From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Superstition vs Piety (Was: Faith Healing)
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:27:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1441@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>In article <1b4dinINNncc@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1432@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>>	Once again, our modern skeptic blindly refuses to accept
>>>the ancient distinction between superstition and piety."Superstitious" was
>>>always a term of disdain. It is only in recent times that "pious" also became
>>>a term of scorn.
>>
>>You're wrong.  While I don't accept that ancient distinction, my refusal to
>>accept is not blind.  The ancient distinction, as near as I can tell, is:
>>	Pious describes someone who believes in one's own religion. 
>>	Superstitious describes someone who believes in a different religion.
>
>	Time for my standard "appeal to authority". The source of my
>knowledge of this subject is Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians".
>For twenty bucks, this book can be yours from the History Book Club, or
>any decent bookstore in hardbound version. Fox, as I have noted before
>on sci.skeptic, is a professing atheist who spends much time outlining
>the intellectual distinctions in Greco-Roman culture among "piety",
>"superstition", and "true religion".

I would like to point out that the `intellectual distinctions in 
Greco-Roman culture among "piety", "superstition", and "true religion"`
are not valid in other cultures at different times. 

>	As a good historian, Fox refuses to make value judgements on the
>belief systems of the ancients, instead distinguishing what they believed
                       --------
>from why they believed it, insofar as the historical record supports
>speculation. 
>
>	In those days, professing atheists were few in number, so there
        -------------
>were few people who classified all religious belief as "superstitious" in
>accordance with Lydick's definitions. But as Robin Lane Fox points out
>in "Pagans and Christians", there was in Roman times a hierarchy of belief 
                             ------------------------
>(or more appropriately, non-belief), such that the beliefs of the lower 
>classes were attributed to superstition. Because this state of affairs
>continues to be the case today, such concepts are both relevant to the current
 ------------------------------

I think that this needs to be demonstrated.

>discussion and useful for intellectual debate.
 
I'm reminded of the Chinese warlord (who's name I do not recall) who
stated that everything that could be known about war had already been
discovered (or something to that effect). While it may be a valid
historical perspective, it is poor precedent for setting military
policy today.

Similarly, what was known about the universe during the "Greco-Roman 
culture" would not be very usefull today in any capacity other than
as historical knowledge.

In todays world of computers and space probes, where there is no valid
basis for religion, the question of whether religion is a superstition
is valid. 

I am reminded of that song, _Give_me_that_old_time_religion_, which
says that if it was good enough for my ancestors, it's good enough for
me. But what if it ain't?
 
>	Bill R.
>
>	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
>government agency."
>-- 
>Bill R.


Rich

payner@netcom.com