Faith and Superstition

[pavlosmarcos]

Faith and Superstition.


Superstition is breaking mirrors and immediately feeling cursed.
or winning the lottery and feeling your blessed.

Faith is believing in that which is greater than oneself and being blessed.
or doing a minor transgresion and feeling your damned

Superstition is what inspired Halloween.
and the tooth fairy

Faith is Easter, minus the bunnies and eggs.
but with the ghost and zombie

Superstition is reading the same astrologer’s prediction for you that everyone else gets and believing it applies to you.

Faith is reading the same Bible that everyone else reads and believing that it applies to you.

Superstition or faith require no special effort nor do they need to be grounded in reality. Some people see the awesome grandeur of the universe and are awestruck at how amazing it is that it all happened by chance. Others view the universe and are awestruck at the concept of an even greater Being that they credit it with.

It is a matter of education, and not indoctrination, to understand that superstition sleeps in the same bed as faith, it is just a matter of common sense. Reasonable men choose not to follow the superstition, however, It takes no special IQ to be an atheist any more than it does to be a christian. faith is as close to superstition as a jew is to a christian. For superstition is unreasonable, therefore christianity is as unreasonable as a philosophy of life can be.

what do you feel are the differences, if any, between faith and superstition?,
and please not just the dictionary definitions.

 

[SkinWalker]

Superstition is the sometimes ritualistic but irrational behavior that has the intent to bring about a desired result from supernatural agency. Tossing salt over a shoulder; avoidance of ladders for walking under; communion; signing the cross; crossing your fingers; wearing a favorite shirt before a baseball game; etc.

Faith is blind trust in absence of, even in spite of, evidence.

 

[geeser]

So the huge distinction here is, faith means believing in things that you have no evidence to believe in, whilst superstition means believing in things you have no evidence to believe in.
ah I see.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

So the huge distinction here is, faith means believing in things that you have no evidence to believe in, whilst superstition means believing in things you have no evidence to believe in.
ah I see.

wrong

Faith DOES NOT mean believng in things that you have no evidence to believe
in, quite the contrary. It is is based on what you know you CAN believe in based on previous experience.

BLIND FAITH is however faith in something without any good reason that this thing can be 'believed in'.

I have faith in myself, this may include: my abilities, my nature, my moral code. I know myself, this is not 'blind' faith and not without 'evidence'.

I have 'faith' in those around me that I love and trust. Faith that they will be there for me when I need them the most. Faith that they will not desert me in my times of trouble.

I could say I have faith in the political, educational, health systems of UK, but I don't.

I have no blind faith, what I have faith in relates to experience and outcomes of past experiences. A game of odds if you like. I have come to expect certain outcomes based on past experience this is what forms the basis of my faith.

Superstition ...not the same

 

[c7ityi_]

Superstition is breaking mirrors and immediately feeling cursed.

yeah, but have you ever wondered why broken mirrors would give you bad luck for 7 years. 7 is a number often used in ancient myths. i'm sure it had some meaning, but people didn't understand it.

 

[geeser]

I think he means religious blind faith, else why would it be here.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

it looks like I'll have to clarify this a bit more, as we are on a religious forum it should be religious faith, not at other kind.

 

[audible]

wrong

Faith DOES NOT mean believng in things that you have no evidence to believe
in, quite the contrary. It is is based on what you know you CAN believe in based on previous experience.

but are these experiences, objective or subjective.

I have no blind faith, what I have faith in relates to experience and outcomes of past experiences.

when a person walks under a ladder or does'nt cross knifes, walk on cracks, etc... does'nt he also have faith that relates to experience and outcomes of past experiences.

 

[baumgarten]

I beg to differ that faith requires backing evidence, or that there's some concrete distinction to be made between 'faith' and 'blind faith'. When you hold something to be true without being able to prove it to yourself, you are taking a leap of faith. Your belief isn't more or less "faithy" depending on whether it seems reasonable to believe.

