Is religion “superstition”?

[heymike3]

@mitchellmckain

If you roll two dice the sum is seven more often than any other result.

If nothing is truly determining the outcome,
wouldn’t the analogy be closer to dice that could show any possible number?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Good one. ; - )

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

The point is that things can limit the possible outcomes and determine the probability distribution without determining the actual result. Thus the actual result is not determined but only confined within the limitations and probabilities which are determined.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Not being familiar enough with the jargon I guess, it would seem a better term might be ‘random within limits’ as opposed to ‘truly random’.

[heymike3]

@mitchellmckain

Nothing you have said has anything whatsoever to do with solipsism.

If my intention to act causes quantum particles to affect the neurochemistry in my brain, then I’m pretty sure it does.

@mitchellmckain

It is not… It is difficult to tell how much of that is determined and how much traces back the the first causes of quantum fluctuations.

“It’s not, but it’s difficult to tell.”

You’re really going there. I’m not sure if I said this in reply to you, but I don’t pretend to know how consciousness is embodied, but it is my understanding that it somehow is rooted in the nervous system.

@mitchellmckain

Of course the Christian is likely to ask, what about the spirit? The evidence does not support the idea of anything non-physical operating the body like a puppet.

There is the problem of observing the mind, which I suspect has to do with the problem of observing an uncaused cause, or something that can affect change without changing.

@mitchellmckain

But people who experience such things can tell the difference.

My point all along. When you move your hand, and you see it moving, normally it’s a valid inference to believe you are moving your hand.

In an intro to philosophy, I had a genuine aha moment. The idea was to imagine you are flying a remote control airplane. The trick is that your controller is not really flying the airplane. Someone else is monitoring your controls and by way of their controller they are controlling the plane. Are you actually controlling the plane?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

Religion is superstition by some definitions of religion and some definitions of superstition. It’s all about how you define your terms.

All religions are human constructs that involve human attempts to relate to the divine or the transcendent. But “religion” is a pretty broad label that you can’t really make sweeping generalizations about. For some people veganism is a religion, but it doesn’t involve superstition, it involves values and practices. My impression of many forms of Buddhism is that it is about managing one’s internal world, not controlling the external world through rituals and superstitions. Different religions have very different worldviews, values, and practices and different followers of a given religion have different experiences. One individual may approach a certain religion as a tool to manage their superstitions and another individual might approach the same religion as a vehicle to experience God or reach some kind of self-actualization. Of course if you don’t believe God or some other transcendent reality exists, than all religions are merely human constructs that meet human psychological needs, what else could they be within a framework of belief that doesn’t accept that any god has ever interacted with humans? But if you believe in a spiritual dimension, or like Christians, Jews, and Muslims, the existence of one true and personal God, then religion is not merely a human construct created out of imagination and neediness, it is a reaction to the existence of God and a reaction to what is claimed to be God’s revelation/communication with humans.

Also, all humans perform rituals and I bet the oh so wise commenters have their own rituals, even if they don’t identify them as religious.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Eli

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

I’m completely a-theist when it comes to nature - except for the possibility of God as ground of being, going slightly beyond the ineffable complexity of unintentional existence - and history and the OT. Does that help? Emotionally [i.e. how I actually feel, but not how I want to feel] I am agnostic. But I want Jesus to be God incarnate. What about that?

[Terry_Sampson]

@heymike3

we are talking about a person’s ability to act.

We who? You and me? Okay.

@heymike3

I don’t have any problem, or I am absolutely certain, that I can act.

You’re going to have to take your hand off your mouth, I’m not sure what you’re saying.

@heymike3

I don’t have any problem

If you say so.

@heymike3

or I am absolutely certain

“Or”??

@heymike3

I am absolutely certain, that I can act.

• So, are you saying that you’re an uncaused cause when you act?
• or are you saying that you’re a caused cause when you act?
• or are you saying that sometimes you’re an uncaused cause and sometimes you’re a caused cause when you act, and you’re certain about when you’re an uncaused cause when you act, as well as certain about when you’re a caused cause?

P.S. regarding my proposed “proposition continuum”; I choose to believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that the cosmos makes sense. I’m pretty sure that, in a cosmos that makes sense, there are no random events. Surprises? Yes. But no impossible events or what I call: “miracles”.

[Kendel]

Appropriately enigmatic yet clear.

[heymike3]

Nicely said Klax I’m starting to appreciate you more, and oddly enough with this comment I feel like I’m going to provoke the biggest baddest meanest kid on the playground.

There is no hope for Jesus as God incarnate apart from the Old Covenant.

And if Jesus was a failed attempt covered up by myth and superstition, that leaves open the possibility for you or me, or whoever decides they will be king of the cosmos.

The etymology of superstition is appropriate. Like staring into the void, and opening your eyes to see the unending fullness of being there.

[heymike3]

@Terry_Sampson

So, are you saying that you’re an uncaused cause when you act?

Contingent in being, and necessary with regard to my action.

[Eli]

@Terry_Sampson

P.S. regarding my proposed “proposition continuum”; I choose to believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that the cosmos makes sense. I’m pretty sure that, in a cosmos that makes sense, there are no random events. Surprises? Yes. But no impossible events or what I call: “miracles”.

