Home » Science » Superstition vs. Science

Superstition vs. Science

Superstition vs. Science – The Debate Never Ends

The battle between science and superstition has continued since the concept of science started and will still go on many years from now. This is mainly because though living in a scientific world, many people in different countries around the world are still very superstitious. Even in the so-called developed countries Superstition vs. Science still abounds.

But usually not much real thought is given to superstition vs. science. At least that seems to be the situation in the United States. Even so, many daily horoscopes and astrological readings are proof of the idea that superstitions are still important to some people. When making a distinction between science and superstition one has to be very careful because what is superstition for one person may be science for another. Superstition vs. science, that’s a real dilemma for many.

Using alchemy as an example can prove the notion of superstition for one is science for another because today alchemy is taken as a mere superstition whereas earlier it was a science. If proper theoretical explanations are given to superstitions, then the superstition of today may become the science of tomorrow. This assumes people are educated and actually believe the science has valid proof behind it. And in the same vein as alchemy, the science of today may become the superstition of tomorrow.

The difference between the two is actually the difference between realism and anti-realism. Science is based upon rational explanations and validation by observation, whereas superstition is based upon irrational beliefs having no logical explanations. The world is made up of scientific matter and sometimes individuals put their superstitions in them. Since the world was created, almost everything has a scientific reason or rational behind it but people were not educated enough to consider this aspect deeply so superstitions arose.

Superstitions have always made use of various mechanisms which are not known to science. Superstition goes beyond science. Eclipses are a great example of the turmoil between science and superstitions. The excitement around the world between the astrologers and scientists and their debate over this natural phenomenon can be seen during these natural events.

According to science, eclipses occur when the heavenly bodies, the earth, sun and the moon are in a straight line with each other, one casting a shadow on the other. Scientists say that no harmful radiations are emitted during the eclipses whereas the superstitious mass say bad rays are emitted by the sun. Well there is a bit of scientific truth in that, but the bad rays are always there regardless of an eclipse or not. Those bad rays might be considered as alpha particles or cosmic rays. They are always there, but on earth their low level of radiation does not normally affect us.

Superstitions say that demons and dragons, or the stars ‘rah and ketu’ swallow up the sun or the moon. To most of us this sounds ridiculous, but to those who made up the superstitions long ago it seemed a reasonable explanation.

Science has its limitations in inter-relating things to each other. Not everything can be co-related in science whereas in superstitions there are different perceptions in this matter. In many superstitions there is a tendency to believe that each and everything is connected with each other and the reasons why are unknown. No matter how advanced our technological world today, it is still delicate and fragile because superstitions sweep away the progress and development made by science. So in many cases superstitions play a vital role over science, even today. Much of that depends on where you live in the world.

The difference between science and superstition is often based on a fine line of false evidence and verifiable proofs. Then again there are some things that science has not yet been able to prove, such as all sorts of paranormal phenomena. Though superstitions and science both have the same purpose of explaining to the world things that take place or are observed, superstition has a more negative approach in the modern world of educated people.

So which is the real deal? superstition or science? Personally I am for science, but I think many others in countries with a lot of superstitious beliefs that people really believe in would say superstitions, especially the ones they believe in. If any of the readers here have opinions please enter your comments. We like to hear both sides of the perpetual argument of which to believe superstitions or science.

Want your own Free website? – see these videos – learn about WordPress

Superstition vs. Science Questions

Here are a few questions from Yahoo Answers about science vs superstition.

Maria asks…

Superstition Vs Science?

Do u think that there is any scientific reason behind superstitous belief. If yes then support them with examples.

Suzi Q answers:

In my opinion, superstition comes from your cultural background and the beliefs your ancestors has passed on down the family or just plain ‘ol from your heritage…Science can’t change what’s been brought down from generation to generation…But this is how i see it, the world is composed of scienctific things and sometimes people put their own superstition into them things

Donald asks…

Can you give me an example of a real life time when a superstition effected you?

Have to write an essay on science vs. superstitions. I need a primary source, and my teacher said this would count.

