What constitutes superstition?

[Felix]

I see this as one of many reasons why "witchdoctors" and such have lasted.

Close... one of my favorite books on the subject: https://goo.gl/ek2APm

I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[Platos_academy]

Good question.

There is no “knowing.” Everything we think we know is superstition. All our beliefs — and the lack thereof — reflect of our relationship with the Whole, or, rather, how we imagine it to be.

I agree. I think superstition is just one of those terms that will have meaning subjectively but can't be universally defined. When we do try to define it universally, the whole thing falls apart and it essentially has no relative meaning because everything can be called "Superstition."

[Burning ghost]

Good question.

There is no “knowing.” Everything we think we know is superstition. All our beliefs — and the lack thereof — reflect of our relationship with the Whole, or, rather, how we imagine it to be.

I agree. I think superstition is just one of those terms that will have meaning subjectively but can't be universally defined. When we do try to define it universally, the whole thing falls apart and it essentially has no relative meaning because everything can be called "Superstition."

Everything can be called "gubbertitterishing" too. So what?

I would say, if you say chemistry or mathematics is a "superstition", that you are misusing the term.

[Grunth]

How do you separate superstition from "true" belief? - CW

I haven't found it possible to do so.

[Alias]

There is ground to cover regarding placebo effects and religiosity. "Belief" in something can affect recovery. I see this as one of many reasons why "witchdoctors" and such have lasted.

That doesn't make it less superstitious.
The baseball player who thinks he'll play better in his lucky cap will play equally well if he doesn't know his lucky cap's been switched off for an identical one.
His belief that the cap affects the game is superstition.
So is any other belief that unrelated things have cause-and-effect relationships, such as prayer curing disease or a small green leaf helping you win the lottery.

How do you separate superstition from "true" belief? - CW

By following the chain of cause and effect. If it breaks down, you attributed the observed results to the wrong agency. Retrace and try again.

[Felix]

By following the chain of cause and effect.

If one can follow it, which is a big If, thus the debate.

[Ozymandias]

Great question, but I think it has very little to do with actual religious philosophy, and more to do with rhetoric.

"Superstition" is simply a subjectively used ad hominem attack. By claiming someone's belief's to be superstitious, I am simply making an unfounded* assertion that my beliefs are epistemologically superior to theirs. Superstition just depends on point of view; the party with less extreme belief will often view the party with more extreme belief to be superstitious.

*For most supernatural beliefs, one cannot really be superior to another. If a supernatural belief claims to have demonstrable effects and it doesn't, then it is inferior to a supernatural belief that doesn't claim to have demonstrable effects, because the former can be proven false while the latter isn't provable one way or the other. But that said, as for a belief that cannot demonstrate what is claims to demonstrate: while some would call it a superstition, I think the better term is pseudoscience.


Honestly, superstition is a word that I try not to use very much. I don't like using terms that aren't strictly defined. If I use a word that doesn't have a relatively equal definition for me and the person with whom I'm speaking, I need to get a better word. (i.e. let's start saying pseudoscience instead of superstition)

Superstition is just an attack word, and it doesn't mean anything deeply or accurately philosophical, it means "I have a big ego and think that my beliefs are better than yours." Not trying to insult or call out anyone who uses the word, but that is the increasingly apparent meaning of it in my experience.

[Burning ghost]

Alias -

A baseball players performance can be effected by such a thought. Such a thought would not effect the outcome of a lottery draw though.

Thanks for helping me highlight the distinction I was trying to express.

Other things like understanding that 1+1=2 is not a "superstition". I would argue strongly that we can say "anything" can be a superstition.

I believe A tatses better than B. Is that also a "superstition"? Not at all.

[Grunth]

Great question, but I think it has very little to do with actual religious philosophy, and more to do with rhetoric.

"Superstition" is simply a subjectively used ad hominem attack. By claiming someone's belief's to be superstitious, I am simply making an unfounded* assertion that my beliefs are epistemologically superior to theirs. Superstition just depends on point of view; the party with less extreme belief will often view the party with more extreme belief to be superstitious.

