[gobrewers14]

> Religion and superstition are different concepts.

Please point to the part in my original response where I said religion and superstition are the same concept.

I said believing in a god is superstition. Which it is.

Superstition (n): A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

[hajile]

This definition confuses cause and effect.

A person believes something that results in superstition.

This definition states that superstition creates itself rather than being the result of external factors.

As a finer point, laws of nature could themselves be superstition. Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that we cannot prove all the laws in the universe. As such, we assert a truth that we know we cannot prove then act as though it must be true.

Even if you accept that as incidental, we know conclusively that recent discoveries (eg, James Webb showing unexpected galaxy sizes) show that much of our current "laws of nature" are definitely in conflict with reality making scientists superstitious in practice as well.

Finally, it is of no little interest to me that so many theoretical physicists are "simulationists" where they believe the universe is a simulation where the creators can exert complete control, but they still hold the belief that these creators are not actually gods (even though that is unprovable and for us would amount to a distinction without a difference).

Perhaps humans are simply hardwired for religion.

[gobrewers14]

> A person believes something that results in superstition. This definition states that superstition creates itself.

This is nonsense. Nothing is "created" when someone says something superstitious. There is no cause and effect. Supernatural entities/realms either exits or they do not. And there is zero evidence they do. Whether or not they actually do doesn't matter, it is rational to not believe in them until someone presents evidence for their existence.

> Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that we cannot prove all the laws in the universe

His theorem says no such thing. It simply makes a statement about the trade-off between the consistency of axiomatic systems and the provability of truth statements. I could easily just argue the universe is a system with inconsistent axioms where every law can be proved.

> we know conclusively that recent discoveries (eg, James Webb showing unexpected galaxy sizes) show that much of our current "laws of nature" are definitely in conflict with reality

This is called science. We collect evidence. We develop approximations of reality that best conform to this evidence. We collect new evidence. We refine our approximations.

> so many theoretical physicists are "simulationists" where they believe the universe is a simulation where the creators can exert complete control

I don't care what "so many theoretical physicists" believe. I care what they publish in peer-reviewed literature.

> Perhaps humans are simply hardwired for religion.

Perhaps humans are hardwired to make spears and kill each other or hunt and gather. That doesn't mean we should be doing that in 2023.

[hajile]

> This is nonsense. Nothing is "created" when someone says something superstitious. There is no cause and effect. Supernatural entities/realms either exits or they do not. And there is zero evidence they do.

WHY does a person say something superstitions? What makes it superstitious if not the beliefs behind the statement? You didn't answer this fundamental question.

> Whether or not they actually do doesn't matter, it is rational to not believe in them until someone presents evidence for their existence.

This is an assertion without any proof. Your only proof for this is the burden of proof. The burden of proof itself demands that it be proven. A religious person might assert that it is true because it was made so, but you have no such fallback, so you MUST prove the burden of proof in order to assert it as a meaningful argument.

> His theorem says no such thing. It simply makes a statement about the trade-off between the consistency of axiomatic systems and the provability of truth statements. I could easily just argue the universe is a system with inconsistent axioms where every law can be proved.

He most definitely does. His point was to expressly disprove the "theory of everything" that mathematics attempted to achieve at the time.

If you come up with a mathematical framework of the universe, either it cannot be proven or it is NOT the correct framework.

Trusting in a model that MIGHT be correct, but is not provable shares your definition of superstition. Just because your superstition changes over time doesn't make it any less superstitious (in fact, most superstitions change over time).

Your appeal to science is just a no true Scotsman fallacy where you attempt to redefine superstition to be "everything except what I believe".

> This is called science. We collect evidence. We develop approximations of reality that best conform to this evidence. We collect new evidence. We refine our approximations.

This was the original claim of astrology and many other superstitions.

> I don't care what "so many theoretical physicists" believe. I care what they publish in peer-reviewed literature.

You should care because it will be reflected in what they publish and why they publish it. Likewise, it will reflect what they do not publish or decide not to research in the first place.

> Perhaps humans are hardwired to make spears and kill each other or hunt and gather. That doesn't mean we should be doing that in 2023.

This is a non-sequitur. Humans are hardwired to breath. Should we stop that in 2023? Your statement is completely orthogonal to the current value of religion or the ability to "overcome" its influence.

[Grustaf]

Sure, you can use superstition as a slur for things you don’t believe in.

But if you want to use the word in its scientific meaning, then Christianity, or Islam or whatever religion, is not a superstition.

[gobrewers14]

You're not the gatekeeper of words. Christianity and Islam are both superstitions.

[Grustaf]

I’m not dictating what the word means, I’m just informing you since you don’t seem aware.

Things don’t become superstitions just because you don’t believe in them.

Just like there are well defined differences between myths, fairy tales, sagas etc.

[gobrewers14]

>> Sure, you can use superstition as a slur for things you don’t believe in.

> I’m not dictating what the word means

That is precisely what you are doing by trying to insinuate that I am using a "slur". You do not have the authority to conjure a belief system out of thin air, assert that it is true without evidence, and start dictating to people the manner in which they are allowed to speak about it.

[Grustaf]

Why do keep pretending to not understand? I’m not asserting anything regarding the existence of any gods, or the efficacy of prayer or swearing. I’m only trying to explain to you what these words mean. That is not related to my beliefs or yours.

A prayer is a prayer, even if someone is praying to a god that you are sure doesn’t exist. It’s still not “magic spells”, for example.