superstition and hard-core skepticism

[Kernel Hapablap]

Hello everyone. I'm new to the forum and wanted to get your opinion on something. The older I get and the more skeptical I get, I find myself rejecting more and more even the simplest of irrational slips. First I started rejecting all religious holidays, including secularized ones like Christmas and Easter. Fine. Now I start getting angry at myself when I let slip a "cross your fingers" or "knock on wood". Even if I don't believe what I'm saying, I feel like accidentally saying it legitimizes such beliefs in those around me.

Irrational beliefs seem to be tied so deeply to society that sometimes it seems impossible to live normally within it without succumbing or looking crazy. A part of me used to think that letting harmless stuff like superstitions go was, well, harmless. Now I feel like stamping out every last crumb of society's irrationalities. After all, it seems to me that the mind set that leads to extreme religious belief is housed in the same part of the brain as the mind set that saying something out-loud jinxes it.

I guess what I'm wondering is the extent to which you all go to remain skeptical in all things, and what, if anything, do you let slip?

[Ashles]

No one can be purely and totally skeptical about everything, nor can they adress every perceived lapse in skepticism/critical thinking they encounter in real life.
To try to do so would end up, in my opinion, resembling a form of OCD.

Personally I try to adress anything affecting health (for example I question work colleagues claims about homeopathy, fad diets, out of context news stories - God those annoy me) and I personally detest psychics and have an issue when anyone talks about one.

I am not too bothered about astrology, I-Ching etc. which I consider to be things that the majority of people don't treat particularly seriously and often do as a bit of a laugh.

I am not anti-religion (although I am an atheist and will question any specific claims) but I am very anti the idea that religion should in any way have 'protected' status.

I do, however, have an issue when overtly 'New-Agey', 'spiritual' people become overly agressive and nasty when their beliefs are questioned. This is partly because I worked in a holistic healing centre for a year and saw some very unpleasant behaviour from supposedly caring people.
I find them often very hypocritical.

I also oppose even the discussion of Bigfoot as I think it is stupid beyond belief. :)

ETA: Welcome to the forum. I think this is an interesting question - I believe it has been asked in differing forms before, but is always worth skeptics looking at.

[blutoski]

Penn Gillette said: "Everybody has a gris-gris."

What he meant is that everybody has some habit that is not quite skeptical, but no harm done.

There are also things that are just social. For example, I don't hold my tongue to avoid jinxing, but I might hold my tongue because other people would think I jinxed and I'd be in the doghouse.

I also anthropomorphize my pets, crediting them with personality or intelligence that simply doesn't exist - on a higher level, I appreciate that I'm projecting. It's simply gratifying to pretend that they have opinions on quantum mechanics.

[Ashles]

I also anthropomorphize my pets, crediting them with personality or intelligence that simply doesn't exist - on a higher level, I appreciate that I'm projecting. It's simply gratifying to pretend that they have opinions on quantum mechanics.
My cat does.

And it is more coherent than some of the posters here. I promise you he gets less wrong. :)

[Patsy]

Hello everyone. I'm new to the forum and wanted to get your opinion on something. The older I get and the more skeptical I get, I find myself rejecting more and more even the simplest of irrational slips. First I started rejecting all religious holidays, including secularized ones like Christmas and Easter. Fine. Now I start getting angry at myself when I let slip a "cross your fingers" or "knock on wood". Even if I don't believe what I'm saying, I feel like accidentally saying it legitimizes such beliefs in those around me.

Irrational beliefs seem to be tied so deeply to society that sometimes it seems impossible to live normally within it without succumbing or looking crazy. A part of me used to think that letting harmless stuff like superstitions go was, well, harmless. Now I feel like stamping out every last crumb of society's irrationalities. After all, it seems to me that the mind set that leads to extreme religious belief is housed in the same part of the brain as the mind set that saying something out-loud jinxes it.

I guess what I'm wondering is the extent to which you all go to remain skeptical in all things, and what, if anything, do you let slip?

I guess I have a continuum of how much such things bother me that is sort of like this.

Huge - Religious incursions into government, medical woo, religion inspired violence, religious opposition to sound science and education, cult and religious mistreatment of minors.

Big - Evangelism, woo scams (psychics, mediums, dowsers, etc.), truthers and such.

Medium - Banging on in the media about "persecution" of Christians, bigfoot or nessie type nonsense, ufo, that kind of thing.

Small - People who actually alter their behavior on "folksy" superstitions like breaking mirrors, black cats, spilling salt, that kind of rubbish.

Don't care - Common words and phrases in the language like cross your fingers to wish someone luck, bless you when they sneeze, I'll pray for you from a concerned friend (not from a patronizing idiot who just lost a debate), etc.

I mean, you have to have a cut off point for outrage, or soon you'll be raging that the days of the week and the months are largely named for defunct gods and goddesses.

[Kiosk]

I spilled some salt earlier today. For a second, I was going to throw some over my shoulder like my mum used to. I was actually quite startled when I suddenly realised what I was thinking.

This stuff is so deeply embedded in our culture, you can't escape it completely. I'm not terribly worried by people saying "touch wood" or whatever, as it's really just a figure of speech, and most other superstitions are just habits picked up in childhood - unlike homeopathy, astrology etc, there's no one swearing blind that they actually work.

What I do find slightly disturbing is when people get rather OCD about their superstitions, even when they know they're nonsense: "no, no, I CAN'T walk under a ladder, I just CAN'T. I can't explain it, I know it's stupid, but I WILL NOT walk under the ladder." It's not particularly important in itself - I mean, who really cares? - but it's an interesting question how much of this is just individual weirdness, and how much is a very pure form of whatever internal "force" makes people cling to beliefs they know deep down are crazy. A sort of strange compulsion... maybe a need to feel like they have some sort of control over the universe? Or perhaps just lack of self-confidence run wild.

[Cavemonster]

For me, when I cross my fingers, it's a social symbol to the people I'm with and a marker of nostalgia for my childhood.

To be skeptical is about how you evaluate the truth. But rituals that were based on irrational thinking often have real benefits.

Skepticism certainly doesn't mandate that you skip Christmas and Easter. The observation of both of those holidays is full of time spent with loved ones and eating fatty foods. There's nothing irrational about enjoying time off work, decorating a house etc, all at a time of year when we could use a pick-me-up. It's only in the question of the truth value of the original basis for the holiday that skepticism comes into play. But there's no reason to accept that claim in order to enjoy the holiday.

[MikeSun5]

I guess I have a continuum of how much such things bother me that is sort of like this.

Huge - Religious incursions into government, medical woo, religion inspired violence, religious opposition to sound science and education, cult and religious mistreatment of minors.

Big - Evangelism, woo scams (psychics, mediums, dowsers, etc.), truthers and such.

Medium - Banging on in the media about "persecution" of Christians, bigfoot or nessie type nonsense, ufo, that kind of thing.

Small - People who actually alter their behavior on "folksy" superstitions like breaking mirrors, black cats, spilling salt, that kind of rubbish.

