Does Atheism & Education cause Superstition?

[cj.23]

How about heaping helping of tarot with astrology sauce, a side of reiki, and wash it down with the homeopathic remedy of your choice?

ETA: Me, I can't swallow that stuff!

Man, that is one sick recipe. Care for a glass of homeopathic wine? I assume it would in theory get you VERY drunk! That would be a hilarious experiment - I'll try it on my next woo dinner guest!

j x

 

[-Fran-]

Also, how do you define "superstition"? (I assume you don't count belief in God, or the question would be pretty skewed.)

This would be the biggest problem I have with the whole OP-reasoning as well, I think. I do not really see any difference between religious beliefs and other woo. So to say that a lack of religion would increase the risk for woo, is like saying a lack of woo will create more woo... It doesn't quite compute Sure someone not believing in a god can believe in other weird stuff, you can be an atheist who believes in this or that woo. However you can not be a theist and not believe in woo, because, well... theism is woo! So it seems to me like the only one who has a chance at all to be a non-believer in woo, or being "woo-free" is an atheist. And so, some atheist are more inclined to think critically than other atheists.

 

[Hellbound]

Have to agree with Fran.

Religion is, in essence, institutionalized and/or ritualized superstition. A person might throw salt to ward off bad luck, a shaman would dance to appease the spirits, an Xian asks for forgiveness from an imagined diety. A person takes a homeopathic rememdy to cure a cold, another wears a charm to ward off the evil eye, the Xian prays to get better soon. A person thinks they once saw a ghost, a person claims to talk to ghosts, and Xians worship a ghost.

For any religion we could draw similar analogies, I'm sure. I used Xianity because I'm more familiar with it, and it's likely a large part of the "traditional religion" mentioned.

 

[cj.23]

I see why you think so, but we still face a problem. Even if religion was woo, and Gardner and I are both theists: the difference is he is a fideist, and I believe theism can be rational (as actually does he thinking about it, just not provable?). My definition of woo is irrational thinking - and theism just like atheism need not be irrational. Once can rationally argue for either position.

Still, regardless of that, if one leaves a religion, and you define that religion as woo, why does belief in UFO's, homeopathy or ESP increase? (the latter incidentally i think I could explain - it could be used as a rival explanatory hypothesis for many claimed religious/mystical phenomena, but I doubt these people are thinking it throught that much.)

I think Schlitt was on the right lines, but am pushed for time so will return to it later.

cj x

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I see why you think so, but we still face a problem. Even if religion was woo, and Gardner and I are both theists: the difference is he is a fideist, and I believe theism can be rational (as actually does he thinking about it, just not provable?). My definition of woo is irrational thinking - and theism just like atheism need not be irrational. Once can rationally argue for either position.

I'd believe in "rational theism" as soon as someone can give credible evidence (or logical proof) for the existence of God.

Most theists are probably not at all like you and Martin Gardner, but more inclined to believe in a personal relationship with Jesus, an everlasting soul, sin, judgment, intercessory prayer, etc.

Still, regardless of that, if one leaves a religion, and you define that religion as woo, why does belief in UFO's, homeopathy or ESP increase? (the latter incidentally i think I could explain - it could be used as a rival explanatory hypothesis for many claimed religious/mystical phenomena, but I doubt these people are thinking it throught that much.)

I'm not sure what the issue really is. Someone gives up one system of belief in the supernatural then switch to another. The fact that the new system of belief is not a conventional religion matters none at all--they're both unprovable belief in things unseen, often contrary to all known evidence.

And where did atheism come into this? Are you assuming that someone who abandons a religion is an atheist? (Most of the people I know who believe in New Age woo stuff are very strong theists, even though they reject Jesus and the Bible.)

It seems arbitrary to me to consider religion a different class of belief--somehow not superstition. I'd then ask what defines a religion? What about something that is now a proto-religion (but becomes widely recognized as a religion in the future)?

 

[-Fran-]

My definition of woo is irrational thinking - and theism just like atheism need not be irrational.

How's that?

Still, regardless of that, if one leaves a religion, and you define that religion as woo, why does belief in UFO's, homeopathy or ESP increase? (the latter incidentally i think I could explain - it could be used as a rival explanatory hypothesis for many claimed religious/mystical phenomena, but I doubt these people are thinking it throught that much.)

So, the amount of believers in different kind of woo fluctuates? I think there is something behind this whole argument, some intent here that is not quite in the open.