I somewhat agree with SW's definition of superstition, a behavioral pattern that could be the result of faith. It seems to me, though, that nine times out of ten we call a ritual superstitious when it is based on the fear of the unknown; if we don't understand an event, our tendency is to recreate the situation as closely as possible to get the same result. If I wear a certain shirt to my first Yankees game and they win a close one over the Red Sox, it may seem prudent to wear that shirt again the next time they face a tough opponent because I have drawn a causal connection between my previous actions on that day and the satisfaction of seeing my team beat its rival. If I do not wear the shirt, I have made a major change to my own situation compared with the last time, and so this time around "it might not work."

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I somewhat agree with SW's definition of superstition, a behavioral pattern that could be the result of faith.

Superstitons generally (not in all cases) originate from from very reasonable things, over time we forget the reason we started doing the 'preventative' things or maybe the reason doesn't exist anymore, the behaviour however has become habit and thus is repeated. In the absense of any reassonning remaining as to why the habit exists we try to justify it with replacement reasonning hence the superstition.

The superstition then exists on its own, But where it originated from is often based on something real not 'faith' in anything.


We do lots of things today we have no recollection of why? Some very common practices do indeed stem from various religious practices:

Birthday cakes for example...traditionally round white with a candle.
Q: Where did this idea originate? A: Pagan moon worship.

Circumsision:
Q: Where did this originate
A: Egyptian snake worship - they decided to honour the snake and become more snakelike by shedding their skins...look at that took off!

Superstition:
Spilling salt and throwing it over left shoulder for good luck? Not so
Devils and demons believed to sit on your left shoulder, so if you spill some salt, waste not want not, blind the bugger in the eye by throwing the spilled salt at him.

Walking under ladder unlucky, well yes it is, especially if a pot of paint falls and lands on your head.

 

[baumgarten]

Historically, that may be true, and it's a fascinating idea. From a personal standpoint, though, someone unaware of the historical origins of a superstition might base the ritual on faith that it works.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I beg to differ that faith requires backing evidence, or that there's some concrete distinction to be made between 'faith' and 'blind faith'.

MY faith requires backing evidence, and this includes all types of faith. It is known that I believe in God, but do I have faith in God........well what sort of faith would you be talking about? I do not have faith that bad things will not befall me, because bad things do. I do however have faith that I will learn something from these bad things (eventually) and so the faith I have is based on fact. Fact: Bad things can and do happen to me, FACT: I always have learned something from every experience (good or bad). My faith is not blind. This will vary from person to person, but this MUIST alter when something occurs unexpected.

Maybe this is why people become disillusioned with God when bad things happen, because their faith has been rocked. They had 'blind faith' nothing bad could happen to them, something bad did happen, thus God doesn't exist anymore. The fault lies not with belief in God but with their flawed belief in blind faith.



You can have belief in God without having baseless faith.

 

[baumgarten]

MY faith requires backing evidence, and this includes all types of faith. It is known that I believe in God, but do I have faith in God........well what sort of faith would you be talking about? I do not have faith that bad things will not befall me, because bad things do. I do however have faith that I will learn something from these bad things (eventually) and so the faith I have is based on fact. Fact: Bad things can and do happen to me, FACT: I always have learned something from every experience (good or bad). My faith is not blind. This iwill vary from person to person, but this MUIST alter when something occurrs unexpected.

Maybe this is why people become disillusioned with God when bad things happen, because their faith has been rocked. They had 'blind faith' nothing bad could happen to them, something bad did happen, thus God doesn't exist anymore.

I don't have blind faith.

You can have belief in God without having baseless faith.

In order for it to be faith, though, there has to be something about your belief that can't be known for sure, however miniscule. You're still taking a leap of faith. If there was no leap of faith, why would you call it faith?

Someone who is a "blind believer" takes a huge leap of faith instead of a small one. There is no standard unit of faith, however, and no meaningful difference between blind faith and faith "backed by evidence." Faith is always faith, supporting evidence notwithstanding.

