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]

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.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

A physicalist/materialist is someone who believes physicalism or materialism, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism), i.e., that all that exists is material/tangible. Physicist =/= physicalist, although I suspect many physicists are physicalists.

Let's take that example, I actually reject materialism, I believe there are abstract entities like numbers and sets and theoretical entities like quarks (some materialists will buy this. some won't). There's no way to prove, scientifically that either of our fundamental positions are correct.

(and I'm sure you're familiar with Kuhn as well as the problem of underdetermination of scientific theory. Things aren't nearly as simple as simply testing our theories and rejecting it when they come out to be false, we can always save the hypothesis in the light of new evidence, so our favorite beliefs are never really verified by data.)

And just because philosophy needn't rely on something observable doesn't mean that *anything* is philosophy. Observation and logic are important tools of good philosophy but that doesn't mean good philosophy is based on observable phenomena that can be verified. Mostly philosophy is about meta-principles, discussing the kinds of things we're discussing now. What scientific theory would we use to determine whether or not belief in other minds is a superstition or a scientifically verifiable fact? If I claim it's unreasonable to believe in things without evidence, that seems like an important and interesting philosophical claim, but it's hard to insist that that claim must be based on observable phenomena without at least doing some question begging.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Only in a narrowly Western cultural sense. You seem entirely deaf to the possibility of other cultural options which themselves can be equally valid. And no, scientists really don't. The old guard fight to defend their theories even long after all evidence is solidly in favor of the alternative theory. There are still idiots who believe in multi-regional theory long after evidence and the mainstream decisively show that the Out of Africa theory is the human past.

This reminds me of nothing so much as the Calvinist trying to explain that what Jean Calvin did to Geneva was not reflective of the Calvinist spirit despite all evidence to the contrary.