So what if it's true that people who leaves religion starts to believe in other sorts of woo? I don't think it proves anything in particular about atheism in itself.

I think these facts were found for a reason. The whole thing seems to say that: Religion = Good woo, all other woo = bad woo, and see what happens when people lose faith in god, they turn to bad woo. So, atheism = bad.

I am sure you can find similar facts in other places if you really looked for it, for example that one year there were less people who believed in the Loch Ness monster and at the same time there were more believers in Astrology, or what have you. I think you could find a lot of examples of groups of believers who sort of "wanders" from one woo to another, because different sort of woo is "in fashion" in different periods. So, why does not this worry the theists the same way? That suddenly a lot UFO believer's stops believing in UFO and starts to do Feng Shui instead?

Maybe because there would be no meaning in looking for such facts, because you couldn't try to prove a "lack of faith in god = bad"-point with it. For a theist who wanted to make that point it would be meaningless to try to establish a fact of increase and decrease in other, non-Christian, woo, that seems to correlate with each other.

Even if the facts in themselves might be correct in the OP, I don't buy the whole reasoning in itself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Man, that is one sick recipe. Care for a glass of homeopathic wine? I assume it would in theory get you VERY drunk! That would be a hilarious experiment - I'll try it on my next woo dinner guest!

I think you've just explained something to me about myself! I'm a tea-totaller--haven't had an alcoholic beverage in over 25 years. By homeopathic reasoning, I guess I'm going around drunk out of my mind all these years (since I no doubt take in trace amounts of alcohol in fruit juice and so on).

Or wait a second--alcohol makes a sober person drunk, so by their thinking homeopathic alcohol should make a drunk person sober. No wait, if a sober person drinks caffeine, he becomes more alert, so if a drunk person takes homeopathic caffeine and alcohol in equal dilution. . . . Oy! I need a drink!

 

[cj.23]

How's that?

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_irrational.htm
is pretty succinct?

So, the amount of believers in different kind of woo fluctuates? I think there is something behind this whole argument, some intent here that is not quite in the open.

So I have a hidden agenda? Evidence? I question absolutely everything, and my sig declares me a theist! I have however cited Martin Gardner and the Skeptical Inquirer - does that suggest my brains are about to fall out? Plenty of people will vouch for my sincerity, here on richarddawkins.net
I value critical thinking, have already stated i find atheism rational and expressly stated i have no evangelistic motive. Believ what you think the evidence points to Fran.

So what if it's true that people who leaves religion starts to believe in other sorts of woo? I don't think it proves anything in particular about atheism in itself.

Correct. Any given individual atheistic argument may or may not be rational and coherent - atheism is in my book. (see below)

I think these facts were found for a reason. The whole thing seems to say that: Religion = Good woo, all other woo = bad woo, and see what happens when people lose faith in god, they turn to bad woo. So, atheism = bad.

Er, I clearly said I did not believe that in the first post! I have immense regard for many atheists, and many theists, and many agnostics. Atheism is negatively defined by not believing in one proposition as I keep pointing out: so beliefs beyond that are going to be variable. You seem to be asserting all atheists are rational - that is nonsense, just as many Christians are loony. And I did find these facts for a reason -- I noted them while responding to Professor Dawkins The Enemies of Reason, I said so in the very opening post.

I am sure you can find similar facts in other places if you really looked for it, for example that one year there were less people who believed in the Loch Ness monster and at the same time there were more believers in Astrology, or what have you. I think you could find a lot of examples of groups of believers who sort of "wanders" from one woo to another, because different sort of woo is "in fashion" in different periods. So, why does not this worry the theists the same way? That suddenly a lot UFO believer's stops believing in UFO and starts to do Feng Shui instead?

I'm sure you can: I found it interesting because often there is an assumption that atheism is more a) rationalist and b) compatible with critical thinking, and Professor Dawkins often seems to imply this. I happen to like the guy, but I disagree. I don't think this would necessarily be his beliefs though - he might be well aware f these studies. I dunno, and I can't speak for him.

Maybe because there would be no meaning in looking for such facts, because you couldn't try to prove a "lack of faith in god = bad"-point with it. For a theist who wanted to make that point it would be meaningless to try to establish a fact of increase and decrease in other, non-Christian, woo, that seems to correlate with each other.

It correlates with fashion. As I have said repeatedly, I am not making that point. I'm not an apologist.

Even if the facts in themselves might be correct in the OP, I don't buy the whole reasoning in itself.

