Superstition vs. Faith

[Crawford]

Christianity includes a dozen different ages for the earth and mankind upon it. That's not faith, that's superstition.

The majority on earth that says any christian is wrong in their beliefs, is other christians. Perhaps you should listen to what christianity is telling you? You're wrong. Unless the majority of christianity is wrong is what you're saying?

 

[Crawford]

Science itself has had different ages for the earth, from eternal, a few hundred years ago, to a few hundred thousand years, in the 19th century, when it was believed the sun was powered by gravitational collapse, to the present consensus that it is around 13.8 billion years. The Biblical language of Genesis is very sophisticated, according to John Lennox an Oxford mathematician. The sophistication comes because it was written for a pre-scientific age but needs to make sense to people of all kinds of background. The six days could be interpreted as six days following one after another, which was the natural understanding for people. I am not a Hebrew scholar but I am told that it can also be interpreted as six days each separated by an indeterminate length of time but where a new stage in development of the universe was entered. When the Bible says a thousand ages in thy sight are but as an evening gone the door is wide open for interpretation of the ages of the earth. So science and Christianity are in the same boat from this point of view. Christianity is a very broad term and to make blanket statements about what it includes is not an accurate way of understanding it; there are many views of very varied levels of sophistication within it; that is inevitable.

Christians, like every body else in whatever belief system they inhabit, have differences of opinion. Scientists, Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, pagans etc have varying opinions and insofar as they differ it is inevitable that they think the others are wrong. But in each case there is a core that they hold true which is a basis for friendship. I don't agree with some christians about somethings but we all hold to some essentials about which we agree concerning Jesus Christ. I don't find the hierarchical Churches, or pentecostal churches appealing but they are still my brothers in the essentials of what we hold true. To with-hold friendship and love to them on trivial grounds is contrary to Jesus word that we should love one another.

 

[Norman Beall]

Science itself has had different ages for the earth, from eternal, a few hundred years ago, to a few hundred thousand years, in the 19th century, when it was believed the sun was powered by gravitational collapse, to the present consensus that it is around 13.8 billion years. The Biblical language of Genesis is very sophisticated, according to John Lennox an Oxford mathematician. The sophistication comes because it was written for a pre-scientific age but needs to make sense to people of all kinds of background. The six days could be interpreted as six days following one after another, which was the natural understanding for people. I am not a Hebrew scholar but I am told that it can also be interpreted as six days each separated by an indeterminate length of time but where a new stage in development of the universe was entered. When the Bible says a thousand ages in thy sight are but as an evening gone the door is wide open for interpretation of the ages of the earth. So science and Christianity are in the same boat from this point of view. Christianity is a very broad term and to make blanket statements about what it includes is not an accurate way of understanding it; there are many views of very varied levels of sophistication within it; that is inevitable.

Christians, like every body else in whatever belief system they inhabit, have differences of opinion. Scientists, Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, pagans etc have varying opinions and insofar as they differ it is inevitable that they think the others are wrong. But in each case there is a core that they hold true which is a basis for friendship. I don't agree with some christians about somethings but we all hold to some essentials about which we agree concerning Jesus Christ. I don't find the hierarchical Churches, or pentecostal churches appealing but they are still my brothers in the essentials of what we hold true. To with-hold friendship and love to them on trivial grounds is contrary to Jesus word that we should love one another.

Young earth creationists say those that believe the earth is not young, don't understand the bible. This means catholics do not understand the bible.

Do you know where young earth comes from?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When we are tiny children, everything that we're told is a matter of complete faith. That's essential to survival. As we grow up, achieving such advanced years as 6 or 7, we start noticing what those around us -- even the ones who told us what to believe before -- give evidence of believing themselves.

When many Christians were little, they learned about Baby Jesus, and Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy -- and they believed them all. However, it didn't take long before their parents give subtle hints
that maybe the bearded guy, bunny and fairy aren't to be taken quite so literally, and so belief tends to fall away. Quite early, really.

Now, it also happens that in some families, the Baby Jesus thing also slips away, usually not noticed a lot, and what the family is left with is a kind of weak Christianity that we see all over the world.

But in some families, the Jesus thing is considered the only reality -- science being something unworthy of even cursory investigation.

And what do you expect will happen to the minds of the kids from that latter group? I find it easy to understand.

 

[Norman Beall]

When we are tiny children, everything that we're told is a matter of complete faith. That's essential to survival. As we grow up, achieving such advanced years as 6 or 7, we start noticing what those around us -- even the ones who told us what to believe before -- give evidence of believing themselves.

