What distinguishes religions from standard superstitions?

Great Debates
1

If this has been done (and I could not find it if it has), please just point me at the thread.

What I am asking is this: What is it about religion, generically, that distinguishes it from any other superstition?

I do not wish to ask the merits or lack thereof of any given system of belief, but peoples thoughts on what it is that makes a religious belief (be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Wicca etc) different from a belief in say numerology or astrology? I will say upfront that I am an atheist, and maybe that clouds my thinking a little. In my own mind I cannot find the distinguishing features. But in this I suspect that I am missing something.
Now, I do not want to hear ‘because it is in <insert book of choice>’ or anything based on emotion. There must be something more to it than that (warm fuzzies don’t count).

Thanks in advance

UnwrittenNocturne

In advance, thanks

2

You could say the a religion is a “superstition” that has grown over the years to encompass a code of ethics, belief in some sort of deity, and a belief in an afterlife. I’m not religious either, and it seems likely that religion and superstition spring from the same elements of the humn mind. The need to see cause and effect. When the cause is not immediately obvious, we invent one.

3

OK, I could go for that in the first instance. Does worship have anything to do with it? AFAIK, superstitions generally do not involve worship. But do all religions (I think Buddhism does not?).

I find this fascinating because I think that superstitions and religions arise from the same mindset, and following John Mace, the same, or similar, initial premises.

4

religions are superstitions of powerful factions.

5

Sorry athelas, not really what I was looking for. Even if that were the defining feature, it would not explain the rise to power, the mechanism by which it gains the power (it begs that question really, with the further corollary - which feature gained the power for it?).

Hey polycarp need your help here if you have the time!

6

How about some definitions, first?

Can you clarify what you mean by “superstition” and “religion” ?

7

Actually Freyr that is the point. I am trying to clarify just that.

8

Well, you must have some working definition at least, since you claim that religion IS a form of superstition (a claim which I most certainly do not agree with).

9

I think this is where I would look for a distinction. Sure, you could say that certain religious beliefs have much in common with many superstitions, but what is the impact of those beliefs/superstitions?

It seems to me that religion provides a basis for ordering one’s life beyond the simple ritual practices. Whereas, as I use the term, superstitions are far more limited. Don’t walk under ladders, etc. Another facet of this distinction concerns superstitions’ preoccupation with “luck” either good or bad. In my usage, religions prescribe certain behavior either on the activity’s own merit, towards a specific goal (salvation, afterlife, etc.), or as part of a certain desired/recommended lifestyle. The incurring of good or avoidance of bad luck, seems to me qualitatively different from styling yourself or community in a desired way consistent with a system of ethics.

10

Well, actually I did not claim it directly, but will happily accept that it is implicit in my question.

Hmm, I would start with anyappeal to the non-verifiable (by scientific method), any positing of a force we cannot measure directly (or show mathematically). Any appeal to a non-verifiable higher power or special non-material quality Please note I do not wish this to become a thread on mind/body questions because of this.

Overall though I am more interested in what a religious person sees as the differences.

11

If you want formal definitions, start with a dictionary. In common usage, I think “superstition” is usually used to refer to false beliefs related to actions intended to influence mundane events, as Dinsdale said. (If we believe that something can truly influence outcomes, we usually don’t call it a superstition.) The word “religion” usually refers to a more or less organized, formalized system of beliefs, and does not in itself imply truth or falsity. Although many religions involve rituals or prayers to influence mundane events, it’s possible to conceive of one concerned only with the spiritual dimension.

Religion and superstition can influence each other (be sure to take down Christmas decorations before January 6), but are not the same.

Unless of course you define superstition quite broadly, as on preview I see you just have. Your emphasis on any seems to rule out the kind of distinction you asked for.

12

Objectively, little or nothing.

13

TWDuke The reason I used any is that it is my criteria. like MLS is that apart from seeemingly abitrary ethics I can find very little to differentiate the two.

