Why Were People So Superstitious in the Past?

[astrum]

Over the past year, I've been reading more literature--particularly English literature from the 17th and 18th century.

I've also started reading more about that time period and watched a history channel documentary (on YouTube) earlier this week about the English Civil War. See it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V97MLZag3kM&playnext=1&list=PL00B57DC188AE6C9A&feature=results_video)


What I've noticed is that people were incredibly superstitious back then.

Why is that? And why is there much skepticism nowadays?

[Zaza]

People were superstitious as a means of trying to understand and feel some control over their lives in a world where they didn't know the explanation of most natural phenomena. They didn't know how diseases were transmitted; they didn't know why their crops failed. They didn't understand the laws of nature or the cosmos, whereas now we do, so we no longer need those explanations. Mind you, there's still a vast amount of mumbo-jumbo out there.

[Lokasenna]

Are they not still superstitious today? Sure, a great many people of my great-grandmother's generation believed that elves and fairies roamed about in the woods, preying on lost travellers. But then, I know plenty of people who will not go to certain places in my city after dark, or will not let their children out of the house to play, because the darkness is full of murderers, rapists and child molesters.

The ogres and trolls never went away, we just have a different mental image of them now.

[cafolini]

People were superstitious as a means of trying to understand and feel some control over their lives in a world where they didn't know the explanation of most natural phenomena. They didn't know how diseases were transmitted; they didn't know why their crops failed. They didn't understand the laws of nature or the cosmos, whereas now we do, so we no longer need those explanations. Mind you, there's still a vast amount of mumbo-jumbo out there.

I agree in most ways. I still think there is another element and that is the church's desire to keep the Victorian age superstitious because what they had to offer was not understitious. There actually was an abundance of natural knowledge, but open to whom? The people were not allowed to the archive.

[Ecurb]

"Superstition" is defined as "an unreasonable belief or impression, especially one founded on irrational feelings, and marked by a trust in and reverance for the supernatural." Nobody thinks his or her beliefs are "unreasonable" or "irrational". If he did, he would change his beliefs.

People in the past did not think of themselves as superstitious; we do not think of ourselves as superstitious. "Superstition" applied only to the beliefs of other people. Which of our beliefs are "irrational" or "unreasonable"? I'll bet lots of them are -- it's just that we don't recognize it.

[cafolini]

"Superstition" is defined as "an unreasonable belief or impression, especially one founded on irrational feelings, and marked by a trust in and reverance for the supernatural." Nobody thinks his or her beliefs are "unreasonable" or "irrational". If he did, he would change his beliefs.

People in the past did not think of themselves as superstitious; we do not think of ourselves as superstitious. "Superstition" applied only to the beliefs of other people. Which of our beliefs are "irrational" or "unreasonable"? I'll bet lots of them are -- it's just that we don't recognize it.

What matters reason? It is as much of the sober as it is of the insane.

[cacian]

superstition is an old familiar like a song a folk song or a nursery one. It lives through the ages and stand on its own feet as a reminder of our own mystical the unknown tendencies we all nurse within us. It is more the thrill behind then the shred of rationality or reality. It is like the old tv without the remote or the screen. It is what our past generations did to entertain their time and themselves. We today have tvs films to do that for us and so more and more we watch superstition rather then it watching us watch it.
It is beggar's believe the old wives' tale and goes one for eternity. No one really knows what it is that makes it but everyone knows what it is about.
The one good thing about superstition is that you do not have to be superstitious to talk about it.
The rest is really whatever.

[cafolini]

superstition is an old familiar like a song a folk song or a nursery one. It lives through the ages and stand on its own feet as a reminder of our own mystical the unknown tendencies we all nurse within us. It is more the thrill behind then the shred of rationality or reality. It is like the old tv without the remote or the screen. It is what our past generations did to entertain their time and themselves. We today have tvs films to do that for us and so more and more we watch superstition rather then it watching us watch it.
It is beggar's believe the old wives' tale and goes one for eternity. No one really knows what it is that makes it but everyone knows what it is about.
The one good thing about superstition is that you do not have to be superstitious to talk about it.
The rest is really whatever.

Now it has feet? LOL
Percentagewise there is a lot less superstition today than in all of history.

[The Atheist]

Percentagewise there is a lot less superstition today than in all of history.

Do you have any evidence for that?

I ask because I don't believe it is true.

We know that around 80% of people still believe in supernatural beings (god/s), and of the rest, a huge percentage believe in ghosts, astrology, alien visits & abductions, 911/Illuminati conspiracies, or some other complete nonsense.

Given that even 2500 years ago, sceptics existed in reasonable numbers, I see no reason to think that reason is any more entrenched now than at any other time.

[Paulclem]

I don't have any evidence as such except anecdotal. My parents were as superstitious as my grandparents, and would ban things like pheasant feathers in the house, putting up umbrellas in the house or new shoes on the table. (All nonsensical) My dad also said things like "Green Christmas, full graveyard", perhaps with a folk experience of more deaths after a mild winter. It might also explain why people think a hard winter might kill all the bugs and we'll be more healthy. (I have no idea whether this might be true or not).

One particular thing I noticed was in games of chance. My parents used to play bingo, (I know - nightmare), anyway they had all kinds of superstitions about what they did when they got close to filling in the cards. They would write the number down that they needed, or would declare that having had itchy palms they were due for a win. Nowadays with people playing the national lottery, people religiously, or perhaps superstitiously, keep the same set of numbers in the erroneous belief that the numbers might come up if they stop using the same ones. It goes against all probability logic, but they do in an attempt to influence fate.

[cafolini]

Do you have any evidence for that?

I ask because I don't believe it is true.

We know that around 80% of people still believe in supernatural beings (god/s), and of the rest, a huge percentage believe in ghosts, astrology, alien visits & abductions, 911/Illuminati conspiracies, or some other complete nonsense.

Given that even 2500 years ago, sceptics existed in reasonable numbers, I see no reason to think that reason is any more entrenched now than at any other time.

You are a totalitarian who doesn't use statistics properly and have very little regard for percentages. All you need is one example of stupidity to make grand noise. You have a lot to learn. You will.

[The Atheist]

One particular thing I noticed was in games of chance. My parents used to play bingo, (I know - nightmare), anyway they had all kinds of superstitions about what they did when they got close to filling in the cards. They would write the number down that they needed, or would declare that having had itchy palms they were due for a win. Nowadays with people playing the national lottery, people religiously, or perhaps superstitiously, keep the same set of numbers in the erroneous belief that the numbers might come up if they stop using the same ones. It goes against all probability logic, but they do in an attempt to influence fate.

Yes indeed - if you want to find superstitions, gambling is a great place to go.

When I worked in the horse racing industry, people would come to blows if someone refused to give up a "lucky" seat.

[The Atheist]

You are a totalitarian who doesn't use statistics properly and have very little regard for percentages. All you need is one example of stupidity to make grand noise. You have a lot to learn. You will.

I'll take that as a clear "No".

[ennison]

Compared with modern superstitions a belief in elves and fairies was positively rational.

[The Atheist]

Compared with modern superstitions a belief in elves and fairies was positively rational.

Amen to that.

And today's versions are a hell of a lot more dangerous. I can understand why people used to have all sorts of medicinal superstitions, but people nowadays promoting eye of newt - or plain water, as in the case of homeopathy - are a disgrace.

There [B]should[B] be a lot fewer people with superstitious beliefs now, but when you constantly encounter people who deny science so they can believe in the medicine fairy, it's hard to accept that irrational beliefs are on the wane.

Unfortunately, aside from religion itself, there are few statistics on what other supernatural/paranormal beliefs exist in which quantities.

[mortalterror]

Are they not still superstitious today? Sure, a great many people of my great-grandmother's generation believed that elves and fairies roamed about in the woods, preying on lost travellers. But then, I know plenty of people who will not go to certain places in my city after dark, or will not let their children out of the house to play, because the darkness is full of murderers, rapists and child molesters.

The ogres and trolls never went away, we just have a different mental image of them now.

Agreed, there's still belief in astrology, numerology, faith healing, snake handling, ufologists, ancient astronauts, angels, ghosts, ESP, voodoo, witchcraft, the Bermuda triangle, channeling, crop circles, cryptozoology, dowsing, psychokinesis, seances, ouija boards, palm reading, tarot, tea leaf fortune telling, curses, The Secret, auras, chokras, diet fads, colonics, homeopathy, body earthing, crystal healing, magnet therapy, mysticism, feng shui, Mayan apocalypse, y2k, conspiracy theories, time wave zero, time travelers, reptilians, illuminati, etc.

