**Faith: **
–noun
| Belief that is not based on proof. |
Superstition:
–noun
| A belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. |
Sounds like same to me.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
Absense of proof does not imply absense of reason, or even knowledge.
Much of history transpires without proof, yet we make no effort to provide proofs of historical occurrences, and continue to reason about them.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
I agree in some cases.
History cannot effect my afterlife (if there is any). So I am not really bothered about history.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
[quote]
History cannot effect my afterlife (if there is any). So I am not really bothered about history.
[/quote]
Hmm...sounds like a faithful retort. :-)
But in any case, your past actions are very much historical. The messages of faith bubbles through time, not from some set of axioms...so I suppose in that sense, the afterlife and everything that affects it stem from historical concerns.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
But in any case, your past actions are very much historical. The messages of faith bubbles through time, not from some set of axioms...so I suppose in that sense, the afterlife and everything that affects it stem from historical concerns.
By history I meant history in general. Not my history ofcourse my history, my deeds all count.
Let me rephrase it, "the history of the world of which I have no living or pre-living connection do not effect my afterlife (If there is any), So I am not really bothered about it". :)
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
^ I understand, but I think that's not neccessarily true...although it is most certainly true you're not accountable for stuff that has occured before your life...but then, is that the only way the past can have an effect on your afterlife?
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
there are several schools of thought in the scientific world (e.g. Karl Popper etc) that argue that nothing can be proven. Only thing you can do is refute hypotheses, but you cannot prove anything. So, extrapolating that, it means that all science is faith (or if you want superstition, although I agree with picoico that faith and superstition are not the same)
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
The definitions of, “Faith” and “Superstition” are based on common sense, i.e. When they say, that “Faith is something that have no proofs”, then in that context, science is accepted as something which have “proofs”, something which can show you the proofs, by offering you the luxury to test empirically. Faith can’t offer you any such thing, it will only ask you to accept.
Now if we look at it in the context of what Popper says then, the terms like “Faith”, “Superstition” don’t apply, if someone insists, then the terms need new definitions, because obviously there is alot of difference between accepted science and religious dogma/superstition. So we can’t treat the both i mean faith/superstition and science the same by appealing to Popper.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
I’m not sure whether I agree with you. Just because the term ‘faith’ is reserved for other situations than the term 'scientific “fact” ', doesn’t mean that the underlying mechanism is different: Both rely on the presumption that certain things are a ‘given’ and based on those things, you can deduce/induce/derive certain other statements.
And as far as supporting (note that I’m not using the word ‘proof’, because even science cannot prove anything…it can only point towards associations) a statement by empirical data is concerned: Even with empirical data there will be variation in what you measure: some part of that variation you can explain using the scientific theories and this is usually used in favour of that theory. However, a large part of the variation is still unexplained: one might argue that that variation unexplained by science is actually in favor of ‘faith’, as you define it. 
in other words, the mechanism leading to ‘accepted science’ is no different that the one leading to ‘religious superstition’: both need certain dogmas based on which its theory is formed.
An example might elucidate this:
one might argue that science ‘proves’ that certain types of stars exist. And to support it science will point towards telescopes and say if you look through it then you will see this and this. However, what is neglected is that there is a dogma underlying this: namely, that the telescope consists of optical lenses,which work in a certain way (this in itself cannot be proved, but only associated by repitition) and moreover another dogma is that light will travel in certain ways and bend to such and such degrees…and then your eyes will register this light, your brains will process it and you will perceive it as those certain types of stars. You will see, that in order to ‘prove’ that certain stars exist, you will have to build a framework of dogmas that in themselves are subject to the same scrutiny as those stars. In the end, it will all boil down to what is agreed upon by ‘consensus’, and experiments will be designed in such a way to support this ‘consensus’. And even then, those experiments will also yield a lot of data that is not supported by the ‘consensus’. However, this latter is usually neglected.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
YES.
–noun
| Belief that is not based on proof. |
Superstition:
–noun
| A belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. |
Sounds like same to me.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
Faith and superstition have indeed always seemed awfully like the same thing to me...really the main difference is in the society and in the institution that supports them.
So perhaps the next time you think of this topic, mull over these questions:
*Why do you believe?
*Who told you to believe and why do you trust them?
*How would you know if they were lying or repeating things just for the sake of repeating? Or if they were repeating them because they trusted someone else in return, just because they were told they should?
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
^My answer to all three questions is;
I am skeptic by nature.
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
This interesting sentence in your post, which i didn’t noticed earlier, Anyways you based your assertion on Popper’s thesis, that since scientific propositions are inductive in nature so science doesn’t provides any proofs, So** Science is Faith. **
Your conclusion is wrong because science doesn’t asks for faith, When we experiment something we don’t claim that, that specific thing is settled absolutely, we only claim that we have evidence in favor of this and this thing, Further on the basis of that scientific Laws are given and even those as a possibility can be proven as wrong. So there is no Faith in Science.
In religion on contrast, there isn’t any evidence, if we consider the absolute claims religion does, i.e. Absolute Truth for all times…
Re: Is Faith and Superstition are two sides of the same coin?
–noun
| Belief that is not based on proof. |
Superstition:
–noun
| A belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. |
Sounds like same to me.
superstition is offshoot of fear
Faith has no fear
Yes there is a concept of hell but only for sinner not for faithful