- Your analysis above is somewhat complicated by the fact that for Judaism and Christianity magic is a crime, no? Magic has to do with the manipulation of reality in a way that is considered illicit, and because of this it is not Abrahamic religious people but rather Baconian scientists who are the progeny of magicians. Again, our magical culture is obsessed with technology because technology is the twin sibling of magic. Religion always has an eye to the properly ordered whole; magic has to do with manipulation that is carried out irregardless of the whole.

The Christian practices you labeled magic are universally accepted to not be magic, except perhaps by Simon Magus. Some call them worship and others call them superstition, but no one thinks they are magic. This is relevant to the OP because in Judaism and Christianity superstition and magic go hand in hand.

The rituals of the church are no more magical than... — BC

My guess is that the rituals fit your idiosyncratic definition of magic (i.e. spiritual or invisible causation). You just perceive them in a demythologized sense. For example, the "sign of peace" has not historically been understood as a bit of hand-shaking.

If we are logically consistent with this sort of definition then someone is engaged in magic if they go to the grocery store and believe themselves to be using free will to choose which milk to buy; just as if we are consistent with the OP's definition then the fellow who brushes his teeth is superstitious. A thread which centers on pejorative terms without rigorous definitions ends up being a vehicle for propaganda.

Superstition goes hand in hand with ignorance, and because our age is wildly ignorant there is a high potential for superstition. For example, suppose Elon Musk said, "If you wave your iPhone in three big circles above your head after turning it on, the scrambling of the gyroscope will make it harder for political activists who are not in your contact list to send you unsolicited messages." People would instantly start doing this, and would probably soon swear by the practice. Why? Because we have no freaking idea how an iPhone works. Our scientific culture is faith-based, premised on arguments from authority. As Arthur Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." — Leontiskos

There's a lot to unpack in that, and I think there's very much legitimate issues pertaining to the politization of science, which was off the wall with Covic.

It's a bit strong to say out scientific culture is faith-based, maybe some parts of it are quite encased in certain ways of thinking, say, expecting that evo-devo will explain everything about human behavior, or that if we continue making AI even better, we will reach AGI, etc., these have adherents who verge on "superstition", but there are many exceptions too.

On the other hand, you are quite right to point out that people like Musk have a cult following, such that anything he says is considered gospel. Heck, his "predictions" on what "Neuralink" will be able to do are laughable.

I agree that there is a very clear sense in which, at bottom, we do not know how iPhones work. I would be even stronger in your last sentence, virtually every phenomenon in nature is a kind of magic, as I see it. The reason we no longer see it that way is because we have become used to it and thus take it granted.

Certainly, newborns experience the world as baffling to them, because it is.

I specifically had in mind people like Krauss or Dawkins, or worse yet Dennett or the Churchlands, who are just off the wall. It is this strain in thinking, which I regard as kind of "superstitious" - the belief that science will allow to understand everything eventually. It's crazy to me to think this, for obvious reasons.

Superstition is related to the unpredictable, so it has a real place in our being in the moment, living the passing of time. The huge, massive aspects of temporal continuity, such as the sun rising the next day, are so highly predictable that superstition has no place in those thoughts. However, in the tiny moments, and tiny spaces of temporal passage, much appears to be left to chance. Here, superstition has a role to play.

Those who live on the edge of time, in a rapidly evolving environment, such as a high risk occupation, or a professional athlete in a fast sport, are usually the ones who find the most purpose for superstition. In these situations a large part of a person's professional environment is completely unpredictable, and many of the happenings appear to be at the hands of fate, or chance. Since we really do not know what actually tips the scale (breaks the symmetry) in these circumstances, superstition is as good as anything else. You might say that superstition provides us with an appealing approach to superposition.

Those who live on the edge of time, in a rapidly evolving environment, such as a high risk occupation, or a professional athlete in a fast sport, are usually the ones who find the most purpose for superstition. In these situations a large part of a person's professional environment is completely unpredictable, and many of the happenings appear to be at the hands of fate, or chance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting observation. It makes sense that people who make their living off their ability to act effectively in the heat of the moment are used to being able to go with their intuitions successfully, and tend to do so even when critical thinking might serve them better.

I agree that there is a very clear sense in which, at bottom, we do not know how iPhones work. I would be even stronger in your last sentence, virtually every phenomenon in nature is a kind of magic, as I see it. The reason we no longer see it that way is because we have become used to it and thus take it granted.

