And the answer is because people are morons. — Thorongil

I don't quite agree with this answer. A lot of us follow it unconsciously. Let me clarify my question: Is religion a superstition, in a sense? The belief in something supernatural, is essentially what superstition is, so in a very hardcore way religion is a kind of superstition.

So are you calling most religious people morons? This would then mean that you are saying only you are the logical and rational person, which no person can be, and everyone else is dumb enough to believe in the "causation rather than correlation."

Please, explain your thoughts.

Let's put Wosret in a Skinner Box and see what we can accomplish for SCIENCE.

Some superstitions become obsessions. Don't know why, exactly, people start doubting that they locked the door, but they HAVE to go back and check it. Doing so doesn't prove the door is locked. So, back down on the street, they feel compelled to climb back up to the third floor and check it again -- maybe 3 or 4 times (this is autobiographical). One is rewarded for this ridiculous behavior by becoming quite fit from all the stair climbing.

The cause of obsessions is probably some sort of anxiety about losing control of one's life. Pigeons, of course, lost control of their lives once they were put in the cage, so it's a miracle that they aren't all stark raving mad.

Is religion a superstition, in a sense? The belief in something supernatural, is essentially what superstition is, so in a very hardcore way religion is a kind of superstition. — Ann

'Religion' doesn't have a single meaning; the word itself is polysemic (there's a useful bit of terminology).

It goes without saying that hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daneil Dennett see religion as superstition, but they show very little understanding of the subject.

As regards the supernatural - I don't think we know enough about nature to confidently declare what is 'super' to it. The division itself keeps shifting, many things we now take for granted would once have seemed supernatural. Again it's often based on the 'conflict thesis' between science and religion, which was developed by various 'scientistic' thinkers in the 19th century.

There are other interpretations of why the pigeons might have behaved the way they did. The authors of this 2009 paper, for instance, say that 'these [pigeon] behaviours were later reinterpreted as behaviours that improve foraging efficacy (analogous to salivation in Pavlov's dogs), which suggests that the pigeons' behaviour does not correspond to Skinner's intended meaning of superstition.'

Their paper is interesting in that, despite discrediting Skinner's inferences, they then endorse a Skinnerist approach, rather bewilderingly.

The Eastern idea of Karma is a classic example of a magical (non-physical) conception of causation. — John

I can see how Karma is superstition but is there a bigger reason as to why they use such a method to explain causation? I mean, if Karma is traced back to its purest action, won't they wonder where the first cause was?

I don't think we know enough about nature to confidently declare what is 'super' to it — Wayfarer

I like that you brought nature into this. In an example scenario, there are some that can observe the birds, read their signs, and predict that it will rain. I would identify that as a scientific or natural reaction that only birds can sense, but this was considered (before science) a superstition. They've used what they know as causation/correlation to create this idea that a bird knows when it will rain.

Now, it's evolved into something that can be explained with science, but what is the human behavior that makes a person believe it so easily? Was superstition used as a guide in replacement of science?

Probably the best defense against superstitious beliefs is to constantly go meta and analyze your foundations to make sure you're not making any ridiculous mistakes. — darthbarracuda

I want to know what you link superstition with, because my question now would be: must we defend ourselves against 'superstition?' and how would one go about doing that?

Of course, I agree with how letting superstition lead a life would be dangerous, but completely letting go of all superstitions would mean we'd have to sacrifice some beliefs, too.

Now, it's evolved into something that can be explained with science, but what is the human behavior that makes a person believe it so easily? Was superstition used as a guide in replacement of science? — Ann

Careful, now. There are many things that science can explain about nature, and also a pretty big number that it cannot, some of which seem very simple or obvious.

Years and years ago, I read a pop science book called Supernature - it was hugely popular in the 1970s. I can't remember much of what was in it, but it had many truly eye-opening things that seem to deny scientific explanation (one I do remember is that oysters taken into a tank in the middle of continental America, and then taken down deep in a mine shaft, still open and close with the tides.)

Beware of the positivist narrative that 'rational science has displaced superstitious religion'. Whilst it is true in some ways, there are principles in religion - I think karma is a pretty good example! - that aren't going to be replaced by science any time soon. Remember, science deals with objective matters through quantitative analysis, and there are many aspects of life that are not amenable to that kind of methodology.

