the "disbelief is a belief" question again

[sophiaserpentia]

Does it take faith to disbelieve that breaking a mirror is bad luck? What about not believing that a black cat crossing your path is bad luck?

If not, how is this different from the same question applied to God?

If yes, what distinguishes a "valid" superstition like the ones listed above from "invalid" ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about supersititions from other cultures, like the belief that taking a picture steals your soul?

Is the difference that people in this culture were exposed since early childhood to believe in the superstitions listed above?

Comments

[brontosproximo.livejournal.com]

If yes, what distinguishes a "valid" superstition like the ones listed above from "invalid" ones.

The passage of sufficient time so that the origin story is shrouded in mystery.

Do you say "Bless you" when someone sneezes? Why? How do you feel about someone who doesn't say it to you?

[mysticphyre.livejournal.com]

Bless you was said as (i don't know if it is true or not) but it was thought that your heart skips a beat when you sneeze.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Sometimes i do, sometimes i don't. I don't particularly care if someone says anything to me when i sneeze.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Okay, see, if this assertion of "disbelief is a belief" only applies to concepts we're exposed to in our culture throughout our childhood, that strikes me as very strong evidence that it does not meet an objective standard. In other words, i don't think the assertion holds up from an objective point of view.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

I say *gesund*-- which to me is more of a reminder for people to care for their health than anything. It used to bother me (years ago) if people didn't say something when I sneezed til I realized I was being supersticious & silly.

I believe *bless you* originated in the idea that the soul leaves the body for a moment when one sneezes-- thus allowing illness/ demons in.

[brontosproximo.livejournal.com]

snopes.com has a whole list of reasons it might be.

The real reason is that everybody else does it and there is social pressure if you do not do it. Which I think is part of my point.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I say "Gesundheit", because I'm an educated elitist that way. :))

Okay, I say it because it is what a polite person is supposed to say and I try to pretend to be civilized at work.

[mysticphyre.livejournal.com]

The examples of superstition you site seem to be egocentric, based around something you do and seem to focus more on the reasons bad things happen. Although, in some older texts, due to the perception of their reality at the time both good and bad things were attributed to God. IE; a tribe attacked and slaughtered them because they strayed from the words of God or lacked faith.

Faith as in God usually is based on experiences or experiences of another, or something greater than yourself.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Most superstitions seek to explain bad things that happen which would otherwise be senseless. The crops failed? Oh, we must have angered the gods!

[mysticphyre.livejournal.com]

Exactly :D

<lj user=daeron> just posted this, co-incidentally...

[brontosproximo.livejournal.com]

Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.

--Oscar Wilde, The Critic As Artist

Re: <lj user=daeron> just posted this, co-incidentally...

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

Nothing survives unchanged... indeed nothing survives. Religions, like empires come & go.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

There is a difference between disbelief in specific things more (i.e. Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Ra) and belief that there is nothing more. The former is disbelief, but the later is belief.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Only if someone has ever had an unexplained experience in their life.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

Life is an unexplained experience.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

Even unexplained experience doesn't nec. lead one to the leap it takes to believe in some supernatural / divine causation.
& I'm frankly truly puzzled as to statements I've heard here & elsewhere about *belief that there is nothing more*.
I'm sincerely not trying to be snarky but ... nothing more than what?

AFAIK, my senses feed me as much information about the universe as I can ever encompass-- they may well be able to feed me information about everything in the universe. What *more than everything* is there? & how can *everything* not be enough to satisfy me?

I don't mean to offend, but what if the "longing for connection" that some people feelin in regards to their spiritual drives isn't much more than the unresolved emotional longings from childhood seperation anxiety?
Need for human love that went unfulfilled that gets interp. as "I feel a longing for something more, therefore there must be something more".

I admit quite openly here, my own bias as someone who deeply explored spirituality for years & eventually came to a place in myself of contentment such that the known & knowable universe has more than enough beauty & wonder to satisfy me, so I may just not be able to *grok* the place of spirituality in others lives...

[wyndhover.livejournal.com]

Do you see no difference, then, between lack of belief and disbelief?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Disbelief is a reaction. Lack of belief is absence of action or inaction.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

Disbelief is a reaction.

