Superstition vs Faith

[McBell]

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Though I am not in any habit of calling religion superstition, I can understand why those that are, do.

Seems to me that religion is merely evolved superstition.
Perhaps not all religions, but most anyway.

Of course, this is based upon my definition of superstition <---LINK

From the linked article:

Superstition is a belief in a false conception of supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any physical process linking the two events, such as astrology, omens, witchcraft, etc, that contradicts natural science.[1]

Opposition to superstition was a central concern of the intellectuals during the 18th century Age of Enlightenment. The philosophes at that time ridiculed any belief in miracles, revelation, magic, or the supernatural, as "superstition," and typically included as well much of Christian doctrine.[2]

The word is often used pejoratively to refer to religious practices (e.g., Voodoo) other than the one prevailing in a given society (e.g., Christianity in western culture), although the prevailing religion may contain just as many supernatural beliefs.[1] It is also commonly applied to beliefs and practices surrounding luck, prophecy and spiritual beings, particularly the belief that future events can be foretold by specific unrelated prior events.[3]
​

Though I would not use the phrasing of "false conception" and would instead use something like "unproven" or "unshown" or "undemonstrative"

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The thing about "a false conception of supernatural causality" is that it highlights the fact that those who use the term superstition do so to describe a belief that they consider false. A Christian considers Paganism to be superstition. An Atheist considers Christianity to be superstition. The term is completely subjective and dependent on the beliefs and perceptions of the person using the term.

 

[jarofthoughts]

OK, since both of your responses hinge on the definition of superstition, and I'm pressed for time, I'm lumping my responses together.

No worries.

Let's analyze the definitions offered:
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.

"a particular... proceeding." This seems to reenforce my understanding of the word, not yours.

Not from where I'm standing, and also, the emphasis should, in my opinion, be put elsewhere, namely on two elements of the definitions given:
'a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge'...or...'a system or collection of such beliefs'.
Which fits neatly with how religion works as well.
I might concede that religion is a subgroup of superstition, but the gathering elements are definitely present.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.

I'll grant that this has a connection to religion, but I don't think it's fair to characterize faith as "an irrational fear."

This may or may not apply mainly to the Abrahamic religions, which, if we're thinking statistically, are the religions of the world, and in which the 'fear of god' is a central element.
However, I understand that this seems unfair towards many who do not follow said religions, and in any case, it is one definition I would probably not use in any case.

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Please note that there is a distinction between faith and blind acceptance. Religion (sadly) encompasses both, but again it's not a fair characterization.

If 'blindly' here is to be taken to mean without critical though and the use of knowledge, evidence and logic; how is religion not blind acceptance?

excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings...a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief

Again, this does not support the conflation of faith and superstition. Trust may be profound without being "excessively credulous."

Religious faith and trust are not the same thing.
I might say that I have faith that my doctor to give me sound advice or that I trust my friends to be there for me, but that is not even in the same ballpark as religious faith.
Hence, the definition fits.

Superstition is a belief in a false conception of supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any physical process linking the two events, such as astrology, omens, witchcraft, etc, that contradicts natural science.

This one is even worse: to say a conception is false requires contradictory evidence, which is simply nonexistent wrt religion.

Speaking scientifically one does not need to present contradictory evidence to say that unfalsifiable hypotheses are false, due to something called the Null hypothesis.
Put simply, the Null hypothesis states that all claims are false until evidence can be provided that refute the Null hypothesis.
In other words, until those who claim that there is a god can provide evidence to support that claim, in the view of science, there is no god.
The same goes for any number of things like ghosts, angels, and faeries.
This, again, places religion and superstition in the same category.

In short, every definition offered by the both of you supports my understanding of superstition being trivial habit with no deeper meaning.

That is because you add the unsupported notion that religion somehow has a deeper meaning.
There is no reason to think that this is the case.

Religion, otoh, seeks to discover humanity's place in the larger scheme of things - our relation to one another, the world in which we live, and the Creator of said world (or lack thereof). I'll grant you that the two have ritual in common, but that similarity is superficial at best.

By what method, save wishful thinking and blind speculation, does religion seek to discover these things?
It remains that superstition and religion are one and the same, and that religion is just superstition that took on an organised form.
Except for number of adherents and organisation, there is nothing to separate the two.

At least, that is how I see it.

 

[McBell]

. The term is completely subjective and dependent on the beliefs and perceptions of the person using the term.

As do the terms "religion" and "faith"...

 

[Thief]

I like dictionaries.
But, the application of terms seems to dissolve in discussion.

Usually brought on by a lack of faith.

 

[Storm]

jarofthoughts, what, in your estimation, is the functional difference between religion and its parent discipline of philosophy?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

As do the terms "religion" and "faith"...

Exactly!

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

jarofthoughts, what, in your estimation, is the functional difference between religion and its parent discipline of philosophy?

