30 Aug 11
Philosopher Mortimer J Adler once said:
"The increase of secularism and irreligion in our society does not reflect a decrease in the number of persons who are truly religious, but a decrease in the number of those who are falsely religious; that is, merely superstitious. There is no question but that science is the cure for superstition, and, if given half the chance with education, it will reduce the amount that exists. The truths of religion must be compatible with the truths of science and the truths of philosophy. As scientific knowledge advances, and as philosophical analysis improves, religion is progressively purified of the superstitions that accidentally attach themselves to it as parasites. That being so, it is easier in fact to be more truly religious today than ever before, precisely because of the advances that have been made in science and philosophy. That is to say, it is easier for those who will make the effort to think clearly in and about religion, not for those whose addiction to religion is nothing more than a slavish adherence to inherited superstition. Throughout the whole of the past, only a small number of men were ever truly religious. The vast majority who gave their epochs and their societies the appearance of being religious were primarily and essentially superstitious.”
Does anyone agree with this analysis?
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by generalissimoSo how many people are religious and not superstitious? Does it matter?
Philosopher Mortimer J Adler once said:
"The increase of secularism and irreligion in our society does not reflect a decrease in the number of persons who are truly religious, but a decrease in the number of those who are falsely religious; that is, merely superstitious. There is no question but that science is the cure for superstition, and, if ...[text shortened]... ous were primarily and essentially superstitious.”
Does anyone agree with this analysis?
If superstitious people are in the majority in a democracy, it leads to draconian measures to ameliorate their built in superstitions, leading to such events as the Salem Witch trials or other barbaric trials, such as holding someone underwater to see if they are in league with the devil, if they survive they are with the devil and they are killed, if they drown, they were not of the devil, poor woman.
But advances in science and philosophy have to reach the majority, not limited to geek journals if said advances are to reach the superstitious and have any change of changing them.
I for one would be suspicious of anyone claiming to have lost some treasured superstition as the result of reading more refined philosophic essays or new science proving the old wrong and thus removing some block to releasing said superstition, whatever that may have been.
I don't think people with deep felt superstitions would ever change, as a percentage of similar minded folk, maybe a few percent would see the light and cast off the superstition binding them but I think people, especially the older they are, would hang on to their precious superstitions ever the harder in light of newer knowledge, be it in science or philosophy. Besides, most people read at about an 9th grade level anyway and any refined philosophic treatise would likely go over their heads and thus not reach them.
With that in mind, it looks to me like the real superstition buster is better education and not letting right wing christian nut jobs, for instance, force the superstition of creationism to be taught in a science classroom as some kind of fantasy rebuttal of evolution.
That IMHO is where the crux of the issue lies, better education, better teachers, reaching the young before superstition can get buried in the young psyche.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by generalissimoI agree with the concept, except that it leaves two islands full of people. Those he describes as truly religions, and those who hold to the superstitions. I looked for a date when he said this, and couldn't find it. Can you?
Philosopher Mortimer J Adler once said:
"The increase of secularism and irreligion in our society does not reflect a decrease in the number of persons who are truly religious, but a decrease in the number of those who are falsely religious; that is, merely superstitious. There is no question but that science is the cure for superstition, and, if ...[text shortened]... ous were primarily and essentially superstitious.”
Does anyone agree with this analysis?
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by generalissimoI agree with the statement but would rather use the term "spiritual" to indicate those not superstitious but touching spiritual reality.
Philosopher Mortimer J Adler once said:
"The increase of secularism and irreligion in our society does not reflect a decrease in the number of persons who are truly religious, but a decrease in the number of those who are falsely religious; that is, merely superstitious. There is no question but that science is the cure for superstition, and, if ...[text shortened]... ous were primarily and essentially superstitious.”
Does anyone agree with this analysis?
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by generalissimoWhat superstitions has science help end?
Philosopher Mortimer J Adler once said:
"The increase of secularism and irreligion in our society does not reflect a decrease in the number of persons who are truly religious, but a decrease in the number of those who are falsely religious; that is, merely superstitious. There is no question but that science is the cure for superstition, and, if ...[text shortened]... ous were primarily and essentially superstitious.”
Does anyone agree with this analysis?
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by generalissimoEverything stated above is true if it is speaking of false religion.
Philosopher Mortimer J Adler once said:
"The increase of secularism and irreligion in our society does not reflect a decrease in the number of persons who are truly religious, but a decrease in the number of those who are falsely religious; that is, merely superstitious. There is no question but that science is the cure for superstition, and, if ...[text shortened]... ous were primarily and essentially superstitious.”
Does anyone agree with this analysis?
And everything presented is false when concerned with true religion.
You are correct about the superstitious beliefs standing in as knowledge in false religion but there is no superstition attributed where true religion is concerned.
In fact true religion high-lights the superstitious standing of false science and false religion alike.
The problem is that no persons know the difference between true and false religion.
True religion is "sanatana dhama" and is represented by the Vedas.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by Dasa"The problem is that no persons know the difference between true and false religion."
Everything stated above is true if it is speaking of false religion.
And everything presented is false when concerned with true religion.
You are correct about the superstitious beliefs standing in as knowledge in false religion but there is no superstition attributed where true religion is concerned.
In fact true religion high-lights the superstitious ...[text shortened]... true and false religion.
True religion is "sanatana dhama" and is represented by the Vedas.
"True religion is "sanatana dhama" and is represented by the Vedas."
The logical implication of the above is that the speaker is not a person.
30 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaThis statement is only subjectively 'true' for those, like yourself, who choose to submit to the "authority" of the Vedas. Your assertions have no significance for people who do not acknowledge that "authority". Perhaps, instead, we can look at your demeanour and behaviour towards others and decide whether we want to emulate your kindness, love and tolerance, and share in your insights and sense of balance - and, if we do - if we want to become more like you - then perhaps we have the option of investigating the "authority" of the Vedas. Meanwhile your constant mixture of assertions and personal abuse are most likely simply turning people away from the "spiritual" path you travel on.
True religion is "sanatana dhama" and is represented by the Vedas.
30 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by generalissimoI believe the reason the children of Adam and Eve became superstitious
Philosopher Mortimer J Adler once said:
"The increase of secularism and irreligion in our society does not reflect a decrease in the number of persons who are truly religious, but a decrease in the number of those who are falsely religious; that is, merely superstitious. There is no question but that science is the cure for superstition, and, if ...[text shortened]... ous were primarily and essentially superstitious.”
Does anyone agree with this analysis?
is because they had heard of the invisible spirit world and God from
their parents. Since Adam and Eve had become afraid of God's judgment
they transferred this fear to their children. Many of the children did
not understand and passed on to their children the superstitions that they
had imagined from their lack of knowledge about this unseen spirit world.