There are two things that theists always yell at me about: characterizing faith as “belief without evidence” (which in fact the Bible says it is!), and calling religion a “superstition.” I decided to look up “superstition” in the Oxford English Dictionary (University of Chicago online version) to see if religion fit the definition. In the section where it would fall (“senses relating to belief”), here are the definitions. If you’re myopic, click to enlarge (twice in succession with a pause between).
What religious belief isn’t either irrational, unfounded, or based on fear and ignorance?
As opposed to a “true” religion, of course! Onwards:
Even religion could fit (c) above since your good luck is the favor of god or chance of eternity in heaven.
Based on the above, I provisionally conclude that most religions (perhaps not things like Unitarian Universalism or Confucianism) can confidently be called “superstitions”. Certainly the Abrahamic religions can!
Agreed, touch wood. 😉
🙂 Good one.
I think it’s a form of mental illness as probably most people on this group.
No, religion is not a form of mental illness. Neither are pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, political extremism, or radical/stupid opinions in general. Sure they may be elements of a mental illness, but in and of themselves none of those “crazy” things are literally so. They all pull on intuitive, psychological, social, and cultural aspects of the human animal and can represent the norm.
People with clinical mental illness are not happy with this inaccurate and insulting sort of classification and I don’t blame them.
It’s certainly to do with mentality, but all beliefs are.
“Mental illness” is a term I think needs to be much more carefully defined and used in general. At its best, there’s still plenty of grey area, and I completely appreciate Sastra’s concern. Some of the mentally ill are truly agonized or detached from even immediate reality, while some religious people’s belief amounts to simply being misinformed or mistaken (as confirmed outright by some ex-religious).
Yes, both Sastra and the original definitions support the notion that these terms (superstition, mental illness) have components of degree to them, and are not just binary categories. The official definition, for example, uses “considered to be” over and over again, which is easily understood to mean a belief must not just be unfounded, but must go beyond (some unstated and probably vague) social norms to be counted as superstition. To read those definitions in their negative versions: beliefs not considered to be irrational aren’t superstitions.
In other conversations I’ve likened “irrational beliefs: irrational people” as being analogous to benders: alcoholics.” Having the occasional first of the pair doesn’t put you in the category of the second; it’s a matter of degree not mere presence/absence. Because let’s face it, if the presence of a single unfounded belief was enough to classify a person as mentally insane, then we are all mentally insane and the category loses all meaning. Its only in the consideration of degree of irrationality that the category has any real use or meaning at all.
“beliefs not considered to be irrational aren’t superstitions.”
It all depends on who is doing the considering. I consider religious people to be irrational. So, can’t I call them superstitious? Say yes.
I guess that depends on whether you want to read the definition as referring to an individual consideration or a general societal one. But if you read it as an individual consideration, then that would also lead to the term being essentially meaningless, as it would be individually subjective, basically an analog to saying you find someone pretty. Do you want the term “superstitious” to be that subjective? Then by all means, use your own personal consideration as the standard.
Or to put it another way, for your individual consideration to count as valid when it comes to religion, you must acknowledge that their consideration of your beliefs as superstitious count as equally valid. Because hey, that’s their consideration, and that’s how you’ve decided to define the term.
Yes, that’s clear. It might be helpful to add “generally considered to be” to the definition then. That would clear up the ambiguity.
Would you consider Dawkins incorrect in naming his book “The God Delusion”? This is from Merriam-Webster online:
—————
“Synonym Discussion of delusion”
“Delusion, illusion, hallucination, mirage mean something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal. delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind . illusion implies a false ascribing of reality based on what one sees or imagines . hallucination implies impressions that are the product of disordered senses, as because of mental illness or drugs . mirage in its extended sense applies to an illusory vision, dream, hope, or aim .”
