Besides the fact of human intelligence and therefore vigilance, it seems to me the mechanism of denial (how do we manage to do rash things anyway?) contributes to superstition.
We might learn, through long practice, to recognize when something like preknowledge is kicking, trying to get born.
We don’t credit whatever it is. We don’t want to think of it. So we get a headache. “Whatever it is” has to be looked at squarely before you can dislodge it.
So preknowledge, sort of animal cognition, exists, even though we think we are wholly conscious.

Bruce, In your opinion is the divide brtween instinct and supernatural sense? I believe that “9 out of 10 people can sense being watched” is instinctive. However, I also believe that we “draw” our luck and bad luck to us, as well.

Extraordinary Knowing is a phenomena that most people have experienced, and yet most of these people also find at least some way to disavow, and attribute it to some form of luck. The study of intuition is something that people have dabbled at through the ages, but only recently has anyone suggested more extensive studies that do everything possible to not interfere with the intuitive process. I believe that this is an incredibly difficult thing to attempt, but well worth it.

I’m sorry, I joined the show late. If it hasn’t been brought up, I wonder if Mr. Hood has done any correlation analysis between superstition and religious belief.

Sorry about the typo in the previous post…
My question being; where do you see the divide between instinct and the energy of supernatural?
I really do believe we are linked by a thread of connectivity, that whether we believe it , or not, we all react to, on some level. All of the “joojoo” that we do – are primal or instinctive drives…we are spiritual by nature, and we all have those drives to a more or less degree…don’t you think?

I certainly wouldn’t want to wear Jeffrey Dahmer’s raincoat and my initial response, I think, would feel, at least to me, intuitive, but it wouldn’t be motivated by any sort of metaphysical or supernatural aversion — it would stem from not wanting to be considered by others to be the sort of person that would be fascinated, intrigued, or interested in giving energy or in any way elevating the status of a cannibal/murderer.

It gets even more complex when it’s just me in the equation and there are no onlookers to be considered. What would I be telling myself by acknowledging that I might be interested in cloaking myself in the garments of Jeffrey Dahmer?

In short, the social/personal implications are the creepy part — not the this-raincoat-was-worn-by-a-killer part.

“Holly” observed that some objects (Dahmer’s raincoat) were symbolic, and that superstition had no part in refusing to wear them. I believe she’s on target: we invest a great deal of meaning and importance in a certain arrangement of stars and stripes on cloth, and call it the flag. Dahmer’s raincoat has been assigned meaning is a reverse valuation sort of way.

As to whether or not humans can somehow become aware that they’re being observed from behind, I wonder if this has ever been actually tested. It’s all very well to scoff, but there are more things in this world than are dreamed of in some folks’ world view.

This bit about essential properties was quite confusing. Tom was right to note that being an essential property is different from being a symbolic property. But Jeffrey was incorrect to say that being an essential property is the same as being a property associated with something. An essential property is the kind of property that something can’t lack; not so for an associated property.

Also, I’m a bit confused about what Jeffrey means by ‘physical’ or ‘material’ properties. He used the Ship of Theseus case to argue that we are psychologically inclined to think that there is some sort of property of ‘being that ship’ which is independent of the physical properties of the ship itself. But if anything is a ‘physical’ property, isn’t being a ship a physical property?

About the Ship of Theseus. I think you have drawn the wrong conclusion. There is no matter in common between an infant and the 100-year-old he grows into. Yet, certainly it is the same person. The road that branches, changes names, goes through various states is still the same road.
And, yes, it’s still the same ship. There are many examples like this.

The point isn’t to show that people believe impossible things. The point is that we use words in ways too complex to be defined by purely materialistic explanations. There is something about continuity though space and time which seems to be important to language and our concept of objects and even of our own identities.

This is a very old and deep philosophical problem and doesn’t deserve to be lumped with the other examples of belief in the unscientific.

Are people not aware that this is a prerecorded show?
The show was aired April 10, 2009.

Well this has been a pleasant post-Christmas present Thanks Tom and all those at “On Point” for re-broadcasting this interview. I am happy to try and answer some questions here for you.

Dear Liz,
I am a skeptic and do not believe that there is any reliable evidence for the energies you talk about BUT I would agree that science only has an incomplete picture of the complexity of the universe – what science is attempting to do is fill in the missing picture usually reliable methodologies which at present do not support the sorts of connecting energies you ask about – there again, science is always updating.

Dear BHA,
No I haven’t done the correlation between religion and superstition but of course, all religions have a supernatural component – in which case you could argue that they are correlated – HOWEVER, not all atheists do not believe in supernatural activity. So it is still an interesting question as to why some do and some don’t – I try to address this in the book.

Best
Bruce

Who’s to say that supernatural, religious beliefs…. aren’t manifestations of our ability to see ever so slightly into another dimension, bridging the gap between science and the make believe that isn’t quite so make believe?

They say there are at least ten dimensions. Three of which we can see. What about the rest?

Hi,
I think we can know if somebody is watching us from behind if that person has an intent or reason for watching us. In such cases, we tend to turn and look directly at that person even if there are many behind us. Science does need to catch up!

