Arthur C. Clarke formulated Three Laws of prediction:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

*

I hold the obnoxious belief that religions are technologies — philosophical technologies — and that a magical interpretation of what religions say and do is symptomatic of insufficient understanding. Religious thinking requires an ontological sophistication beyond that of most religious minds, so they do the best they can, but in the process they make category mistakes (which, if I am not mistaken is just ontological errors recast in pragmatist terms) which grow together into a distorted conceptual system. But perhaps even worse is a simplistic leveling-down of religion into ethical guidelines and sentiments. Most battles over religion are between these two flawed conceptions of religion: the superstitious vs the secular.

*

Magical thought is the splattering of comprehension against the limits of thinkability. Thinkability, however is relative. We can learn to think new kinds of thoughts — consequential thoughts — thoughts that induce comprehensive rethought, also known as metanoia.

*

Magic is permanent complacence in the face of transcendent ideas — and it might even be the sin against the spirit, if we recognize that spirit is mobile thought. It is for this reason — not because I think magic “doesn’t exist” — that I oppose magical thought: it blunts the mind against transcending itself. Magic is bad practice.