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

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

A) There is a difference between existence and life. My question still stands: how is life its own explanation?

B) I am not arguing the existence of God here. Life having no provable or definitive explanation does not necessarily mean that there was any consciousness involved in its creation. However to believe that advent of life (or the universe or everything for that matter) is due to the laws of physics and nature is just as much a belief as believing that a consciousness (or consciousnesses) was involved.

Science has done a pretty good job explaining the evolution of life, but still offers no explanation about its origin. In fact, within the sciences their is an embarrassment of riches in regards to the number theories about the origin of life.

C) Many of your arguments seem to be tangled in the perception of Atheism as a disbelief in the Judeo-Christian concept of God. Atheism is much more than that.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

My question still stands: how is life its own explanation?

What is an explanation, beyond something that leads us to greater clarity in the face of a mystery? If humans did not have curiosity, we could not perceive the "big picture" as something which needs of an explanation beyond that offered by the senses.


However to believe that advent of life (or the universe or everything for that matter) is due to the laws of physics and nature is just as much a belief as believing that a consciousness (or consciousnesses) was involved.

Sure. But the question is whether disbelief in any hypothesis is itself a belief.


Many of your arguments seem to be tangled in the perception of Atheism as a disbelief in the Judeo-Christian concept of God. Atheism is much more than that.

There are not inexhausibly many possible supernatural beings. In fact, there is a remarkably small set of "possible supernatural beings" in which humans are inclined to place any sort of credence. That is why i feel comfortable taking all possible supernatural beings as previously posited. There are no new supernatural beings that can be proposed which are not variations on something people conceived of many generations ago.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

What is an explanation, beyond something that leads us to greater clarity in the face of a mystery? If humans did not have curiosity, we could not perceive the "big picture" as something which needs of an explanation beyond that offered by the senses.

That still does not explain how life is its own explanation, it just goes to why we might seek an explanations.

There are no new supernatural beings that can be proposed which are not variations on something people conceived of many generations ago.

That is very much a belief! And it is a belief that I very much disbelieve. It reminds me of a senator in the early nineteenth century seeking to abolish the patent office because everything that could be invented had been invented.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

That still does not explain how life is its own explanation, it just goes to why we might seek an explanations.

Yes, i apologize i misunderstood what you were saying before now; i was misreading "life" as "what it is like to be alive."

This goes back to my original point. The idea that life has a supernatural origin comes from human culture. Suppose there's a culture where this idea never arose. Would it be an act of belief from someone of that culture if they did not believe the assertion, once it is made to them, that life has a supernatural origin?


That is very much a belief! And it is a belief that I very much disbelieve. It reminds me of a senator in the early nineteenth century seeking to abolish the patent office because everything that could be invented had been invented.

I do not think this analogy holds, because there's evidence that people are inclined to believe in gods, ancestor spirits, ghosts, vampires, witches, and so on, because of the way our brains work. Any supernatural being which is not a variation on those already conceived of by various human cultures will seem to us very much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster does -- as an arbitrary creation not deserving of creedence.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

This goes back to my original point. The idea that life has a supernatural origin comes from human culture. Suppose there's a culture where this idea never arose. Would it be an act of belief from someone of that culture if they did not believe the assertion, once it is made to them, that life has a supernatural origin?

What do the people in this hypothetical culture believe? Do they believe that life came about due to the laws of physics and nature or do they very hypothetically just not have any beliefs about the origin of life.

I do not think this analogy holds, because there's evidence that people are inclined to believe in gods, ancestor spirits, ghosts, vampires, witches, and so on, because of the way our brains work. Any supernatural being which is not a variation on those already conceived of by various human cultures will seem to us very much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster does -- as an arbitrary creation not deserving of creedence.

New ideas are never accepted immediately. In terms of religion, (while there are exceptions) it generally takes on the order of hundreds of years for any new ideas to be given any sort credence. That, however, does not mean that no new ideas are not possible nor that all will fail to reach that mark, it simply means they won't reach that mark quickly.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Maybe the people of this hypothetical culture have never even wondered about the existence of life as a distinct phenomenon.

I like the idea of paradigm shift to explain changes in religious belief.

Perhaps time will prove me wrong, and a new archetype will emerge, and a completely new kind of supernatural being will be conceived of. It will still be 'fundamentally supernatural' in that people will believe in it in spite of total lack of external sensory evidence. If an entirely new and unprecedented mode of supernaturalism is conceived of, then i will be proven wrong. I suppose that is within the realm of potential.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

A new archetype need never emerge in human thinking for there to exist such a consciousness that is beyond human comprehension.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

No, but there has to be some degree of comprehension or conceptua-ability (is that a word?) of something for someone to believe in it.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

Something does not have to be believed in to exist.

To believe that no such consciousness(es) exist or can exist is definitely more than a lack of belief, as you yourself point out that it might not be possible to actually believe in whatever consciousness(es) actually exist out there (or in here, or both).

[daoistraver.livejournal.com]

I also think that several generations from now, people will believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in the way that people believe in Jehovah right now.

In fact, some people have that kind of faith toward Eris already.

The only post-modern "religion" that might escape that is SubGenius, because it's so intentionally ridiculous that it would be really hard to believe.