Ship of Fools: Superstition - does it cross your path?

Thread: Superstition - does it cross your path? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020097

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

The current thread on The Eucharist has had a brush with superstition.
Wikipedia and the OED are not particularly helpful.

Christian missionaries often characterised the beliefs of other religions as superstitions. On the radio this morning was a program about voodoo in a country where voodoo is a recognised religion.

I have heard of an Irish priest (hearsay, I know) that said in parts of Ireland superstition was mixed with Catholicism.

Do you consider some of the things you come across as superstition? I think of astrology as superstition. I didn't think of the angels that a patient said they saw at the end of their bed as superstition. I don't think anyone worries about a broken mirror or a black cat crossing the path or knocking on wood. But superstition is the explanation for killing the Salem Witches.
Tarot, anyone?

[link fixed][Again].

[ 27. February 2017, 06:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

There is a widespread and optimistic belief in a prison I know that if a prison officer drops their keys, it is a sign an inmate is about to be released.

I see superstition as a conviction that a particular circumstance or set of circumstances in and of themselves have power to bring about a specific, non-rational result.

Magic might be similarly defined as believing that performing a certain sequence of events has an intrinsic power to always achieve a specific, non-rational result.

Where this gets complicated is that when such a belief takes hold in a group of people's minds, it may actually end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, or at least acquire force. Icelandic people are quite touchy about their Huldufólk, to the point of diverting roads to avoid their supposed habitat.

Few Icelanders admit to believing in Huldufólk, but apparently few will deny their existence outright, either.

[ 27. February 2017, 05:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

Not sure about your Eucharist link, as it's going to a Washington Post article on Obama becoming president of France.

But there certainly elements of superstition that creep into Christianity, which we could do with cutting out. I would guess that the Eucharistic reference would be to the myth of "real presence" which is theologically unsubstantiated, which can greatly hinder Christians from understanding the great symbolism behind the sacraments, by getting them to think that they are, in some way, functional.

Though if you want a truly absurd example of superstition, find a conservative Anglican during Lent and try to get them to the word "hallelujah". It's like getting an actor to say "Macbeth".

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

Though if you want a truly absurd example of superstition, find a conservative Anglican during Lent and try to get them to the word "hallelujah". It's like getting an actor to say "Macbeth".

I'm not terribly conservative. I'll make a use-mention distinction: I will mention the word "alleluia" during Lent, but will not use it. But nor for superstitious reasons [Smile]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Corrected Link to The Eucharist

Thanks, Sipech.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I would guess that the Eucharistic reference would be to the myth of "real presence" which is theologically unsubstantiated, which can greatly hinder Christians from understanding the great symbolism behind the sacraments, by getting them to think that they are, in some way, functional.

Detailed discussion of how this relates to the Eucharist probably belongs on the thread I have now successfully linked to. That said, I think you're likely to find that when pushed, even the most die-hard memorialist has some belief in something special about the bread and the wine in the context of communion.

My definitions above are an attempt to offer at least a theoretical distinction between superstition and religious practice. To me this distinction revolves around whether the faith is in the elements of the ceremony alone or not.

[ 27. February 2017, 06:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Where I live many people wear, and give their children to wear, amber necklaces in the belief that these can ward off illness (and also make vaccinations unnecessary). I even heard one person state that it protected from WiFi radiation. Is this superstition or just beliefs that lack empirical support?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Christian missionaries often characterised the beliefs of other religions as superstitions. On the radio this morning was a program about voodoo in a country where voodoo is a recognised religion.

Thinking a different religious system than your own as superstition is merely ignorant bigotry.
Eutychus' definition of a self-contained event-result is closer to the definition I would use.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Where I live many people wear, and give their children to wear, amber necklaces in the belief that these can ward off illness (and also make vaccinations unnecessary). I even heard one person state that it protected from WiFi radiation. Is this superstition or just beliefs that lack empirical support?

It superstitious if it is a belief in some intangible and intrinsic property of the amber without any satisfactory propositional explanation.

Again, where things get complicated is that it might conceivably work, to some extent, through the placebo effect, especially if the belief is widely shared in the community.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Christian missionaries often characterised the beliefs of other religions as superstitions.

What arguments could they use if they wished to refute Christianity being characterised as a superstition?

quote:
Do you consider some of the things you come across as superstition? I think of astrology as superstition. I didn't think of the angels that a patient said they saw at the end of their bed as superstition.

Can you say exactly why, I wonder? Since angels (when thought of as messengers from God or something as opposed to someone being called an ‘angel’ for doing something lovely) , are entirely imaginary, are they not?

quote:
I don't think anyone worries about a broken mirror or a black cat crossing the path or knocking on wood.

That is because Science has replaced those superstitions with knowledge of cause and effect!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

We are all susceptible to superstition. If we don't pick them up culturally we often make up our own.

A superstition is “a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.”

Which sounds a lot like compulsive behaviour does it not? I wonder how many Christians loudly decry superstition but are, at the same time, struggling with compulsions?

Some compulsions are harmless and don't impact one's life at all, others have deep, lasting and harmful impact. I suppose superstition could do this too if it took up a lot of time which could be used productively?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
That is because Science has replaced those superstitions with knowledge of cause and effect!

Interesting capitalisation of Science there.

Tell me, SusanDoris, are you anything of a wine connoisseur?

(There is a relevant reason for this question!).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think Christianity is all superstition - to the extent that we believe, say and act in ways that only make sense to us and which appear to outsiders to be appealing to be talking and gesturing to an observer who isn't there.

The interesting thing to me is how often we like to castigate others for superstition whilst conducting ourselves in similar ways. For example some Evangelicals like to point to Roman Catholic practices as superstition, and yet their own behaviours can also be described as superstitious. I'm not sure how else one could describe the idea that a certain activity will only go well if someone is praying about it.

Anyway, I'd also say that superstition is a good thing. I'm just thinking at the moment how to increase my "superstition allowance" during Lent.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
That is because Science has replaced those superstitions with knowledge of cause and effect!
Interesting capitalisation of Science there.

Yes, I thought about whether to put a capital S, but I thought a lower case s would be sort of too vague!

quote:
Tell me, SusanDoris, are you anything of a wine connoisseur?

Not at all, I'm afraid! I was never interested in any kind of wine and had none until, at the age of about 40, I had six dubonnetsat a function with, I should add, no effects at all. I await your next post with interest.

[ 27. February 2017, 08:02: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Seems fairly obvious to me that science is - or can be - a form of superstition. If it wasn't, the placebos wouldn't work.

Our brains are wired this way. Pretending that one has taught oneself to ignore superstition is a dangerous idea - almost everything we know and engage with in the world is affected by perception, and that in turn is strongly influenced by things we might describe as superstition.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I await your next post with interest.

Explain to me, Scientifically, what a terroir is.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Explain to me, Scientifically, what a terroir is.

Without wanting to type a book, this is largely to do with soil and climate. And, of course, scientists have written books on such things.
Like this one.

Whilst there certainly is a lot of mumbo-jumbo about wine, the idea that there is no scientific basis for it at all is bunk.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Christian missionaries often characterised the beliefs of other religions as superstitions.
What arguments could they use if they wished to refute Christianity being characterised as a superstition?

I would guess it would all be mixed up with colonialist superiority and a focus on the success of modern medicine vs traditional healing practices, so the question might not arise. I hesitate to speak for them.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

There is a lot more going on in the concept of terroir than science, especially when it comes to marketing.

I would argue that modern advertising relies to a large extent on similar kinds of belief to that of Latchkey Kid's neighbours with respect to amber. I'm currently translating a scientific article that addresses how an indigenous South American product is being marketed globally through a kind of truce between local cosmonogy and agronomic standards brokered by fair trade.

In short, where I agree with you is the notion that superstition is something that only affects other people, or other "non-scientific" people.

[ 27. February 2017, 08:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I didn't think of the angels that a patient said they saw at the end of their bed as superstition.
Can you say exactly why, I wonder? Since angels (when thought of as messengers from God or something as opposed to someone being called an ‘angel’ for doing something lovely) , are entirely imaginary, are they not?

From the perspective of spiritual care you try not to be judgemental and support a person's use of their own spiritual resources. These angels were not messengers but protectors. They may be imaginary, but are real to the person, probably in the same way that a person experiences a visit by a dead relative. I don't try to explain these experiences.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Seems fairly obvious to me that science is - or can be - a form of superstition. If it wasn't, the placebos wouldn't work.

Our brains are wired this way. Pretending that one has taught oneself to ignore superstition is a dangerous idea - almost everything we know and engage with in the world is affected by perception, and that in turn is strongly influenced by things we might describe as superstition.

I think we need to distinguish between science as an approach* to knowledge and the claims by marketing that something is "scientifically proved" to be effective. The latter may appeal to our superstitious natures.

*Though I suppose in Feyerabend's Against Method where scientific knowledge is regarded as no different from other forms of knowledge, superstition may also pervade scientific method.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is a lot more going on in the concept of terroir than science, especially when it comes to marketing.

Sure, but I was objecting to your apparent suggestion to Susan that there was no science or scientific explanation at all.

quote:
I would argue that modern advertising relies to a large extent on similar kinds of belief to that of Latchkey Kid's neighbours with respect to amber. I'm currently translating a scientific article that addresses how an indigenous South American product is being marketed globally through a kind of truce between local cosmonogy and agronomic standards brokered by fair trade.

I'd suggest that almost everything that isn't completely superstition (including things which have no scientific basis whatsoever like horoscopes and many alternative medicines) is actually science filtered through perception and - yes - superstition. I don't think one can get away from it.

Another example I'd suggest is the common perception that one can "fight" cancer. Leaving aside the science behind positive thinking (which I believe is probably dubious), we all know people who were positive and were "fighting" the cancer but who then died. So in some sense the person who believes that they are going to be the one to buck the trend and survive the rare cancer is probably not being fully logical and instead is being "superstitious".

Again, I'd argue that this is probably a good thing in this context. The chances of death in a high speed car accident must be high, but if we were perfectly logical and/or scientific about it we wouldn't ever go anywhere. Believing that accidents won't happen to us (or not even being conscious of the potential for them) has its uses. Even whilst accepting the need for proper risk assessment and H&S.

quote:
In short, where I agree with you is the notion that superstition is something that only affects other people, or other "non-scientific" people.

I note that the second paragraph on the wikipedia page is quite interesting on this. The idea that superstitions are the beliefs of a minority is a strong one.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I think we need to distinguish between science as an approach* to knowledge and the claims by marketing that something is "scientifically proved" to be effective. The latter may appeal to our superstitious natures.

*Though I suppose in Feyerabend's Against Method where scientific knowledge is regarded as no different from other forms of knowledge, superstition may also pervade scientific method.

I think that the scientific method itself is prone to superstition - albeit of a different form.

These days scientific discoveries are filtered through the gauze of statistical analysis, and there is an almost superstitious belief in the efficacy of arbitrary significance values.

We can also point at a large number of sciences where measurements are routinely made which give very little useful information. Sometimes the explanation for recording these is that they are "just what we've always done" or "part of what is involved in being x". The fear of bucking the trend, even when everyone accepts that the thing being done has no scientific value at all is a form of superstition.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I can provide examples of Presbyterian superstition. As strict Sabbatariaism ebbed away, it left some superstitions stranded above the water-line.

My grandmother would not use the future tense on a Sunday, and I know others who claimed that plans made on a Sunday would not come to fruition.

There's also a superstition that it is unlucky to cut your nails on a Sunday. I assume this started out as a prohibition of doing anything on the Sabbath, even something as insignificant as nail cutting. The minor example then survived the disappearance of major prohibitions.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Sipech, there is plenty of theological 'back-up' for a belief in the 'real presence' in the eucharist, however defined - just as there is plenty of theological support for the idea that Christ is somehow present when his people gather in whatever way they choose to do so ...

It's a both/and not an either/or ...

Your misrepresentation of traditions other than your own does you no favours.

As to where we draw the line ...

I'd suggest that a belief in some kind of 'real presence' isn't superstitious. Yet a belief in 'bleeding hosts' and so on is.

If we want to look for Protestant examples of superstition, I'd suggest that a great deal of 'Word Faith' and the uber-charismatic 'name it and claim it' and Jabez Prayer stuff falls fairly and squarely into the superstitious category.

I'd also suggest that some less cranky charismatic practices can topple over into superstition at times.

I've heard some 'tongues-speakers' claim that what when they speak in tongues they are speaking 'a language that the devil doesn't understand.'

How do they know that and what scriptural basis do they have for such a belief?

I'm neither advocating nor condemning the practice here, simply observing that much that we might regard as standard practice in charismatic circles can easily topple over into superstition and the same applies for things that go on in Catholic or other circles.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Sipech, there is plenty of theological 'back-up' for a belief in the 'real presence' in the eucharist, however defined - just as there is plenty of theological support for the idea that Christ is somehow present when his people gather in whatever way they choose to do so ...

It's a both/and not an either/or ...

Your misrepresentation of traditions other than your own does you no favours.

As to where we draw the line ...

I'd suggest that a belief in some kind of 'real presence' isn't superstitious. Yet a belief in 'bleeding hosts' and so on is.

I'm not following. In what sense is a belief in the "real presence" not a superstition? Don't just assert things, explain how you are using the term.

quote:
If we want to look for Protestant examples of superstition, I'd suggest that a great deal of 'Word Faith' and the uber-charismatic 'name it and claim it' and Jabez Prayer stuff falls fairly and squarely into the superstitious category.

As indicated above, I have a broad understanding of superstition, but I simply cannot compute how you are using saying that "Word Faith" is fairly and squarely superstition but "Real Presence" is not. I don't understand how you are making this statement.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, it's a bit top-of-the-head of me, I'm posting between doing some work ...

Picking up on an earlier point someone made about 'magic' and doing X, Y and Z to obtain a particular result ...

Well, yes, one could apply that to notions of the 'real presence' - the priest says the magic-words and bingo!