Suzi Q answers:

3 yrs ago i thought i was pregnant my 2nd child

i made an appointment to see my doctor after a positive home test

over the weekend my husband & i were driving to visit family – a black bird flew across in front of our car & he hit it – we never had a chance to swerve

i immediately said to him “that was a bad omen i am not pregnant”
he laughed
next morning i started my cycle after missing 2 months

————
1 week before my grandfather died suddenly of cancer – my granny called to say when she open the livingroom window that morning there were dozens of birds in the backyard – they were startled i guess & they all flew up & around in circles suddenly

she was scared – she said it was a bad omen –

———————
on my wedding day – my aunt told me there was a bird sitting up on the rafters of the church above us as we took our vows – BAD bad omen –
i found out my first husband was cheating less than a year later

Mandy asks…

Is there a conflict between religion and science?

Many of history’s greatest scientists were religious (and many were non-religious). Many religions employ social scientists, and many religions run universities full of physical and social scientists. There are also scientific religions, like the Church of Freethought.

Is there really a conflict between religion and science?

Or are they really two separate conflicts:
Religion vs. Atheism
Science vs. Superstition

And yes, even before posting this question, I can already hear people saying “religion is superstition!”

But the problem is not that people are religious or superstitious, it’s that they’re trying to force their beliefs on others.
The Wag: While the physical sciences don’t comment on the supernatural, the social sciences won’t stop talking about them. Here are some examples:

Karl Marx: Religion is the opiate of the oppressed masses.

Durkheim: Religion tricks people into obeying society’s rules.

Sigmund Freud: Religious people are crazy.
Grazie: Science deals in fact and reason? I’d say science deals in theory and conjecture at least as much.

If the past is precedent, every current theory in science will be disproven 100 years from now.

I’m not saying science isn’t useful, I’m just saying it should be honest about its uncertainty, as I’m sure you would like religion to be honest about theirs.
James O: You make a good point. There are atheistic fundamentalisms just as there are religious ones.

Atheists have a long track record of taking the most powerful observable object and giving it credit for creating everything. Today they give that honor to the four fundamental laws of physics. In the past they gave that honor to the nile, the sun, the nearest volcano, etc.
problem: I liked a lot of the answers, but I liked yours the best because it was optimistic about moving forward in a multi-cultural setting.

We’ll never agree on religion, but maybe someday the religious people will stop thinkng that science is harmful to their faith, and atheists will stop thinking that religious people are incapable of doing objective science.

Suzi Q answers:

I have see no conflict between religion and science. It is as you say, Many scientific break troughs were by believers of every religion. Muslims began the first ideas of scientific methods. The Big Bang was developed by a Catholic.

George asks…

Science vs Religion. Read please.?

I have selected four core questions which are important to humans, yet remain unanswered (and unanswerable). For the sake of being brief, I have made some great generalisations and what I refer to as “science” here, I should probably refer to as “logic”, but that would sound offensive.

HOW DID WE (HUMANS) GET HERE?

Science: We evolved over millions of years. Because of natural selection, we (and other animals) suit our surroundings almost perfectly. This theory has been formulated from observation of skeletal structure etc. Using Occam’s razor (The most logical explanation is almost always the correct one), this is most likely correct.

Christianity: “God” made us from nothing, through magic. This was written in a book by people who, by today’s standards, were extremely uneducated. Because of enculturation, this is believed by a great many people.

WHERE DID THE EARTH COME FROM?

Science: The Big Bang Theory. All matter in the universe was contained in a singularity. This exploded outwards, and is still expanding. As the gas from the explosion cooled, the particles began to come together, forming stars and eventually planets. This theory has been formulated because of evidence, such as the fact that all matter in the universe is moving apart at a very fast rate, and cosmic microwave radiation. It is not proven, but is currently the most logical explanation to date.

Christianity: “God” made the universe out of nothing. It only took him seven days. Again, this theory is only respected because of the number of people who believe in it.

WHAT HAPPENS TO US AFTER WE DIE?