Side question. Why do you think that Philosophy is the parent of religion? With religion existing long before philosophy I would have thought it was the parent. I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Willamena]

Side question. Why do you think that Philosophy is the parent of religion? With religion existing long before philosophy I would have thought it was the parent. I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Why do you claim that religion is older than philosophy?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Why do you claim that religion is older than philosophy?

Well, since the earliest evidence of man indicates some religious beliefs involved in their society I thought it was a given. Feel free to educate me if you believe different.

 

[Willamena]

Well, since the earliest evidence of man indicates some religious beliefs involved in their society I thought it was a given. Feel free to educate me if you believe different.

Isn't philosophy also involved in their society at the same time?

The Upanishads contain philosophy, as does the Tao-Te Ching.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Isn't philosophy also involved in their society at the same time?

The Upanishads contain philosophy, as does the Tao-Te Ching.

As I understand it, the Upanishads and Tao-Te Ching are only a few thousand years old at best. Religion goes back 10s of thousands of years, maybe even 100s of thousands. Religion goes back to the very beginning of primitive man, philosophy is a construct of civilized man.

 

[Willamena]

Religion goes back 10s of thousands of years, maybe even 100s of thousands. Religion goes back to the very beginning of primitive man, philosophy is a construct of civilized man.

Are you talking about finding artifacts and presuming religious ideas about them, like the Venus figures in France and Ukraine and the cave paintings? Can't a philosophy be just as validly presumed? After all, we don't believe things without reason--at least, philosophy tells us so.

 

[McBell]

Isn't philosophy also involved in their society at the same time?

The Upanishads contain philosophy, as does the Tao-Te Ching.

seems to me it depends upon how you define your terms...

 

[Willamena]

seems to me it depends upon how you define your terms...

It always does.

 

[McBell]

It always does.

Right here of RF I have seen people use the terms interchangeably.
To them there is absolutely no difference between the two other than spelling and one even flat out admitted he uses the term religion instead of philosophy simply because religion is easier to spell....

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Are you talking about finding artifacts and presuming religious ideas about them, like the Venus figures in France and Ukraine and the cave paintings? Can't a philosophy be just as validly presumed? After all, we don't believe things without reason--at least, philosophy tells us so.

*sigh*

Sure, you can say that fertility symbols only presume religions connotation just like you can say that evolution only presumes to explain our progression from primate to man.

In the science community it is accepted that the above picture is a religious symbol of fertility. I believe that science is correct in this presumption and you have given me no reason to change that opinion. And, as there is no evidence suggesting that philosophy existed prior to man moving into large cities and becoming civilized I don't see why I need to presume otherwise. Nor have you offered any evidence or even opinion as to why anyone should presume otherwise.

So what is it you are trying to say here?

 

[Willamena]

*sigh*

Sure, you can say that fertility symbols only presume religions connotation just like you can say that evolution only presumes to explain our progression from primate to man...

I'm not denigrating the idea that fertility symbols and cave painting were part of religion*--in fact, I support it. I just don't see why it is that philosophy gets left out of that picture.

*(or, for that matter, the idea of 'presumption' )

...as there is no evidence suggesting that philosophy existed prior to man moving into large cities and becoming civilized I don't see why I need to presume otherwise. Nor have you offered any evidence or even opinion as to why anyone should presume otherwise.

So what is it you are trying to say here?

What would be good evidence of philosophy, which is in part the study of beliefs, if not the presence of a religious belief system? It would seem to me that the two go hand in hand: religion supplies us with the image of "sky separated from the earth" and philosophy provides us with both the foundation of symbolism for the the image, and (in a more modern "civilized" light) the reason we've made that image.

I'm just trying to say that I don't think the two disciplines are as distinct as all that.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I'm just trying to say that I don't think the two disciplines are as distinct as all that.

This only works if you consider religion a philosophical pursuit which some do. But you can't just assume that everyone will jump on that bandwagon or understand that you feel that way without explanation. Also, this is a thread about Superstition vs Faith. So in what way does the concept that Faith and Philosophy relate to the same thing fit into the discussion. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm curious as to how you would tie it all together.

 

[Willamena]

So in what way does the concept that Faith and Philosophy relate to the same thing fit into the discussion. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm curious as to how you would tie it all together.

Life is a philosophical pursuit. But, of course, that's a philosophical idea...

Philosophy provides us with a reason to have faith by underpinning our own reality with an image of uncertainty. By "us" I mean the agent of actions, thoughts and self. When the philosophical "plane"* is present, faith takes many forms: the belief that that uncertainty isn't real, but "I am"; the belief that that uncertainty is an invisible reality, a "beyond", a greater being; the belief that when we walk in uncertainty we can immerse "I am" in a greater being. Just to name a few.

*to borrow a term from a young RF philosopher