Don't care - Common words and phrases in the language like cross your fingers to wish someone luck, bless you when they sneeze, I'll pray for you from a concerned friend (not from a patronizing idiot who just lost a debate), etc.

I mean, you have to have a cut off point for outrage, or soon you'll be raging that the days of the week and the months are largely named for defunct gods and goddesses.

I've never prioritized my skepticism before! What a great idea! Next time somebody tells me not to open an umbrella indoors (they have to dry off, right?), I won't immediately jump to ThreatCon Orange.

[arthwollipot]

You shouldn't anthropomorphise your pets. They really hate that.

Yes, I try to remove all superstition from my life, although I'm very rarely completely successful. There's the little habits that I don't even know I've got, for example, that may be based on superstition. I do try to analyse the things I do.

For example, I wear a Thor's Hammer on a leather thong around my neck. Apart from the fact that I think it looks good, I wear it as a religious symbol, the way others might wear a crucifix. It symbolises my belief that no god is any more, or any less, worthy of veneration and worship than Thor.

Is that superstitious? Kinda, I think. But it makes a point, if only to myself.

[The Atheist]

Fine. Now I start getting angry at myself when I let slip a "cross your fingers" or "knock on wood". Even if I don't believe what I'm saying, I feel like accidentally saying it legitimizes such beliefs in those around me.

Touch wood I should ever get like that.

If you're getting angry about minutiae like that, you're approaching, if not already at, zealotry.

I have a suspicion that we should just let the little things go as a bit of fun with no harm. I don't buy the "legitimising" other stuff - marijuana isn't a gateway drug, and I don't believe a little superstition is a gateway to ridiculous beliefs.

[Miss_Kitt]

Yep, everybody got a gris-gris! We are all sometimes not skeptical, or even rational; the trick is to keep it to harmless stuff, and to freely admit that it's not based upon anything legitimate.

For example, I use expressions like "knock wood" or "I'll keep my fingers crossed" or "God willing and the creek don't rise" -- not because I actually believe the implied superstitions, but only because they are colorful phrases that communicate my intent.

The one thing that is my ultra, mega gris-gris: The Ballpark Rituals. I am a very reasonable, rational, sensible person...until it comes to baseball. Then, I have a whole slew of traditions/magic rituals/superstitions that kick in.
Some are my personal creation: I have a moose puppet in a Mariners t-shirt that I have had since 1995, the year the M's first made the playoffs--the "magic carpet" season. The Moose is on my hand when the Mariners bat, and OFF may hand when the opposition bats. (I sometimes even do this at home when watching on TV.)

Others appear to be baseball fan universals: You never say your team's pitcher has a no-hitter going. You say he "is having a great outing" or "not giving up a thing" or, if you're really daring, "putting up lots of zeroes." It is a long-standing superstition in baseball that if you say "no-hitter" it immediately jinxes the no-no. Thus, if I see that a Yankees pitcher has given up zero hits in a game that is more than 3 innings in, I immediately say, "Wow! [Name] has a no-hitter going!" But if a Mariners pitcher hasn't given up any hits, I will not mention it, or even allude to it too precisely. (You will also notice that longtime baseball broadcasters will also avoid using the term "no-hitter" while the game is still going on.) Fans also give instructions to the ball: "Go, baby!" as it heads for the fences, or "Fade, baby, fade," to encourage a foul ball to drop into the stands rather than be caught. Also, it is a long-standing Seattle tradition that an opponent's homerun ball should be tossed back onto the turf, lest its buddies try to come find it in the stands. A Mariners HR ball, however, should be kept for the same reason.
And watch the players run out onto--or back in from--the field. Nobody steps on the foul line. Nobody. It seems to be a universal, and unspoken, rule of the game.

Of course, I realize that nothing is actually connecting my puppetry to the results of the game; however, it is a fun little game to play in the stands.

Which reminds me, another Moose Tradition: When the M's score, everybody around me has to "high-5" the Moose. I start with my husband and the person on the other side of me, then turn to the people behind me and order, "High-five the Moose!"; get a few slaps, then turn to the folks in front of me and do the same thing. Most people play along, and it has become as much a part of a trip to the ballpark for me as singing "Take Me Out To the Ballgame" during the 7th inning stretch.

If I thought anyone--even my 9-year-old--actually believed a stuffed moose puppet impacted the results of the game, I'd have a long talk with them about causality. But it's just good clean fun as far as I'm concerned.

Welcome to the Forum!! -- Miss Kitt

[athon]

It's important to try to find the line between 'social practices' and 'superstitious belief'. It's fuzzy, but it is something of a distinction.

I'll often say 'Goddamn!' in exclamation. I'm an atheist. Why do I say it if I'm not really invoking a deity to condemn something on my behalf? Because I picked it up from the community I was raised in.

Same with many behaviours, from crossing fingers to touching wood. Practicing it does not correlate with believing in its magic. Skeptics often confuse the two, unfortunately, which is unnecessary and potentially problematic.

As I said, it is a grey zone. Superstitious belief can often accompany the social behaviours if they're not questioned. It's a fascinating field of sociology, and of great relief when you realise you're not necessarily a sheep or stupid simply because you throw a pinch of salt over your shoulder or avoid stepping on cracks.

Athon

[Kernel Hapablap]

Thanks for your responses. You guys have definitely given me some stuff to think about. While I accept that everyone is a hypocrite to some extent, I also feel like we should never stop trying to stop being one. Believing that wearing a shirt will let my favorite team win is no different than praying for them to win, in my opinion. I guess I feel like if we let the little stuff go the the big stuff will creep in.

[Ashles]

Of course, I realize that nothing is actually connecting my puppetry to the results of the game; however, it is a fun little game to play in the stands.
As a minor question - would you feel comfortable watching a game without doing these actions?

Is it just for fun, or would you feel strange if you didn't do these things?

[quarky]

Walking under a ladder is a bad idea, if not bad luck.
The person up there could drop something on your head.

[Ysidro]

Pfft, I threw salt over my shoulder the other day. I know it doesn't do a damn thing. I do it ironically. ;)

[Cavemonster]

It's a fascinating field of sociology, and of great relief when you realise you're not necessarily a sheep or stupid simply because you throw a pinch of salt over your shoulder or avoid stepping on cracks.
Athon

As long as you don't panic when you accidentally do step on a crack :)

To be a critical thinker is to police your thoughts by their truth value and your actions by their effect.

In the above lucky shirt example, if it makes you happy to have a ritual, and you're very clear that it doesn't effect the outcome of the game, I don't see a problem, but we all have our own standards.

[blutoski]

For example, I wear a Thor's Hammer on a leather thong around my neck.

That's interesting: I wear a leather thong around my Thor's Hammer.

[Cuddles]

Touch wood I should ever get like that.

If you're getting angry about minutiae like that, you're approaching, if not already at, zealotry.

This. Skepticism isn't about rejecting things and being angry at them, it's simply about not believing things without evidence. Understanding that the mythical origins of a holiday are not actually true is skeptical (as long as it is actual understanding and not simply accepting what you've been told by someone else), rejecting the holiday entirely simply because some people associate with their religion is not.

