David Morris, writing in the Alternet, describes the reality of religious faith:
…when it comes to organized religion, no burden of proof is required. On the contrary, by definition, religion requires faith and faith renounces evidence. Taking a proposition "on faith" means to consciously and willfully refuse to examine the facts.
And that is one of the basic problems I have with religion.
Morris goes on to suggest we replace the word “faith” with “superstition”, and asks us to examine a statement by George W. Bush in this light:
I believe in the power of superstition in people's lives. Our government should not fear programs that exist because a church or a synagogue or a mosque has decided to start one. We should not discriminate against programs based upon superstition in America. We should enable them to access federal money, because superstition-based programs can change people's lives, and America will be better off for it.
I have already replaced “religion” in my lexicon with “fairy tale” (as in “what fairy tale are you?” or “what fairy tale do you believe in?"), and replaced “bible” with “book of fairy tales”. Replacing “faith” with “superstition” does seem to be the next logical step.
There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and self-congratulatory hectoring. As a non-believer engaged to a Muslim, I have come to appreciate exactly where that line lies.
While my fiance believes in the divinity of the prophet, she does not believe in miracles or pseudoscience. Her faith is not a superstition. For some people -- the type who see Jesus in the shadows cast by a dirty lightbulb behind a donut shop -- the two concepts are the same. But this is not universally true.
Equating faith with superstition, or religion with fairy tale, confuses the very real distinctions between these words.
More importantly, this kind of thinking has only one purpose: To set up straw men for you to knock down -- which is exactly the kind of simplemindedness that you rail against in your own writings.
Posted by: Jim Royal | March 31, 2005 at 11:08 AM
Skeptics should also be open-minded. As far as I'm aware, God's existence has been neither proven nor disproven; and the whole issue is routinely taken outside the whole realm of proof or disproof into the unprovable; God works in mysterious ways, you know.
But the fact remains that faith can lead people to acts of generosity and kindness, as the President says. That is a demonstrable assertion, and there is plenty of evidence for it. So it should be accepted by skeptics.
Whether this is effective, appropriate, or constitutional approach to governance is a separate debate. Also separate is whether faith can lead people to destructive or hateful acts.
A few posts ago, skeptics here were fiercely arguing that even when presented with evidence, i.e. the extremely unlikely event of someone winning Randi's million dollars, they would refuse to accept it.
But that's not skepticism, that's blind faith. The purpose of skepticism is to reject blind faith - even when you know you're right.
Posted by: Chris | March 31, 2005 at 05:16 PM
Jim Royal:
You raise some interesting points.
While my fiance believes in the divinity of the prophet, she does not believe in miracles or pseudoscience.
By what method does she arrive at the view that the prophet is divine, while rejecting miracles?
Her faith is not a superstition.
(Snip)
Equating faith with superstition, or religion with fairy tale, confuses the very real distinctions between these words.
It is true that “fairy tale” is rather provocative wording. I could have said “fables”, or “myths”. How about just “stories”? Perhaps that would have been less hectoring. But what would be the difference, really? You do say your fiancée has “faith” – doesn’t that mean belief without any evidence? In what way is that different from superstition?
More importantly, this kind of thinking has only one purpose: To set up straw men for you to knock down -- which is exactly the kind of simplemindedness that you rail against in your own writings.
The point that David Morris (and I) was making is that there really is no difference between faith and superstition. The trouble is, most religious people, who may be skeptical about ghosts, psychics, astrology etc, just don’t see that their religion is just the same for people not of that faith. Why should we believe that the prophet is divine? Or Jesus. Why not Zeus?
I’ll accept it is a straw man if you can justify how this “faith” of someone like your fiancée is different from believing in psychics or in Zeus.
Posted by: Skeptico | March 31, 2005 at 07:28 PM
Chris
Skeptics should also be open-minded. As far as I'm aware, God's existence has been neither proven nor disproven; and the whole issue is routinely taken outside the whole realm of proof or disproof into the unprovable; God works in mysterious ways, you know.
