I love this cantrip, but I am not really talking about it. I think there might be a problem with the name.

I researched it a little, and it doesn't seem to fit. It seems like it might have originally meant magic and wonder making, but when "science" started to become a thing, thaumaturgy began to be used to describe science like magic. Science that performs miracles and stuff. Magic that follows laws and patterns and could be understood by a reasonable mind. At least to an extent.

It didn't mean the strange occult magic, or the "supernatural" magic that clerics and warlocks practice. It meant magic that could be reasoned through, that had processes and laws. In Dnd, the word is used to describe spells that come from supernatural beings that have powers we can't comprehend, which is the opposite of what it used to mean. It is given to warlocks and clerics, but the word seems to fit wizards and especially artificers more accurately. Clerics in the Ond Dnd stuff have that thaumaturge option, which does not seem like the right word. Theurgy might fit better.

It was used to describe alchemists and artificers long ago, so I think it should be used to describe artificers and wizards now, not clerics and warlocks. Clerics seem to be the opposite of what the word means.

The cantrip should not be given to different classes, what it does fits the cleric and warlock greatly. The name should change, and be given to an artificer feature or spell because it accurately describes what they do. Magic as a science.

I hope this makes sense.

The world of Magic in history is so much more interesting and compelling in a lot of ways, and D&D took a LOT of liberties just to find ways to use words that seemed cool in horribly bad ways, lol.

That said, in Ancient Greece, a miracle worker was anyone who did something that filled others with Wonder. They needn't have been a temple bound priest, just some schlub who discovered some toast that looked like the face of Aphrodite (to go to the greek roots) or was able to figure out how it was that the harvest was always a little bit off (to go to the Mesopotamian roots).

The hanging gardens of babylon were the result of and existence of thaumaturgy. 

Now, by that basis, then every magic using person should have the cantrip. But if it is something that comes as a result of an external power -- then sure. I could go with anyone who serves or has made a deal with a Greater Power could have it.

But I am not you, and you do you way better than I could!

You're right. The word did originate from the Greek word thaumatourgia from thaumatourgos which meant wonder-working. However, later on it began to be used to describe scientists and alchemists. At that time, scientists were considered magicians, and they acted like they were too. The word was used by them to describe the magic they did, mathematics, and chemistry and stuff like that. The people thought of it as magic, and it had to do with how the scientists treated their work. They acted as if numbers and simple inventions like the lever were magical stuff of wonder, causing the people to think they practiced witchcraft. Science was magic to them, so the more "scientific" classes should have the word describe what they do, while the more supernatural classes should keep the spell, but find a different name for it.

(Funny note, there was a story around that time about a guy making a deal with the devil to gain magical powers. Instead of learning occult rituals and dark magic like that, he went on to become a master at mathematiks. The horror!)

The Oxford English Dictionary - the undisputed foremost authority on the English language - defines Thaumaturgy as “ The working of wonders; miracle-working; magic.”  Under this authoritative definition, Thaumaturgy as used in D&D is a sensible word choice.

The oldest citation for the word used by the OED comes from 1727’s Universal Etymology English Dictionary, which defined Thaumaturgy as “any Art that does, or seems to do Wonders, or, as it is defin’d by Dr. Dee, a mathematical Science, which gives a certain Rule for the making of strange Works to be perceiv’d by the Sense, yet to be greatly wonder’d at.” 

There are some operative phrases in that 1727 definition that show the appropriateness of Thaumaturgy in D&D.  For starters, “any Art” is the primary portion of the definition - the part involving “sciences” comes after an “or” and is a secondary definition.  As used in D&D, Thaumaturgy would fall under the broad nature of “any”.  Additionally, “science” in 1727 was a much more esoteric word than today - studies of religion could be considered a science, just as alchemy, mysticism, and what we would call science today would all be classified as “science.”

Further citations from the 1800s show the word was very clearly established as a type of magic—specifically Magic associated with miracles (an 1834 citation) and as a “good” magic diametrically opposed to more evil forces like necromancy (an 1872 citation).

Overall, I think the OED provides more than sufficient evidence to support the present usage of the word within D&D.  I am inclined to defer to their unparalleled expertise on both definitions and etymology. 

Yeah, I'm with the actual etymology fits the word just fine camp.  A minor wonders, as the spell description described itself in its words, could be "science" or "craft" at the end of the day, the cantrip is basically there for a stylized "BEHOLD THIS!"  

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

The Oxford English Dictionary - the undisputed foremost authority on the English language - defines Thaumaturgy as “ The working of wonders; miracle-working; magic.”  Under this authoritative definition, Thaumaturgy as used in D&D is a sensible word choice.

The oldest citation for the word used by the OED comes from 1727’s Universal Etymology English Dictionary, which defined Thaumaturgy as “any Art that does, or seems to do Wonders, or, as it is defin’d by Dr. Dee, a mathematical Science, which gives a certain Rule for the making of strange Works to be perceiv’d by the Sense, yet to be greatly wonder’d at.” 

There are some operative phrases in that 1727 definition that show the appropriateness of Thaumaturgy in D&D.  For starters, “any Art” is the primary portion of the definition - the part involving “sciences” comes after an “or” and is a secondary definition.  As used in D&D, Thaumaturgy would fall under the broad nature of “any”.  Additionally, “science” in 1727 was a much more esoteric word than today - studies of religion could be considered a science, just as alchemy, mysticism, and what we would call science today would all be classified as “science.”

Further citations from the 1800s show the word was very clearly established as a type of magic—specifically Magic associated with miracles (an 1834 citation) and as a “good” magic diametrically opposed to more evil forces like necromancy (an 1872 citation).

Overall, I think the OED provides more than sufficient evidence to support the present usage of the word within D&D.  I am inclined to defer to their unparalleled expertise on both definitions and etymology. 

 OED is definitely a good source to use. That any does open it up a lot, I hadn't noticed that.

The science that they studied at that time was often referred to by them as "the Art" and it was definitely much more esoteric than it is today. Even though it was more esoteric, it also treated normal stuff as if it was magic. Dee said that numbers were a means by which you could "arise, climb, ascend, and mount up (with Speculative Wings), in spirit, to behold the Glas of Creation, the Forme of Formes, the Exemplar number of all things Numerable: both visible and invisible, mortall and imortall, Corporall and Spirituall." Because scientists acted as if they practiced magic and used Thaumaturgy to explain their work, it makes sense to me for them to use the word for the classes that are flavored to treat magic as more of a science. 

What you say makes sense and does support the current usage of the word. Now the way that it is used today doesn't feel so weird. Thanks for the feedback.