Difference between religious beliefs and superstitions?

[skadistic]

Most of the time, but some religions are founded on actual human reason, and are intellectually supportable.

Care to elaborate on those?

 

[GenMarshall]

Sorry? How exactly do miracles fit in with a rational universe?

Oh they do. How do you explain the unexplained recovery of paitents. Even doctors would not find an explanation for the maraculous recovery of a paitent would say that it a miracle.

The same goes for creation, divine retribution, all of it.

How do you explain the big bang? The creation by God. Scentists themselves dont know eather on how the universe is created. Same goes for the Theory of Evolution.

In fact, I have a better question. If you were not aware of Christian theology, how could you possibly have deduced it?

Simply put it, I just believe that Christian theology is fact. No ifs ands or butts.

The two aspects of a rational worldview are deduction and experimentation. Experimentation is ruled out in this instance, so you would have to rely on deduction to prove Christian theology. And if Christian theology is proved by reason, you should be able to do so.

I am sorry to say, but experimentation is not needed to make or to prove Christian theology.

 

[ummmm........]

Superstition attempts to explain something the believer can't understand.

Religion gives a foundation or set of rules for believers to understand the world as it reveals itself to them.

Take the following sentence as an example: "I know for a fact that Christianity is a load of crap because one day science will be able to explain everything about the universe."

In the example sentence, science is clearly a religion, not a superstition, as it is being applied to unknown unknowns, as opposed to known unknowns.

I hope that clears that up for everyone, and puts an end to these tiresome debates. :wishfulthinking:

 

[nihilistic]

Most of the time, but some religions are founded on actual human reason, and are intellectually supportable.

Such as?

Thought can be explained by chemicals, but some aspects of human thought are not shared with animals. Why? How do you explain the gap between natural selection and free thought, self-awareness and chemical processes?

What do you mean by "aspects of human thought are not shared with animals"? Besides complexity, I don't see any other so called "aspects".

Besisides the fallacies, you seem to have another case of categorical confusion. Gap between "natural selection and free thought", sounds like "distance between blue and square". Different categorical concepts. As for the difference between self-awareness and chemical processes, it is simply complexity. Eventually AI will settle the debate between the dualists and functionalists permanently in favor of functionalists anyway.

And about your second point, the supernatural events in the Bible can't be proven of course. But they can't be refuted either.

Not his responsibility to refute. Afterall, no one can definitely refute Easter Bunnies or Klingons either.

 

[Perfectionist]

Oh they do. How do you explain the unexplained recovery of paitents. Even doctors would not find an explanation for the maraculous recovery of a paitent would say that it a miracle.

Give me an example.

How do you explain the big bang? The creation by God. Scentists themselves dont know eather on how the universe is created. Same goes for the Theory of Evolution.

Scientists have a number of very good ideas, which religion does not. The problem with the religious view on the big bang, is that if you have God creating the universe, you need someone to create God and it continues into infinity. Alternately, if you claim that some things do not need to be created by a greater intelligence, you remove the need for God. As to evolution: It is a theory, but as a non-scientist you do not understand what that means. You think it means something uncertain, which it does not. Darwinian evolution is the only real explanation for the complexity which we see around us, and there has never been an exception found. Saying to everything "god did it" does not help anything.

Simply put it, I just believe that Christian theology is fact. No ifs ands or butts.

Exactly my point. You did not arrive at Christianity through reason. You simply accept it.

I am sorry to say, but experimentation is not needed to make or to prove Christian theology.

Well, if you didn't deduce Christian theology, and you don't use experimentation, you cannot prove any of the theology. All you can do is believe in it, which is something else entirely.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The difference between religion and superstition is that religion have generally a philosophical perception of life which doesn't exist in mere superstitutions. Superstitions are mostly about fears, they are ways to evacuate fears or at least to control them.

There's always a superstitutious dimension in religion, but that's only one aspect of it. Religions have also a philosophical dimension.

 

[GenMarshall]

Give me an example.

Doubting Thomas, There are countless reports in the past of medical and unusual miracles. Saints like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Anthony have been credited with hundreds of miracles during their lifetime and thousands after their death. Dead saints are still performing miracles to this day thanks to interceding on behalf of the person before God. And dont get me started with the statues of the Virgin Mary that sheads liquids (water or blood) and the Vatican has done extensive research to rule out any such scientific resonings. Yes my doubting Thomas, the Church does investigate these sort of miracles with Science to ensure that they are the real McCoy!

Scientists have a number of very good ideas, which religion does not. The problem with the religious view on the big bang, is that if you have God creating the universe, you need someone to create God and it continues into infinity.

I am sorry to say, but I stand by the fact that God created the Big Bang and also the fact that God has always existed. Scientists dont always have all of the answers you know, such case as in the Big Bang and Evolution. Were you there when it happened? You were not around when the Big Bang and Evolution happened. So the conclusion for me on the Big Bang, it was the work of God.

As to evolution: It is a theory, but as a non-scientist you do not understand what that means. You think it means something uncertain, which it does not. Darwinian evolution is the only real explanation for the complexity which we see around us, and there has never been an exception found.

Keep your arrogance out of this. Let me tell you something, I have a Associates Degree in Marine Science and I do know a thing or to about theories as well as evolution. Calling me a non-scientist and that "I do not understand what it means" is pure insult to me and a sign of arrogance in insulting my intelligence.

