Religion is a type of Superstition

[Serrenissima]

From another thread that was getting off-topic:

the common definition of superstition includes religion:



That covers pretty much all religious practices/beliefs. "God" is pretty much the epitome of supernatural causation.

You took a part of element within the entirety of religion, and proceeded to use it to usurp the entirety of religion as entirely superstition. Like Freud's theory about the Jews killing Moses, and worshipping them as a sun god of, or better yet that the entirety of religion is a form of neurosis it is bullshit.

You are proceeding from a false-premise. Superstition is not a "form of neurosis." Superstition is simply a belief in supernatural causation. All major religions have supernatural causation at the very core of their dogmas. Ergo, all religions are a form of superstition. This is not a negative label. It is a descriptive one referring to belief in supernatural forces that have some influence on physical reality.

I have lots of negative labels for religion. Superstition ain't one of 'em. It's just a descriptive word.

[Conserative Morality]

Oh please. Every good Roman knows the difference between religio and superstitio.

[Zakuvia]

There is no reason for this to exist, considering this thread is, and has been, on the front page for weeks.

[Serrenissima]

Oh please. Every good Roman knows the difference between religio and superstitio.

Heh. Except nobody did. The boundaries were fuzzy and impossible to define well...because the difference was only one of degree, not one of belief.

There is no reason for this to exist, considering this thread is, and has been, on the front page for weeks.

Possibly. The topic is different - but the subject matter would end up being similar.

[Auroya]

Well of course it is no more than superstition.

Unless you can prove what you're claiming, you're irrational.

[Benuty]

From another thread that was getting off-topic:

You took a part of element within the entirety of religion, and proceeded to use it to usurp the entirety of religion as entirely superstition. Like Freud's theory about the Jews killing Moses, and worshipping them as a sun god of, or better yet that the entirety of religion is a form of neurosis it is bullshit.

You are proceeding from a false-premise. Superstition is not a "form of neurosis." Superstition is simply a belief in supernatural causation. All major religions have supernatural causation at the very core of their dogmas. Ergo, all religions are a form of superstition. This is not a negative label. It is a descriptive one referring to belief in supernatural forces that have some influence on physical reality.

I have lots of negative labels for religion. Superstition ain't one of 'em. It's just a descriptive word.

I wouldn't call non-theistic religions beliefs about truth, and the origins of the universe exactly superstitious, but maybe that is just me. It seemed to come off rather negative (thus my response), albeit why many religions do have some elements in their history concerning the supernatural many others admonish such affairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstiti ... d_religion

Ironic sourcing albeit someone really needs to flesh these articles out. I guess I will go on to google scholar to find some. As for the neurosis comment it was more or so an original comparison to my perceptions of how negative the statement "religion is superstition" sounded. I was referencing "Moses, and Monotheism" by the late, and greatly exaggerated Sigmund Freud (a really ok person when it came to somewhat attempting psychology instead of babbling about drugs, and outdated theories on religion)

[Conscentia]

Oh please. Every good Roman knows the difference between religio and superstitio.

I'm a Barbarian, so you'll have to find a good Roman to explain.

[Conserative Morality]

Heh. Except nobody did. The boundaries were fuzzy and impossible to define well...because the difference was only one of degree, not one of belief.

Well, that's like saying there's not a difference between being dedicated and being fanatical because the boundaries are more relative than absolute.

[Serrenissima]

I wouldn't call non-theistic religions beliefs about truth, and the origins of the universe exactly superstitious, but maybe that is just me.

I wouldn't call [non-theistic beliefs that make no claims about the supernatural] religions, either.

[Benuty]

Oh please. Every good Roman knows the difference between religio and superstitio.

I'm a Barbarian, so you'll have to find a good Roman to explain.

Oh don't be so silly, we all know you are the Emperor.

That is when Farnhamia is too busy with their portion of the empire.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm a Barbarian, so you'll have to find a good Roman to explain.

Superstitio is excessive belief/fanaticism or trying to misuse the favor of the gods. Religio is appropriate devotion to the gods and adherence to the correct ritual practices.

[Conscentia]

I'm a Barbarian, so you'll have to find a good Roman to explain.

Oh don't be so silly, we all know you are the Emperor.

That is when Farnhamia is too busy with their portion of the empire.

Wait! What? Since when? Why was I not informed? You mean I've been living in a hut for no reason?!

[Digital Planets]

Not this shit again.

[Serrenissima]

In English, Superstition includes religion. It is just a broader, all-encompassing word and also includes things that are NOT religion.