You can check them for yourself, and i encourage you to do so. I gave references?

cj x

 

[-Fran-]

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_irrational.htm
is pretty succinct?

I read it. Interesting. And sorry I misunderstood you on this point, and my thinking here was much simpler than that. It was simply that I think that belief in a deity is, as that article also mentions, faulty from the beginning, so even if the rest of the arguments from the faulty premise are made rationally, the conclusion reached, even if it was reached rationally then becomes meaningless to me. Woo, for me, is about these faulty premises, not so much about rational and irrational thinking. I understand that people can be rational from the premises of their own beliefs, even if I think that the belief in itself is wrong.

So I have a hidden agenda? Evidence?

I didn’t say you, personally have an agenda, though I guess it’s possible, but I actually don’t think so.

I question absolutely everything, and my sig declares me a theist! I have however cited Martin Gardner and the Skeptical Inquirer - does that suggest my brains are about to fall out?

I did not say your brain did that either.

Plenty of people will vouch for my sincerity, here on richarddawkins.net
I value critical thinking, have already stated i find atheism rational and expressly stated i have no evangelistic motive. Believ what you think the evidence points to Fran.

I actually don't think these things about you, I have read other posts from you, and no I don't think you are a person with hidden agendas. I have seen the exact same reasoning before though, and I still think there is something behind this reasoning that is not fully admitted, yes. I can be wrong about this though, sure, but since you are not the original creator of this reasoning, why would I have attacked you personally, when I criticized the reasoning?

Er, I clearly said I did not believe that in the first post!

Even if you don’t believe this, this is what it conveys to me when I read it. I did not say that you support this, if it’s true.

I have immense regard for many atheists, and many theists, and many agnostics. Atheism is negatively defined by not believing in one proposition as I keep pointing out: so beliefs beyond that are going to be variable. You seem to be asserting all atheists are rational - that is nonsense, just as many Christians are loony.

I do not assert either one or the other. I did mention that many atheists can believe in woo. And even if I think that it is weird to believe in a deity, that is not the same things as I have stated that all Christians are loony. I think Christianity is as much woo as all other woo, didn’t say anything about if I thought people who believe in woo are loony or not. Some are, I suppose, most are not.

And I did find these facts for a reason -- I noted them while responding to Professor Dawkins The Enemies of Reason, I said so in the very opening post.

But someone did some research to come up with these facts in the first place, the reason for doing that is what I (maybe incorrectly) doubted the sincerity of. As long as it isn’t you who are the original author of this, it isn’t you personally that I am criticizing.

I'm sure you can: I found it interesting because often there is an assumption that atheism is more a) rationalist and b) compatible with critical thinking, and Professor Dawkins often seems to imply this.

I do not think you have to be an atheist to be rational and be able to think critically, no, but I do think that atheism often, though not always, obviously, follows if you are and can.

It correlates with fashion. As I have said repeatedly, I am not making that point. I'm not an apologist.

I didn’t say you were, but I do think it has been used by apologists in just this manner.

You can check them for yourself, and i encourage you to do so. I gave references?

I don’t actually doubt the facts in themselves, really, just the conclusions made, and the intentions behind them, and why only this particular correlation was chosen. And I am critical about how they can be, and have been, used in an apologetic fashion. I read an article not long ago that made use of this reasoning in just that way, but can’t for the life of me remember where. If I find it again I will link to it.

 

[Big Les]

As a young educated atheist, I turned to ghosts and UFOs for something "higher" to believe in, as I wasn't so much arriving at my atheism via critical thinking, but by cynicism and disbelief in something I saw no hint of evidence for.

Until I searched and found equally poor evidence for the woo, I became less selectively sceptical, but still relied on my personal assessment of plausibility to guide me. For some reason at one point I saw alien visitors as a more likely phenomenon than god, and I think similar failings in critical thought are true of quite a few atheists. But of course, the same can be said of the religious. For some personalities, feeling sure that there is no god as it's been described to you, might cause you to try to fill the gap with something more plausible. This gap is predicated upon a lack of belief in god, therefore there is probably a correlation for this particular cause. What percentage of atheists do feel this need I don't know. I know I did at one time but like to think I've grown out of such insecure needs for an emotional/psychological crutch.

 

[-Fran-]

Or wait a second--alcohol makes a sober person drunk, so by their thinking homeopathic alcohol should make a drunk person sober.