I've been working on my history of horror literature list lately and having no problem finding modern superstitions and scary stories. We're going through a zombie craze right now that was preceded by a vampire and werewolf craze. You've got your standard bunch of serial killers, cannibals, monsters, demons, witchcraft, same as ever. In the Victorian era every serious writer wrote a ghost story or two, but in the age of the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and the middle ages where you'd most expect to find them they are absent except in folklore. There was a bit of a witch fad in Shakespeare's day that spawned Macbeth and a couple of plays but other than that I'm having a heck of a time finding good superstitious literature. I'm thinking about including Eyrbyggja saga in the thirteenth century based on a comment you made in a past thread, but not having read it myself I don't know if it would necessarily be classified as horror literature. How much of it is actually ghost stories? In Grettir's Saga Grettir wrestles a ghost or whatever Glam is, but that's just a minor adventure and not what Grettir's Saga is actually about; so I don't include it.

Anyway, here's what I've got so far.
100 Pliny the Younger- Letter to Sura
1200 Marie de France- Bisclavret (The Werewolf)
1605 William Shakespeare- Macbeth
1609 Thomas Middleton- The Witch
1621 Thomas Dekker, John Ford, and William Rowley- The Witch of Edmonton
1633 John Donne- The Apparition
1634 Thomas Heywood and Richard Brome- The Late Lancashire Witches
1707 Daniel Defoe- The Apparition of Mrs. Veal
1764 Horace Walpole- The Castle of Otranto
1766 Pu Songling- Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio
1772 Jacques Cazotte- The Devil in Love
1776 Uneda Akinari- Ugetsu Monogatari
1787 Friedrich Schiller- The Ghost-Seer
1794 Ann Radcliffe- The Mysteries of Udolpho
1796 Matthew Gregory Lewis- The Monk
1798 Samuel Taylor Coleridge- The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
1816 E.T.A. Hoffman- The Sandman
1818 Mary Shelley- Frankenstein
1819 John Polidori- The Vampyre
1820 Johann Ludwig Tieck- Wake Not the Dead
1820 Charles Maturin- Melmoth the Wanderer
1820 Washington Irving- The Legend of Sleepy Hollow
1821 Charles Nodier- Smarra
1825 Tsuruya Nanboku IV- Yotsuya Kaidan
1829 Sir Walter Scott- The Tapestried Chamber
1830 James Hogg- The Mysterious Bride
1832 Honore de Balzac- The Mysterious Mansion
1833 Alexander Pushkin- The Queen of Spades
1835 Nikolai Gogol- Viy
1835 Nathaniel Hawthorne- Young Goodman Brown
1836 Theophile Gautier- The Dead Leman
1837 Prosper Mérimée- The Venus of Ille
1846 Edgar Allan Poe- The Cask of Amontillado
1849 Alexander Dumas, pere- One Thousand and One Ghosts
1852 Elizabeth Gaskell- The Old Nurse's Story
1852 Wilkie Collins- A Terribly Strange Bed
1855 Robert Browning- Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came
1859 George Eliot- The Lifted Veil
1859 Edward Bulwer-Lytton- The House and the Brain
1859 Fitz James O'Brien- What Was It?
1862 Christina Rossetti- Goblin Market
1866 Charles Dickens- The Signal Man
1872 Sheridan Le Fanu- Green Tea
1874 Paul Feval, pere- Vampire City
1876 Erckmann-Chatrian- The Man-Wolf
1885 Robert Louis Stevenson- The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
1887 De Maupassant- The Horla
1887 Anton Chekhov- A Bad Business
1888 Rudyard Kipling- The Phantom Rickshaw
1890 Arthur Machen- The Great God Pan
1890 Oscar Wilde- The Picture of Dorian Gray
1892 Arthur Conan Doyle- Lot 249
1892 Charlotte Perkins Gilman- The Yellow Wallpaper
1893 Ambrose Bierce- The Death of Halpin Frayser
1895 Robert W. Chambers- The King in Yellow
1896 H.G. Wells- The Island of Dr. Moreau
1897 Bram Stoker- Dracula
1898 Henry James- The Turn of the Screw
1900 John Buchan- The Watcher by the Threshold
1902 W.W. Jacobs- The Monkey's Paw
1904 M.R. James- Ghost Stories of an Antiquary
1904 Lafcadio Hearn- Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things
1907 Algernon Blackwood- The Willows
1907 Horacio Quiroga- The Feather Pillow
1908 William Hope Hodgson- The House on the Borderland
1908 Perceval Landon- Thurnley Abbey
1909 Gaston Leroux- The Phantom of the Opera
1910 Edith Wharton- Afterward
1911 Oliver Onions- The Beckoning Fair One
1914 Gustav Meyrink- The Golem
1914 S. Ansky- The Dybbuk
1914 Saki- The Open Window
1923 Maurice Level- Those Who Return
1923 Walter De La Mare- Seaton's Aunt
1926 H.P. Lovecraft- The Call of Cthulhu
1930 William Faulkner- A Rose For Emily
1934 Robert E. Howard- Pigeons From Hell
1934 Isak Dinesen- Monkey
1943 Fritz Leiber- Conjure Wife
1943 Jean Ray- Malpertuis
1946 Ray Bradbury- The Small Assassin
1951 Julio Cortazar- House Taken Over
1954 Richard Matheson- I am Legend
1959 Shirley Jackson- The Haunting of Hill House
1967 Ira Levin- Rosemary's Baby
1971 William Peter Blatty- The Exorcist
1973 Anne Rice- Interview with a Vampire
1977 Stephen King- The Shining
1979 Peter Straub- Ghost Story
1984 Clive Barker- Books of Blood vol. 1
1988 Thomas Harris- The Silence of the Lambs
1991 Ramsey Campbell- Alone with the Horrors
1996 Thomas Ligotti- The Nightmare Factory
2006 Max Brooks- World War Z

The ancient world is full of superstition, but it's usually tangential to the main action of a major story, or it doesn't evoke the proper tone. Take Theseus or Hercules, they go off battling the Freddy Kroogers, Jason's, and Boogymen of their day, but they're never afraid of them or at a disadvantage; so the audience is left with a feeling of awe rather than trepidation. The Voyage of the Argo is full of monsters and magic, but it's more of an action adventure story too. The Golden *** is full of witches and corpses and transformations but it's all done in the spirit of comedy, the way that Plautus' Haunted House is.

Anyway, maybe I've diverted too far from the original topic. But your comment that we have our stories of trolls and ogres today and modern mythologies sort of struck a chord in me. I'm sure the OP really meant more like throwing salt over your shoulder, black cats crossing your path, walking under ladders, breaking a mirror, stepping on cracks, groundhogs seeing shadows, that sort of thing and not faeries, doppelgangers, and lovers returning from the grave like I was thinking about.

[cacian]

I'll take that as a clear "No".

Hi The Atheist superstition can be a killer too. Ie people entertain black magic /tabooism to their belief which in return underpins rituals of a human sacrifice. It is very sadistically worrying and it still goes on today.

[Ecurb]

Supersitition can be a killer -- but, in that regard, it will never rival science.

[The Atheist]

Hi The Atheist superstition can be killer too. Ie people entertain black magic /tabooism to their belief which in return underpins rituals of human sacrifice. It is very sadistically worrying and it still goes on today.

Black magic is a lot less common than imagined, and one of the things which has skewed both reports and belief in how widespread it is is the bizarre fact that "recovered memories" so often featured Satanic rituals.

There is quite a bit of very good scientific literature on it.

There are lots of reports of black magic rituals, but in the western world they almost invariably turn out to be false. There are certainly cases in Africa, but then some people there believe raping a baby girl cures AIDS. In most cases, those "rituals' are cover-up for some very disturbed behaviour.

The big killer with superstition today is denying science, trying to cure cancer with a commercial electronic device, refusing vaccinations, refusing blood transfusions....

[The Atheist]

Supersitition can be a killer -- but, in that regard, it will never rival science.

That must be the most nonsensical statement ever made on this forum.

Even if you count death by manufactured weapon as "science" - which would be completely dishonest - you still wouldn't have a case. People who die in wars are far more victim of superstition than science - belief in god/s has been central to human war efforts for tens of thousands of years.

Oppenheimer may have manufactured the A-bomb, but it was a superstitious belief in the power of the mighty Japanese Emperor-god that caused it to be dropped.

Is it worth my while pointing out the billions of lives that science has extended, as a deliberate intent of actual science? You know, how average life expectancy has increased by an unbelievable 100% in only 100 years?

All thanks to science.

[cacian]

Supersitition can be a killer -- but, in that regard, it will never rival science.

Superstition is one thing and science is another. There is not two comparison.

[Ecurb]

Scientific methods have developed killing machines including, but not limited to: swords, spears, rifles, pistols, machine guns, bombs, hand grenades, and drones (we won't even mention gas chambers). Anyone versed in logical thinking would (of course) be aware that whether scientific methods have ALSO saved lives is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of my previous statement.

The Atheist says, "Oppenheimer may have manufactured the A-bomb, but it was a superstitious belief in the power of the mighty Japanese Emperor-god that caused it to be dropped." I didn't know that those who decided to drop the bomb had a superstitious belief in the power of the Japanese Emperor. Or are you suggesting that America's A-bombing of Japan was "caused" by Japanese beliefs, which would surely constitute a case of blaming the victim?