When used to refer to religion, people sometimes get their knickers in a knot because they don't like having their faith equated to other forms of supernatural belief that they disagree with. While that's inevitable anyway (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. etc. etc. are hardly compatible belief sets), when you cast the net wider, it includes astrology, sorcery/generic occult practices, and even knocking on wood. They all pretty much have equal validity from a rational perspective (Dr. Lawrence Krauss is an expert on the particular numerical value that represents that validity), and share the supernatural beliefs that define the word superstition, but to a person who believes any one of them, this equal treatment can be objectionable.

[Benuty]

Not this shit again.

I don't recall there being a thread on this recently?

[Aethrys]

People on NSG tend to take offense to particular words being applied correctly according to their definitions. Particularly the theocratic elements. Are religions superstitious? Obviously. They also fully fit the definition of cults, but use that term correctly and suddenly you're trolling.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Some, if not all, parts of religion would definitely be considered superstition taken to the extreme.

[Reploid Productions]

Personally, I think the better comparison of religion is not to superstition, but to fandom. Seriously, you can totally explain so much of religion (and religion-driven behaviors) in the same terms you would use to describe fandom behaviors.

Religious texts? Generally collections of fanfiction based on a long-lost original (probably oral) history or story. That explains why there's so many inconsistencies in, for example, the Bible. A bunch of different people liked that original story that they wrote fanfiction about it. The most widespread and well-read of those stories basically become fanon- that is, material that is not necessarily part of the original canon, but is widely accepted by the fandom to be true.

Religious artwork? The world's oldest tradition of creating fanart, obviously. And much like the owners of various creative properties today, attempts at telling fans "Don't do that!" haven't worked, people still make the stuff anyway. The best and most skilled of fanartists gain recognition and praise for their work (albeit most of it posthumously) while there's tons and tons of unrecognized material that's been discarded or ignored.

Religious gatherings? Have you ever been to any sort of fan convention? Comic Con, Anime Expo, etc etc? Or at least fan clubs, like college gaming or anime or comics clubs? Bunch of fans of a thing get together to do fandom-related things, like talk about their fandom? Where a bunch of people who like a thing discuss it and possibly attempt to emulate some parts of it?

Religious persecution and violence? Oh my god, look at the way Star Wars fans can argue with Star Trek fans over which is superior. Look at how passionate (and sometimes outright frothing with rage) fans can get over their favorite pairings. Watch as a fandom splits in two over the death of a major character, those who are all "It happened!" and those who are "I DISBELIEVE!"

I mean, let's look at the big three; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In extremely loose and very TVTropey terms, you could describe them as such: The Jews got things going, a lot of people were all "Hey, this is pretty cool stuff!" Then Jesus comes along, and is a total Base Breaker. Most of the Jews are all "Nah, man, he's not the savior character described in the story." but some of them are all "Oh hell yes he is!" Jewish fandom splits, creating the Christian fandom. Meanwhile, you've got a group of guys out in Arabia watching all this and they think, "That's actually kinda cool, but what if--?" and they cook up an Alternate Universe that still retains some similarities, but takes things in a different direction. Boom! Islamic fandom. All the bajillion different sects and spinoff versions of each? Epilectic Trees from overthinking the heck out of it all.

I'd need to do a whole hell of a lot more research on religions in general to expand the comparison further, but I bet you could describe most religions ancient and current in a similar fashion.

Seriously, the only thing most religions have over today's fandoms is the thousands of years lead time. (And then there's things like, say, Scientology, which are a somewhat more recent and more literal example of a fandom-taken-to-religious-extremes.) Just think, 2000 years from now, people might look at Harry Potter as a religious figure! People could follow a religious ideology based on the Elements of Harmony! Wars might be fought between Original Trekkers and Reboot Trekkers! Or fights about which is the One True Doctor, since by then people will have likely forgotten that whole regeneration thing. .... And all this musing on the subject stemming from my experiences with a certain breed of Danny Phantom fan who's obsession with the True Law of Series Creator Butch Hartman could only be described as religious fervor. But seriously, viewing religions as the First Fandoms makes it make sense to me. We get into fandom because we enjoy it, it brings comfort or some escapist fantasy. Doesn't it make sense that the stories that eventually grew into today's religions probably brought a similar sort of enjoyment or comfort to people way back when?

I mean yeah, in strict dictionary terms, religion could be described as a set of superstitions and all that, but there is a gap between something that is a mere superstition (such as don't walk under a ladder, Friday the 13th is unlucky, etc,) and a set of stories that may contain superstitious elements that a person is really, really into.

.... And WOW, that turned into more of a wall of text than I was planning on.

[Zakuvia]

Personally, I think the better comparison of religion is not to superstition, but to fandom. Seriously, you can totally explain so much of religion (and religion-driven behaviors) in the same terms you would use to describe fandom behaviors.