The important point is that skepticism, like science, is a process, not a conclusion. If you understand that throwing salt over your shoulder doesn't actually achieve anything, why would it matter if you still feel the urge to do it occasionally? It's not the lack of throwing salt that matters, it's the understanding behind it. As long as you have the understanding, the position and velocity of the salt is pretty much irrelevant.

[blutoski]

It's important to try to find the line between 'social practices' and 'superstitious belief'. It's fuzzy, but it is something of a distinction.

I completely agree, and an example of where skeptics may have gone overboard is the Rozin/Markwith/McCauley 'sweater' survey of who wants to wear a sweater that was previously worn by a murderer when he killed his victims.

(not [the film (http://www.nfb.ca/film/sweater/)] - Canadians know what I'm talking about)

Their model for something they call a [contagion heuristic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagion_heuristic)] is that it is irrational.

My impression is that there are rational social reasons for not wanting to wear the sweater, particularly the convention that you may seen as be insensitive or tolerant to the seriousness of the crime. Not everybody knows you personally, so you don't want to accidentally broadcast a false signal. It's why I would hesitate to wear an authentic SS Totenkopf uniform for Hallowe'en.

[Belz...]

I guess what I'm wondering is the extent to which you all go to remain skeptical in all things, and what, if anything, do you let slip?

Everybody has a woo.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Indeed. I have one in my pocket. I only let it come out when it's sunny

[The Atheist]

I guess I feel like if we let the little stuff go the the big stuff will creep in.

That's a fairly unsceptical attitude. Surely, you should only feel that way if you can provide evidence that it works like that, which I strongly doubt.

On the other hand, by being zealous about the small things, we might end up turning off people who would be swayed by a sensible argument on things which really do matter - alt med and the like.

[blutoski]

That's a fairly unsceptical attitude. Surely, you should only feel that way if you can provide evidence that it works like that, which I strongly doubt.

On the other hand, by being zealous about the small things, we might end up turning off people who would be swayed by a sensible argument on things which really do matter - alt med and the like.

There's also the matter of personal mental stability. A zero tolerance policy on anything - including woo - doesn't sound healthy. Flexibility and adaptability are hallmarks of a balanced personality; rigidity is not. It's also socially isolating.

It is not surprising that some skeptics are regarded as intolerant zealots - these ones are, by definition.

[kerikiwi]

A zero tolerance policy on anything - including woo - doesn't sound healthy.


That sounds like a zero tolerance policy, right there.

I refuse to acknowledge any superstition because there are people who are serious about them, and you a) can never be sure who they are or where they are lurking b) shouldn't give them any encouragement at all.

On the rare occasions I have entered a catholic church, I certainly made no sign of the cross.
On leaving the urupa after a burial I unobtrusively avoid washing my hands.
I don't pander to people who treat a fantail in the house as a harbinger of bad things ... I make a point of getting it out so it doesn't get locked in and die.
I walk under ladders.
I sweep up the salt and put it back in the salt cellar.
I open every umbrella and leave them out to dry.

[blutoski]

That sounds like a zero tolerance policy, right there.

Oh, yes, I understand the twisted logic.

Like when I say racism is bad, that means I'm intolerant.



One of the things about critical thinking is that there's a request to step back and consider whether the argument actually makes sense. It's called the 'reasonableness test'.

Consider whether your claim that "blutoski is advocating for flexibility means blutoski is rigid" makes sense to reasonable people on this forum, in this thread.

[Kernel Hapablap]

That's a fairly unsceptical attitude. Surely, you should only feel that way if you can provide evidence that it works like that, which I strongly doubt.

On the other hand, by being zealous about the small things, we might end up turning off people who would be swayed by a sensible argument on things which really do matter - alt med and the like.

While it's true that I don't have evidence that the "little stuff" allows the "big stuff" to creep in, there does seem to be scientific evidence that the brain processes involved in both are the same. If we allow ourselves to selectively "allow" some trains of thought and superstitions, it leads to intellectual relativism. If I am going to try and convince members of society to try to be more skeptical, I'm not going to say "well, let's just let that one slip, shall we?" We should promote skepticism in all things.

People complain that I am promoting "zero tolerance", but that is equating scientific process and skepticism with a belief system. Skepticism is a way of thinking. Consistency in a way of thinking is not the same as zero tolerance.

[Patsy]

While it's true that I don't have evidence that the "little stuff" allows the "big stuff" to creep in, there does seem to be scientific evidence that the brain processes involved in both are the same.

Can you link to supporting evidence for either half of this assertion?

[The Atheist]

There's also the matter of personal mental stability. A zero tolerance policy on anything - including woo - doesn't sound healthy. Flexibility and adaptability are hallmarks of a balanced personality; rigidity is not. It's also socially isolating.

It is not surprising that some skeptics are regarded as intolerant zealots - these ones are, by definition.

Well put.

That sounds like a zero tolerance policy, right there.

What?

There is no way that the quote can sound anything like zero tolerance, and your attempt to pretend it says something else is completely dishonest.

I refuse to acknowledge any superstition because there are people who are serious about them, and you a) can never be sure who they are or where they are lurking b) shouldn't give them any encouragement at all.

Hell yeah. Keep an eye out for reds under the beds while you're at it.

If I am going to try and convince members of society to try to be more skeptical, I'm not going to say "well, let's just let that one slip, shall we?" We should promote skepticism in all things.

Hmm, sounds like another way of having no tolerance at all.

If you let none slip, what tolerance are you showing?

People complain that I am promoting "zero tolerance", but that is equating scientific process and skepticism with a belief system. Skepticism is a way of thinking. Consistency in a way of thinking is not the same as zero tolerance.

Seems to me that it is just that.

I fail to see where your tolerance comes in, so if you could maybe highlight that, I'll understand better. I suspect you might just be having a semantic problem with the phrase "zero tolerance", but it doesn't matter what you call it, it's how you approach it, and you haven't left any room for the tolerance you must have some of, if it isn't zero.

Cheers.

[shawmutt]

As usual, I can't really add anything without simply repeating what has been said. Just chalk me up as a "skeptic within reason".

[borealys]

This. Skepticism isn't about rejecting things and being angry at them, it's simply about not believing things without evidence. Understanding that the mythical origins of a holiday are not actually true is skeptical (as long as it is actual understanding and not simply accepting what you've been told by someone else), rejecting the holiday entirely simply because some people associate with their religion is not.

The important point is that skepticism, like science, is a process, not a conclusion. If you understand that throwing salt over your shoulder doesn't actually achieve anything, why would it matter if you still feel the urge to do it occasionally? It's not the lack of throwing salt that matters, it's the understanding behind it. As long as you have the understanding, the position and velocity of the salt is pretty much irrelevant.