Otherwise, if millions watch us from behind in a crowd, we don’t know or care care to know.
Regards,
Neeraj

Dear Mr Independent,
It may be a pre-recorded interview but I am here to answer questions if anyone wants to ask!
Bruce

I study monkeys in Costa Rica and have a general interest in animal behavior. I think there is an evolutionary precursor to ritual behavior which is born out of habitual patterns in animals: cats have a daily pattern they follow (I can tell time by the location of my cat. Cows and deer have such routinized ranging patterns that they leave tracks in the ground. There is a sort of “obsessive” aspect to the grooming seen in cats and monkeys that is focused and preoccupied like religious thought. These kinds of animal behavior also make me think of the ritualized behavior of autistic and mentally impaired humans.

John, you make a good point about spatial and temporal continuity re: the ship of theseus case. My question is this: why wouldn’t spatial and temporal continuity qualify in giving a material explanation of the persisting property of ‘being the ship of theseus’? After all, ‘physical explanations’ certainly appeal to relational properties all the time (being x meters from the sun, occurring a month after the first snowfall of the year). These seem like perfectly acceptable physical properties.

It is my sense that science and technology itself is viewed by most people supernaturally, even as they believe they are being totally rational and logical.
I have argued technology is the true dynamic religion of today: people believe and ave faith in technology, and those who don’t are otside the herd, despite the fact it has created more problems than anything else, the atom bomb is just the most obvious.
Much technology talk today is mumbo-jumbo, not much different from the 14th century, perhaps more dangerous, only becasue of the scale things happen on today.

It is Mr. Hood’s superstition to believe that if something cannot be empirically verified, it is not real. There is (and could be) no empirical evidence for that belief. This is fortunate, because to take it seriously one would have to conclude that no being other than oneself has subjective consciousness (which can be known only by experience, from the inside).

This tendency to believe the incredible (superstition, fairy tales, god, etc.) has negative real world implications. For example, public policy should be fact-based and rational. But appeals to emotion and irrational beliefs are as likely to move public opinion and public polity as any appeal to reason. I find it sad.

There have been so many cases where superstitions of India were laughed at till scientists who laughed at them found a scientific reasoning behind them.

If something works and science cannot explain, we should be laughing at science.

When we had the meltdown on Wall street, we asked how such smart people could screw you. What we should have asked is, why did we assume those morons were smart!

Psychokinesis
It is very difficult to prove a negative. Showing something does not exist can only be done by considerable statistical evidence. It is normally difficult to generate large numbers of experiments under many conditions at many times. However sometimes such opportunities exist.

It is my contention that if there were any possibility that psychokinesis was real, there would be large numbers of pregnant young girls.

This is not a contest between the rational and the irrational . We are simply looking at the differing phenomenolgy of the two hemispheres of the brain. The right hemisphere dominant mode of perception is wholistic intuitive and synchronistic, underlying magical phenomena. It is as rational followignits own rules of organizing information. Irrationality is something quite different that arises from the unconscious and is preational

@ John Ruttenberg:

I agree; your rationale on the ship example makes perfect sense.

Bruce,

Fascinating topic. You seem to focus on superstitious beliefs… Are you allied with Skeptical Inquirer? Just because neuroscience can offer AN EXPLANATION for certain supernatural type phenomenon, does not mean that it is the final or definitive explanation. Would you agree or disagree Bruce?

One more thing about animal instinct, which in the show was presented, to my mind, as the child’s point of view, sort of the untutored, what-have-my-parents-done-lately point of view.
I am reminded of the capacity to sketch, to draw, a kind of creativity that researchers say we lose, let go of as we age.
So the child’s point of view, the animal precognition, has its value. Just as the ability to draw — to WANT to draw, knowing how our own drawings “distort” compared to photos, say — that has value.
You might not even KNOW you “have a hunch,” because it hasn’t entered your mind the way a totally validated idea or perception has. Something has gotten shunted aside, but the nervous system still has ahold of it. And the nervous system might just be right. It’s the kind of thing where if someone isn’t too ashamed of the apperception, they could relay it to someone who DOES possess the missing bits of information and compile something really useful.
Or not.
So maybe “animal cognition” functions when “animal communication” (subtle scents?) are also functioning. It’s partial knowledge. Knowledge that needs to be communicated in order to make sense of — and along the way, you may be the great fool, so.

Mr. Independent: I get the feeling that you believe that because the show was broadcast earlier in the year, the questions the program raises no longer exist — is that a fair summary of your feelings?

In India when a big strong building is made, they put small visible sign of imperfection. The reason is reverence to God and to indicate we have not become too proud. Apparently, they were a little too arrogant with the unsinkable. Some day science will catch up.

Mr. Hood

Has it been considered that at the dawn of modern man, the fight or flight mechanism worked in conjuntion with the natural selection of those who believed they could, against all odds, escape the jaws of a predator? Those who didn’t believe they could escape, didn’t. With time the survivors could evolve genetically into those who are inherently inclined to believe one can actually escape death itself, and now we have those whose brains demand the belief in the afterlife. Would not this agree with your contention that superstition is evolutionary?

