Atheists more likely to believe in superstitions

[Sniffles]

Looks like I have quite a bit to respond to here, and I'll try to get to as much as possible.

I'll start by further elaborating on a point I made earlier:

Faith is the first step, but one must ultimately seek to understand that faith better through reason. As St. Anslem of Canteburry famously remarked, "Credo ut intelligam"(I believe so that I may understand).

Pope Benedict XVI addresses this issue very well in Introduction to Christianity, that belief in the mystery of the supernatural does not mean one can embrace any nonsense made in the name of that mystery. If you do that, then faith and religion look like utter nonsense. Faith is the foundation from which a rational understanding of things must precede from.

Allow me to cite the Pope to an considerable extent:

"If theology arrives at all kinds of absurdities and tries, not only to excuse them, but even when possible to canonize them by pointing to the mystery, then we are confronted with a misuse of the true idea of "mystery", the purpose of which is not to destroy reason but rather to render belief possible as understanding. In other words, it is certainly true that belief or faith is not knowledge in the sense of pratical knowledge and its particular kind of calculability. It can never become that, and in the last analysis it can only make itself ridiculous if it tries to establish itself in those forms. But the reverse is also true: practical knowledge is limited by its very nature to the apparent, to what functions, and does not represent the way in which to find truth itself, which by its very method it has renounced. The tool in with which man is equipped to deal with truth of being is not knowledge but understanding: understanding of the meaning of to which he has entrusted himself. And we must certainly add that "understanding" only reveals itself in "standing", not apart from it. One cannot occur without the other, for understanding means seizing and grasping as meaning the meaning that man has received as ground. I think this is the precise significance of what we mean by understanding: that we learn to grasp the ground on which we have taken our stand as meaning and truth; that we learn to perceive that ground represents meaning. If this is so, understanding not only implies no contradiction with belief but represents its most intrisnsic property."
--Introduction to Christianity pg. 77

 

[Sniffles]

From the article:

From Baylor University:

p

Seems you're operating on a genetic fallacy.

Name That Logical Fallacy in the Wall Street Journal

She makes a valid point of sorts, but seems to be knocking down a strawman. She even admits the accuracy of the study, and how it collaborates with a Gallup poll in 2001. Then makes a vague knee-jerk remark about people dying trying to escape demonic posession. Then she tries to lump Creationism, transubstantiation to Bigfoot - a classic tactic of many "skeptics" and whatnot.

The basic argument still stands; atheism does not mean one is immune to superstition. This Rebecca claims Hemingway has created a strawman. I doubt that, since the New Atheists are constantly knee-jerking religion as irrational by its very nature, and needs to be eradicated in order for humanity to advance. Enough blood has been spilled in the past 200 years in order to make that notion a reality.

 

[Sniffles]

No, real atheists/rationalists are not superstitious at all.

No true scotsman fallacy.

Really rational people are not superstitious

And what is a really rational person in your view? Do I have to list the numerous examples of highly intelligent people throughout history who believed in astrology for example? I believe Plato was afraid of the full moon even.

Then again, we could make it more interesting and note Chesterton's remark:
"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

 

[reason]

Ideas aren't rational or irrational, people are. It's how people relate to an idea which makes them rational or irrational, not the idea itself.

Supersitious, paranormal, or religious ideas can be held rationally. The danger with some religious ideas is that they encourage a commitment, suppress criticism, and enslave adherents to destructive paths. The same can rarely be said of superstitious or paranormal ideas, which are rarely held with such fevour.

 

[Virtual ghost]

And what is a really rational person in your view? Do I have to list the numerous examples of highly intelligent people throughout history who believed in astrology for example? I believe Plato was afraid of the full moon even.

Then again, we could make it more interesting and note Chesterton's remark:
"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

Rational and intelligent and two different things.

Actually I am quite close to your definition of "Madman".

 

[Virtual ghost]

I should of put the 'normal' qualifiers before 'being human', it would appear.