Well put. I've been known to read my horoscope over after-dinner coffee, and comment on it to my boyfriend if anything in it amuses me. "Hey, apparently I shouldn't go spending my life savings this week, and here I was going to buy that luxury yacht with the helicopter pad. Darn. And according to yours, you've got a workplace romance heating up. Anything you'd like to tell me, hmmm?" I've met a skeptic or two who wouldn't dream of even glancing at a horoscope, and would shun me if they knew I didn't feel the same way.

I've been known to have my fortune told for laughs (I do enjoy the show, but I tend to be uncooperative when they try to cold-read me), I emphatically cross my fingers when I say "here's hoping," I wish on wishbones and birthday candles (and never tell anyone what I wished for) because sometimes it's fun to make a wish, and if I happen to walk into the living room to check on the hockey score, and the other team scores just as I do so, I will turn around and walk out again (and then go back if I actually feel like watching the game, which I sometimes do and sometimes don't).

Maybe that makes me a bad skeptic ... if so, I don't particularly care. I do my best to keep my skeptical senses on alert when there's something important at stake, like health or financial or relationship decisions, but I figure what's the harm of crossing your fingers for emphasis or saying "bless you" when someone sneezes?

On the other hand, I made a point of giving up the knock-on-wood thing in high school, after my mother yelled at me for refusing to do it. There was no wood in my immediate vicinity, and I didn't feel like getting up to look for some, and she yelled at me. I was completely stunned, since my mother is, in general, a pretty rational person, and she herself had been the one to explain to me the silly origins of that particular superstition when I was younger. So I guess you never know what will come of playing along... worth thinking about.

[kerikiwi]

I suppose I should have included a little face to show my post was (at least partly) in jest.
Consider it included.

[RoboTimbo]

You shouldn't anthropomorphise your pets. They really hate that.

You should absolutely anthropomorphise your pets, it will bring you good luck.

[Kernel Hapablap]

Can you link to supporting evidence for either half of this assertion?

This is an article about the most recent brain study on belief in God.

(or it was, but I haven't posted 15 times yet so the forum won't let me)

Here is a pertinent quote from the man who ran the study.
"There is nothing unique about religious belief in these brain structures. Religion doesn't have a 'God spot' as such, instead it's embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use everyday".

Perhaps my issue with "zero tolerance" is merely semantic. At any rate, I don't think any such "zero tolerance" of skepticism is possible. I think no matter what we do, our brains will find irrational things to cling to when we least suspect it. I just think we should try to minimize it.

On a side note, I seriously appreciate that everyone has been so hard on me since starting this thread. I find it very amusing. I don't have enough skeptical friends and family to have a true discussion.

[Patsy]

If you IM me the link, I'll post it for you. What kind of article? Peer reviewed? Backed by scientific study?

[Cavemonster]

Here is a pertinent quote from the man who ran the study.
"There is nothing unique about religious belief in these brain structures. Religion doesn't have a 'God spot' as such, instead it's embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use everyday".


Well yes, but on that scale, saying that the brain processes involved are the same doesn't really mean much.

Eating chocolate and cheating on your wife both involve some of the same parts of the brain, it doesn't imply a slippery slope.

In fact, making love to your wife and cheating on her involve almost all the same parts of the brain as well as body, but one in no way necessarily leads to the other.

To actually show a causal link between knocking on wood and adopting major illogical beliefs even tentatively, you'd need to show much more than that the same areas of the brain are involved.

Dare I say it, but your fear of gateway woo has all the hallmarks of a wooish belief itself.

[The Atheist]

This is an article about the most recent brain study on belief in God.

(or it was, but I haven't posted 15 times yet so the forum won't let me)

Here is a pertinent quote from the man who ran the study.
"There is nothing unique about religious belief in these brain structures. Religion doesn't have a 'God spot' as such, instead it's embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use everyday".

Sure, there are studies on the subject, and some of them agree with each other. Just for curiosity's sake I was looking for an article I read some time back on religious vs paranormal beliefs, and yet again, the only startling thing was how much research merely disagreed with some other research.

Is it actually that important to know precisely how the brain works on beliefs? I can introduce you to any number of seemingly-normal christian people who won't be bothered a bit if you can eventually measure their brain talking to itself when they commune with their god. Facts like that don't hurt blind faith, but the blind faith isn't a certainty to result in unscientific thought.

The other problem is that if these things all come from the same belief centre, then you can't really do away with it, or we will have people believing gravity might not work tomorrow morning.

I believe I'll have a beer.

Perhaps my issue with "zero tolerance" is merely semantic. At any rate, I don't think any such "zero tolerance" of skepticism is possible. I think no matter what we do, our brains will find irrational things to cling to when we least suspect it. I just think we should try to minimize it.

That's perfectly reasonable. I'm just bothered by people who come over all zealous on insignificant things. It makes scepticism look mean-spirited and petty.

On a side note, I seriously appreciate that everyone has been so hard on me since starting this thread. I find it very amusing. I don't have enough skeptical friends and family to have a true discussion.

Mate, are you reading the same thread? The only person who could even be remotely described as being "hard" on you is me, and I'm being nice!

I thought everyone has been particularly friendly.

[Kernel Hapablap]

alright, I give up. I just have to ask: what the hell is a woo?

[Patsy]

Link for article that Kernel refers to

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1641022.html

[Kernel Hapablap]

Dare I say it, but your fear of gateway woo has all the hallmarks of a wooish belief itself.
I give up, what's a woo?

[Kernel Hapablap]

thank you for the url post patsy. It is a legitimate study in a peer-reviewed journal, since someone asked. What makes it more interesting to me than the mountains of philosophical disagreement is the empirical foundation in neuroscience.

Let me ask ye naysayers this: if religious belief, paranormal belief and superstition are seperate phenomena like eating chocolate and cheating on your wife, how do you decide where the line is? Please explain to me how praying to God to bring you rain and knocking on wood are different. Please explain to me how believing in astrology is different than crossing your fingers for good luck. etc.

[quarky]

alright, I give up. I just have to ask: what the hell is a woo?

Woo is woogie stuff, like ghosts and ouija boards. A person that has a proclivity for believing things without evidence is a "wooster". An advanced master of the woo-arts eschews science on purpose.

There is no " a woo". Bigfoot is woo, but not "a woo".

A wookie is a different matter altogether, though superficially similar to bigfoot.

[athon]

thank you for the url post patsy. It is a legitimate study in a peer-reviewed journal, since someone asked. What makes it more interesting to me than the mountains of philosophical disagreement is the empirical foundation in neuroscience.

Let me ask ye naysayers this: if religious belief, paranormal belief and superstition are seperate phenomena like eating chocolate and cheating on your wife, how do you decide where the line is? Please explain to me how praying to God to bring you rain and knocking on wood are different. Please explain to me how believing in astrology is different than crossing your fingers for good luck. etc.

It depends.

People commit actions out of a desire for a particular result. I pay for my phone bill out of anticipation of continuing to use my phone. I go to work out of anticipation of getting paid. I brush my teeth out of anticipation of staving off dental problems. There's no real guarantee in any of those cases that the action will lead to the expected result, but I am confident it will.