I suppose what I was saying is that a belief in the 'real presence' in the eucharist need not involve some kind of mechanistic understanding of how this 'works' ... and there's been some discussion along those lines over on the eucharist thread.

Whereas with the 'word of faith' and 'name-it-and-claim-it' stuff there's a kind of cause and effect thing going on in a mechanistic or 'magic' kind of way ... You say X, Y or Z - maintain a 'positive confession' or 'agree' or tap into the 'rhema word of God' and so on - yadda yadda yadda - or 'sow in faith' or 'plant seed-faith' and all that malarkey and lo and behold the required results are achieved.

I'll also own to a certain 'snobbery' if we can put it that way, in that various ideas of the real presence have a long and venerable history, whereas the 'word-faith' and 'positive confession' / 'name it and claim it, blab it and grab it' stuff is of recent origin.

I s'pose that's one of the distinctions I was making ie there are plenty of serious theologians and Big S Saints and small s saints etc etc who had or have some kind of concept of the real presence - whereas no serious theologian entertains the 'name it and claim it' gunk.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There seem to be various definitions. I like Eutychus' idea of a self-contained item, e.g. black cats. But I notice that in Wiki, that superstition is equated with the supernatural.

It's going to be one of those conjugations, I would think. My beliefs are part of a well-established and theologically grounded system, whereas beliefs about the Nigerian ant god are localized.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I suppose what I was saying is that a belief in the 'real presence' in the eucharist need not involve some kind of mechanistic understanding of how this 'works' ... and there's been some discussion along those lines over on the eucharist thread.

I don't think there is any kind of connection between "understanding how this works" (even on a very basic level) and whether or not something is superstition.

I can't see any real reason why you would think that.

quote:

Whereas with the 'word of faith' and 'name-it-and-claim-it' stuff there's a kind of cause and effect thing going on in a mechanistic or 'magic' kind of way ... You say X, Y or Z - maintain a 'positive confession' or 'agree' or tap into the 'rhema word of God' and so on - yadda yadda yadda - or 'sow in faith' or 'plant seed-faith' and all that malarkey and lo and behold the required results are achieved.

I see. That seems to me to be the opposite of what most people understand by superstition. If someone asked someone to explain something and they said "I don't know, it's a mystery - we just have to believe it", I think one is more likely to call that a superstition than the comment "because x y z causes a b c".

But to me those are both superstitions. Both only work in their own terms and it is very difficult to offer any kind of explanation or logic to them from the outside.

quote:
I'll also own to a certain 'snobbery' if we can put it that way, in that various ideas of the real presence have a long and venerable history, whereas the 'word-faith' and 'positive confession' / 'name it and claim it, blab it and grab it' stuff is of recent origin.

I suspect this is closer to the truth. We call "superstitious" those ideas we don't like and want to denigrate and/or rubbish. As wikipedia suggests, the term is usually applied to those things we don't believe - and if one is coming from a particular viewpoint then it is fairly obvious when pointing at the superstitions of others but making excuses for ones own.

To me it makes far more sense to own and embrace the idea that we're all superstitious.

quote:
I s'pose that's one of the distinctions I was making ie there are plenty of serious theologians and Big S Saints and small s saints etc etc who had or have some kind of concept of the real presence - whereas no serious theologian entertains the 'name it and claim it' gunk.

I suspect this is getting too far into the weeds on this thread. I'm not really arguing about the Real Presence as much as commenting on your apparent ability to distinguish between superstition and not-superstition.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That seems correct, from mr cheesy. We call things superstition, that we wish to denigrate. But my beliefs, oh no, they are well grounded, practically rational.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair enough, mr cheesy.

I'm reminded of a rather cheeky radio-routine my Dad used to repeat on long car journeys. I'm not sure whether it came from Round The Horne or some other vintage radio comedy - but it was a bit risque and ran something like this:

'To the woods, to the woods ...'
'No, no, anything but the woods ...'
'Help, help, I'm only 13!'
'I'm not superstitious ...'

[Biased]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The denigration point comes to mind in relation to those atheists, I suppose antitheists, who describe religions as a whole as superstitious or magical. At this point, the discussion usually becomes pointless, since it's an exercise in denigration. You are irrational, whereas we are rational beings. Yawn.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Plenty to think about since I came back from having some photo-copying done! I’ve respolnded to several posts at once here – hope that is all right.
Science can only be considered as a ‘form of superstition’ when the scientific method is not applied properly, or if claims are made which do not stand up to scrutiny via said method.
Brought up in a home where superstitions were seen for what they were, I can honestly say I do not have any. I use an experession like, touch wood’ sometimes, but there is zero belief that any such thing is of any use whatsoever. The only belief that was considered to be true was God.

I see that terroir has been defined and I agree with what Mr C said. The difference between a set of beliefs and superstitions about wines and the supernatural, including the religious definitions of the word, is that all the things which involve the making of wine are real and no-one worships the aspects of wine which are human ideas – not as far as I know anyway!
]

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted bySusanDoris:
What arguments could they use if they wished to refute Christianity being characterised as a superstition?
I would guess it would all be mixed up with colonialist superiority and a focus on the success of modern medicine vs traditional healing practices, so the question might not arise. I hesitate to speak for them.

Thank you for your answer and your later post about not trying to explain patients’ thoughts.

Re marketing, whether of wine or anything else. Here again, I would say that the difrerence between the marketing of any product or service often relies on superstitions, but if the public believe the superstitions as a result, then they are responsible for their … well, I was going to say gullibility, but the media around them should take much of the blame. Being an optimist, I hope that there is far less gullibility than there used to be.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In short, where I agree with you is the notion that superstition is something that only affects other people, or other "non-scientific" people.

Here again, I think the difference between the product or service being marketed and promoting religions is that there is something observable and testable at the base and religions lack an actual tangible
Something.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

Science can only be considered as a ‘form of superstition’ when the scientific method is not applied properly, or if claims are made which do not stand up to scrutiny via said method.

I'd politely suggest you have much to learn about the scientific method. This is nothing to do with the proper application of the method and everything to do with the fact that the observations are being filtered through a human mind.

quote:
Brought up in a home where superstitions were seen for what they were, I can honestly say I do not have any. I use an experession like, touch wood’ sometimes, but there is zero belief that any such thing is of any use whatsoever. The only belief that was considered to be true was God.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Something of a tangent but I have always found B.F. Skinner's
"'Superstition' In The Pigeon" interesting.

Food was delivered to the pigeon by a hopper. Whatever the pigeon happened to be doing at this time, it tended to repeat. Skinner proposes that the bird thinks its behaviour is causing the food drop. (Although, because of his behaviourist philosophy, he doesn't like to talk about the bird thinking, only about conditioned behavioural responses).

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The denigration point comes to mind in relation to those atheists, I suppose antitheists, who describe religions as a whole as superstitious or magical. At this point, the discussion usually becomes pointless, since it's an exercise in denigration. You are irrational, whereas we are rational beings. Yawn.

For atheists to denigrate or push to demean religious beliefs is not a good idea, since these beliefs are so much an integral part of history that they must be studied and understood. Many atheists like myself have been believers in god earlier in their lives but now totally lack such a belief. However, they do understand how and why they believed.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

Science can only be considered as a ‘form of superstition’ when the scientific method is not applied properly, or if claims are made which do not stand up to scrutiny via said method.
I'd politely suggest you have much to learn about the scientific method. This is nothing to do with the proper application of the method and everything to do with the fact that the observations are being filtered through a human mind.

Okay, I accept that, but could you elaborate a bit, please There is a you tube clip of Richard Feynmann where he
summarises the method.

quote:
Brought up in a home where superstitions were seen for what they were, I can honestly say I do not have any. I use an expression like, touch wood’ sometimes, but there is zero belief that any such thing is of any use whatsoever. The only belief that was considered to be true was God.

You are deluding yourself, Susan. I'm sorry, but like it or not you are being influenced by your perceptions and those are strongly associated with superstitions - whether or not you appreciate that they are such. [/QB][/QUOTE]Can you think of an example of this? Just running through my day so far in my mind, I cannot think of anything that has been influenced by superstition.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Something of a tangent but I have always found B.F. Skinner's
"'Superstition' In The Pigeon" interesting.

Food was delivered to the pigeon by a hopper. Whatever the pigeon happened to be doing at this time, it tended to repeat. Skinner proposes that the bird thinks its behaviour is causing the food drop. (Although, because of his behaviourist philosophy, he doesn't like to talk about the bird thinking, only about conditioned behavioural responses).

I agree.

Superstition (and many compulsive behaviours) happen due to a confusion with causation in our conscious, or even subconscious mind.

Lots of people a]say they are not superstitious but have all sorts of (usually harmless) compulsive behaviours.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, I accept that, but could you elaborate a bit, please There is a you tube clip of Richard Feynmann where he
summarises the method.

I'm not sure what you want me to say. In order to understand observations, scientists have to use their brains. And brains are, by definition, subject to perception issues. A scientist can try to be objective, but this might not be possible. There has been a lot of work on perception and the inability of even trained individuals to overcome inaccuracies - see work of Lotto and others.

Note - these experiments are very often visual, so you (Susan) might find them hard to understand. But I absolutely believe the systematic biases found in visual experimentation are also present in other ways in things we have not measured.

The idea that a scientist can be human and can at the same time be completely objective is a busted idea.

quote:
Can you think of an example of this? Just running through my day so far in my mind, I cannot think of anything that has been influenced by superstition.

I don't know you, so no. But it isn't possible to move through life without some sort of superstition - if that is defined as a belief in something which is not logical and/or unproven.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Is there a difference, then, between superstition and magical thinking?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there a difference, then, between superstition and magical thinking?

Not really. "Superstition" and "magical thinking" are just synonyms for belief in things we don't believe in - aren't they?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there a difference, then, between superstition and magical thinking?

It depends what you mean by magical thinking.

A superstition is “a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.”

It's about causation and a trust or belief in something which actually causes nothing.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Something of a tangent but I have always found B.F. Skinner's
"'Superstition' In The Pigeon" interesting.

Food was delivered to the pigeon by a hopper. Whatever the pigeon happened to be doing at this time, it tended to repeat. Skinner proposes that the bird thinks its behaviour is causing the food drop. (Although, because of his behaviourist philosophy, he doesn't like to talk about the bird thinking, only about conditioned behavioural responses).

It seems to me that the pigeons were not necessarily convinced that their behavior caused the food drop. It might have been more, "I don't have anything else to do, so I might as well do this; it might help."

Moo

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I know also of NEQ having heard that it is unlucky
to cut one's nails on a Sunday. For me it is also on a Friday as well. It's just something I would never do.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

It's about causation and a trust or belief in something which actually causes nothing.

I don't think it is exactly that. I think it is causation and a trust or belief in something which cannot be (easily) understood outside of its own terms of reference.

How does one measure whether there is an actual cause-and-effect? How do we know that z doesn't happen unless y has first?

Sometimes we're just guessing because the linkage seems so unlikely. Mostly we're saying that z and y are not linked in our understanding and therefore dismiss the idea that they are linked. Very rarely are we actually able to say that this thing doesn't happen, therefore hasn't happened.

For example horoscopes; we might all agree that the day you are born on has no relationship with the auspicious-ness of a certain day or my emotions today. But we can't know that for absolutely certain, there is no way to measure that in a convincing way. Proving a negative is extremely difficult.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

With dogs, they do what works. They most certainly think it through and choose their behaviours - and choose what works.

The way we manipulate our training may make it look like superstition - but it isn't, it's manipulating the environment to confuse the causes.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
With dogs, they do what works. They most certainly think it through and choose their behaviours - and choose what works.

The way we manipulate our training may make it look like superstition - but it isn't, it's manipulating the environment to confuse the causes.

I'd say this is exactly what superstition is - doing something that works.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

It's about causation and a trust or belief in something which actually causes nothing.
I don't think it is exactly that. I think it is causation and a trust or belief in something which cannot be (easily) understood outside of its own terms of reference.

How does one measure whether there is an actual cause-and-effect? How do we know that z doesn't happen unless y has first?

Sometimes we're just guessing because the linkage seems so unlikely. Mostly we're saying that z and y are not linked in our understanding and therefore dismiss the idea that they are linked. Very rarely are we actually able to say that this thing doesn't happen, therefore hasn't happened.

For example horoscopes; we might all agree that the day you are born on has no relationship with the auspicious-ness of a certain day or my emotions today. But we can't know that for absolutely certain, there is no way to measure that in a convincing way. Proving a negative is extremely difficult.

Agreed. And that's one reason why OCD is such a difficult thing to deal with.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
With dogs, they do what works. They most certainly think it through and choose their behaviours - and choose what works.

The way we manipulate our training may make it look like superstition - but it isn't, it's manipulating the environment to confuse the causes.
I'd say this is exactly what superstition is - doing something that works.

Throwing salt over the shoulder to bring good fortune works?

The dog does the behaviour and gets the reward. That's most certainly not how superstition works. The rewards are amorphous at best.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Throwing salt over the shoulder to bring good fortune works?

As you say, someone with OCD may well link two things together, and it is very hard to prove otherwise.

quote:
The dog does the behaviour and gets the reward. That's most certainly not how superstition works. The rewards are amorphous at best.

Mmm. That's a very interesting point. Dogs are particularly adept at understanding their position within a hierarchy and working out what they need to do to gain a reward.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Throwing salt over the shoulder to bring good fortune works?
As you say, someone with OCD may well link two things together, and it is very hard to prove otherwise.

quote:
The dog does the behaviour and gets the reward. That's most certainly not how superstition works. The rewards are amorphous at best.
Mmm. That's a very interesting point. Dogs are particularly adept at understanding their position within a hierarchy and working out what they need to do to gain a reward.

Sort of. But the hierarchy is unimportant to them, only the source of reward - usually food.

But superstition has no part unless manipulated by the trainer. And - even then - it's not superstition as the rewards for the behaviour are real and immediate.