Dear Joel,
Association (symbolism) is part of the mechanism but it is not the full answer. For some (not all) there is a real fear of contamination – hence all the cleansing rituals you find universally – now you might want to say that is just association again BUT association becomes a circular argument in that case of little explanatory power.

Dear David,
Yes, the staring from behind experiments have been done and while some claim significant results (in particular Rupert Sheldrake) most cannot replicate his findings which would require a new understanding of energies if true.

Dear ER,
Essentialism is not easy but the basic idea is that we infer an additional property over and beyond the material composition. If I replaced every particle of something over time so that it contained NO original material, most would still regard it as the same object (depending on how the replacement was done). Therefore, identity is not based on material composition.

Hope this helps.

Bruce

I don’t understand why we have to talk about scientific explanations as separate from superstition? To give an example: When Newton came up with his laws of notion, did he say that they apply to a particular planet? To his London? No, he discovered universal laws of motion. The reason he discovered universal laws of motion is because he believed that the one God has created these laws and that the entire universe obeys them. Is this experimental? Surely not. He couldn’t have done enough experiments.

What about mathematics, the foundation of science? It is not discoverable out there. It is discoverable only in our minds. We have axioms that must be accepted without proof. Science is based on it. We don’t even know whether it is self contradictory. Therefore, the very foundation of science is superstition.

Bruce: I feel as though you didn’t really properly address some of the non-supernatural-ish reasons/motivations for actions that were offered here and on the program.

John Ruttenberg, who posted earlier, pointed out that a lot of these discussions come down to the fact that our language really falls short when complex philosophical concepts/Sorites-like paradoxes come up.

There’s also the point that I made above, which was echoed by a caller on the program: There is a certain cultural weight assigned to different topics or items in our society. I wouldn’t want to wear Dahmer’s raincoat because of what it might say about me and my interests. Whatever makes us feel unsettled about an acquaintance with a fetish for true-crime artifacts is the same thing that makes me not want to wear the raincoat. I don’t consider myself to be a cannibalism/murder enthusiast, so I go out of my way to not put myself in positions or align my interests and activities with items or events that might suggest otherwise.

Dear Russ,
I have recently joined the board of the UK version and I do consider myself a skeptic…hopefully not a cynic! In the book, I make an argument that we all have the capacity for such thinking and that may not be a bad thing.
As to your specific question, I try to understand the reason why people have beliefs that are not easily attributable to cultural transmission so in that sense I want to explain belief. I just assume that the phenomena I address have not been verified scientifically so one has to answer the fundamental question behind all of this – Why do so many people believe in things that are so evasive and not open to replication or scientific investigation.

Dear William,
I have heard variations of your point but like many such evolutionary arguments for human traits they are difficult to prove – that doesn’t make them wrong though.

Bruce

Tom and Dr. Hood, a most fascinating topic. I have been reading Robert Wright’s books on evolutionary psychology, “The Moral Animal” and “The Evolution of God,” in which he proposes that the idea of god comes from the tendency of man to realize that survivorship is helped by working together-unfortunately, while beginning to change, tolerance to others usually means other like ourselves, not universal tolerance. Great show, Thanks
Bob

Mr. Mudrets :
“Therefore, the very foundation of science is superstition.”

A HUGE leap I would say. Mathematics, like physics, yields repeatable results. You can’t say the same about people’s superstitious actions such as wearing a specific article of clothing or tapping the end of your bat ‘x’ times before getting in the batter’s box.

Mr. Hood – THANK YOU for ‘tuning in’ for the repeat show and answering our questions!!!!

Dear Joel
Its really hard to answer in these comment boxes but let me try re: Ship of Theseus

Yes, the human infant is still the same even though it changes. (BTW did you know that almost all human cells are replaced several times within a lifetime).

It is not simply an issue of language and we know this from thought experiments.

If we replace every particle of the ship – is it still the same ship? – yes you say. Ok, let us re-assemble all the matter we replaced. – we now have two ships – which is the Ship of Theseus?
Ok lets make the replacement instantaneous – Is it still the same ship?
Or how about we duplicate but destroy the original –
as you can appreciate there are many variations on these thought experiments – the point is that most people reason that identity is contained in something over and beyond the material and that is psychological essentialism.

In any event I hope this has been food for thought.

All the best

Bruce

Re-the Ship of Theseus: It simply is a language problem. If we had a word that meant “ship with (n) boards missing.” there wouldn’t be a Ship of Theseus paradox.

Dear Bruce – one of the most troubling things about the entire proclivity to put all such phenomena into one big blender is that that proclivity is itself inherently unscientific. moreover, people who label themselves scientists make such claims because they have conformed to human rituals of academia that result in a piece of paper called a degree, and as such feel certified to make claims regarding “reality” as though they have more weight than any individual anywhere in the world who directly perceives the experience of existing in this cosmos. the very word “superstitious” is inherently pejorative. a pivotal aspect in this discussion is scientific experimentation and verification, with at least the possibility of falsifiability. along those lines, a key question is how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on research for mass producable or pragmatic end goals, vs how much has been spent – really – in an earnest attempt to study the kind of phenomena we are contemplating here. the Large Hadron Collider alone cost $9 billion. how much has been truly spent devising scientific experiments on the subjects we are discussing here. relatively little. when pre-Socratic natural philosophers Leucippus and Democritus proposed atomism, that was thousands of years before any technology existed to test the idea that the universe is comprised of fundamental building blocks to small for the eye to see. until hundreds of billions are spent in research of this area, one would think to be more cautious about proclaiming either knowledge or even personal disposition regarding the nature of the reality within which we are immersed. any study with the fabricated dichotomy between natural vs supernatural is where the problem starts. if some larger former of Being exists throughout the cosmos, that Being is completely natural, and we are all just subsets of that nature. using the concepts supernatural or superstitious automatically set any credible study of this area down a wrong path, prejudiced from the outset.

