Rendering unto Caesar: The Terrorism of Superstition

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

There are people who contend that politics and superstition should be separated. Certainly, the world would be a better place if superstitious people simply went about their own personal affairs and stopped meddling in the private lives of their neighbors, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The superstitious are terrified that if they don't terrorize their neighbors, they will suffer for eternity.

Some will argue that the Constitution guarantees the right of people to be superstitious, but that's no reason to appease their superstitions. It is one thing for the superstitious to terrorize their own children and quite a different matter for them to terrorize their neighbors. They even go so far as having their children terrorize the neighbor kids. This kind of conduct is vicious and brutal.

Superstition belongs to Caesar. It enslaves an entire population in a mental prison of fear and ignorance. People who reject superstition cannot ignore the cruelty of the superstitious.

What do you do to shelter your loved ones from the rabid terrorism of superstition?

Comments

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Anything that people do or believe that has no support by empirical evidence and science.

Examples:
1. If I go to this weekly shin-dig on Sundays and pray to a long-dead Zombie man, my invisible, immortal "soul" will go to happy land where I'll live with Sky Daddy forever. Bonus points for hating gays.
2. If I blow myself up and take these school children with me, I'll mysteriously have a body in this unproven afterlife, with which I will joyfully f*ck seventy-two virgins for the rest of eternity. All for the glory of Sky Daddy, of course.
3. If I step on a crack, I'll break my mother's back/

All three of these are superstitions, all with no more realistic evidence than any other.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Poly-sci isn't really based in science and there isn't anything like what you would call empirical evidence which supports political mechanisms and philosophies.

I still would not describe those who participate in the political process or who have political ideals as being superstitious and neither would I characterize faith as superstition.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

But political science isn't a "belief," in the same sense as a superstition. Political systems are "practical" systems (strict definition: they work in practice). There are ways to measure whether a government is effective. What are the literacy rates? Gross national product? Quality of life? National infrastructure? Military and security status? So even though people can debate which political system is best (including none), these are still systems that function in the real world, can be OBSERVED in the real world, and their EFFECTS and IMPACTS can be observed and measured in the real world.

In contrast, if the only measure of a political system or government is "the citizens will go to heaven if they follow the king" or some other tripe like that, THEN it's superstition.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What about eugenics? Prior to the victory of the United Nations over the Axis Powers there was a full-fledged peer review process which accepted eugenics as just one of a branch of sciences related to biology and which treated it to the entire apparatus applied today to modern sciences. There were experiments treated to the whole scientific metholodology.

So do tell me-why is it not a science *now*? Why was it *then*? Is science really as unshakeable as you say it is or can science like religion pick and choose which aspects of itself it wants to include.

And frankly that was the basis of all government prior to the Enlightenment. Nice to know you just dismissed most of human history as superstitious savagery. Vladimir Ulyanov would be so proud of you.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

What about "hadrons are made up of quarks" or "3 + 3 = 6" or "there are other minds"? All superstitions?

[mijan.livejournal.com]

No. The first is a theory. It's still being tested. Evidence does exist, and can be verified by empirical analysis. And still, if new evidence is presented that contradicts that theory, then the theory can be revised or discarded as appropriate... unlike a superstition, which simply IS.

The second is a mathematical system, which works consistently according to the postulates and constructs governing mathematics. Additionally, evidence supports that sums can be added to express total quantity. If I have two apples and two oranges, and I put them into a basket, I can SEE four fruit in the basket. Other people can verify the quantity. Same thing when adding vectors in physics - additive properties of quantities are consistent within abstract mathematics AND the physical world.

The idea that other minds exist is substantiated by the fact that other people exist, and they do not always behave as I expect them to behave. Things happen beyond the ability of my mind to predict or imagine, and therefore must have an external source. The realm of philosophy is sticky, but nobody claims that their philosophical postulates are the absolute definition of the universe. If they do, they're generally considered to be mad... unless they're religious. Then they get a green flag. Philosophy does have an element of superstition, but good philosophy is based on observable phenomena that can be verified.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

It's quite possible to interpret the evidence without positing quarks, numbers or other minds. If you or I accept them we have no empirical evidence or scientific basis to show that our theory that posits these entities is superior to one that doesn't.

nobody claims that their philosophical postulates are the absolute definition of the universe.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "absolute definition of the universe", but my suspicion is that you've never met spent much time talking with a serious physicalist/materialist.

but good philosophy is based on observable phenomena that can be verified.

No, that's just flat out wrong.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

The "absolute definition of the universe" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Sorry that didn't translate through digital comments. I'm not sure what you mean by "physicalist/materialist," but I talked with scientists on a daily basis. I work in a major biomedical research facility. I have friends who are engineers and physicists, too. A material universe isn't restricted to Newtonian theory, Quantum theory, or any other physical theory. That's the difference between science and superstition. A scientist works with a theory until the theory is either disproven or improved. A superstitious person will beat their superstition into the ground, EVEN IF EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS THEIR SUPERSTITION, and continue to rely on it without evidence.

And please, explain what you mean by saying that my qualification of "good philosophy" is wrong. I'm curious. If a philosophy doesn't rely on ANY observable thing, even if only allegorical, then that means anyone can talk out their ass about anything and call it a philosophy. Observation and logic seem like the proper tools of good philosophy.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

This was classic, too:

If I have two apples and two oranges, and I put them into a basket, I can SEE four fruit in the basket.

LOL at someone trying to connect mathematical truths to empirical observations.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And I'll ask another question here-Marxism has created an entire methodology that encompasses all aspects of the world. It can create its own intellectuals within that methodology who while I would vehemently disagree with them I would easily say they are equally learned to me.

