Within the Satanist subculture, it is popularly claimed that the practice of "magic" or "magick" is a central asset to any Satanist belief system. In his Satanic Bible, Anton Szandor LaVey devotes a large portion of the book to his teachings about "magic." And the belief in "black magic" is of course a central theme to the Temple of Set's body of doctrine. On virtually any Satanist website that you find while browsing the Internet, you will find at least an essay or two about "Satanic magic" and how you can practice it.
My readers will perhaps be surprised to note that I am probably one of the few Satanists who does not believe in "magic" or "magick." Furthermore, I do not consider a belief in or practice of "magic" to be central to my Satanism by any means. The purpose of this document is to explain why I am dubious of this thing called "magic."
There are various definitions of "magic." The dictionary defines magic as "the art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural." It also defines magic as either, "the practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature," or "the charms, spells and rituals so used."
Helena Blavatsky, in her book Isis Unveiled, wrote that "magic considered as a science is the knowledge of the principles and the way by means of which the omniscience and omnipotence of the Spirit and its control over the forces of Nature can be acquired by the individual, even though he is still within his own body. Considered as an art, magic is the application of this knowledge to practice."
Agrippa von Nettesheim wrote in Ceremonial Magic, "Sacred ceremonies and the rites surrounding them have such virtue that even if they are not understood or scrupulously observed, they are nonetheless effective and clothe us in divine power if they are carried out with faith."
And Eliphas Levi wrote, "Magic is the traditional science of the secrets of nature, which comes to us from the magicians. Through it, the adept is invested with a sort of relative omnipotence and can act in a superhuman fashion."
Celebrated occultist Aleister Crowley described magic as, "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the will." In his Magick in Theory and Practice, Chapter XIV, he wrote:
Anton Szandor LaVey, who is perhaps considered the primary authority on "magic" by most Satanists, defines magic in The Satanic Bible as "The change in situations or events in accordance with one's will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be unchangeable." He further states that magic is not scientifically explainable, but science has always been, at one time or another, considered magic. And the Temple of Set, of course, defines magic as "consciously-directed alteration of one's environment through obscure natural (Lesser Black Magic) or non-natural (Medial Black Magic) means, or apprehension of the Forms/Principles of the natural/non-natural universe (Greater Black Magic)."What is a Magical Operation? It may be defined as any event in nature which is brought to pass by Will. We must not exclude potato-growing or banking from our definition. Let us take a very simple example of a Magical Act: that of a man blowing his nose.
Magic is often compared to religious prayer. Prayer is defined by the dictionary as a reverent petition that is made to a deity. The idea of prayer is to ask a deity to intervene on your behalf. If the prayer is answered, it is due to the assent of an external being with an independent will. And this deity can also deny the requests; when a person does not get what they prayed for, it is often said that "It must not be [my] God's will that I should get what I wanted." Or perhaps the deity is just trying to get them to stop being lazy and find a way to make their own wish come true. A person who prays believes that we can not exert control over the spirit world, but that we are at its mercy.
Magic, in contrast, is allegedly quite different. Instead of making a petition to a deity, the magician claims that he or she can effect changes in reality either by (1) "tapping into" some cosmic or occult force, (2) using the force or power of their own will, or (3) commanding a spirit or spirits to do their bidding. The idea of magic is to control or manipulate unseen forces and to use them to accomplish one's own goals. And if the magician fails to get what he wants by his art, it is considered to be because of some defect in the casting of his spell. A person who practices magic believes that we are not at the mercy of the spirit world, but that we can exert control over it in some way.
All of the above definitions for magic propose this element of human control over spiritual, cosmic or occult forces. Now, when people hear me say that I do not believe in magic, they often take offense and think that I am telling them I do not believe in a spirit world. Often, people are confused that I can believe in a deity, but not in magic. The fact of the matter is, I do believe in the existence of a spirit world and of spiritual experiences. I believe that it is probably quite true that many people who call themselves magicians are having valid spiritual experiences of one kind or another. It is not the belief in the supernatural that I take objection to; it is this idea of human control over the supernatural that I find faulty.
Crowley claimed that magic is creating change in accordance with your Will. And according to him, even a mundane act like planting potatoes counts as "magic." I'm sorry, but I do not see anything magical about planting potatoes at all. Defining absolutely any intentional act as "magic" seems pointless to me. This is just superimposing mystical language onto something that is perfectly explainable without such language.
