Superstition vs Faith

[Trey of Diamonds]

Out of curiosity, what about my perception of the topic do you disagree with?

 

[Storm]

Out of curiosity, what about my perception of the topic do you disagree with?

Well, I don't really - it's true in many cases. But I thought you were attributing it to me.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Well, I don't really - it's true in many cases. But I thought you were attributing it to me.

Ah, gotcha.

 

[Willamena]

So, how do you understand the words?

If you're in the habit of equating superstition with religion/ faith, why do you do so?

If, like me, you see them as incomparable, what difference do you see?

Two or more instances or things in the world come together in our minds, and by virtue of our capacity to draw lines of significance between them the import of that coming together is itself "cast out" into the world to become reality. "Superstition" happens a lot more than people might think.

"Faith," on the other hand, is no more complicated than trusting in the unknown. In as far as the concretized reality is considered to be uncertainty, each step we take on solid ground is an act of faith. In as far as we mistake the importance of those things of the world that have come together consistenty and repeatedly for certainty, faith does stand in contrast to superstition (as superior to it).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Willamena,

Your description of "faith" doesn't seem to distinguish it from drawing conclusions based on evidence, i.e., the opposite of faith. Am I misreading you, or do you really feel there is no significant distinction to be made?

 

[Willamena]

Willamena,

Your description of "faith" doesn't seem to distinguish it from drawing conclusions based on evidence, i.e., the opposite of faith. Am I misreading you, or do you really feel there is no significant distinction to be made?

It is inference under the mask.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is inference under the mask.

What is inference under the mask? Faith?

 

[Willamena]

What is inference under the mask? Faith?

...contrasted with superstition. Yes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

...contrasted with superstition. Yes.

Okay. Let me ask my question a different way: is there a difference between believing something based on faith, and believing something based on evidence?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I must admit that I bristle whenever I hear someone call faith (alternately, religion) superstition. I suspect that's the point, but I also think there's a discussion there.

Your emotions about the subject notwithstanding, it is a correct description of what religion is.

"Superstition," to me, boils down to trivial habit. Throwing spilled salt over your shoulder, etc.

According to the dictionary definition the word has a somewhat wider meaning than that.

Faith, otoh, has the power to transform lives, be it religious or otherwise. Religion reflects our deepest-held values, expresses our hopes and dreams, and reveals depths of our collective psyche normally hidden.

That's probably true for a lot of religious people, but it is irrelevant to the subject you brought up.

To dismiss these things as mere superstition is incomprehensible to me.

So, how do you understand the words?

To use the dictionary definition:
su·per·sti·tion

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Source: Superstition | Define Superstition at Dictionary.com

Any and all of the above fits with religious faith as it is not based on reason or knowledge, it is a system of such beliefs, often encompassing various customs, and is blindly accepted by those who believe it.

If you're in the habit of equating superstition with religion/ faith, why do you do so?

Because it is an accurate description of what religion is.

If, like me, you see them as incomparable, what difference do you see?

I see absolutely no appreciable intellectual difference between believing in faeries and goblins, and believing in a god or gods.
From an objective, empirical and scientific point of view they are all equally nonsensical.

 

[Thief]

Superstition and religion have a common thread.
They have gesture of hand.

Repeated prayers with beads....colloquial sayings....rituals....

Real faith is not of such things at all.
Real faith is aimed at tomorrow...on a spiritual level.

I believe in the next life...I have reason to do so.
I have developed expectations.

None of my perspective is supported by prayer or ritual.
I have no dogma or any dogmatic practice.

 

[Willamena]

Okay. Let me ask my question a different way: is there a difference between believing something based on faith, and believing something based on evidence?

There can be. They can also be the same.

Evidence is a pointer, just as signs are. In as far as the what the evidence points to is mistaken for truth/certainty, inference is superstition. In as far as evidence is taken for nothing more than evidence, inference stands as faith.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Personally I see superstition as faith in the absurd.

Sounds a lot like most religions to me.

This admittedly leads to a lot of subjectivity, though I would expect a pretty strong argument from anybody who called another's faith superstitious before I agree with them.

Here is my argument: when we define reality we should do so based on empirical objective and scientific evidence.
It is the only method that consistently has given us a continually more accurate view of how the world around us works, and until someone comes up with a better method, this is what we should use.