The other thing is how our brains work. The chemicals in our brains and how our brains are functioning is also an issue. Who is to say that when some religious sage of the past says they had some kind of spiritual “awakening” they are not just having a moment of a chemical imbalance in their brain. Possibly brought about by malnutrition or some kind of vitamin deficiency.

I’m very skeptical of anything spiritual but I do respect peoples beliefs and if this is what gets them through the day, well so be it.

My father passed away almost a year ago. In the days before he died he was mostly unconscious and he did not exhibit anything that one could say was spiritual in nature. In fact he died in his sleep and was mostly losing his ability to keep going. This was function of several physiological things happening at the same time. I was not present when he passed, but he lost consciousness and that was it. There was nothing else, no spiritual awakening. Basically he died from old age, the complications of diabetes which resulted in his developing pneumonia. What I witnessed was a person losing a sense of self and the ability to even know where he was. Nothing spiritual, just illness and loss.

Mr. Hood leaves out another alternative. The ship of Theseus is a good example. There are conceptually pragmatic reasons for speakimg of it as the same ship, even with the replacement of parts. Think what we would be up against if we had to speak of Ship-stage #1, Ship- stage #2,…Ship-stage #n! Mr. Hood mistakenly leave no alternative between out beliefes being either scientifically based or else based on some other obscure “psychological” inclination to be supstitiouns.

“Therefore, the very foundation of science is superstition.”

“A HUGE leap I would say. Mathematics, like physics, yields repeatable results. You can’t say the same about people’s superstitious actions such as wearing a specific article of clothing or tapping the end of your bat ‘x’ times before getting in the batter’s box.”

One can, I suppose, say that physics experiments are repeatable. The trouble is that hardly anybody ever repeats them. With so many papers being published every year – who has the funding? Who has the time? Mathematics is not about out there as I said. Furthermore, it is based on a fundamental belief that it actually doesn’t self contradict – a leap of faith that can’t be proven (except in very limited cases). It also relies on axioms – that have to be accepted on a leap of faith. As far as repeatability is concerned, just because you saw something repeated 100 times, doesn’t mean it’ll work on 101st. Just because a man lives for 100 years, doesn’t mean he’ll live 101 years. Wouldn’t you say that 100 years is very repeatable.

Furthermore, single time occurrences aren’t as bad as you suggest. You, for example are a single time occurrence. And so am I. Unless the universe is infinite and allows for this kind of thing, we can be sure that we will never be repeated with a reasonable level of certainty.

The author suggested that superstition is not just about peoples’ response to randomness. He suggested that even believing that you can tell when somebody is watching you is a superstition. That kind of superstition is very repeatable. Furthermore, if people repeat the same rituals and get the similar results, by definition that is also repeatable. The author even suggested that if you don’t allow the person to go through the ritual, he will not perform just as well. So why is repeatability such a distinguishing characteristic between science and superstition?

By the way, I’m not implying that there is something fundamentally wrong with science – just with the way people think about science.

I had missed the show when it aired back in April but found the topic interesting and pertinent to many of the discussions from On Point programs recently, particularly those which have pertained in some way to religion and spirituality.

I liked that the one caller brought up how we humans utilize symbolism and how that is an evolved way in which we use our brains. Symbolism indicates the presence of an abstract idea and how that is represented in the embodiment of an object/a more concretely manifested concept/artistic expression/in a ritualized behavior. How we think about money and what that represents to us comes to mind, as well as the more obvious uses in the practice of religion and spirituality. Science also comes to mind in that at least in some instances science has found a given set of conditions considered to be evidence that supports a given theory, only to find later that at least some of the evidence has turned out to be incidental, or even irrelevant in some instances, in support of the given theory and not proof that something exists at all.

Intuition came up in the conversation, yet it was talked about in terms that didn’t quite concede–only hinted at–a lack of a good, working definition for intuition being necessary in order to have a somewhat reasonable discussion about its influence. Is it based on personal experiences and nurturing that are filed away in an individual’s mind? Is it a sensory quality not yet discernible through current scientific testing? Is it pre-installed, so to speak, in our essence as humans? Is it a combination of factors? These are some issues that inhibit open discussions and a free exchange of ideas about intuition, for example.