I should also of added that atheist <> rational, especially in terms of beliefs. People can be atheists for all sorts of bad reasons, when the "rational" reason is simply to use the best information possible to make your decision, therefore excluding superstition (religion) when it is not. In that sense, agnostics probably would end up being more rational, since atheists tend to take the approach of absolutism, while agnostics should assign probability, even extremely low probabilities, to such things. (Those low probabilities make it 'rational' to exclude superstition from daily events in the same way strong atheists would.)

To tell you the truth I think that your way of thinking I too conventional.

For example everybody are asking "Does god exist?" because that is the simplest question. But almost no one ask "What will we get If God exists? Why is that good for us?"

If you do that kind of a analysis you will probably realise that on the long run you will not get anything special.
I don't want to write an essay on how did I come to this but I will if that is what it takes.

This does not mean that God does not exists but shows that there is nothing important about that.

What is actally much harder hit for religion then probability that God maybe doesn't exist.

 

[ptgatsby]

For example everybody are asking "Does god exist?" because that is the simplest question. But almost no one ask "What will we get If God exists? Why is that good for us?"

I want to reply, but I have no idea how this relates to what I said, or the OP...

I think you are saying that we should assume God exists, then deduce what would be... but then you conclude that there would be nothing special about what does exist, therefore God might not exist. The argument hasn't advanced at.

Additionally, I'd say reality is special enough, as is intelligence, to justify that God is possible. In fact, I'd say that anything existing at all is enough to justify that God is possible. But nothing special? That's subjective - if we only exist because of God, then it's rather special.

 

[Venom]

Allow me to cite the Pope to an considerable extent:

1. I cant believe you are quoting the Pope ... another imperfect human being...the popes have changed their minds many many many times...yet they claim to be infallible. its laughable.

2. unless your a deist then I would have to argue that religion, including Chirstianity, is most certainly superstition.

man says something and knocks on wood to protect himself
man says something and then quickly prays aloud to God for forgiveness

3. Its only different from superstition TO YOU, because you assume that God is real. So of course its not superstition TO YOU. Because TO YOU its real.

its no different than a chinese medicine man claiming dragon bones is not superstition...because TO HIM, the dragon bones ARE REAL.

4. Anything that occurs in the real world of perception, that is explained without a naturalistic explanation is inherently superstition or psudo-science. My money is on the fact someone will come down on me for using an absolute here so i will clarify: Just because an explanation of something isnt naturalistic doesn mean it isnt true (i cant disprove negatives), but it most certainly is still superstition. Superstition basically IS the belief in the supernatural (magic, etc). The idea of Gods and goblins are both inherently SUPERnatural. If God acts on the world through some mechanism other than light, gravity, electromagnetism and matter etc than its by definition not of naturalism and therefore SUPERnatural. Supernatural really isnt that different than superstition.

5. You cant really claim anything on a study of atheists because atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF. There is no unifying world view apart from a lack of belief in God.

there are naturalists atheists and non naturalists atheists.
I would argue that your comment on the no true scottsman is invalid because if someone has rejected Magic enough to reject a belief in God, I cannot for the life of me see why they would still hold onto OTHER just as unfounded supernatural beliefs....but believe me, some actually DO.

 

[Eric B]

One point is what's called the "God-shaped void" in humanity.
The atheists and agnostics are trying hard now to stamp out religion (Just look at Why Won't God Heal Amputees?, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which someone here even uses as their avatar). Yet, I have seen people throw off religion from their lives, and make all sorts of logical arguments against it, and then once that is cleaned out; they re-adopt "spirituality" (under the guise that it is the "true spirituality"; and it is usually some form of new agey stuff.
Basically, they used science and logic to disprove "the supernatural", and the "invisible", just to eliminate theism, and yet then reaccept the world of the invisbile once that is done; but of course in a non-theistic way.
Of course, you could just say, as someone suggested, that these people were going to be superstitious anyway, and simply traded one form for another.

