Amulets

[GrowingSmaller]

Why have so many cultures produced amulets as forms of spiritual protection and good luck charms? I don't think that "they were ignorant of parapsychology and modern medicine etc" actually adequately explains their emergence. Is it a functon of man's innate will to control nature, and as best a shot as she and he could given the limited information available? Also, if amulets can have a placebo effect, and help positive thinking, is that (cetrus paribus / all else being equal) such a bad thing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why have so many cultures produced amulets as forms of spiritual protection and good luck charms?

Good question.

I believe it all started with Nimrod, who used to be a man of God, but he went astray and broke off from the rest of his kindred and formed his own empire -- even producing his own version of the Flood.

Getting out from under God's umbrella of protection eventually allowed for fear to creep into the various societies, as they grew and began to overlap each other (clash).

Fear of the unknown, fear of conquest, fear of [whatever].

So they began manufacturing various deities, amulets and talismans to help them with their daily problems in life; be it deities to fertilize crops, or amulets for personal protection or talismans to transfer powers to someone else.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Psalm 34:4 I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears.

 

[Nostromo]

Also, if amulets can have a placebo effect, and help positive thinking, is that (cetrus paribus / all else being equal) such a bad thing?

It's not such a bad thing; what I object to is when placebo vendors mislead others about the benefits for their own personal gain.

 

[roach]

Why have so many cultures produced amulets as forms of spiritual protection and good luck charms? I don't think that "they were ignorant of parapsychology and modern medicine etc" actually adequately explains their emergence. Is it a functon of man's innate will to control nature, and as best a shot as she and he could given the limited information available? Also, if amulets can have a placebo effect, and help positive thinking, is that (cetrus paribus / all else being equal) such a bad thing?

Nothing inherently "wrong' with amulets, just as the bible is just a book. It's when the false assumptions of the placebo effect are taken to be fact (and the irrationality that manifests from such thinking) that is wrong. I'm all for raising the well-being of humans and realize it's difficult given the complexity of the mind and behavior. I don't deny the consoling effects of deluding oneself, especially in times of great suffering, I simply see that overall, such delusions on a massive scale have negative implications that outweigh their benefits.

Thus, keeping a rabbits foot for good luck may make one feel better, maybe even behave differently, should not allow ignorance a foothold on to what is actually going on.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Not to mention amulets can be fashionable, and we are vain by nature.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Nothing inherently "wrong' with amulets, just as the bible is just a book. It's when the false assumptions of the placebo effect are taken to be fact (and the irrationality that manifests from such thinking) that is wrong. I'm all for raising the well-being of humans and realize it's difficult given the complexity of the mind and behavior. I don't deny the consoling effects of deluding oneself, especially in times of great suffering, I simply see that overall, such delusions on a massive scale have negative implications that outweigh their benefits.

Thus, keeping a rabbits foot for good luck may make one feel better, maybe even behave differently, should not allow ignorance a foothold on to what is actually going on.

Ok I imaginge you are a scientifically minded person. What about looking at the human animal and saying "isn't it a wonder that he instinctively tries to manipulate and control the world around him. Even if the "technology" is dud, at least he is trying."

The efforts of the astrologers, magicians and alchemists etc (and talisman makers) are all tokens of this wonderful human trait. There was never any guarantee that he would hit bullseye first time, and riduculing the efforts of generations gone bye, or those who do not share the scientific world view, entirely misses the point that the "will to power" and the "metaphysical drive" are part of the functional humanity that actually lead us to the position where we can look back with hindsight and criticise amulets etc from a scientific angle. What is noble and functional, and has had a necessary operative role in the development of science, has been ruthlessly demonised and it's contribution to the modern age sneeringly ignored.

 

[roach]

Ok I imaginge you are a scientifically minded person. What about looking at the human animal and saying "isn't it a wonder that he instinctively tries to manipulate and control the world around him. Even if the "technology" is dud, at least he is trying."

