Superstitious nonsense?

[QED]

I hope I've made a name for myself as a skeptic here But... even I have a pair of socks that stays firmly in the drawer because... they seem to be unlucky. This is all the evidence that I need to remind me how pervasive and powerful are our internal mental constructs.

Knowing that this particular pair of socks has no sinister connections with any external realities is not enough to nudge my thought processes away from this nonsensical idea. So I am left having to admit to indulging in irrational behaviour.

Of course I could try to save face and rationalize my behaviour by forming a belief system around it -- after all, if I can persuade others who harbour similar irrational thoughts to join my system then I might not feel so bad about it. Is this the way that religions are started?

[Cmass]

The Church of the Unlucky Sock.
I'll join.

Indulgence in such things is healthy because it is a part of fantasy. When you go to watch a film in a movie theater, the only way you can really enjoy it is to temporarily suspend reality. If you can't convince yourself it is real then there is no way to "get into" the film. This is one of the ways I gauge a film: If during the film, I find my mind wandering and being aware of being in a theater, the worse the movie probably is.

Superstition and fantasy are fun and healthy.....the problems arise when a person insists the fantasy is real - when they leave the theater convinced it is all real. Or, when you start asking the sock for foreign policy advice...and you are convinced you hear it answer.....

[Nirvana-Eld]

Long time no see dc.com!

Of course I could try to save face and rationalize my behaviour by forming a belief system around it -- after all, if I can persuade others who harbour similar irrational thoughts to join my system then I might not feel so bad about it.

I think that the "church of the unlucky sock" is an oversimplification of how religions may or may not have started. Even if I am to play devil's advocate on your band-wagon approach to the formation of religion (I haven't made up my mind one way or the other), I can't see the scenario in which a religion was created as a means of "saving face" or guilt. If the bandwagon effect was how religions came to be I think its far more a matter of the "better explanation" than one of saving face. Ancient religions served the function of explaning the natural world. These explanations are obviously more preferable to having none. After that it is possible that certain moral codes were adopted, beliefs were changed and "rationalized" thus resulting in the religions we know today. Again, I don't know this is all devil's advocate.

[Cmass]

Ancient religions served the function of explaining the natural world. These explanations are obviously more preferable to having none. After that it is possible that certain moral codes were adopted, beliefs were changed and "rationalized" thus resulting in the religions we know today.

This is good stuff.

-----------

QED, perhaps you could reconstruct your question?

Your setup involves an atheist allowing himself to indulge in irrational thought.....I think this is worth pursuing.
The question is about the possible origins of religion - also an excellent topic but I think it needs a different setup.????

[Confused]

I hope I've made a name for myself as a skeptic here But... even I have a pair of socks that stays firmly in the drawer because... they seem to be unlucky. This is all the evidence that I need to remind me how pervasive and powerful are our internal mental constructs.

Knowing that this particular pair of socks has no sinister connections with any external realities is not enough to nudge my thought processes away from this nonsensical idea. So I am left having to admit to indulging in irrational behaviour.

Of course I could try to save face and rationalize my behaviour by forming a belief system around it -- after all, if I can persuade others who harbour similar irrational thoughts to join my system then I might not feel so bad about it. Is this the way that religions are started?

After searching through history (that which I have access to), their very foundation of any religion can trace its roots back to the origin of superstitions. How they originated is beyond me. But they did. Myself, I work in medicine, it's a curse to say that a patient has taken a turn for the better and mau survive, they always die w/in 5 hours of any of my staff saying this. Bad mojo. Just like saying its a quiet night in the ICU. That statement is a precursor to at least 2 subsequent code blues w/in 30 minutes. Once again, bad mojo.

[QED]

Long time no see dc.com!

Good to see you posting again

I think that the "church of the unlucky sock" is an oversimplification of how religions may or may not have started.

The "jinxed" nature of the sock is a specific example of something firmly believed that is simultaneously know to be untrue. The belief rests upon the perception of a statistical trend, although the analysis (hence the perception) is flawed. A rigorous analysis involving proper controls and a large statistical sample would corroborate the "knowledge" that the sock is merely a sock and not the instrument of some wicked demon.

What I think is most significant here is the power that such an irrational belief can have over my actions. For "peace of mind" I can rationalize this by believing in demons, and it seems probable that even further "peace of mind" can be gained by persuading others to share in this belief. I would think that elements of saving face and guilt are unavoidable in this particular case but other triggers are quite possible in other situations. "Peace of mind" can also be disturbed if we find ourselves lacking in explanations for things for example.

Even if I am to play devil's advocate on your band-wagon approach to the formation of religion (I haven't made up my mind one way or the other), I can't see the scenario in which a religion was created as a means of "saving face" or guilt. If the bandwagon effect was how religions came to be I think its far more a matter of the "better explanation" than one of saving face. Ancient religions served the function of explaning the natural world. These explanations are obviously more preferable to having none. After that it is possible that certain moral codes were adopted, beliefs were changed and "rationalized" thus resulting in the religions we know today. Again, I don't know this is all devil's advocate.

No, I quite agree with you. The ability to offer explanations is something that can gain respect. There is little doubt in my mind that this is the origin of most religions.

[QED]

Your setup involves an atheist allowing himself to indulge in irrational thought.....I think this is worth pursuing.

You're quite right, the origin of Religion is another debate

[Cathar1950]

They can get Chickens to display Superstitious behaviors by just tossing food in at random intervals.

Maybe it all started when someone decided during a Famine while their children where starving to sacrifice the child. Famine ends and everyone including the gods are happy.