Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on November 12, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
-
Hi everyone,
According to Hindu philosophy, there is no one path to salvation. There are many paths and we can choose any one that works for us.
We can choose the path of devotion or the path of selfless action or the path of wisdom. You can also be an atheist. Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity. There is no one organisation or authority who dictates what all Hindus should do.
No specific book or scripture is authoritative for all Hindus. You can follow or question any scripture. Generally, most Hindus will follow a combination of multiple paths.
In spite of this loose structure it has certain features that are common to all Hindus....Dharma (righteousness), Karma, reincarnation and Moksha (liberation). The idea is to experience life in many forms and through these experiences to finally go inwards and realize our own inner divinity.
For information.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
We can choose the path of devotion or the path of selfless action or the path of wisdom. You can also be an atheist.
Are you somehow implying these things to be mutually exclusive - in other words that you cannot be a devoted atheist, that you cannot be a selfless atheist, that you cannot be a wise atheist.
I'd suggest that you can be any of those things, albeit not all atheists are. But then again not all religious people are devoted, or selfless, or wise either.
-
Are you somehow implying these things to be mutually exclusive - in other words that you cannot be a devoted atheist, that you cannot be a selfless atheist, that you cannot be a wise atheist.
I'd suggest that you can be any of those things, albeit not all atheists are. But then again not all religious people are devoted, or selfless, or wise either.
??
My point was that even atheists could be spiritual....without necessarily believing in a God. Samkhya philosophy is largely atheistic but not materialistic.
-
??
My point was that even atheists could be spiritual....without necessarily believing in a God.
Well you need to take more care with your language. What you said is a classic of the kind of casually insulting language atheists so often face. Imagine if I'd said:
We can choose to be kind, we can choose to be brave, we can choose to be hard-working. You can also be christian.
The separation of the virtuous attributes from the choice of religion can clearly be interpreted that they are mutually exclusive.
-
My point was that even atheists could be spiritual....without necessarily believing in a God. Samkhya philosophy is largely atheistic but not materialistic.
But this is nonsense - the attributes you have chosen (all of which most people would see as positive or virtuous) are nothing to do with spiritualism. They are simply aspects of human behaviour. You don't have to be spiritual to be devoted (e.g. to your family etc), you don't have to be spiritual to be selfless, you don't have to be spiritual to be wise (or have good judgement). You seem to be slipping into a further prejudice that somehow being virtuous and exhibiting attributes that we consider positive equates to being spiritual - which again seems to be casually insulting to people who are not spiritual (most people certainly in the UK) who strive (and hopefully succeed) to be devoted, selfless and wise.
None of these human attributes and behaviours are aspects of spiritualism. The elements that typically define spiritualism are things like belief in god, belief in afterlife, belief in reincarnation, belief in some higher power, belief in a soul, belief in fate etc - not devotion, selflessness and wisdom. Not I'm not saying that spiritual people cannot be devoted, selfless or wise - of course they, can. But it is just as easy for non-spiritual people to show those attributes and behaviours as they have nothing to doing with spirituality.
-
My point was that even atheists could be spiritual....without necessarily believing in a God.
But that isn't what you implied in:
Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity.
Again your prejudice is achingly obvious - in your mind devotion must mean devotion to a god. Firstly that is completely inconsistent with your claim that atheists can be too, as, by definition, no atheist is going to be devoted to something that he or she does not think exist. But also devotion as a behaviour and attribute (seen generally to be a positive one) is way broader that devotion to gods - I suspect that most people see their prime devotion as being towards other people that they care about and love, or even to their jobs etc. By framing devotion is such a narrow theistic manner again you seem unable to see beyond a narrow prejudiced view that being good and virtuous equate to being spiritual and believing in god.
-
I don't find Sriram's use of English insulting. I am always impressed how well many people from other countries express themselves in English. I think part of the problem is that many of the key Sanskrit words used in 'Hindu' philosophies don't translate well using words like 'God', 'spiritual', 'righteousness' which have a Christian connotation. I think all Sriram is saying is that there are many inward ways, methods, paths mentioned in those philosophies which don't require a theistic belief.
-
I think all Sriram is saying is that there are many inward ways, methods, paths mentioned in those philosophies which don't require a theistic belief.
But none, it seems, that don't require belief in the fundamental disembodiment of the self. Why must spirituality always involve an immortality project?
-
I don't find Sriram's use of English insulting. I am always impressed how well many people from other countries express themselves in English.
I don't think that Sriram intends to be insulting, but he is using language that panders to lazy negative stereotyping of people.
So in his case he is pandering to a lazy stereotype that in order to exhibit positive attributes and be virtuous you need to be spiritual and/or believe in god. Even when someone is seeming to rebut that stereotype they simply exhibit that it sits there as a starting point to their thinking. So lets look at some other examples.