I'm not saying that you can't have evidence for God's existence, and I'm not saying that it's silly to have faith; we all choose to have faith every day just so we can function normally. But if you have faith in something, then you believe it without being able to prove it. That's all faith is. There are no special varieties.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

But if you have faith in something, then you believe it without being able to prove it. That's all faith is. There are no special varieties.

Wrong, and I am the example of how this is wrong, I will state my position again:

It depends how you define faith.

I define it as: 'belief that a situation will have a particular outcome before it has occurred'.

In my case this 'faith' is based on calculated judgement re past experiences and what I know of myself and those around me. A game of odds I called it. Odds are if I have cancer, my family will rally round and support me...I thus have 'faith' that this will be the case. The fact the situation has not presented itself yet means I cannot know for sure, BUT I do know for sure, hence this knowing is redefined as 'faith.'


What we call calcuated risks could be redefined as 'faith'.
When men sent a man in a rocket to the moon for the first time, they DID not know for fact the mission would be a success. BUT they had 'faith' it would be based on their knowledge of the rocket, the astronaughts, the moon , space etc. It was not a leap of 'faith', it was a calculated risk.

Blind faith is how certain religious members may become suicide bombers because they have faith a place in heaven awaits them. This is blind faith as there is NO element of calculated risk, no past experience evidence assisting their judgement. IT IS 100% blind faith.

There are thus difrfences, huge ones....special varieties as you call it.

In order for it to be faith, though, there has to be something about your belief that can't be known for sure, however miniscule. You're still taking a leap of faith. If there was no leap of faith, why would you call it faith?

.

Here you are projecting your 'blind faith' onto me. My explanation is quite rational and contains no element of mystery or 'leaping'. You can't see it so you say it exists in me still but is miniscule. Explain to me what leap I am taking in the scenarios explained?

 

[baumgarten]

Wrong, and I am the example of how this is wrong, I will state my position again:

It depends how you define faith.

I define it as: 'belief that a situation will have a particular outcome before it has occurred'.

In my case this 'faith' is based on calculated judgement re past experiences and what I know of myself and those around me. A game of odds I called it. Odds are if I have cancer, my family will rally round and support me...I thus have 'faith' that this will be the case. The fact the situation has not presented itself yet means I cannot know for sure, BUT I do know for sure, hence this knowing is redefined as 'faith.'


What we call calcuated risks could be redefined as 'faith'.
When men sent a man in a rocket to the moon for the first time, they DID not know for fact the mission would be a success. BUT they had 'faith' it would be based on their knowledge of the rocket, the astronaughts, the moon , space etc. It was not a leap of 'faith', it was a calculated risk.

Blind faith is how certain religious members may become suicide bombers because they have faith a place in heaven awaits them. This is blind faith as there is NO element of calculated risk, no past experience evidence assisting their judgement. IT IS 100% blind faith.

There are thus difrfences, huge ones....special varieties as you call it.

The thought process that leads to a belief can vary greatly from person to person, but the process that leads to something does not define what it is. A staff is not the carving of wood; an iron fence is not the shaping of heated metal.

Here you are projecting your 'blind faith' onto me. My explanation is quite rational and contains no element of mystery or 'leaping'. You can't see it so you say it exists in me still but is miniscule. Explain to me what leap I am taking in the scenarios explained?

Can you PROVE that your family will rally around you if you get cancer? If not, then it is faith.
Can you PROVE that you will go to paradise and be granted 72 virgins if you blow up a bus in Tel Aviv? If not, then it is faith.

What is the difference?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Can you PROVE that your family will rally around you if you get cancer? If not, then it is faith.
Can you PROVE that you will go to paradise and be granted 72 virgins if you blow up a bus in Tel Aviv? If not, then it is faith.

What is the difference?

If I could PRIOVE it it wouldn't be faith would it? is there something wrong with your comprehension? I have explained where the 'faith' without proof comes from. Calculated risk..ODDS, gamblers use ODDS all the time and study form etc, they don't have blind faith theirihorse will win, but they have no proof either. Calculated risk...odds based on past events. Faith.