Science: This is still disputed, however the most logical explanation is that, assuming that consciousness is something generated by signals in the brain, the brain shuts down, therefore we no longer have any consciousness. This means we can no longer think, and it is generally accepted that when a person has no consciousness, they cease to exist.

Christianity: Our consciousness somehow survives, even though there is no physical energy source. This consciousness (or “soul”) goes to a magic place, which doesn’t physically exist, where it lives on forever. This could only rationally be explained by a dying hallucination, which seems to last forever, however, if this was true, then it would not actually exist, and would therefore be false. Again, this theory is a lot more comforting, and is often the only reason people become Christians, as a form of “insurance”.

HOW SHOULD WE LIVE?

Science: This is a personal decision, and factors should be taken in, such as how your life will affect others. It is generally accepted that, for an ideal society, people should do what is best for the genral wellbeing of the human race. This means taking into consideration others’ wellbeing as well as their own. This idea of ethics should be constantly being re-evaluated as times change.

Christianity: This depends on how much people decide to adhere to the bible’s teachings. If all teachings of the bible are taken as fact, then people should be executed for cursing the name of god, and no one should be allowed to do any work on Sunday. Homosexual people and women should be discriminated against. If the entire bible is not taken into consideration, then people should respect others, not be adulterous etc. Core values such as these have been recognised for millennia, long before the bible was written, and are present in most other religious texts.

In conclusion, Christian belief was formulated by people who thought in a completely different context to the people of today. These people knew practically nothing compared to what we know today about nature. What is now regarded as “superstition” in ancient times (such as the belief that a dung beetle was rolling the sun across the sky and the belief in ghosts) is in fact no different to the Christian belief, and were it not for the emperor Constantine, it would not have to following it does today.
Scientific theory, while not proven, is the most LOGICAL explanation available. It is not an attempt to disprove religion, but rather explain the world without the restraints of ancient and outdated hypotheses.

The point I am trying to get across is that religion is unnecessary. You don’t need it to live a fulfilled and worthwhile life, in fact, without religion, there is so much more freedom to express yourself, and contribute to society. I don’t see religion as a threat, and I am not trying (nor is there any need) to disprove it. It is simply an idea which would have seemed quite logical at the time it was created. I also don’t put ALL my faith in science. Most of it is probably wrong, but it is the best explanation we have.
All these religious people have missed the point. This is not an attempt to put forward by theory of evolution, and disprove your theory of religion, but the COMPARE them and show which one is more logical.
Also, I stands by what I said about Occam’s razor. Creationism may be more simple (convenient, isn’t it?), but that doesn’t make it more LOGICAL.

My entire premise here relies on logic. I am not saying that evolution is perfetc fact, but it is by far the msot logical.

“KiraJenLove”, evolution is a process that takes millions of years. Because of enculturation, the only explanation you will accept is some simple, story book explanation that says that everything was done in a few days. This is simply narrow mindedness.
I challenge anyone to provide a more RATIONAL explanation.

Also, please stop referencing the bible. It is just a book, and it is outdated.

Suzi Q answers:

Logically speaking…..you will understand what your purpose is in life one day in the future when God reveals Himself to you…… As Einstein put it: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God” (The Quotable Einstein, p. 161).

As Einstein put it: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man” (The Quotable Einstein, p. 152).
Many intelligent and learned people believe—and have a religionlike faith—that the complex laws governing the universe came into existence purely by accident or chance. But is this view credible? We know for certain it is not supported with demonstrable evidence. So here is the real question: Does it make sense to believe that a universe governed by a precise system of well-ordered laws came into existence by itself?

Here is where mankind again needs to pay much closer attention to what the Scriptures tell us. They present an altogether different viewpoint. “. . . For He commanded and [the heavens] were created. He also established them forever and ever; He made a decree [a law or ordinance] which shall not pass away” (Psalm 148:4-6).

The Scriptures explain that God created laws in the “heavens” that cannot be suspended. “Yes, by my hand was the earth placed on its base, and by my right hand the heavens were stretched out; at my word they take up their places” (Isaiah 48:13, Bible in Basic English).