——————-
According to Merriam-Webster a delusion is often the result of a disordered state of mind. We can quibble as to whether a “disordered state of mind” is the same as a mental illness. I will leave that to the American Psychological Association. But, if you agree with Dawkins that religion is a delusion and that a delusion is a disordered state of mind, then we can only conclude that religion is some sort of mental deficiency, if not a textbook definition of mental illness. You can counter this argument by saying that religion is a delusion, but not the result of a disordered state or mind. This is the crux of the debate. I believe it is an indication of a disordered state for people who have access to sources of logic that argue that religion is belief without evidence, acknowledge there is no such evidence or simply refuse to consider the logic, and still remain faithful. The uneducated or people living in a cocoon of limited information or pre-Enlightenment people whose only source of information about the universe was from holy men probably could not be classified as having a mental disorder.
I think I’d argue that the word “delusion” is nuanced, in that it can refer to both disordered states of mind which involve actual mental illness AND disordered states of mind which simply involve irrational, sloppy, stubborn, blind, wishful thinking and habits which are often culturally reinforced. could be deluded and yet not be psychotic or even neurotic, technically. So much depends on context, adaptation, function.
Iirc Dawkins once agreed that he could have just as easily called his book The God Illusion.
Even within extreme religious and spiritual belief systems, members can and often do make distinctions between people who are “touched by God” and those who are “touched” — meaning psychologically sick. I have friends who belong to systems where one is supposed to literally hear the voice of God or get psychic messages from the beyond. Their method of discerning mental illness involves a lot of the same methods we use: does it happen within “normal” bounds, does it make “sense?”
Delusion is a technical term *and* an ordinary language one. (Think “force” in physics vs. every day life.)
As far as I have been told, the DSM emphasizes “functioning”. And one way in which some religious folks are functioning is because they are surrounded by those of like mind.
All religions other than mine are superstitions.
All religions other than mine are cults.
I am reminded of a visit we had to our high school when I was a kid by something called the “Cult Awareness Network” or “Info-Culte” or something. They gave this presentation and a bunch of us after (including people from more religious household than mine) wondered what if any the difference was. Ooops. 😉
I follow a religion, you are a member of a cult, he believes in superstitions.
Its one of those irregular nouns.
“Supernatural influences … leading to good and bad luck.”
Oh, but everything happens for a reason!
There are no coincidences.
I agree with your definition in (2) above.
There are mental illnesses that can manifest themselves in extreme religiosity, but believing a superstition in and of itself is not a mental illness imo.
Of course, almost all religion is a type of superstition.
Identical to my own short investigation on this question.
Many Religions certainly include superstition as part of their practice (the Catholic devotion to miraculous statues being the most obvious case), but religion also includes community building and ethics.
It is IMO a question of motivation and social function.
Anthropologist Branislaw Malinowski “differentiated between magic and religion in defining magical systems as essentially pragmatic in their aims and religious systems as self-fulfilling rituals organized, for example, around life crises.” (encyclopedia.com)
Religion (for BraMal) is not (exclusively) utilitarian in quite the same way that superstition is- religion being to some degree an end-in-itself. Nor does superstition necessarily entail a moral code.
But sure, there are religious superstitions. And in some religions the superstitious element is not peripheral.
Interesting points. But isn’t superstition a kind of ethics or moral code, or, at least, doesn’t it create a moral code? I think that Bertrand Russell makes an interesting case for morality coming out of superstition in his essay “What I Believe”.
Russell did indeed see sexual and eating taboos as rooted in superstition.
The exact quote is
“Current morality is curious blend of utilitarianism and superstition, but the superstitious part has the stronger hold, as is natural, since superstition is the origin of moral rules. Originally, certain acts were said to be displeasing to the gods and were forbidden because the divine wrath was apt to descend upon the community.”
Yeah, that’s the part that I was thinking of. He continues in that section to describe superstition giving rise to morality. He seems to suggest that morals begin with superstition, fear of displeasing the gods. So, superstition does seem to entail a moral code, however crude that code is.
I get the inclusion of superstition characterization which may help an anthropologist classify religion against social function. But it looks at religious practice, not at religious belief.
I can try to abstract religious belief away from major religion’s magic practices such as prayer or other forms of rituals to appease their purported agencies. It remains those agencies that are purported to act magically, the world would be affected in ways that according to current understanding are impossible and will remain impossible.
So I find myself agreeing with Jerry, those are beliefs that are irrational, unfounded, and based on ignorance, as well as beliefs in impossible ‘supernatural’ dualism. They are magic beliefs, they are superstitious beliefs, or simpler they are magic superstition.