The efforts of the astrologers, magicians and alchemists etc (and talisman makers) are all tokens of this wonderful human trait. There was never any guarantee that he would hit bullseye first time, and riduculing the efforts of generations gone bye, or those who do not share the scientific world view, entirely misses the point that the "will to power" and the "metaphysical drive" are part of the functional humanity that actually lead us to the position where we can look back with hindsight and criticise amulets etc from a scientific angle. What is noble and functional, and has had a necessary operative role in the development of science, has been ruthlessly demonised and it's contribution to the modern age sneeringly ignored.

It's not the effort to understand that gets demonized and ignored, it's the consequences that logically followed from these inaccurate attempts to explain the world. When alchemists tried to understand the nature of matter, it often led to dangerous, downright nasty results, like toxic substances or whatever. While popular opinion may lead one to believe all these attempts to understand the world were "bad", they're nothing more than a small step toward developing a modern science.

I really don't see the need to place so much importance upon the "good intentions" of these outmoded beliefs. What good really comes of it?

Actually, I feel that I have a pretty deep appreciation for the complexities and mysteries of the mind, simply by discovering as much about it through science as I can. To me, it's more amazing that in essence, our brains can do all of the things it can, even though it is the result of nothing more than tiny, replicating robots (not a metaphor, I mean this quite literally). The fact a human can walk, talk, eat, sleep, etc. alone is fascinating beyond imagination. The mechanisms by which all of these processes are achieved is laden with unimaginably beautiful designs, functions, etc. But the most amazing thing about all of it is that it's a complex thing, made of and by simple things.

 

[variant]

Why have so many cultures produced amulets as forms of spiritual protection and good luck charms? I don't think that "they were ignorant of parapsychology and modern medicine etc" actually adequately explains their emergence. Is it a functon of man's innate will to control nature, and as best a shot as she and he could given the limited information available? Also, if amulets can have a placebo effect, and help positive thinking, is that (cetrus paribus / all else being equal) such a bad thing?

The problem becomes denying reality when one knows of the placebo effect.

A consistant denyal of reality can be very harmful if taken in the wrong direction.

Also my sister got a rash from a quartz amulet because of the slight electrical discharge.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The problem becomes denying reality when one knows of the placebo effect.

Why? I think that amulets might "speak" to of us and of us in a almost instinctive way. Dawkins said that there may be an instinct for religion IIRC. I think that what is good from it from a scientific perspective is that it is demonstrative of the ability to see things in terms of abstract forces and powers which form of thinking (although the content may differ), is at the heart of the scientific enteprise. The spititual force causes disease model is "topologically equivalent" to the virus causes disease model. Therefore in one sense religion, amulets etc is a humanistic phenomenon. It is a token of our capacity to think in this abstract metaphysical, causal, mysterious force related manner. Any "humanism" that attacks religion etc root and branch fails to respect that and is therefore blind to the psychological virtue in that form of thinking.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Why not? It's not hard. A lot of people wore amulets of bone, or teeth, or pretty rocks picked up from the ground. It's easy to attribute good luck to something that looks pretty. Confirmation bias does the rest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not? It's not hard. A lot of people wore amulets of bone, or teeth, or pretty rocks picked up from the ground. It's easy to attribute good luck to something that looks pretty. Confirmation bias does the rest.

Amulets were not for 'good luck'; they were for warding-off evil. Talismans were worn for 'good luck'.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Amulets were not for 'good luck'; they were for warding-off evil. Talismans were worn for 'good luck'.

Really, that's just two sides of the same coin. Same process. An initial incident of 'protection', followed by reporting and confirmation bias.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really, that's just two sides of the same coin.

-- Okay, expert -- if you say so.

Just don't expect me to believe you.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

-- Okay, expert -- if you say so.

Just don't expect me to believe you.

I don't know why not AV, we agree with you 99% of the time.

