Amulets

[Eudaimonist]

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

Hey, they work as long as they are made of mithril.

Is it a functon of man's innate will to control nature

No, not in my opinion. They are a function of man's need to act in the face of danger. If one can't do anything constructive to deal with some worry, one will invent an activity that will help one feel as if one is doing something, such as prayer.

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

Yes, if one really believes that one's placebo has real power and one stops doing something constructive to deal with the issue. Also, it may warp one's thinking if one has to give up an accurate understanding of reality to sustain one's placebo.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok Eudaimonist do anthropologists say that people report they use amulets to make them "feel better"? In any case if there is an illusion of doing something by using an amulet (as you seem to believe) then why is that not an instance of trying to control nature (i.e. will to power)?

 

[variant]

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.

There is nothing personal about it GS.

I was responding to your line of argument that amulets were essentially harmless.

My responce brings into question your consistant rationalization of your beliefs.

You have a couple of choices here, but if you had wanted to actually convince me of your position you could always demonstrate that my point is wrong.

This point:

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.

I don't favor whatever placebo effects religious sentiments give over rational self determination so, of course I am not going to feel like tricking people into acting properly or thinking properly is a great idea.

You are an otherwise rational person who wants to justify their other than rational beleifs, it's common, but futile.

I don't always like having a conversation without pointing out core differences or attacking core problems, it would be like playing chess without being willing to check the king.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ok Eudaimonist do anthropologists say that people report they use amulets to make them "feel better"?

Why do people have to "report" this?

In any case if there is an illusion of doing something by using an amulet (as you seem to believe) then why is that not an instance of trying to control nature (i.e. will to power)?

What isn't trying to control nature? What would you exclude from the will to power?

The reason I exclude it is that amulets are protective, not assertive. It isn't the Nietzschean übermensh trying to dominate nature, but rather a frightened response to a threat.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[variant]

The reason I exclude it is that amulets are protective, not assertive. It isn't the Nietzschean übermensh trying to dominate nature, but rather a frightened response to a threat.

I think that crutches are only helpful if you intend to walk again without them.

Nothing about religious beliefs hastens their tossing aside when no longer needed and running free and unburdened.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why do people have to "report" this?

They don't have to report such things, but anthropology is the science of such things (the life worlds and cultures and beliefs of people such as those who wear amulets etc) so if you want science, it (anthropology, you should know) depends on reports.

And afaik people have not reported that they wear amulets simply to "feel better" or to "invent something which makes one feel good" but to fight or manipulate supernatural causes and effects, for instance to proptect children against disease caused by Acheri.

 

[variant]

They don't have to report such things, but anthropology is the science of such things (the life worlds and cultures and beliefs of people such as those who wear amulets etc) so if you want science, it (anthropology, you should know) depends on reports.

And afaik people have not reported that they wear amulets simply to "feel better" or to "invent something which makes one feel good" but to fight or manipulate supernatural causes and effects, for instance to proptect children against disease caused by Acheri.

That people are unaware of the psychological underpinnings of their chosen placebo is not surprising.

The placebo would not work otherwise.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That people are unaware of the psychological underpinnings of their chosen placebo is not surprising.

The placebo would not work otherwise.

Possibly, but possibly not:

Placebo effect works even if patients know they're getting a sham drug | Science | guardian.co.uk

 

[Jade Margery]

They don't have to report such things, but anthropology is the science of such things (the life worlds and cultures and beliefs of people such as those who wear amulets etc) so if you want science, it (anthropology, you should know) depends on reports.

And afaik people have not reported that they wear amulets simply to "feel better" or to "invent something which makes one feel good" but to fight or manipulate supernatural causes and effects, for instance to proptect children against disease caused by Acheri.

Having studied anthropology, I must point out that the 'reports' it depends on are very rarely made by the people who are being reported on. It is usually based on observation, interviews, and social experiments done by an outsider to that culture. Just as we can take pictures other galaxies but are never going to get an actual far-away photo of the one we're in (because we're in it) real anthropology can't reach any kind of objective conclusions if conducted by people who are firm members of the group being studied. Although all researchers will bring their own slant to the field, a member of such a group would be far too biased to report the findings accurately. (Not biased in a necessarily bad way either, but they would assume their readers to know or understand things that are normal to them but would seem strange to outsiders.)

 

[variant]

Possibly, but possibly not:

Placebo effect works even if patients know they're getting a sham drug | Science | guardian.co.uk

You may have a point there. I am still sure placebos work better when people consciously believe though. Subconsciously believing is apparently good enough if that is what is going on there.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So is there more to the science of amulets than diagnosing them from the skeptical perspective?

 

[variant]

So is there more to the science of amulets than diagnosing them from the skeptical perspective?