Of course, with humans, the reward would be a lack of discomfort/fear/anxiety etc. This 'caused' by the superstitious behaviour. But where do you draw the line?

If it's taking up oddles of your time or doing one harm then it's time to seek treatment imo.

[ 27. February 2017, 13:12: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Something of a tangent but I have always found B.F. Skinner's
"'Superstition' In The Pigeon" interesting.

Food was delivered to the pigeon by a hopper. Whatever the pigeon happened to be doing at this time, it tended to repeat. Skinner proposes that the bird thinks its behaviour is causing the food drop. (Although, because of his behaviourist philosophy, he doesn't like to talk about the bird thinking, only about conditioned behavioural responses).

Interesting point, which seems to demonstrate arbitrariness, although it would be odd to say that animals are superstitious.

It reminds me of 'In Gods We Trust' (Scott Atran), in which he argues that humans need beliefs which are costly and anomalous.

Wow, this is a big topic. I get the costliness, since this can lead towards ego-annihilation, which humans value.

Also reminds me of Freud, who argued that some humans need to suffer, another massive topic. So you could argue that doing something non-rational scores heavily on various counts.

Just off to play ping-pong.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It crosses my mind.

One morning last week I was hopelessly talking to God about wanting a personal, private miracle, as you do, as I know He doesn't do public ones since the first embrace or two from Jesus ... and I know He doesn't do private ones either.

In the middle of that my wife, who has gone through career threatening hell since the New Year, texted me to say that in the midst of flight panic inducing chaos at work, she suddenly felt completely calm.

We discussed it during yesterday's walkies and my take, on a blustery day, was that on the very edge of turbulence in all systems are oases of calm. Celestial Lagrangian points and the like. And that these are in God's provision in all turbulent systems, whether orbital, weather, streams, mental. That didn't work for her of course! She had spoken a couple of weeks ago of intuition being God's reply. Literally. By the Spirit. I vacillate over the shallowest end of that in myself whilst utterly endorsing it for her. The calm she experienced she put down to the Spirit. I endorse that too of course. I don't have anything better for her.

And then a strange shiver of cognitive dissonance rippled through me: what if she's right and it happens all the time but we just don't notice?! It's enough to turn one in to a full on charismatic!

Not. I'm just not wired for that now, having gone through it.

In Christ is yes. The positive. In its most minimal form I'm reduced to taking Pascal's wager on waking up and at other times in the day when faith flags in the face of the sufficiency of meaningless existence.

I'd LIKE to add superstition to the mix! But that would lead to an immunological rejection. I'd like to put any answer to prayer down to divine intervention and not to divine provision.

But that would be ... superstitious. If I started down that road, where would I end? So don't start.

I wish I could.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It crosses my mind.

...

I'd like to put any answer to prayer down to divine intervention and not to divine provision.

But that would be ... superstitious.

That whole post was brilliant and this bit sums up the whole subject for me.

God provides.

All the other stuff imo - including salt throwing, black cats, religion, you name it - is superfluous and pointless but sometimes/often comforting. Other times harmful as in time wasting or addictions and OCD.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Although placebo may be a factor. For example, if a footballer puts his socks on inside out before every game, this may actually relax him, and put him in a good frame of mind to play.

So some kinds of rituals may actually work in a psychological way to enhance performance, or make someone feel relaxed, and so on.

You could cite some religious rituals here, and here there is the added bonus often of a group with whom you share the ritual. This is Atran's point as well, if we all do something counter-intuitive, we may feel more together as a group.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there a difference, then, between superstition and magical thinking?
Not really. "Superstition" and "magical thinking" are just synonyms for belief in things we don't believe in - aren't they?

You then need to add religion in as well. The pejorative use is meaningless as anything other than an insult, to feel superior or to hide that one's own beliefs are on no firmer ground.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, I accept that, but could you elaborate a bit, please There is a you tube clip of Richard Feynmann where he
summarises the method.
I'm not sure what you want me to say. In order to understand observations, scientists have to use their brains. And brains are, by definition, subject to perception issues. A scientist can try to be objective, but this might not be possible. There has been a lot of work on perception and the inability of even trained individuals to overcome inaccuracies - see work of Lotto and others.

I agree, but that is the whole point of the scientific method, isn’t it? If experiments are done and results are published, they must beopen to review and challenge if they are to be accepted. Even if all other scientists agree, it is still not declared to be 100% proved. Results that are claimed by one individual to be valid could be dismissed.

quote:
Note - these experiments are very often visual, so you (Susan) might find them hard to understand. But I absolutely believe the systematic biases found in visual experimentation are also present in other ways in things we have not measured. The idea that a scientist can be human and can at the same time be completely objective is a busted idea.

Yes, I agree, but much effort is made to be objective, I think and, as I have just said, why a one person claim can be dismissed. It may well turn out to be right later, but on the say-so of one person, it has to do much more to convince others in that particular field.

quote:

quote:
Can you think of an example of this? Just running through my day so far in my mind, I cannot think of anything that has been influenced by superstition.
I don't know you, so no. But it isn't possible to move through life without some sort of superstition - if that is defined as a belief in something which is not logical and/or unproven.

I cannot think of anything I believe for which the bottom line answer is a superstition. I cannot think of anything, for which the present answer is a don’t know, that will, either sooner or later, be found to be a superstition – and that in itself makes no sense, does it? [Smile]

Because if a non-superstitious, non-supernatural answer is found, then it becomes knowledge and part of the natural world.

thank you for much to think about.

[ 27. February 2017, 17:25: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Martin60

Very interesting post. My thoughts are: Your wife gives the credit for her calmness to a spirit source, but in my opinion all credit is due to the evolved human brain. That opinion is not a comforting one to many people, I know, although for me it is the best answer. What do you think?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I rationally agree SusanDoris. But there again, I'm not solely rational.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Martin60
Thank you for reply.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I agree, but that is the whole point of the scientific method, isn’t it? If experiments are done and results are published, they must beopen to review and challenge if they are to be accepted. Even if all other scientists agree, it is still not declared to be 100% proved. Results that are claimed by one individual to be valid could be dismissed.

But it isn't just about an individual - although Lord knows there is an issue within science about reproducibility - it is about all those hidden forms of perception bias that might be present within the predominently male, white, middle-class cohort of scientists that we might know nothing about.

As I've already said, there is a superstition about statistics which goes very wide and deep (largely, I think, due to a lack of statistical education amongst scientists). OK, yes that one is likely to be uncovered by reproducing experiments - but who knows what else is affected by perception and bias?

quote:
Yes, I agree, but much effort is made to be objective, I think and, as I have just said, why a one person claim can be dismissed. It may well turn out to be right later, but on the say-so of one person, it has to do much more to convince others in that particular field.

Yes but it isn't just about one person.

There is a very famous colour experiment, which shows that under certain circumstances almost all people are unable to distinguish between colours. It is a "trick" of shadows. Apparently nobody can see the colours in that circumstance correctly. One can use computer programmes which tell the observer the "correct" colours, but even knowing the truth it is impossible for a human to see them.

And there are many other well known issues about perception.

If these do in fact show a layer of perception bias on top of any individual, societal, social or other bias that a scientist might have - then it is very hard to argue that science is objective. Even if the method is correct, one can't account for bias that one doesn't know is there.

Superstition is another layer again on top of perception bias, but as I've suggested previously, I believe that we are all superstitious on one way or another - including all scientists.

quote:
I cannot think of anything I believe for which the bottom line answer is a superstition. I cannot think of anything, for which the present answer is a don’t know, that will, either sooner or later, be found to be a superstition – and that in itself makes no sense, does it? Because if a non-superstitious, non-supernatural answer is found, then it becomes knowledge and part of the natural world.

thank you for much to think about.

There are plenty of things that you believe which are not logical and which are not explained by science. Because that's the nature of being human.

I don't think one has to assign the explanation to a supernatural source for it to be a superstition.

[ 27. February 2017, 18:38: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Perception bias, poor understanding of science,
our brains' hardwired responses that distort accuracy of perception; none of these are superstition by any meaningful definition of the word.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But it isn't just about an individual - although Lord knows there is an issue within science about reproducibility - it is about all those hidden forms of perception bias that might be present within the predominently male, white, middle-class cohort of scientists that we might know nothing about.
***
There is a very famous colour experiment, which shows that under certain circumstances almost all people are unable to distinguish between colours. It is a "trick" of shadows. Apparently nobody can see the colours in that circumstance correctly. One can use computer programmes which tell the observer the "correct" colours, but even knowing the truth it is impossible for a human to see them.

And there are many other well known issues about perception.

If these do in fact show a layer of perception bias on top of any individual, societal, social or other bias that a scientist might have - then it is very hard to argue that science is objective. Even if the method is correct, one can't account for bias that one doesn't know is there.

Superstition is another layer again on top of perception bias, but as I've suggested previously, I believe that we are all superstitious on one way or another - including all scientists.
***
There are plenty of things that you believe which are not logical and which are not explained by science. Because that's the nature of being human.

Thank you. Re the colour experiment – it seems it is now a known fact – discovered as a result of experiment – that people do not distinguish the colours, so the reason the brain behaves like this will be the next step in that branch of research I suppose.
I wonder whether you can give examples of the various points you have - raised:
Hidden forms of perception bias
- Well known issues about perception
Bias that one doesn’t know is there
-things I believe which are not logical and not explained by science.

I have a fairly ordinary sort of day ahead of me today (go to gym, hair-do later, one or two small purchases to make), so I will pay attention to what I do which might be biased by reasons other than, of course, safety.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Perception bias, poor understanding of science,
our brains' hardwired responses that distort accuracy of perception; none of these are superstition by any meaningful definition of the word.

No, but I was discussing the point that a scientist was necessarily objective and countering it with evidence that it is not possible to be objective and is often impossible to even detect when we're experiencing perception bias.

As I said, I believe that we experience life as a series of overlays. The scientist is trained to think in certain ways and to make experiments and conclusions. That can be biased. He is trained to test his results with statistics. Those are often used in biased ways. He makes conclusions which may be influenced by his background, nationality, gender and other factors - it is surprising how often (or perhaps not very surprising..) women, non-white, homosexual and other scientists come up with different ways to understand things.

On top of those layers of bias and perception, I'm submitting that there exists a whole other layer of - consciously or unconsciously held - superstitions. The fact that we can identify ways that we all experience other biases and issues with perception is indicative that we're inherently not objective and, I think, willing to believe a is caused by b even when there is no logical reason to think that.

To me the fact that placebos work even even when one is aware that it is a placebo is a strong indication that we're hard-wired to look for connections between events.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

mr cheesy - do you agree that superstition is on a continuum with compulsive behaviours?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
mr cheesy - do you agree that superstition is on a continuum with compulsive behaviours?

Um.. well, yes I suppose I do. Religious people don't like to think that their behaviours are in any sense "compulsive", but it is hard to see (for example) the urge to pray in a particular way at particular times of the day as anything other than that.

I suppose my problem with starting to talk about OCD is that I think everyone basically repeats compulsively behaviours - the only difference is that some have behaviours which are hard to control and threaten quality of life. OCD is only abnormal in the sense that it is the behaviours that everyone has turned up to max.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I imagine it tips into OCD when it becomes harmful. But superstition can be harmful in itself if it's tied up with gambling etc and the person thinks they can 'get lucky' one way or another.

I think that, maybe, creating a false certainty for ourselves is better than having no certainty at all. And maybe creating false hope is better than no hope at all too.

My faith has watered down to a vague hope - I don't see it as a false hope, but not far off that tbh!

[ 28. February 2017, 10:10: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I imagine it tips into OCD when it becomes harmful. But superstition can be harmful in itself if it's tied up with gambling etc and the person thinks they can 'get lucky' one way or another.

Absolutely. I was just thinking along similar lines - the point where a behaviour becomes damaging is often hard to see.

quote:
I think that, maybe, creating a false certainty for ourselves is better than having no certainty at all. And maybe creating false hope is better than no hope at all too.

I suppose I think that we all need patterns through which to understand life and that it is those patterns which give meaning rather than the things we say we believe or logical explanations.

In a weird way is it the patterns which give meaning even when they make little sense outwith of their own parameters, and the person who is unable to find a pattern of life which they can repeat is very likely to be unhappy (and may well become depressed, which is another pattern of thought processes).

To me the solution is not to pretend that we're not doing these things, but to consciously choose which pattern is uplifting and which is destructive and to allow our bodies and minds to be accustomed to the useful patterns. That's at least a part of all religious teaching, in my view.

quote:
My faith has watered down to a vague hope - I don't see it as a false hope, but not far off that tbh!

Yes, I can appreciate that. But I also think this is another function of a religious life pattern - having something of a pattern to hold onto when the meaning behind it becomes hard to believe or understand. One can either decide that the lack of meaning makes the pattern pointless (at which point, I'd argue, one is desperately seeking some other pattern to replace it with) or one can keep going with the pattern until such time as it begins to make sense again.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Religious people don't like to think that their behaviours are in any sense "compulsive", but it is hard to see (for example) the urge to pray in a particular way at particular times of the day as anything other than that.

I have the urge to eat breakfast in a particular way at a particular time of the day. That's not compulsive. The time of day is driven by "when I wake up in the morning, I am hungry", and I know how I prefer my breakfast.

Not all routines are compulsive.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Religious people don't like to think that their behaviours are in any sense "compulsive", but it is hard to see (for example) the urge to pray in a particular way at particular times of the day as anything other than that.

In my experience it's more usually an urge to be distracted from praying at particular times of the day.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I also think this is another function of a religious life pattern - having something of a pattern to hold onto when the meaning behind it becomes hard to believe or understand. One can either decide that the lack of meaning makes the pattern pointless (at which point, I'd argue, one is desperately seeking some other pattern to replace it with) or one can keep going with the pattern until such time as it begins to make sense again.

Yes, and I think 'high' Churches win hands down in this respect (and many other faiths too).

