Editing Magic (supernatural) (section)

=====Intellectualist approach=====
[[File:Edward Burnett Tylor.jpg|upright|thumb|right|Edward Tylor, an anthropologist who used the term magic in reference to sympathetic magic, an idea that he associated with his concept of animism]]
The intellectualist approach to defining magic is associated with two British [[Anthropology|anthropologists]], [[Edward Tylor]] and [[James G. Frazer]].{{sfn|Hanegraaff|2012|pp=164–165}} This approach viewed magic as the theoretical opposite of [[science]],{{sfnm|1a1=Hanegraaff|1y=2012|1p=165|2a1=Otto|2a2=Stausberg|2y=2013|2p=4}} and came to preoccupy much anthropological thought on the subject.{{sfn|Otto|Stausberg|2013|p=4}} This approach was situated within the evolutionary models which underpinned thinking in the social sciences during the early 19th century.{{sfn|Davies|2012|pp=14–15}} The first social scientist to present magic as something that predated religion in an evolutionary development was [[Herbert Spencer]];{{sfn|Davies|2012|p=15}} in his ''A System of Synthetic Philosophy'', he used the term magic in reference to [[sympathetic magic]].{{sfn|Cunningham|1999|pp=16–17}} Spencer regarded both magic and religion as being rooted in false speculation about the nature of objects and their relationship to other things.{{sfn|Cunningham|1999|p=17}}

Tylor's understanding of magic was linked to his concept of [[animism]].{{sfnm|1a1=Davies|1y=2012|1p=15|2a1=Bailey|2y=2018|2p=15}} In his 1871 book ''Primitive Culture'', Tylor characterized magic as beliefs based on "the error of mistaking ideal analogy for real analogy".{{sfnm|1a1=Hanegraaff|1y=2006|1p=716|2a1=Hanegraaff|2y=2012|2p=164}} In Tylor's view, "primitive man, having come to associate in thought those things which he found by experience to be connected in fact, proceeded erroneously to invert this action, and to conclude that association in thought must involve similar connection in reality. He thus attempted to discover, to foretell, and to cause events by means of processes which we can now see to have only an ideal significance".{{sfn|Hanegraaff|2006|p=716}} Tylor was dismissive of magic, describing it as "one of the most pernicious delusions that ever vexed mankind".{{sfnm|1a1=Cunningham|1y=1999|1p=18|2a1=Davies|2y=2012|2p=16}} Tylor's views proved highly influential,{{sfn|Davies|2012|p=16}} and helped to establish magic as a major topic of anthropological research.{{sfn|Davies|2012|p=15}}

[[File:JamesGeorgeFrazer.jpg|upright|thumb|right|James Frazer regarded magic as the first stage in human development, to be followed by religion and then science.]]
Tylor's ideas were adopted and simplified by James Frazer.{{sfnm|1a1=Hanegraaff|1y=2006|1p=716|2a1=Davies|2y=2012|2p=16}} He used the term magic to mean sympathetic magic,{{sfnm|1a1=Hanegraaff|1y=2006|1p=716|2a1=Bailey|2y=2018|2pp=15–16}} describing it as a practice relying on the magician's belief "that things act on each other at a distance through a secret sympathy", something which he described as "an invisible ether".{{sfn|Hanegraaff|2006|p=716}} He further divided this magic into two forms, the "homeopathic (imitative, mimetic)" and the "contagious".{{sfn|Hanegraaff|2006|p=716}} The former was the idea that "like produces like", or that the similarity between two objects could result in one influencing the other. The latter was based on the idea that contact between two objects allowed the two to continue to influence one another at a distance.{{sfnm|1a1=Cunningham|1y=1999|1p=19|2a1=Hanegraaff|2y=2006|2p=716}} Like Taylor, Frazer viewed magic negatively, describing it as "the bastard sister of science", arising from "one great disastrous fallacy".{{sfn|Cunningham|1999|p=19}}

Where Frazer differed from Tylor was in characterizing a belief in magic as a major stage in humanity's cultural development, describing it as part of a tripartite division in which magic came first, religion came second, and eventually science came third.{{sfnm|1a1=Cunningham|1y=1999|1p=19|2a1=Hanegraaff|2y=2006|2p=716|3a1=Davies|3y=2012|3p=16|4a1=Bailey|4y=2018|4pp=15–16}} For Frazer, all early societies started as believers in magic, with some of them moving away from this and into religion.{{sfn|Cunningham|1999|p=20}} He believed that both magic and religion involved a belief in spirits but that they differed in the way that they responded to these spirits. For Frazer, magic "constrains or coerces" these spirits while religion focuses on "conciliating or propitiating them".{{sfn|Cunningham|1999|p=20}} He acknowledged that their common ground resulted in a cross-over of magical and religious elements in various instances; for instance he claimed that the [[sacred marriage]] was a fertility ritual which combined elements from both world-views.{{sfn|Cunningham|1999|pp=20–21}}

Some scholars retained the evolutionary framework used by Frazer but changed the order of its stages; the German ethnologist [[Wilhelm Schmidt (linguist)|Wilhelm Schmidt]] argued that religion—by which he meant [[monotheism]]—was the first stage of human belief, which later degenerated into both magic and [[polytheism]].{{sfn|Davies|2012|pp=18–19}} Others rejected the evolutionary framework entirely. Frazer's notion that magic had given way to religion as part of an evolutionary framework was later deconstructed by the folklorist and anthropologist [[Andrew Lang]] in his essay "Magic and Religion"; Lang did so by highlighting how Frazer's framework relied upon misrepresenting ethnographic accounts of beliefs and practiced among indigenous Australians to fit his concept of magic.{{sfn|Davies|2012|p=17}}