Our great ignorance of the Divine Beings most naturally runs in two streams; whereof the one in harsh and coarse tempers, as in dry and stubborn soils, produces atheism, and the other in the more tender and flexible, as in most and yielding grounds, produces superstition.
- Plutarch De Superstitione (pdf)
One of the directions our conversation took orbited around the issue of superstition and faith. Jorge posted an entry on magical thinking and miraculous thinking the other day that touches on the same issue in the context of prayer. What makes for superstition. How is it different from Religion? How does it invade religious thinking and praxis? I find it curious that the default stance for some when they encounter superstition is atheism. Athiesm, in this case at least, is almost a reaction formation. "Magic does not work. Thus, no God." Gross oversimplification of one brand of atheism, but there you go. Blogging at its best.
Anyway, I wanted to point you all in the direction of AKMA's thoughts on the matter and on historicity, and one particular pdf. Follow the link in the gray box. I find it interesting to read thoughts about superstition from Plutarch. Lucian, as AKMA linked, is another voice against superstition from long, long ago (a wiki bio). Larry's sermon touched on some of this issue as well. Belief in any Christian theological/doctrinal notion has always been met with skepticism. The middle line of atheism/superstition may have shifted somewhat in 2000 years, but the issue is the same. Well, I think that the questions have at least. So, here are some questions to distract us all from work today:
When is Christianity (or the Christian) superstitious?
When is Christianity (or the Christian) religious (In that good healthy way)?
When is Christianity (or the Christian) atheistic?
Yes, all three streams are likely to exist within the wider Christian conversation...and at any given moment in any given Christian community.
What do you guys think?
Posted by tripp at February 15, 2007 08:26 AMI'm surprised to be the first one to comment--I was hoping to join a conversation set in motion by those who have more to say on the subject... At any rate, here are some (useful?) thoughts:
Wikipedia has a nice (well, succinct, at least) definition of superstition as:
"the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship."
This seems to cover a lot of stuff that many Christians seem to embrace--in a discussion of the Scientific Method, for example, one of the Priestly Goth's critiques was the existence of "non-causal" phenomena, that would never be addressed by experimentation and replication.
But perhaps the superstitious / religious line is a question of specificity? The "non-causal phenomena" under discussion with the P-Goth was the chrismaniacal application of Holy Oil, which (in my limited understanding) doesn't confer a specific "You will win the lottery at 11:35pm" blessing, but more of a "may you have a good life" result.
This seems to be the distinguishing characteristic between the "miraculous thinking" and the "magical thinking" in the blog that you link to. Magical Thinking is goal oriented, desirous of a specific effect (winning the wrestling match), while Miraculous Thinking seems more open-ended.
I would imagine that Christians sometimes pray "Please, God, let the Bears win!", and might at other times pray for peace, or for the "relief of burdens". Perhaps the latter is "religious", and the former "superstitious"?
"When is Christianity (or the Christian) superstitious?
When is Christianity (or the Christian) religious (In that good healthy way)?
When is Christianity (or the Christian) atheistic?"
As with most such questions: she who defines the terms wins the argument. One person's "religious" is another person's "superstitious," etc.
I'm curious about how you're defining "atheistic" in this context, though. Care to say more?
Posted by: Megan at February 15, 2007 07:29 PMMegan,
"There is no such thing/person/force/etc as god."
Strictly, I guess. So, agnosticism can exist. Ways of thinking that deny certain definitions of God can exist. They are not athiesm.
The definitions matter. Yes. But that's part of the conversation that interests me. Most Baptists state that sacramental theology, for example, is superstition ritualized. Bread and juice remain bread and juice no matter what you pray say or do...or how one understands Jesus' statements in the Gospels. Anglicans (most at least), Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists, Catholocs and Orthodox proclaim sacramental theology to be a cornestone of health religious life for the Christian. So, there's an interesting gray scale at work.
Benjamin,
Interesting that the wiki definition assumes the future. For many Christians, the prayers asked assume God's "saving works long ago." Thus we ask. But the point is not to get stuff or to influence God. No, the art and craft of prayer is to learn to enter into what God is already doing...how God's will is at work. This is not the same thing as predestination. That's a different deal entirely and likely not Christian. Free will is real, so fate and such does not exist for the Christian. Well, for this one at least! Ha.
Posted by: Tripp at February 16, 2007 06:42 AMThat definition makes for an easy answer to the third question, "When is Christianity (or the Christian) atheistic?"
Christianity - never. Christianity is a theistic religion.
The individual Christian - whenever their personal faith slips into atheism.
I confess, I don't understand the connection between this question and your statement about sacramental practice. (Which I wouldn't necessarily call theology, more definitions! but you're the professional.)
I'm running away from home for the weekend, so you don't need to explain the connection to me. I just wanted to let you know the disconnect was there.
Posted by: Megan at February 16, 2007 08:44 AM