LaVey's definition of magic seems just as problematic. "The change in situations or events in accordance with one's will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be unchangeable." Just what does this mean? That's pretty ambiguous, and it sounds like it could literally mean anything. Using normally accepted methods, I can't convince my next door neighbor to act like a rational human being. But if I go at her with a crowbar, I can sure as hell get her to leave me alone. Probably for good. Does beating my neighbor within an inch of her life fit under the definition for "magic" in this context? As long as it's intentional, I'm sure it would fit under Crowley's definition of "magic." But as far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely nothing useful about using such mystical language to describe such a mundane thing.
And of course LaVey tries to cover his tracks by saying that magic is not scientifically explainable, but science has always been, at one time or another, considered magic. Well, if you go in a time machine and show Genghis Kahn how a microwave oven works, he'll sure as Hell call it magic. But we know it's not magic. If what is called "magic" will only someday become recognized as science, what's the purpose of using such mystical otherworldly jargon as "magic" to describe it in the first place? As Satanists, shouldn't we know better?
If there is no claim being made of supernatural, occult, or "non-natural" significance to the intentional change that is created (as in blowing your nose), then it's just creating intentional change, pure and simple. Blowing your nose is blowing your nose. If there IS a claim of supernatural, occult or "non-natural" significance being made, how can it be substantiated? It can't be. I have never met a self-proclaimed magician who can prove that their spells actually work, and part of being a "magician" is claiming that your spells actually work.
Now if my pro-magic readers are really clever, they will be thinking to themselves, "But the existence of deity cannot be substantiated any more than the supernatural/occult/'non-natural' claims of magic can." And this is absolutely true. However, the difference here is one of self-descriptors; a person calling themselves the worshiper of a deity may not be able to prove that the deity they worship exists, but they can certainly show you the religious rituals they practice and thereby prove that they worship it.
On the other hand, a person calling themselves a "magician" cannot prove that the supernatural/occult/"non-natural" changes they supposedly effect are really happening. They might really be having spiritual experiences of some sort, but they cannot prove the part about having human control over the spirit world. And those like Crowley and LaVey, who conveniently snip out the supernatural/occult/"non-natural" part, are shooting themselves in the foot by dismantling the very necessity for a term like "magic" in the first place.
In the dictionary, the term "mysticism" is defined as "a belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience." The term is often used interchangeably with magic by some occultists, but there is a very important difference between the two of them. While magic makes the claim of human control being exerted over the spirit world, mysticism is merely a belief in experiencing the spirit world. Mysticism makes no claims about exerting influence or control over the occult forces that are subjectively experienced.
I am inclined to believe that most (if not all) "magicians" are really just mystics who erroneously identify themselves as magicians. I feel the very same way about people who call themselves witches, warlocks, sorcerers, wizards, magi, magistri templi, ipsissimi, and all these other various synonyms for people who can exert control over the spirit world by some prescribed method. As far as I am concerned, the practices of magic, witchcraft, and sorcery are subjects that exist entirely within the realm of fiction, and I will not revise my opinion until I meet somebody who can actually prove to me that they wield such power.
Even Anton LaVey has admitted that his idea of "magic" is really nothing more than ritualized psychodrama. In his Satanic Bible, he wrote the following (pp. 52 - 53):
Modern man has come a long way; he has become disenchanted with the nonsensical dogmas of past religions. We are living in an enlightened age. Psychiatry has made great strides in enlightening man about his true personality. We are living in an era of intelletual awareness unlike any the world has ever seen.This is all very well and good, BUT - there is one flaw in this new state of awareness. It is one thing to accept something intellectually, but to accept the same thing emotionally is an entirely different matter. The one need that psychiatry cannot fill is man's inherent need for emotionalizing through dogma. Man needs ceremony and ritual, fantasy and enchantment. Psychiatry, despite all the good it has done, has robbed man of wonder and fantasy which religion, in the past, has provided.
Satanism, realizing the current needs of man, fills the large grey void between religion and psychiatry. The Satanic philosophy combines the fundamentals of psychology and good, honest emotionalizing, or dogma. It provides man with his much needed fantasy. There is nothing wrong with dogma, providing it is not based on ideas and actions which go completely against human nature.
If "magic" is really only a form of ritualized psychodrama which utilizes fantasy and dogma for the purpose of helping people to emotionally accept their true personalities, then why not just be honest and call it psychodrama? Why is there an apparent need among LaVeyan Satanists to refer to this practice as "magic"? In other areas of the SB, LaVey rather harshly criticizes the idea of theism by postulating that "All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man." But did he not realize that he is in fact contradicting himself? If we are to insist that our gods and goddesses are only inventions of our own carnal brains, then why can we not also insist that "magic" is only an invention of our own carnal brains?