The article, and my post, was about religion not God per se. Most religions require you to believe in a variety of things that are supposed to have happened, rules you must obey, and things that will happen to you in the next life, etc. Without evidence for any of these things, why is belief in them (faith) different from superstition?
But the fact remains that faith can lead people to acts of generosity and kindness, as the President says. That is a demonstrable assertion, and there is plenty of evidence for it. So it should be accepted by skeptics.
So are those religious people only committing acts of generosity because they believe God is watching them? Would they stop doing them if God were suddenly dis-proven? What about non-believers who commit good acts? What about where faith leads people to commit bad acts (as you allude to later)? How does any of this make it not superstition?
A few posts ago, skeptics here were fiercely arguing that even when presented with evidence, i.e. the extremely unlikely event of someone winning Randi's million dollars, they would refuse to accept it.
But that's not skepticism, that's blind faith. The purpose of skepticism is to reject blind faith - even when you know you're right.
I can only speak to what I said, which is that one successful test wouldn’t prove anything - the result would need replicating in different circumstances, with different people. That’s just standard science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but if the evidence is there I would believe in anything.
Posted by: Skeptico | March 31, 2005 at 07:35 PM
I’ll accept it is a straw man if you can justify how this “faith” of someone like your fiancée is different from believing in psychics or in Zeus.
The faith that my fiancée holds is not a faith in something demonstratably falsifiable. It has much more to do with character than with the external world.
Ever play that game of trust in which you have to allow yourself to fall backward, hoping that your partner will catch you? You can tell yourself that you will be caught, but your reflexes tell you otherwise -- you're falling. You have to reach a state within yourself to allow yourself to just let go, and not care. That's faith.
The prophet Muhammad heard voices in his head. It went on for years. He thought he was going mad, but came to believe that God was speakling to him. Was he psychotic or divinely inspired? There's really no way to know. We know what is more likely; Occam's razor. But Muslims choose to believe that the prophet was touched by an outside influence. That's faith. And there's no way I can say that's wrong.
Neither of these variations on faith are superstitions.
Bible literalism is a superstition. Creationism is a superstition. Treating God like a wishing well is a superstition.
Most Muslims -- Shia Ismailis in particular -- have no problem with science and the secular world. Evolution, genetics, relativity, it's all accepted. And these things doesn't play much part in their idea of faith, because they're not required to believe such things as a virgin birth. There's simply no conflict for them.
The schism that you're indirectly responding to is really an artifact of US politics. It's not even a western-centric issue, as there is not much interest in things such as banning evolution in Canada or Europe. The antipathy that you and I both feel toward organized religion is a result of religions being used as political tools.
Would the world be better off without any religion at all? Probably. But as humans, we would still tend to need to rely on faith for some things in our lives.
Posted by: Jim Royal | March 31, 2005 at 08:34 PM
Ever play that game of trust in which you have to allow yourself to fall backward, hoping that your partner will catch you? You can tell yourself that you will be caught, but your reflexes tell you otherwise -- you're falling. You have to reach a state within yourself to allow yourself to just let go, and not care. That's faith.
You said it yourself – that’s a game of trust, not faith.
The reason you trust yourself to fall backwards in that example, is because you know there is someone to catch you (fact – you’ve seen someone is there), and you’ve seen other people do it and be caught (evidence that you are likely to be caught). Facts and evidence are not faith.
However, if you (metaphorically) fall back and expect God to catch you, that is faith. It’s belief without evidence or sometimes even belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.
You agree that Bible literalism is a superstition, creationism is a superstition, but you think the faith that God is there to “catch you” is different. But it’s only different in degree, not principle. You think that certain forms of religion are not superstition because they have no problem with science, evolution, etc. But you are concentrating on what they do not rule out, but forgetting what they rule in. They rule in stuff based on faith. Because it’s not so extreme you think it is not superstitious the way those creationists are superstitious. But the method used for arriving at what to believe in, is the same.
I understand that certain versions of what people believe “God” is, cannot be tested (falsified). But what I’m talking about here is religion – the stories people have made up around those beliefs. You haven’t demonstrated they are any different in principle, from other superstitions.