Here it is again, read it slowly this time, as this is third time I am repeating this and will be the last:

I define it as: 'belief that a situation will have a particular outcome before it has occurred'.

In my case this 'faith' is based on calculated judgement re past experiences and what I know of myself and those around me. A game of odds I called it. Odds are if I have cancer, my family will rally round and support me...I thus have 'faith' that this will be the case. The fact the situation has not presented itself yet means I cannot know for sure, BUT I do know for sure, hence this knowing is redefined as 'faith.'

What we call calcuated risks could be redefined as 'faith'.

My calculated risk comes from the knowledge that in the past my family have supported me in times of trouble. Thus quite logical to expect it to be the case again, but as you say I can't PROVE anything that has not yet occurred, this my 'knowing' becomes 'faith'.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Superstition and faith in a higher being (as opposed to faith in oneself, or other tangible creatures/provable events) are both similar insofar as they're both belief in an unprovable entity or event. The difference between them is not definition, it's perception.
Faith in a higher being is perceived to be normal by tradition and majority. This type of faith even has a divine quality because it is associated with the invulnerable goodness of religious deities.
Superstition has a darker inflection because of the associations with the word (ie #13, black cats, poltergeists etc). Or attracts a more condescending/amused view for the simpler superstitions (salt over shoulder, lucky underwear, 4 leaf clovers etc).

How's that pavlos?

 

[baumgarten]

If I could PRIOVE it it wouldn't be faith would it?

That's right, it wouldn't.

is there something wrong with your comprehension?

Maybe you should take a short break...

I have explained where the 'faith' without proof comes from.

Wait, what? My whole position this entire time has been that faith does not come from proof! Haha

Calculated risk..ODDS, gamblers use ODDS all the time and study form etc, they don't have blind faith theirihorse will win, but they have no proof either. Calculated risk...odds based on past events. Faith.

I understand this, but you haven't yet explained to me how this differs from, as you put it, "blind faith." Suppose you tell me - and this is just an example, I'm not trying to be deriding here - that if I jump off the roof of my house now, I will sprout wings and fly. I take your word for it based on a calculated risk. I don't know you to be a liar; in fact, I deeply respect you as a teacher. Most likely, you wouldn't tell me something that wasn't true. So I take it for granted that you are telling me the truth. I have faith in your word.

Now, what if you had told me that I can go straight to heaven and live on in eternal glory if I blow myself up and take a few Jews out with me?

Do you see where I'm coming from? It's the same faith, but yours somehow seems much more reasonable. It's not because your faith is fundamentally different from mine, it's because it's your faith. In reality, we both have strong faith that our families will support us if we contract cancer, but neither you nor I believe that we will go to heaven if we become suicide bombers. But to a suicide bomber, this latter faith is just as reasonable as the former. Faith is quite subjective.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I understand this, but you haven't yet explained to me how this differs from, as you put it, "blind faith." Suppose you tell me - and this is just an example, I'm not trying to be deriding here - that if I jump off the roof of my house now, I will sprout wings and fly. I take your word for it based on a calculated risk. .

THERE is no claculaled risk with this scenario! It would be 100% blind faith. Calculated risk is based on past experiences and knowledge of certain factual things. What you are talking about is 100% NOT based on anything factual hence blind faith.

Now, what if you had told me that I can go straight to heaven and live on in eternal glory if I blow myself up and take a few Jews out with me?

QUOTE]

Again this is example of blind faith.

I do not suffer form that condition.

I already gave the suicide bomber of example of blind faith. There is NO calculated risk..not repeating myself just re-read pervious reference re this point.

 

[baumgarten]

THERE is no claculaled risk with this scenario! It would be 100% blind faith. Calculated risk is based on past experiences and knowledge of certain factual things. What you are talking about is 100% NOT based on anything factual hence blind faith.

What do you mean? In this scenario, I deeply respect you as a teacher. You are someone I trust, someone who would never hurt me, someone who has only told me the truth. Does this count for nothing? Should I throw your word away regardless, or should I be more open to it because of our relationship as people?