Saying to everything "god did it" does not help anything.

Where did I say that "God did it" in terms of evolution? Show me in your arrogant claims that I said that in context of evolution. I only stated that God created the Big Bang, dont assault me because I believe that God is the one who created the Universe via the Big Bang.

Exactly my point. You did not arrive at Christianity through reason. You simply accept it.

Excuse me? But I did arrive at Christianity through reason. Have you considered that I also looked into other religions as well before I decided to go into Roman Catholicism after I discovered God.

Well, if you didn't deduce Christian theology, and you don't use experimentation, you cannot prove any of the theology.

I disagree, One can deduce Christian theology without experimentation.

All you can do is believe in it, which is something else entirely.

Kindly keep your arrogance to yourself. I deduced and believe in Christian theology.

 

[plarq]

Religious Compass!

Axis X: Reasoning
Axis Y: Organization

X,Y >0 Organized Religion
X>0, Y<0 Non-organized religion, secularist, atheist
X<0, Y<0 Paganist
X<0, Y>0 Modern cult group

 

[aneeshm]

No, it doesn't. Thought can be explained as a chemical process.

No , it can't . Because if that were so , then ideas and concepts would also have a corporeal existence - meaning that they could be created in the laboratory as physical things , which is obviously ridiculous .

 

[silver 2039]

The level of intacty and detail is the only diffrence really. And the fundmentalisim of the belief.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

"I think, therefore I am"

I've always preferred "I drink therefore I am"

The difference between religion and superstition is that religion have generally a philosophical perception of life which doesn't exist in mere superstitutions. Superstitions are mostly about fears, they are ways to evacuate fears or at least to control them.

There's always a superstitutious dimension in religion, but that's only one aspect of it. Religions have also a philosophical dimension.

You hit the nail on the head Marla Singer!

Superstition = The belief in something unknown.
Religion = Superstition and philosophy.
Science = A process to prove something. To make the unknown known.

There is not necessarily a contradiction between religion and science IMO.

 

[Perfection]

Oh they do. How do you explain the unexplained recovery of paitents. Even doctors would not find an explanation for the maraculous recovery of a paitent would say that it a miracle.

Lack of an explination is not evidence of a miracle. People can't get everything right all the time, and they can't always figure out why something didn't meet thier expectations. I still have some experimental results in labs I've done that confound me to this day. I don't attribute them to God, I just say it was something that I don't understand.

How do you explain the big bang?

There was a point in time before which time was irrelevant. Easy as pie.

Same goes for the Theory of Evolution.

You're not going Creationist on us, are you?

 

[Grisu]

Many if not most superstitions can be proven wrong, modern religious beliefs usually can't (they can't be proven right either, though)

 

[bathsheba666]

If enough people click their silver heels together three times, then it becomes beyond superstition.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that religions are more developed than superstitions, in a respectable way, but many religions contain superstitions.

For example, a religion will contain a worldview and a moral code (and reasoning behind it) - these are things that superstitions don't contain.

But many religions contain superstitions as well. "If you have dirty thoughts, you open the door to allow the Devil to influence your life" or "If you pray for people, they will be healed" and the like. These are similar to "throw salt over the shoulder to avoid bad luck" and "kiss a frog to get rid of warts".

With superstitions, we assume that people are taking co-incidental events and interlinking them to seem co-ordinated. These assumptions are then passed down by word-of-mouth and some people follow the superstitions and notice the effects.

A religion can also form without superstitions, but they seem to be rare. Many religions are assumed to have real-time interventions and effects, that followers accept as 'proofs' of their theory.

But no, they're different. As different as a rectangle and a square - similar, but different in rather important ways.

 

[El_Machinae]

No , it can't . Because if that were so , then ideas and concepts would also have a corporeal existence - meaning that they could be created in the laboratory as physical things , which is obviously ridiculous .

An idea is contained within a specific pattern of neurons, chemicals, and electrical potentials. They do have corporeal existence. The sharing of ideas causes the recipient to form a functionally similar network.

The next time you wonder if a concept has a corporeal manifestation, think about a 'deep' concept, map blood flow on an MRI, and drive a nail into that part of the brain ... then see if the idea remains.

We know that ideas are discovered and shared (mostly shared) and spread. Good evidence for this is found in people raised without human contact - they seem fundamentally unable to understand many concepts of metaphor. Their exposure to certain metaphors occured after an important time in development, and are not available to be formed.

 

[Truronian]

Religion is the simplest form of superstition. I really don't see a difference, both (to me) are cases of mistaken causality.

A:
I crashed my car! Must be a punishment from God.

B:
I crashed my car! Must be because I walked under a ladder.

 

[plarq]

A is not religious, it's Pat Robinson's style, who said Hurricane Katrina is God's punishment.

 

[Truronian]

A is very base religion, giving an unexplainably event an unexplainable cause. The difference between that and modern religion is that modern religion is optimistic.

Whatabout:

A If I do good I will get into heaven.

B If I do good Santa will bring me many presents.

Only one of the above would be classified as religion...

 

[plarq]

Now I agree A is religious teaching, and B is merely a fairy tale, aka superstition.