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

People can invent their own superstitious beliefs based on flawed logic and pass those beliefs on to others. Someone goes to baseball game #1 and sits in seat 234, and his team wins. When he goes to game #2, he sits elsewhere and his team loses. When he goes to game #3, he wants to be in seat 234 again. A superstition is created, based on a
fallacy that (a small amount of) correlation implies causation.

I sometimes think of superstition as a default religion. If children are not taught some other religion and also are not taught logic, they will invent their own religion.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Religious people don't like to think that their behaviours are in any sense "compulsive", but it is hard to see (for example) the urge to pray in a particular way at particular times of the day as anything other than that.

It may be hard for you to see. But you may not be representative in that.

[ 28. February 2017, 17:00: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I remember an argument with a colleague about the way a child will drop, say, a marble in the same way that they dropped the one that has rolled out of sight. She claimed it was superstition. I claimed it was scientific, and based on an assumption that things were repeatable.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
mr cheesy - do you agree that superstition is on a continuum with compulsive behaviours?

I do not at all agree.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Religious people don't like to think that their behaviours are in any sense "compulsive", but it is hard to see (for example) the urge to pray in a particular way at particular times of the day as anything other than that.
It may be hard for you to see. But you may not be representative in that.

Without a specific example, that would be conditioning more than compulsion.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

My Irish grandmother passed on many of her superstitions to her children, including her firm belief that if a painting falls off the wall, it means a death. My father, being a rational, Mirfield-trained, man, scoffed at this and used to get pretty shirty if our mama mentioned this, and other superstitions to us.

Anyway, one day a painting (rather a good water-colour) fell off the wall and Mama opined "there'll be a death", closely followed by hissed remonstrance from papa. Two days later the person who gave my mama the painting died, aged 46, fit and healthy, no medical explanation.

Papa made no comment but he did arrange for a handyman to come and check all the picture mountings in the house [Snigger]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Mention of Ireland has me mention that most Irish of islands, Newfoundland. My wife and I went onto the East Coast Trail a decade or more ago. While walking, we stayed in B&Bs.

One morning in a small outport the CBC was on, and there was a call-in show about fairies and the mischief they get up, souring the milk, giving babies colic, and otherwise disturbing the peace and shit-disturbing a house hold. People were seriously calling in to consult how to get the wicked wee fairies from out under the crib, away from the marital bed (I guess fairies disapprove of pleasure in that venue), and out of the kitchen so bread will rise etc.

We were both sort of charmed and amused by, starting to make light of it, luckily not having gone to far. Our host brought out her books about fairies and started to discuss difficulties created around the B&B and in personal life by these imps. Which I suppose account for why the radio was tuned to the call-in show.

My previous exposure to fairies was to think them granters of wishes and collectors of children's primary teeth. These are apparently fairies gone wrong, just like angels and people.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

L'Organist ... Mama and Papa? Bloody hell, when were you born? 1910?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

My previous exposure to fairies was to think them granters of wishes and collectors of children's primary teeth. These are apparently fairies gone wrong, just like angels and people.

Oooo no no no. It's the fluffy gauzy friendly fairies that are the fairies gone wrong! The original ones are very different.... very different...

I would very much recommend C.S. Lewis on this - "The Discarded Image" is a fantastic read on the mediaeval world-view and includes a whole chapter on fairies - or, as he calls them, "The Longaevi". In this book he is very much wearing his "Professor of Mediaeval Literature" hat, so you may find it interesting even if you don't care for his other work (though I do!)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

As I understand it (which may be all wrong), it's not so much that fairies are immoral, but that their morality is orthogonal to ours. What they do is on their own moral scale which may appear moral to us or may appear immoral to us, whether what they are doing is on their own scale moral or immoral.

I hope I made that clear enough.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It is as wisely foolish to infantilize the fae, as it is to appease the Erinyes as the Eumenides or represent the likes of Azrael and Megatron as putti.

Pray he is not at the bottom of your garden.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And I defy anybody but Richard Dawkins, with his unpolarized frontal lobes, to read M R James, en famille, in town, in the daylight, let alone ... not.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I remember an argument with a colleague about the way a child will drop, say, a marble in the same way that they dropped the one that has rolled out of sight. She claimed it was superstition. I claimed it was scientific, and based on an assumption that things were repeatable.

It's hypothesizing and then testing the hypothesis, IMHO, at least most of the time. If my car is making a weird noise and I accidentally kick the steering wheel column and it stops, I will certainly repeat the action if the noise starts up again, just to see if it goes away again. If it does, I'll go on kicking the column on such occasions for weeks or months, even if some supposed expert tells me the problem is really in the back of the car. Because I don't really care what your theory says, I want something that works, and in my (limited) experience kicking the column does.

You can see how this easily leads to developing new superstitions. Let a coincidence happen twice (once if it's sufficiently striking) and people will wed themselves to the dirty sock or whatever they were wearing when their baseball team won. It's the same impulse we have when doing science, but less rigorously or systematically tested.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's hypothesizing and then testing the hypothesis, IMHO, at least most of the time. If my car is making a weird noise and I accidentally kick the steering wheel column and it stops, I will certainly repeat the action if the noise starts up again, just to see if it goes away again. If it does, I'll go on kicking the column on such occasions for weeks or months, even if some supposed expert tells me the problem is really in the back of the car. Because I don't really care what your theory says, I want something that works, and in my (limited) experience kicking the column does.

You can see how this easily leads to developing new superstitions. Let a coincidence happen twice (once if it's sufficiently striking) and people will wed themselves to the dirty sock or whatever they were wearing when their baseball team won. It's the same impulse we have when doing science, but less rigorously or systematically tested.

Yeah, but no. Coincidence is something that must be ruled out in testing a hypothesis, but it is nowhere in the same arena as superstition.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Maybe the thing with a superstition is that it can't be tested with the kinds of logical tools and methods one might use in other areas of life - perhaps even it is one of those kinds of unspoken assumptions within any group (or mind?) that is too baseline to ever be challenged. And which make no sense to anyone else.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What is any form of discrimination based on a religious belief but superstition?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What is any form of discrimination based on a religious belief but superstition?

Thinking about that sentence, I am not sure whether discrimination itself can be called a superstition. Could you say a bit more on that, please?

Referring to my previous post, I have paid attention to everything I have thought and done since writing it, and I think I can safely say that there is nothing based on any superstition.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Where superstitious belief leads to discriminatory behaviour, the discrimination is superstitious. And the superstition is discriminatory. Hostile.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Question: is there a material difference about taking something on trust that and a superstition?

When I go to the petrol station, I fill the car on one side rather than the other. The reason being that it is easier to reach the petrol cap.

I think this is rational not superstition, although I haven't tried the other way in a long time.

I pick up the green pump to put in unleaded fuel. I trust that it is both unleaded and that the amount on the dial is correct. I haven't checked it personally, but I believe without ever really thinking about it that it will work correctly - on the basis that it always has before.

Superstition? Where is the line?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The line is very simple.

What you are talking about with petrol pumps is conditioning, non-inferential reasong, experiential learning.

A belief that belief by itself changes external reality is superstition.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

I have heard of an Irish priest (hearsay, I know) that said in parts of Ireland superstition was mixed with Catholicism.

Likely more than just hearsay to be honest. This is a hangover from Catholic Emancipation days when the Catholic church and catholic political leaders denounced various things as being backward and redundant; not befitting of a modern Ireland. For instance, for a short period they said that the Irish language was the language of rogues and a backward superstitious people and should be dropped. O'Connell was a great proponent of this notion. This also coincided with a book published at the time, ironically by a deeply bigoted Anglican priest, which proved very popular. In it he pointed to the practice of making rounds (a kind of mini pilgrimage) as profane superstition and the practice of praying at wells as witchcraft. Sadly these ideas took a very deep root and much of the Christian practice was lost to the extent that even today there is a powerfully strong vein of thought that still claims these ancient Christian practices are either entirely pagan or old pagan practices layered over with Christianity. There is now something of a battle between those who want to preserve a unique Christian heritage at holy well sites (they are almost 100% of the time found at monastic or cell sites) and modern druids and wiccans who want to reappropriate them. So it can work the other way and superstition can grow out of Christians' ignorance of their own past that has been rocked by political and cultural shifts. You still get catholic clergy today who will very loudly proclaim that rounds and prayers at holy wells are nothing but a vain superstition without recognising they continue a line from old fashioned protestant bigotry.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Gamaliel
You ask when I was born: a few years before you BUT we had a very formal upbringing, a Scots nanny and, in the case of my father (hope that causes you less offence), older parents. We certainly would never have dared call them Mum or Dad, and we adopted referring to them in speech as our mama and papa from our parents, who referred to each other as such, for example 'Ask your papa what he thinks.'

And habits formed in childhood have a way of sticking, sometimes passing on to the next generation.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The line is very simple.

What you are talking about with petrol pumps is conditioning, non-inferential reasong, experiential learning.

OK, but that conditioning isn't actually based on anything substantial, is it? I could have been cheated every time I went to a petrol pump. There could be a conspiracy which means unleaded fuel is nothing of the kind.

I dare say that a fair number of people bought diesel cars on the belief that they were "better for the environment" than petrol cars. If anything, that's a faulty reliance on expert opinion. But I'm not so sure that this is as unlike superstition as you are suggesting.

quote:
A belief that belief by itself changes external reality is superstition.

Right, but I don't think people believe stuff for absolutely no reason at all. Most are believing it because an authority figure told them, because they read about it in a book, because something happened in the past to connect to events together (in a way that most other people would not accept were in any sense connected).

The Roman Catholic Church's
catechism says some interesting things about superstition:

quote:
III. "YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"

2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.

Superstition

2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.

Which seems to reinforce the idea that superstition is just religious belief we don't agree with.

It seems to be one of those irregular verbs:

I'm religious because I believe in the efficacy of prayer
She's superstitious because she believes in fairies
They're in sin because they believe in magic.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The conjugation seems correct to me, since 'superstition' is now pejorative. That is, I label other stuff as superstitious, whereas my own non-rational actions I see as well, just my stuff. Touch wood.

It reminds me of atheists who label religion as superstition and magic, by which they simply intend a negative. Well, some of them do break it down further I suppose, in terms of the non-rational and irrational. But 'superstition' is seen as medieval and obscurantist, I suppose.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think a useful concept with ideas such as superstition, is Wittgenstein's 'family resemblances'. In other words, rather than finding a single criterion for an idea, we can look at a whole family of overlapping ideas. They are not defined by one theme, but connect with each other in a kind of circle.

Thus, superstition, compulsion, obsessiveness, religion, magic, and so on, could all be connected, but not sharing the same single theme. Working out all the differences and similarities would be a mammoth task, probably.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@L'Organist, no, it didn't cause me offence - I was surprised though ... but I do need to apologise to you as I probably caused you offence with my outburst.

[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Where superstitious belief leads to discriminatory behaviour, the discrimination is superstitious. And the superstition is discriminatory. Hostile.

Thank you; yes, I see what you mean, but somehow the word discrimination has more aggressive connotations than superstitious.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Question: is there a material difference about taking something on trust that and a superstition?

When I go to the petrol station, I fill the car on one side rather than the other. The reason being that it is easier to reach the petrol cap.

I think this is rational not superstition, although I haven't tried the other way in a long time.

I pick up the green pump to put in unleaded fuel. I trust that it is both unleaded and that the amount on the dial is correct. I haven't checked it personally, but I believe without ever really thinking about it that it will work correctly - on the basis that it always has before.

Superstition? Where is the line?

That is not superstition, nor is it based on superstition, it is practical commonsense based on evidence. If any time the wrong product comes out of the pump, then a really bad mistake has been made by a person ... who will, I expect, pay for the damage done!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
That is not superstition, nor is it based on superstition, it is practical commonsense based on evidence. If any time the wrong product comes out of the pump, then a really bad mistake has been made by a person ... who will, I expect, pay for the damage done!

How do you know that these things are "practical commonsense" and "based on evidence"? Have you checked with your local council as to whether they've been inspecting the petrol pumps?

You are taking it on trust - on the basis that it hasn't totally ruined your car before. You've got no more idea about exactly what is inside the pump than anyone else.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:It reminds me of atheists who label religion as superstition and magic, by which they simply intend a negative. Well, some of them do break it down further I suppose, in terms of the non-rational and irrational. But 'superstition' is seen as medieval and obscurantist, I suppose.

How would you show that religious beliefs are not superstition?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

One way to prove it would be find religious people who can say their lives have been enriched by religion, (sure to be some somewhere abouts), and superstitious people who can say their lives have been impeded by superstition.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How would you show that religious beliefs are not superstition?

By their fruits. Has there ever been a cathedral built or a grand work of music composed out of love of superstition?

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A belief that belief by itself changes external reality is superstition.

I would say that's magical thinking. If I throw salt over my left shoulder, that's not "belief by itself" -- it's an action. But it's pretty clearly superstitious to think that throwing salt over my left shoulder will prevent bad luck.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would say that's magical thinking. If I throw salt over my left shoulder, that's not "belief by itself" -- it's an action. But it's pretty clearly superstitious to think that throwing salt over my left shoulder will prevent bad luck.

Can you explain how salt-over-the-shoulder is different to praying for the sick?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:It reminds me of atheists who label religion as superstition and magic, by which they simply intend a negative. Well, some of them do break it down further I suppose, in terms of the non-rational and irrational. But 'superstition' is seen as medieval and obscurantist, I suppose.
How would you show that religious beliefs are not superstition?

That sounds suspiciously like a negative proof fallacy. I would think that if someone wants to claim that religion is superstition on a grand scale, then that's their burden of proof, not mind to disprove it.

I can see resemblances between them, but see my above post on Wittgenstein, there are probably also differences. But first you need to define what you mean by superstition. My point was that some atheists use it to mean something irrational and outmoded.

[ 01. March 2017, 13:32: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How do you know that these things are "practical commonsense" and "based on evidence"? Have you checked with your local council as to whether they've been inspecting the petrol pumps?