Remember, science deals with objective matters through quantitative analysis, and there are many aspects of life that are not amenable to that kind of methodology. — Wayfarer

I'm thinking now, would superstition become a sort of meaning for the believer? Karma deals with experience; there's also

something about [superstition] that resonates with our experience. — Wosret

Experience is also another thing science cannot deal with, so is superstition a way for people to attach meaning to something? What's the significance of that?

Well, in one sense superstition is very much a consequence of drawing untruthful conclusions from experiences.

But there's a lot more to 'karma' than superstition. The meaning of the word, karma, is literally 'intentional action'; the ethical principle is that 'all intentional actions have ethical consequences'. Do you think that is necessarily a superstitious idea?

I see karma simply as superstition in the sense that superstition is come thing you cannot explain logically. When you ask why something is unlucky, superstition would answer with, 'it just is.'

Karma is interesting in that it concerns multiple lifetimes. We can use it to explain something, but we can't further that claim.
"Why does bad luck always happen to me?"
"Well, it's karma. You must have done something equally bad in your previous life to deserve this."

I see karma simply as superstition in the sense that superstition is come thing you cannot explain logically. — Ann

That is only one interpretation of karma. I agree if it is used to justify misfortune, then it amounts to fatalism - 'it must be something I have done'.

But if interpreted as a regulative principle, i.e. 'acting with right intention produces positive results', then I don't see how such a belief can either be superstitious, or negative.

Karma is pretty cruel, though. I can't imagine how a person who is down on the level of poverty, ill, and constantly misfortunate can even think that what is happening to him/her is the burden she/he must bear for a previous life, and then still continue to live righteously.

Karma is pretty cruel, though. — Ann

That's where I think it becomes fatalism. I think if it is used to rationalise misfortune, then indeed that is cruel. That was a common argument from the Christian missionaries in Asia, against Hinduism and Buddhism, and there is some merit in that criticism. But, as I tried to stress, I think that is only one facet of karma. The other facet - the more important one - is that it means the individual is responsible for their fate.

The problem is that it is very commonly observed that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Yeah, well once again, as per the other threads on theodicy, it seems regrettable that bad things happen. But they indubitably do. Having to deal with it, is part of the human conditon, as far as I can see.

Sure, it's just that it tells against the theory of Karma is all.

Same as anything whatever bad happening tells against God, right?

It doesn't tell against Spinozistic notions of God, or against the idea of God-given rewards in the afterlife; although of course there can be no evidence or rational support for the latter, and only rational support for the former.

The problem with Karma seems to that there is no ordering infinite intentionality posited so no explanation as to how it could obtain.

The problem is that it is very commonly observed that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. — John

Everybody has a past. The good were once bad and the bad were once good. The game is still on for Karma.

I find Karma quite sensible. For me it follows quite naturally just as laughter follows a good joke. Search all you can and you'll never find an uncaused cause. Is this the principle of sufficient reason?? Therefore it seems very reasonable to assume causation applies to human thought and action just as it applies to ALL things in the universe.

The claim is not that human actions are uncaused.

The claim is not that human actions are uncaused. — John

Then why?

Sure, it's just that it tells against the theory of Karma is — John

Karma is not causation as it is ordinarily understood.

Karma is not causation as it is ordinarily understood. — John

I understand Karma as thoughts and actions causing circumstances that befit the nature of these thoughts and actions. Isn't this a natural extension of causality as we know it.

You have a different take on Karma. What is it?

No causation as it generally understood consists in energetic physical interactions that are indifferent to any ethical qualities we might impute to actions.

No causation as it generally understood consists in energetic physical interactions that are indifferent to any qualities we might impute to actions. — John

What you're saying is that causation is a physical thing. So, what of the non-physical? Do you think the qualities of action are exempt from causation mechanics?

Bravery, love, hate, kindness are all non-physical and yet they cause physical manifestations such as saving someone from a fire, gift-giving, assault, etc.

Those emotions you mention are dispositions of physical bodies and physically felt; so I don't know what you mean by saying they are non-physical.

Forget about the name 'law of karma'. What if it were just 'the principle of action', namely, that intentional actions always have consequences.

The alternatives are that (1) they don't have consequences or (2) that the consequences don't matter.

Someone might explain to me how those conclusions comprise the basis of an ethical theory which the 'principle of action' does not.

Those emotions you mention are dispositions of physical bodies and physically felt; so I don't know what you mean by saying they are non-physical. — John

However, just as it is justified to take life as a one of a kind compared to inanimate matter, both being composed of the same stuff notwithstanding, it is also justified to contrast the physical body from the mental goings-on.