I wish that the alcohol I drank last Saturday had been homeopathic alcohol, then I wouldn't have felt so sick on Sunday morning

 

[cj.23]

Fran, sorry if i was defensive and over reacted. The original assertions were made by Martin Gardner, a man I admire tremendously,who is perhaps best known to reader so f thsi forum for his involvement in the founding of CSI(COP). I'm used to being one of the only theists (and treated very very well by the wonderful people there) over on the atheist forum at www.richarddawkins.net, so I may have a bit of a hair trigger reaction. I have to keep pointing out to new posters there i'm not some fundy troll, and you can imagine how stressful it becomes. I'm always pretty open about my beliefs - and the fact I think as i have probably said "i'm wrong - and so is everyone else". Knowledge is provisional on evidence.

Apologies for being a ****head, and if I offended you by misjudging I apologise unreservedly. I am very crap, this is well known.

xj x

 

[-Fran-]

Fran, sorry if i was defensive and over reacted. The original assertions were made by Martin Gardner, a man I admire tremendously,who is perhaps best known to reader so f thsi forum for his involvement in the founding of CSI(COP). I'm used to being one of the only theists (and treated very very well by the wonderful people there) over on the atheist forum at www.richarddawkins.net, so I may have a bit of a hair trigger reaction. I have to keep pointing out to new posters there i'm not some fundy troll, and you can imagine how stressful it becomes. I'm always pretty open about my beliefs - and the fact I think as i have probably said "i'm wrong - and so is everyone else". Knowledge is provisional on evidence.

Apologies for being a ****head, and if I offended you by misjudging I apologise unreservedly. I am very crap, this is well known.

xj x

You didn't offend me and I hope I didn't offend you. And I can understand your defensiveness, I can be rather blunt sometimes. Sometimes because I am blunt at times and sometimes because English is not my first language and I am not always fully aware of the nuances of the language and thus may come across harsher than I intend to.

 

[Soapy Sam]

The specific type of woo belief which is in popular favour at a given time may depend largely on what the public is exposed to in terms of broadcasting and publishing.

While the decline in church membership in the UK may broadly parallel in time the rise of some kinds of woo- UFO and energy healing for instance- I see no reason to suppose the correlation is causative. I think it has more to do with popular entertainment.
In the Soviet Union, formal religion virtually ceased, yet in former Soviet states, both formal religion and paranormal beliefs seem to be bouncing back at the same time.

Formal Christian teaching may have discouraged people from expressing belief in magic -especially if perceived as "witchcraft" - but can we show that most Wiccans would be church members in a more religious society?

In my childhood, people went to church less out of burning conviction than because it was "the done thing". Choosing to leave required a conscious effort for adults whose respectability might be damaged. For a wee kid, with no reputation to lose, it was easy for me to say I felt it was a total waste of time. Thirty years earlier, when wee kids were still expected to learn their catechism and would be physically punished if they failed, it would have been hard even for a child to opt out.
We forget how strong the hold of organised churches was on public respectability.

Among Victorians, who still at least professed religious belief, woo was a mainstay of the educated- a natural spillover of the radically new and unexpected discoveries of science. Now , woo is a mass market phenomenon, sold to the uneducated and uncritical who think Apollo 13 was fiction and War of the Worlds is fact.

Too much has changed in the last century to correlate decline of one organisation with rise of another. Except Pirates and Global Warming, obviously.

 

[blutoski]

Dawkins et al are referring here to recent demographics, but in order to validate this hypothesis, we have to take a wider historical view.

Paranormalism is not a recent phenomenon, and one could argue that it coexists with religion. The decline of conventional church attendance has not converted to paranormalism - that was always there. Arguably, there is less paranormalism today than a hundred years ago. For example, spiritualism peaked at the end of the 19th century.

People have always believed in supernatural abductions, perpetual motion machines, get-rich-quick schemes, conspiracies, and other skeptical subjects. The specifics change, is all.

Having said that, I am observing a slight shift in narrative from supernatural explanations to pseudoscientific explanations. The latter being exemplified by extraterrestrial visitors replacing succubi, or origin myths changing from Genesis to Raelianism or panspermia, or healthfraud changing from 'miracle' to quantum healing.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

All the atheists I know are far less apt to believe in other belief type things.


Is "no professed" religion the same as no religion? No. These people aren't atheists, and they haven't said they have no beliefs in gods or the supernatural. They just didn't pin down a religion.

Compare non-believers to believers. Then you'll likely see atheists in a separate group from those that will seek crystal healing, cults/alternative organized religions, psychics, ufo groups, etc.