You are taking it on trust - on the basis that it hasn't totally ruined your car before. You've got no more idea about exactly what is inside the pump than anyone else.

Apart from the fact that I haven't had a car for about 24 years [Smile]

... The car, the pump, the Council, the petrol, the people making mistakes or not, the procedures, etc, all exist, and are testable things, and either work in a practical way or they don't, and if they don't, something can be done to sort it out. All superstitions are human ideas only, and although they might feature wood, or cats, or ladders, they are not real in any way, except in people's minds.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

mind = mine

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I lived in Ireland in the late 1960s. I was doing research on the history of Irish dialects. This entailed reading eighteenth and nineteenth century eyewitness reports.

I came across a reference to a holy spring on the north shore of Lough Neagh which was supposed to contain pebbles that would guarantee a pregnant woman an easy birth.

Since I was pregnant, I thought it would be a very esoteric thing to go there and see if I could collect a pebble. I expected the place to be deserted; it was mobbed. There were bits of cloth suspended from the branches of trees near the well.

Later, while staying in County Kerry, my husband and I went for a walk in the woods. We came across a grove where there were many pieces of cloth and plastic rain scarves dangling from the trees. We figured it was a sacred site, but we didn't know any details.

Moo

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
All superstitions are human ideas only, and although they might feature wood, or cats, or ladders, they are not real in any way, except in people's minds.

But you can't know that, can you.

Stephen Hawking's ideas weren't testable - until the methods developed and then they were. So you can't say that x idea is science and y is superstition simply on the basis that they're "not real" and only exist as ideas.

It might turn out that someone finds a way to prove fairies exist. That someone proves a connection between salt-over-the-shoulder and a health benefit. I agree, it doesn't seem very likely but there is at least a possibility that there could be.

Superstition is absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a link between two things is unproven. It is far more than that that, it is saying that these two things simply cannot be connected in any way.

Given the idea of chaos theory, it is entirely possible that events which look totally unconnected could - in some complicated way - have an impact on each other. That's a thoroughly scientific idea.

[ 01. March 2017, 13:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
That is because Science has replaced those superstitions with knowledge of cause and effect!
Interesting capitalisation of Science there.
Yes, I thought about whether to put a capital S, but I thought a lower case s would be sort of too vague!

Funnily enough, I thought that by writing science with a capital S, you were somehow diminishing it. Somehow making it more vague, in fact. Sort of objectifying it to mean one definitive, particular 'thing'; rather than a complex multi-disciplinary process - sometimes empirical, sometimes theoretical, sometimes contingent, sometimes realized etc.

A bit like referring to music as Music or literature as Literature or medicine as Medicine or technology as Technology, if you know what I mean. Don't suppose it matters anyway.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

These days we are inclined towards thinking that superstition died out half way through the last Century because we discovered medicines that cured contagious diseases and our general understanding of why *bad* things happen has improved.
This may be neatly simplistic and, as suggested in earlier posts, might be overlooking some deep need in our human psychology. Is it that a different type of superstition is apparent today's modern world -- I.e. Eating disorders, self-harm, and other harmful behaviours, addictions or traits. Where have all these come from?
All at a time when we the shackles of the past have been dispensed with, a time when humanity has freedoms way beyond anything our ancestors ever dreamt of.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
One way to prove it would be find religious people who can say their lives have been enriched by religion, (sure to be some somewhere abouts), and superstitious people who can say their lives have been impeded by superstition.

Yes! Except that in the first sentence I would add that lives may have been enriched but that this would be by a belief that the gods/spirits of that particular religionexist. I think that that can be called a superstition.

I certainly can't think of any way a person's life could b enriched by what are usually called superstitions.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That sounds suspiciously like a negative proof fallacy. I would think that if someone wants to claim that religion is superstition on a grand scale, then that's their burden of proof, not mine to disprove it.

Oh, bother! Getting the wording right so as not to fall into the NPF fallacy by mistake is a tricky one, I think. However, I do not claim that religion is a superstition, But since the definition of superstition is

quote:
excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

and the definition of religion is: QUOTE] the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,[/quote]then I understand it is up to those who hold the beliefs to show their working! Hmmm, not absolutely sure though.

quote:
I can see resemblances between them, but see my above post on Wittgenstein, there are probably also differences. But first you need to define what you mean by superstition. My point was that some atheists use it to mean something irrational and outmoded.

Well, I have to say I think they are right, but at this stage in human history to say things like that is too confrontational on the larger scale and hinders rather than helps moves towards better understanding of peoples. I’m afraid I have not studied philosophy and do not know Wittgenstein’s ideas.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How would you show that religious beliefs are not superstition?
By their fruits. Has there ever been a cathedral built or a grand work of music composed out of love of superstition?

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A belief that belief by itself changes external reality is superstition.
I would say that's magical thinking. If I throw salt over my left shoulder, that's not "belief by itself" -- it's an action. But it's pretty clearly superstitious to think that throwing salt over my left shoulder will prevent bad luck.

Indeed. That's superstitious behaviour, a consequence of superstitious belief. Before there was magical thinking there was superstition. Does a belief have to be articulated externally - an action - to be constituted? Or can it be realised, felt, thought alone? If so, can those externally unarticulated beliefs inhere that they change external reality? Like George Orr's dreams in Ursula K. Le Guin's The Lathe of Heaven? Until I at least internally assent to PSA I'm not saved? There must be other such beliefs, that the moment one believes, one believes that they change reality?

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

@mr cheesy
I'll believe you truly think the scientific method
is equivalent to superstition if next time you or a family member becomes seriously ill you would have no preference between going to the doctor or buying Lourdes water from ebay. Or get on an airplane tested by a psychic.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It might turn out that someone finds a way to prove fairies exist. That someone proves a connection between salt-over-the-shoulder and a health benefit. I agree, it doesn't seem very likely but there is at least a possibility that there could be.

I would say that the minute possibility that either of these might happen is equal to the possibility that any God/gods might turn out to be real. In any case, if such correlation actually is proved to be causation (I think that applies here) or that a fact turns up about God/god/s, then that immediately becomes knowledge, still open to challenge of course, but as near proven as anything ever is.

quote:
Given the idea of chaos theory, it is entirely possible that events which look totally unconnected could - in some complicated way - have an impact on each other. That's a thoroughly scientific idea.

Yes, I agree.

I wonder whether, or if, you seem perhaps to be defending superstition?

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
A bit like referring to music as Music or literature as Literature or medicine as Medicine or technology as Technology, if you know what I mean. Don't suppose it matters anyway.

Interesting, though, and thank you for saying. With message boards, tone of voice and body language have to remain as missing elements, don’t they.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How would you show that religious beliefs are not superstition?
By their fruits. Has there ever been a cathedral built or a grand work of music composed out of love of superstition?

There's an implicit unwarranted claim in there. Prove they weren't.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
@mr cheesy
I'll believe you truly think the scientific method
is equivalent to superstition if next time you or a family member becomes seriously ill you would have no preference between going to the doctor or buying Lourdes water from ebay. Or get on an airplane tested by a psychic.

You need to read more carefully, I didn't say that the scientific method was equivalent to superstition. I was challenging the idea that superstition is an idea without proof in contrast to science.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I would say that the minute possibility that either of these might happen is equal to the possibility that any God/gods might turn out to be real.

That's ridiculous. You have no way of measuring the probability of the one or the probability of the other - you are just asserting that neither is true, and therefore the chance of both is 0.

quote:
In any case, if such correlation actually is proved to be causation (I think that applies here) or that a fact turns up about God/god/s, then that immediately becomes knowledge, still open to challenge of course, but as near proven as anything ever is.

Right, so... in science as in any other area of life, ideas can exist without being fully proven. So the comment you said earlier about superstition being unproven is wrong. That's not a measure of anything.

quote:

quote:
Given the idea of chaos theory, it is entirely possible that events which look totally unconnected could - in some complicated way - have an impact on each other. That's a thoroughly scientific idea.
Yes, I agree.

I wonder whether, or if, you seem perhaps to be defending superstition?

I hold that we're all superstitious. And I also hold that science is a lot less of a contrast with non-science than you seem to be allowing. A range of unproven ideas exist, a range of strange relationships exist. The fact that something is unproven or a stretch does not necessarily make it untrue.

I'd go further and say that the fact that something attaches the pejorative term "superstition" doesn't make it untrue either.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

This is getting a bit ridiculous.
First, one needs to present their working definition of superstition. If it include science or things like fueling one's motor, than it is a non-functional definition.
If it includes other religions but excludes one's own, it is merely prejudice and it is non-rational.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

mousethief

There are many atheist composers of religious music - a quick google will give you a list. Some of the most moving religious music I know is by Surguei Prokofiev, an atheist. Whether composers of past centuries were religious or not, they composed their music as part of their employment. We are fortunate that we still have the music.
I do not know whether the designers and architects of our historic cathedrals, or those of our more modern ones were atheists or believers, but they and the builders were commissioned to do the work. And any atheist who thinks that any of those buildings should not be preserved and valued will have to answer to, well, me for a start!!
Whether builders, visitors and worshippers wish to believe there is some invisible presence there is apersonal choice, not a fact.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
By their fruits. Has there ever been a cathedral built or a grand work of music composed out of love of superstition?

Pride and money. Cathedrals soaring ever higher were born of pride and our most prized works claimed by religion could as easily be said to have been motivated by the desire to eat and have nice things.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

If the suoerstition is a pejorative for a minority religious belief, it isn't very surprising that there were insufficient funds to build cathedrals.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
we're all superstitious.

I personally am most definitely not! If you think I am mistaken, can you give me one example?

Yes, of course, millions of ideas exist, some of which must be true and some not, but until there is a method available to show this, they remain as ideas only. I agree that just calling something superstition does not make it untrue, there has to be a much better method to make it independently true.

[

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the suoerstition is a pejorative for a minority religious belief, it isn't very surprising that there were insufficient funds to build cathedrals.

Not what I meant. I am saying that Westminster and St. Paul's were not built for the love of God, but the sin of pride.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I personally am most definitely not! If you think I am mistaken, can you give me one example?

Yes, of course, millions of ideas exist, some of which must be true and some not, but until there is a method available to show this, they remain as ideas only. I agree that just calling something superstition does not make it untrue, there has to be a much better method to make it independently true.

I don't think that's how ideas work, and that's not even really how science works.

You appear to be of the opinion that superstitions (including, I think, religion) are superstitious because they're not proven - or even are not possible to be proven and are therefore wrong.

But there are ideas and theories in science which are not proven and not possible (yet) to be proven. We don't go around saying that "Hawking's ideas are simply superstitious" because they're as yet unprovable.

And yet you seem to think it entirely legitimate to push all religious ideas you don't agree with into the same basket of "superstition" and/or "simply wrong and unproven".

I don't much care - as I have a wide definition of superstition and I don't really consider it to be a negative thing - but can you not see how offensive it is for you to claim that you "know" that the chance of their being a god is "exactly the same" as that fairies exist?

You don't know at all.

[ 01. March 2017, 17:36: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not what I meant. I am saying that Westminster and St. Paul's were not built for the love of God, but the sin of pride.

Oh I totally agree. Religious majorities tend to be able to afford great big monstrous buildings to hold their festivals in, and as you say these are usually only built because they have special value in society and the ruling class has excess power/capital to spend on buttressing their religion.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

St Pauls is a particularly nice example - Christopher Wren was an astronomer and (it is said) the original plans included space for a massive telescope.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@SusanDoris

You will demonstrate partial reinforcement effect, which is the most persistent form of conditioning and is a deep psychological \ neurological mechanism behind superstition and believing that someone loves us and so on.

So you may not consciously believe in supernatural causality, but I bet you can be caught out in magical thinking: there are no atheists in fox holes and oncology units. We bargain with fate.

[ 01. March 2017, 17:51: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

There is an excellent Infinite Monkey Cage podcast entitled What is reality? which touches on all these ideas of perception and reality.

"Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined by US neuroscientist David Eagleman, Professor Sophie Scott and comedian Bridget Christie to ask what is reality? Is our sense of the world around us a completely personal experience and a construct of our brains? How can we ever know whether what one person perceives is exactly the same as what another person perceives. Is your sense of the world around you an illusion constructed by this extraordinary organ, the brain, that has no direct access to the outside world that it is helping you to understand."

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
but can you not see how offensive it is for you to claim that you "know" that the chance of their being a god is "exactly the same" as that fairies exist?

You don't know at all.

I chose the words carefully, and I did not say that I know, as I always bear in mind that in order to be correct, I must leave room for the possibility of a fact one day being discovered which changes minds.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
but can you not see how offensive it is for you to claim that you "know" that the chance of their being a god is "exactly the same" as that fairies exist?

You don't know at all.
I chose the words carefully, and I did not say that I know, as I always bear in mind that in order to be correct, I must leave room for the possibility of a fact one day being discovered which changes minds.

Saying that something is possible isn't a huge claim, is it? After all, it's possible that we are all in the Matrix, or the universe was created five minutes ago, but pragmatically, we discount it.

I don't see how gods or God can be assessed in terms of probability, since they are not material things. Well, it depends on what one means by probability, but generally, it is a naturalistic term. Fairies, I'm not sure if they are supernatural or not. But the supernatural puts itself outside the ambit of probability. Or in the traditional language, it is not truth-apt, unless someone means 'true for me'.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@SusanDoris

You will demonstrate partial reinforcement effect, which is the most persistent form of conditioning and is a deep psychological \ neurological mechanism behind superstition and believing that someone loves us and so on.

Hmmmmm, okay, I think I see what you mean but this sounds like an evolutionary survival trait. can you think of an example which would apply to me?

quote:
So you may not consciously believe in supernatural causality, but I bet you can be caught out in magical thinking: there are no atheists in fox holes and oncology units. We bargain with fate.