Rituals, in terms of behaviors based not only on having the ability to observe patterns but on our desires to seek out patterns, in addition to whether or not we are wired for such, came up in the show. Years ago, I worked with people who have autism, and my work was across the entire spectrum of what is considered that condition. There was a highly visible commonality among the different people toward superstitious behavior that ostensibly served no purpose. It is often termed as “ritualized behavior,” but a professor of mine many years ago whom I later worked with (he was a psychologist who consulted for one of the programs in which I worked) regularly used the phrase “superstitious behavior.” I always thought the latter term better captured the essence of those types of behaviors. E.g., a person would enter a room, touch a spot on the floor, then twirl around three times before sitting down. Those types of behaviors are more pronounced in more severe examples of the condition, but they also are somewhat present in someone with what is now considered Asperger’s Syndrome. Likewise, someone with OCD may readily demonstrate similar behaviors. I believe that humans not considered to have some disorder may also participate in certain kinds of “superstitious behavior” especially when their stress levels rise. I think those ways neurons fire in the brain, perhaps, are better regulated in a person not considered to be suffering from a mental disorder or condition.

There was brief talk on the show that mentioned a need for some sense of control in persons exhibiting “superstitious behavior,” and I believe this to be true. I also think there is a need in people to find more concrete explanations when some inexplicable sense comes over us beyond what is considered “known” or collectively agreed-upon reality. Sometimes this is the stuff of great art, and sometimes this is the stuff of complete mental imprisonment from a feeling or idea.

It was interesting that the “nature vs. nurture” concept was touched on. I always found the traditional components in the argument of the concept, the “free will vs. determinism” stuff, to be kind of limiting. As if we either have absolute, unfettered will or the diametric opposite of absolutely no control and are subject completely to causes external to the will. Mr. Hood spoke briefly about his. I would have to go back and listen to the show again to get a direct quote, but I think he touched on having will but not completely in a free sense. I would also agree with this nuanced view of “free will.”

The Dahmer raincoat scenario was kind of an interesting example to me. As another commenter mentions, I wouldn’t want to wear it, as others may know it was Dahmer’s and would draw the conclusion that I was creepy or exploitive, and I would be afraid they would be repulsed. I would also not like the symbolism of wearing Dahmer’s raincoat. On the the other hand, if it was raining heavily, and there was no knowledge of the coat’s original owner, I would most definitely wear it. SO, most of my thinking here in response to this hypothetical is in the realm of superstitiousness! The coat is just a coat, and without its direct association with Dahmer as a symbol, it has no meaning other than providing protection against inclement weather. My concern over what others may think, and that there may be consequences from that, would either be imagined or exaggerated. As to my heightened sense that it could somehow be a symbolic gesture…if I employ some analysis to that, then I think, “what kind of symbolic gesture would that be and what would it really represent?” When I think about that, my reluctance to wear the damn coat seems silly! Also, my qualifiers that I would wear the coat if no one knew and if only there were a torrential downpour seem silly! They also perhaps reveal what happens when superstition is pitted against necessity! Anyway I might interpret my feelings, there’s not much in my initial feelings about wearing Dahmer’s raincoat that is rational, is there?

Thanks, Bruce Hood, for a stimulating show! Thanks to On Point for the rebroadcast!

Putney, er, mr. independent, I didn’t quite get your concern over thinking others may be confused as to whether this show is new or rebroadcast?

Mary Baker;
I felt a connection with your work and comments (beyond my own animal instincts ) I have studied different forms of behavioral psychology for most of my adult life and have worked in human services for many years in mental health services.

Stanislav Mudrets,
good comments!

I missed the part of the rebroadcast about the ship — I missed a lot of it, but I heard the raincoat of Dahmer part, and read everyone’s views. It runs pellmell into my superstitions about death, specifically the sudden death of my father when I was 30. How can I do this without invading my family’s privacy. Maybe I can’t. Call me Mrs. Independent.
My father left behind a raincoat, a Goretex raincoat, and because he would take his children on hikes, or once they were grown, carrying the elderly blind and lame dog spaniel, the raincoat had as much smell as the person, if not more. I remember grown children looking in the closet with the question, what shall we do with the raincoat?
I absorbed the scent of it, the vision of it with its crisp feel. I have no idea where it is or with whom, nor any idea what “the family” decided, but there is something very sacred to me about its memory. It is more of an artifact than ashes or anything, to me. Or it was. Sometimes I catch a scent of myself and it seems (or is) fleetingly just like that odor of that raincoat, and I think: there, my genes, my scent, my father.

Ellen,
I like your comment from 5:29pm! It has almost too much poetry inherent in it for this forum! We don’t quite understand how our olfactory systems work; they are so complex and are tied so much in with memory and sense of time and place…I hope science can one day catch up enough to offer some explanation beyond the one dimensional–and often misguided–notions scientists currently use to characterize how our olfactory system works. Of course, there is another part of me that wishes to keep that a mystery…You also touch on the ways in which we perceive energy emanating from inanimate objects, particularly those objects which have sentimental value attached to them. I could probably argue no less than twenty points (okay, maybe no less than five!) that would consider association to be the only phenomenon happening with regard to inanimate objects retaining some kind of energy from the past, but I don’t think that would fully explain the phenomenon.