Like Crowley, LaVey is an example of a man who insisted on grafting a mystical language onto something that is not really "magical," but rather just self-therapeutic. In my opinion, people who are theists have more reason to want to use the word "magic" than LaVeyans, even though these theistic "magicians" cannot prove that what they do is really "magic" either.
Now there are many people in the world who practice what they believe to be "magical" rituals, and who practice such things as Qabbalah, Tarot reading, rune divination, the Enochian Keys, etc. And many of these people claim that they have meaningful spiritual experiences from practicing these things. As I am a person who believes very strongly in the existence of a spirit world, I am not inclined to doubt their claims that they are indeed experiencing something of a mystical nature in their rituals. Otherwise, I would be a hypocrite.
But to this very day, I still have not met a single person who has been able to prove that their practice of Qabalah, Tarot reading, the Enochian keys, etc. has really given them a "special power" or powers which enables them to exert control over the spirit world. These practices may help them to understand themselves on a deep, spiritual level. But this is mysticism, not magic.
So when I say that I do not believe in magic, I am not saying that I think such things as the Qabbalah, the Enochian keys, Tarot reading, crystal gazing, or whatever else are completely meaningless or useless. I believe that they have meaning and that they can be useful to people; I just disagree with the terminology that is popularly used.
I do not claim to wield any sort of control over the spirit world. I am a person who practices worship and prayer. Whenever I want to invoke a change in reality by supernatural means, I make a reverent petition to the Prince of Darkness. If Apep should choose to ignore my petition, then I take this to mean that either (1) I am not supposed to get the change that I want, or (2) There is a way to get the change that I want by myself, and Apep is trying to show me that I have not tried hard enough.
Members or sympathizers of the Church of Satan will most likely be thinking to themselves at this point, "You're no Satanist! You believe in more of a deity-based Neopaganism. You deny the ego by worshiping an external deity that you believe to be higher than yourself. All deity-based religions are just crutches for people who can't face up to the hard facts of life. And prayer makes you lazy. You can sit and pray to a god for what you want all day, and when you don't get it, you excuse your laziness by saying, 'Oh, well I didn't get what I wanted. I guess it's just [my] God's will.' Satanism is supposed to be about worshiping ourselves and our own power, and not bowing before any 'god.' The Satanist is a magician, not a worshiper who grovels and prays."
My response to this is: I don't consider worship of the ego to be Satanism. I consider worship of the Prince of Darkness to be Satanism. I don't care what LaVey might have said on the subject. And if you think that deity-based religions are all just crutches and cop-outs, what about those times when you don't get what you want from the "magical working" you performed? One can just as easily say, "Oh well, I didn't get what I wanted, I guess I just didn't do that magic spell right." Magic can be - and IS - used as an excuse for laziness just as much as prayer. You can't tell me that there aren't people out there who cast "spells" for great wealth, and then who just sit at home, waiting for a check to show up in the mail. You can't tell me that there aren't people who cast "spells" to make someone fall in love with them, and then who just sit at home, waiting for the doorbell to ring. You can't tell me that there aren't people who cast "curses" to destroy their enemies, and then who just sit at home and wait for their neighbors to croak.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people in the world who are theistic and who pray, but who understand the cold hard fact that if you really want something done, you best do it yourself. There are many Christians, for instance, who teach that "God helps those who help themselves!" If it's a case of you just being too lazy to take care of it yourself, and you pray to Apep to do it for you, and Apep chooses not to do it for you, then it's your own fault that you're not getting what you want, not Apep's. I never said that Apep is a genie.
I do not believe that (1) I can "command the Powers of Darkness to bestow their infernal power upon me!" or (2) I can "tap into" some cosmic force and use it for my own ends, or (3) I have the power to supernaturally make all my own prayers come true. #1 strikes me not only as a rather silly idea, but as a rather insulting postulation as well. I am a Devil worshiper, meaning that I revere the Powers of Darkness and seek to serve them in whatever ways that I am able. I am not here to "command" the Powers of Darkness like some wannabe-Faust. Therefore, although I do consider myself to be a mystic, I reject all such terminology as "magic" or "witchcraft" or "sorcery" within the confines of my own beliefs and practices.
However, I respect the fact that there are many people out there who will disagree with my views on this subject, and who may even feel that I am trying to "take away their right to call themselves 'magicians.'" Such is not the case. If any of my readers honestly believe that they qualify for the definition of the terms "magician" or "witch" or "sorcerer," then so be it. You don't need my approval; call yourself whatever seems best for you to call yourself. All the more power to you. But the point of this article, above anything else, is to illustrate why the idea of "magic" is not a part of my belief system, and why I object to the claim that "Magic is an important cornerstone to Satanist belief and practice."
