. As far as I can tell, mystical refers to the spiritual, but I am not sure I grasp the concept of mysticism very well. Would someone care to comment further?

34

Mysticism in religion generally refers to altered states of consciousness, or perceptions of a higher reality. Reality may change, but only in the mind of the mystic.

The difference between magic and religion, academically speaking, is largely dependent on the authority of the client as well as the degree of compensation expected and the level of commitment required by the client. Magic tends to be a specific act, performed by or for a specific individual, (the "client) with a specific intended outcome (the compensator) and usually requires only a small commitment from the client (money or maybe nothing).

With religion, the compensators are long-term and /or otherworldly (Heaven/enlightenment) and the commitment required by the client is long term or lifetime.

Magic serves the short term desires of the individual. Religion is served by the client. It’s all about authority. If the client is in charge, it’s magic. If the magic is in charge, it’s religion.

35

Semantics aside, though. I think the point of Astro’s OP was to ask if all religions possess at least some element of suprernatural belief. “Magic” (correct me if I’m wrong, Astro was just a generic word he chose to describe any paranormal or metaphysical activity.

36

Love to see that academic lingo from other disciplines.

What does this mean about Zen, then? Is it a religion?

37

I’ve seen it argued both ways. Some sociologists define Zen as a “naturalistic” religion while others insist that religion must include at least some supernatural assumption. If you read five different sociologists you get five different definitions of religion. Most sociologists will say that religion involves some kind of commitment by an individual (the belief in and/or practice of a religion) with the expectation of an otherworldly compensator, or often with the fear of an otherworldly consequence. Zen does require commitment and does offer the expectation of compensators, but the compensator (enlightenment) is worldly. It may be possible to argue that Buddhist enlightment is, in itself, a supernatural (or at least non-empirical) expectation. Personally, i think that Zen is a religion, or at least so closely fills the same sociological niche as to be called one for the sake of convenience.

38

I thought Zen only worked if you didn’t do it to get anything, and in fact that if you were trying to get enlightened, you couldn’t, almost by definition. Going to the expectation of a compensator.

I would think that it’s not possible to hold two religions simultaneously-- what would you say about those who feel they are practicing Zen but also consider themselves Christian?

39

That’s absolutely true. It’s the great paradox of Zen. if you want it, you can’t get it. The trick is to stop wanting it. As soon as you stop wanting it, you get it. That’s why Zen philosophers speak so often of actualization through mundane tasks. When you are doing the dishes with absolutely no other goal or thought in mind than doing this dish at this moment, that’s when you are in Zen. Nothing you can do by intention however, will work. Zazen makes the experience more likely, but it is not designed, in itself, to bring about enlightenment.

Why can’t someone hold two religions simultaneously? There are many Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc. who practice Zen meditation with no contradiction at all to their own doctrines. Zen has nothing to say about the afterlife, a Christian can be enlightened just as easily as a Buddhist, from a Zen standpoint, though, it would not be advisable to strive for a Heavenly reward (that is, to do anything which is motivated solely by a desire for Heaven). Desiring Heaven would be seen as an egoistic distraction, inconducive to Satori.

40

I don’t have a particular opinion on this, but…

My idea was that if only certain special religions (Zen) could be held simultaneously with others (especially a variety of others), they might be qualitatively different. Or, possibly, not religions.

I also think the ‘great paradox of Zen’ has important ramifications for whether Zen is a religion. If, by definition, you can’t do it to get the compensator, then that part of the definition of a religion can’t possibly hold.

If you define religions that way.

I’m interested in your idea that Zen fills the same sociological niche as other religions, though. I’m pretty far removed from my last formal thinking about sociology and religion. I would think that most other religions tend to involve more congregating than (in my perception, anyway) is needed for Zen.