Some great truths are expressed in these verses. When compared to all other alternatives, this point of view makes sense. It is the only point of view that reconciles all difficulties.

Lizzie asks…

Should all sides to an issue be presented equally in a public school (evolution vs. creation)?

One of the leading arguments creationists stick to is to “teach the controversy,” meaning explain both leading ideas concerning the beginning of life.

While this seems like a just statement on the outside, it is no different from presenting both astronomy and astrology in physics class. There are a ton of people who believe in astrology, but this does not give astrology credibility. Also, if a group poked a few holes in some astronomy theories, this would not support astrology. Just like the evolutionary theory and creationism, astrology and astronomy are not completely contradictory. The basis in belief for both, however, are polar opposites – science and superstition. So should we present our kids with both science and magic, implying that they are equally valid and credible theories?
Disregarding the separation of church and state, which is another huge setback for creationism.

Suzi Q answers:

There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution. The freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin’s theory, or to express alternative scientific hypothesis is coming under increasing attack by people that can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists.”

New Ben Stein Flick, Expelled, Blows the Whistle on Evolution.
Expelled is a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

Http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Steven asks…

Which has been more valuable to the advancement of the human race, science or religion?

Hmm, let’s see penicillin, internal combustion engine, harnessing the power of electricity, synthetic materials, genetics, biology, physics, astronomy, mathematics, archaeology, computers, flight, mass production, etc., etc., etc.

Vs.

Superstition, intolerance, a rejection of rational thought and of course profiteering, slavery and war.

(And I know someone is going to say ‘Atom Bomb’. Well, considering that the bomb (and all other war machines) was the brainchild of politicians, I think the blame lies with others. (I’m looking at you Truman.)
Sabrina – Yes, you are right. I can’t believe I forgot that. Good one.

Suzi Q answers:

Science, by a wide margin!

Yes, the products of science can be used for sinister purposes, but if it weren’t for science, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Religion actively stands in the way of the search for truth while claiming to already have it. Despite such interference, science has shown that many religious edicts were patently false — and remember that it took until 1992 for the Catholic Church to admit that Galileo was correct.

Religion by its very nature divides people, as anyone can see from the various questions and answers in this category. You just can’t reconcile “Jesus is Lord” and “Allahu Akbar”. Even those who supposedly espouse the same religion end up fighting over whose version is correct: see the Shia/Sunni conflict in Iraq today, or the Protestant/Catholic fight in Northern Ireland that may have finally ended this year.

Susan asks…

why is it that people vehemently refuse to accept evolution as fact…?

but when they hear an H1N1 virus has mutated they ask what science can do to fix things?

i know scientists don’t involve themselves in these kinds of debates anymore, partly due because it’s most likely fueled by pseudoscience and superstitions on both sides. also evolution vs creationism debate has become so cliche… but why is it when the news report H1N1 has mutated and created a new strain, we don’t hear people protesting and brandishing card boards that proclaim tax dollars are being used to finance fraudulent research?

Suzi Q answers:

Ironically, there are some people that don’t believe in evolution, yet will desperately get a quickly-made vaccination in order to feel safe from the virus that evolved and is now creating a media-frenzy.

But what are they putting in those swine-flu vaccinations, better yet, what is in all the vaccinations they give us starting when we are children?? Why don’t they come with ingredient labels like food is required to have?? Why do we trust politicians and doctors blindly?

Those tax dollars are also being used to finance advertisements in order to push the H1N1 vaccination on the fearful. I read a story on yahoo today that spoke about some 2,000 students in CA having flu-like symptoms. They weren’t tested, they just had the symptoms.
The school was told by the Health Dept to count anyone that is coughing or sneezing.
Also, they claimed the number in the US to die from swine flu was 593. Well, not 3 months ago it was under 10.
They are probably including those that died from the regular strain of the flu. In other words, they are LYING.

Again.

Questions powered by Yahoo! Answers