Sunday, January 10, 2021

Superstition in Atheist Ideology

The word superstition is often used to refer to a religion not practiced by the majority of a given society regardless of whether the prevailing religion contains alleged superstitions.[1] Let's look at an authoritative definition of the word, webster:
 
Definition of superstition
1a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causationb: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

More Webster:Recent Examples And the superstition has bled outside of stories — even today, many hotels don't have a 13th floor.— Wyatte Grantham-philips, USA TODAY, "It's Friday the 13th. In 2020. Here's a brief history about the superstitious date and some hilarious tweets to get you through the day.," 13 Nov. 2020While the other 3 out of 4 Americans might scoff at this, there is actually psychological science to back superstition.— Marika Gerken, CNN, "Friday the 13th: How it came to be and why it's considered unlucky," 13 Nov. 2020These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'superstition.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.[2]
When I first read this definition in Webster I said to myself they will use the bit about ignorance and deard of the unknown to indicate the mystical and the bit about causation to impune the cause argument. I think Webster's meant things like a  black cat crossing your path is bad luck. The atheist take it to mean argument from  first cause. The Wiki article footnotes Webster as it's source..
A superstition is "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation" or "an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition."[Wiki 1][Wiki 2] Often, it arises from ignorance, a misunderstanding of science or causality, a belief in fate or magic, or fear of that which is unknown. It is commonly applied to beliefs and practices surrounding luck, prophecy, and certain spiritual beings, particularly the belief that future events can be foretold by specific (apparently) unrelated prior events.[Wiki 3] [3]
They justify these additions by citing other sources.  No one beyond that segment of atheism i call "Dawkamentalism"' believes that belief in God per se is superstition. There is another funny thing about that quote. It starts out telling us "A superstition is 'a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation' or 'an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition.'' What that actually says is that superstition results from Superstition. It defines the word by itself. Their reasoning is circular, they define the term by itself. That tells me they don't really understand they are just regurgitating party lines.

At this point it would be well to examine the origin of religion and superstition. The two did actually come out of the same phase of human development and their origins are linked. Since I don't buy a literal Genesis account I attribute human origin to evolitom. At one point humans began to notice the sense of God' s presence and mystical experience. All experiences of the divine must be filtered through cultural constructs, or symbols. God is beyond our understanding, thus beyond language. If we are talking about our experiences, however badly, we must filter them through culture.

RELIGION, although inherent in man, borrows its expressions from the setting or milieu in which man appears. The forms through which man expresses the supernatural are all drawn from the cultural heritage and the environment known to him, and are structured according to his dominant patterns of experience.In a hunting culture this means that the main target of observation, the animal, is the ferment of suggestive influence on representations of the supernatural. This must not be interpreted as meaning that all ideas of the supernatural necessarily take animal form. First of all, spirits do appear also as human beings, although generally less frequently; the high-god, for instance, if he exists, is often thought of as a being of human appearance. Second, although spirits may manifest themselves as animals they may evince a human character and often also human modes of action.[4]
In his work The Evolution of God,[5] Robert Wright distills the work of anthropology over the last two centuries and demonstrates an evolutionary development, form early superstition that personified nature (prehistoric people talking to the wind)[6], through a polytheistic origin in pre-Hebrew Israelite culture,[7] to monotheistic innovation with the God of the Bible. 

The point is we left superstition ages ago. It was an attempt at coping with the unknown, but divine revelation proved a better one.  We outgrew it. Lest one argue that this still implies a weakness in religion let's not forget astrology and astronomy grew up together and out of the same thought and the same stars. As did Chemistry and Alchemy


NOTES

[1]Vyse, Stuart A. (2000). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 19–22.

[2]Superstition, Merroam-Webster online https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition (accessed 1/10/21)

[3]Siperototom, Wikepedioa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition#:~:text=The%20word%20superstition%20is%20often,prevailing%20religion%20contains%20alleged%20superstitions.(accessed 1/10/21)

Soirces used in the Wiki artickle:

w1:cf. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition
w2:Drinkwater, Ken; Dagnall, Neil. "The science of superstition – and why people believe in the unbelievable". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-09-21.
w3Vyse, Stuart A. (2000). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 19–22. ISBN 978-0-1951-3634-0.

[4]Ake Hultkrantz, “Attitudes Toward Animals in Shashoni Indian Religion,” Studies in Comparative Religion, Vol. 4, No. 2. (Spring, 1970) © World Wisdom, Inc. no page listed,online archive, URL: http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/browse_g.aspx?ID=131, accessed 3/21/13

[5]Robert Wright, The Evolution of God, New York: Back Bay Books, reprint edition, 2010. The book was Originally published in 2009. The company “Back Bay books: is an imprint of Hachette Books, through Little Brown and company. Wright studied sociobiology at Princeton and taught at Princeton as and University of Pennsyania. He edits New Republic and does journalistic writing of science, especially sociobiology.

[6]Wright, ibid, 9

[7]Ibid 10

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joe: A superstition is "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation"

So when you cite God as the causation for the universe, that is superstition; a "false conception of causation", a "belief or practice resulting from ignorance".

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

notice it also includes nature, so science is superstition.


a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causationb: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural,nature, or God resulting from superstition2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

" Lest one argue that this still implies a weakness in religion let's not forget astrology and astronomy grew up together and out of the same thought and the same stars. As did Chemistry and Alchemy"

do atheistx read?

Anonymous said...

A superstition is based on ignorance and a false concept of causation. Science is not.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

that is totally wrong. Science is based on those things, that's what you do in science is experiment to uncover what we don't know. Religion is no more based upon those things than is science.