When many Christians were little, they learned about Baby Jesus, and Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy -- and they believed them all. However, it didn't take long before their parents give subtle hints
that maybe the bearded guy, bunny and fairy aren't to be taken quite so literally, and so belief tends to fall away. Quite early, really.

Now, it also happens that in some families, the Baby Jesus thing also slips away, usually not noticed a lot, and what the family is left with is a kind of weak Christianity that we see all over the world.

But in some families, the Jesus thing is considered the only reality -- science being something unworthy of even cursory investigation.

And what do you expect will happen to the minds of the kids from that latter group? I find it easy to understand.

And what about you? Do you understand how particulate matter came to be with the big bang?

 

[Norman Beall]

Science itself has had different ages for the earth, from eternal, a few hundred years ago, to a few hundred thousand years, in the 19th century, when it was believed the sun was powered by gravitational collapse, to the present consensus that it is around 13.8 billion years. The Biblical language of Genesis is very sophisticated, according to John Lennox an Oxford mathematician. The sophistication comes because it was written for a pre-scientific age but needs to make sense to people of all kinds of background. The six days could be interpreted as six days following one after another, which was the natural understanding for people. I am not a Hebrew scholar but I am told that it can also be interpreted as six days each separated by an indeterminate length of time but where a new stage in development of the universe was entered. When the Bible says a thousand ages in thy sight are but as an evening gone the door is wide open for interpretation of the ages of the earth. So science and Christianity are in the same boat from this point of view. Christianity is a very broad term and to make blanket statements about what it includes is not an accurate way of understanding it; there are many views of very varied levels of sophistication within it; that is inevitable.

Christians, like every body else in whatever belief system they inhabit, have differences of opinion. Scientists, Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, pagans etc have varying opinions and insofar as they differ it is inevitable that they think the others are wrong. But in each case there is a core that they hold true which is a basis for friendship. I don't agree with some christians about somethings but we all hold to some essentials about which we agree concerning Jesus Christ. I don't find the hierarchical Churches, or pentecostal churches appealing but they are still my brothers in the essentials of what we hold true. To with-hold friendship and love to them on trivial grounds is contrary to Jesus word that we should love one another.

seems you're mixing up ages of different things. the universe is eternal. particulate matter has a beginning with the big bang. the age of our sun and earth are completely different matters altogether.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And what about you? Do you understand how particulate matter came to be with the big bang?

No, actually -- not any more than you do.

The difference between me and believers, however, is that they say that they DO KNOW how that happened. I do not.

On this topic, the plain fact of the matter is that religion cannot bring itself to say, "I don't know." But making stuff up is not quite exactly the same as telling the pure and unadulterated "truth."

 

[darkskies]

Proper is to have a proper understanding of what it means to be wise.

That means nothing in your context. You said "one must use proper definitions".

the original meaning of eating shellfish is to say a fallacy of composition. the original meaning of mixing fabrics means a kettle logic fallacy. the original meaning of two in the same bed means argumentum ad populum. the original meaning of spiritual drunkard means institutionally indoctrinated. the original meaning of blasphemy means strawman.

Okay. So you're saying dictionaries don't have the original meanings of every phrase used by every english speaker to exist. That doesn't negate the definitions they already contain and are agreed upon.
Also, languages evolve. Words and phrases can develop and lose definitions based on popularity.
If you want to use those things go ahead, but you are going to have to explain what they mean in many cases. Someone else may be using different meanings to those same phrases. When popularity declines it gets more chaotic, open to interpretation. I hope you understand.

 

[Norman Beall]

No, actually -- not any more than you do.

The difference between me and believers, however, is that they say that they DO KNOW how that happened. I do not.

On this topic, the plain fact of the matter is that religion cannot bring itself to say, "I don't know." But making stuff up is not quite exactly the same as telling the pure and unadulterated "truth."

Find one believer that understands how particulate matter came to be with the big bang. just one. Find one that understands how to properly integrate the functions of optics and buoyancy to solve the second order differential of the purely momentive non-causal force that caused the big bang, just one. Find one believer that understands the perfect fluid perfect vacuum purely momentive volume infinite in all directions of the singularity prior to the big bang. just one.

one saying they know and actually understanding the math which is the proof, are two different matters altogether. Also, i'm an atheist, the same as God is.

 

[Norman Beall]

That means nothing in your context. You said "one must use proper definitions".