Islam also has its own methodology and has been deeply involved in and supportive of learning since the West went Christian and for a long time was far more humanistic than the West was and remained such until the West forcibly shoved Christianity and its science down their throats.

Is what you term science really scientific or is it the *liberal democratic* definition in which case all you're doing is cultural imperialism with a robe and a cap?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

3+3=6 is a tautological statement that is necessarily true once we have defined the symbols "3" "+" "=" and "6"

"there are other minds" is not established fact and is merely the prevailing opinion of mortals that, I must admit, is pretty useful to agree with, since it *seems* like there are other minds, so might as well run with it

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

"3+3=6 is a tautological statement that is necessarily true once we have defined the symbols "3" "+" "=" and "6""

Would that it were, but the logicist program crapped out I'm afraid.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Aint my fault you cannot do logic.

[ex-restless.livejournal.com]

Do you regularly make up your own definitions?

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Only the ones that make logical sense. Religion is nothing more than myth and superstition propagated by those who want power and prestige, or those who aren't intelligent enough to seek real answers. Don't know why the sun burns in the sky? GOD DID IT! Don't understand how a flower grows from a seed? GOD DID IT! Don't understand how genetics and evolution created biodiversity across the planet in the form of thousands upon thousands of unique species all coming from a common origin? GOD DID IT!

You accuse me of making up my own definitions? Honey, that's the essential quality of religion! Religions make up their own stuff (whether now or thousands of years ago), provide their own definitions and explanations, without any pretense of having the evidence to support it.

[ex-restless.livejournal.com]

So is that a yes?

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you needed monosyllabic answers.

YES.

And point of fact, everyone makes up their own definitions. We do it constantly, based on observation. In fact, only religious FOLLOWERS seem to refuse to make up their own definitions, because they blindly swallow the definitions that someone else invented for them! If the Pope decides to redefine a thousand years of dogma (Vatican II, anyone?), a billion Catholics are technically supposed to follow that blindly. If a megachurch pastor decides to decree that God spoke to him and told him The Way It Is, then his "flock" (how appropriate) will swallow it whole. A Muslim Imam tells women they need to cover themselves head-to-toe, or it's their fault if they get raped, and people believe that shit! How... interesting.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

It's odd that in response to your rather simple question about definitions, someone would launch into a tirade about phenomenological explanations.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, if reality be defined as only that which is empirical then I can tell you right now that most sciences dealing with the past, including history are not. Because one cannot run an experiment to prove that say, Tyrannosaurus rex could or could not run at speed X. One can extrapolate from bones but the scientists themselves are forthright that it is only inference and speculation at best.

And frankly as well scientists continually re-define their terms as per the scientific metholodology. But no society turns science into an ersatz religion instead of part and parcel of society as a whole. Religion meets an entirely different set of needs and the only sciences that blend over are the so-called soft sciences, none of which (sociology, psychology and suchlike) are really science in the sense that say, history is. The soft sciences make a conclusion and warp evidence to fit it.

History does not, but by the same token there is no empirical evidence unless it is in writing that say, Cortes was really motivated to raze Tenochtitlan for Jesus.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

This comment doesn't seem to address the question at all. He asked about definitions, not phenomenological explanations.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Okay, here are some definitions:

God: Invisible, omniscient "something" that has control over everything, sees everything, and knows everything... but refuses to make his existence obvious. Often given human-like characteristics in descriptions. Is either very picky and judgmental, or very forgiving, depending on who you ask.
Also see: Gods

Gods: A lot of beings with powers far beyond those of mortals. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Capable of smiting you with lightning bolts from the top of Mount Olympus. Ferries souls to the land of the dead. Rules over the cycles of the moon and sun. Often given human-like features.

Soul: That thing that nobody can even quite define, but religious folks are SO SURE it exists, despite an absolute lack of evidence. You can't see your soul, touch it, feel it, measure it, or detect it in any way, but they tell us it exists! Kinda like God's "Mini-Me" inside us all. And if you value your soul (and for some people, it's all they've got, because they're so otherwise miserable), you have to keep your soul "clean." (Do they make detergent for that?)

Heaven: The place where your immortal "soul" goes if you behave yourself.

Hell: It's like a lake of fire, but it's frozen over, and you live in abject suffering and misery after you die for all eternity because the loving God up in Heaven disapproves of your behavior. (Irony is intentional here.)

There. THOSE are some made-up definitions. People from ancient times had no better explanations for natural phenomena, so they MADE UP STORIES and created words and definitions to explain away things they didn't understand. And here we are today, still believing those things! It wasn't true then, and it's not true now, but in our modern day, we have NO EXCUSE.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So by that standard all of paleobiology and paleoclimatology must be so much superstition, then? And by that standard as well, the historical consensus must be superstition as well. For history obviously cannot be empirically proven. There is no empirical proof, for instance, of the existence of Lucius Cornelius Sulla or of the existence of Kung Fu Ze.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Uhm, what do you mean there's no empirical proof for the existence of Confucius? I mean, you can then make the case that we have no proof for the existence of *anyone* a few thousand years ago.

Cause, uhm, there are a good number of records about the Kung Fu Ze, or Kongzi or Confucius or whatever the hell ya wanna call the now-dead man.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

erm, nevermind me. i need coffee.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's the point I'm making. It seems to me he's heading for a Jesus never existed argument. Which is all fine and good until you realize by that logic the only thing that speaks of the Ancient world then is Archaeology. Which the Jesus never existed crowd will probably move next to claiming all that is just hoaxes.