The discussion so far has put me in mind of a terrific book I once read on European animal trials, which were conducted up until I think the 17th century. One example especially pertinent to the topic at hand: if a plague of caterpillars or locusts or whatever infested an area, the local legal community would put the swarm on trial. A locust would be captured and taken to the courthouse. It would become the "defendant" , and would in effect stand-in for the whole swarm. The trial would be conducted with all pomp and circumstance, with a lawyer appointed to represent the swarm and etc. There were a number of standard defensive strategies, and sometimes the swarm was even judged innocent if their lawyer was especially able. If judged guilty, however, the locusts were ordered to get out of town. If the infestation abated, the trial was given credit. If the infestation continued, this does not appear to have been seen as an argument against conducting animal trials in the future. I trust the resemblance to the raindance ceremony is fairly clear here.
The author of the book (I cannot recall the title or author; I remember that it was published in the early 1900s and the cover shows a reproduction of an old print, portraying the public execution of a pig by hanging) argues that such trials are an attempt by the human community to intervene in the natural order, to exert its will over the world. I think this is a pretty insightful comment.
"Exerting human will over the world" could serve as a definition of the goal of science. Bacon sometimes describes science as the human "conquest" of nature, and certainly many modern critiques of science (feminist, for example) have taken this to be the self-defined goal of scientific inquiry. I'm not arguing for the ultimate truth of this particular position, but on the other hand if you look at things along these lines than certain aspects of religious and scientific thought seem to be closely related, at least in their purpose. Bacon's studies of heat are supposed to yield a (Universal) process for making heat, the shaman leading a raindance is trying to make it rain, the animal trial is an attempt to bring the plague to an end etc.
Note that the various rituals used for bringing about these interventions don't have to work very well in each case for the ritual to be accepted within the community. The community may simply accept that human powers are limited in what they can accomplish. I believe that within Alchemical studies this was a common view; even if all the processes were carried out correctly, you might still not create gold from lead or whatever, and in fact usually would not. Note also that the ritual might have multiple functions within the community. The rain-dance both be used for bringing rain and bringing about group solidarity. These are not mutually exclusive. Again, I have read something similar with respect to alchemical procedures; that the alchemist "purifying" metals with his various tools is also going through a process of spiritual purification. And certainly the animal trial, even if it does not drive out the infestation, makes the community feel better. The community is "doing something" about its situation, even if its acts are ineffective.
I also like the animal trial example because it muddies the waters here in interesting ways. The conversation to date has concerned itself with comparing/contrasting religious/scientific thought. Yet here we see legal institutions using their procedures in a way that suggests a religious ritual. Conversations on the distinctions/similarities between legal and religious thought, and legal and scientific thought, would also be good to have.
Suggested free e-books to read:
Swain Wodening - Anglo Saxon WitchcraftWilliam Phelon - Our Story Of Atlantis
Howard Phillips Lovecraft - Cults Of Cthulhu
George Robert Stowe Mead - Apollonius Of Tyana.pdf