There’s a lot of vague statements in this thread, enough to not respond but I saw this and I liked it because it was clear and concise.

Regarding Miracles, do you have a problem with the word itself or the implication that Miracles come from God?
What if we call them “unexplained” would you have a problem with that?

For example instead of The Miracle of Fatima, let’s call it The Unexplained Mystery Of Fatima.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Eli

Regarding Miracles, do you have a problem with the word itself or the implication that Miracles come from God?

My beliefs about the nature of the cosmos and reality are such that events commonly deemed “miracles” are, IMO, indeed uncommon and marvelous, but entirely possible. Examples:

• Changing water into wine: if the fundamental substance of all things (i.e. objects) are dimensionless particles moving through Space, then the fundamental substance in water is the same “stuff” as the fundamental substance in wine. The difference is nothing more nor less than that the particles in water and the particles in wine are “dancing differently”. IMO, the transformation of one into the other is certainly unusual, i.e. not ordinary, but it’s not impossible. Just because humans haven’t figured out how to transform one into the other, doesn’t mean that it can’t be done.
• Same goes for the Resurrection. Commonly, the transformation is described as being from “physical” to “spiritual”, as if “spiritual” can’t be physical. Look at what Paul says in 1st century speech:
  • 1 Cor.15:50-52. " Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
  • So, where in those words–do you see any indication that the Resurrection involves a change from the physical to the nonphysical? I certainly don’t see it anywhere in that Chapter,. What I see is the marvelous, extraordinary, but not impossible claim that “the corruptible” is transformed into “the incorruptible.”
• Consequently, IMO, neither “miracles” nor “marvels”–as I prefer to call them–“violate laws of physics”.

[Eli]

Thank you for your answer and this is exactly what I think and how I rationalize it too but with one exception.
I don’t think we as humans will be able to figure out 99% of the mysteries of the universe since the universe is currently expanding faster than light.
So there are limits to human knowledge and exploration. Because of this limit, I put a lot of trust in a Creator because we can’t know and we will never know some mysteries for as long as humanity exists.
Maybe this is all an illusion but we will never figure out the true realities and all its mysteries unless revealed by a Creator.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

Not being familiar enough with the jargon I guess, it would seem a better term might be ‘random within limits’ as opposed to ‘truly random’.

Random within limits is truly random. A simple definition of random within physics is a non-deterministic process which means you can’t accurately predict the outcome based on starting conditions, either practically or theoretically. A roll of the dice is actually not truly random because you could theoretically determine the outcome if you were able to accurately model all of the forces involved. However, it appears for the moment that quantum processes are truly random because there is no theoretical way of predicting the outcome of individual quantum events.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@T_aquaticus

A roll of the dice is actually not truly random because you could theoretically determine the outcome if you were able to accurately model all of the forces involved.

Would you agree, though, that rolling the dice is functionally random for us … in fact even indistinguishable by us (in that functional sense) from real random? If I’m observing cars at an intersection, whether or not the next car to approach it will turn left, right, or proceed straight ahead, that outcome may be random as far as I’m concerned, but wouldn’t at all be random in the mind of the driver in that car. So in a non-scientific or non-rigorously statistical sense, we do call some things random just as a matter of perspective and common jargon.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@T_aquaticus

A roll of the dice is actually not truly random because you could theoretically determine the outcome if you were able to accurately model all of the forces involved.

I almost made this claim, but I hesitated because we haven’t even been able to do this in a computer simulation. In that case the word “theoretically” almost amounts to handwaving. It seems that there are too many variables involved in the physical situation. If a roll was limited to a single collision with a surface then maybe it would be doable, but unfortunately it isn’t. Physical surfaces are too variable and imperfect. Each additional collision pushes it farther beyond our ability to calculate with any certainty, like trying to predict the weather an additional day into the future.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Would you agree, though, that rolling the dice is functionally random for us … in fact even indistinguishable by us (in that functional sense) from real random?

I would agree with functionally random since we can’t practically predict the outcome in normal situations.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

So in a non-scientific or non-rigorously statistical sense, we do call some things random just as a matter of perspective and common jargon.

The scientific and colloquial definitions of words are often different, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. Just as long as we all understand the definition we are using there usually isn’t a problem.

[heymike3]

@T_aquaticus

I would agree with functionally random since we can’t practically predict the outcome in normal situations.

How does the ability to repeatedly roll the dice with the same outcome in a controlled environment affect the interpretation?

[T_aquaticus]

@mitchellmckain

In that case the word “theoretically” almost amounts to handwaving. It seems that there are too many variables involved in the physical situation.

I don’t think it is handwaving. What it is saying is that even if we were had complete knowledge of the starting conditions there is still no known solution for predicting the outcome. Could there be some deeper, hidden process? Possibly, and that’s why I hedged with “at the moment”.

@mitchellmckain

If a roll was limited to a single collision with a surface then maybe it would be doable, but unfortunately it isn’t. Physical surfaces are too variable and imperfect. Each additional collision pushes it farther beyond our ability to calculate with any certainty, like trying to predict the weather an additional day into the future.

Theoretically, with complete knowledge of the starting conditions and completely accurate measurements of all bodies involved you could predict the outcome of a dice roll. That’s why a dice roll isn’t “truly” random, but it is functionally or practically random in the usual conditions.