Presumably a reaction to another's assertion of belief?

Seems to me the burden of proof is entirely on the asserter. :)

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

It would take "faith" to disbelieve those things in a society which overwhelmingly accepted them as common sense, unquestioned parts of everyday life (because to reject those things means others will not see the rejection as valid and will question it). Just as it takes "faith" to believe them in a society which does not accept them as clearly true and/or which questions the validity of those claims. I don't think it's necessarily just exposure at early childhood, but the extent of the pervasiveness and grounding of the belief in society.

In the modern sense of faith, conservative Christians require faith because the majority of society does not accept or questions their set of beliefs (including, getting down to particulars, other conservative Christians - they don't agree on a lot of stuff). Whether "belief in God" requires faith is a bit trickier. I think something like 90+% of people at least profess a belief in God in the US? That's probably a common-sense level. But I don't think it's a belief that is completely unquestioned. So some small bit of faith is probably required. Likewise, then, "disbelief in God" requires some bit of faith to reject its common-sensicality.

But I would question the apparent notion of faith being used here in the first place. Marcus Borg argues that "faith" as it is most commonly understood by Americans (especially conservative Christians) today bears little/only partial resemblance to the "faith" of the early or especially medieval church. When belief in God's existence and intervention in everyday life is a "common sense," _unquestioned_ part of everyday life on a society-wide level, it becomes somewhat meaningless to talk about faith as a conscious act of choosing the right beliefs, unsupported by "fact" and requiring some sort of effort of will.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

This is a great analysis of the situation, thank you. It does require a positive expenditure of energy to defend a lack of belief in something against repeated assertion of it. I'm not sure that constitutes any sort of "faith," but it is a very real expenditure.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"If not, how is this different from the same question applied to God?"

It isn't.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Okay,*ultimately* belief is the same thing as non-belief. But not in the way you mean here.

In visual mode, it is the same thing. Just like light/dark, life/death, and all the continuums.

Our languge structure treats belief like is a "thingness". Which is ridiculous. I mean in action, belief is like a modifier of that which is believed in. Without some context, whether implied or stated, the phrase "Do you believe" is so vague as to ask everything and nothing at once - at minimum you need a what and a to what degree to have some sense.

Saying that belief is the opposite of disbelief (in the always and dichotomy laden sense) is sorta like saying that because positive numbers are the opposite of negative numbers then +3 is the opposite of -3494839394850304593. Think of belief/non-belief being as close as possible to either side of the zero point. And the difference between them can be opposite or almost infintitely away from opposite. For any and all things and combinations of things that can be believed in or not.

In linguistic mode, only a limited number of belief/non belief combos are close enough to be considered the "same" if we judge same as "really close in quantity and quality" (and then in a limited and static atmosphere)

A lot of double-speak type cognitive dissonances rely on the fact that everyone has access to the various modes of cognition, but that most people will try to resolve the implications of what they access in other modes soley in that word-think stuff.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I tried to get at it before, but it really just comes down to this: there is a difference between lacking a belief in something and positively asserting that something does not exist.

I can lack the belief that breaking a mirror is seven years bad luck. Millions of people who have never even heard of the superstition are do just that. But that is different from asserting that breaking a mirror does not lead to seven years bad luck.

Not asserting something is different from asserting its opposite.

[neosis.livejournal.com]

Mirror -> Yes (but only the first time)
Cat -> Mo

Why the difference? Because disbelieving something requires faith in yourself, in science, in reason, in logic, in order, whatever you chose to believ that tells you something else is not true. While not believing something only requires doubt.

The first time you break a mirror you can't prove it won't cause seven years of bad luck. The second time, however, you can probably find at least one speck of good luck to prove that the superstition is false.

If you doubt the existence of God, you are not a believer. You may go to church and donate money, but you're not doing it because you have faith, you're doing it because your peers and/or family do (or possibly other reasons, I've heard people say church a is good place to meet people).

If you chose to believe that nothing like God can exist then you have make a decision to believe something which you can not prove.

That, I think, is the essence of faith. To have confidence in a decision or idea which you can not prove is correct.