Dear All,
I have enjoyed the brilliant comments and discussion

but can I just make a simple point

There is something really strange about the way people behave with regards to clothing of a killer or the the garment of a loved one

Some give rational explanations and some give spiritual but they all are premised on the assumption of some nonmaterialistic property.

and that’s what interests me,

bruce

I wish I could have called into this show. The gentleman is ignoring just what one caller pointed out — culture has symbols that are as much vocabulary as our words. If he showed a sweater to folks to put on for $50, and then showed that the back had a red swastika on it, the point of it being a symbol should have been more clear.

Symbols are not about superstition but communication within a culture. Even if you *personally* believe a swastika is a Vedic symbol of the power of wind (which it is, in that culture, originally), wearing a red swastika on your back signals something more than superstitiously tabu to anyone aware of culture from the 1930’s on.

How many people in the audience refused the killer’s sweater because *everyone else in the room* felt it had been presented as a symbol of *affinity* with the idea of murder and cannibalism? That’s not instinctual — it’s a cultural issue that wouldn’t have existed outside of that presentation.

I find this part of the author’s argument exceptionally myopic and flawed.

I would be interested to know if any other animals exhibit superstitious behavior, and if it might have had an influence on our success as a species.

You’re talking about the ship of Theseus as if there was some sort of ethereal essence to the ship. No! How can you interpret that so badly?!? The concept “ship” that we attribute to it already points to the idea of the thing. Its not of some magical substrate, it is the concept whereby we generalize the pattern, just as we attribute the non-observable “self” we attribute our identities. nature vs. nurture. You attribute the fact [Western] children believe that plants are created as a factor of NATURE, not the fact that they are immersed in a creationist culture! And why would someone want to put on Jeffrey Dahmer’s raincoat or anyone else’s raincoat for that matter? Is this like the people that insist you taste their food? “Here, try some of my pie!” “Here’s Jeffrey Dahmer’s raincoat, do you want to put it on?”

Bruce

I’m getting on in years and over time I’ve come believe that everything talks to itself:
Reason talks to reason, fear talks to fear, insight recognizes itself, intelligence recognizes itself …and it seems like sometimes integrity speaks to itself through different understandings, cultures etc. on. Sometimes recognition is through the vehicle of shared disciplines/ professions and vocabulary – and so reason evolves.

But, intelligence develops in more faculties than reason – if they are not dormant. There may be physical intelligence and memory, emotional intelligence, w/ felt understanding. There is mental intelligence, some of which is obedient to learned information and some of which is dynamic and alert to curiosity. The best of which is both.

I observe that my intelligence does not find yours irresistible, though I have interest in science. I and the folks I witness going about their day seem to function on many levels. This is the business of being human.

I think of ignorance as mechanical belief. Whereas I figure intelligence is informed and alert discernment.

Only thing is – I sense discernment can operate as dynamically as life itself demands, through many windows of knowledge and experience. When survival itself is at stake, wits and instinct come into play. When the process of learning from infancy on is in process – empathic understanding is essential to work with reason. The insights of an artist/ writer / poet etc.sometimes shed truths science just cant get to. But I still reckon, integrity can recognize itself and suspend in not-knowing with interest.

You say we all seek certainty. I’m not sure, I find I’m most alive when I don’t know or presume to know what is going to happen next.

The position of science at the moment is no absolute udder to guide us. It is simply an inquiry with rules.

Dear Friends, Remember when Hamlet is making his friends swear that they won’t tell about his father’s ghost. Horatio, his college buddy at Wittemburg (a seat of scepticism during that period), remarks about how strange all this is, particularly when the assembled men hear the voice of the ghost. Hamlet answers him by saying:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (I.v.166-67)

This is one of the best exhortations I know to STAY OPEN and experience the whole universe, especially the vast domain of it that we know nothing about.

Thanks for a great show!

Bill Z.

You keep saying Mumbo Jumbo. That is an ignorant response from the British on hearing the people of the Africa speak a language they did not understand:

Jambo is Swahili for Hello (pronounced exactly as Jumbo in English). This is singular, i.e. said to one person. The plural is Mambo, Hello addressing several persons (pronounced exactly as Mumbo in English). The most common scenario where the British heard mumbo-jumbo was obviously one person approaching several persons and greeting them: MAMBO! To which they would answer JAMBO! The British who usually do not learn a local language did not understand it, so to this day it is just mumbo-jumbo to them.

(wikipedia – source)

Isn’t something ‘unbelievable’ if you can’t understand it? But doesn’t that mean something unbelievable could just be ignorance? Having just gotten back from India, I have a lot more respect for that which I do not understand.

It’s a sad fact that most people see scientific “facts” as a pile of isolated pebbles of knowledge, that may or may not be true, and are probably politically motivated anyway. The inconvenient facts can be swept aside to make room for a pet magical belief, like the earth being 6,000 years old, or that you can feel someone staring at the back of your head.

In reality, scientific facts form a framework, or a structure, with each hard-won bit of knowledge resting on the ones below, and supporting the ones above. The resulting model of the world that science has built not only describes universe we live in, but can also predict phenomena we have not yet observed. When the predictions turn out to be correct (like predicting the esistence of positrons or nutrinos or other previously unobserved parts of the universe), it builds increasing confidence that the model is correct.

