I can't agree with the idea which has sometimes been expressed, that you can distinguish ritual magic in the pagan tradition from stage illusion by the addition of a 'k'1. If I say the words aloud, how will anyone know when I say it with a 'k', and when without?
It was (and to an extent remains) my understanding that Aleister Crowley introduced the 'k', and that his definition of the distinction boils down to an assertion that his is kewler and has odder sexual practices involved.
1: I have realised that this sentence is unclear. My meaning was: because people won't be consistent in usage and spelling, you can't gain clarity by using the 'k' spelling for the pagan/ritual sense of 'magic'. I did not mean to imply that pagan/ritual magic is indistinguishable from stage illusion. That is not my belief. I personally have not seen any evidence for the efficacy of pagan/ritual magic, but I have heard others attest to it, and retain an open mind. As a Christian who frequently prays for a variety of reasons, I would be a hypocrite if I did not allow others the same faith in the power of prayer which I from time to time experience.
In The Golden Bough, J G Frazer describes magic as 'a false science'. Although his reasoning is essentially clear, he makes (IMHO) the error of assuming that because magic cannot generally or apparently be used to manipulate the physical universe, it cannot be of any use at all. He also assumes that science is a perfect explanation of the universe, whereas the current impression is that science is a good description of the universe, but singularly lacking in real explanations.