What would you say I/how would you describe/can you define 'superstitious causality'?
At no point when I have been in a life-threatening situation , or at any other time of my life, have I ever bargained with fate.

[ 01. March 2017, 18:14: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
the universe was created five minutes ago,

What a relief! My memory isn't horrible, yesterday didn't actually happen. Settles my mind, thank you.

ETA: and I am amazing! nearly 15k posts in under 5 minutes...

[ 01. March 2017, 18:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I chose the words carefully, and I did not say that I know, as I always bear in mind that in order to be correct, I must leave room for the possibility of a fact one day being discovered which changes minds.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what these words mean:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I would say that the minute possibility that either of these might happen is equal to the possibility that any God/gods might turn out to be real.

If you don't "know" that they're both wrong, in what sense are you able to claim that the possibility of the two things are the same?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
the universe was created five minutes ago,
What a relief! My memory isn't horrible, yesterday didn't actually happen. Settles my mind, thank you.

ETA: and I am amazing! nearly 15k posts in under 5 minutes...

Remember, the universe was created by the devil, with all our intact memories, extant fossils, and President Trump. As to time, the devil is not concerned with that, his creation is always happening.

Forgot to ask if this is as plausible as a benevolent God doing it. I have no idea. It seems neither more nor less probable though.

[ 01. March 2017, 18:20: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Forgot to ask if this is as plausible as a benevolent God doing it. I have no idea. It seems neither more nor less probable though.

Isn't plausibility related to conditioning as well? On the bare face of it, the idea that we're all bits of computer code in a massive simulation which was turned on yesterday seems highly unlikely - but how do I know that's just because of concepts of time and space which I'm used to?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I chose the words carefully, and I did not say that I know, as I always bear in mind that in order to be correct, I must leave room for the possibility of a fact one day being discovered which changes minds.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what these words mean:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I would say that the minute possibility that either of these might happen is equal to the possibility that any God/gods might turn out to be real.
If you don't "know" that they're both wrong, in what sense are you able to claim that the possibility of the two things are the same?

I did not state[I], or [I]claim that the two were equal because I modified what I said and used: :

‘would say’ – conditional tense
might happen – conditional tense
might turn out- conditional tense

If my grammar is a bit rusty here, I hope someone will correct me!

[ 01. March 2017, 18:37: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
By their fruits. Has there ever been a cathedral built or a grand work of music composed out of love of superstition?

Pride and money. Cathedrals soaring ever higher were born of pride and our most prized works claimed by religion could as easily be said to have been motivated by the desire to eat and have nice things.

The building of grander and grander cathedrals was pretty much an exercise in flying buttress willy waving.
Indeed one made possible by financially exploiting superstitions of the then proletariat. The stealth tax of it's day, and effective up the point that the lid blew off come the Reformation.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Wait, I'm confused. 1534 comes after 1697?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would say that's magical thinking. If I throw salt over my left shoulder, that's not "belief by itself" -- it's an action. But it's pretty clearly superstitious to think that throwing salt over my left shoulder will prevent bad luck.
Can you explain how salt-over-the-shoulder is different to praying for the sick?

What does that have to do with what I said? Martin made a claim (roughly "superstition is thinking thought alone can change things") and I gave a counterexample ("throwing salt over one's shoulder is action, not thought"). Your post has nothing to do with that. It may be an interesting question. But it's not one I was addressing, and I'm not interested in addressing it at this time.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There's an implicit unwarranted claim in there. Prove they weren't.

I asked for examples. I can't prove a universal negative. Disprove my claim by providing one black swan.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are many atheist composers of religious music - a quick google will give you a list. Some of the most moving religious music I know is by Surguei Prokofiev, an atheist.

So what? Are you saying that atheist composers are composing in the name of superstition and not religion? Because those are the categories I was asked to distinguish between, not religion and atheism. Your examples are orthogonal to the binary I was asked to work with.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
By their fruits. Has there ever been a cathedral built or a grand work of music composed out of love of superstition?

Pride and money. Cathedrals soaring ever higher were born of pride and our most prized works claimed by religion could as easily be said to have been motivated by the desire to eat and have nice things.

You know this for a fact? J.S. Bach, for example, was not in the least motivated by his faith, but only by his next meal? Despite what he has said about himself? How do you come to this amazing knowledge? You are spouting words with no proof. That does not therefore constitute a counterexample to my claim.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not what I meant. I am saying that Westminster and St. Paul's were not built for the love of God, but the sin of pride.

Prove it.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
St Pauls is a particularly nice example - Christopher Wren was an astronomer and (it is said) the original plans included space for a massive telescope.

So what? Was he the only one who contributed? Worked on it? Dreamed it into being? This is his cathedral and his alone? (Are massive telescopes the result of sinful pride? I'll bet that would have been news to Christopher Wren.)

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I did not state, or claim that the two were equal because I modified what I said and used: :

‘would say’ – conditional tense
might happen – conditional tense
might turn out- conditional tense

If my grammar is a bit rusty here, I hope someone will correct me!

You appear to be using "conditional tense" to mean "weaseling".

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not what I meant. I am saying that Westminster and St. Paul's were not built for the love of God, but the sin of pride.
Prove it.

Really, mt? The nature and history of humanity weigh more towards my interpretation than yours.
You made the initial claim that love of God inspired, you bring some proof first.

[ 02. March 2017, 00:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Really, lB? That's the best you can do, "Boy, people are shits therefore any conclusion that has 'people are shits' as part of its premises must be true"?

The nature and history of humanity prove I don't love my wife. Not buying it.

I said nothing about love of God.

[ 02. March 2017, 01:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

I have heard of an Irish priest (hearsay, I know) that said in parts of Ireland superstition was mixed with Catholicism.
Likely more than just hearsay to be honest.

I meant my hearsay about whether an Irish priest said it.

At a rainy windswept festival in Ballyvaughan a food vendor told us that it always rained on their festivals because they didn't believe in God. [Big Grin]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not what I meant. I am saying that Westminster and St. Paul's were not built for the love of God, but the sin of pride.
Prove it.

Really, mt? The nature and history of humanity weigh more towards my interpretation than yours.
You made the initial claim that love of God inspired, you bring some proof first.

I think it is probably hard to prove either way, but it seems a special case of "Everybody's actions are always out of self-interest".

As contradictory as it may sound to us, I understand that the crusaders saw their actions as a religious duty. Many of them put their fortunes (and lives) into their quests. I think the same applies to religious art and architecture. I would expect a mixture of pure and impure motivations (just like the accounts of the disciples in the Gospels show them to be a mixture).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Really, lB? That's the best you can do, "Boy, people are shits therefore any conclusion that has 'people are shits' as part of its premises must be true"?

I am not saying that there is no one who loves their god. I am not saying that no one ever produces religious art for the sheer love of their god. Obviously this is a probability. However, how great works came to be, often leaves a less heavenly scent.

quote:

I said nothing about love of God.

Ummm,

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How would you show that religious beliefs are not superstition?
By their fruits. Has there ever been a cathedral built or a grand work of music composed out of love of superstition?

seems to sort of imply ii.

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I think it is probably hard to prove either way, but it seems a special case of "Everybody's actions are always out of self-interest".

I am not saying this. Given, though, Jesus' focus on the poor and renunciation of wealth, how can religious leaders so consistently miss that point in building those massive and expensive works?
How can the great Gothic cathedral race be seen as not containing a massive dose of pride?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb]
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would say that's magical thinking. If I throw salt over my left shoulder, that's not "belief by itself" -- it's an action. But it's pretty clearly superstitious to think that throwing salt over my left shoulder will prevent bad luck.
Can you explain how salt-over-the-shoulder is different to praying for the sick?
What does that have to do with what I said? Martin made a claim (roughly "superstition is thinking thought alone can change things") and I gave a counterexample ("throwing salt over one's shoulder is action, not thought"). Your post has nothing to do with that. It may be an interesting question. But it's not one I was addressing, and I'm not interested in addressing it at this time.

You ask the questions. Got it.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
St Pauls is a particularly nice example - Christopher Wren was an astronomer and (it is said) the original plans included space for a massive telescope.
So what? Was he the only one who contributed? Worked on it? Dreamed it into being? This is his cathedral and his alone? (Are massive telescopes the result of sinful pride? I'll bet that would have been news to Christopher Wren.)

I don't feel like answering your pointless questions at this time.

Isn't discussion fun?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I think it is probably hard to prove either way, but it seems a special case of "Everybody's actions are always out of self-interest".
I am not saying this. Given, though, Jesus' focus on the poor and renunciation of wealth, how can religious leaders so consistently miss that point in building those massive and expensive works?
How can the great Gothic cathedral race be seen as not containing a massive dose of pride?

I think that church building has almost always been about pride. Of course, that doesnt mean that they're not also about spirituality and faith and beauty too.

But as it reflects on the superstition category used by the RCC (and implied by many others, I believe) the massiveness of a religious building must be related to the acceptance of that religion in society and the comparative low acceptance of alternative beliefs (dubbed " superstition" by the majority).

Until we get to relatively recent times, the majority belief in any area had all the good buildings and any minorities that existed left almost nothing.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wait, I'm confused. 1534 comes after 1697?

Flying buttresses came in 12th Century

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Wading in rather late here, but would it be reasonable to say that if myth is other people's theology, then superstition is other people's liturgy/ritual?

The longer I live, the harder it seems to be to describe any sharp demarcation between the ritualistic aspects of religion and superstition. Sure, there are differences. Religion is systematic. It claims the allegiance of some of the best minds the world has ever produced. It builds cathedrals. It has "clout". But those are all macro-scaled things. On the micro-scale religion has its adored statues, its "holy" wells, and (before I let the list wax too "catholic") an often pathological or superstitious aversion to pulping its "holy" books.

Ever since I read Wittgenstein's "Remarks on Fraser's Golden Bough" I've been fascinated by his ideas on ritual - both so-called religious and so-called susperstitious. His bottom line on both seems to be, simply, "We do these things and are satisfied", which seems to suggest that religion and superstition are manifestations of the same profound and - in the best sense of the word - primitive human impulse, the roots of which may well be unknowable or at least indescribable.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Moo:

quote:

Since I was pregnant, I thought it would be a very esoteric thing to go there and see if I could collect a pebble. I expected the place to be deserted; it was mobbed. There were bits of cloth suspended from the branches of trees near the well.

There are many such tales, usually connected to the activity of a particular saint rather than the site itself. Sometimes you see people carrying stones on their way to a well or 'holy' site as a symbol of their sin and intention to make correction. The same goes for a cloth. In the past pilgrims carried a strip of white linen or cotton that became dirty as the pilgrimage progressed. When they arrived at their chosen site it would be washed in the well and made clean and they would hang it somewhere. Other places have little holy trees where people do the same. There are lots of reasons for it, but the more modern notion has to do with illness. A person who is sick may make the journey or someone on their behalf, carrying an item of their clothing. As they journey along they pray for the sick person or they themselves pray for their own recovery. They hang their clothing on the tree and pray that as it disintegrates so will their illness! There is an even more modern notion of 'faery trees' but this tends to be pushed by the druids and wiccans and is more to do with wanting a new car or house or something. In the older traditions the focus is of course very much on the crucifixion and it's not uncommon to find people praying the stations of the cross.

Are these things all just a superstition? I don't really know. I do know that I have met many people at such sites with incredibly moving stories, people with a great sense of hope and purpose and many people of great faith.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

And ritual is so USEFUL!

I have ADHD so my life is very, very random and impulsive. Many of my coping strategies involve building ritual and habit into daily living - simply to get things done.

[Smile]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I owe mr cheesy and SusanDoris responses I feel, but in the mean time ...

I am superstitious by definition in that I cannot not believe, when it comes down to it, in supernatural causality. Even though now it is utterly unnecessary to explain anything for me except our infinitesimal little local incarnation event.

I can't commit to believing anything else regardless. Can not. No real presence. No ontological PSA. No claims. I don't understand how literal demons fit in at all. All of that.

Such minimal foundational superstition is perfectly valid, helpful, gets me through the day, mainly. More so than ever. And it is rational. Something has always generated universes (a fact absolutely regardless including of no evidence and that there never will be) in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics. Because it can. It is so ineffably strange and functionally omnipotent it could easily, reasonably be omni-everything-else-as-well.

And because of Jesus, something you never address SusanDoris, it is.

And I think I've responded sufficiently to you mr cheesy too! The RC catechism is always right until it goes too far.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Forgot to ask if this is as plausible as a benevolent God doing it. I have no idea. It seems neither more nor less probable though.
Isn't plausibility related to conditioning as well? On the bare face of it, the idea that we're all bits of computer code in a massive simulation which was turned on yesterday seems highly unlikely - but how do I know that's just because of concepts of time and space which I'm used to?

Well, yes. I was mulling over Tegmark's idea that the universe is a mathematical structure, and I decided that this is pretty incomprehensible if you are not a mathematician or a physicist.

On the subject of supernatural causality (from Martin), one problem with it is that it is unbounded. Anything can cause anything. Thus Quetzalcoatl may even now be causing vast clouds of information to pour down on us from Alpha Centauri, and I am very grateful to him.

Or as the naughty atheists say, gravity is caused by vast numbers of pixies pulling things down on little strings.

Of course, I have no evidence for this, but I feel it in my water.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Nah. It's not unbounded that way. Look out the window. Around the room for that matter. It's ... rational.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

On the subject of supernatural causality (from Martin), one problem with it is that it is unbounded. Anything can cause anything. Thus Quetzalcoatl may even now be causing vast clouds of information to pour down on us from Alpha Centauri, and I am very grateful to him.

Not just supernatural causality either. If as chaos theory suggests, a butterfly in one place can cause a tornado in another, then predicting the effects of any small thing becomes difficult and connecting events with their causes becomes difficult, if not impossible.

quote:

Or as the naughty atheists say, gravity is caused by vast numbers of pixies pulling things down on little strings.

Of course, I have no evidence for this, but I feel it in my water.