Yet, another point is that people are trying so hard to eraducate all religion, even from others' lives (hence, the "it's dangerous, and impedes progress"). They make much out of sneering at the "fear", "delusion", "superstition", and all sorts of other negative reasons people believe rligion. Of course; the biggest thing is the fear of death. So they try to rid us of that, yet they have nothing to replace it with. They act like the best solution is "well, the 'truth' is that there is probably nothing after this, so just make the most of your life now". This is what they want everyone to believe. Yet, deep down inside, they have to admit that they are not completely sure of it. Who can be?
There have even been stories of hard nosed atheists crying out to God right before they die, or when they come close to death. Also, people like the WWGHA mentioned above, who come up with utopian visions, that religion supposedly impeded the progress of. Such as man one day using science to live forever, or at least grow new limbs and such. Or just the general hope of us makign the earth better, and then evolving to somethign better. Yet, if you teach people now that there is nothing after this, and they should just get the most of life now, most will do just that, and not think about building this utopia.

So, it may be wrong to use religion infused with fear as this motivation to do good here and now, but the opponents are not seeing things clearly either in their approach.

 

[Venom]

One point is what's called the "God-shaped void" in humanity.
The atheists are trying hard now to stamp out religion (Just look at Why Won't God Heal Amputees?, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which someone here even uses as their avatar). Yet, I have seen people throw off religion from their lives, and make all sorts of logical arguments against it, and then once that is cleaned out; they readopt "spirituality" (under the guise that it is the "true spirituality"; and it is usually some form of new agey stuff.
Basically, they used science and logic to disprove "the supernatural", and the "invisible", just to eliminate theism, and yet then reaccept the world of the invisbile once that is done; but of course in a non-theistic way.
Of course, you could just say, as someone suggested, that these people were going to be superstitious anyway, and simply traded one form for another.

Yet, another point is that people are trying so hard to eraducate all religion, even from others' lives (hence, the "it's dangerous, and impedes progress"). They make much out of sneering at the "fear", "delusion", "uperstition", and all sorts of other negative reasons people believe rligion. Of course; the biggest thing is the fear of death. So they try to rid us of that, yet they have nothing to replace it with. They act like the best solution is "well, the 'truth' is that there is probably nothing after this, so just make the most of your life now". This is what they want everyone to believe. Yet, deep down inside, they have to admit that they are not completely sure of it. Who can be?
There have even been stories of hard nosed atheists crying out to God right before they die, or when they come close to death. Also, people like the WWGHA mentioned above, who come up with utopian visions, that religion supposedly impeded the progress of. Such as man one day using science to live forever, or at least grow new limbs and such. Or just the general hope of us makign the earth better, and then evolving to somethign better. Yet, if you teach people now that there is nothing after this, and they should just get the most of life now, most will do just that, and not think about building this utopia.

So, it may be wrong to use religion infused with fear as this motivation to do good here and now, but the opponents are not seeing things clearly either in their approach.

i think much of what you are saying is an indictment against shitty atheists...not atheism itself.

you're right that no one knows for sure. but if we clung to that tightly then everyone sane would have to be a theistic hopeful agnostic or a lack of belief agnostic...aka all agnostic. instead we have de facto theist and de facto atheist because the truth is that people are going to live their lives as if they believe one way or the other...so de facto simply becomes "95% is good enough for me" in describing who is theist and atheist.


also, I have no personal reason for believing in spirits or ghosts. Therefore I dont believe in them. However, say i had an experience and chose to believe in them suddenly. It sill wouldnt change the lack of christian evidence IMO... So i think its possible to be an Atheist who has supernatural beliefs and yet still be atheistic about God.

 

[Sniffles]

1. I cant believe you are quoting the Pope

I'm Catholic, so why shouldn't I? You're not resorting to a genetic fallacy are you?

... another imperfect human being...the popes have changed their minds many many many times...yet they claim to be infallible. its laughable.

You expose your ignorance of the concept of Papal infallibility. It does not mean that the Pope can say whatever he wants and it's infallible. Furthermore, the power of Papal infallibility has only been used twice in the entire 2000 year history of the Church.

2. unless your a deist then I would have to argue that religion, including Chirstianity, is most certainly superstition.

