What is the difference between superstition and religion?

[Zzyzx]

.
One question

What, if anything, distinguishes religion from superstition?

[Nick_A]

.
One question

What, if anything, distinguishes religion from superstition?

A religion that initiates with a conscious source -- that is, a level of consciousness that is man's potential but due to circumstances unable to make use of, devolves into society so can exist on three different basic levels.

The highest is the transcendent level from where it began. The lowest level is the exoteric level where it loses its conscious contact with the transcendent and becomes a typical earthly institution such as politics. They are connected by the esoteric level which is for those that sense the purpose of religion but see how it has devolved so come into contact with the esoteric level where people are together in the mutual efforts of acquiring the conscious goal of their tradition.

Where the transcendent level is conscious, the exoteric level lives by imagination. Even this imagination has truth in it but just in a distorted form.

However this imagination often results in superstitions. These superstitions though having become part of our imagination also often contain an element of truth in it such as thirteen being the cast out apostle Judas.

Superstitions often become parts of secular exoteric religious expressions while on the esoteric level, conscious attention takes the place of expressive imagination

[bernee51]

.
One question

What, if anything, distinguishes religion from superstition?

Obviously not a lot it would seem.

[cnorman18]

.
One question

What, if anything, distinguishes religion from superstition?

I've put about two seconds' thought into this, but the first thing that occurs to me is that religious belief is generally associated with some sort of tradition or institutional structure, whereas superstition just sort of hangs there in space apropos of nothing. There may be a history and tradition of sorts associated with a given superstition, as in the case of 13 mentioned on the other thread, but it's probable that few people who hold such a belief are aware of it.

Also, while the reasons for religious belief might be hard to fathom for those who worship objective logic, there are at least reasons of some sort for it; superstitions are generally held for no discernible reason at all.

The second thing that occurs to me is that the question itself is a wee tad bit insulting in its implications. An analogous question might be, "What, if anything, distinguishes atheism from nihilism?" though that doesn't carry quite the contemptuous overtones of "superstition."

[Cathar1950]

They are both human constructs?
I have read where superstitious behavior has been displayed by chickens when you feed them at random times they associate whatever behavior they are displaying with the reward of food. In other words they make some kind of connection between action and effect that is not really they except in the mind of the chicken.
Maybe if people share a superstition it could be thought of as religious.
I am not sure people actually worship reason even if they hold it in high regard.
Reason seems to be a natural part of us that and may even have been programed into us by evolutionary processes as language seem to be.
Reason really might not go against biology as some suggest but it could very well be biological. I am not sure how it could be other. Other social animals seem to have some but limited reasoning and communication abilities. We seem to be built for language and even culture and our experiences both collective, shared and personal give it content as well as context.

[bernee51]

.
One question

What, if anything, distinguishes religion from superstition?

Looking at the etymology of superstitious:

c.1386, from O.Fr. superstitieux, from L. superstitiosus, from superstitionem (nom. superstitio) "prophecy, soothsaying, excessive fear of the gods," perhaps originally "state of religious exaltation," related to superstes (gen. superstitis) "standing over or above," also "standing by, surviving," from superstare "stand on or over, survive," from super "above" (see super-) + stare "to stand,"

Some aspects of some religions clearly can be regarded as superstition.

[Zzyzx]

.

What, if anything, distinguishes religion from superstition?

I've put about two seconds' thought into this,

Cnorman, hopefully you will give the matter more thought and make a response that is more in character with the typical quality of your posts.

but the first thing that occurs to me is that religious belief is generally associated with some sort of tradition or institutional structure, whereas superstition just sort of hangs there in space apropos of nothing.

The superstitions, particularly those of earlier times, were apparently very traditional and institutionalized – very much like religion. (No difference noted)

There may be a history and tradition of sorts associated with a given superstition, as in the case of 13 mentioned on the other thread, but it's probable that few people who hold such a belief are aware of it.

Likewise, many people follow a religion with little awareness of its history and tradition. (No difference noted)

Also, while the reasons for religious belief might be hard to fathom for those who worship objective logic, there are at least reasons of some sort for it; superstitions are generally held for no discernible reason at all.

