7 ms·

Believing that there is a god to promise something to is the definition of superstition.

Grustaf 3y ago
No, that’s not what the word means. Religion and superstition are different concepts. This is a linguistic fact, regardless of your personal beliefs.
- defrost 3y ago
  Superstitions are literally beliefs and practices about things supernatural. Supernatural is a term attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods, and spirits. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception. One persons superstition is frequently anothers religion.
  - Grustaf 3y ago
    Yes, superstitions relate to supernatural things. Religion does too, in a way. That doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. Language is a lot more complex than that. And sure, you might derogatorily refer to someone’s religion as a superstition, just like I might call someone a “pagan” even if he’s strictly speaking just a heretic. But in reality these are all precise terms with different meanings. To be a bit more precise, superstitions deal with more or less automatic things like receiving luck by touching some rock. If you swear to God, that is not some automatic process that will bring you luck, its a divine being with a will that presumably would be angry if you break your oath. Do you see the difference?
    - gobrewers14 3y ago
      I touch (swear an oath and break it to) a rock (a god) and I receive luck (anger). Both are superstitions. The rock example is actually less superstitious because rocks actually exist. There is zero evidence gods exist.
      - Grustaf 3y ago
        I didn’t make this up. It might seem like the same concept to you, but I assure you that any serious scholar, atheist or not, knows the difference. It really has nothing to do with what you personally believe or not. In your example the difference is that the rock effect is automatic, like gravity, but the god is a sentient being that has a will. Why is it so hard to accept that people call these different things? You can still despise people who believe in both.
        gobrewers14 3y ago
        > In your example the difference is that the rock effect is automatic, like gravity, but the god is a sentient being that has a will. There is no difference. This is the fallacy of special pleading. You're saying that the example with god is different because you defined god to be different from the thing you don't want it to be the same as. You are presupposing gods existence. There is no evidence such an entity exists and is therefore superstition.
        Grustaf 3y ago
        For a positivist, you’re not very strong on logic. I didn’t say anything about the god having to exist, that is not part of it. The point is that the person believes he is talking to a being, rather than relying on a law of (super)nature. The rock has no will, it is not the rock that decides you grant you luck, it’s an inevitable consequence of your action. The god, real or not, is a being with a will, he presumably hears you and may decide to help or harm you. Similarly, praying is different from casting spells. Not because they have different effects but how they are thought to work. It doesn’t matter if you or I believe praying works, the point is that prayer is talking to a sentient god. Magic spells is not. Both may be delusional, but surely you must be able to tell them apart? You learn this stuff in middle school.
        gobrewers14 3y ago
        > For a positivist, you’re not very strong on logic. When the ad hominems start I know I'm on the right track > The rock has no will / The god, real or not, is a being with a will. How do you know god is a being with a will? This is the fallacy of special pleading. You are defining god and giving it characteristics that precisely allows you to say it is different than something with no will. > It doesn’t matter if you or I believe praying works, the point is that prayer is talking to a sentient god. Magic spells is not. And both are superstition. > You learn this stuff in middle school. I went to a school that taught math & science.
- gobrewers14 3y ago
  > Religion and superstition are different concepts. Please point to the part in my original response where I said religion and superstition are the same concept. I said believing in a god is superstition. Which it is. Superstition (n): A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
  - hajile 3y ago
    This definition confuses cause and effect. A person believes something that results in superstition. This definition states that superstition creates itself rather than being the result of external factors. As a finer point, laws of nature could themselves be superstition. Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that we cannot prove all the laws in the universe. As such, we assert a truth that we know we cannot prove then act as though it must be true. Even if you accept that as incidental, we know conclusively that recent discoveries (eg, James Webb showing unexpected galaxy sizes) show that much of our current "laws of nature" are definitely in conflict with reality making scientists superstitious in practice as well. Finally, it is of no little interest to me that so many theoretical physicists are "simulationists" where they believe the universe is a simulation where the creators can exert complete control, but they still hold the belief that these creators are not actually gods (even though that is unprovable and for us would amount to a distinction without a difference). Perhaps humans are simply hardwired for religion.
    - gobrewers14 3y ago
      > A person believes something that results in superstition. This definition states that superstition creates itself. This is nonsense. Nothing is "created" when someone says something superstitious. There is no cause and effect. Supernatural entities/realms either exits or they do not. And there is zero evidence they do. Whether or not they actually do doesn't matter, it is rational to not believe in them until someone presents evidence for their existence. > Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that we cannot prove all the laws in the universe His theorem says no such thing. It simply makes a statement about the trade-off between the consistency of axiomatic systems and the provability of truth statements. I could easily just argue the universe is a system with inconsistent axioms where every law can be proved. > we know conclusively that recent discoveries (eg, James Webb showing unexpected galaxy sizes) show that much of our current "laws of nature" are definitely in conflict with reality This is called science. We collect evidence. We develop approximations of reality that best conform to this evidence. We collect new evidence. We refine our approximations. > so many theoretical physicists are "simulationists" where they believe the universe is a simulation where the creators can exert complete control I don't care what "so many theoretical physicists" believe. I care what they publish in peer-reviewed literature. > Perhaps humans are simply hardwired for religion. Perhaps humans are hardwired to make spears and kill each other or hunt and gather. That doesn't mean we should be doing that in 2023.