[OrphanPip]

The idea of attributing violence to either superstition or science in a reliable way is ridiculous. Even if one were to attribute every death caused with a tool to the origin of that tool, in which case apparently blacksmiths are history's greatest murderers, the actual rate of violent death has declined as our weapons have become more advanced. Even if the amount of deaths in absolute terms caused by guns and bombs in the 20th and 19th century seem massive, they are lower per capita from what we know of violence historically.

[cafolini]

The idea of attributing violence to either superstition or science in a reliable way is ridiculous. Even if one were to attribute every death caused with a tool to the origin of that tool, in which case apparently blacksmiths are history's greatest murderers, the actual rate of violent death has declined as our weapons have become more advanced. Even if the amount of deaths in absolute terms caused by guns and bombs in the 20th and 19th century seem massive, they are lower per capita from what we know of violence historically.

Yes. We have managed to keep the number of victims of baptism by fire much smaller. As we get better technology and sharpshooters, the number of civiliams will be close to zero.

[Ecurb]

Fine, Orphan Pip. However, science has been intimately involved in the population explosion. If more people are born, more people will die (since we all die). Scientific innovations in medicine, agriculture and sanitation are (therefore) the leading causes of death. (Scientific birth control methods slightly palliate this evil.) The #2 cause of death is sex.

Blacksmiths applied scientific methods to their work, some of which involved creating torture devices deisigned to wring confessions out of hundreds of thousands of witches in Europe between 1520 and 1650. Oxford Historian H.R. Trevor-Roper claims 500,000 "witches" were executed in Europe in a little over a century (other historians place the number considereably lower). I suppose it is reasonable to argue that "superstition" is at least partially to blame (although their were political and economic reasons for the witch hunts as well). I was merely making a wisecrack about science, and, having read Trevor-Roper's book "The European Witch Craze" I'm willing to grant that supernatural beliefs and statments can be partially blamed for some carnage. Blaming the A-bombing of Hiroshima on superstitions about the Emperor, however, is about equivalent to me calling sex the #2 cause of death.

[Ecurb]

Here's Phyllis McGinley's take on scientific advances (she agrees with Orphan Pip, but she's funnier).


The Conquerors


It seems vainglorious and proud
Of Atom-man to boast aloud
His prowess homicidal
When one remembers how for years,
With their rude stones and humble spears, 5
Our sires, at wiping out their peers,
Were almost never idle.

Despite his under-fissioned art
The Hittite made a splendid start
Toward smiting lesser nations; 10
While Tamerlane, it’s widely known,
Without a bomb to call his own
Destroyed whole populations.

Nor did the ancient Persian need
Uranium to kill his Mede, 15
The Viking earl, his foeman.
The Greeks got excellent results
With swords and engined catapults.
A chariot served the Roman.

Mere cannon garnered quite a yield 20
On Waterloo’s tempestuous field.
At Hastings and at Flodden
Stout countrymen, with just a bow
And arrow, laid their thousands low.
And Gettysburg was sodden. 25

Though doubtless now our shrewd machines
Can blow the world to smithereens
More tidily and so on,
Let’s give our ancestors their due.
Their ways were coarse, their weapons few. 30
But ah! how wondrously they slew
With what they had to go on.

[The Atheist]

Scientific methods have developed killing machines including, but not limited to: swords, spears, rifles, pistols, machine guns, bombs, hand grenades, and drones (we won't even mention gas chambers).

Yep, that's where I thought you were going.

Like I said, it's nonsense. If they only had sticks people would have wars, as they did, and as chimpanzees still do.

Blaming science for creating weapons is dishonest.


Anyone versed in logical thinking would (of course) be aware that whether scientific methods have ALSO saved lives is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of my previous statement.

Luckily, nobody was holding a logical debate - this is a forum, not a philosophy class.

You made a nonsense statement about science causing death, so I posted some factual information about how science has directly saved billions of lives.


Or are you suggesting that America's A-bombing of Japan was "caused" by Japanese beliefs, which would surely constitute a case of blaming the victim?

And yet it's still nowhere near as nonsensical as the idea that science killed the Japanese civilians.

[The Atheist]

The idea of attributing violence to either superstition or science in a reliable way is ridiculous. Even if one were to attribute every death caused with a tool to the origin of that tool, in which case apparently blacksmiths are history's greatest murderers, the actual rate of violent death has declined as our weapons have become more advanced. Even if the amount of deaths in absolute terms caused by guns and bombs in the 20th and 19th century seem massive, they are lower per capita from what we know of violence historically.

Not to mention far fewer than cigarettes, which are made by scientific means!

[YesNo]

I don't have any evidence as such except anecdotal. My parents were as superstitious as my grandparents, and would ban things like pheasant feathers in the house, putting up umbrellas in the house or new shoes on the table. (All nonsensical) My dad also said things like "Green Christmas, full graveyard", perhaps with a folk experience of more deaths after a mild winter. It might also explain why people think a hard winter might kill all the bugs and we'll be more healthy. (I have no idea whether this might be true or not).

One particular thing I noticed was in games of chance. My parents used to play bingo, (I know - nightmare), anyway they had all kinds of superstitions about what they did when they got close to filling in the cards. They would write the number down that they needed, or would declare that having had itchy palms they were due for a win. Nowadays with people playing the national lottery, people religiously, or perhaps superstitiously, keep the same set of numbers in the erroneous belief that the numbers might come up if they stop using the same ones. It goes against all probability logic, but they do in an attempt to influence fate.

That's the first time I've heard of the "Green Christmas, full graveyard" view. Here are some more anecdotal examples:

I once worked with a database product that went from version 12 directly to version 15. Although I don't know for sure why they skipped 13 and 14, the rumors I heard were that it was a marketing decision. Their main customers were in China and the US. In the US, 13 is an unlucky number. In China, the digit 4 in a number makes it unlucky. So they skipped both. That might be superstitious or just trying to avoid problems.

I also have an in-law who has hanging from his rear-view mirror a bunch of charms. One is a single-decade Catholic-style rosary, another is a yin-yang charm and another is a pair of tiny shoes that have some sonic meaning in Chinese. To my knowledge he is not religious, but he tells me this has kept him from getting an accident in spite of the fact that these freely hanging objects block his vision of the road ahead and swing into his hand when he turns. This is what I would call "superstitious" behavior although it seems overall innocent.

Another example is a neighbor of my mother who had obsessive-compulsive disorder (among a long list of other things) whom my mother, when she was alive, used to welcome into her home for coffee. That is where I met her. This person could not be in a room where the chairs were not set around the table just right. Even if they were "right", she would re-adjust them to make sure. Supposedly she was afraid of bad men kidnapping her and her young daughter and she would ritually and repeatedly lock her windows and doors. Considering the rage she displayed which got her time in the county jail, I teased her that she was likely more dangerous than most of the bad guys in this rural town. She was not religious, but she did once try to join a Baptist-style Christian church that she enjoyed scorning. They apparently let her join, but then she didn't accept "church discipline" or something like that and she left on her own. Although I would call some of her behavior superstitious, OCD is probably a better term.

Sometimes people throw the word "superstitious" as well as "pseudo-scientific" out as ways to satirize opposing views. That has some value provided one has critically examined the supposedly non-superstitious or supposedly scientific view to see if it is any better than what it opposes.

[cacian]

That's the first time I've heard of the "Green Christmas, full graveyard" view. Here are some more anecdotal examples:

I once worked with a database product that went from version 12 directly to version 15. Although I don't know for sure why they skipped 13 and 14, the rumors I heard were that it was a marketing decision. Their main customers were in China and the US. In the US, 13 is an unlucky number. In China, the digit 4 in a number makes it unlucky. So they skipped both. That might be superstitious or just trying to avoid problems.

I also have an in-law who has hanging from his rear-view mirror a bunch of charms. One is a single-decade Catholic-style rosary, another is a yin-yang charm and another is a pair of tiny shoes that have some sonic meaning in Chinese. To my knowledge he is not religious, but he tells me this has kept him from getting an accident in spite of the fact that these freely hanging objects block his vision of the road ahead and swing into his hand when he turns. This is what I would call "superstitious" behavior although it seems overall innocent.

Another example is a neighbor of my mother who had obsessive-compulsive disorder (among a long list of other things) whom my mother, when she was alive, used to welcome into her home for coffee. That is where I met her. This person could not be in a room where the chairs were not set around the table just right. Even if they were "right", she would re-adjust them to make sure. Supposedly she was afraid of bad men kidnapping her and her young daughter and she would ritually and repeatedly lock her windows and doors. Considering the rage she displayed which got her time in the county jail, I teased her that she was likely more dangerous than most of the bad guys in this rural town. She was not religious, but she did once try to join a Baptist-style Christian church that she enjoyed scorning. They apparently let her join, but then she didn't accept "church discipline" or something like that and she left on her own. Although I would call some of her behavior superstitious, OCD is probably a better term.

