Religion and Superstition
Since the
1800s, the issue of the relationship between religion and superstition has
arisen. I would say that the essential point of the entire discussion is a
semantic question: what do we mean by religion?
The answer seems obvious, but in reality, the term can, and indeed does,
indicate many different things, depending on the culture of reference. For us
Europeans, when we say religion, we certainly think of Christianity, albeit in
its different versions and interpretations. But obviously, the meaning
changes—profoundly so—if the term religion is used in different cultural
contexts, each with its own prevailing faith. In the Islamic context, the focus
is, of course, on the religion proclaimed by Muhammad, which, despite
significant theological and ethical differences, is still considered an
Abrahamic religion, as it originates from the Bible. In the Eastern world—Hindu,
Buddhist, Confucian—there is an infinite variety of schools of thought, as they
are based on existential philosophical inquiries rather than a direct
revelation.
However, despite the diversity, we can identify two basic concepts of religion.
In the first, religion consists in the fact that, alongside material entities,
spiritual beings are also acknowledged—non-corporeal entities believed to govern
natural forces: spirits of rivers, seas, winds, plants, etc. In the second,
religion is instead the belief in a creator and organizer of the world, thus a
philosophical explanation of the world’s existence and order. In essence, when
we speak of spirits of natural forces, we explain nothing because we only add
invisible forces to visible ones, without providing any explanation for their
existence or purposes.
In short, if we say that the winds are the work of spirits, the question remains
as to whose work the spirits of the wind are; it’s not a philosophical
explanation of a fundamental human question, but rather a deferral of the
explanation.
In the first case, actions are accepted that might somehow influence the actions
of the spirits, which is precisely what is defined as superstition—a preliminary
form of religiosity. For example, in China, bridges near noble residences were
oddly built in zig-zag shapes to complicate spirits' paths, and door thresholds
were raised for the same purpose. Here, religiosity and superstition appear to
be the same thing. In the second case, however, only God is believed capable of
intervening in natural events, excluding any superstitious practices: thus, in
this case, superstitions are the opposite of religion, they are not allowed and
are considered blasphemous.
I would also add that these two conceptions are not contradictory because one
could think that spirits are the work of God, just as material entities are. In
short, when we say that the ancients were polytheists because they believed in
many gods (albeit highly anthropomorphized), we overlook the fact that they
still placed a creator and organizing god above them. So, when viewed closely,
the difference between polytheism and monotheism is not as sharp as is commonly
believed. The real difference is whether or not one believes that God listens to
us or if only spirits can. After all, even in Catholicism, we often turn more to
saints, or perhaps to the souls of dear departed ones, to intercede with God.
While it is true that only God grants graces and that saints are merely
intercessors, we commonly say that saints perform miracles.
In short, we cannot say that superstitions are forms of religion; more
accurately, they are the opposite of religions.
4o