Religious texts? Generally collections of fanfiction based on a long-lost original (probably oral) history or story. That explains why there's so many inconsistencies in, for example, the Bible. A bunch of different people liked that original story that they wrote fanfiction about it. The most widespread and well-read of those stories basically become fanon- that is, material that is not necessarily part of the original canon, but is widely accepted by the fandom to be true.

Religious artwork? The world's oldest tradition of creating fanart, obviously. And much like the owners of various creative properties today, attempts at telling fans "Don't do that!" haven't worked, people still make the stuff anyway. The best and most skilled of fanartists gain recognition and praise for their work (albeit most of it posthumously) while there's tons and tons of unrecognized material that's been discarded or ignored.

Religious gatherings? Have you ever been to any sort of fan convention? Comic Con, Anime Expo, etc etc? Or at least fan clubs, like college gaming or anime or comics clubs? Bunch of fans of a thing get together to do fandom-related things, like talk about their fandom? Where a bunch of people who like a thing discuss it and possibly attempt to emulate some parts of it?

Religious persecution and violence? Oh my god, look at the way Star Wars fans can argue with Star Trek fans over which is superior. Look at how passionate (and sometimes outright frothing with rage) fans can get over their favorite pairings. Watch as a fandom splits in two over the death of a major character, those who are all "It happened!" and those who are "I DISBELIEVE!"

I mean, let's look at the big three; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In extremely loose and very TVTropey terms, you could describe them as such: The Jews got things going, a lot of people were all "Hey, this is pretty cool stuff!" Then Jesus comes along, and is a total Base Breaker. Most of the Jews are all "Nah, man, he's not the savior character described in the story." but some of them are all "Oh hell yes he is!" Jewish fandom splits, creating the Christian fandom. Meanwhile, you've got a group of guys out in Arabia watching all this and they think, "That's actually kinda cool, but what if--?" and they cook up an Alternate Universe that still retains some similarities, but takes things in a different direction. Boom! Islamic fandom. All the bajillion different sects and spinoff versions of each? Epilectic Trees from overthinking the heck out of it all.

I'd need to do a whole hell of a lot more research on religions in general to expand the comparison further, but I bet you could describe most religions ancient and current in a similar fashion.

Seriously, the only thing most religions have over today's fandoms is the thousands of years lead time. (And then there's things like, say, Scientology, which are a somewhat more recent and more literal example of a fandom-taken-to-religious-extremes.) Just think, 2000 years from now, people might look at Harry Potter as a religious figure! People could follow a religious ideology based on the Elements of Harmony! Wars might be fought between Original Trekkers and Reboot Trekkers! Or fights about which is the One True Doctor, since by then people will have likely forgotten that whole regeneration thing. .... And all this musing on the subject stemming from my experiences with a certain breed of Danny Phantom fan who's obsession with the True Law of Series Creator Butch Hartman could only be described as religious fervor. But seriously, viewing religions as the First Fandoms makes it make sense to me. We get into fandom because we enjoy it, it brings comfort or some escapist fantasy. Doesn't it make sense that the stories that eventually grew into today's religions probably brought a similar sort of enjoyment or comfort to people way back when?

I mean yeah, in strict dictionary terms, religion could be described as a set of superstitions and all that, but there is a gap between something that is a mere superstition (such as don't walk under a ladder, Friday the 13th is unlucky, etc,) and a set of stories that may contain superstitious elements that a person is really, really into.

.... And WOW, that turned into more of a wall of text than I was planning on.

I think we call that 'religious fervor'

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Personally, I think the better comparison of religion is not to superstition, but to fandom. Seriously, you can totally explain so much of religion (and religion-driven behaviors) in the same terms you would use to describe fandom behaviors.

Religious texts? Generally collections of fanfiction based on a long-lost original (probably oral) history or story. That explains why there's so many inconsistencies in, for example, the Bible. A bunch of different people liked that original story that they wrote fanfiction about it. The most widespread and well-read of those stories basically become fanon- that is, material that is not necessarily part of the original canon, but is widely accepted by the fandom to be true.

Religious artwork? The world's oldest tradition of creating fanart, obviously. And much like the owners of various creative properties today, attempts at telling fans "Don't do that!" haven't worked, people still make the stuff anyway. The best and most skilled of fanartists gain recognition and praise for their work (albeit most of it posthumously) while there's tons and tons of unrecognized material that's been discarded or ignored.

Religious gatherings? Have you ever been to any sort of fan convention? Comic Con, Anime Expo, etc etc? Or at least fan clubs, like college gaming or anime or comics clubs? Bunch of fans of a thing get together to do fandom-related things, like talk about their fandom? Where a bunch of people who like a thing discuss it and possibly attempt to emulate some parts of it?