Okay. So you're saying dictionaries don't have the original meanings of every phrase used by every english speaker to exist. That doesn't negate the definitions they already contain and are agreed upon.
Also, languages evolve. Words and phrases can develop and lose definitions based on popularity.
If you want to use those things go ahead, but you are going to have to explain what they mean in many cases. Someone else may be using different meanings to those same phrases. When popularity declines it gets more chaotic, open to interpretation. I hope you understand.

i just did explain what they mean, didn't i? not open to interpretation, it's called understanding. not of any private interpretation, the same as the laws of motion, the law of gravity, and the fundamental laws of thought.

 

[darkskies]

i just did explain what they mean, didn't i? not open to interpretation, it's called understanding. not of any private interpretation, the same as the laws of motion, the law of gravity, and the fundamental laws of thought.

Sure. My bad for using the wrong words there.
But it is not at all like the laws of physics and thought. Those are observed facts. Language is arbitrary and used to convey what we want to say, not completely standardised. And without context there is still private interpretation if words have multiple meaning.
Regardless, did you see the point I was making? Dictionaries are in fact useful in most cases. You can still have words that you understand outside the dictionary.

 

[Norman Beall]

Sure. My bad for using the wrong words there.
But it is not at all like the laws of physics and thought. Those are observed facts. Language is arbitrary and used to convey what we want to say, not completely standardised. And without context there is still private interpretation if words have multiple meaning.
Regardless, did you see the point I was making? Dictionaries are in fact useful in most cases. You can still have words that you understand outside the dictionary.

dictionaries are useful to know what is popular among humans for a certain time. the dictionary is completely useless when it comes to understanding holy scriptures, being that scriptures are written with a purely objective epistemology in mind. only one that has a proper understading of purely objective thought, is one with discernment of the scriptures.

 

[blü 2]

You know, I was going to write a different thread, but the more I wrote, the more I noticed that I was conflating superstion and faith. What, exactly, is the difference though?

If I ask god to help me, how is that different than asking my house elf to help me? Does it matter if I think angels are watching over my loved ones vs. if my ancestors watch over them? If I cast out demons from a suspected witch, how is it different if I do it in the name of jesus than if I do it using folk magic?

If I were a Christian still, I would say that the main defining factor is that belief in the god of the bible would be an example of faith, while everything else that's a supernatural belief is based on things outside of that and is of the world, and therefore superstitious. Do you feel the same? Are other religions practicing faith or superstition? Is the main factor in the veneration of gods? If so, would the belief in gods be faith, while the belief in magic be superstitious? What if your religion allowed for the existance of magic? Even the bible talks of magic, so I don't know... The whole thing is very confusing for me.

They all seem to be rooted in the supernatural, so where is this split between the two, precisely? Can they, and do both faith and superstition coexist?

I know this topic has been done before in the past... but the answers are still vague. I feel like it's hard to have a conversation about things related to the topic if the topic isn't settled first. I guess I'm just looking for something more concrete and definite. Maybe we can all reach some kind of concensus, finally.

You're exactly right ─ faith is what I do and superstition is what you do.

 

[gnostic]

You know, I was going to write a different thread, but the more I wrote, the more I noticed that I was conflating superstion and faith. What, exactly, is the difference though?

If I ask god to help me, how is that different than asking my house elf to help me? Does it matter if I think angels are watching over my loved ones vs. if my ancestors watch over them? If I cast out demons from a suspected witch, how is it different if I do it in the name of jesus than if I do it using folk magic?

If I were a Christian still, I would say that the main defining factor is that belief in the god of the bible would be an example of faith, while everything else that's a supernatural belief is based on things outside of that and is of the world, and therefore superstitious. Do you feel the same? Are other religions practicing faith or superstition? Is the main factor in the veneration of gods? If so, would the belief in gods be faith, while the belief in magic be superstitious? What if your religion allowed for the existance of magic? Even the bible talks of magic, so I don't know... The whole thing is very confusing for me.

They all seem to be rooted in the supernatural, so where is this split between the two, precisely? Can they, and do both faith and superstition coexist?

I know this topic has been done before in the past... but the answers are still vague. I feel like it's hard to have a conversation about things related to the topic if the topic isn't settled first. I guess I'm just looking for something more concrete and definite. Maybe we can all reach some kind of concensus, finally.

Faith - in the context of belief - is about "acceptance" and "trust" in the belief being true, which don't require logic or evidence to support such belief.

The belief don't necessarily have to be "supernatural" or "otherworldy", to have faith, but since this forum is about religions and religion education, which involved believing in gods, angels, demons, spirits and soul, some forms of afterlife, miracles, magic, etc, then it does involve in believing in "supernatural".

Superstition is already about "acceptance" in belief in the supernatural. There are degrees of such superstitions, not all involve in magic.

