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]

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).