Sometimes people throw the word "superstitious" as well as "pseudo-scientific" out as ways to satirize opposing views. That has some value provided one has critically examined the supposedly non-superstitious or supposedly scientific view to see if it is any better than what it opposes.

Hi YesNo a lot of what you have said is interesting. Numbers and superstitions are often linked. Here in the UK there unlucky and lucky for some.
Friday the 13 is apparently odd then lucky seven. I consider superstitions the same as myths. The one that comes mind the curse of cassandra and that is a myth.
What I am thinking now is this: Is there or could there be a link between premonition and superstition?

[papayahed]

I don't wear black to work. I know tons of people that will wear a certain shirt or underwear when their team is playing a big game. Superstition is alive and well.

[YesNo]

Is there or could there be a link between premonition and superstition?

I think there is a link between superstitious activity and fear and anxiety. A premonition might be a form of anxiety. However, there are also good premonitions, or intuitive thoughts, that tell us useful information about what we should or should not be doing.

The compulsive activities I perform would be like checking an email after I've sent it to make sure the attachment was what I thought it was. Now, I do check emails before sending them and that I think is healthy behavior. However, checking them afterwards as a result of an anxiety that pops into my head that I might have sent a goofball limerick intended for Lit Net rather than the intended spreadsheet is not. That behavior might be like papayahed's not wearing black to work. When I catch myself feeling these anxieties, I tell myself not to check the email as a kind of practice. The goofball limericks are on another computer anyway.

I like the story told about Niels Bohr, one of the top 10 physicists of the 20th century. A reporter noticed that he had a horseshoe hanging above his door. The reporter wondered if he, the great Niels Bohr, believed in such superstitions. He said that of course he didn't believe in them, but he heard that they work whether you believe in them or not.

[Paulclem]

I don't wear black to work. I know tons of people that will wear a certain shirt or underwear when their team is playing a big game. Superstition is alive and well.

It certainly is. This story was in the local paper today.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2013/03/29/watch-jesus-appears-in-cushion-at-coventry-irish-society-92746-33085640/

[cacian]

I think there is a link between superstitious activity and fear and anxiety. A premonition might be a form of anxiety. However, there are also good premonitions, or intuitive thoughts, that tell us useful information about what we should or should not be doing.

The compulsive activities I perform would be like checking an email after I've sent it to make sure the attachment was what I thought it was. Now, I do check emails before sending them and that I think is healthy behavior. However, checking them afterwards as a result of an anxiety that pops into my head that I might have sent a goofball limerick intended for Lit Net rather than the intended spreadsheet is not. That behavior might be like papayahed's not wearing black to work. When I catch myself feeling these anxieties, I tell myself not to check the email as a kind of practice. The goofball limericks are on another computer anyway.

I like the story told about Niels Bohr, one of the top 10 physicists of the 20th century. A reporter noticed that he had a horseshoe hanging above his door. The reporter wondered if he, the great Niels Bohr, believed in such superstitions. He said that of course he didn't believe in them, but he heard that they work whether you believe in them or not.

Great story about the shoehorse. It is perhaps just a flair of moment. We humans are opportunistic which means we will believe anything if we know it is in our advantage and no harm done. Now to say I won't walk under a ladder would be untrue because I would if I had too .
But if I had to believe something bringing me luck then I shall because it is easier to believe then not to in this context. :)

[The Atheist]

Is there or could there be a link between premonition and superstition?

Absolutely.

Superstition is defined be Merriam (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition) as:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

That is a consensual definition.

Premonition is a superstitious belief.

[cacian]

Absolutely.

Superstition is defined be Merriam (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition) as:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

That is a consensual definition.

Premonition is a superstitious belief.

So could one turned this onto its head and say: No belief in suspicion and therefore no premonition?

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't wear black to work. I know tons of people that will wear a certain shirt or underwear when their team is playing a big game. Superstition is alive and well.

During the 2010 Olympic gold medal game, I rapped my knuckles on the bottom of the table probably once every three minutes, every time I felt a feeling of foreboding. I know the idea that we should attend church ect. on the off chance that it'll save our immortal soul is overplayed (the "better safe than sorry" argument), but that game was serious business.

[cacian]

I don't wear black to work. I know tons of people that will wear a certain shirt or underwear when their team is playing a big game. Superstition is alive and well.

Could this be just another marketing strategy.
Superstition alleviates ideas by introducing others. A marketing strategy seeks to do just that. There was a period in the eighties where the Vnecks were worn the other around on backs rather then front. That was a strategy to introduce others who did not like the fashion to by nonVnecks tops. Number 13 is also bad luck which means people would either live or buy below or above the number 13.
I believe there is a reason to everything and superstition is most likely to be linked to marketing strategies.

[The Atheist]

So could one turned this onto its head and say: No belief in suspicion and therefore no premonition?

Correct, you can't have premonition without superstition.


Number 13 is also bad luck which means people would either live or buy below or above the number 13.
I believe there is a reason to everything and superstition is most likely to be linked to marketing strategies.

Except superstition pre-dates marketing by several millennia.

Definitely used now, right down to real estate agents who organise house sales to promote the Feng Shui.

[Eiseabhal]

If you had a big enough telescope on a planet far away you could watch your own birth from there. Now that IF really is a superstitious IF. But it is fun. PS I have regular pre-monitions. Unfortunately they are seldom exact but sometimes they are. Just a painful fact of having alert senses.

[cacian]

If you had a big enough telescope on a planet far away you could watch your own birth from there. Now that IF really is a superstitious IF. But it is fun. PS I have regular pre-monitions. Unfortunately they are seldom exact but sometimes they are. Just a painful fact of having alert senses.

What kind of regular premonitions Eiseabhal? nice name by the way:)

[*Classic*Charm*]

I don't wear black to work. I know tons of people that will wear a certain shirt or underwear when their team is playing a big game. Superstition is alive and well.

I almost got kicked out of surgery last week because I said that the cat was doing really well with the anaesthetic. The vet told me to knock on wood or get out.

Does she really think that my words have an effect on her surgical technique or the cat's ability to tolerate drugs? No.
But her point is that neither she nor I nor anyone else can quantitatively confirm or deny the existence of luck/ jinxes/ whatever. So why take the chance?

[Ecurb]

Absolutely.

Superstition is defined be Merriam (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition) as:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

.


Merriam’s definition is silly. How is “a belief or practice resulting from fear of the unknown” a superstition? Is Merriam suggesting that a child is “superstitious” if he is afraid the unknown in the dark and therefore carries a flashlight when he goes out at night? How about someone who spells “curve” as “curb” out of ignorance? Isn’t that a “practice resulting from ignorance?” Is it a superstition? How is “trust in chance” superstitious? Is a craps player who thinks that there is a 1/6 chance of throwing a 7 superstitious? Yet these are all “practices resulting from fear of the unknown... from ignorance... or from trust in chance.”

Nobody uses the word superstition this way, and we can only imagine that the Merriam’s dictionary from which The Atheist quotes was written by illiterates or incompetents.

Definition #2 given by Merriam is equally idiotic. (I actually looked up the Merriam definition, unwilling to believe that The Atheist’s quoted definition was accurate, since it is so stupid, but it is accurate.)

According to Merriam, “a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary” is “superstitious”. No doubt, many such notions are superstitious. However, many are not. Suppose there is a murder trial. One eye witness swears Joe killed the victim, another swears Bill did. Does this mean that the juror’s decision, whichever way he decides, is “superstitious”? According to Merriam it does. After all, there is “evidence to the contrary” of both innocence and guilt.

Who writes these dictionaries, I wonder? Where is J.R.R. Tolkien when we need him? (Tolkien was a philologist, who worked on the Oxford English Dictionary. When his editor complained that he was misspelling the plural of dwarf as “dwarves”, Tolkien responded, “Don’t tell me how to spell ‘dwarves’. I wrote the Oxford English Dictionary.”)

[cafolini]

Fear of the unknown can only result in religion, not superstition. But some people tend to superstand and adopt superstanding as an excuse for their hidden arrogance toward The Lord (he and she; gender doesn't matter).
Although they know full well the BS they are proposing, the dictionaries depict usage, not truth.

[Ecurb]

Dictionaries are SUPPOSED to offer definitions based on usage. In this case (as my examples clearly pointed out) the Merriam's Dictionary failed miserably in that attempt. My old dictionary I have here at work defines superstition as:


1) A belief founded on irrational feelings, especially of fear, and marked by a trust in or reverence for charms, omens, signs, the supernatural, etc.

Careful reading will show the distinction between this definition and the Merriam's definition.

