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.

[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.

<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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[mysticphyre.livejournal.com]

Exactly :D

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

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[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]

I think it is an interesting theological question to ponder what remains of God if we disallow (rhetorically speaking) the supernatural as a source of malady.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

Life is an unexplained experience.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Life is its own explanation.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

How so?

[wyndhover.livejournal.com]

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

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, you've proposed the classic cosmological argument for the existence of God. I've seen it suggested in response that the "necessary condition for cosmic existence" is the cosmos itself. IOW, why is it any more absurd to propose that existence is its own necessary condition, than to propose that someone or something "must" have created it?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[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...

[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.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

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".

The difference is here: To say something may be the case (like you have here) is not necessarily a belief. To say it is the case, however, is a belief.

Again, I will say, I am not arguing about the validity of any specific belief, just about what qualifies as a belief.

[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.