Anonymous said...

That is a bizarre view of science.

In science you start by acknowledging ignorance, by saying "I do not know". The is the opposite of religion, which concludes "God did it" from ignorance.

A great illustration of that is the cause of the universe. We have no way to tell how the universe came to be. The theist conclusion is that God was behind it. It is superstition; it is based on ignorance.

The scientific conclusion is "we do not know".

Furthermore, science does experiments to try to eliminate that ignorance. We believe things are made of atoms not because of ignorance, but because of the evidence. Do you see the difference?

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
That is a bizarre view of science.

In science you start by acknowledging ignorance, by saying "I do not know". The is the opposite of religion, which concludes "God did it" from ignorance.


That is total bull shit. You know nothing about religion. You are ignorant, You refuse to consider arguments in favor of religion because you don't get social status by belief.

A great illustration of that is the cause of the universe. We have no way to tell how the universe came to be. The theist conclusion is that God was behind it. It is superstition; it is based on ignorance.

That has nothing to do with it. No one proposes belief in God as a scientific answer to questions about planetary formation. You are so ignorant of real ideas. The notion a creator is foundational to the God concept, it;s not for the sake of science it;s the basis of the idea.



The scientific conclusion is "we do not know".

But we do know

Furthermore, science does experiments to try to eliminate that ignorance. We believe things are made of atoms not because of ignorance, but because of the evidence. Do you see the difference?

I know that God is real because I've experienced is reality, you don't know because you don't care about truth. See the difference?

That kind of stupidity was started in the 18th century by Robert Boil to best Hobbes in their battle for minds in science, You need to learn the history of your own endeavor,

Anonymous said...

Joe: That is total bull shit. You know nothing about religion. You are ignorant, You refuse to consider arguments in favor of religion because you don't get social status by belief.

And yet how many religious arguments are founded on ignorance?

Joe: That has nothing to do with it. No one proposes belief in God as a scientific answer to questions about planetary formation. You are so ignorant of real ideas. The notion a creator is foundational to the God concept, it;s not for the sake of science it;s the basis of the idea.

Slowly science is winning, and nowadays most people accept the universe is 17 billion years old, etc. But lots still believe God created the universe in six days. Your claim that "No one proposes belief in God as a scientific answer to questions about planetary formation" is patently disproved by creationists.

Of course the notion of a creator is foundational, but that does not make it true. And when your arguments for God are based on this assumption, they are circular. Sure, they work for apologetics. That is not reasoning, that is preaching to the choir posing as reasoning.

Joe: But we do know

No, Joe we do not.

Joe: I know that God is real because I've experienced is reality, you don't know because you don't care about truth. See the difference?

What makes you think I do not care in the truth? Do you assume that, just because I disagrre with you?

See, this is the difference between science and religion. With religion, you just "know" you are right, and anyone who disagrees clearly does not care about the truth.

Science is quite the opposite. It is tentative, and only becomes less tentative as evidence is accumulated. And those who disagree are invited to make their own case.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: That is total bull shit. You know nothing about religion. You are ignorant, You refuse to consider arguments in favor of religion because you don't get social status by belief.

And yet how many religious arguments are founded on ignorance?

all of the of them of course. That's truth by stipulation. Still a fallacy.

Joe: That has nothing to do with it. No one proposes belief in God as a scientific answer to questions about planetary formation. You are so ignorant of real ideas. The notion a creator is foundational to the God concept, it;s not for the sake of science it;s the basis of the idea.

Slowly science is winning, and nowadays most people accept the universe is 17 billion years old, etc.

science and religion are not at war. they are not fighting science is not winning.

But lots still believe God created the universe in six days. Your claim that "No one proposes belief in God as a scientific answer to questions about planetary formation" is patently disproved by creationists.


creationists are only about 40% of religious people
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
Of course the notion of a creator is foundational, but that does not make it true. And when your arguments for God are based on this assumption, they are circular. Sure, they work for apologetics. That is not reasoning, that is preaching to the choir posing as reasoning.

Joe: But we do know

No, Joe we do not.

I know God is real with no question

Joe: I know that God is real because I've experienced is reality, you don't know because you don't care about truth. See the difference?

What makes you think I do not care in the truth? Do you assume that, just because I disagree with you?

You don't listen to the arguments, the logic means nothing to you because you don't like where it leads,

See, this is the difference between science and religion. With religion, you just "know" you are right, and anyone who disagrees clearly does not care about the truth.

I am not talking about a feeling I'm talking about experience a d a way of life

Science is quite the opposite. It is tentative, and only becomes less tentative as evidence is accumulated. And those who disagree are invited to make their own case.

It's totally different, they are not comparable. they do different things they work in different ways they exist for different reasons. Religion is direct experience science is not.

you have not experienced science in the way I have experienced God;s power,

Anonymous said...

Pix: And yet how many religious arguments are founded on ignorance?

Joe: all of the of them of course. ...

And with that admission, you have lost the argument.

As it says in the OP, a superstition is "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation".

All your arguments are founded on ignorance, hence are superstitions.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Pix: And yet how many religious arguments are founded on ignorance?

Joe: all of the of them of course. ...

And with that admission, you have lost the argument.


I think the world of debate understands sarcasm better than you do

As it says in the OP, a superstition is "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation".

Religion is not based on any of those.

All your arguments are founded on ignorance, hence are superstitions.

your arguments are based upon ignorance you know nothing about philosophy or anything that requires real thought,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

tell me what ignorance and supersite is Whitehead's process thought,?