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.

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."

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?

As such, it could be considered that Humans still possess Fundamental Morality, but also have an additional, outer 'layer of morality' which is Sociological morality. — Javants

Considering such would mean that human could never see an omniscient good and will always fall victim to the omniscient bad. So do you think that morality is something we can only reach to a certain extent?

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.

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?

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?

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.

in your pocket — SophistiCat

If only it were that simple such that I could reach in and find the answer. Now, I'm curious: as much as we'd love to find the answer, and if given the chance, would we be afraid to look at what's in the pocket? Probabilities aside ( thank you for the extremely statistical explanation ) and we could theorize all we want, but what I want to know is whether or not we have the courage to find out.

- If God does exist (and I'm mentioning the omniscient one), then we are left with the answer that our entire existence was under the control of another - that we really have no choice in out lives.
- A god does not exist, what else can one turn to for comfort, in our times of vulnerability?
- Demigods: well, I'm not sure how to react to this one except that I worry for their safety because if they were rare, good luck facing the rest of the world. If they were not rare, then the 'normal' humans would simply become inferior defects.

Of course, a lot of these opinion exist unconsciously in our society today, especially when we worship regular people, imaginary people, and ourselves. But would we be courageous enough to accept any of those probabilities?

Again, finding a definite answer is impossible, but we can explore the scenarios and reactions.

So what you mean is that there are layers of morality? Like an onion with fundamentals at it's core?

If so, are you saying that we, as a part of a society, cannot grasp the morality of 'omniscience?'
- If the answer were to be 'no, we cannot,' then what we've identified as morales cannot be true morales at all, because there exists a type of purer morality that we cannot comprehend-- the outer layer of the onion ring we've trapped ourselves in. Then, how did we even come to know of a bigger truth? How do we tell the difference from what belongs in what layer?
- Were the answer 'yes, we can grasp it' then why must the layers system exist? An animal could possibly hold a bigger sense of truth in the world than a human. And we would never know.

As much as I love categorizing things, I don't believe morality is something that can be categorized, or at least not in such a way. How would I organize it, you ask? Let me sleep on that...

I think it's very interesting what you've said there. It does sound logical that the level of morality below cannot recognize the level above, but I think that they can indeed exist. In fact, I see it as a microcosm of morality where it's very much based on perspective.

For example, a human that is part of the sociological morality walks into the wild. In his act of 'goodness,' he offers to save a weak animal that should have died, which was morally acceptable in the fundamental level of morality. But there's many levels of this, and that has to do with the way we as humans interact with animals. We cannot understand how they feel or whether they feel, but there are always exceptions in the 'survival of the fittest' rule.

Survival of the fittest: another sort of societal rule that often goes unnoticed. We humans seem to follow this rule, it's undeniable in times of chaos and oppression, war and conflict. We seem to neglect a more humane side of us only because the war calls for a more animalistic side, the idea that we must win, we must be better. Sometimes, humans might not even notice the fundamental morality that affects them.

But sometimes, we can notice this omniscient morality. Let's say, imagine how shocked that weak animal may have been to find a creature defying the law of fundamentality, the very law they must abide by to survive. That is the surprising goodness that comes out of the discovery of the higher level of morality. And it can happen to and come from any human, but the good act is always shocking because we cannot see it until it happens. However, when we see it, the very image of the past that such a good act solved, will become a horrible embarrassment for humans. And this has happened many times in history: the disbelief of their own horrifying act comes to light when a small group realize and fight with omniscient morality.

If there is reason to believe I will not be existing tomorrow I may give up doing anything and just sleep instead of, say, going to work to get more money. Based on what do we know we will still continue to exist — Ephrium

I think it's quite the opposite. I believe that a lot of people have this desire to continue existing forever. Everything done is to ensure that they last as long as possible, or even hope for an immortality because there seems to be a lot of importance placed on prolonging one's own life.

Now, when someone thinks there really is no point in living, then would you call them selfless for not wanting to selfishly live life further, or the most selfish for thinking they have this reason to not do anything in life with the justification of 'there's no point to life or in life.' One must truly live for the sake of trying to find a purpose in life, to find the reason for living. And sitting idly, thinking that there is no reason to continue your existence - in my opinion - is pretty selfish.

Well, there's always questions one can ask before even considering the possibility because all your points cannot be proven physically. The closest proof we have are the historical texts, handed down tails, and some would argue passionately: the Bible. But there's still an undeniable point in the fact that all of these were touched by the human perspectively, both culturally and religiously. Such two points are inseparable because they both control each other so really, we can say that our idea of a god came from the human's need for a bigger being, either as a from of control and power or as an escape from the horrors and terrors they face in their lifetimes. A powerful being is the form they've given their hope to, feared, and followed to replace this hard challenge of finding what to do with their lives.

So this really is a chicken or the egg question for me: did we create God or did a God really create us? Ultimately, our thoughts will always come back to the human behavior because if we were to solely question the existence of such a being, it'd be like sticking your head into the sand and expecting light to shine through.