One obvious difference is the omission of "ignorance" as the basis for "superstition". Of course ignorance is often involved in superstition, but many superstitions also REQUIRE special knowledge. If, for example, one is "ignorant" of the notion that a black cat crossing one's path causes bad luck, one is unlikely to maintain this supersition. The superstition does NOT "result from ignorance." Instead, it results from being "knowledgable" about the superstition. In addition, our knowledge is NEVER complete, so all of our theories (from the most superstitious to the most scientific) are based in part on "ignorance". That is, if we had complete knowledge of the situation, we might very well view it differently. "We know in part," as Paul wrote the Corinthians. "We see things from a particular point of view," the post modernists might concur.

[OrphanPip]

Samuel Johnson misspelled caterpillar when he wrote his dictionary, so now we're all stuck with an 'a' rather than an 'e' at the end of the word.

[Ecurb]

If spelling wasn't standardized until Johnson wrote his dictionary, what would constitute a "misspelling"? (I'll grant that phonetically it should be caterpiller, but maybe the word was pronounced differently in 1755.)

I love dictionaries and words -- which is why I reacted to the silly definition of "superstition" in the on-line Merriam's.

[OrphanPip]

If spelling wasn't standardized until Johnson wrote his dictionary, what would constitute a "misspelling"? (I'll grant that phonetically it should be caterpiller, but maybe the word was pronounced differently in 1755.)

I love dictionaries and words -- which is why I reacted to the silly definition of "superstition" in the on-line Merriam's.

Johnson didn't standardize spelling though, that had already begun about 100 years prior with the emergence of printing standards, though deviations from the standard were less stigmatized than they are today. However, he was so influential on later attempts to reform English spelling that his occasionally unconventional spellings have become the standard today. Nonetheless, caterpillar seems to have been coined by him, since it is the first attested use of that spelling, several variations of the word exist but people seem to have agreed that you spelled it with an 'e'.

As to silly definitions, Johnson also provides a number of those too which are fun to read.

DULL: Not exhilarating; as, to make dictionaries is dull work.

MONSIEUR: A term of reproach for a Frenchman.

MUSHROOM: An upstart, a wretch risen from the dunghill; a director of a company.

NETWORK: Any thing reticulated, or recussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections.

NOVEL: A small tale, generally of love.

PATRON: One who countenances, supports or projects. Commonly a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery.

SHABBY: [a word that has crept into conversation and low writing, but ought not to be admitted into the language.] Mean; paltry.

TO WORM: To deprive a dog of something, nobody knows what, under the tongue, which is said to prevent him, nobody knows why, from running mad.

PENSION: An allowance made to any one without an equivalent. In England it is generally understood to mean pay given to a state hireling for treason to his country.

'A charity bestowed on the education of her young subjects has more merit than a thousand pensions to those of a higher fortune'. - Addison

OATS: A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.

[YesNo]

According to Merriam, “a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary” is “superstitious”. No doubt, many such notions are superstitious. However, many are not. Suppose there is a murder trial. One eye witness swears Joe killed the victim, another swears Bill did. Does this mean that the juror’s decision, whichever way he decides, is “superstitious”? According to Merriam it does. After all, there is “evidence to the contrary” of both innocence and guilt.


Good point.

As I see it, "superstitious" is an adjective used by one person or group to belittle another person or group as a form of verbal abuse. It doesn't really mean anything except to portray the belittled group as dumber than they actually are.

[cacian]

Samuel Johnson misspelled caterpillar when he wrote his dictionary, so now we're all stuck with an 'a' rather than an 'e' at the end of the word.

would it not be an opportunity to spell it either way?
I spell it with an A at the end because it sounds like 'PILA' at the end.

[The Atheist]

Dictionaries are SUPPOSED to offer definitions based on usage. In this case (as my examples clearly pointed out) the Merriam's Dictionary failed miserably in that attempt. My old dictionary I have here at work defines superstition as:

You're using an old dictionary whilst discussing usage? Usage being current use.

Just so you know, it isn't just Merriam that uses the word ignorance in its description.

I give you: Yahoo (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/superstition) and Collins (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/superstition), while Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstition?r=66) uses the more politically correct "not based on knowledge". Oxford (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/superstition?view=uk) goes with "excessively credulous".

Whichever way you look at it, superstition is ignorance.

[Ecurb]

You're using an old dictionary whilst discussing usage? Usage being current use.

Just so you know, it isn't just Merriam that uses the word ignorance in its description.

I give you: Yahoo (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/superstition) and Collins (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/superstition), while Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstition?r=66) uses the more politically correct "not based on knowledge". Oxford (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/superstition?view=uk) goes with "excessively credulous".

Whichever way you look at it, superstition is ignorance.

You appear incapable of understanding my point, Atheist. Every one of the definitions you link is reasonable, except for the Merriam definition. "Usage" has not changed in the 40 years since my dictionary was written. However, the authors of the Merriam appear to fail to understand what usage is, or, more likely, to be incapable of accurately describing it.

I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself, since I wrote clearly the first time, but Atheist seems incapable of understanding logic. As I clearly pointed out, the Merriam’s definition included “1) a belief or practice resulting from ignorance... 2) a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.” As I demonstrated, although it may be true that all “superstitions” result from ignorance or are maintained despite evidence to the contrary, NOT all beliefs resulting from ignorance or notions maintained despite contradictory evidence are called “superstitions by English speakers. I gave specific examples of such beliefs and notions that no educated English speaker would call “superstitious”.

Why The Atheist has linked to all of these other definitions, none of which make the same error as the Merriam’s, is a mystery. He focuses on possible objections to the Merriam’s definition that I did not make, and ignores those I did make. Oh, well. Such has ever been my experience with him.

Then he says, “Superstition is ignorance.” No it isn’t. First, my ignorance of how to speak Chinese is not the least bit superstitious. Second, ignorance of the notion that a black cat crossing one’s path would cause bad luck would allow one to AVOID that particular superstition. Only those who LACK ignorance (i.e. have knolwedge of the superstition) are superstitious in that regard.

This is all so clear that I’m not sure why I’m repeating it. I’m sure any readers other than The Atheist have long since figured it out. But Atheist appears ignorant of logical reasoning (which he would say makes him "superstitious", and I would say does not)– instead, he wants to associate words that have vaguely negative connotations (like superstition and ignorance) without determining precisely what that association actually involves.

Thanks for the Johnson definitions, Orphan. I'd seen the "Oats" before, but not the others.

[The Atheist]

You appear incapable of understanding my point, Atheist.

That's quite amusing in the face of the next part of your post:


NOT all beliefs resulting from ignorance or notions maintained despite contradictory evidence are called “superstitions by English speakers. I gave specific examples of such beliefs and notions that no educated English speaker would call “superstitious”.

Which I completely ignored since I had never stated that all forms of ignorance were superstitious.

You talk about logic, yet you're debating a point nobody has tried to make.



Then he says, “Superstition is ignorance.” No it isn’t. First, my ignorance of how to speak Chinese is not the least bit superstitious. Second, ignorance of the notion that a black cat crossing one’s path would cause bad luck would allow one to AVOID that particular superstition. Only those who LACK ignorance (i.e. have knolwedge of the superstition) are superstitious in that regard.

Cats have four legs.

This animal has four legs.

Ergo, it's a cat.

That is the exact path you're following, and again, it's hugely amusing in light of the mention of logic in your post.

It's even better when viewed in light of the logic that no doubt inspired this earlier post:


Supersitition can be a killer -- but, in that regard, it will never rival science.

I repeat, and I'll even type it in bold this time: nobody is arguing that all forms of ignorance are superstition, but I am 100% confident that superstition is a form of ignorance.

[Ecurb]

I apologize for thinking that you meant what you wrote, Atheist. In English “is” expresses equality. When you wrote “superstition IS ignorance” you wrote that they were identical. You are blaming me for thinking that you meant what you wrote. I’m glad (for your sake) to hear that you did not.

In addition, if you had understood my point, you would have understood my critique of the Merriam’s definition of superstition. Instead, you appeared to think it equivalent to the other definitions you linked. It is not.

Can superstitions be both a form of knowledge and a form of ignorance, Atheist? As I pointed out, one cannot both be ignorant of a particular superstition, and simultaneously practice that superstition. Yet our belief systems (whether scientific or supernatural) are based on familiarity, not ignorance.

Finally, do you really think that anyone who is superstitious is more” ignorant” about scientific causality than you are? I’ll grant (of course) that from your perspective superstition is mistaken – but the notion that all mistakes are made because of ignorance is incorrect, I think. A great many people who are better educated than you or I about physics, chemistry and biology are religious, for example. Doesn’t this belie your notion that religion “is a form of ignorance”? Do you think everyone who disagrees with you about anything does so out of “ignorance”, as if they would agree with you if only they would educate themselves as you have?

A religious person could equally say that atheism is a form of ignorance. If only these poor, ignorant atheists would seek to “know” God they would no longer be atheists. No doubt, atheists (like you and me) are among those who do not “know” God, and are therefore more “ignorant” about (for example) God’s personal revelations than religious people. But I wouldn't say (to paraphrase you, Atheist), "Atheism IS ignorance".