Mmm. I was being a bit mischievous in my comment above - if I am computer code created the day-before-yesterday, then I'm not really conditioned to believe anything in particular about time and space.

If I'm capable of thinking about my conditioning, one might argue that's evidence of me having complex thoughts and evidence that I'm a complex being which has been around for a bit. Of course, one might argue that that complexity might itself be a mirage, but then we're getting into the layer of massive unprovable conspiracy again.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nah. It's not unbounded that way. Look out the window. Around the room for that matter. It's ... rational.

But now you seem to be switching back to natural stuff. I still insist that all this information is poured out from Quetzalcoatl, who supernaturally infuses us with creativity and intelligence and love. I don't need evidence, I have my faith.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

AH! Whimsy. I get there in the end. But ... NO! You're having it both ways. Supernatural causation is not unbounded. Even if you're not. Having it both ways. Not not unbounded. Or not. Any more than natural, physical causation is unbounded. Douglas Adams level improbable things never happen.

[ 02. March 2017, 11:44: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wait, I'm confused. 1534 comes after 1697?
Flying buttresses came in 12th Century

You miss the point.1534 - Act of Supremacy
1697 - Consecration of St. Paul's
Grand building projects did not come to a stop after the reformation as you seem to claim. They continue through today.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
...Something has always generated universes (a fact absolutely regardless including of no evidence and that there never will be) in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics. Because it can. It is so ineffably strange and functionally omnipotent it could easily, reasonably be omni-everything-else-as-well.

I think that it is probably more accurate to say, ‘the universe started, although we do not know exactly how’, rather than bringing in the idea of an agent.

quote:
And because of Jesus, something you never address SusanDoris, it is.

I am not sure why you say ‘because of’ Jesus? Whoever he was, he was one human in the whole unbroken line of existence of life.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
...Something has always generated universes (a fact absolutely regardless including of no evidence and that there never will be) in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics. Because it can. It is so ineffably strange and functionally omnipotent it could easily, reasonably be omni-everything-else-as-well.
I think that it is probably more accurate to say, ‘the universe started, although we do not know exactly how’, rather than bringing in the idea of an agent.

quote:
And because of Jesus, something you never address SusanDoris, it is.
I am not sure why you say ‘because of’ Jesus? Whoever he was, he was one human in the whole unbroken line of existence of life.

Well I think you know, Susan, that Christians believe there's a bit more to Jesus than that. But of course, it was naughty of Martin to attempt to highjack you into that a priori assumption.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well I think you know, Susan, that Christians believe there's a bit more to Jesus than that. But of course, it was naughty of Martin to attempt to highjack you into that a priori assumption.

Thank you for saying! I just love the discussions, whatever is said.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
...Something has always generated universes (a fact absolutely regardless including of no evidence and that there never will be) in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics. Because it can. It is so ineffably strange and functionally omnipotent it could easily, reasonably be omni-everything-else-as-well.
I think that it is probably more accurate to say, ‘the universe started, although we do not know exactly how’, rather than bringing in the idea of an agent.

quote:
And because of Jesus, something you never address SusanDoris, it is.
I am not sure why you say ‘because of’ Jesus? Whoever he was, he was one human in the whole unbroken line of existence of life.

He's the basis of SOF. Whatever started the universe has always started universes. It is ineffable whatever it is. And certainly supernatural, super-physical with regard to all of the natural, the physical that we know empirically. It is quite justifiable to infer that this ineffable universe maker is an agent, because of Jesus. In fact they overlap. If you don't know anything about Jesus I can recommend a good book.

[ 02. March 2017, 16:00: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If you don't know anything about Jesus I can recommend a good book.

Thank you for your kind offer, *but I can assure you I have read reams of books and stuff on the subject; and of course, about 10 years ago I listened, all the way through, to every word, of the New Testament.

*I was going to put a*smile* here, but left it out because it could possibly be mistaken for sarcasm, and I do not like or use sarcasm.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ah go on. Total git me as you know. So what did you make of it? Anything stand out, move you despite your perfectly balanced frontal lobes?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You miss the point.1534 - Act of Supremacy
1697 - Consecration of St. Paul's
Grand building projects did not come to a stop after the reformation as you seem to claim. They continue through today.

Err, right.
Suppose I wasn't referring to St Paul's but the pre-Reformation Monasteries and (esp. French) Cathedrals which were mahussive and paid for in large part by heaping Indugences on the peasant class.

No claim that grand, intricate and really quite marvellous religious architecture came to a complete end after the Reformation. Just that the obscene opulence and modus operandi of the RCC was directly challenged, beginning in 1520s Europe, and things were never the same afterwards.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb]
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would say that's magical thinking. If I throw salt over my left shoulder, that's not "belief by itself" -- it's an action. But it's pretty clearly superstitious to think that throwing salt over my left shoulder will prevent bad luck.
Can you explain how salt-over-the-shoulder is different to praying for the sick?
What does that have to do with what I said? Martin made a claim (roughly "superstition is thinking thought alone can change things") and I gave a counterexample ("throwing salt over one's shoulder is action, not thought"). Your post has nothing to do with that. It may be an interesting question. But it's not one I was addressing, and I'm not interested in addressing it at this time.
You ask the questions. Got it.

Clearly you don't got it because I didn't ask any questions in what you quote (okay excepting "what does that have to do with what I said?" which you failed to even approach let alone answer). But hey make up whatever shit you want as long as you don't expect me to defend the straw men you stick me with.

And if you can't tell the difference between dragging in something off-topic and asking questions about something someone actually said, then you are likely to make all sorts of logical errors.

[ 02. March 2017, 20:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

And if you can't tell the difference between dragging in something off-topic and asking questions about something someone actually said, then you are likely to make all sorts of logical errors.

I was genuinely interested in how you were defining the difference - it doesn't have to "follow on" from what you'd said before.

I ask you a question, you didn't feel like answering it. Fair enough - you like answering questions, you don't like trying to answer them.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

No claim that grand, intricate and really quite marvellous religious architecture came to a complete end after the Reformation. Just that the obscene opulence and modus operandi of the RCC was directly challenged, beginning in 1520s Europe, and things were never the same afterwards.

So, obscene opulence is OK if it is Protestant, but not RCC?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

And if you can't tell the difference between dragging in something off-topic and asking questions about something someone actually said, then you are likely to make all sorts of logical errors.
I was genuinely interested in how you were defining the difference - it doesn't have to "follow on" from what you'd said before.

I ask you a question, you didn't feel like answering it. Fair enough - you like answering questions, you don't like trying to answer them.

And you get it wrong again. I delight in answering questions, as you'd know if you read my oeuvre here with a smidgen of attention. I just wasn't interested in this particular question at this particular point in time. I'm sorry this hurts you so.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Put it down, can't you? Why are you wasting effort talking about something you are not going to talk about? I'm fine with it, happy to tall to posters who are interested in engaging on this point.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, obscene opulence is OK if it is Protestant, but not RCC?

Not particularly.

Any financial exploitation of people's vulnerability or ignorance isn't nice.
Could include the National Lottery as it might return us to the subject of superstition. Some call the Lotto a tax on stupidity. Having said that at least players aren't being asked to stump up a couple of quid or risk being burnt eternally.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I wonder if superstition can be described in part as anecdotal and unfalsifiable. This isn't to condemn it at all, since it's quite likely that humans need a kind of irrational niche in life like this.

But compare science, which has been described as 'public knowledge'. Here, if I make an interesting observation, say of a new moth, I would tend to share it with others, and ask for their confirmation or denial. It would also tend to be matched with other species, other ecological niches, and so on. In other words, my observation eventually forms part of systematic knowledge (or not).

Religion is very interesting as it exists in the public arena as well, but also seems unfalsifiable. Again, you could argue that humans need such a space, or such a culture. Thus to oppose science and religion seems short-sighted to me.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's an evolutionary i.e. physicalist explanation of religion. Which is cultural, anthropological, dare I say a dispositif?

What's it got to do with the superstition of Jesus?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's an evolutionary i.e. physicalist explanation of religion. Which is cultural, anthropological, dare I say a dispositif?

What's it got to do with the superstition of Jesus?

You keep talking about Jesus, not me. I don't see any difference from other religions, a set of symbols and narratives, which are culturally and personally meaningful, or not. I don't see the problem.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yes I do as that's, He's the unspoken premiss of the thread. Of the site.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Please don't tell us this is a Christian website, Martin. People can frame their thoughts around Jesus and Christianity or not as they wish.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I will if I want and I will if I don't want if I want. q can tell me to foxtrot oscar and that's fine too. People can be as secular as they like, me included, I'm all but. Just felt it was time to throw a nice piously sounding holy hand grenade in to the mix.

Or are we only supposed to talk about superstition from a secular or anything but Christian perspective?

This thread has helped me man up to owning superstition in Jesus, I accept His supernatural causality and that feeds back nicely to the perfectly reasonable standalone proposition of that of the multiverse.

I'm now proud to be labelled merely superstitious on that basis alone. All the ritual that follows is shorn of superstition for me except for that premiss.

And that. I dare say that's not all right either.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes I do as that's, He's the unspoken premiss of the thread. Of the site.

So the football thread is really worrying about what Jesus thought of the offside rule? I don't think so.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The beauty of this site is that, despite being run and mostly people by Christians, other views are welcome. It does have a blind spot, in general. And that is accepting Christianity as the norm and seen as an exception. It is a typical behaviour, but it is a category error no less for that.
Christianity is no more inherently logical or right than any other religion.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Or non-religion.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or non-religion.

But that is a category change.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The thing with Christianity is that it is inherently illogical and yet still it persists in an age where many think only logic can triumph.
Even though I have only ever been a resistant 'toe dipper' Christian and do not know much about other Faiths, it does often feel like a most peculiar religion.

Coming back to OP, I wonder if historically Christianity fostered superstition, or whether it was introduced to distract locals from their ancient tribal superstitions of old.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Seems to me that if I pour a bottle of Lourdes water on my vegetable patch as part of a ritual in which I consecrate the ground, that's a religious act.

If I pour a bottle of Lourdes water on my vegetable patch in the belief that it contains minerals that will help my carrots to grow, then whether I'm right or wrong in that belief, that's a rational act.

But if I pour a bottle of Lourdes water on my vegetable patch in the belief that some supernatural property of the water will help my carrots to grow, that's superstition.

Both elements are necessary - it's an intention to bring about a material effect by a non-material means.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that if I pour a bottle of Lourdes water on my vegetable patch as part of a ritual in which I consecrate the ground, that's a religious act.

So, then, what does consecration do? Do your carrots go to Heaven? Do they convert those who eat them?
If Bugs Bunny is a reliable source,* carrots are good for eyesight. DO consecrated carrots allow one to see sin?

*And he is

[ 03. March 2017, 22:12: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes I do as that's, He's the unspoken premiss of the thread. Of the site.
So the football thread is really worrying about what Jesus thought of the offside rule? I don't think so.

This is not the stupidest non-sequitur ever posted on the Ship but it's surely in the running.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Both elements are necessary - it's an intention to bring about a material effect by a non-material means.

Surely water is physical? Now if you prayed over your garden and expected that to help out grow better, that would be superstition by your definition. Expecting to bring about a physical effect by non physical means. But water is physical.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that if I pour a bottle of Lourdes water on my vegetable patch as part of a ritual in which I consecrate the ground, that's a religious act.
So, then, what does consecration do? Do your carrots go to Heaven? Do they convert those who eat them?
If Bugs Bunny is a reliable source,* carrots are good for eyesight. DO consecrated carrots allow one to see sin?

*And he is

I got to be nearly 40 until I realised that Bugs is THE MAN. I mean, 'Kill da wabbit'. Pips Tom and Jerry and even Wile E. Coyote.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Mel Blank, the voice of God.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Mel Blank, the voice of God.

So, come Revelation, the sound all here will be:

THEA, THEA, THE; THAT'S ALL, FOLKS?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Blanc.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'll NEVER forgive you for that.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Rolyn:

quote:

Coming back to OP, I wonder if historically Christianity fostered superstition, or whether it was introduced to distract locals from their ancient tribal superstitions of old.

I've seen first hand in a formerly animist culture where Christianity can have a profoundly positive effect on altering ancient superstitions that can be extremely destructive. However this is in a modern context and I donut think we can pretend that Christianity didn't have it's on deeply superstitious and destructive period in the witch trials.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm glad to hear that fletcher as the record of Christian cultural domination in the Americas, Africa, the Pacific, in that order, is appalling although ameliorates over time.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Thinking about it, and considering things like the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Witchcraft trials and even wars between Christians it seems Christianity, for a large part, merely replaced pagan blood sacrifice with it's own bloody and torturous appeasement to the Almighty.

Hey Ho. I suppose if we are all part of the whole Red in tooth and claw jamboree why be surprised, or even outraged by any of it.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely water is physical? Now if you prayed over your garden and expected that to help out grow better, that would be superstition by your definition.

Water is physical. If I pour my wife's Lourdes water on the vegetables because they need watering, then I'll be in trouble with my wife, but not for being superstitious.

I'm saying that the same act can be superstitious or not depending on the intention and belief of the actor.

Avoiding walking under ladders because window-cleaners have been known to spill water is entirely rational.

Prayer is superstitious only if viewed as mechanistically bringing about a desired physical outcome.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Prayer is superstitious only if viewed as mechanistically bringing about a desired physical outcome.

What if pouring the Lourdes water in hopes of an improved harvest is more like a prayer than like a mechanism?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Rolyn:

quote:

Thinking about it, and considering things like the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Witchcraft trials and even wars between Christians it seems Christianity, for a large part, merely replaced pagan blood sacrifice with it's own bloody and torturous appeasement to the Almighty.

I think that is true, but it is only one side of the coin and it would be incorrect to suggest it is the full picture

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Prayer is superstitious only if viewed as mechanistically bringing about a desired physical outcome.
What if pouring the Lourdes water in hopes of an improved harvest is more like a prayer than like a mechanism?