Calling all faith superstition though is flawed, since people can have faith in anything from science to a lover's promise which is hardly superstitious.

The word 'faith' can, of course, have many different meanings, but in this context we're specifically discussing religious faith.

Faith can also be placed into an idea or concept with no evidence to support it without it being superstitious. For example, many people will claim that science is the key to a better world. This is of course pure faith based conjecture since scientific advancement could easily result in nuclear/biological war instead. Despite this, such a statement of faith could not really be called superstitious.

My bold.
The fact of the matter is that more people are living longer, better lives now than at any point in previous history, most of which is due to scientific advances.
Hence, it is not pure faith based conjecture.

 

[Quiddity]

Superstition is not faith...but a corruption of it. In the same way that tyranny is not government, but a corruption of it. Of course, many will deny such a distinction is even real; for them, believing in God is just like believing in the Easter bunny.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Superstition is not faith...but a corruption of it. In the same way that tyranny is not government, but a corruption of it. Of course, many will deny such a distinction is even real; for them, believing in God is just like believing in the Easter bunny.

But by that definition the Christian version of Christmas is a corruption of faith. Corruption is something that comes after what was true, not before. Superstition is always the older belief rather than the current belief.

 

[Quiddity]

But by that definition the Christian version of Christmas is a corruption of faith. Corruption is something that comes after what was true, not before. Superstition is always the older belief rather than the current belief.

You are misunderstanding.

My point is that superstition requires, at best, is nothing more then an ascent or a feeling in something beyond yourself that demands no proof or evidence. Religion and why one believes is more complex and hefty. It comes with philosophical underpinnings, arguments, history, archeology, etc. It's all together. It's just not the same.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You are misunderstanding.

My point is that superstition requires, at best, is nothing more then an ascent or a feeling in something beyond yourself that demands no proof or evidence. Religion and why one believes is more complex and hefty. It comes with philosophical underpinnings, arguments, history, archeology, etc. It's all together. It's just not the same.

And you are misusing the term corruption, no to mention superstition. In fact lets do mention it. Superstition is what people call the older religions that they do not believe in. That has been watered down a bit in today's modern society but that is still the root of the term. Good luck and bad luck go back to a time when those things were controlled by deities that could be influenced or angered. So by acknowledging rituals or objects associated with luck we are acknowledging those ancient deities.

As for corruption, it is universally accepted that corruption is the change of something that is existing. You said that the superstition is a corruption of faith but that is going backwards. The superstition is the old religion, the one that has been replaced. The Christian Christmas faith is a corruption of the Norse Yule superstition, not the other way around.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

There can be. They can also be the same.

Evidence is a pointer, just as signs are. In as far as the what the evidence points to is mistaken for evidence pointing at the truth/certainty, inference is superstition. In as far as evidence is taken for nothing more than evidence, inference stands as faith.

Are you saying that drawing conclusions based on evidence, i.e. the scientific method, is either faith or superstition? It's never a separate category?

Consider three statements:

A. "Every time I say a Hail Mary, I catch a fish!"

B. "There's no scientific evidence for it, but I have faith it's true."

C. "Mice injected with sample C survived whereas control mice died. This demonstrates that sample C is an effective vaccine."

Personally I would call statement A superstition, B is faith, and C is science / inference based on objective evidence. But let's not argue semantics. The point I want to make is, wouldn't you agree that statement C is qualitatively different and distinct from statements A and B? You don't really think there is nothing worth distinguishing about statement C, do you?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way I am not short shrifting "faith" or people who have faith in my above post. The Catholic Church recognizes the distinction I am attempting to make, and I myself would have readily assented to statement B when I was Christian:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Faith

The twofold order of knowledge. — "The Catholic Church", says the Vatican Council, III, iv, "has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation."
...
lastly, the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority — for example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life. If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith; if the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith. If to this be added the medium by which the Divine authority for certain statements is put before us, viz. the Catholic Church, we have Divine-Catholic Faith (see RULE OF FAITH).

 

[josh120775]

I think superstition can become faith. For example:

Not walking under a ladder because it brings bad luck would be superstitious, assuming that, if necessary, you would walk under a ladder. You don't necessarily believe that it will, in fact, bring you bad luck.

Faith, on the other hand, would prevent you from walking under the ladder because you actually believed that you experience bad luck.

I think the difference is that, when challenged, an honest faith in something may hold true, whereas a superstition would not.