To give you an example of non-supernatural superstitions - LUCK.

The superstition in believing in good luck and bad luck, can involve in believing in a god, spirit or demon controlling everyday outcome, but others involved no such supernatural entity.

For instance, a person might perform certain ritual, believing that it will help his performance in some sorts of sporting event or while help him in winning during betting in some games or gambling. Or a person crossing his fingers, believing that the outcome might favoring him.

But in the cases of religious superstitions, some people actually believe that might worshipping a god or spirit, they would be rewarded. While natural disasters, like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, lightning strikes or flooding, people might believe these events are not natural at all, probably because they believe the gods, spirits or demons were angry with them in some ways, for some inexplicable reasons, such as forgetting to pray or neglecting sacrifices or other such things.

Whether the superstitions are based on non-supernatural or on supernatural, they are often based on false beliefs, on ignorance and/or on fear.

 

[darkskies]

dictionaries are useful to know what is popular among humans for a certain time. the dictionary is completely useless when it comes to understanding holy scriptures, being that scriptures are written with a purely objective epistemology in mind. only one that has a proper understading of purely objective thought, is one with discernment of the scriptures.

I agree but not for the reasons you stated. What do you mean by "purely objective epistemology"? Scripture has many parts whose meanings are disputed. I don't see anything objective here. What the author meant to write and what you understood could be quite different. How can you know for sure what the intended meaning is?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

one saying they know and actually understanding the math which is the proof, are two different matters altogether. Also, i'm an atheist, the same as God is.

Hard to see how anyone can claim to be an atheist, and then claim to know what "God is" in the same sentence.

 

[ecco]

...reject Luke even though the archaeological, internal and external evidence for his accuracy is very strong.

Please show the "archaeological, internal and external evidence for his accuracy".
Please show how Luke knew the conversation that transpired between Zacharias and an angel.

But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. 14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.​

Does science, history, archaeology etc. support you.

Science, history, archaeology etc. does not support Christianity. One easy example is that the entire earth was not flooded at any time since the advent of man. If you think it does, then the burden is on you to provide evidence.

In this sense christian faith and superstition have nothing in common.

Yes, in this sense. However, your version of "this sense" is without merit. "Christian faith" is just an aspect of superstition.

 

[ecco]

Science itself has had different ages for the earth.

The six days could be interpreted as six days following one after another, which was the natural understanding for people. I am not a Hebrew scholar but I am told that it can also be interpreted as six days each separated by an indeterminate length of time

The sophistication comes because it was written for a pre-scientific age but needs to make sense to people of all kinds of background.

So science and Christianity are in the same boat

No. Science and Christianity are not in the same boat. Science advances and updates its findings. That is why today we accept the approximate age of the earth as 4.5 billion years. Religion, on the other hand, has to rationalize - "a day isn't a day it is really umteen years".

 

[Crawford]

Young earth creationists say those that believe the earth is not young, don't understand the bible. This means catholics do not understand the bible.

Do you know where young earth comes from?

To your first point: in addition to my point regarding science having had different ages for the earth, I am not a young earthen myself but I did read an article by a Jewish physicist, I think his name was Schroeder, who argued for a six day creation, or at least the appearance of it, based on the idea that time is relative and as you move close to the speed of light if you could look back into the universe time would seem to be moving at different rates. In other words the perception of time depended on where you are in the space-time continuum. I have no opinion on it as I found the article difficult to follow. But scientists themselves clearly have had different ideas of the age of the Universe and they keep changing. And as Genesis is worded in a way that permits different understandings its not an area where I would have serious arguments with those whose core beliefs on Jesus are the same as mine.

Secondly, In my experience, one side of my family is Roman Catholic, Roman Catholics usually don't know their Bible or the way to read it or the evidence for its truth. Their understanding is usually from the priest.

As to where the earth or Universe, either young or old, comes from seems to be an open question. But my thoughts on it follow.
Once upon a time, thousands of years ago, the cleverest people believed that matter, energy, space, time and the rules governing their relationships, that is the material universe, had always existed. This view was also dominant amongst many scientists until recently. In the last century this position has become difficult to maintain. New discoveries of science have changed this: the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology ,the expanding Universe, Einstein’s theory of General relativity theory, even Stephen Hawkins’ findings, It now seems as though science is claiming that the whole material universe and the rules governing it had a beginning. But if it had a beginning is it too much to imply that once no matter, energy, space, time or scientific laws existed, In normal speech, there was nothing?

