Of Magic, Science, and Religion ( Ch 1)

Religion, Anthropology, and Cognitive Science. …, 2007

By placing thus each of these strange and queer customs within its proper psychological and cultural setting, we can bring it near to us, we can perceive in it the universally human substratum. In other words, we have to carry out our analysis of primitive belief or superstition by means of universally valid concepts and thus make it amenable to scientific treatment. (Bronislaw Malinowski: Culture as a Determinant of Behavior, 1937, reprinted in Malinowski 1963 Why relate Malinowski's anthropological theories to present day cognitive studies of religion, ritual and magic? Is there anything to gain by such an exercise? The general questions raised by Malinowski about 80 years ago are to a large extent still pertinent, even if most of his answers create more problems than they solve. Throughout his extensive publications, Malinowski repeatedly discussed the relation between human biology, psychology, and cultural forms, and he persistently argued for a scientific approach to cultural phenomena taking all these levels into account.

In this paper, I embark on an intellectual quest, set in motion by a simple question: What is magic? My interest comes from the fact that scholarly literature on the subject of magic tells us a great deal about what it is not, while sharing little on what it is. Therefore, I begin with a brief review of theories on magic, particularly those which juxtapose magic with science. The first section outlines foundational theories in anthropology given by Sir Edward Burnett Tylor and Sir James George Frazer. The second section looks at the sociological treatment of the subject by Marcel Mauss in his book A General Theory of Magic (1950). Thereafter, I invoke Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard’s famous ethnographic work among the Azande to ground Mauss’ ideas in empirical fact. The final section presents a personal reflection on the discoveries made by this intellectual quest, along with some comments on the nature and need for such inquiries, which start with one simple question and end with many more questions.

Review of General Psychology, 2010

Recent articles calling for a scientific study of magic have been the subject of widespread interest. This article considers the topic from a broader perspective, and argues that to engage in a science of magic, in any meaningful sense, is misguided. It argues that those who have called for a scientific theory of magic have failed to explain either how or why such a theory might be constructed, that a shift of focus to a neuroscience of magic is simply unwarranted, and that a science of magic is itself an inherently unsound idea. It seeks to provide a more informed view of the relationship between science and magic, and suggests a more appropriate way forward for scientists.

Studio Magicae: A Journal of Practical and Theoretical Magic, 2022

Aries, 2011

2015

The past few years have seen a resurgence of interest in the scientific study of magic. Despite being only a few years old, this "new wave" has already resulted in a host of interesting studies, often using methods that are both powerful and original. These developments have largely borne out our earlier hopes (Kuhn, Amlani, & Rensink, 2008) that new opportunities were available for scientific studies based on the use of magic. And it would seem that much more can still be done along these lines. But in addition to this, we also suggested that it might be time to consider developing an outright science of magic—a distinct area of study concerned with the experience of wonder that results from encountering an apparently impossible event . To this end, we proposed a framework as to how this might be achieved (Rensink & Kuhn, 2015). A science can be viewed as a systematic method of investigation involving three sets of issues: (i) the entities considered relevant, (ii) the kinds of questions that can be asked about them, and (iii) the kinds of answers that are legitimate (T Kuhn, 1970). In the case of magic, we suggested that this could be done at three different levels, each focusing on a distinct set of issues concerned with the nature of magic itself: (i) the nature of magical experience, (ii) how individual magic tricks create this experience, and (iii) organizing knowledge of the set of known tricks in a more comprehensive way (Rensink & Kuhn, 2015). Our framework also included a base level focused on how the methods of magic could be used as tools to investigate issues in existing fields of study. Lamont & colleagues (Lamont, 2010; Lamont, Henderson, & Smith, 2010) raised a number of concerns about the possibility of such a science, which we have addressed (Rensink & Kuhn, 2015). More recently, Lamont (2015) raised a new objection, arguing that although base-level work (i.e., applications of magic methods) might be useful, there is too little structure in magic tricks for them to be studied in a systematic way at the other levels, ruling out a science of magic. However, we argue here that although this concern raises some interesting challenges for this science, it does not negate the possibility that it could exist, and could contribute to the study of the mind.

This paper will be published in the publication of the congress "Construction and Perception of the Magic World from Antiquity to Our Times" (June 14-18 2016, Velletri Rome).

In March of 2010 Inter-Disciplinary.Net brought together scholars from around the world to participate in the 1 st Global Conference on Magic and the Supernatural. As the name of the organizing group would suggest, no single disciplinary approach was privileged. Instead, under the guiding hand of Rob Fisher and Stephen Morris as well as the dedicated members of the steering committee, scholars from a variety of disciplinary and geographic perspectives came together in Salzburg, Austria, in order to tackle problems and questions related to magic and the supernatural in what proved to be an immensely fruitful dialogue. At this point the reader might well ask why such an undertaking would occur. After all, in our modern world have we not moved beyond such things as magic? Do we not have a full and complete understanding of the supernatural? Do we really need to devote the intellectual energies of scholars from across the globe to studying such things? The answers would be no, no, and a definitive yes. Furthermore, as the conference showed, questions about magic and the supernatural are not of merely historical interest. These are not simply artefacts of some past from which we have moved on. Rather, if we are to understand the world in which we live we must give serious thought to the magical and the supernatural, for not only have such beliefs shaped the world in which we live, but they are still very much with us. It might be best to begin by asking what we mean by the term 'magic.' That would seem to be a simple enough proposition. After all, most of us grew up with stories of spell-casting heroes and villains, from Merlin in the Arthurian legends to Harry Potter and his nemesis Voldemort in J.K. Rowling's beloved tales. It would seem from reading these tales that magic is the force that allows those skilled in its use to alter reality to suit their whims and which sustains mythical creatures such as faeries and unicorns. But is it really that simple? Consider for a moment the ability to alter reality. How is that different from prayer? As the Polish-born anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski discussed in his classic collection of essays published in 1948 as Magic, Science, and Religion, it is decidedly difficult to work out the boundaries between prayer and magic. In both instances an individual attempts to alter reality, calling on forces beyond those of the natural world to effect a change. This is true whether the hoped-for change is to bring a desired object to hand-as in the case of the accio charm seen in the Harry Potter novels-or the cure of a sick relative. In every case there is no doubt that the individual hoping to make the change is calling on forces beyond those of the natural world in the hopes of bringing about a real and significant effect. Many might object that there is a real and substantive difference between prayer and magic, but from an anthropological perspective it is difficult to