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

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

To say "there is no god" is to posit a belief (can't be proved one way or another, even if def. of "god" didn't range so much as to make it a hugely problematic concept to attempt to communicate to another).
I agree with that.
I still consider aethism more & even other than a disbelief in god. Aethism, to me, is a recognition that a belief in God can be detrimental, esp. when people organize such beliefs into dogma or formal religion.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

To say "there is no god" is to posit a belief

If you say, "taking your picture will NOT steal your soul!" are you positing a belief? Or simply indicating lack of belief in someone else's assertion?

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

I do see your point, but in talking about anyrhing that can't be proved empiracally (like whether there are such things as souls) I think all we have are beliefs. It may be more sensible to disbelieve in things that can't be sensed, either directly or with our instruments. That's just Ocham's Razor.
But it's damn hard to prove a negative.
"There is no evidence for..." is an accurate statement of facts. "There is no..." is a statement of belief.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

An interesting question to me is: "Why do so many people feel compelled to believe in something they can't sense?"
That's a tree I'd bark up.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes, a very interesting question, that! It produces many meaningful answers, too, whether one believes in God or not.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

"There is no evidence for..." is an accurate statement of facts. "There is no..." is a statement of belief.

As long as there remains no evidence for X, it is inductively valid to say "there is no X."

It is a statement that many people dislike making, i'll grant you that. But then there are people who deny the validity of inductive reasoning altogether...

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

Nods. Thank you very much for the link. I've learned something (love when that happens).

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

I will state that the "inflation field" does not exist, because the only evidence we have of it in the early universe is that something made the Universe expand very very rapidly at the very beginning. There is no evidence to support the idea that this is a mysterious inflation field exists and the expansion of the early universe was not instead evidences of God's rapid creation.

I will also state that the chemical reactions that are claimed to have sparked the first life do not exist either, since the only evidence we have that life began as chemical reactions is that something must have initiated life. It might as well have been God.

Both are just as inductive valid as saying there is no God.

If we travel around the inductive reasoning road, we will find that it is inductively valid to accuse chronic pain suffers of having no pain, because they can provide no evidence of their pain. Indeed this is very often the logic used to deny those suffers the medication they need.

[daoistraver.livejournal.com]

actually, your last point is valid existentially.

That is, if you experience pain, then there is pain.

If you experience God, then God exists. For you.

But that says nothing about her existence for others.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

The doctor does not believe in your pain and your experience of it does not provide any evidence that it exists outside your mind. Inductively, why should the doctor simply not say "There is no God and there is no pain. No vicodin for you. Perhaps you'd like some Seroquel instead".

Many (quite possibly most) doctors do use this very logic, but I very much reject it as it is to close to logical positivism.

[daoistraver.livejournal.com]

me too.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

A doctor who refuses to treat pain is being an asshole, certainly.

But, taking this back to my original point. If the inflation field and the chemical origin of life have not been hypothesized to your satisfaction, it is not a 'positive belief' on your part that these things did not happen. It is simply a lack of belief in someone else's assertion.