Also, channeling Ben, they are beliefs that like to fondle zombies.
Some might see zombie fondling as a kink, rather than a superstition.
/@
Separating superstition from religion can be a difficult mental task.
The dictionary states that superstition can be omens, witchcraft, phrophecies – things that contradict natural science. And then we have the Catholics who say superstition is a sin. Guess I won’t need that exercism just now.
Whenever somebody tells me that scripture is absolute, my response is, “Yeah – forty thousand denominations of Christianity can be wrong.”
Oops – that should have been “Yeah – forty thousand denominations of Christianity can’t be wrong.”
Damn! I wish WordPress had an edit feature.
True religion? I’d rather have fried chicken.
We can haz bacon cheezburgerz!
Let’s be fair, some superstitions are at least prudential: don’t walk under ladders, don’t open an umbrella inside (ever been next to a genius who does that?). Religion’s practicality is vanishingly small.
[I repost this from the thread of Barker, because I think it is both a funny and revealing work concerning religious myths. It bears on the superstition characterization.]
The fun thing with “The Holy Babble” is that it is precisely babble:
“Things took a particularly interesting turn when physicists from the IFJ PAN began tracking non-linear dependence, which in most of the studied works was present to a slight or moderate degree. However, more than a dozen works revealed a very clear multifractal structure, and almost all of these proved to be representative of one genre: stream of consciousness. The only exception was the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, which has so far never been associated with this literary genre.”
[ http://phys.org/news/2016-01-world-greatest-literature-reveals-multifractals.html ; my bold]
In other words, if that text doesn’t make sense for you it is because it doesn’t make sense. (O.o)
Makes sense to me Prof CC.
There’s a similar objection by religious people when we skeptics invoke the word “magic,” which they see as unserious and belittling.
This happened again in a debate I recently listened to, which had a theist defending the Cosmological Argument.
Naturally, he argued the cause must be a Personal Being, a God, who could have “decided” outside space and time, to create a universe. The atheist pointed out that invoking magic solutions to these questions is always problematic, and the theist huffed that he wasn’t arguing for “magic.”
But of course, he was. When asked “HOW does this God cause the universe” the theist has no answer but to appeal to God as having non-material, supernatural causal power. And Magic is defined as:
“the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.”
Supernatural power is equivalent to Magic power, but theists don’t like “magic” because it more concisely highlights the emptiness of their explanation.
(Theists similarly hate the Santa Clause Belief/God Belief comparisons too, despite the very real parallels).
Religion is a subcategory of superstition, namely superstition which contains a totalizing, authoritarian worldview. Putting a horseshoe over your door is a superstition but not a religion because no one insists that a lucky charm is of supreme metaphysical and ethical importance. It requires no loyalty and has no implications for the wider world. Religion, like all superstitions, is a false or at least irrational belief about how the world works, but is distinguished by the centrality and importance it places on itself. Somewhere in between we could put proto-religious beliefs like the idea that the world is inhabited by spirits whom it is best to appease by rituals and offerings.
I like to substitute the word superstition for the word faith just for fun–“he is a man of great superstition” sounds right for poking fun at faith claims
In the same sense it’s said that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy, a religion is a superstition with a congregation and a clergy.
Someone, somewhere needs to be reminded that Sithrak is oiling a spit, especially for him/her/it.
I do feel the need – the need for a Sithrak themed item of clothing.
I believe all religions came about as an attempt to explain the unknown. The superstition part comes at the point where we were told we had to either appease the gods or ask for intervention through prayer, sacrifice, tithes, rituals, and so on.
Modern day religions that cling to ancient myths in the face of scientific discovery aren’t superstition; they are a tragic victimization of the people for the enrichment of the few.
Yes.
Next question…
I’ve no problems with the debate or its general conclusions. I will own up to a personal view that argument by Dictionary Definition is a wasted effort.
There’s a tendency for such arguments to end up as arguments about labels rather than actualities. There’s always *some* other definition that supports the ‘other side’.
Plus I get an audio flashback to the music from Deliverance – Duelling Banjo – to duelling definitions.
Religion: Organized superstition that requires belief in magic (the supernatural).