How then did the material universe happen? Science only deals with matter, energy, space, time and their laws. All its instruments and subject matter belong to that universe. So by its very nature science would seem incapable of seeing where this universe came from. Is that a reasonable supposition or has science been able to identify things that do not belong to any of these categories? Science may have found one. In the first micro-seconds of existence, wherever it came from, the initial rules and conditions that science has identified are incredibly unlikely, as chance events, but seem to be necessary for life and intelligence to be as it is now. This is extremely fortunate as otherwise a universe might exist but there would be no intelligence to recognize it. If there are any other things not belonging to the material universe, as a I am not a scientist, I wouldn’t know of them. So, if nothing else fits, science seems to say the universe came from nothing and the initial conditions are set by chance and by nothing. The usual word for something coming into existence from nothing is creation. Unless science has something else to say, it follows that Nothing is the name given by scientists for the name of the creator. That's not very inspiring. So other people, who think respect is due to the source of everything, give that creator other more respectful names!
All this obscure and ponderous reasoning was once better expressed by someone years ago when he said somewhere in simple yet deep language: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

 

[Norman Beall]

Hard to see how anyone can claim to be an atheist, and then claim to know what "God is" in the same sentence.

Well, God, being eternal, is a being of certainty, a being of wisdom and knowledge of which belief and opinion are against his very nature.

To your first point: in addition to my point regarding science having had different ages for the earth, I am not a young earthen myself but I did read an article by a Jewish physicist, I think his name was Schroeder, who argued for a six day creation, or at least the appearance of it, based on the idea that time is relative and as you move close to the speed of light if you could look back into the universe time would seem to be moving at different rates. In other words the perception of time depended on where you are in the space-time continuum. I have no opinion on it as I found the article difficult to follow. But scientists themselves clearly have had different ideas of the age of the Universe and they keep changing. And as Genesis is worded in a way that permits different understandings its not an area where I would have serious arguments with those whose core beliefs on Jesus are the same as mine.

Secondly, In my experience, one side of my family is Roman Catholic, Roman Catholics usually don't know their Bible or the way to read it or the evidence for its truth. Their understanding is usually from the priest.

As to where the earth or Universe, either young or old, comes from seems to be an open question. But my thoughts on it follow.
Once upon a time, thousands of years ago, the cleverest people believed that matter, energy, space, time and the rules governing their relationships, that is the material universe, had always existed. This view was also dominant amongst many scientists until recently. In the last century this position has become difficult to maintain. New discoveries of science have changed this: the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology ,the expanding Universe, Einstein’s theory of General relativity theory, even Stephen Hawkins’ findings, It now seems as though science is claiming that the whole material universe and the rules governing it had a beginning. But if it had a beginning is it too much to imply that once no matter, energy, space, time or scientific laws existed, In normal speech, there was nothing?

How then did the material universe happen? Science only deals with matter, energy, space, time and their laws. All its instruments and subject matter belong to that universe. So by its very nature science would seem incapable of seeing where this universe came from. Is that a reasonable supposition or has science been able to identify things that do not belong to any of these categories? Science may have found one. In the first micro-seconds of existence, wherever it came from, the initial rules and conditions that science has identified are incredibly unlikely, as chance events, but seem to be necessary for life and intelligence to be as it is now. This is extremely fortunate as otherwise a universe might exist but there would be no intelligence to recognize it. If there are any other things not belonging to the material universe, as a I am not a scientist, I wouldn’t know of them. So, if nothing else fits, science seems to say the universe came from nothing and the initial conditions are set by chance and by nothing. The usual word for something coming into existence from nothing is creation. Unless science has something else to say, it follows that Nothing is the name given by scientists for the name of the creator. That's not very inspiring. So other people, who think respect is due to the source of everything, give that creator other more respectful names!
All this obscure and ponderous reasoning was once better expressed by someone years ago when he said somewhere in simple yet deep language: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

the jewish physicist very close. yes, time is relative. the days of God are based on the relativistic age of two departing photons from the moment of the big bang. they wouldn't yet be 7 24 hour days old. UofBC used to have a java app on their site counting they're age but they changed their site and i can't find it any more. and myself i havent done the math is like 30 years, so i'm a bit rusty and just haven't taken the time to figure it out again.

also, i'm trying to write a paper for peer review on the nature of the singularity prior to the big bang, the cause of the non-causal force that caused the big bang, what went down during the planck epoch, and why the fundamental forces of particle matter didn't come to be until the grand unification epoch.

also, i'm trying to write it up how i came to have evidence for God. my writing skills are sorely lacking though i must admit heh, it's never been one of my talents.

The Simplicity In Christ: Evidence For God