What I am interested in is what differences (and particularly justifications for these differences) religious people see.

14

I see. So you consider free will to be a mere superstition? After all, it can not be verified scientifically, measured directly or demonstrated mathematically.

Yes, I know that you don’t want to discuss mind/body questions, but that’s the logical implication of your definition.

15

Oh, thanks, you have identified something I need to think about (because I definitely subscribe to free will).

But, as you do seem to have thoughts on this topic…

Would you be able to explain to me what you think the difference is?

BTW: I could offer, not as definitive argument, that I chave reasonable grounds for free will on personal empirical evidence (yes I can see the immediate counter argument)

16

Well, to me, generally speaking there’s not enough difference between them to argue more than semantics.

Both involve beliefs in actions, entities or forces that don’t exist and for all practical purposes can’t exist. Religion and superstition are simply varying degrees of human delusion.

I know one fellow, for example, otherwise very rational, quite intelligent and well-read, who insists there’s something about street lights flicking off randomly while he’s around. He doesn’t know how to quantify it- is he “doing” it? Is it occuring because he’s around? Is it a sign or signal or warning?

But he insists it’s because of him, one way or the other.

The logic of temperature-controlled power supplies or sodium-halide bulbs with internal temperature ‘breakers’ means nothing to him. That’s simply the physical method used by whatever forces are causing it.

I’ve heard theists use the exact same argument for, say, evolution. IE, evolution is simply the physical means by which God created Life. The Big Bang was simply the physical means that God used to create the Universe.

Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

There are minor differences in the dictionary definitions, and there’s a world of minor differences in the minutiae, but really, what’s the difference between eating a bit of cracker thinking it’s part of a man who died 2,000 years ago, and throwing salt over your shoulder if you spill some?

What’s the difference between not eating pork and not walking under ladders?

What’s the difference between turning to an old book of fables for moral guidance, and turning to the motion/relation of stars and planets to plan or foretell events?

17

A religion is much more encompassing than a superstition. For instance, you could hold the following set of beliefs :

  1. When I plant seeds, sometimes later wheat grows

  2. When there’s a hailstorm my wheat crops are destroyed

  3. When I look at a chicken’s liver, I can tell whether or not there will be a hailstorm.
    The first two beliefs are a factual reality, and the last one a superstition (in other words, we discovered that it’s wasn’t true). However, none of them explain anything. We still don’t know why wheat grows, why there are hailstorms from time to time, and why one can tell the future by looking at a liver. True or not, they’re all just “facts of nature”.
    OTH, a religion provide an encompassing explanatory system. Using myths, it provides an explanation for natural facts (why is there a world, why do we die, why does a seed grows into a tree, why are there hailstorms, etc…), for the social system (why do we punish murderers and witches in such or such way, why can’t I marry my sister, why is there a king we must obey to, etc…) and finally in some cases provide a philosophy of life (how should I behave, what is the point of my life, what ideals should I pursue, etc…)

18

Wait a minute. You’re the one making the claim that religion is a form of superstition. Seems to me that you should be the one defending that claim.

19

I’ll buy that.

Of course, it could be said that the difference you describe is simply a matter of scale and organization.

Similar to the ‘difference’ between a cult and a religion: A couple of hundred Raelians believing in flying saucers is a “cult”. Tens of thousands of Scientologists believing in flying saucers is a “religion”. Tens of millions of Catholics believing in (something equally unprovable as flying saucers) is an " organized Religion".

There’s the time scale as well. The longer a superstition lasts, the more ingrained it gets into people’s lives, so the more of the person’s lives it is interpreted to cover.

20

Oh, and just to elaborate…

For my part, I’m content to go by the dictionary definition of superstition, as cited by TWDuke. This is more than enough to show that religion is not merely a form of superstition.

Unless, of course, one wishes to broaden that definition. In which case, the burden of proof rests on the person who insists on the broader definition.