Certainly, newborns experience the world as baffling to them, because it is.

I specifically had in mind people like Krauss or Dawkins, or worse yet Dennett or the Churchlands, who are just off the wall. It is this strain in thinking, which I regard as kind of "superstitious" - the belief that science will allow to understand everything eventually. It's crazy to me to think this, for obvious reasons. — Manuel

Yes, these are good points. The givenness of nature lends itself to wonder and precludes perfect comprehension. There is certainly an interesting way in which we approach science as a field superstitiously, endowing it with impossible attributes.

Stella Artois for me. And I like it cold, even though it is a superior European product. — BC

When the topic is Germanic beers, I want to suggest Duvel and Franziskaner if you can find them. My friends also like Omer and Victoria, but for me those are simply inferior Duvels.
Me and my friends also like St Feulilien.

There is certainly an interesting way in which we approach science as a field superstitiously, endowing it with impossible attributes. — Leontiskos

What impossible attributes?

It makes sense that people who make their living off their ability to act effectively in the heat of the moment are used to being able to go with their intuitions successfully, and tend to do so even when critical thinking might serve them better. — wonderer1

The point though, is that there is often no time for critical thinking. Decisions made on the fly in a rapidly evolving situation, such as the middle of a hockey game, cannot be pondered. So anything (including items of superstition) which might possibly be helpful toward ensuring the right decisions are made, and that things go smoothly, are welcomed into this lifestyle.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/sport/nhl-superstition-ice-hockey-spt-intl/index.html

Anyways, long story short, superstition is a core component of the human psyche is the claim. — schopenhauer1

Okay. It is a component of the human psyche. And if you read about the evolution of humans, the primal fear goes back to the prehistoric times when a lot of factors were not understood, but could wipe out their entire population.

We never really got rid of this primal fear in us -- similar to the appendix (why do we have it?). Despite the progress that humans made in all aspects of society, the primal instinct never went away.

Anyways, long story short, superstition is a core component of the human psyche is the claim. — schopenhauer1

Can all religious faiths and practices be classed as superstition?

Can all religious faiths and practices be classed as superstition? — Corvus

Absolutely, the way I was using was like practical magic that affects the world, but the broader category of yes.

Absolutely, the way I was using was like practical magic that affects the world, but the broader category of yes. — schopenhauer1

:up: This is an interesting topic. It seems to prove that humans had both irrational and rational aspect in their mental states from the start of the history. Presumably in the ancient times, the irrational aspect has been more dominating in life.

With the discovery of reason and logic by the ancient Greek philosophers, the rational aspects have grown and balancing the two. However, we can still see much irrational part of human psyche taking over the human life which had been more predominant and hidden aspect of human consciousness in the deep structure biologically and mentally.

Taking superstition broadly we could say it is when we think, consciously or unconsciously, that certain behaviors/rituals/thoughts prevent bad things or increase the chances of bad things AND there is no known causal coupling between those behaviors/rituals/thoughts and the desires effects.

I would say that everyone is superstitious in my broad sense of the idea.

We may have beliefs about guilt. That feeling guilty protects us from punishment. This need not be even consciously thought out.

We might have beliefs that certain types of stifling emotions around other people leads to a better life or prevents bad things from happening professionally, inter-personally, even when alone. These would count if this has actually not been demonstrated to us.

There might be beliefs about how a man or woman should act - and the sense that if we don't act 'properly' in these categories we will be less well off in some way.

I would think most people have confused notions about what exactly leads them to love or prevents the loss of love, and behave in ways that supposedly prevent problems or elicit love where we might not get it or as much.

Even secular people may feel like certain kinds of behavior or even attitudes draw punishment, even when they do not. Obviously I am not talking about criminal behavior or obvious social taboos, but rather subtler things we either try not to show/express or even feel. For example we might feel that feeling superior to someone who makes mistakes or makes a mistake in a given instance would lead to negative outcomes, even if someone suggested this idea out loud to us, we would deny any causal link, as long as no one noticed it. Despite this we may have learned patterns in childhood where we are phobic even to the hidden attitude or thought. (and the precise opposite superstition might be in place where a not having a superior attitude is seen as detrimental - not this would be different from merely being aware of a greater skill in a certain area)

There are cultural versions of these things. Some cultures have value judgments about how expressive one can or should be. And it can feel to members of that culture that more expression or less expression is wrong and detrimental, when in fact there is much more flexibility, even in one's own culture and one is not punished for moving away from the center of the bell curve.