Posted by: Skeptico | March 31, 2005 at 11:27 PM
You said it yourself – that’s a game of trust, not faith.
One cannot trust without faith.
Do you trust the people you love? Do you trust them simply because you have past experiences with them, or because you have an overriding emotional compulsion within you that encourages you to trust? That's faith. It's irrational. It can lead you into error. It can also lead you into a rich experience with others.
...you think the faith that God is there to “catch you” is different...
Never said anything remotely like that. Straw man.
They rule in stuff based on faith. Because it’s not so extreme you think it is not superstitious the way those creationists are superstitious. But the method used for arriving at what to believe in, is the same.
A superstition is the belief that unrelated factors affect the course of events. How does a belief about the nature of the prophet's inspiration qualify as a superstition?
The answer is that it does not. This belief, this leap of faith, is an entirely different thing from superstition. It may be just as wrong, but it is not a belief held in the face of overwhleming contrary evidence, as are my other examples.
But what I’m talking about here is religion – the stories people have made up around those beliefs. You haven’t demonstrated they are any different in principle, from other superstitions.
Already accomplished in my earlier posting.
What I'm trying to point out is that there are forms of faith that are much more about character than about the objective world. There are things in all our lives that cannot be objectified. A healthy skepticism is important when dealing with those things, too. But ultimately, some things come down to what you can handle emotionally, what is important for your psychological well-being, what you need evidence for, and what you have to take on faith.
Posted by: Jim Royal | April 01, 2005 at 05:42 AM
Ooooh! Ooooh! Can I have a go?
OK, there are several issues with the use of 'superstition' as a synonym for 'religion', and I'll start with the least important or relevant which is that superstition has several meanings. Some of these meanings could be defended as descriptors for faith; however, there is no way one would use them so unless one was wishing to insult - in which case one is shifting the debate from the rational space in which a sceptic should always attempt to remain. Additionally, some of the implications of the word 'superstition' (such as the inference that such belief is 'based on fear or ignorance', see SOED, Superstition 3) mean making unprovable assertions about an individuals motivations - again, something unworthy of a sceptic. (To accuse a particular individual of holding superstitious religious beliefs, of course, may well be appropriate; it is the sweeping 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' generalisation for which this objection is valid).
More significantly than the above, however, is that there is a critical difference between superstitions and religious beliefs - although this difference does not necessarily favour either one. We generally use the word 'superstition' to refer to irrational, ad hoc practices and beliefs with limited applications and little relation to each other beyond the underlying credulity. The beliefs that it is bad luck for a black cat to cross your path and that it is unlucky to break a mirror have no interrelationship per se, and neither do they constitute parts of an internally coherent belief system. Then, too, they have their roots is nothing more substantial than folk traditions, another distinguishing characteristic of superstitions.
Religious beliefs, on the other hand, form a largely internally coherent cosmology and have an underlying rationale; this is essentially irrational, true, but irrationality alone does not a superstition make. In fact a reeligious belief system is critically self-affirming in a way that superstitions are not - rather than being ad hoc they are constructed ways of looking at life. More than that, they involve ways of looking at the self, something which, again, does not characterise superstitions.
Criticism of the underlying irrationality of religion and superstition alike is valid; but although they often feed off and reinforce one another, conflating the two serves no purpose save as an incendiary rhetorical technique. The author Greg Egan gave a nice little description of religion (referring to buddhist belief, but it could equally apply to many other religious schools as well):
"It imposed a hermetically sealed package of beliefs about the nature of the self and the futility of striving... including explicit renunciations of every mode of reasoning able to illuminate the core belief's failings."
And that's religion - not superstition.
(Sorry about the long post... maybe I ought to be starting my own blog instead of hijacking others'...)
Posted by: OutEast | April 01, 2005 at 06:19 AM
As one of the skeptics who "fiercely argued" the Randi test point, one of the things that pisses me off about non-critical thinkers is calling my disbelief in the supernatural "faith". Because I ask for proof?? If Sylvia Browne takes Randi's test and passes, I can prove to you that it is more likely Randi fucked up the test than she is for real. If someone were to pass several different double-blinds, I may be inclined to believe they a perceptive "power".
