Animals do not question their existance, or seek reasons for it. They may fight against the inevitable; death, weather or hunger; but they do not question. A dog, begging for food, is not asking why you don't feed him. He is attempting to change his condition, not to explain it. And yet, that one question, "Why?" is on the lips of every human child when asked to do something they do not want, or when observing something they do not understand. "Why" is the impetus for understanding, for change and for true growth beyond genetically and environmentally determined destiny.

Throughout history, man has evolved two great disciplines to try and answer this persistant question. Today, we call then by the names of Science and Religion. Science is the attempt to understand the physical forces of the universe: the progress of disease, the movement of planets and stars, the functions of our own world. Religion reaches for understanding of the metaphysical concepts: the source of creation, the purpose of mankind, the meaning of seemingly meaningless coincidences. In fact, it might be said that Science seeks to answer the question "How?" while religion alone truly tackles the "Why?

Of course, there is some cross-over between the two, not to mention the fuzzy land of "philosophy," which would like to call itself science, but lacks most of the characteristics of one. Generally, the one characteristic that classifies a doctrine as scientific or religious is its provability. If observation and experimentation can prove a doctrine, it is considered scientific. If it is unprovable by the standard scientific methods or if it is actually disproved by science, it is relegated into the realm of religion. In the second case, where a doctrine has been disproved by science, it is not rightly religion, which is reserved for the theories that are untestable. It is simply bad science, the religion of an earlier age that was disproved by advances in technique.

Thus, a belief in God, creator of the universe and director of the fates of mankind is a religious belief, as it cannot be proved or disproved by science at this date. The belief that God created the world in seven calendar days, on the first day setting the sun and moon in orbit around the earth is not religious; it has been disproven by science and therefore has left the realm of religion to be included in the realm of anachronism.

Now on to philosophy. Philosophy in general attempt to answer the big "whys" through unprovable methods, but without having any fixed doctrine about God or the afterlife. But several religions do not include what we would consider a complete set of doctrines. Buddhism, while having distinct tenets about the meaning of life and life after death, has no set concept of diety. The closest doctrine would be the concept of saints or bodhissatvas, reincarnations of the Buddha who return to teach specific lessons. But Buddha was a man, not a god, and he is considered a teacher, not a creator. Judaism, the great father of all Western monotheistic religions, has no teaching about the afterlife. The majority of Jews believe in reincarnation, but many hold a belief in heaven or hell, or even the typical "atheist" belief that there is no afterlife. Should these religions be considered mere "philosophies" because they do not include what we would consider the essential elements of a religion? Their followers would certainly assert that they fill the needs of a religion. But then, so does philosophy."

A typical philosophy includes beliefs about the nature of the world and mankind's place in it. It includes a moral and ethical code, as well as a code of conduct that dictates how adherents should behave. Most importantly, with respect to the above definitions, the tenets of a philosophy are unprovable by science, which has "philosophy" firmly ensconced in the halls of religion. The primary difference between what is called religion and philosophy is that philosophy, being without doctrines concerning diety or the afterlife, has no mechanism to ensure obedience to it tenents. A person is free, in theory, to change philosophies at will, while most religions hold as one of their major beliefs that only one religion will lead to salvation/enlightenment, and that the others are false or even dangerous. There is no concept of corporal punishment in philosophy.

But some religions do not include penalties for disobedience or disbelief. The modern Neo-Pagan movement actually holds as one of its doctrines that every religion is right to its followers, and thus one cannot choose the wrong religion. Even atheists or agnostics, those who do not choose a religion, are following the proper path for their spiritual development. So Neo-Paganism, though it includes doctrines concerning diety and the afterlife, does not have a system of punishment for dissidents.

So, we see that everything that sets philosophy apart from religion, actually has paralells in one or more religions. So for the purposes of this discussion, philosophy can be considered a subgrouping of religion.

Throughout history, as new discoveries are made, beliefs move out of the domain of religion and into that of science- either true science, or bad science if it is disproven. In most cases, religious belief is disproven, but there are some examples of science supporting faith. Many ancient civilizatons, including Egypt and the Norse, had creation stories that were quite obviously personifications of what scientists call the "big bang." The magical-religious belief in the "aura," has been confirmed by kirlian photography, and their is increasing evidence for reincarnation and other forms of life after death. Even more common is for the religious belief to be disproved by science, but the magical applications of it to be found to have scientific basis, and be incorporated as technology.

Magic is applied religion in the same way that technology is applied science. Technology takes the information gleaned from scientific observation and puts it to a practical use. This is the logical next step, to use the information we've learned by asking the questions to improve our lives in some meaningful way. Religion, by its very nature is untestable, so it yeilds less certain answers to the questions it asks. But it still does have an allied discipline that applies its principles- that discipline is magick. Religion is an attempt to understand the non-physical, non-testable forces in our environment. Magic is an attempt to control these forces, thereby changing our environment. As with Religion and Science, as a concept is tested and proved by science, it moves out of the realm of magic and becomes a part of science or technology.

The famous example of this, of course, is alchemy. Alchemy had extensive religious and philosophical theories and any number of techniques. The basis of the entire system was the concept of transmuatation- turning lead into gold and so forth. This, of course, is utterly impossible; the structure of matter means that short of a nuclear reaction, each type of element is distinct, and cannot be tranformed into any other. However, the whole of modern chemistry and much of physics and biology emerged from the alchemists discoveries. It is possible for the magical applications of a religion or philosophy to become an accepted part of science and technology, even though the religion that spawned them cannot be proven.

Another well-known example is acupuncture, and in this case the religious belief in chi or life-force that was the basis for the practice of acupuncture has been proved to be partially true as well. The traditional models of chi follow the same patterns as the nervous and endocrine systems, most of the chakras or centers of chi correspond to glads and major nerve bundles. Acupuncture, which was thought in the religious system to work by altering and obstructing the flow of chi, actually works by interfering with the nervous impulses that carry pain. It is so reliable that it can be safely used as anaesthesia during surgery- in Asia this is common. So it is clear that discoveries can move from the realm of magic into the realm of science and technology, whether or not the beliefs that inspired them are accepted as scientific.

This brings us around to one of my favorite concepts- the model. The religious theory of alchemy, which was tied deeply into hermeticism and eastern mysticism, was a model of what was happening. It was a functional model, which yielded some important discoveries even though, like any model, it was not completely accurate. The model of chi, and chakras, while not considered literal, "scientific" truth, is so useful that it it today being used as the basis for many successful medical treatmetns. It is important to remember that any model that explains the observed behavior, and can correctly predict the outcomes of situations is a valid one. By these standards, the alchemical model was a valid one. The chi model still is. Modern scientific models are not without their flaws, and each fails to fully explain some observable behavior. So when judging models, don't judge them according to the standards of their time, and don't judge them according to the standards of ours. Try as best you can to judge them according to the standards of the far future, which will surely find our scientific knowledge as lacking as we find the "superstition" of antiquity.