Critical thinking allows me to make that evaluation. I have a belief, act on that belief, and am confident the result will match the prediction on which I acted.

Now, if a belief is based on little more than speculation or folk thinking, there is a very, very small chance that a prediction based on it will eventuate. Yet acting on it as if it has a high chance of eventuating means your judgement of risk is unbalanced. You're risking more than you would otherwise be comfortable with if the real risk was apparent to you.

So, let's look at a small superstition such as wearing lucky underpants. The belief might be that they will increase your chances of getting a job from an interview. The action is...well, wearing that underwear to the interview. You'd probably be going to the interview anyway, and would probably be wearing underwear. So the action is inconsequential. The risk isn't altered at all. Your prediction - that you could get the job as opposed to not getting it if you didn't wear them - might not realise, but the consequence is so minor it's hardly worth considering.

Now, let's imagine the action was wearing those same underpants on your head, thinking it to be lucky. Now the action has consequences (they'll think you're not quite the right person for the job based on seeing you walk in with underwear on your head) that don't balance the reality (zero increased chance of getting a job where otherwise you wouldn't).

Whether it is God, medicine, psychic advice or knocking on wood, it's all a matter of the following question; 'What do I stand to lose if this belief is wrong?'. If you're not able to evaluate the chances of that belief being wrong all that effectively, you'll stand to suffer more in life than you really intended.

Athon

[Akhenaten]

Let me ask ye naysayers this: if religious belief, paranormal belief and superstition are seperate phenomena like eating chocolate and cheating on your wife, how do you decide where the line is?


The first three items are fairly interchangeable. The line is drawn where the evidence ends. The last two items are separated by degrees of survivability. The line will be drawn for you, at some stage, probably by Mrs Hapablap.



Please explain to me how praying to God to bring you rain and knocking on wood are different. Please explain to me how believing in astrology is different than crossing your fingers for good luck. etc.





All of these things can be equally silly/pointless. It's only the degree to which people believe they'll work that sets them apart.

Like those idiotic Osirists, for instance. The things they believe . . .

[Kernel Hapablap]

The line will be drawn for you, at some stage, probably by Mrs Hapablap.


:) There's the truth!

[Cuddles]

It depends.

People commit actions out of a desire for a particular result. I pay for my phone bill out of anticipation of continuing to use my phone. I go to work out of anticipation of getting paid. I brush my teeth out of anticipation of staving off dental problems. There's no real guarantee in any of those cases that the action will lead to the expected result, but I am confident it will.

Critical thinking allows me to make that evaluation. I have a belief, act on that belief, and am confident the result will match the prediction on which I acted.

Now, if a belief is based on little more than speculation or folk thinking, there is a very, very small chance that a prediction based on it will eventuate. Yet acting on it as if it has a high chance of eventuating means your judgement of risk is unbalanced. You're risking more than you would otherwise be comfortable with if the real risk was apparent to you.

So, let's look at a small superstition such as wearing lucky underpants. The belief might be that they will increase your chances of getting a job from an interview. The action is...well, wearing that underwear to the interview. You'd probably be going to the interview anyway, and would probably be wearing underwear. So the action is inconsequential. The risk isn't altered at all. Your prediction - that you could get the job as opposed to not getting it if you didn't wear them - might not realise, but the consequence is so minor it's hardly worth considering.

Now, let's imagine the action was wearing those same underpants on your head, thinking it to be lucky. Now the action has consequences (they'll think you're not quite the right person for the job based on seeing you walk in with underwear on your head) that don't balance the reality (zero increased chance of getting a job where otherwise you wouldn't).

Whether it is God, medicine, psychic advice or knocking on wood, it's all a matter of the following question; 'What do I stand to lose if this belief is wrong?'. If you're not able to evaluate the chances of that belief being wrong all that effectively, you'll stand to suffer more in life than you really intended.

Athon

Nominated.

One thing I would add, however, is that I think there is an important difference between skepticism as applied to life and skepticism as a general philosophy. For the former, it's pretty much exactly as Athon says. There's no point getting excited about things like lucky underpants, where there are no practical consequences as a result of doing, or nor doing, something. Shunning people, or even just arguing with them, over things like that comes across as the stereotypical dogmatic skeptic and does nothing to convince them of anything or further the cause of skepticism and critical thinking.

However, that does not mean the little things should always be ignored. There is value in truth simply for its own sake. You don't always have to ask "What do I stand to lose if this belief is wrong?", you can also just ask "Is this belief wrong?". For instance, the reason I became a scientist is because I want to know how everything works. A lot of the things we find out may well be of no practical use at all, but I, and many others, want to know them simply because they are there to be known.

An important part of skepticism is knowing how to make the best choices in life based on the evidence, but that is not the only part of skepticism. Life is not always just about what is practical.

[Ashles]

Let me ask ye naysayers this: if religious belief, paranormal belief and superstition are seperate phenomena like eating chocolate and cheating on your wife, how do you decide where the line is? Please explain to me how praying to God to bring you rain and knocking on wood are different. Please explain to me how believing in astrology is different than crossing your fingers for good luck. etc.
They are all categorised in Psychology under 'Superstitious Behaviour'.
This is not unique to humans.

The famous psychologist BF Skinner did studies that showed this in animals:
Superstitious Behavior (http://www.essortment.com/all/superstitiousbe_rsqz.htm)
B.F. Skinner, a famous psychologist, demonstrated that you can create superstitious behavior in animals. When an animal is placed in a Skinner box, that contains a device which can automatically dispense food and food is given to the animal every five minutes regardless what the animal does; the animal will typically develop a superstitious behavior. This will occur when for example the animal happens to pick up its right foot just as food is delivered: the animal will then repeat this behavior, which will be intermittently reinforced. In this manner the superstitious behavior will become well established.

The above example, demonstrated by Skinner, shows that although a series of events has already been set into motion, coincidental actions by a being or animal, can cause them to believe that they have altered the series of events. Humans can overcome superstitious behavior if they understand what is taking place, and if they refrain from engaging in the superstitious behavior. They must then notice that events unfold in the same fashion as if they had engaged in the behavior.


People (and animals) want control over their environment and are hardwired to very easily spot connections. But often connections are perceived even where there isn't one.

With animals it is usually to achieve a desired goal.

In humans superstitions often develop to avoid an undesirable result - often one not even specified. People avoid the cracks in the pavement (I did myself when young) not for any specific reason, but because it would be 'bad' or 'wrong' to step on the cracks.

By extension the rituals of Religion and the connections implied (this involves behaviour modification for a perceived reward for eternal life and happiness!) can be very compelling indeed.

As another thought - my final dissertation was on Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and involved some analysis of religious beliefs.
I included a study that demonstrated a correlation between gullibility rating and religious belief (but I'm afraid I cannot remember the details).

[The Atheist]

Whether it is God, medicine, psychic advice or knocking on wood, it's all a matter of the following question; 'What do I stand to lose if this belief is wrong?'.(bolding mine)

It seems pretty conclusive that religion is beneficial to your health (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html)and that religious people live longer than non-religious, so what you stand to lose is health and life.