You cannot sweep aside the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or Maxwell’s equations, or atomic theory, to create a place for some mystical new-age “energy” that hits you on the back of the head when someone is staring at you.

That the body of knowledge that gives us vaccines and antibiotics, instantaneous worlwide communication, space travel, and Bean-o can be swept aside and replaced by someone’s personal metaphysical imaginings only demonstrates that these people don’t know what they’re sweeping aside.

The world may be magical, but there is no “magic” in the world. The stuff we know is there is awesome, in the original meaning of the word. A mystical fog obscures the real majesty of the universe for too many people.

OMG, I have been too poetical. Brett, thank you, but I realize that I wasn’t all that clear — (maybe feeling conflicted about telling that piece about the raincoat, too private).
Since Bruce might have misunderstood I’ll try for prosaic:
The raincoat was in the closet at the time of the Memorial Service. Five children were teenage or just older, and they were mainly the ones deciding what was to be done with clothing, for instance. I as one of two older children stood back and though asked probably had no say. I am pretty sure the raincoat was thrown in the trash. My brothers who were the appropriate size already had raincoats. My mother might have it, but if so, it is secret.
The scent that comes to me seems real, but it is not from any actual garment. I suspect it is simply an odor that I actually emit under certain physiological/emotional conditions. I doubt an adopted child could experience that particular connection. I imagine millions of years ago, an article of clothing would retain the scent of the owner and serve as a connection. Then the memory suffices.
For the belief systems surrounding mourning, see the Three Amigos comments. I had skipped out of a conversation there with an actual emergency of superstition, and returned to find a cornucopia.

Shava Nerad,
Your comment suggests that you see cultural issues and their symbols as being distinctly separate from superstition, that they exist without connection. The swastika has represented many different ideas and has appeared in some form in almost every culture since the beginning of the Neolithic Period. In Native American culture, it was a sun wheel representing good luck. Among aviators, of course prior to 1939, it was worn as a representation of moving propellers and a symbol of good luck; it is interesting to see photographs of an American Indian from the early 20th century wearing a swastika. I’ve seen photos of both Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart wearing swastikas on their flight suits. In those three examples, the swastika represents something superstitious. The example you mention also puts that symbol in the realm of superstition. The Nazis used the symbol to denote racial superiority and an homage to the greatness of Germany’s past superiority as a race, HItler had what I would call a superstitious sense of superiority about Germany. (Also, Hitler was quite into the occult).

Persians, Slavs, Celts, Greeks, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, traditions in Asia, Ancient Rome, Vikings, and many, many more cultures have used the symbol. In each culture the symbol represented something of an ideal steeped in some power of goodness/good luck. The current symbol represents something evil to most but not all. It is still used in Hindu culture; it is currently used in Finland, by its air force. Some goods from Japan get exported with that very symbol on them. It is outlawed in some countries. Some New Age cultures have been trying to revive the swastika as a sun sign.

Thinking that it would promote good luck, invoke gods, incite evil, invite social stigma, etc., in and of itself, however those phenomena may occur or may not occur still denotes a kind of superstitious thinking. It is still a representation of something that possesses some kind of magic, whether simply symbolic or within some actual positive or negative, tangible energy.

I also didn’t hear that Bruce Hood was “ignoring” the caller’s ideas about symbolism; he may have added to her idea that superstition includes the way we humans symbolize objects and acts. etc., by saying superstitious thinking/ behavior perhaps includes symbolism as well as something even greater, but it wasn’t one at the exclusion of the other or that those two concepts are separate and distinctly different.

When we are children we are closer to where we come from than any time in our life.

The older you get the further and further away you get, until you return at death.

Also, all knowledge (scientific, historic, etc) is based on what you are willing to believe.

If anything can be classified as not supported by empirical science it must surely be the only possible theory which atheism can offer for the existence of life which is abiogenesis. Every experiment which has ever been conducted by any empirical researcher just continuously disproves the theory as unrobust. Epidemiology is a purely empirical discipline and its most fundamental basis is a belief in the universal inviolate nature of the proposition that only pre-existing life can elaborate new life. The only possible logical reduction of this must neccesarily be the eternal pre-existence of a living Creator. For that purely rational reason alone any attempt to reduce all theistic beliefs to simple exercises in communal superstition is demonstrably erroneous.

Ellen,
Your revised explanation supports even more the idea that our olfactory system is complex and not well understood! Even imagining a scent, or emitting a scent during certain physiological/emotional moments can conjure up so many memories and feelings that are tangible/intangible and real with immediacy!

I wonder if adopted children have some unconscious memories of their birth mothers? I wouldn’t be surprised; they might also have some unconscious memories of infancy, being a toddler, etc. Maybe some components of feelings beyond explanation come from memories stored from a time before the more tangible aspects of cognitive thought were developed. I can remember very clearly times from when I was six months old on. I have amazed my family all of my life with memories they never related to me or recorded.

…wished I’d skipped out on some of that conversation at the end of the comments from the Three Amigos blog! [Laughs]

To Donald:

What experiments are those, that indicate life can’t come from non-life?