Point is, asking for evidence before you believe in something is skepticism and critical thinking. Believing in something and asking for evidence is faith. There is a difference, don't ever confuse it again.
Posted by: Rockstar | April 01, 2005 at 06:23 AM
One cannot trust without faith.
Absolute nonsense. Trust is belief with evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. You are saying you can’t believe with evidence without believing with no evidence. That’s just incoherent.
Do you trust the people you love? Do you trust them simply because you have past experiences with them, or because you have an overriding emotional compulsion within you that encourages you to trust? That's faith. It's irrational. It can lead you into error. It can also lead you into a rich experience with others.
I trust them because I have evidence they are trustworthy based on past experiences with them. Nothing to do with faith.
Never said anything remotely like that. Straw man.
Then I don’t know what your point was.
A superstition is the belief that unrelated factors affect the course of events. How does a belief about the nature of the prophet's inspiration qualify as a superstition?
From the AlterNet article:
Dictionary.com says
Not based on human reason or scientific knowledge, irrationally maintained … by faith in magic, idolatry – they all fit belied in divinity.Already accomplished in my earlier posting.
I disagree.
What I'm trying to point out is that there are forms of faith that are much more about character than about the objective world. There are things in all our lives that cannot be objectified. A healthy skepticism is important when dealing with those things, too. But ultimately, some things come down to what you can handle emotionally, what is important for your psychological well-being, what you need evidence for, and what you have to take on faith
I really don’t understand your point here. I will say, though, that I take nothing on faith.
Posted by: Skeptico | April 01, 2005 at 07:51 AM
I really don’t understand your point here. I will say, though, that I take nothing on faith.
Of course you do. You take it on faith that the world is inherently rational and comprehensible, that the apparent patterns you see in the world around you are real and not optical illusions. You take it on faith that your consciousness is perceiving the world in a manner that is something approximating reality. Fact is, you cannot prove that the law of physics are not just a coincidence.
Quantum mechanics is so unsettling that physicists have to block out the philosophical implications just to get work done. They know that quantum theory works, and so they take it on faith that the weirdness associated with the theory will someday be reconciled with a rational world.
All of us take things on faith. If we questioned every single thing, we'd never manage to step out of our front doors.
I note that, in the quoted Dictionary.com definition of superstition, you skipped over the primary defintion -- which supports my argument -- and used the secondary defintiion, which support yours. The American Heritage Dictionary definition is consistent with my argument, while David Morris's unattributed definition is not. Forgive me if I discount the latter. Looks to me like the faith/superstition argument is a wash.
I trust [the people I love] because I have evidence they are trustworthy based on past experiences with them. Nothing to do with faith.
Heartwarming. If one of these people asked you if you had faith in them, would you really say no?
You are defining faith far too narrowly. Your definition is designed to support your own world view, and does not match up with the experiences of others. Reread the last paragraph from my last posting again, and try to understand that for a lot of people, faith is about how they view their personal, subjective relationship with the world much more than about how they view obective reality.
Carl Sagan -- who was much more of an atheist that I -- often said that he had no problem with religion, so long as it is the kind of religion that is not contradicted by the evidence of the physical world. This kind of religion does not preclude faith, yet avoids embracing superstition. It is still an irrational thing, but I cannot for the life of me begrudge another human being a harmless irrationality that makes coping with life eaiser, especially when I have no way of proving that irrationality to be false.
Posted by: Jim Royal | April 01, 2005 at 09:07 AM
OutEast, I think we're on the same wavelength, here.
We generally use the word 'superstition' to refer to irrational, ad hoc practices and beliefs with limited applications and little relation to each other beyond the underlying credulity.
[snip]
Religious beliefs, on the other hand, form a largely internally coherent cosmology and have an underlying rationale; this is essentially irrational, true, but irrationality alone does not a superstition make.
Very well said. Bravo.