Religious persecution and violence? Oh my god, look at the way Star Wars fans can argue with Star Trek fans over which is superior. Look at how passionate (and sometimes outright frothing with rage) fans can get over their favorite pairings. Watch as a fandom splits in two over the death of a major character, those who are all "It happened!" and those who are "I DISBELIEVE!"

I mean, let's look at the big three; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In extremely loose and very TVTropey terms, you could describe them as such: The Jews got things going, a lot of people were all "Hey, this is pretty cool stuff!" Then Jesus comes along, and is a total Base Breaker. Most of the Jews are all "Nah, man, he's not the savior character described in the story." but some of them are all "Oh hell yes he is!" Jewish fandom splits, creating the Christian fandom. Meanwhile, you've got a group of guys out in Arabia watching all this and they think, "That's actually kinda cool, but what if--?" and they cook up an Alternate Universe that still retains some similarities, but takes things in a different direction. Boom! Islamic fandom. All the bajillion different sects and spinoff versions of each? Epilectic Trees from overthinking the heck out of it all.

I'd need to do a whole hell of a lot more research on religions in general to expand the comparison further, but I bet you could describe most religions ancient and current in a similar fashion.

Seriously, the only thing most religions have over today's fandoms is the thousands of years lead time. (And then there's things like, say, Scientology, which are a somewhat more recent and more literal example of a fandom-taken-to-religious-extremes.) Just think, 2000 years from now, people might look at Harry Potter as a religious figure! People could follow a religious ideology based on the Elements of Harmony! Wars might be fought between Original Trekkers and Reboot Trekkers! Or fights about which is the One True Doctor, since by then people will have likely forgotten that whole regeneration thing. .... And all this musing on the subject stemming from my experiences with a certain breed of Danny Phantom fan who's obsession with the True Law of Series Creator Butch Hartman could only be described as religious fervor. But seriously, viewing religions as the First Fandoms makes it make sense to me. We get into fandom because we enjoy it, it brings comfort or some escapist fantasy. Doesn't it make sense that the stories that eventually grew into today's religions probably brought a similar sort of enjoyment or comfort to people way back when?

I mean yeah, in strict dictionary terms, religion could be described as a set of superstitions and all that, but there is a gap between something that is a mere superstition (such as don't walk under a ladder, Friday the 13th is unlucky, etc,) and a set of stories that may contain superstitious elements that a person is really, really into.

.... And WOW, that turned into more of a wall of text than I was planning on.

I like your interpretation more.

[Serrenissima]

Not a bad observation of human nature, but less useful descriptively.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

People on NSG tend to take offense to particular words being applied correctly according to their definitions. Particularly the theocratic elements. Are religions superstitious? Obviously. They also fully fit the definition of cults, but use that term correctly and suddenly you're trolling.

The very first definition of cult on Wikipedia includes the term "socially deviant,"and one of the three definitions in the Oxford dictionary includes "regarded as strange or sinister." Ergo, no.

[Serrenissima]

People on NSG tend to take offense to particular words being applied correctly according to their definitions. Particularly the theocratic elements. Are religions superstitious? Obviously. They also fully fit the definition of cults, but use that term correctly and suddenly you're trolling.

The very first definition of cult on Wikipedia includes the term "socially deviant,"and one of the three definitions in the Oxford dictionary includes "regarded as strange or sinister." Ergo, no.

The first definition on Wikipedia is somewhat relevant, as it is both denotation and connotation of the word cult. However, you can't go cherrypicking the third definition in Oxford to claim it doesn't apply. All definitions apply separately.

Ultimately, if any of the definitions are accurate, then the word can accurately be used. It can be problematic, however, if the most common definitions are derogatory.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The very first definition of cult on Wikipedia includes the term "socially deviant,"and one of the three definitions in the Oxford dictionary includes "regarded as strange or sinister." Ergo, no.

The first definition on Wikipedia is somewhat relevant, as it is both denotation and connotation of the word cult. However, you can't go cherrypicking the third definition in Oxford to claim it doesn't apply. All definitions apply separately.

Ultimately, if any of the definitions are accurate, then the word can accurately be used. It can be problematic, however, if the most common definitions are derogatory.

I stand corrected, yet correct in spirit.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Religion can be superstitious, but isn't necessarily so.

A lot of theists remove their religion from the physical world to the point where it disallows superstition.

Others insist that their prayers and oil-anointing and so on have actual effects in the real world, or that some events are punishment or reward from God or gods for certain deeds or sacrifices. That is superstition.