Life only requires self-organization and self-replication. Crystals self-organize, forming complex regular structures without supernatural help. Combustion self-replicates.

The details of exactly how the first living molecules formed may be a mystery, but it seems a stretch to assume it required a miracle. Miracles seem way more improbable than primitive life arising from complex chemical processes on the early earth.

Wouldn’t a supernatural creator have to be more complex than the universe “he” created? But theists don’t have a problem with assuming invisible, eternal, massive complexity as a given, while biochemistry is trivialized or ignored.

Sounds more like psychology than theology is at work here.

“‘The only possible logical reduction…must…be the eternal pre-existence of a living Creator.’”

Well…that WOULD be reductionist; also, you define “creator” as “Creator,” with a capital letter as in “Him.” Maybe if you broadened the “He” or “Creator” to proteins, you’d have more of a leg to stand on. But the refutability of atheism does NOT then immediately allow one to “empirically” draw the conclusion that there is a “Creator.” That would be a leap of “faith.”

Supersticious behavior comes from accidental reinforcement of previous behavior. That’s it. Behavior Analysis.

Kelly,
Superstitious behavior may very well stem from certain behaviors being reinforced. Undesirable behavior is behavior that gets reinforced sure (desirable behavior, as well). If one sees superstitious behavior as undesirable, one could say it wasn’t intended to be reinforced yet, somehow, it was, I suppose. But whether deliberate/intentional or “accidental” by other people/circumstances or some internal perception or undefined feeling that can not be fully explained or even brought to awareness, all behavior is learned on a certain level. In order for someone to learn something there needs to be some motivation present. That motivation had to come from something that was reinforcing…so…I would agree!

The experiment conducted by Pasteur has provided a good enough start toward proving the fallacious nature of the abiogenetic argument. More to the point, which experiment has proved abiogenesis to be an empirical fact? It is intellectually unrobust to claim that a theory has a sound scientific basis if it can be proven by repeatable experiment (as the guest was very careful to point out in quite specific terms) and then hold out that something which has never been observed to happen under any circumstances should be accepted as empirical. Under that requirement of proof theistic concepts ought to no more be relegated to the realm of superstition than should be belief in self-generating living (not self-regenerating) organisms. The analogy between life and fire is a good one precisely because it points out the fact that fire would not self-replicate if it did not exist in the first place so the weakness of any argument which ignores First Cause is most cogently illustrated. If one wishes to postulate that organic life has eternally existed then that indeed opens up a new area of investigation but one which I think might not be open to being definitively proven one way or the other and therefore would put any such belief squarely in the realm of “superstition” as the atheistic contingent within scientific community likes to define it. As to to comment reflexively linking theistic belief with belief in a 6,000 year old cosmos it is understandable that those whose concept of theism has been shaped only by what they have been told by their atheistic academic mentors would hold such an uninformed viewpoint that all theistic belief may be vanquished simply by toppling that strawman argument. It is equally as ignorant as asserting that all evolutionists believe in the veractiy of the Piltdown Man or Nebraska man (even though most every one of them did for some 40 years and even offered quite fanciful explanations as to why these mythological hominids were essential to fully understanding a supposed evolutionary progression of human kind).

I feel the need of paragraphing, visually, mentally, at this point. That is brick-shape in its “intellectual robustness,” and maybe “keeps” like a fruitcake with its many rich elements. I will be interested to see if anyone “pulls out a plum” and says “what a good boy am I.”
All of this about science and religion, the balance, the inter-dependence or independence thereof, seemed to me pretty well presented by Bruce Hood’s approach and discussion, with examples and windows for understanding, step by step, sewing up this corner, then that.
Now we’re talking about the beginning of the universe and life, not whether we are superstitious about it, nor even what we choose to believe about it and then choose to doubt about it, but what we know about it — rather, what we don’t know. It’s like we’ve run full throttle into a full-size mirror; what’s this? A pound cake. Unpack it a bit.
Is this along the lines of nobody re-proves theorems in math? Wait, wait. Math is the logic that we use to prove other matters WITH, and as for physics, if those “laws” were not so, the astronauts would never have got to the moon, nor our bits and bytes of data have reached from here to there.
I am waiting for somebody here to definitely prove that I do not exist, you do not exist, he, she, or it does not exist. Not prove it with aforethought, on purpose. It will fall out of the logic naturally.

“Even if you *personally* believe a swastika is a Vedic symbol of the power of wind (which it is, in that culture, originally), wearing a red swastika on your back signals something more than superstitiously tabu to anyone aware of culture from the 1930’s on.”

Shava, aren’t you assuming that one cultural interpretation (Jewish) of the symbol is the primary one, whereas the other cultural interpretation (Hindu) is secondary and needs to be superseded by the primary one? Perhaps in the US, Europe and Israel.

As long as you don’t have an expectation that Hindus all over the world give up using the symbol of swastika because of how it is perceived by the Jews and that the Jews find that symbol offensive, it’s all good. OTOH, I’ve heard that India is a favorite travel destination of Israelis (and they are bound to come across the symbol which is quite ubiquitous in India), so perhaps, the offense to the symbol is not a universal one among all Jews.

Dear BAS:

I very much appreciate your comments!