If you're not able to evaluate the chances of that belief being wrong all that effectively, you'll stand to suffer more in life than you really intended.

Atheism must be wrong then.

[Toke]

Reminds me of the guys the belived leaving the fuses in the freezer would make the aircon work longer before blowing the fuses.

It was the same fuses they recycled, it stopped on the bimetal in the compressor windings.

[athon]

One thing I would add, however, is that I think there is an important difference between skepticism as applied to life and skepticism as a general philosophy. For the former, it's pretty much exactly as Athon says. There's no point getting excited about things like lucky underpants, where there are no practical consequences as a result of doing, or nor doing, something. Shunning people, or even just arguing with them, over things like that comes across as the stereotypical dogmatic skeptic and does nothing to convince them of anything or further the cause of skepticism and critical thinking.

However, that does not mean the little things should always be ignored. There is value in truth simply for its own sake. You don't always have to ask "What do I stand to lose if this belief is wrong?", you can also just ask "Is this belief wrong?". For instance, the reason I became a scientist is because I want to know how everything works. A lot of the things we find out may well be of no practical use at all, but I, and many others, want to know them simply because they are there to be known.

I agree. It's the difference between skepticism as a personal philosophy and critical thinking as an important tool. It's easy to confuse them, but they are certainly distinct.

It seems pretty conclusive that religion is beneficial to your health (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html)and that religious people live longer than non-religious, so what you stand to lose is health and life.

I think you're making an awful lot out of that correlation. A glass of red wine is good for your health, too. It doesn't mean getting drunk every night makes you live longer, nor does it mean people who don't drink red wine necessarily won't live longer or have poorer health than a wine drinker.

That said, there are indeed personal and communal benefits from religion, within given contexts. I think that's been covered in other threads quite well.

Athon

[borealys]

Let me ask ye naysayers this: if religious belief, paranormal belief and superstition are seperate phenomena like eating chocolate and cheating on your wife, how do you decide where the line is? Please explain to me how praying to God to bring you rain and knocking on wood are different. Please explain to me how believing in astrology is different than crossing your fingers for good luck. etc.

For me it comes down to a simple question of whether or not you believe the action is going to do anything magical, or whether you have some other, non-superstitious reason for doing it.

For instance, when I cross my fingers "for luck," I'm actually doing it for emphasis. I hold my crossed fingers up in front of me when I say the words "I hope," or "wish me luck," not because I believe that crossing my fingers will actually bring me luck, but because crossed fingers are a culturally familiar symbol of the hope for good luck.

When I'm rushing back to the office to look for my missing phone/keys/wallet and muttering "please let it be there, please let it be there, please let it be there," I don't actually think that this pseudo-prayer will convince some deity to teleport my stuff to a place where I'll find it -- it's just a good way to blow off a bit of my anxiety and stress.

If I say "bless you" when someone sneezes, it's because that's considered polite, not because I'm trying to keep their soul from escaping out their nose.

Indulging in sports superstitions like the playoff beard (or the lucky moose puppet, which I love, even if I prefer to root for the Jays :D) is a way to visibly show support for your team and bond with other players or fans, even if it doesn't, oh, say, save the Habs from completely tanking out in the first round of the playoffs.

Sometimes it isn't really about magical thinking at all.

[Cavemonster]

Heck, even church attendance can have lots of very real benefits,

Singing as a group is great fun
Ritual can add regularity and comfort at otherwise chaotic parts of life
Socializing before and after
Networking (Hey, it works)
Heck, even the Bible/torah/Koran reading and prayers can be a good launching pad for your own deep thoughts about that facet of the human condition, a lot of it is actually good poetry that speaks to important questions, as long as you disregard the fact that they tend to answer those questions with superstition. On Yom Kippur, a lot of the ritual asks you to reflect on how you treated people over the past year. Do you need the service to have those thoughts? Of course not, but for many people, a formal framework helps very much to organize those thoughts.

[mazyloron]

For me it comes down to a simple question of whether or not you believe the action is going to do anything magical, or whether you have some other, non-superstitious reason for doing it.

For instance, when I cross my fingers "for luck," I'm actually doing it for emphasis. I hold my crossed fingers up in front of me when I say the words "I hope," or "wish me luck," not because I believe that crossing my fingers will actually bring me luck, but because crossed fingers are a culturally familiar symbol of the hope for good luck.

When I'm rushing back to the office to look for my missing phone/keys/wallet and muttering "please let it be there, please let it be there, please let it be there," I don't actually think that this pseudo-prayer will convince some deity to teleport my stuff to a place where I'll find it -- it's just a good way to blow off a bit of my anxiety and stress.

If I say "bless you" when someone sneezes, it's because that's considered polite, not because I'm trying to keep their soul from escaping out their nose.

Indulging in sports superstitions like the playoff beard (or the lucky moose puppet, which I love, even if I prefer to root for the Jays :D) is a way to visibly show support for your team and bond with other players or fans, even if it doesn't, oh, say, save the Habs from completely tanking out in the first round of the playoffs.

Sometimes it isn't really about magical thinking at all.

This is my general approach to it as well. I do have a tendency to nitpick sometimes, but I have the common decency to shut up about it if I don't know the person that well - and if I do, then I have enough respect for them to probably shut up too.

Now, if someone really, truly, deeply believes that by spilling salt and not throwing it over their shoulder, or by not turning around and going the other way when a black cat crosses their intended path, that they are about to be magically cursed to have some horrible thing happen...that's when I would want to speak up.

That's the case, IMO, where it's a sort of "gateway drug" type of thing. But, everyone's different with that respect. Some people will get highly offended if you question even the tiniest belief of theirs, even if they know it's silly. Others welcome it, on even their most deeply-held beliefs. So it really depends on the person, the belief, and the situation.

Some people would respond well to little things like pointing out the woo behind saying "bless you" when someone sneezes, or being asked if they really think that knocking on wood will ward off a bad outcome that they "invited" by speaking of it. Some people will stop, think about it, and realize it's silly, and might move on to question bigger things like those weekly acupuncture sessions they're paying for.

Some people are the other way around - they won't respond well to pointing out the little things, but when presented with clear, non-accusatory points about something reasonably big, such as that weekly acupuncture session, they will re-think it. Or, they may likewise respond to simple, rational questions about it in a similar manner. And when they start to think more septically about the bigger things, then it trickles down to the smaller ones.

And, of course, still other people will not respond well to any of this. Because each of us is different. There is no ONE approach that is "the way" to handle it, or look at it, or think about it, or what have you. We're all unique.

Also, I would have serious doubts about anyone who claimed that there was but one correct way to be a skeptic. I think my first question would be: "aren't you missing the point?"

[mazyloron]

I would say a simple set of guidelines would be something like:

1) Don't be fanatical, and don't alienate people by being disagreeable and anti-social. Then it won't matter how right or wrong you are, because no one will listen to your views on anything.