That is incorrect.

man says something and knocks on wood to protect himself
man says something and then quickly prays aloud to God for forgiveness

This doesn't follow.

3. Its only different from superstition TO YOU, because you assume that God is real. So of course its not superstition TO YOU. Because TO YOU its real.

God is not a superstition per se, otherwise we'd have to classify much of philosophy - especially metaphysics - as superstition. Not to mention that much of philosophy relies on rational explainations about God.

its no different than a chinese medicine man claiming dragon bones is not superstition...because TO HIM, the dragon bones ARE REAL.

God is a metaphysical entity; while dragons would in theory be physical entities. Big difference.

4. Anything that occurs in the real world of perception, that is explained without a naturalistic explanation is inherently superstition or psudo-science.

Then by this definition, miracles are not superstitions.

If God acts on the world through some mechanism other than light, gravity, electromagnetism and matter etc than its by definition not of naturalism and therefore SUPERnatural.

You are aware that the Bible clearly states that God works with nature in order to bring about the occurance of miracles? Thus, miracles are not contrary to the laws of nature. An analogy would be you catching an apple as it falls from a tree. The fact you catched the apple does not invalidate the laws of gravity. So God's special intervention at particular times does not invalidate the laws of nature, especially since he works with nature to bring them about.

Miracles are by their very nature extraordinary events, and thus are not explainations of the normal course of events in nature. And of course not all extraordinary events are miracles either. Catholicism at least has a very strict criteria as to determining what is actually a miracle.

5. You cant really claim anything on a study of atheists because atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF. There is no unifying world view apart from a lack of belief in God.

Where did I say otherwise? In fact the major argument here to begin with is that there is no unifying belief among atheists.

there are naturalists atheists and non naturalists atheists.

Yes I know. Where did I say otherwise?

I would argue that your comment on the no true scottsman is invalid because if someone has rejected Magic enough to reject a belief in God, I cannot for the life of me see why they would still hold onto OTHER just as unfounded supernatural beliefs....but believe me, some actually DO.

You're not making any sense here. I made the statement about the no true scotsman against the argument that only real atheists rely on reason and science. That's not true, as was shown here by the one study, and as you yourself just stated above.

You claim that's invalid, yet oddly you just validated my argument!

 

[ptgatsby]

Peguy,

The way that you approach religion, or what religion is, does not mean that the average person with average religious belief does. More percisely, religion can still be used as superstition by the average person, and if the definition doesn't include many religious superstitions, then the correlation will strongly show that religious people are not as superstitious.

In that context, the study is not measuring the degree of susceptibility to superstition and the correlation is engineered by defining non-religious superstition stronger than religious superstition.

You would have to come up with a definition that would put them on equal level. For instance, seeing God's hand in one's personal life is superstition, while believing in a creator (ie: deistic views) might not be.

Unless an objective view of what counts as superstition is used, the study and all conclusions are inherently useless.

(Please note that this has nothing to do with religion directly, for there are many ways to be religious. It is only pointing out that by isolating the definition to non-religious superstitions, you will invariably get the conclusions in the study. You could easily do the reverse - define rational as the lack of belief in a creator, then say that religious people are not rational.)

 

[Sniffles]

Peguy,

The way that you approach religion, or what religion is, does not mean that the average person with average religious belief does. More percisely, religion can still be used as superstition by the average person, and if the definition doesn't include many religious superstitions, then the correlation will strongly show that religious people are not as superstitious.

Im well aware that my approach to religion is different than the average person's. In fact one of my major arguments against atheists is that religion by its nature is very complex and varied.

Can religion be used as a superstition? Yes, but that's still different then saying they're the same - as many are trying to argue here.

In that context, the study is not measuring the degree of susceptibility to superstition and the correlation is engineered by defining non-religious superstition stronger than religious superstition.

