|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Superstition - does it cross your path?
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif) ... 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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
mind = mine
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
@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.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
If the suoerstition is a pejorative for a minority religious belief, it isn't very surprising that there were insufficient funds to build cathedrals.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
[
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@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 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Wait, I'm confused. 1534 comes after 1697?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
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]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wait, I'm confused. 1534 comes after 1697?
Flying buttresses came in 12th Century
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