In the case of my fiancée, she has been struggling to reconcile her own belief in Islam with my secular humanism. But she has come to understand that faith is about her relationship with the world, and her own need to ascribe meaning to things, rather than about whether Darwinism is real. She is reconstructing the place of faith in her life, and has never embraced superstition.
To me, this is objective evidence that these concepts are two seperate things.
Posted by: Jim Royal | April 01, 2005 at 09:23 AM
Of course you do (take things on faith). You take it on faith that the world is inherently rational and comprehensible, that the apparent patterns you see in the world around you are real and not optical illusions. You take it on faith that your consciousness is perceiving the world in a manner that is something approximating reality.
I do no such thing. The whole world could be an optical illusion or a product of some cosmic mind – many people actually think it is. It makes no difference. What is important is that what we observe is consistent with the known laws of nature. If I throw someone off my 7th floor balcony they will die and I will spend the rest of my life in jail for it – my experience will be the same whether the world is real or a product of someone’s imagination.
Fact is, you cannot prove that the law of physics are not just a coincidence.
Since I never claimed "the law of physics are are not just a coincidence”, I don’t have to.
Quantum mechanics is so unsettling that physicists have to block out the philosophical implications just to get work done. They know that quantum theory works, and so they take it on faith that the weirdness associated with the theory will someday be reconciled with a rational world.
No, they don’t “take it on faith that the weirdness associated with the theory will someday be reconciled with” anything at all. The theory works; they use it. Period. They hope more will be revealed later, but no one knows if it will or not.
All of us take things on faith. If we questioned every single thing, we'd never manage to step out of our front doors.
You’re confusing evidence with proof. We all believe without absolute proof. Faith means believing with no evidence. You may do that, I don’t.
I note that, in the quoted Dictionary.com definition of superstition, you skipped over the primary defintion -- which supports my argument -- and used the secondary defintiion, which support yours. The American Heritage Dictionary definition is consistent with my argument, while David Morris's unattributed definition is not. Forgive me if I discount the latter. Looks to me like the faith/superstition argument is a wash.
All and any definitions can be used; there is no “primary” definition that trumps the others. You just want to ignore the definitions you don’t like. You are creating a false dilemma – it must be one or the other definition. But it is both – superstition is (inter alia) “belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance”. “Belief in the divinity of the prophet” would be included in that definition. So would other things, but that doesn’t eliminate “belief in the divinity of the prophet” from the things included.
Heartwarming. If one of these people asked you if you had faith in them, would you really say no?
Yes. I think saying I trust you based on what I know about you (evidence) is more complimentary than saying I have faith in you but I have no idea why.
You are defining faith far too narrowly. Your definition is designed to support your own world view, and does not match up with the experiences of others. Reread the last paragraph from my last posting again, and try to understand that for a lot of people, faith is about how they view their personal, subjective relationship with the world much more than about how they view obective reality.
Well, the example you gave was belief in the divinity of the prophet. Unless you have evidence for that, that is belief without evidence. That is not belief based on human reason or scientific knowledge, is irrationally maintained by faith in magic or idolatry (ie it is superstition). If you want to define faith as something else, go ahead and perhaps that won’t be superstition, but the above is what I am saying is superstition. And it includes much if not most of religion.
Carl Sagan -- who was much more of an atheist that I -- often said that he had no problem with religion, so long as it is the kind of religion that is not contradicted by the evidence of the physical world. This kind of religion does not preclude faith, yet avoids embracing superstition. It is still an irrational thing, but I cannot for the life of me begrudge another human being a harmless irrationality that makes coping with life eaiser, especially when I have no way of proving that irrationality to be false.
From the AlterNet article:
What he was getting as was that skeptics will want evidence from psychics, astrologers etc, and even extreme religious types such as creationists, but have a blind spot for any “softer” religious beliefs of their own. He decided to call it what it is – ie, no different from many of those other made-up beliefs.
You say there are forms of faith that are much more about character than about the objective world. I have absolutely no idea what that means, but maybe there is something that is not superstition (although you have not articulated what that might be). But the majority of religious faith, and not just extremist/creationist etc, is superstition.
Posted by: Skeptico | April 01, 2005 at 09:14 PM