[The Atheist]

I apologize for thinking that you meant what you wrote, Atheist.

Ho hum.


In English “is” expresses equality. When you wrote “superstition IS ignorance” you wrote that they were identical.

I'm not sure I can even put that down to cultural diversity, although I seem to recall Bill Clinton arguing what "is" meant. I know you're trying to bluster past a huge error in reading comprehension of what I did write, but I find it astonishing that you're trying to explain that in your vocabulary "is" signifies identicality.

Just a couple of examples should solve the problem:

This towel is wet.

The dog is big.

The sky is blue.

Do I need to continue, or would you like me to explain in detail why what you're trying to say is nonsense?



In addition, if you had understood my point, you would have understood my critique of the Merriam’s definition of superstition. Instead, you appeared to think it equivalent to the other definitions you linked. It is not.

Nope. As I pointed out earlier, I ignored everything after your first mistake. If someone is arguing a point with me that I haven't made, I kind of switch off reading because, what's the point? I don't argue points that are made up.


Can superstitions be both a form of knowledge and a form of ignorance, Atheist? As I pointed out, one cannot both be ignorant of a particular superstition, and simultaneously practice that superstition.

If someone is unaware of a superstition, yes, then they are indeed ignorant of it, but since the superstition then doesn't apply, it's a completely meaningless position to adopt.


Yet our belief systems (whether scientific or supernatural) are based on familiarity, not ignorance.

This is more nonsense. Familiarity has nothing to do with science. Nor does belief, as it happens. (aside from a belief that reality exists) Science is about observation and testing.


Finally, do you really think that anyone who is superstitious is more” ignorant” about scientific causality than you are?

No, because there's a form of wilful ignorance where someone who actually knows about reality can kid themselves into believing in fairies, which neatly segues into:


I’ll grant (of course) that from your perspective superstition is mistaken – but the notion that all mistakes are made because of ignorance is incorrect, I think. A great many people who are better educated than you or I about physics, chemistry and biology are religious, for example. Doesn’t this belie your notion that religion “is a form of ignorance”? Do you think everyone who disagrees with you about anything does so out of “ignorance”, as if they would agree with you if only they would educate themselves as you have?

Most people who believe in the supernatural want to believe in it. They refuse to apply critical thinking to their beliefs because their desire to have a supernatural belief is stronger than their desire to know the facts. Wilful ignorance in action.

It has been well established that belief in god/s decreases as scientific knowledge increases. (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html)

USA is the best-known case, where:

80% of all people are theists
30% of scientists are theists
A mere 7% of NAS scientists are theists



A religious person could equally say that atheism is a form of ignorance. If only these poor, ignorant atheists would seek to “know” God they would no longer be atheists. No doubt, atheists (like you and me) are among those who do not “know” God, and are therefore more “ignorant” about (for example) God’s personal revelations than religious people. But I wouldn't say (to paraphrase you, Atheist), "Atheism IS ignorance".

That is a frequent position among some of the more literate theists - which is almost very clever of them.

Unfortunately, it doesn't wash when we have 10,000 years of history of theism and ~2800 gods that are known to be human constructs. I'm ignorant of god in the same way that I'm ignorant of Martian table etiquette. I'm happy to be completely ignorant of werewolves, vampires, fairies, gods and all other non-existent entities.

Interestingly, a survey in 2010 showed that atheists generally have better religious knowledge than theists, and 80% of American atheists are former theists (http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/oct/07/regular-churchgoers-atheists-both-have-high/), so the whole thing is pure bunkum.

[adamm]

We know that around 80% of people still believe in supernatural beings (god/s), and of the rest, a huge percentage believe in ghosts, astrology, alien visits & abductions, 911/Illuminati conspiracies, or some other complete nonsense.

[cacian]

We know that around 80% of people still believe in supernatural beings (god/s), and of the rest, a huge percentage believe in ghosts, astrology, alien visits & abductions, 911/Illuminati conspiracies, or some other complete nonsense.


911/Illuminati conspiracies
I would not put it pass this though. There is perhaps no smoke without fire.

[YesNo]

We know that around 80% of people still believe in supernatural beings (god/s), and of the rest, a huge percentage believe in ghosts, astrology, alien visits & abductions, 911/Illuminati conspiracies, or some other complete nonsense.

The 80% number doesn't surprise me. I consider some sort of belief to be a sign of sanity.

I personally believe in some generic panentheism based on a "perennial philosophy". I have no problem with ghosts and reincarnation. I'm not sure about astrology. I guess I'm "agnostic" with regard to that one. I don't think there have been alien visits and I don't know what the 911/Illuminati issue is. I do believe in a lot of other "complete nonsense" which from my perspective is not nonsense at all.

Like anyone else I consider my views to be true or I wouldn't have them.

The idea of calling other people "superstitious" really brings into question whether this act of labeling is just a way to politically justify targeting those one does not agree with. Like any racial or sexual slur, it reflects more (and badly) on the person using the word than it does on anyone who is being referenced.

[Ecurb]

Most people who believe in the supernatural want to believe in it. They refuse to apply critical thinking to their beliefs because their desire to have a supernatural belief is stronger than their desire to know the facts. Wilful ignorance in action.

It has been well established that belief in god/s decreases as scientific knowledge increases.

USA is the best-known case, where:

USA is the best-known case, where:

80% of all people are theists
30% of scientists are theists
A mere 7% of NAS scientists are theists


You are not only wrong, Atheist, but wrong-headed. First of all, one could say with equal accuracy, “Most people who don’t believe in the supernatural don’t WANT to believe in it.” This is a form of ad hominem argument that is (first of all) insulting, and second of all, irrelevant to the truth or falsity of supernatural claims.

Your statistics about only 7% of scientists being theists are also irrelevant to the truth of those claims. Clearly, the main reason most scientists are atheists is because of the academic culture which both embraces atheism and pooh poohs religiosity. (Personally, among my closest 25 friends, I don't think there's a single theist.) Of course it may be that the correlation is intellectual – inquiring, critical minds are both interested in academia and critical of religion. But there is no reason to automatically assume that this correlation reflects that causation. In the past, intellectuals were VERY religious (because most scholars were Doctors of Divinity, and Oxford and Cambridge were designed to educate churchmen).




That is a frequent position among some of the more literate theists - which is almost very clever of them.

Unfortunately, it doesn't wash when we have 10,000 years of history of theism and ~2800 gods that are known to be human constructs. I'm ignorant of god in the same way that I'm ignorant of Martian table etiquette. I'm happy to be completely ignorant of werewolves, vampires, fairies, gods and all other non-existent entities.


It is not only “clever” of religious people to claim that they have “knowledge of God” that atheists do not, it is also correct. This is true regardless of whether God is a “human construct” or not. Philosophers distinguish between different types of knowledge, and one is “experiential knowledge”. Someone who rides his bicycle regularly has a “knowledge” of bike riding that the physicist who can explain how bicyclists balance but has never ridden a bike does not have.

You brag about being, “happy to be completely ignorant of werewolves, vampires, fairies, gods and all other non-existent entities.” Why is it that you excoriate the superstitious for their “ignorance” and then brag about your own ignorance? If the 2800 gods are “human constructs”, well, so are the scientific paradigms through which we now explain the universe. What’s wrong with human constructs?

This attitude seems particularly bizarre on a literary forum where we meet to discuss human literary constructs. It is you, Atheist, who are acting like an ostrich, burying your head in the sand to proudly maintain your ignorance about werewolves, vampires, fairies and gods. Why does the notion that gods are human constructs suggest that they do not "exist"? Does The Atheist mean to suggest that scientific paradigms, novels, and works of music "don't exist", because they are mere "human constructs"? Would The Atheist be "happy to be completely ignorant" about art, music and literature, because such things are mere "human constructs"? Personally, as a human, I find many human constructs fascinating.

[Paulclem]

The 80% number doesn't surprise me. I consider some sort of belief to be a sign of sanity.

I personally believe in some generic panentheism based on a "perennial philosophy". I have no problem with ghosts and reincarnation. I'm not sure about astrology. I guess I'm "agnostic" with regard to that one. I don't think there have been alien visits and I don't know what the 911/Illuminati issue is. I do believe in a lot of other "complete nonsense" which from my perspective is not nonsense at all.

Like anyone else I consider my views to be true or I wouldn't have them.

The idea of calling other people "superstitious" really brings into question whether this act of labeling is just a way to politically justify targeting those one does not agree with. Like any racial or sexual slur, it reflects more (and badly) on the person using the word than it does on anyone who is being referenced.

I don't interpret some of the things you mention as superstition - as perhaps you don't YesNo. I understand superstition to be an irrational belief about conditions and the environment. I don't class belief as that, though a great many people here seem to.

Science has things to say about external phenomena, and the possibilities that the environment offers and doesn't - such as superstitions about walking under ladders, opening umbrellas inside etc etc.