As you note, there are “reasons of some sort” associated with the “13 superstition” (some of which are based in Christianity). Is that superstition, then, a religion? (No difference noted)

The second thing that occurs to me is that the question itself is a wee tad bit insulting in its implications. An analogous question might be, "What, if anything, distinguishes atheism from nihilism?" though that doesn't carry quite the contemptuous overtones of "superstition."

What is “contemptuous” about the term “superstition”?

Is religion superior to superstition? In what way?

“Superstition” is defined by Merriam Webster as:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary”

[cnorman18]

.

What, if anything, distinguishes religion from superstition?

I've put about two seconds' thought into this,

Cnorman, hopefully you will give the matter more thought and make a response that is more in character with the typical quality of your posts.

I didn't give it a lot of thought because the question doesn't require it. See below.

but the first thing that occurs to me is that religious belief is generally associated with some sort of tradition or institutional structure, whereas superstition just sort of hangs there in space apropos of nothing.

The superstitions, particularly those of earlier times, were apparently very traditional and institutionalized – very much like religion. (No difference noted)

Perhaps in ancient times, though I find even that doubtful. In the present day, I know of no institution organized around the fear of black cats, or of the number 13, or of walking under ladders. I know of no advanced academic degrees being offered by institutions of higher learning in the field of not stepping on sidewalk cracks. I see no church hierarchies or television networks, fatuous, venal or otherwise, devoted to either not breaking mirrors or finding four-leaved clovers. (Difference noted.)

There may be a history and tradition of sorts associated with a given superstition, as in the case of 13 mentioned on the other thread, but it's probable that few people who hold such a belief are aware of it.

Likewise, many people follow a religion with little awareness of its history and tradition. (No difference noted)

Oh, I think most Jews have heard of Moses and the Exodus, and I suspect that most Christians know a bit about the life and death of Jesus. On the other hand, can you think of a superstition, other than that surrounding the number 13, that has any history or tradition around it at all?

(The speculation about the association of 13 with the "Last Supper," incidentally, is just that; speculation. It is hardly a matter of established fact OR tradition. Since the number 13 was associated with death by the ancient Egyptians, and since the superstition about 13 at the table being bad luck also appears in pre-Christian Norse mythology, the association with Jesus is likely to be more a matter of coincidence than of origin.)

(Difference noted.)

Also, while the reasons for religious belief might be hard to fathom for those who worship objective logic, there are at least reasons of some sort for it; superstitions are generally held for no discernible reason at all.

As you note, there are “reasons of some sort” associated with the “13 superstition” (some of which are based in Christianity). Is that superstition, then, a religion? (No difference noted)

No. See above.

(Difference noted, and in detail.)

The second thing that occurs to me is that the question itself is a wee tad bit insulting in its implications. An analogous question might be, "What, if anything, distinguishes atheism from nihilism?" though that doesn't carry quite the contemptuous overtones of "superstition."

What is “contemptuous” about the term “superstition”?

Did you read the definition of "superstition" that you posted yourself below?

"...ignorance... fear... trust in magic or chance... false conception... irrational... abject attitude... maintained despite evidence to the contrary..."

Hardly an attitude of tolerance and respect, I'd say. All those are PRECISE examples of the kind of contemptuous caricaturing and stereotyping of religion to which I strongly object. They apply quite well to superstition; to religion, they do not, or at least not universally.

Let me be clear here. I am happily willing to stipulate that these descriptions are very apt indeed when applied to SOME expressions of religion, particularly those of the young-Earth creationist and the literal-minded, unreflective fundamentalist sort. Applying them to ALL religion is just as bigoted as claiming that all Jews are schemers or that all Blacks are criminals, and for the same reasons.

Is religion superior to superstition? In what way?

Let me count the ways...

Religion can, has, and does exist not only as a set of beliefs, but as a field of academic study, theology, that dates back millenia. While it can be said that superstition has been a subject for academic study as well, there is no real comparison here. The body of literature associated with Christian theology alone dwarfs any such collection of materials about superstition by several orders of magnitude, as if comparing a shelf of books to a chain of libraries.