Burying St Joseph upside-down in the front yard, on the other hand....

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Sorry to multipost. If that's your distinction, Russ (viz. expecting guaranteed results), you could say that the Word-of-Faith or Name-It-and-Claim-It or Prosperity Gospel types have turned a religion (Christianity) into a superstition. Which would explain plainly and clearly why it's a perversion of the gospel.

This speaks for your definition (it's useful) and against unhelpfully conflating the two.

But it does make the moment of transubstantiation superstitious.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Real Presence thread seems to have run out of steam ... or presence.

I've got hold of a copy of The Hidden Manna and am working my way through it. I'm quite enjoying it. It's telling me a lot about the RC position on these things.

However ... and it's a big 'but' ... it all seems to boil down to, 'the elements are changed irrevocably at the moment of consecration because the Church says so and anyone who disagrees is either proud - like Wyclif - and thinks they know best or else missing the point in some way ...'

I don't have an issue with some kind of Real Presence in the eucharist - however that's defined - but I do have an issue with the rather bizarre medieval reasoning that went on to determine what would happen if a mouse nibbled the consecrated wafer and so on ...

I've also got an issue with the 'epiclesis' being regarded as some kind of 'magic switch'. I don't particularly have a problem with the consecration of the elements, nor with sacerdotalism and so on ... but I am torn. There's a tussle between the old evangelical non-conformist part of my psyche and spiritual DNA and the more sacramental side ...

I sometimes wonder whether I'm drawn by aesthetic and 'mysterious' and 'affective' factors and considerations than baldly theological ones - but I doubt whether any of us take a 'purely' theological take - we aren't the theological equivalents of Leonard Nemoy's Spock.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I meant to make a point about superstition there ... otherwise that post might have been better placed in the Real Presence thread.

I was going to ask Mousethief about the role of the epiclesis in the Orthodox tradition and why the RC take on it should be regarded as more superstitious than the Orthodox one ... which is what I read his post to imply.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

At least this stuff we make up is harmless in that it's consistent. The ritual, the magic, the story is the same every time, not like charismatic claims.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I meant to make a point about superstition there ... otherwise that post might have been better placed in the Real Presence thread.

I was going to ask Mousethief about the role of the epiclesis in the Orthodox tradition and why the RC take on it should be regarded as more superstitious than the Orthodox one ... which is what I read his post to imply.

Why on earth did you read it that way?

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm glad to hear that fletcher as the record of Christian cultural domination in the Americas, Africa, the Pacific, in that order, is appalling although ameliorates over time.

[Tangent]
There is at least one exception to this. I once lived a couple of doors from a large old house that held a number of Torres Strait Islander families. Every year you would hear the sweet and rich harmonies as they prepared for the Coming of The Light Festival which celebrated the coming of Christian missionaries and the end of cannibalism.
[/Tangent]

[ 05. March 2017, 00:54: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
At least this stuff we make up is harmless in that it's consistent. The ritual, the magic, the story is the same every time, not like charismatic claims.

That sounds to me like we have have tamed (perhaps magically) its danger and it (God) is now safely under our control.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

"He is not a tame lion."
--said of Aslan in "The Chronicles Of Narnia"

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

FC--

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Are these things all just a superstition? I don't really know. I do know that I have met many people at such sites with incredibly moving stories, people with a great sense of hope and purpose and many people of great faith.

{In case this wasn't covered earlier in the thread...}

Terry Pratchett (currently my favorite theologian) had an interesting perspective on superstition. In the wonderful and fun novel "The Thief Of Time", Susan--Death's granddaughter!--says "Just because something's a superstition, doesn't mean it isn't true".

And she also mentions a substition--something that is true, but most people don't believe it.
[Cool]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
At least this stuff we make up is harmless in that it's consistent. The ritual, the magic, the story is the same every time, not like charismatic claims.
That sounds to me like we have have tamed (perhaps magically) its danger and it (God) is now safely under our control.

Sooooo, the shamanism of charismatic theatre is God in the wild? Even though it's totally formulaic ritual too? Of course not. Where does He show up?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm glad to hear that fletcher as the record of Christian cultural domination in the Americas, Africa, the Pacific, in that order, is appalling although ameliorates over time.
[Tangent]
There is at least one exception to this. I once lived a couple of doors from a large old house that held a number of Torres Strait Islander families. Every year you would hear the sweet and rich harmonies as they prepared for the Coming of The Light Festival which celebrated the coming of Christian missionaries and the end of cannibalism.
[/Tangent]

Years ago (15-ish), from either the BBC or New Scientist, there was an authoritative account of the collapse of post-cannibal societies in the south Pacific due to the impact of Christianity. The vigour was gone.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I meant to make a point about superstition there ... otherwise that post might have been better placed in the Real Presence thread.

I was going to ask Mousethief about the role of the epiclesis in the Orthodox tradition and why the RC take on it should be regarded as more superstitious than the Orthodox one ... which is what I read his post to imply.
Why on earth did you read it that way?

I dunno, maybe I'm wired that way ...?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Well my point is that if we accept Russ's definition (or distinction, I guess), then we may end up with logical consequences we do not want, such as making the moment of epiklesis, or at least our expectations for it, superstitious. Whether that be for Catholics or Orthodoxen or Anglicans or whoever else believes that the bread and wine become at that moment (not at reception -- that's another question although obvs closely related) the body and blood of Christ.

But "expecting certain results" applies to everyday verities such as letting go of things (not resting on a surface, etc. -- to prevent moronic nit-picking) and expecting them to fall. I expect with complete certainty that if I hold a tennis ball at waist height and let go, it will fall to the ground. I rather don't doubt it at all. I know in the back of my mind there is a miniscule chance that some bizarre circumstance might cause it to do otherwise -- the air molecules in the room are in random motion and just might all puff up under the ball and hold it in place, I suppose. But I certainly don't expect gravity (whatever the hell it is) to turn off. I have complete certainty. Is that therefore a superstition? I think this definition will have to be refined or discarded. I fear the death of a million little qualifications.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

If you took anybody on Earth from a non-Christian background and gave them a tennis ball and asked them to drop it, no sane person would be surprised by what happened next. Then stick them in a communion service.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I suppose Superstition has generally been defined as an unhelpful state of mind, or manner of thinking that is centred upon fear. Something that brings comfort or reassurance would generally be categorised as Faith or Belief.

It is easy to see how the two can cross over. If someone was to claim that tossing salt over their shoulder brought them reassurance that a bad event had been averted then, for them, this is true. Therefore it is presumably as beneficial to them as any religious practice.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If you took anybody on Earth from a non-Christian background and gave them a tennis ball and asked them to drop it, no sane person would be surprised by what happened next. Then stick them in a communion service.

Then stick them in the control booth at the Large Hadron Collider.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I suppose Superstition has generally been defined as an unhelpful state of mind, or manner of thinking that is centred upon fear. Something that brings comfort or reassurance would generally be categorised as Faith or Belief.

It is easy to see how the two can cross over. If someone was to claim that tossing salt over their shoulder brought them reassurance that a bad event had been averted then, for them, this is true. Therefore it is presumably as beneficial to them as any religious practice.

But the issue is not the feeling of reassurance, it is the actual warding off of harm. Is it true that they are now safer from unexpected harm or not? That is the issue for determining superstition from non-superstition, seems to me. Not whether they feel reassured.

[ 05. March 2017, 18:35: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

They've all got 'O'-level physics.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

'A'-level wouldn't be enough. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke

[ 05. March 2017, 19:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Indeed (I liked the LHC comeback of course, false analogy category error though it be).

For some reason this comes to mind.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Indeed (I liked the LHC comeback of course, false analogy category error though it be).

No, it be not. Two things people can't understand. One we have been discussing as maybe or maybe not superstition. But if people's being able to understand or predict it is the mark of superstition, then the LHC is superstition as well for these O-level graduates.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ayyyye. I wouldn't characterize observing any repeatable phenomena, no matter how superstitious the feelings and other decompressed stories we make up about them, as superstitious.

I believe in God thanks to Jesus now and therefore I am superstitious by definition. That explains nowt about my thinking. The stuff I continue to make up and edit.

No claims beyond the first couple of circles can work for me, and not all of them of course. Stuff we made up based on His first and last Passover is way beyond those circles.

Of course it will be argued that the bread and the wine put us in the first circle and it, Him in us. Symbolically, ritually of course it does.

But not in any ontological sense except for (excluding) Catholics who are exclusively beyond those circles.

They'll win of course. Post-Catholicism has no future.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yesterday a curate's wife said to me that her finding a nursery four streets away after the nanny resigned was an answer to prayer.

God and His mysterious ways eh?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Ah, but was there a parking space left for her? That would clinch it would it not.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yesterday a curate's wife said to me that her finding a nursery four streets away after the nanny resigned was an answer to prayer.

God and His mysterious ways eh?

Yep. Brexit and Trump, but the curate's wife is saved a bit of effort.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

An example of magical thinking, not religious. Last week I was walking down the pavement of a city street and noticed I was taking some care to walk in the squares and not tread on the lines. In case bears came around the corner and ate me up.

The persisting influence of AA Milne since the age of five.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

My wife takes care when walking on the pavement, too.

Nothing to do with superstition or bears: the stones need relaying so badly that she is worried about tripping over the joints!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

That's an interesting point, I wonder where a "legitimate" worry tips into a superstition.

One might be "legitimately" scared of walking around in the dark if there have been recent attacks in the area. One could have a heightened fear having watched a scary movie. One could have been affected by something you read as a child which still unconsciously affects you.

I think most would think superstitions are when two events are tied together when they are not connected. But I still think that's functionally identical (or maybe just very very similar) to having a heightened awareness or fear of something which is totally out of proportion to the chance of it actually happening to you and then having that thing influence your behaviour.

But then I think we're all basically superstitious as humans. It doesn't sound like many agree with me.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

But then I think we're all basically superstitious as humans. It doesn't sound like many agree with me.

I think to the extent that superstition is 'pattern matching applied incorrectly' we are all superstitious as humans. The reason I'd define it that way would be to avoid the objection that superstition necessarily implied some form of supernatural explanation at some level.

[ 09. March 2017, 08:17: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

I don't know about 'basically superstitious' since there are so many cultural and historic variables to think about.

In my prosaic daily life, I consciously choose to listen to that reasonable inner voice saying things like 'If it sounds too good to be true it probably is,' or 'That's wishful thinking, stop it,' or 'Doesn't add up does it?'.

Reading a new biography of the writer Angela Carter though, I found myself thinking about how big a role fairy tales, nursery rhymes and the myth and legends of Greece and Rome play in my imagination because I read them over and over at bedtime when I was small and daydreamed about the stories and characters. Not a bad thing at all, but anarchic and irrational in many ways. The fabulous, improbable, absurd -- kissing frogs, how Echo falls in love with Narcissus, Daphne turned into a tree, Mother Goose flying through the air on her very fine gander, Rapunzel in the tower etc, etc. The first time I fell in love at university, all I could think about was Psyche and Eros and how she drops hot oil from the lamp on his shoulder trying to 'see' him and he flees from her. The myth had nothing to do with predictable dating experiences, but I needed some mythic oomph to feel as if I was in love.

Would I think and feel quite differently if I had grown up without Perrault or Grimm or versions of Homer as a source of inspiration? Will years of sustained Harry Potter shape another generation the same way? Or do some of us have differing imaginative capacities and a greater fondness for facts?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That's an interesting issue about symbols and symbolic narratives, and how much humans need them. I don't think they are superstitious, but I suppose some people begin to believe them literally, or 'concretely' as the psychoanalysts say.

There are different views, ranging from the idea that humans just are symbolic animals, to the view that they are unnecessary irrational add-ons. I tend towards the former view. Of course, it's difficult to say when something is symbolic or not.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Superstition is predicated on belief in supernatural causality, usually derogatorily at the trivial, personal level up to intervention at any level in creation. Incarnation is in the middle of that. And the only credible superstition.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And the only credible superstition.

That's an odd thing to say, Martin. Why is the incarnation "more credible" than believing monsters will eat you if you step on the cracks between paving slabs?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And the only credible superstition.
That's an odd thing to say, Martin. Why is the incarnation "more credible" than believing monsters will eat you if you step on the cracks between paving slabs?

The incarnation is part of a system of belief. I am not aware of a system in which crack protecting monsters is a part.
That said, I don't think either is more inherently credible, though one is more sophisticated.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
e inherently credible, though one is more sophisticated.

I don't think complexity speaks to credibility. Homeopathy is complex, that doesn't make it credible.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
e inherently credible, though one is more sophisticated.
I don't think complexity speaks to credibility. Homeopathy is complex, that doesn't make it credible.

I think that is what I said. Martin seems to be using the pejorative sense of superstition in a, relatively, non-partisan fashion. Those who would exclude their own religion as being superstitious must use a different definition. One that would also exclude other religions, but address beliefs like "lucky" rabbits feet. Else it is just pejorative, hypocritical nonsense.
ETA: this isn't to say people do not have superstition within their own expression of religion.

[ 09. March 2017, 17:40: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
e inherently credible, though one is more sophisticated.
I don't think complexity speaks to credibility. Homeopathy is complex, that doesn't make it credible.

Except that the placebo effect is incredibly powerful.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It certainly is Boogie, especially in matters of religion.

You get me lilBuddha.

mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And the only credible superstition.
That's an odd thing to say, Martin. Why is the incarnation "more credible" than believing monsters will eat you if you step on the cracks between paving slabs?

I consistently argue that the only (supernatural) claim worth considering is the Incarnation and that subsequent claims within the first couple of circles are therefore valid where no rational explanation is possible apart from delusion. There are of course none since. The truth of the Incarnation doesn't validate any claims of God being personal back since.

Eutychus consistently wondered why. You've taken his mantle!

The credibility of the Incarnation above all other claims is in their utter irrelevance. And in its perfect, towering intrusion above such dross.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0