I think science can only go so far from a personal perspective. Some of the things that have happened to me - nothing earth shattering or particularly important - seem to deny scientific scepticism. What am I to make of that? My considered experience of such things means much more to me than theories that may apply most of the time to the world. I generally live by the current scientific worldview, but these other things have happened too. I can discern the difference between irrational actions and practices and my own experience of things. Does that make me superstitious? I'm not, but my experience tells me that the whole story has not been uncovered/ examined/ quatified or explained.

[The Atheist]

We know that around 80% of people still believe in supernatural beings (god/s), and of the rest, a huge percentage believe in ghosts, astrology, alien visits & abductions, 911/Illuminati conspiracies, or some other complete nonsense.

Here's some recently-released polls that you might find interesting, and that give you the real percentages:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html


First of all, one could say with equal accuracy, “Most people who don’t believe in the supernatural don’t WANT to believe in it.”

One could indeed say that.

If one wanted to be utterly, egregiously wrong.

Claims of the supernatural have been tested and re-tested thousands of times and found to be lacking on every single occasion.

Have you ever heard of the word "Evidence"?


Your statistics about only 7% of scientists being theists are also irrelevant to the truth of those claims. Clearly, the main reason most scientists are atheists is because of the academic culture which both embraces atheism and pooh poohs religiosity.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/funny.gif

I have to hand it to you - in 20+ years of posting on the internet you are the single funniest poster I have ever come across.

I post evidence and am wrong, because you say so.

I don't know why you bother arguing - you know you're right. As you say, these things are clearly the case, despite your presenting no evidence whatsoever.

Legendary stuff.



It is not only “clever” of religious people to claim that they have “knowledge of God” that atheists do not, it is also correct. This is true regardless of whether God is a “human construct” or not. Philosophers distinguish between different types of knowledge, and one is “experiential knowledge”. Someone who rides his bicycle regularly has a “knowledge” of bike riding that the physicist who can explain how bicyclists balance but has never ridden a bike does not have.

Oh heck - why didn't I ever think of that?

I guess the fact that bikes are real and gods are not just never allowed me to realise that they are in fact, identical. (Funny how you never returned to the "is = identicality" argument. Is it true that when you're found to be woefully wrong you change the subject?)

I hope you're making sense to someone, because what you're saying is really laughably wrong.


You brag about being, “happy to be completely ignorant of werewolves, vampires, fairies, gods and all other non-existent entities.” Why is it that you excoriate the superstitious for their “ignorance” and then brag about your own ignorance?

Once again, I have clearly fallen into the trap of failing to give equal weight to invisible, non-existent entities and the real world.

Woe is me.



If the 2800 gods are “human constructs”, well, so are the scientific paradigms through which we now explain the universe. What’s wrong with human constructs?

Did you know that using phrases like "scientific paradigms" works much better if you even have a twinkling of a clue what you might be talking about?

Do you by chance have an arts degree?

Protip: Results may be formatted within constructed paradigms, but the evidence stands on its own. The sound still exists even if nobody hears it, ok?


This attitude seems particularly bizarre on a literary forum where we meet to discuss human literary constructs. It is you, Atheist, who are acting like an ostrich, burying your head in the sand to proudly maintain your ignorance about werewolves, vampires, fairies and gods. Why does the notion that gods are human constructs suggest that they do not "exist"? Does The Atheist mean to suggest that scientific paradigms, novels, and works of music "don't exist", because they are mere "human constructs"? Would The Atheist be "happy to be completely ignorant" about art, music and literature, because such things are mere "human constructs"? Personally, as a human, I find many human constructs fascinating.

Again you are displaying your peculiar inability to read what is written.

Nowhere did I say that human constructs are a bad thing, yet you have ASSUMED that is what I said. Maybe you should try reading things with someone else's help to avoid shoving both feet in your mouth all the time?

The point about constructs is about being able to recognise them for what they are. The Cottingley fairies, god/s, the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, vampires and alien probes all make great stories.

Just to make it easier for you, this is what I actually said:

I'm happy to be completely ignorant of werewolves, vampires, fairies, gods and all other non-existent entities.

Please, for the sake of anyone mad enough to still be reading this thread, answer only points I have really raised, not the ones you wish I had.

Thanks in advance.

[Ecurb]

As usual, Atheist, you are yammering on about nothing. You call yourself a critical thinker, but are unable to think critically. Discussing my claim that, “one could say with equal accuracy, “Most people who don’t believe in the supernatural don’t WANT to believe in it.” you write:


One could indeed say that.

If one wanted to be utterly, egregiously wrong.

Claims of the supernatural have been tested and re-tested thousands of times and found to be lacking on every single occasion.

Have you ever heard of the word "Evidence"?

What, one wonders, is The Atheist yacking about? Do people who don’t believe in the supernatural want to believe in it? If not, how am I "utterly and egregiously wrong" in stating that they do NOT want to? Did I say anything about the truth value of or the evidence for supernatural claims? Since The Atheist says I am wrong, he must be suggesting that atheists like him REALLY WANT to believe in the supernatural, despite all the evidence to the contrary. OK, Atheist, I can only assume you're eager to believe in the supernatural, based on what you have written.

This discussion has grown silly, Atheist. I won’t bother with the rest of your post, which consists of equally ridiculous anti-intellectual and illogical rants. Yes, I doubtless am making sense to any readers who actually HAVE critical thinking skills. Your silly comments about my little lecture on bike riding and "experiential knowledge" persuade me you are not among their number.

[The Atheist]

This discussion has grown silly, Atheist.

That is the first sensible comment you've made.

Praise be!

At least you went out with a laugh:


I won’t bother with the rest of your post....

Then proceed to do exactly what you claimed you weren't going to!


which consists of....

Legendary stuff. I was right about the arts degree, wasn't I?

[Ecurb]

You were wrong not only about the arts degree, but about practically everything else as well.

Your deriviative "point by point" posting style makes you seem like a little dog yapping at my heels. There's no real danger in it, but the constant barking is annoying.

[The Atheist]

You were wrong not only about the arts degree, but about practically everything else as well.

Your deriviative "point by point" posting style makes you seem like a little dog yapping at my heels. There's no real danger in it, but the constant barking is annoying.

The man up and ignore it instead of bleating.

After having had >2000 pages published in over 20 international magazines and newspapers, plus a further ~6000 pages published online in blogs, trade sites and e-zines, I'm pretty comfortable with one anonymous poster not liking my style or content.

[YesNo]

I don't interpret some of the things you mention as superstition - as perhaps you don't YesNo. I understand superstition to be an irrational belief about conditions and the environment. I don't class belief as that, though a great many people here seem to.

Science has things to say about external phenomena, and the possibilities that the environment offers and doesn't - such as superstitions about walking under ladders, opening umbrellas inside etc etc.

I think science can only go so far from a personal perspective. Some of the things that have happened to me - nothing earth shattering or particularly important - seem to deny scientific scepticism. What am I to make of that? My considered experience of such things means much more to me than theories that may apply most of the time to the world. I generally live by the current scientific worldview, but these other things have happened too. I can discern the difference between irrational actions and practices and my own experience of things. Does that make me superstitious? I'm not, but my experience tells me that the whole story has not been uncovered/ examined/ quatified or explained.

I think we agree on this and probably share a similar cultural response to paranormal experiences. I generally reject stories about UFOs or sightings of Bigfoot in a knee-jerk fashion. But I'm embarrassed by this bias that I have. It is not really scientific. For example, the thread about Bigfoot initially made me laugh. It should not have. I assumed it was absurd for Bigfoot to exist until it occurred to me that Bigfoot is only supposed to be a few inches over 7 feet tall. That's within the physical range for a human being. We're used to seeing very short people in movies. We are not used to seeing the other extreme.

There is the situation of obsessive-compulsive disorder but people suffering from this aren't really "superstitious" in the usual sense of the word although their anxiety makes them act oddly. They generally know they shouldn't check and double check that the windows and doors are locked or avoid cracks in the sidewalk or whatever comes to their mind to worry about. They don't know how to stop.

Labeling a group as superstitious allows one to justify violence against them. The ancient Romans considered Christianity a superstition (superstitio Iudaica). So feed them to the lions. The medieval Christians used the idea of superstition to distinguish "true" belief from the heretics that were fit to be burnt at the stake. The Enlightenment view of superstition finds its culmination in regimes like the Khmer Rouge. Superstition is a word that has been used in the past to target a group of people justifying later violence against them.

I usually learn something from all the threads on Lit Net. What I've learned from this thread is that the word "superstitious" should not be used to describe other people. There is no objective content to it.

[Ecurb]

After having had >2000 pages published in over 20 international magazines and newspapers, plus a further ~6000 pages published online in blogs....(blah, blah, blah)....

