What constitutes superstition?

[Burning ghost]

Only the last part was a reply to you.

If say to someone they are superstitious do you think this is taken as a compliment? I guess your personal concept of this term is just that. I am not offended just telling you how the term is used in everyday life.

Lifted from wiki:

the term is used in the pejorative sense it still holds today, of an excessive fear of the gods or unreasonable religious belief, as opposed to religio, the proper, reasonable awe of the gods.

I am replying in this thread because although I understand poetical licence I am wary of people using terms to meet certain political means and ends. Words are powerful.

Of course we can employ the same term, quite often, in different ways. Sometimes subtlety and sometimes in a mores stark, and even provocative manner. The term "terrorism" today is often used to condone some vicous acts.

The term superstition has religious roots and was, and still is, used to demean peoples beliefs. It is also used in a more common fashion to describe personal quirks and habits unrelated to any direct religious background. An anti-theist may still perform certain acts, subtle or otherwise, that have the appearance of ritualism/superstition. And again, "ritual" derives from "rite" (religious rite), but has adapted the modern climate to describe some non-religious acts (Japanese tea ceremony etc.).

I thank you for questioning me. It helps me to improve my writing. I was protesting against what other post said, "everything is superstition", I guess you agree with me on that though.

Of course we have to consider each others possible attitudes towards "religion" and understand how what we say can be taken by someone with a different philosophical outlook. To say "everything is superstition" can have some validity from a relativistic position.

[LuckyR]

It appears theists are few and far between at the Philosophy Club. To be expected I suppose. We live in the age of Materialism where all claims for the supernatural are dismissed as superstition. Only when one has personally experienced supernatural phenomena (e.g., miracles and apparitions) do the barriers to belief begin to erode.

So the question remains - How do religious persons discern the difference between superstition, as in sticking pins in dolls, and truly religious phenomena? To me, it starts by accepting that pagan practices have a grain of truth in them. Thus, devotees of the cult of Poseidon were actually communicating with Poseidon, a devil of the first order. Such is philosophy that allows for these unpopular thoughts. - CW

Basically the opinion of atheists and theists is almost identical, statistically. Atheists believe all 4300 religions are basically superstition, whereas theists believe that 4299 religions are superstition.

[Grunth]

I find that people usually just say "superstition" when they are talking about a belief system they don't like or understand.

Belief 'systems' are, by their very nature, superstitions. One can believe something based on certain facts, and evidence pointing in a particular direction, but a whole systems (of belief) requires complete narratives and stories that tend to have starting and end points as if to convey some sort of complete understanding.

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 3:08 pm to add the following --

Only the last part was a reply to you.

Sure, but that is really on you to, perhaps, utilize the quote function. It will make things clearer.

If say to someone they are superstitious do you think this is taken as a compliment? I guess your personal concept of this term is just that. I am not offended just telling you how the term is used in everyday life.

An invitation to discuss a belief by first stating one's initial opinion of it with the term 'superstitious' does not need either to be complimentary or non-complimentary. A conversation of matters need not to have to be ego stroking.

"Everyday life" is particularly subjective - subject to someone's 'day' vs another's.

Lifted from wiki:

'the term is used in the pejorative sense it still holds today, of an excessive fear of the gods or unreasonable religious belief, as opposed to religio, the proper, reasonable awe of the gods.'

I disagree with wiki on this one. "Proper" and "reasonable awe", with respect of religious ritual and beliefs, are basically political and social statements and expectations.

I am replying in this thread because although I understand poetical licence I am wary of people using terms to meet certain political means and ends. Words are powerful.

'Words are powerful' because of emotional investment in ideas, which, when subject to argument and discussion, may be revealed as irrational.

Superstition does imply fear. Well, there are real fears of threats to emotionally invested-in ideas. A more rational idea can be seen as threatening to adherents of certain belief systems, hence such adherents will often treat alternative ideas suspiciously and as attacks.

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 3:11 pm to add the following --

It appears theists are few and far between at the Philosophy Club. To be expected I suppose. We live in the age of Materialism where all claims for the supernatural are dismissed as superstition. Only when one has personally experienced supernatural phenomena (e.g., miracles and apparitions) do the barriers to belief begin to erode.

So the question remains - How do religious persons discern the difference between superstition, as in sticking pins in dolls, and truly religious phenomena? To me, it starts by accepting that pagan practices have a grain of truth in them. Thus, devotees of the cult of Poseidon were actually communicating with Poseidon, a devil of the first order. Such is philosophy that allows for these unpopular thoughts. - CW

Basically the opinion of atheists and theists is almost identical, statistically. Atheists believe all 4300 religions are basically superstition, whereas theists believe that 4299 religions are superstition.

Which shows we are all effectively atheists, which I presume is your Hitchensesque point.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Basically the opinion of atheists and theists is almost identical, statistically. Atheists believe all 4300 religions are basically superstition, whereas theists believe that 4299 religions are superstition.

Which shows we are all effectively atheists, which I presume is your Hitchensesque point.

Essentially true if you consider zero percent and 0.023% as identical from a practical standpoint.

[Chasw]

LuckyR: Your description of the all-atheist type person does not fit me. While I'm a theist and subscribe to the plausible account I've outlined above, I take pains to allow for all organized theistic religions, including devil worshipers, to be possibly in touch with the spiritual dimension. You are correct, though, in pointing my liberal position is generally hated and rejected by most organized religions, with a few exceptions. I get to have fun at a social gatherings by asking the group if they accept that Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same God of Abraham. I rarely hear agreement. - CW

[LuckyR]

LuckyR: Your description of the all-atheist type person does not fit me. While I'm a theist and subscribe to the plausible account I've outlined above, I take pains to allow for all organized theistic religions, including devil worshipers, to be possibly in touch with the spiritual dimension. You are correct, though, in pointing my liberal position is generally hated and rejected by most organized religions, with a few exceptions. I get to have fun at a social gatherings by asking the group if they accept that Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same God of Abraham. I rarely hear agreement. - CW

So if I tell you I am afraid of black cats because of their well documented historical association with witchcraft. Am I superstitious or do you TRULY believe that my fear of witches is justified? Not that I am free to believe in witches (which you have already stipulated) but that you BELIEVE that my fear of witches is logical.

[Grunth]

(Nested quote removed.)

Which shows we are all effectively atheists, which I presume is your Hitchensesque point.

Essentially true if you consider zero percent and 0.023% as identical from a practical standpoint.

From a practical standpoint, then, it is true.