2) Don't be OCD about it. It's one thing to take mental note of woo in all shapes and sizes and colors, it's another thing to lose sleep over a coworker saying "god bless you" when someone sneezed.

3) Pick your battles. Though, it should not be a "battle" unless it's a life-altering situation. Point out woo and superstition when there's a direct and obvious benefit to the other person. This will make them more receptive to your ideas later on.

4) Respect the person whose woo you're skepticizing. If they feel like it's an attack, or feel insulted, they will get defensive and stop listening, or even become hostile.

[Kernel Hapablap]

This is my general approach to it as well. I do have a tendency to nitpick sometimes, but I have the common decency to shut up about it if I don't know the person that well - and if I do, then I have enough respect for them to probably shut up too.

Now, if someone really, truly, deeply believes that by spilling salt and not throwing it over their shoulder, or by not turning around and going the other way when a black cat crosses their intended path, that they are about to be magically cursed to have some horrible thing happen...that's when I would want to speak up.

That's the case, IMO, where it's a sort of "gateway drug" type of thing. But, everyone's different with that respect. Some people will get highly offended if you question even the tiniest belief of theirs, even if they know it's silly. Others welcome it, on even their most deeply-held beliefs. So it really depends on the person, the belief, and the situation.

Some people would respond well to little things like pointing out the woo behind saying "bless you" when someone sneezes, or being asked if they really think that knocking on wood will ward off a bad outcome that they "invited" by speaking of it. Some people will stop, think about it, and realize it's silly, and might move on to question bigger things like those weekly acupuncture sessions they're paying for.

Some people are the other way around - they won't respond well to pointing out the little things, but when presented with clear, non-accusatory points about something reasonably big, such as that weekly acupuncture session, they will re-think it. Or, they may likewise respond to simple, rational questions about it in a similar manner. And when they start to think more septically about the bigger things, then it trickles down to the smaller ones.

And, of course, still other people will not respond well to any of this. Because each of us is different. There is no ONE approach that is "the way" to handle it, or look at it, or think about it, or what have you. We're all unique.

Also, I would have serious doubts about anyone who claimed that there was but one correct way to be a skeptic. I think my first question would be: "aren't you missing the point?"

I think you are spot-on with the comment about situation and context. I also think that when we start talking about guidelines for living, we aren't talking about skepticism, which is a process, but something else closer to secular humanism which holds a set of values which can be debated.

[Kernel Hapablap]

(bolding mine)

It seems pretty conclusive that religion is beneficial to your health (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html)and that religious people live longer than non-religious, so what you stand to lose is health and life.
.

Seriously? I have a hard time believing this. The only thing I ever see in my religious friends and family is stress, stress, stress, and guilt, guilt, guilt. Does stress and guilt lead to longer life and better health? If it does than I don't want it.

[blutoski]

2) Don't be OCD about it. It's one thing to take mental note of woo in all shapes and sizes and colors, it's another thing to lose sleep over a coworker saying "god bless you" when someone sneezed.

Just to nitpick (seems fitting...) and to clarify for others (because it is relevant to skepticism)... I think you mean OCPD, rather than OCD.

[OCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder)] is an anxiety disorder generally characterized by panic attacks and rituals &c.

[OCPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_personality_disorder)] is a personality disorder generally characterized by a rigid attitude &c.

Any organization or movement is going to attract OCPDish people - politics, religion, public advocacy, ethical movements, &c. The key is to keep them away from the directorships, and emphasize that they don't represent the organization or movement.

They're what I call the "Could you go 'help' somebody else for awhile?" element, and I do find myself mitigating their damage quite often as a skeptic.

[blutoski]

Seriously? I have a hard time believing this. The only thing I ever see in my religious friends and family is stress, stress, stress, and guilt, guilt, guilt. Does stress and guilt lead to longer life and better health? If it does than I don't want it.

It's probably true, based on pretty consistent surveys over the past few generations. What's not clear is whether the correlation between religious activity and some positive metrics is actually causation.

My thought: as a skeptic, I believe you should be de-emphasizing your personal anecdotes as sufficient evidence for a proposition.

[siddhigyrl]

my woo is having all of the numbers in the time my morning alarm is set add up to 13:

4:45
4:54
5:26
6:07

but then I also have to count the floor/wall/ceiling tiles in restrooms.

I know quite logically that nothing bad will happen if I force myself to not engage in these sorts of activities. In fact, the most that befalls me is a bit of agitation (and my BF says my grumbliness is quite enough that he's willing to stop trying to get me to stop, lol).

Sometimes I wonder if the origins of some superstitions stem from a person with OCD sharing their quirk with someone else, and that one with someone, etc.

[The Atheist]

Seriously? I have a hard time believing this. The only thing I ever see in my religious friends and family is stress, stress, stress, and guilt, guilt, guilt. Does stress and guilt lead to longer life and better health? If it does than I don't want it.

Well, you have two simple choices:

1 Continue believing the evidence is wrong.

2 Check around and find that the evidence presented is representative of a great deal of studies which shows the same conclusive results.

Then take a look at the thread title and decide which way you're headed.

What's not clear is whether the correlation between religious activity and some positive metrics is actually causation.

Does it matter? Can you ever prove or disprove the relationship?

[Kernel Hapablap]

I didn't say I didn't believe it, just that I had a hard time believing it. There's a difference. I can accept things that are hard to believe with sufficient evidence.

Also, I never intended a proposition based on my personal anecdote. Read my post again. The only thing I am declaring is that, based on my personal experience, evidence that religion leads to longer life and happiness, will not change my mind on whether or not to follow religious pursuits.

With sufficiently wide-ranging studies of a sufficiently wide range of cultures and beliefs, proving or disproving the relationship is definitely possible in the long term.

[jasonpatterson]

Woo is all of the stuff that is ticking you off. Superstition, religion, homeopathy, etc. Basically, anything where belief is faith-based or based in evidence that is flawed (as in homeopathy.)

I have to agree that I get annoyed with all of these things, even though I say, "D--- it," not infrequently. I also have a point at which I cut my losses and don't worry about the little things. I try to make a point of not showing those small superstitious actions like crossing my fingers for luck, but it's not something that seems valuable to comment on in another person. I say, "By Jove I think you've got it!" to my students out of silliness without worrying that I am seeding belief in the god Jupiter.

I guess if your goal is to be as rational as possible, feel free to eliminate all of these things from your life. If it is to help other people learn to act more rationally, then going after the little things will do little to help them. Your earlier posts suggest a gateway drug comparison. Complaining about a religious person crossing their fingers for luck would be like trying to get a crackhead to quit drinking coffee. In both cases, the priorities are misplaced.

@The Atheist: Of course it matters whether the effect is caused by religion or not, and blutoski's inability to prove or disprove it has no bearing on the question. If the effect can be isolated, atheists would be able, perhaps, to use it to their advantage as well. I've always thought it likely that this relationship is due to a superior social network that is, at least in principle, dedicated to helping others. That is, that it isn't god that's making people happy, it's the fact that there are folks around who are watching out for them.