"Brevity is the soul of wit." -- Polonius




Labeling a group as superstitious allows one to justify violence against them. The ancient Romans considered Christianity a superstition (superstitio Iudaica). So feed them to the lions. The medieval Christians used the idea of superstition to distinguish "true" belief from the heretics that were fit to be burnt at the stake. The Enlightenment view of superstition finds its culmination in regimes like the Khmer Rouge. Superstition is a word that has been used in the past to target a group of people justifying later violence against them.

.

Labelling people as superstitious, and superstitions as "ignorant" is (even when no violence is involved) a form of ethnocentrism. We modern, scientific thinkers think our modes of inference are superior to those of people educated in different cultural traditions. We may be right, or we may be wrong. However, the notion that natives of Sepik provence in Papua New Guinea are more "ignorant" than we are is incorrect. It is true that we are educated differently: they are ignorant about many things about which we are knowledgeable. However, we are ignorant about many things about which they are knowledgeable. Trying to shame people into developing more modern belief systems has been tried many times -- by Christian missionaries and scientific modernists alike.

[ennison]

I think Ecurb you might enjoy Jared Diamond's latest book : The World Until Yesterday. I speak as one steeped in superstition. I have walked lonely moors at night just to prove to my superstitious inner self that the prickling of my neck hair in the dark does not mean the Bogaidh Risean is about!

[osho]

The world without superstitions is incomplete. Faith is part of life and today the greater part of the world has some kind of faith. There are some faiths that go integrated into life. People believe in God and life after death and you cannot through your logical bent of mind convince of the nonexistence of God. The debate is as ancient as human civilization. Therefore to discern a line to say what is superstition and what is not is a faculty idea.

Our ancient fathers were of course more superstitious from a scientific or empirical standpoint and today even in the present century the world is not without faiths. The theory of evolution is still is debatable and people still believe that God created the world.

I am not side with anyone and I want to have my non-subjective notion of it. The world will go with a few superstitions timelessly and incessantly.

[YesNo]

I think Ecurb you might enjoy Jared Diamond's latest book : The World Until Yesterday. I speak as one steeped in superstition. I have walked lonely moors at night just to prove to my superstitious inner self that the prickling of my neck hair in the dark does not mean the Bogaidh Risean is about!

When I searched "Bogaidh Risean" all I found was this thread. What is this?

[YesNo]

Our ancient fathers were of course more superstitious from a scientific or empirical standpoint and today even in the present century the world is not without faiths. The theory of evolution is still is debatable and people still believe that God created the world.


Why should the world be without faiths?

A good reason for people to "still" believe that God created the world is because the universe has been shown from scientific evidence to have had a beginning. Previously the universe was assumed to have been itself eternal, avoiding the problem of a beginning. One of the achievements of 21st century science is to pin the actual time of origin, based on the microwave background radiation, to within 200 million years.

If your favorite religious tradition has a creation story, 21st century science has confirmed that a beginning actually took place although 21st century science might contradict with some of the details of that creation story.

The only question that remains is this and your faith is scientifically confirmed: did that origin of the universe result from a conscious choice of some sort or not? Don't think atheists aren't scrambling to come up with some explanation that is non-conscious. I can't think of a worse time, based on scientific evidence, to be an atheist than the 21st century.

Talk of superstition is a way to discredit people who believe in something. The real problem today is pseudo-science.

[osho]

I believe in mysticism. Science and of course pseudoscience cannot satisfy some of my questions. I am not a believer in the usual sense of believing in mythological God(s) and I cannot subscribe to the idea of centering my mind on a thousand faced deity, or a hundred handed god. God if there is one is not a physical entity and God is a energy source or a some cosmic mind that handles unit minds or consciousnesses. I cannot say what it is and what it is not since it is not affable the way the rest of entities are.

[YesNo]

I've never understood those hundred-handed Gods either, osho. However, I am curious and wish someone would explain it. Perhaps I should just search for an explanation on the internet.

I agree with you when you write, "God if there is one is not a physical entity and God is a energy source or a some cosmic mind that handles unit minds or consciousnesses. I cannot say what it is and what it is not since it is not affable the way the rest of entities are." I don't know much more about it than that.

[The Atheist]

The theory of evolution is still is debatable and people still believe that God created the world.

Just to correct that misconception, there is no debate whatsoever about evolution.

The people who deny evolution simply make up lies, which has no relationship to debate or questioning. Many people do believe the earth was created by a god, but an enormous majority of them accept evolution within the context of creation. By far the world's biggest church, Roman Catholic, is fully accepting of evolution. It's only a few minor American evangelical churches that lie to try to deny evolution. It's just unfortunate that they are the ones with the squeakiest wheels, so are heard in spite of their minority status.

[Paulclem]

I've never understood those hundred-handed Gods either, osho. However, I am curious and wish someone would explain it. Perhaps I should just search for an explanation on the internet.
.

The multiple arms represent the ability to lots of things at the sme time. A God must be able to muti-task.

A similar meaning is present in staues of Buddhas such as 1000 armed Chenresig.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=566&q=1000+armed+chenrezig&oq=1000+armed&gs_l=img.1.2.0l4j0i24l3.2173.5588.0.8148.10.9.0.1. 1.0.154.865.4j5.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.8.img.W1iYqzbSer I#imgrc=lyVNpS3yEFnmKM%3A%3BYdbqk6p17YHNsM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fenglishversion.karmakagyu.nl%252Fpic s%252F1000%252520arm%252520Chenrezig.jpg%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fenglishversion.karmakagyu.nl%252Fevene menten.html%3B882%3B1309

It doesn't just men he is limted to 1000 arms. Chenresig is also represented as having 4 arms. These beings represented are not human, just being depicted in a human aspect.

[ennison]

Bogaidh Risean? Bit like the evolutionists missing link - totally imaginary. It roamed the Highland moors screeching like an owl, hungrily searching for benighted travellers to tear (hence the name Risean). Has never actually been seen in its entirety. But judging from the stories...

[osho]

Just to correct that misconception, there is no debate whatsoever about evolution.

The people who deny evolution simply make up lies, which has no relationship to debate or questioning. Many people do believe the earth was created by a god, but an enormous majority of them accept evolution within the context of creation. By far the world's biggest church, Roman Catholic, is fully accepting of evolution. It's only a few minor American evangelical churches that lie to try to deny evolution. It's just unfortunate that they are the ones with the squeakiest wheels, so are heard in spite of their minority status.
I do not believe the earth or even the universe is created by God and God is not a being and non-being. God to me is a source of consciousness. The link between Atheist and myself on this forum is Godliness. My being here and the consciousness I belong here is Godliness. It is not a Biblical or Islamic or Hindu God I subscribe to and all I defend is the feeling, the questioning mind that cannot be subjected to a sheer heap of molecules or atoms and I am beyond that and my presence here matters more than materialists or theorists or atheists or theists try to dentine or confine their limited knowledge scopes. Atheist, your idea or knowledge or scientific explanations cannot contain me and that is why I believe in consciousness that permeate every being and non-being on this planet. We all are stardusts, moles or something that can be blown, spilt, diffused and desiccated, speaking physically and materially and this is not our existence and our existence is physical plus our awareness of the fact that we exist and the beauty of it is that we know we exist and his knowing, this awareness is something science has nothing done for its disambiguation

[YesNo]

The multiple arms represent the ability to lots of things at the sme time. A God must be able to muti-task.

A similar meaning is present in staues of Buddhas such as 1000 armed Chenresig.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=566&q=1000+armed+chenrezig&oq=1000+armed&gs_l=img.1.2.0l4j0i24l3.2173.5588.0.8148.10.9.0.1. 1.0.154.865.4j5.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.8.img.W1iYqzbSer I#imgrc=lyVNpS3yEFnmKM%3A%3BYdbqk6p17YHNsM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fenglishversion.karmakagyu.nl%252Fpic s%252F1000%252520arm%252520Chenrezig.jpg%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fenglishversion.karmakagyu.nl%252Fevene menten.html%3B882%3B1309

It doesn't just men he is limted to 1000 arms. Chenresig is also represented as having 4 arms. These beings represented are not human, just being depicted in a human aspect.

That makes sense. I can see how it symbolizes multi-tasking or perhaps even "horsepower" to do one task better. I thought it might have had something to do with the specific quantity of these.

[YesNo]

Bogaidh Risean? Bit like the evolutionists missing link - totally imaginary. It roamed the Highland moors screeching like an owl, hungrily searching for benighted travellers to tear (hence the name Risean). Has never actually been seen in its entirety. But judging from the stories...

Ah, stories! I'd be interested in hearing some of these stories. Is there another way to spell this?

[The Atheist]

I do not believe the earth or even the universe is created by God and God is not a being and non-being....

Paul would be able to tell better than me, but your belief on consciousness sounds a heck of a lot like the central tenet to Buddhism.

I don't buy a bar of it myself, but I have no issue with the belief. You can make a reasonably logical case for it, as indeed Buddha did, and it makes no material claims, which is where religion fails.