*For most supernatural beliefs, one cannot really be superior to another. If a supernatural belief claims to have demonstrable effects and it doesn't, then it is inferior to a supernatural belief that doesn't claim to have demonstrable effects, because the former can be proven false while the latter isn't provable one way or the other. But that said, as for a belief that cannot demonstrate what is claims to demonstrate: while some would call it a superstition, I think the better term is pseudoscience.


Honestly, superstition is a word that I try not to use very much. I don't like using terms that aren't strictly defined. If I use a word that doesn't have a relatively equal definition for me and the person with whom I'm speaking, I need to get a better word. (i.e. let's start saying pseudoscience instead of superstition)

Superstition is just an attack word, and it doesn't mean anything deeply or accurately philosophical, it means "I have a big ego and think that my beliefs are better than yours." Not trying to insult or call out anyone who uses the word, but that is the increasingly apparent meaning of it in my experience.

When the use of "superstition" is interpreted as an attack then it is an attack on an ego. "Superstition" could, in fact, be an invitation to discuss. However, the ego that is 'religion' so often interprets any attempt to have its beliefs subject to analysis as something offensive.

[Ozymandias]

Great question, but I think it has very little to do with actual religious philosophy, and more to do with rhetoric.

"Superstition" is simply a subjectively used ad hominem attack. By claiming someone's belief's to be superstitious, I am simply making an unfounded* assertion that my beliefs are epistemologically superior to theirs. Superstition just depends on point of view; the party with less extreme belief will often view the party with more extreme belief to be superstitious.

*For most supernatural beliefs, one cannot really be superior to another. If a supernatural belief claims to have demonstrable effects and it doesn't, then it is inferior to a supernatural belief that doesn't claim to have demonstrable effects, because the former can be proven false while the latter isn't provable one way or the other. But that said, as for a belief that cannot demonstrate what is claims to demonstrate: while some would call it a superstition, I think the better term is pseudoscience.


Honestly, superstition is a word that I try not to use very much. I don't like using terms that aren't strictly defined. If I use a word that doesn't have a relatively equal definition for me and the person with whom I'm speaking, I need to get a better word. (i.e. let's start saying pseudoscience instead of superstition)

Superstition is just an attack word, and it doesn't mean anything deeply or accurately philosophical, it means "I have a big ego and think that my beliefs are better than yours." Not trying to insult or call out anyone who uses the word, but that is the increasingly apparent meaning of it in my experience.

When the use of "superstition" is interpreted as an attack then it is an attack on an ego. "Superstition" could, in fact, be an invitation to discuss. However, the ego that is 'religion' so often interprets any attempt to have its beliefs subject to analysis as something offensive.

You misunderstand me- I'm not "interpreting" the definition of 'superstition', I'm observing the definition of it.

If you want an interpretation or analysis of it, here: Since it is meant to describe a belief that is wrong, but it doesn't have strictly quantifiable or qualifiable requirements for "wrong", in common usage, it can be and is used as an attack. It is like the term "stupid"; we call people stupid when we think they are less intelligent than ourselves, even though "stupid" doesn't actually describe them in any sort of accuracy because A) we don't actually understand their mind's cognitive ability and B) 'stupid' doesn't describe a specific level of cognitive ability. In the same way, 'superstition' doesn't actually describe a specific level of epistemological validity, at least not in the colloquial usage of the term. I find that people usually just say "superstition" when they are talking about a belief system they don't like or understand.

I don't think every invitation to discuss religion is an attack on religion, I think an invitation to discuss religion that begins with a label such as "superstition" is an attack on religion. I only interpret a term as offensive if it is meant to be offensive, and I find that the term 'superstition' is, most commonly, just used to bash a belief that one doesn't like.

[Burning ghost]

Superstition is used to devalue, so it is an attack. That is generally how the word is used in everyday life.

