I am

Or more explicitly, why is it better to believe in an undesireable idea well suported by science than a desireable yet unsupported idea?

I was speaking to a coworker last week about Jhon Edward. Unfortunately, I promptly ridiculed her for believing in such nonsense. To make up for my hostility, I authored a very calm and reasoned disproof of his powers, taking special care not to offend my coworkers beliefs. I was so sure that I had made an impression on this person. And as it turns out I was right, she admitted that I had provided to her all the proof she needed to say conclusively that I was correct and Jhon Edwards was a liar actively flecing anyone whom would give him the time of day. This should be the end of the story right? No! She told me that even though it was not true, she and others are justified in their belief because it provides a needed comfort in their lives. She cited the same reason for her belief in God when I asked.

I could easily cite the wrongs commited by religious fudementalists, the unnessisary deaths caused by the refusal of modern medicine, etc. but I fear this would only push her away and I find these reasons uncompelling myself.

Since a child I have always had a reverence for science. It's success in uncovering fundemental truthes and the subsequent technological developments are unparalleled. So I very much want to have a good answer for her, to defend by beloved friend - science.

Thanks,
Steve

I am

I was thinking of drawing a distinction between unsupported and disproven ideas to allow her to discredit Jhon without giving up hope in God. But I hate to strengthen her faith when I see it as nearly anti-productive as her belief in Jhon's powers. Am I falling for the same mode of reasoning?

I would like to think not.

Bible Humper

My mother somehow has convinced herself that there is a Heaven..... despite being an atheist! She genuinely believes that she will see her mother and father in Heaven after she dies. Clearly, this belief is grounded in the comfort it gives her and nothing else, and it would not be a difficult task to challenge her faith.

I would not even consider challenging her belief.

Ignorance is bliss, so they say, and my mother and your co-worker prove the saying true. What is there for them to possibly gain that is even remotely equal what they will lose?

"The truth for the sake of the truth" is justification enough to only the truth-seeker, and even he must beware his potential for "seeing what he wants to see, rather than what is there to be seen".

Synaesthesia

Because Mao says that religion is poison, and we believe whatever Mao says.

Troma

It's interesting that you mention that. I recently became I guess what you could call a "half fledged skeptic", ie, I read a book or two on critical thinking

After I learned to spot bullshit halfway effectively, I figured other people would be grateful when I showed them the lack of evidence or why their beliefs in the supernatural don't hold up. I was wrong on so many levels...

It turns out people don't want to hear the skeptics side of things! That still surprises me, I mean it's not like we rain on peoples parades or anyth... oh wait, uh, I guess we do...

Godless Dave

Most people would rather be happy than right. Sceptics would rather be right than happy, but in most cases being right makes us happy anyway.

AtlanticCitySlave

Superstition is bad when it interferes with social life and gets in the way of truth, since while superstition can lead one to be happy, it more often leads to someone being unhappy, since superstition is not based on reason and it is reason that has the best shot of bringing us happiness.
Of course, I certainly agree that it is often wrong to argue with people who are superstitious. My mother is a Christian and I never discuss God with her. Even if her and my brother are having a mini-debate about something I know to never get involved, because it will just end up hurting her feelings and really upsetting her. I don't mind this simply because my mom lives her life and let's others live theirs. She only says "I'll be praying for you" to people she knows are religious, she never pushes religion on us, etc. I'm not sure if she does this on purpose or if she just manages to avoid it so nicely.
It seems that we value truth simply for the fact that it is truth. Sure, there are many people who wouldn't want to know if their husband/wife is cheating on them and they would like to live in a lie, but the majority of us probably would. Sure, there are people who live superstitious lives and believe in God just because "they want to" (as an old girlfriend used to say to me), but I personally find the pursuit of truth more fulfilling than the pursuit of happiness and beneficial supports.
Basically, since I'm rambling, superstition in bad when it gets in the way of intellectual progress and the pursuit of truth, i.e. having a astrologer demand to teach psych. courses at a University would be an example.

Mr. Sammi

What about probablistic superstition?
There should be at least 50% chance of an extant Diety.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Jamie_L

I had this exact same conversation with a good friend of mine. It bugged me too. Do people really believe financial fraud is OK if it makes you feel good?

First, thoughts on superstition in general:

Superstition survives through non-critical thinking - faith in the face of contradictory evidence, or at least faith with nothing good to base it on.

Generally speaking, this is a dangerous way to live your life. It allows you to be easily manipulated by everything from charlatans to advertisers. It can lead to unreasoning fear or calm complacency in the face of real danger.

Thoughts on fraud:

John Edwards specifically bilks money out of people with lies. In business, that is called fraud, and it's illegal regardless of whether it makes you feel good or not. Further, Edwards knowingly leads people into a fantasy world where they are dependent on his (fabricated) version of an afterlife rather than letting them face their losses and get on with a healing process.

I'm sure David Khoresh made the Branch Dividians feel good. Snake oil salesmen may have actually made people feel better by virtue of the placebo effect. Does that make it OK? If a TV preacher takes donations from people and spends in on blackjack and hookers, is that okay as long as the people who gave him their hard-earned money "feel good"?

Jamie

I am

Well after reading the first day's worth of responses, I wonder if I should re-title this thread to "Is superstition bad?".

I have decided to sever the conversation with my coworker, at least for now. She didn't seem to upset by that, but it still doesn't sit well with me.

I can come up with reason after reason for the preference of science to superstition in society as a whole, but none have come to mind that are aplicable to an individual. I should note here that I do not accept the tenets of altruism, so I cannot argue to "take one for the team". As Jamie said "It [superstition] allows you to be easily manipulated", but is this the best defense of science we can come up with? What if the person in question is willing to be mislead? Do I have the right to tell this person how to live her life? I will refuse to do so if I have no better reason that my own will (else, how would I claim moral high ground ).

P.S. I hate to sound like the pickiest person in the world, but Sammi, if the probability is greater that 50% it is not really superstition now is it.