There’s more to the science of psychology of placebos surely.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that crutches are only helpful if you intend to walk again without them.

I do not know but you may have a partisan approach to what counts as a "crutch". What about fiction, or music, or a sci-fi film, or a beer in the boozer, or something a bit stronger at the disco? All of these are examples of functioning by immersing ourselves in some form of "unnatural state" (for want of a better term). IIRC Plato in "The Republic" said that poets should be banned because they took us away from reality - so is poetry a "crutch"? Where do you draw the line, does it depend on whether you happen to be anti-religious or is there a more impartial logic to it? You might want to medicalise you approach to amulets (view them as pathological by using the crutch analogy), but not Picasso or a glass of intoxicating Chardonnay. Why?

What BTW do you make of this quote by the famously irreligious Neitszche: "For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication" ??? The simple idea I have is that religious experience may be in some sense for some people comparable to the aesthetic (although that wuold not be a complete description). It certainly can be 'aesthetic' for me. The idea that it is not scientific is to me besides the point, the "metaphysical intoxication" is part of the solution not the problem. I have no interest in being "cured" on the internet in some form of "cultural revolution". And I am fully aware of various secular scripts, so there's no need to worry I am in the dark and need to be enlightened. I am not unaware of the secular metanarrative, I just do not need it. Is that really such a disease? Or do you want to clip the wings of Icarus before he flies too high?

 

[variant]

I do not know but you may have a partisan approach to what counts as a "crutch". What about fiction, or music, or a sci-fi film, or a beer in the boozer, or something a bit stronger at the disco? All of these are examples of functioning by immersing ourselves in some form of "unnatural state" (for want of a better term). IIRC Plato in "The Republic" said that poets should be banned because they took us away from reality - so is poetry a "crutch"? Where do you draw the line, does it depend on whether you happen to be anti-religious or is there a more impartial logic to it? You might want to medicalise you approach to amulets (view them as pathological by using the crutch analogy), but not Picasso or a glass of intoxicating Chardonnay. Why?

It's contextual. Something is a crutch when you are using it to cope.

Otherwise you are simply living.

And if you read my statement carefully, I am not against coping or crutches, just the ones that become addictions, that can not be tossed aside so that we can live or grow again, or ones that stunt our growth.

Religion is an acquirement of a dependency on magical thinking and delusions to get people through their lives, and it sincerely encourages them to entrench their religious opinions and thinking and shut down all questioning and exploration of opposed views.

I am reminded of an argument I had with a philosophy teacher about poisonous snakes in India, and how when people were being bitten by the poisonous snakes they would seek out a faith healer to heal their soul so they would be pure. They died every single time even though they were encouraged to go to doctors that could heal them most of the time.

It was more important for these people that they be spiritually pure than alive.

My teachers argument was that for these people the purity was what was important in their reality.

My side of the argument was that they were still dead no matter what they believed.

What BTW do you make of this quote by the famously irreligious Neitszche: "For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication" ??? The simple idea I have is that religious experience may be in some sense for some people comparable to the aesthetic (although that wuold not be a complete description). It certainly can be 'aesthetic' for me. The idea that it is not scientific is to me besides the point, the "metaphysical intoxication" is part of the solution not the problem. I have no interest in being "cured" on the internet in some form of "cultural revolution". And I am fully aware of various secular scripts, so there's no need to worry I am in the dark and need to be enlightened. I am not unaware of the secular metanarrative, I just do not need it. Is that really such a disease?

Intoxicating irrationality to the point of psychological dependence has never been a positive aesthetic for me.

I am going to critisize what I see fit to critisize.

It's your life not mine, I just don't see why you keep trying to justify it.

Or rather I see exactly why, I just don't like it, and I think it's not me or skepticism you have issue with, but rather the part of you that isn't buying it. The smartest believers are always the best 'rationalizers' of their beliefs, because they need to be, that gnawing doubt ruins all the best efforts at the blindness required by faith. They need to have that reason for why something they know they have arrived at in an incorrect manner is to be accepted into their mental framework in a contradictory manner to how they normally think.

There is really no need for the mental gymnastics though.

Or do you want to clip the wings of Icarus before he flies too high?

On the contrary I would like to see rational and intelligent people grow and shake off their need for religion, find their own reasons for existing and realize that they are moral actors that are in control of their own lives.

It's much like waiting for small children to stop believing in Santa clause so that you know that they have reached the age of reason.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

C'mon religion can be harmless fun. It may not float your boat, but that does not mean you have to try to sink other people's.

And I think that generalising from the snake bite scenario to all religion being malign, of that was your argument, is a bit unfair (hasty generalisation).

