Is religion “superstition”?

I’d prefer you to think rather than feel. :sunglasses:

The other two are quite adequate for my point – a Christian worldview is necessarily not superstitious.

How are you defining “Christian” and “superstitious” so that this is a necessary conclusion?

Ok who’s atheist here or agnostic so we can have a proper convo?

2 Likes

This was an interesting article:

Nevertheless, his book is significant in the scientific study of religion and its origins, possibly a game-changer. Dunbar is a big hitter in the field, and he advocates a shift of understanding. The longstanding tendency has been to treat the almost universal presence of religious beliefs and rituals in human populations as a by-product of human needs, from lessening the terrors of death to bolstering the moral imperatives that support sociality. But, instead of treating religions as noble lies or discardable delusions, Dunbar presents the evidence for religious practices’ being a necessary part of human evolution. This necessity is why he thinks that religion will endure and resist secularising pressures.

Addendum: Around the age of 13 I remember asking my father why we didn’t attend my grandmother’s church. He said, “There’s a difference between superstition and religion.”

3 Likes

 
This works:

1 Like

@T_aquaticus has already participated… @MarkD perhaps you could give us your opinion on the subject of superstition? How about @SuperBigV ?

Okay but we need a live atheist here to discuss this and there are so many topics in the op.

For example the atheist says : praying is stupid and irrational
Answer to the atheist : you should NOT say a song is beautiful because “beautiful” is just a chemical reaction in the brain. You should say “I had a great chemical reaction at the concert”

A superstition is any belief or practice considered by non-practitioners to be irrational or supernatural, attributed to fate or magic, perceived supernatural influence, or fear of that which is unknown. It is commonly applied to beliefs and practices surrounding luck, amulets, astrology, fortune telling, spirits, and certain paranormal entities, particularly the belief that future events can be foretold by specific unrelated prior events.

excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief.

None of that describes pure religion.

Nothing in nature requires supernature. But. To posit supernature, that nature ultimately requires supernature, transcendent being and purpose encompassing, enclosing nature, is not superstitious. At all. Nature is so inexplicably strange that adding supernature around it is not much stranger, not much less rational. Existence is not rational. Rationality is insufficient. If ‘A superstition is any belief … considered by non-practitioners to be irrational or supernatural, attributed to …, perceived supernatural influence’ then sure, accepting the posit above is superstitious by that definition. So is vaunting rationality. The only bridge between nature and supernature is the claim of Jesus, God incarnate as fleshed out by His death and resurrection, not infinitely lesser other Jewish and other fables. Ghost stories. Mere superstition. Entertaining the claim above is not ‘excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural’. Although that can follow. That most extraordinary claim of all time just needs extraordinary evidence. And there is evidence. The Pauline letters preserved by and testifying to the Church. for a start. Is that extraordinary evidence? That’s a jury call. It’s still out. Exercising faith, the substance of things hoped for - i.e. that existence is purposed, in the meantime, is not superstitious. Is not a rabbit’s foot.

4 Likes

Ok… just trying to follow your logic here…

Your claim is that it is impossible for one to have a Christian worldview as a result of ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.

You didn’t define “Christian.” Are you tacking on the above exclusion to the usual definitions of “Christian?” Being Christian means ___ unless it is the result of one of these things: ____

I pretty much define “Christian” according to the creed of Nicea 325 AD. And I see no reason why the acceptance of such a creed could not made for many different reasons including some of those listed

As for the definition under b… I don’t understand that one.

But atheists do not necessarily say this or support the claim that religion is superstition.

That’s why we need a live atheist.

What do you mean by a live atheist? This is a forum, not a live chat. What difference would it make?

Sorry I mean an actual atheist.

The 3 I tagged are definitely atheists

1 Like

Thank you.
Aquatious has given a very good answer which I can’t debate because it’s respectable and I agree with from his point of view.
But the statements on the OP are more “edgy”. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

You should know me better than that. I did not specify a proper Christian worldview because that was implicit. ‘Luck’ should not be in a Christian’s active vocabulary. And of course there can be superstitious Christians who do not understand well enough who their Father is.
 
You have also seen this before:

1 Like

Ha! It’s a wonder Sam Harris said this. I once did a similar thought experiment where I wondered if there were two exact copies of myself in identical universes, would these individuals choose the same random series of numbers.

What happens in doing the thought experiment, as you picture these two people, you notice it’s no longer you choosing the numbers.

1 Like

There’s a lot that can be said about bad religion, but you can just as easily swap the term ‘superstition’ for ‘ideology’.

And I would be shocked if anyone claims their particular -ism is entirely free from that. People are still capable of saying the craziest things.

2 Likes

Then I guess the difficulty is with the word “necessarily.”

I was going by the definition in logic:

that state of things which obliges something to be as it is because no alternative is logically possible.

So when you said " a Christian worldview is necessarily not superstitious." That implies that your definitions of the words does not allow any other logical alternative. So I asked you to give your definition of the words. And you gave me the definition of superstition as “a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.” The obvious conclusion is that you think it is impossible for one to have a Christian worldview as a result of ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation, because if it were possible then there would be another alternative, right?

Since you don’t like that conclusion, I am only left with the possibility that you are using another definition of the word “necessarily.”