> What's the point in pinpointing its nature when its purpose isn't to give you purpose but to make you feel better or more right?

I'm just naturally curious about anything I don't understand that affects me, I suppose. Furthermore, anything magical or mystical is even more interesting than things well understood by science. For instance, I vaguely understand how an internal combustion engine works. I'm not particularly interested in getting a degree in automotive engineering so I can design my own car, though. The fact that many people obviously understand it so well (as evidenced by the consistent ability of people to design working engines) combined with a brief personal understanding satisfies me.

I don't, however, understand how psychics are supposed to work. A plausible mechanism for psychic powers has never been explained to me. If you can see future events, wow! How? What ramifications does this have for all of physics? Is there free will? What exactly are you seeing? In what way could we harness this ability to do more good? If we could isolate the part of your brain that lets you do this, could we design a machine that could do it better? Could we train better psychics or enhance existing ones?

You may say, "But we don't really believe in it!" Then why does it provide *any* comfort? I think that, if you derive any sort of pleasure or comfort from astrology or psychics or whatnot, some part of you believes in it. Unless your sole contact with the stuff is limited to joking about what the fortune cookie says after your dinner. For the record, I enjoy fortune cookies, but I wouldn't say they provide me with any real optimism or comfort.

> And if it's wrong, what harm does it do, since it involves no strict, life-changing beliefs? All such things require is that you listen and allow a possibility.

I'm not overly fond of slippery-slope arguments, but I'm going to propose one here. By believing in a non-rational belief like this, even slightly, you engage that great human trait of selective perception. It's not hard to see how it sort of starts off as a lark, believing in these things casually. But because you really want it to be true (even if it's only subconsciously), then you begin to remember the times where it seemed true. You remember all the times your horoscope seemed to fit your day, or the person you know who fits his star-chart *perfectly*. It becomes reinforcing.

All humans must struggle with this in everything we believe. We tend to only see evidence for things we want to be true. This becomes dangerous when we pick beliefs that have no basis in reason, because they don't allow for self-examination very well. This discrepancy between beliefs that separate themselves from logic (what I call non-rational beliefs) and other beliefs may be better illustrated with an example.

Let's say our hypothetical pal Tom believes the United States should go to war with Iraq. His reason for this belief is the claim that Saddam Hussein possesses dangerous weapons of mass destruction. Tom may feel very strongly about this belief. When initial weapons inspections show up empty, Tom may disregard them. The weapons inspectors aren't doing a good job, he thinks, or Saddam is just hiding his weapons really well. After several months of thourough inspections, the US President declares that he is convinced Hussein has no weapons. At this point, Tom is forced to reconsider his belief about going to war with Iraq; evidence has shown his initial premise (Hussein has weapons of mass destruction) to be false.

Now, it's possible that Tom will choose another reason to want to fight Iraq. The psychological resistance to changing one's beliefs when confronted with conflicting information is called cognitive dissonance, and it's a powerful trait in humans. The stronger or more personal belief, the stronger the stronger the level of cognitive dissonance. But, it would be far easier for me to persuade Tom that his view was wrong than it would be for me to persuade somebody that astrology was wrong.

In the above example, Tom's belief was based on a provable premise. A belief in astrology must be based simply on personal experience and intuition, for which there is no reliable record. The only person capable of providing us with Tom's experiences as they relate to astrology is Tom himself, and he engages in selective-perception like the rest of us. Since a belief in astrology is inherently non-rational, it is extremely difficult to dissuade somebody from it, and it's easier for the belief to be strengthed if the person wants to believe in it.

So, in short, the reason I think even a small belief in superstition is bad is because it can lead to a stronger belief, which may at some point (particularly when a believer happens to be emotionally vulnerable, such as a time of tragedy) lead to behavior-altering decisions. Anytime we drop our guard of constant critical thinking, we weaken our ability to make good long-term decisions.

Stephen

P.S. I don't mean to imply that people who support the forcable deposition of Saddam Hussein are behaving illogically. In fact, I am one of them.