No, that’s not what the word means. Religion and superstition are different concepts. This is a linguistic fact, regardless of your personal beliefs.

defrost 3y ago
Superstitions are literally beliefs and practices about things supernatural. Supernatural is a term attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods, and spirits. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception. One persons superstition is frequently anothers religion.
- Grustaf 3y ago
  Yes, superstitions relate to supernatural things. Religion does too, in a way. That doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. Language is a lot more complex than that. And sure, you might derogatorily refer to someone’s religion as a superstition, just like I might call someone a “pagan” even if he’s strictly speaking just a heretic. But in reality these are all precise terms with different meanings. To be a bit more precise, superstitions deal with more or less automatic things like receiving luck by touching some rock. If you swear to God, that is not some automatic process that will bring you luck, its a divine being with a will that presumably would be angry if you break your oath. Do you see the difference?
  - gobrewers14 3y ago
    I touch (swear an oath and break it to) a rock (a god) and I receive luck (anger). Both are superstitions. The rock example is actually less superstitious because rocks actually exist. There is zero evidence gods exist.
    - Grustaf 3y ago
      I didn’t make this up. It might seem like the same concept to you, but I assure you that any serious scholar, atheist or not, knows the difference. It really has nothing to do with what you personally believe or not. In your example the difference is that the rock effect is automatic, like gravity, but the god is a sentient being that has a will. Why is it so hard to accept that people call these different things? You can still despise people who believe in both.
      - gobrewers14 3y ago
        > In your example the difference is that the rock effect is automatic, like gravity, but the god is a sentient being that has a will. There is no difference. This is the fallacy of special pleading. You're saying that the example with god is different because you defined god to be different from the thing you don't want it to be the same as. You are presupposing gods existence. There is no evidence such an entity exists and is therefore superstition.
        Grustaf 3y ago
        For a positivist, you’re not very strong on logic. I didn’t say anything about the god having to exist, that is not part of it. The point is that the person believes he is talking to a being, rather than relying on a law of (super)nature. The rock has no will, it is not the rock that decides you grant you luck, it’s an inevitable consequence of your action. The god, real or not, is a being with a will, he presumably hears you and may decide to help or harm you. Similarly, praying is different from casting spells. Not because they have different effects but how they are thought to work. It doesn’t matter if you or I believe praying works, the point is that prayer is talking to a sentient god. Magic spells is not. Both may be delusional, but surely you must be able to tell them apart? You learn this stuff in middle school.
        gobrewers14 3y ago
        > For a positivist, you’re not very strong on logic. When the ad hominems start I know I'm on the right track > The rock has no will / The god, real or not, is a being with a will. How do you know god is a being with a will? This is the fallacy of special pleading. You are defining god and giving it characteristics that precisely allows you to say it is different than something with no will. > It doesn’t matter if you or I believe praying works, the point is that prayer is talking to a sentient god. Magic spells is not. And both are superstition. > You learn this stuff in middle school. I went to a school that taught math & science.
gobrewers14 3y ago
> Religion and superstition are different concepts. Please point to the part in my original response where I said religion and superstition are the same concept. I said believing in a god is superstition. Which it is. Superstition (n): A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
- hajile 3y ago
  This definition confuses cause and effect. A person believes something that results in superstition. This definition states that superstition creates itself rather than being the result of external factors. As a finer point, laws of nature could themselves be superstition. Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that we cannot prove all the laws in the universe. As such, we assert a truth that we know we cannot prove then act as though it must be true. Even if you accept that as incidental, we know conclusively that recent discoveries (eg, James Webb showing unexpected galaxy sizes) show that much of our current "laws of nature" are definitely in conflict with reality making scientists superstitious in practice as well. Finally, it is of no little interest to me that so many theoretical physicists are "simulationists" where they believe the universe is a simulation where the creators can exert complete control, but they still hold the belief that these creators are not actually gods (even though that is unprovable and for us would amount to a distinction without a difference). Perhaps humans are simply hardwired for religion.
  - gobrewers14 3y ago
    > A person believes something that results in superstition. This definition states that superstition creates itself. This is nonsense. Nothing is "created" when someone says something superstitious. There is no cause and effect. Supernatural entities/realms either exits or they do not. And there is zero evidence they do. Whether or not they actually do doesn't matter, it is rational to not believe in them until someone presents evidence for their existence. > Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that we cannot prove all the laws in the universe His theorem says no such thing. It simply makes a statement about the trade-off between the consistency of axiomatic systems and the provability of truth statements. I could easily just argue the universe is a system with inconsistent axioms where every law can be proved. > we know conclusively that recent discoveries (eg, James Webb showing unexpected galaxy sizes) show that much of our current "laws of nature" are definitely in conflict with reality This is called science. We collect evidence. We develop approximations of reality that best conform to this evidence. We collect new evidence. We refine our approximations. > so many theoretical physicists are "simulationists" where they believe the universe is a simulation where the creators can exert complete control I don't care what "so many theoretical physicists" believe. I care what they publish in peer-reviewed literature. > Perhaps humans are simply hardwired for religion. Perhaps humans are hardwired to make spears and kill each other or hunt and gather. That doesn't mean we should be doing that in 2023.