Edited: Missed final posts in thread...

Edited Again: Cause I'm an idiot and changed the wrong thing...

[The Atheist]

@The Atheist: Of course it matters whether the effect is caused by religion or not, and blutoski's inability to prove or disprove it has no bearing on the question.

The trouble is that if the benefit isn't caused by the religion, what causes it and how would you know?

If the effect can be isolated, atheists would be able, perhaps, to use it to their advantage as well.

That's possibly right, but I think the style of religion is going to make it hard to replicate. Instead of a personal relationship with baby Jesus, will a relationship with Dawkins suffice?

I've always thought it likely that this relationship is due to a superior social network that is, at least in principle, dedicated to helping others.

That's probably a large part of it, but the effect of "knowing" there's a god looking after them is going to be very hard to replicate.

That is, that it isn't god that's making people happy, it's the fact that there are folks around who are watching out for them.

I agree it isn't a god, but what it actually is, I don't think anyone can say for sure at this stage.

[Moochie]

Hello everyone. I'm new to the forum and wanted to get your opinion on something. The older I get and the more skeptical I get, I find myself rejecting more and more even the simplest of irrational slips. First I started rejecting all religious holidays, including secularized ones like Christmas and Easter. Fine. Now I start getting angry at myself when I let slip a "cross your fingers" or "knock on wood". Even if I don't believe what I'm saying, I feel like accidentally saying it legitimizes such beliefs in those around me.

Irrational beliefs seem to be tied so deeply to society that sometimes it seems impossible to live normally within it without succumbing or looking crazy. A part of me used to think that letting harmless stuff like superstitions go was, well, harmless. Now I feel like stamping out every last crumb of society's irrationalities. After all, it seems to me that the mind set that leads to extreme religious belief is housed in the same part of the brain as the mind set that saying something out-loud jinxes it.

I guess what I'm wondering is the extent to which you all go to remain skeptical in all things, and what, if anything, do you let slip?

Just started reading what looks like an interesting thread.

For me, saying things like "Jesus Christ!" or just "Christ!" in an exclamatory way is actually a sign if my skepticism. As a baptized Catholic, attending a Catholic school, the Ten Commandments were among the first things we were taught, and the third Commandment, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain," was the first one we, as good little Catholic boys, learned to regularly break. :)

Things like this, and touching the top of my head while saying "Touch wood," aren't any kind of evidence that one isn't a skeptic, but shows only that one was brought up in a certain culture, IMO.


M.

[Moochie]

Penn Gillette said: "Everybody has a gris-gris."

What he meant is that everybody has some habit that is not quite skeptical, but no harm done.

There are also things that are just social. For example, I don't hold my tongue to avoid jinxing, but I might hold my tongue because other people would think I jinxed and I'd be in the doghouse.

I also anthropomorphize my pets, crediting them with personality or intelligence that simply doesn't exist - on a higher level, I appreciate that I'm projecting. It's simply gratifying to pretend that they have opinions on quantum mechanics.

Yeah, I think most of us have a "woo spot" or three, particularly when it comes to politics, religion, and sports, although I have seen many skeptics deny theirs, particularly when it is pointed out to them. Perhaps it's a little ungracious to do that.

As for Kitty, he is part of the family, and he does know what Mrs. M. and I are thinking, most of the time. In fact, I reckon he's got more intelligence in one hand paw than many of the woos we come across in our travels. :)


M.

[jasonpatterson]

The trouble is that if the benefit isn't caused by the religion, what causes it and how would you know?


Comparative studies of populations should do the trick. Look at otherwise matched sets of people who are actively religious as opposed to those who claim a belief in religion but do not actually behave in a religious way should determine whether a belief in god.

Testing the social network as a difference would likely be more difficult, practically speaking, but the method would be similar. Find another support system where individuals are consistently involved with a group of philanthropically minded people and see how they rate against those who are active in religion.

Perhaps one could test the outcomes of people who are not religious but who actively calm themselves regularly (actively calm??? is that possible) as in meditation vs prayer, or perhaps yoga or tai chi to eliminate increased stress as a confounding variable.

Again, I'm not saying that as a practical experiment this would be easy, but in principal it's fairly straightforward, and it should be able to distinguish among the various factors you've listed. It would not distinguish between correlation and causation either, but I suppose you could "prescribe" one group a daily meditation ritual and another none and see how their outcomes differ.

Finally, I would want to know whether it was belief in a deity that actually caused the improved outcomes before I build my shrine to Dawkins.

Edit:
The same argument, it occurs to me, applies in the other direction. If the factor that causes it IS the religion, how do you know?

[quarky]

Sin has some correlation to bad life choices in most religions. Mormons, for instance, are healthier than the non-religious, because it is a sin for them to consume alcohol.
Their belief in the golden tablets, or whatever, is incidental.

[Moochie]

You should absolutely anthropomorphise your pets, it will bring you good luck.

Absolutely! Our local Pet Whisperer was telling us this just the other day.


M.

[Moochie]

Link for article that Kernel refers to

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1641022.html


This one-hour video: Andy Thomson gives his talk titled 'Why We Believe in Gods' at the American Atheist 2009 convention in Atlanta, Georgia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg) pertains to what the article describes. It's also referred to in a thread in R&P.


M.

[mazyloron]

Just to nitpick (seems fitting...) and to clarify for others (because it is relevant to skepticism)... I think you mean OCPD, rather than OCD.

[OCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder)] is an anxiety disorder generally characterized by panic attacks and rituals &c.

[OCPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_personality_disorder)] is a personality disorder generally characterized by a rigid attitude &c.

Any organization or movement is going to attract OCPDish people - politics, religion, public advocacy, ethical movements, &c. The key is to keep them away from the directorships, and emphasize that they don't represent the organization or movement.

They're what I call the "Could you go 'help' somebody else for awhile?" element, and I do find myself mitigating their damage quite often as a skeptic.

I apologize, I used "OCD" in the colloquial sense, when I simply meant: "Don't be obsessive about it." Which is different than having a disorder.

:mad: I usually try to be better about my word choice than that.

ETA: poor choice of words the first time through. D'oh!

[Moochie]

I think you are spot-on with the comment about situation and context. I also think that when we start talking about guidelines for living, we aren't talking about skepticism, which is a process, but something else closer to secular humanism which holds a set of values which can be debated.

[Off topic]Of course, the real question for our U.S.-based members is, Can one be a Republican and a skeptic at the same time?

My guess is a resounding No![/Off topic]


M.

[blutoski]

Does it matter? Can you ever prove or disprove the relationship?

? i think the relationship is proven, and I'm not sure why this is controversial. Shermer's spoken about it many times in several books, and offers his thoughts on why this is so.

The question is about the nature of the relationship, and yes, it should be possible to determine whether it's directionally causal, or if there is a common cause instead. Same as any relationship in the social sciences or psychology.

The typical toolbox is multiple regression analysis. Unfortunately, GIGO applies.

(I appreciate this is drifting off topic, and will stop now.)