Here's an excerpt of a summary of the report's findings from Baylor University:

Christianity and Superstition


The Baylor Survey found that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases credulity, as measured by beliefs in such things as dreams, Bigfoot, UFOs, haunted houses, communicating with the dead and astrology (Ch. 15, "Credulity: Who Believes in Bigfoot"). Still, it remains widely believed that religious people are especially credulous, particularly those who identify themselves as Evangelicals, born again, Bible believers and fundamentalists. However, the ISR researchers found that conservative religious Americans are far less likely to believe in the occult and paranormal than are other Americans, with self-identified theological liberals and the irreligious far more likely than other Americans to believe. The researchers say this shows that it is not religion in general that suppresses such beliefs, but conservative religion.


"There's an old saying that a man who no longer believes in God is ready to believe in just about anything, and it turns out our data suggests it's true. That is to say, religious people don't believe this stuff, but there's no education effect," Stark said.


Among other interesting findings on paranormal or occult beliefs: People who have read The Purpose-Driven Life or any book in the Left Behind series are less likely to believe in the occult and paranormal, while those who have read any book on dianetics or The Da Vinci Code are more likely to believe.

Baylor University || Marketing & Communications || News

Now I'll remind you this is just a summary of an entire chapter of a larger study concerning religious beliefs in America. The examples given above are very often considered superstitious beliefs, by both religious and especially atheists-skeptics. The latter group actually spends more time debunking these types of beliefs than the former even. So I doubt the study was stacking the deck in favor of religion.

If we go by the tone of most skeptical-atheist polemics: belief in God is no different than belief in astrology. If so, then there should be a correlation between the two. This and other studies say otherwise. And again, this is in regards to beliefs and practices that are commonly labelled superstitious by both believers and non-believers alike.

Now the question becomes, why does this correlation exist? Many are arguing because the study is too biased in favor of religion. Well exactly how? And the only answer I've seen so far basically amounts to labelling any remote religious belief as "superstitious"; which of course stacks the deck against religion in favor of irreligion.

 

[ptgatsby]

Can religion be used as a superstition? Yes, but that's still different then saying they're the same - as many are trying to argue here.

Yup, just want to be clear that I am not picking up the torch of what others are arguing. I meant it only as far as the studies go - it's a study in definitions that loses too much context when reduced to 'superstition'.

So I doubt the study was stacking the deck in favor of religion.

I've read most of it, I believe - I'm not defending or attacking it, just saying that the reduction to simple explanations loses a lot of context. As I said in my initial post, all people are wired in a similar way. Religion does fill the metaphysical gap for many people, just as other superstitions will.

That doesn't make the superstitions or the religion irrational, in similar ways. A police officer is wrong when he notices that crime rises with a full moon, but he can feel it. We all have these kinds of biases in us.

I'd argue that the problems comes when we act on them, but that's not really important to this conversation.

If we go by the tone of most skeptical-atheist polemics: belief in God is no different than belief in astrology. If so, then there should be a correlation between the two. This and other studies say otherwise. And again, this is in regards to beliefs and practices that are commonly labelled superstitious by both believers and non-believers alike.

That doesn't follow. The "correlation" would be derived from the mental process that causes belief in a broad category of superstition. It would essentially show that all people believe in something fanciful that defies evidence, but do so differently. There is no tangible difference between claiming that stars influence us anymore than gods influence us (removing the social context of religion, of course). I'm framing it in the context of gods to include eastern and past religions as well.

Now the question becomes, why does this correlation exist?

Because the need a guiding force, meaning and so forth, and they are present in both astrology and religion. Having one means you no longer need to seek the other.

(An example, I am not positively claiming this.)

Many are arguing because the study is too biased in favor of religion. Well exactly how? And the only answer I've seen so far basically amounts to labelling any remote religious belief as "superstitious"; which of course stacks the deck against religion in favor of irreligion.

That is exactly why we need a definition that equalizes the two. I fully agree that atheists are more superstitious in the general sense. However, the price to religion to realise this does not bring atheists 'down a notch'. It really shows that, humans being human and generally equal, casts religion as the superstition filler for a great many of humans.