It can be used in other ways too of course. I may know I am superstitious about something and my "superstitious" actions allow me to cope with some given fear/threat. There is a difference between knowing what is and whatv is not superstitious. Picking lottery numbers based on some scheme is ignorant superstition. Wearing one red sock before a speech is a superstition that takes the form of a tradition which helps settle the the mind in a certain way so as to achieve an actual better outcome (a kind of reverse phobia).

[Grunth]

Superstition is used to devalue, so it is an attack. That is generally how the word is used in everyday life.

It can be used in other ways too of course. I may know I am superstitious about something and my "superstitious" actions allow me to cope with some given fear/threat. There is a difference between knowing what is and whatv is not superstitious. Picking lottery numbers based on some scheme is ignorant superstition. Wearing one red sock before a speech is a superstition that takes the form of a tradition which helps settle the the mind in a certain way so as to achieve an actual better outcome (a kind of reverse phobia).

The sock analogy is not a reverse phobia. It is just a phobia, because if that sock is lost prior to the scheduled speech then the impact of that phobia will reveal it more coherently as what it always was......a phobia.

-- Updated December 24th, 2016, 11:47 am to add the following --

And so to call someone as being superstitious about the red sock is to identify a phobia. Not, therefore, necessarily an attack. Is it to 'devalue' then? Is it devaluing to help someone realize their phobia is mere superstition in order to point out a neurosis which will have unfortunate outcomes for them?

[Alias]

Alias -

I would argue strongly that we can say "anything" can be a superstition.

You can say anything about anything, as long as you don't care what words mean.

believe A tatses better than B. Is that also a "superstition"? Not at all.

No, that is a preference. So are all subjective judgments of beauty and personal value.
Unless you believe that the addition of pixie dust is what made the difference between two otherwise identical dishes, there is no superstition involved. It's never involved in ordinary mundane choices or activities.

Super-stition is peculiar to belief in the super-natural. Its distinguishing characteristic is some form of magic; something that could not happen by natural, observable, or physical means.
It's about to what causative agency you attribute an object, an event or an outcome. There is always a why-because relationship.
Why did he get shingles? Because he swore in church that time. Why did he get better? Because he went to confession and did penance.
Why did she escape unharmed from the car accident? Because her guardian angel was on the job.

[Burning ghost]

Wearing a red sock is ritualistic. It has an effect on what happens when the person acts. The same cannot be said about picking lottery numbers or games of chance. Ritual in the case of the red sock is to do with an understanding that there is no supernatural force, but there is a sense of irrational comfort gained.

You said anything can be a superstition? You meant that how? Anything but not everything?

Yes, the word has anti-religious origin. It can be used elsewhere as I mentioned.

Grunth -

I suggest you look up the etymology of the word if you don't see that it is used to demean religious people by refering to them as "ignorant" and "lacking in reason".

[Grunth]

Wearing a red sock is ritualistic. It has an effect on what happens when the person acts.

Ritualism is not an automatic counter to superstition. One can be ritualistically superstitious.

The same cannot be said about picking lottery numbers or games of chance. Ritual in the case of the red sock is to do with an understanding that there is no supernatural force, but there is a sense of irrational comfort gained.

Where is the rational comfort if the red sock is misplaced? Is it with the lost sock?

Picking lottery numbers can also be ritualistic.

You said anything can be a superstition? You meant that how? Anything but not everything?

Where did I apparently say that? Maybe you have confused me with someone else's response.

Yes, the word has anti-religious origin. It can be used elsewhere as I mentioned.

And as long as there has been religion then of course there will have been doubters, which is perfectly sane and reasonable.

Is there something wrong with being anti-religion? If it is ok to be pro something then it must be equally ok to be anti that same something.

I suggest you look up the etymology of the word if you don't see that it is used to demean religious people by referring to them as "ignorant" and "lacking in reason".

No "demean religious people" or "ignorant" did I see in the etymology. As for "lacking in reason", well, you have yourself already suggested the red-sock-ritual is irrational.

Maybe my merely questioning your analysis feels like an attack on you to you.