 

[variant]

Why? I think that amulets might "speak" to of us and of us in a almost instinctive way. Dawkins said that there may be an instinct for religion IIRC. I think that what is good from it from a scientific perspective is that it is demonstrative of the ability to see things in terms of abstract forces and powers which form of thinking (although the content may differ), is at the heart of the scientific enteprise. The spititula force causes disease model is "topologically equivalent" to the virus causes disease model. Therefore in one sense religion, amulets etc is a humanistic phenomenon. It is a token of our capacity to think in this abstract metaphysical, causal, mysterious force related manner. Any "humanism" that attacks religion etc root and branch fails to respect that and is therefore blind to the psychological virtue in that form of thinking.

When our various "amulets" become a hindrance rather than a help it may be impossible to discard them in favor of the truth.

Spend some time in any of these forums and you will see how tightly people cling to superstition and use it as a knife to attack anyone they disagree with. Especially consider the philosophy, political and science based message boards.

Then maybe you'll understand what problems can arise. The price of not living in reality is that you instead live in the world of those who tell the most convincing stories, or the world of those whose stories inspire them to carry guns and enforce their reality.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

When our various "amulets" become a hindrance rather than a help it may be impossible to discard them in favor of the truth.

I agree, htat is at leat the negative side. On the other hand thay might at leat be fashionable.

Spend some time in any of these forums and you will see how tightly people cling to superstition and use it as a knife to attack anyone they disagree with. Especially consider the philosophy, political and science based message boards.

ANd its true that the skeptics have "sharpened" their argumentative techniques too. So we live in a world of logical violence, much of the time.

Then maybe you'll understand what problems can arise. The price of not living in reality is that you instead live in the world of those who tell the most convincing stories, or the world of those whose stories inspire them to carry guns and enforce their reality.

I agree that the map determines the behavior. Bad map, ignorant behavior.

 

[variant]

I agree, htat is at leat the negative side. On the other hand thay might at leat be fashionable.

A fashion statement ceases to be an amulet in the sense we are talking about.

ANd its true that the skeptics have "sharpened" their argumentative techniques too. So we live in a world of logical violence, much of the time.

Religious skeptics are generally right on the facts so I give them more leeway.

I agree that the map determines the behavior. Bad map, ignorant behavior.

You don't really agree, you just want to find arguments that will both make you acceptable to evidence based systems of thought and still retain whatever beliefs you want to protect.

There is no middle ground here. You either treat all evidence with consistant skepticism or you are religious.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A fashion statement ceases to be an amulet in the sense we are talking about.

I am not sure. Are fashion statements and religious practices mutually exclusive?

Religious skeptics are generally right on the facts so I give them more leeway.

Ok so long as you are not having double ethical standards.

You don't really agree, you just want to find arguments that will both make you acceptable to evidence based systems of thought and still retain whatever beliefs you want to protect.

Is that a casual observation? If it's not, I'd advise you to relax.

There is no middle ground here. You either treat all evidence with consistant skepticism or you are religious.

I believe in a continuum rather than polarities.

 

[variant]

I am not sure. Are fashion statements and religious practices mutually exclusive?

No some religious practices are indeed faction statements.

I am saying that when you cease to ascribe any actual power to an amulet it ceases to be what we were talking about.

Ok so long as you are not having double ethical standards.

I don't think I have any ethical standards with regard to facts. Some people that are not religious are also jerks with agendas, you are correct.

Is that a casual observation? If it's not, I'd advise you to relax.

It is an observation coming from reading enough of your posts that I feel comfortable with the conclusion.

I believe in a continuum rather than polarities.

There is a continuum with two points, or what we call a criterion for differentiation, those who treat evidence consistently, and those who harbor religious, superstitious and unreasonable ideas.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Being you variant, you might of course be right. But i hope that you are not trying to derail the thread into a discussion my my personal opinion and attitudes towards the Christian faith or similar matters. I would like to discuss amulets rather than have a personalised showdown, as I have had too many on these forums and they are not good for the soul. Even if my beliefs are not scientifically validated (which I accept) I do not need to be told that every five minutes by every skeptic who just happens to be passing bye.