Religion is associated with structures that provide aid to the indigent, medical care to the ill, counseling and practical help to those afflicted by various problems from depression and divorce to drug addiction and victimization by crime, not to mention educational institutions from pre-Kindergarten through Ph.D. studies and beyond.

Superstition--none of the above apply.

Religion is associated with communities of belief and action, which provide fellowship, companionship, and opportunities for service, social interaction, and even political activity.

Superstition--none of the above apply.

Religion can, and does, provide a cognitive framework for understanding the structure, meaning and purpose of the Universe and of one's own existence.

Superstition cannot and does not.

Religion is, first and foremost, defined by most believers not as a mere set of intellectual (or even emotional) beliefs or ideas, but as a relationship between the believer and God. Whether or not this relationship is illusory is begging the question; the fact is that it is experienced as such by believers, and no such thing can be said of superstition.

Shall I go on? There is much more. The emotional and practical place of religious rituals, e.g., weddings and funerals; the structural and cultural importance of religious calendars and holidays; the lifestyle options provided by religious communities and occupations; the enormous body and tradition of literature and art associated with religion; and so on, and so on, and so on.

NONE of those can be said of superstition.

“Superstition” is defined by Merriam Webster as:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary”

And so it is.

Now let's take a look at Merriam-Webster on religion:

Main Entry
re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-Èli-jYn\ Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century 1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Okay, now let's make a quick check for the words and phrases noted earlier in the definition of "superstition":

Ignorance... No.
Fear... No.
Trust in magic or chance... No.
False conception... No.
Irrational... No.
Abject attitude... No.
Maintained despite evidence to the contrary... No.

0 for 7.

I rather suspect that this entire thread is a sort of Devil's advocate exercise, intended to provoke comment and discussion, as opposed to a serious proposition. Comparing religion to superstition is, on the face of it, about as sensible and rational as implying that the entire art and science of medicine has no more complexity or significance than the practice of squeezing one's zits. The only people who could take such a comparison seriously are doctrinaire anti-religious bigots and those who are, in spite of their detailed and loudly-stated opinions, incredibly ignorant and uninformed on the subject of actual religion, as opposed to the atheist-cartoon version.

You are far too rational and reasonable a person, Z, to indulge in that kind of fatuous nonsense.

OK, I spent a few more minutes thinking about this question, which was a few more than it deserved. Are we done now?

[cnorman18]

.

What, if anything, distinguishes religion from superstition?

I've put about two seconds' thought into this,

Cnorman, hopefully you will give the matter more thought and make a response that is more in character with the typical quality of your posts.

I didn't give it a lot of thought because the question doesn't require it. See below.

but the first thing that occurs to me is that religious belief is generally associated with some sort of tradition or institutional structure, whereas superstition just sort of hangs there in space apropos of nothing.

The superstitions, particularly those of earlier times, were apparently very traditional and institutionalized – very much like religion. (No difference noted)

Perhaps in ancient times, though I find even that doubtful. In the present day, I know of no institution organized around the fear of black cats, or of the number 13, or of walking under ladders. I know of no advanced academic degrees being offered by institutions of higher learning in the field of not stepping on sidewalk cracks. I see no church hierarchies or television networks, fatuous, venal or otherwise, devoted to either not breaking mirrors or finding four-leaved clovers. (Difference noted.)

There may be a history and tradition of sorts associated with a given superstition, as in the case of 13 mentioned on the other thread, but it's probable that few people who hold such a belief are aware of it.

Likewise, many people follow a religion with little awareness of its history and tradition. (No difference noted)

Oh, I think most Jews have heard of Moses and the Exodus, and I suspect that most Christians know a bit about the life and death of Jesus. On the other hand, can you think of a superstition, other than that surrounding the number 13, that has any history or tradition around it at all?

(The speculation about the association of 13 with the "Last Supper," incidentally, is just that; speculation. It is hardly a matter of established fact OR tradition. Since the number 13 was associated with death by the ancient Egyptians, and since the superstition about 13 at the table being bad luck also appears in pre-Christian Norse mythology, the association with Jesus is likely to be more a matter of coincidence than of origin.)

(Difference noted.)

