|
While I have always been aware of my superstitious “beliefs,” I have never felt compelled to contend with them, or to even give them more than a fleeting thought. To be sure, I do not really believe any of them to bear any correlation to reality, so that the term “superstitious belief” is actually a misnomer in my case. However, though I do not believe any of them to be true, I continue to hold on to them. I was a church-goer for a while, but, of course, my reasons for going to church were far from benign. I went, variously, because I didn’t want to upset the temporal powers-that-be, because I had forged friendships, and even an intimate relationship I was unwilling to relinquish, and because I was simply a veritable hypocrite. I call myself a hypocrite because I pretended to accept Christianity when I was at odds with its major tenets. The question is this: Are my obstinately-held superstitious beliefs that much different from my past Christian pretentions, and especially that thing called faith? Don’t both superstition and faith have the same basic configuration (at least, for me, in the sense that I have misgivings about the truth and/or validity of both, but yet pretend(ed) to believe them? Doesn't faith, like superstition, call us to believe things, even in the face of contradictory evidence? Isn’t faith akin to superstition in the end? It is instructive to note that the beliefs that are now branded superstitious were once religious. Postscript:On a much lighter note, let me tell you some of my superstitious belief. I relay the superstition first, and then tell you the rationale—what they say. I know, I know, they are all oh so laughable.
This journal also takes the form of a rant (without the postscript). Related Pages
11 July 2004 |