" "Where faith decreases, superstition grows," a Roman priest once told Matt Baglio, the author of "The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist," but a less indulgent observer, having finished both Baglio's book and Peter Manseau's "Rag and Bone: A Journey Among the World's Holy Dead," will be wondering how it's possible to detect the difference. "

You can't detect what isn't there. There is no difference between faith and superstition. They are two names for the same thing. Both assume agency, power, and causality where there is none.

"Where faith decreases, superstition grows."

Well thank God we came to our senses and worship a Jewish guy who died 2,000 years ago!

*Bart Simpson (paraphrase)

It's wonderful to have a writer on "spiritual" matters, who can actually ask the right (and unanswerable) questions.

Props, Laura Miller.

Miller is a partisan when writing on the matters to religion and all of the the secular peanut gallery who read these propaganda pieces are simply indulging in self flattery.

..."I am sooo rational" "thank God, I am an individual and know how to think for myself!" etc etc.

If you could think for yourselves you would see that this type of piece is simply the dogma of the secular materialistic crowd.

As for the left - I find it amazing how many of my friends disdain religion and then are the first to believe in UFOs, palm reading, shakras, vortexes and the rest.

Who are the true superstitious? The Catholic who reads Thomas Aquinas and believes in the divine give of rationalism OR Richard Dawkins, who believes that aliens started human life on earth...

Give me a break, Ms. Miller.

Everyone must believe in something. Whether it be a belief shared by others or one self-created, without faith the struggles of life become overbearing, and persistence in the face of adversity becomes meaningless.

The alternative of faith, nihilism, leads inevitably to destruction of the self.

Second post...

Laura Miller attempts to simplify what she wishes to dismiss (i.e. transcendent impulse of the "masses"). This is classic liberal deconstruction theory - however, her attempt at distortion reveals the essential weakness of her argument.

Calling adoration of relics utilitarian reveals her own utilitarianism - people do not honor saints merely for physical or personal gain but for transcendence and connection with something beyond themselves.

Laura distorts faith and then projects her own utilitarian secular thinking onto the subjects that she wishes to dismiss.

Here is a more nuanced discussion by David Gibbson and Amy Welborn:

Gibson: I am wondering if there is an easy definition for the difference between religion and superstition? One that comes to mind in the African context is that beliefs that injure others are superstitions. (That would go for Christian beliefs, like those that would lead to witch hunts and the like in times past.)

What passes as superstition of course depends on where one falls on the spectrum of belief. The pope would view certain African traditions as superstitions, some Protestants view certain Catholic practices as superstitions, and non-believers will view any belief in things not seen as superstitions--even as they meditate on their daily horoscope.

Superstitions might also be, it seems to me, demonstrably wrong, whereas "true religion" cannot be disproved, because it makes (in its best manifestations) other, deeper claims to meaning rather than temporal consequence.

Welborn: It seems to me that the distinction between superstition and religion lies in the attitude of the supplicant's attitude toward God and the transcendent. Superstition involves efforts to control the transcendent, and in religious faith, one honors the transcendent and subjects oneself to it.

"this type of piece is simply the dogma of the secular materialistic crowd."

Yeah, we're big on "dogma."

"As for the left - I find it amazing how many of my friends disdain religion and then are the first to believe in UFOs, palm reading, shakras, vortexes and the rest."

A) How do UFOs, a potentially demonstrable physical phenomenon, compare in anyway to palm reading or vortexes?

b) At least paranormal phenomenon or subjects like crypto-zoology are not inherently closed to scientific verification, unlike say hiding behind the catch-all magisteria of "faith".

"Who are the true superstitious? The Catholic who reads Thomas Aquinas and believes in the divine give of rationalism OR Richard Dawkins, who believes that aliens started human life on earth..."

a) Wait, weren't you just sneering at Laura Miller and those of us in the "secular peanut gallery" as "modern rationalist[s]"?!?

b) The hypothesis that life began elsewhere does not imply that aliens (i.e. active agents) transferred it to Earth.

c) What do you have against aliens? Or is prospect of complex and/or sentient life elsewhere in the universe that much of a threat to your vaunted faith?

Hey boys and girls,

For those of you who wonder how the real pros do it (at least down here), go to the following link. And, yes......it's SUPPPOSED to be funny:

http://www.archive.org/details/Betty_Butterfield_exorcism

Best of Luck,

David Terry

www.davidterryart.com

Frankly, here is what you guys believe:

You have the absolute final word, final truth on everything ever. If the evidence goes against that final word, well either the word is being misintrepretted or the evidence is wrong.

Those bits of the word that are inconvenient are instantly metaphors, though you never really seem to do much about saying what they are actually metaphors for.

Those bits which are convenient are literal.

If there is any gap in our current knowledge, you can just make it up and say Goddidit. If those gaps later get filled by people with a more careful approach who figure "lets find out", then God migrates to another gap while you fight a rearguard action to "teach the controversy."

All through this, you proclaim anybody who disagrees with you based on the facts, is arrogant and materialistic when in truth what they really are is honest.

Spiritualism is nothing more than woo designed to incapacitate thought. You do not seek evidence for your positions because you intuit them, even as your intuition has proved flawed in the past. It is enough to feel.

As the old joke goes: What is an alternative medicine that is proved by science? Medicine.

And that is the heart of the problem with spiritualism.

You proclaim that human perceptions are incomplete and frequently wrong, leading to scientific biases. Yet you base your beliefs on illusions that you just feel are right. You base your entire ideology not on perceptions you have checked, but simply on perceptions you have made.

And because those perceptions do not match the perceptions of others, you think of this as "thinking for yourself" whereas in reality it is not thinking at all, it is the active avoidance of thought.