 

[Venom]

If we go by the tone of most skeptical-atheist polemics: belief in God is no different than belief in astrology. If so, then there should be a correlation between the two. This and other studies say otherwise. And again, this is in regards to beliefs and practices that are commonly labelled superstitious by both believers and non-believers alike.

Now the question becomes, why does this correlation exist? Many are arguing because the study is too biased in favor of religion. Well exactly how? And the only answer I've seen so far basically amounts to labelling any remote religious belief as "superstitious"; which of course stacks the deck against religion in favor of irreligion.

look i am aware of what a "no true scottsman" argument says I am not allowed to bring up in an argument... But im questioning the litmus test they used to ascertain Atheist.... I really cannot for the life of me understand superstition. I mean here these atheists have convinced themselves against one of the most convincing religions and yet instead of taking that as a "ya magic and fairies and bad luck probably do not exist" how do they then suddenly resume being religious under a different guise?

here's what I mean about religion being superstitious. I recently had a christain try and tell me that the Roman Empire fell because God made them fall. ...he would hear none of the various explanations. in his mind, God did it. Why is _____ person decide to call _____ on the day that allowed other chance event to happen? God did it. To me, assigning meaning to coincidence kind of sounds like supersition to me. This may not be your brand of Christianity Peguy, but its what I am often confronted with.

 

[Brendan]

Well well well.....so much for the argument that religion is only for savage idiots!

Hmm. I was arguing this whole time that savage idiots are only for religion and superstition.

Either way the point is moot. Substitute one irrational belief with another. Tomayto, tomahto.

 

[Sniffles]

here's what I mean about religion being superstitious. I recently had a christain try and tell me that the Roman Empire fell because God made them fall. ...he would hear none of the various explanations. in his mind, God did it. Why is _____ person decide to call _____ on the day that allowed other chance event to happen? God did it. To me, assigning meaning to coincidence kind of sounds like supersition to me. This may not be your brand of Christianity Peguy, but its what I am often confronted with.

I'll agree with that person's argument, but I think your reaction to it is rather simplistic. The aim that person is going towards is a theological understanding of history. Probably a more articulate version of this perspective is City of God by St. Augustine, where he did address the historical fall of Rome from a theological perspective.

Assigning meaning to certain events is not superstition. Otherwise, taken to its logical conclusion, you could say that the whole concept of philosophy of history is superstitious.

If he thinks God directly caused the fall of the Roman Empire, then that's a clear case of Occasionalism, which is actually an Islamic, not a Christian, perspective. A Christian perspective would be more that God operates within history through particular agents.

 

[Jae Rae]

Too funny - I read the OP as Athletes more likely to believe in superstitions.

 

[Sniffles]

Hmm. I was arguing this whole time that savage idiots are only for religion and superstition.

Don't flatter yourself, I was referring to Bluewing's remarks on the matter.

Either way the point is moot. Substitute one irrational belief with another. Tomayto, tomahto.

Yes that's it, keep proving Francis Bacon correct.

 

[Eric B]

I'll agree with that person's argument, but I think your reaction to it is rather simplistic. The aim that person is going towards is a theological understanding of history. Probably a more articulate version of this perspective is City of God by St. Augustine, where he did address the historical fall of Rome from a theological perspective.

Assigning meaning to certain events is not superstition. Otherwise, taken to its logical conclusion, you could say that the whole concept of philosophy of history is superstitious.

If he thinks God directly caused the fall of the Roman Empire, then that's a clear case of Occasionalism, which is actually an Islamic, not a Christian, perspective. A Christian perspective would be more that God operates within history through particular agents.

Oh; so that's what that doctrine is called!
Problem is, the line between God "working through" circumstances, and "causing" them often becomes fuzzy; especially in the retrospective interpretations of events (such as conservative Christians, who would profess the "working through" concept, but then go on saying disasters are God's "judgments"; suggesting He caused them in retribution, Also; the even more widespread belief and million-selling teaching "God is testing you to make you grow" said to those suffering some other misfortune).

This was driving me up the wall until I realized it was groundless speculation and the proof-texts used to teach it were being taken out of context.