Why not look at religious architecture and see the positive influence that faith can have on culture? For instance the Baha'i lotus temple IIRC is one of the most visited and beautiful buildings on the planet. There are many other cases of religious architecture surpassing ordinary buildings from the aesthetic perspective. Of course you might want to pick a fight with some of the cultural beliefs of the Baha'is, but that does not negate the beauty of the building.

 

[variant]

C'mon religion can be harmless fun. It may not float your boat, but that does not mean you have to try to sink other people's.

I think you are mischaracterizing the issue.

And I think that generalizing from the snake bite scenario to all religion being malign, of that was your argument, is a bit unfair (hasty generalisation).

Harmless fun isn't a massive hand waveing generalization? It’s almost impressive how you can hold differn’t standards for my thoughts than for your own.

Oh there is some good, but my points stand the test of characterizing religion across almost all it's faces.

It is a psychologically addictive crutch that stunts peoples intellectual development.

Why not look at religious architecture and see the positive influence that faith can have on culture? For instance the Baha'i lotus temple IIRC is one of the most visited and beautiful buildings on the planet. There are many other cases of religious architecture surpassing ordinary buildings from the aesthetic perspective. Of course you might want to pick a fight with some of the cultural beliefs of the Baha'is, but that does not negate the beauty of the building.

You are pointing to great arctecture which, is great in and of itself regardless of religious sentiment.

This one was built because of music.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok I like classical music, but tickets can be expensive. As for stunting intellectual development, what practical difference is wearing an eye of horus going to make to my mental skills? Really, if you want to suggest that I learn logic x y or z, or philosophic view a b or c and tell me that an amulet is going to spoil my chances, I am astounded. So you must mean something else. If you say that I must meditate on the value of scientific medicine at all times at the expence of other purported modes of healing, of else face some form of significant inner atrophy, that seems extreme. IIRC a study found that amongst scientists many doctors actually held religios beliefs. A google search ought to produce confirmation. Please if you want to quiz me on the skeptical attitude, if thats your point, I will take a test. Go ahead questions 1 2 and 3 please. I think I know most of the important answers, attitudes and and thinking styles from Occams Razor to evidence based reasoning, so lets have the exam....

 

[variant]

Ok I like classical music, but tickets can be expensive. As for stunting intellectual development, what practical difference is wearing an eye of horus going to make to my mental skills? Really, if you want to suggest that I learn logic x y or z, or philosophic view a b or c and tell me that an amulet is going to spoil my chances, I am astounded. So you must mean something else. If you say that I must meditate on the value of scientific medicine at all times at the expence of other purported modes of healing, of else face some form of significant inner atrophy, that seems extreme. IIRC a study found that amongst scientists many doctors actually held religios beliefs. A google search ought to produce confirmation. Please if you want to quiz me on the skeptical attitude, if thats your point, I will take a test. Go ahead questions 1 2 and 3 please. I think I know most of the important answers, attitudes and and thinking styles from Occams Razor to evidence based reasoning, so lets have the exam....

I honestly can't tell if you are trying to trivialize religious thought or promote it in this thread. A bit of harmless fun that inspires massive tributary arcetectural projects?

You don't have the ability to hold consistent positions or standards when it comes to this subject so what would a quiz tell me above and beyond my observations?

If you believe in the eye of Horus, it stunts your intellectual development, and if you just think it's a cool design then you're probably ok.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Oh so I pass the test then? You are right I don't care too much for consistency. What I want is a good day which is a more hedonistic approach. Actually if you look at some famous secular thinkers like Neitzsche or the utilitarians, in both cases it can be argued that pinning oneself down to an ethic out of an abstract sense of duty, but one that interfers with life force, enjoyment etc, can be a bad thing. The way I see things is that secularism is ok, consistent etc but going to a church or temple is enouh of an alternative to the cinema (which I generally hate) or the pub (which is unhealthy) etc that I am prepared to switch off the inner Dawkins and sing hosanna sing...Plus i get to learn things about "alien" philosophies from the inside rather than the theoretical, and meet new friends, which I really enjoy.

 

[variant]

Oh so I pass the test then?

What test?

You are right I don't care too much for consistency. What I want is a good day which is a more hedonistic approach. Actually if you look at some famous secular thinkers like Neitzsche or the utilitarians, in both cases it can be argued that pinning oneself down to an ethic out of an abstract sense of duty, but one that interfers with life force, enjoyment etc, can be a bad thing. The way I see things is that secularism is ok, consistent etc but going to a church or temple is enouh of an alternative to the cinema (which I generally hate) or the pub (which is unhealthy) etc that I am prepared to switch off the inner Dawkins and sing hosanna sing...Plus i get to learn things about "alien" philosophies from the inside rather than the theoretical, and meet new friends, which I really enjoy.

If the fact that you enjoy something is your reason, then you don't have to do all this rationalizeing.