Also, while the reasons for religious belief might be hard to fathom for those who worship objective logic, there are at least reasons of some sort for it; superstitions are generally held for no discernible reason at all.

As you note, there are “reasons of some sort” associated with the “13 superstition” (some of which are based in Christianity). Is that superstition, then, a religion? (No difference noted)

No. See above.

(Difference noted, and in detail.)

The second thing that occurs to me is that the question itself is a wee tad bit insulting in its implications. An analogous question might be, "What, if anything, distinguishes atheism from nihilism?" though that doesn't carry quite the contemptuous overtones of "superstition."

What is “contemptuous” about the term “superstition”?

Did you read the definition of "superstition" that you posted yourself below?

"...ignorance... fear... trust in magic or chance... false conception... irrational... abject attitude... maintained despite evidence to the contrary..."

Hardly an attitude of tolerance and respect, I'd say. All those are PRECISE examples of the kind of contemptuous caricaturing and stereotyping of religion to which I strongly object. They apply quite well to superstition; to religion, they do not, or at least not universally.

Let me be clear here. I am happily willing to stipulate that these descriptions are very apt indeed when applied to SOME expressions of religion, particularly those of the young-Earth creationist and the literal-minded, unreflective fundamentalist sort. Applying them to ALL religion is just as bigoted as claiming that all Jews are schemers or that all Blacks are criminals, and for the same reasons.

Is religion superior to superstition? In what way?

Let me count the ways...

Religion can, has, and does exist not only as a set of beliefs, but as a field of academic study, theology, that dates back millenia. While it can be said that superstition has been a subject for academic study as well, there is no real comparison here. The body of literature associated with Christian theology alone dwarfs any such collection of materials about superstition by several orders of magnitude, as if comparing a shelf of books to a chain of libraries.

Religion is associated with structures that provide aid to the indigent, medical care to the ill, counseling and practical help to those afflicted by various problems from depression and divorce to drug addiction and victimization by crime, not to mention educational institutions from pre-Kindergarten through Ph.D. studies and beyond.

Superstition--none of the above apply.

Religion is associated with communities of belief and action, which provide fellowship, companionship, and opportunities for service, social interaction, and even political activity.

Superstition--none of the above apply.

Religion can, and does, provide a cognitive framework for understanding the structure, meaning and purpose of the Universe and of one's own existence.

Superstition cannot and does not.

Religion is, first and foremost, defined by most believers not as a mere set of intellectual (or even emotional) beliefs or ideas, but as a relationship between the believer and God. Whether or not this relationship is illusory is begging the question; the fact is that it is experienced as such by believers, and no such thing can be said of superstition.

Shall I go on? There is much more. The emotional and practical place of religious rituals, e.g., weddings and funerals; the structural and cultural importance of religious calendars and holidays; the lifestyle options provided by religious communities and occupations; the enormous body and tradition of literature and art associated with religion; and so on, and so on, and so on.

NONE of those can be said of superstition.

“Superstition” is defined by Merriam Webster as:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary”

And so it is.

Now let's take a look at Merriam-Webster on religion:

Main Entry
re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-Èli-jYn\ Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century 1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Okay, now let's make a quick check for the words and phrases noted earlier in the definition of "superstition":

Ignorance... No.
Fear... No.
Trust in magic or chance... No.
False conception... No.
Irrational... No.
Abject attitude... No.
Maintained despite evidence to the contrary... No.

0 for 7.

I rather suspect that this entire thread is a sort of Devil's advocate exercise, intended to provoke comment and discussion, as opposed to a serious proposition. Comparing religion to superstition is, on the face of it, about as sensible and rational as implying that the entire art and science of medicine has no more complexity or significance than the practice of squeezing one's zits. The only people who could take such a comparison seriously are doctrinaire anti-religious bigots and those who are, in spite of their detailed and loudly-stated opinions, incredibly ignorant and uninformed on the subject of actual religion, as opposed to the atheist-cartoon version.

You are far too rational and reasonable a person, Z, to indulge in that kind of fatuous nonsense.

OK, I spent a few more minutes thinking about this question, which was a few more than it deserved. Are we done now?