If someone says:
'Black people can be hardworking too' - I think it is pretty clear that this is based on, and continuing to promulgate a lazy stereotype that black people are lazy. Even if the statement seems to rebut the claim - the claim is a necessary element of the dialogue even if unsaid.
or
Women can be rational too' - I think it is pretty clear that this is based on, and continuing to promulgate a lazy stereotype that women aren't rational. Even if the statement seems to rebut the claim - the claim is a necessary element of the dialogue even if unsaid.
or
Gay people can be monogamous too' - I think it is pretty clear that this is based on, and continuing to promulgate a lazy stereotype that gay people are promiscuous. Even if the statement seems to rebut the claim - the claim is a necessary element of the dialogue even if unsaid.
If your mindset is such that you do not accept the lazy starting point stereotype then the need to rebut becomes completely non-sensical.
This type of lazy prejudiced language occurs all the time and forms part of classic racist, sexist, homophobic etc tropes that help to perpetuate prejudice against certain groups of people. And the same is true for atheists, often associated with a lazy stereotype that you need to be religious to be moral or ethical.
-
I think all Sriram is saying is that there are many inward ways, methods, paths mentioned in those philosophies which don't require a theistic belief.
But he isn't - because the attributes he uses, being devoted, selfless and wise aren't limited to an inward facing philosophical approach or being spiritual (as he claims), whether theistic or not. They are pretty universal human attributes and behaviours. He is perpetuating a lazy stereotype that somehow exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with being spiritual, which is just as much a lazy stereotype as considering that exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with a belief in god.
-
I don't find Sriram's use of English insulting. I am always impressed how well many people from other countries express themselves in English. I think part of the problem is that many of the key Sanskrit words used in 'Hindu' philosophies don't translate well using words like 'God', 'spiritual', 'righteousness' which have a Christian connotation. I think all Sriram is saying is that there are many inward ways, methods, paths mentioned in those philosophies which don't require a theistic belief.
I think perhaps Sriram's opening post should have been in the 'Eastern Religions' section rather than the 'Philosophy in all its guises' section as all he seems to be doing is limited to and expounding areas of Hindu philosphy for those who are interested in such things.
This section tends to present different philosophical concepts and views which are often challenged by others. Hence, 'devotion' as a Hindu term might well not raise much of an eyebrow, but as a philosphical idea, is open to all sorts of challenges and interpretations, as Prof Davey quite rightly, in my view, made clear.
-
But he isn't - because the attributes he uses, being devoted, selfless and wise aren't limited to an inward facing philosophical approach or being spiritual (as he claims), whether theistic or not. They are pretty universal human attributes and behaviours. He is perpetuating a lazy stereotype that somehow exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with being spiritual, which is just as much a lazy stereotype as considering that exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with a belief in god.
I think you have gone berserk, Prof..... :D
-
I think you have gone berserk, Prof..... :D
Nope - just pointing out that human attributes such as devotion, selflessness and wisdom aren't somehow restricted to people who are spiritual. So while I completely accept that there are plenty of people who consider themselves to be spiritual and also exhibit devotion, selflessness and wisdom (albeit there are plenty of others that don't), there are also plenty of people who do not consider themselves to be spiritual and also exhibit devotion, selflessness and wisdom (albeit there are plenty of others that don't).
However in your mind devotion, selflessness and wisdom seem to be exclusively linked to spiritualism - they aren't and to infer they are is lazy stereotyping.
-
I was only saying that in Hindu philosophy ....there are many paths that people can follow for spirituality development and I have named some of them. You are reading and insinuating things that are wholly imagined. ::)
-
I was only saying that in Hindu philosophy ....
Then as Enki suggests this might have been better in the Eastern Religion section.
there are many paths that people can follow for spirituality development and I have named some of them. You are reading and insinuating things that are wholly imagined. ::)
Nope I don't think I'm imagining you equating devotion, selflessness and wisdom to be exclusively linked to spiritualism.
So we can easily sort this one Sriram:
Do you accept that it is perfectly possible to demonstrate the attributes of devotion, selflessness and wisdom without being spiritual or religious or a believer in god?
Simple question, requires just a simple yes/no answer
-
Yes...and that's precisely what I meant when I said that even atheists can get salvation. If you still don't get it....I give up.
-
Yes...and that's precisely what I meant when I said that even atheists can get salvation.
We aren't talking about salvation (whatever that actually means) we are talking about very human attributes of devotion, selflessness and wisdom.
But thanks for confirming - you could have made things a lot easier by being clear about this in the first place. And I would also urge you not to engage in language the perpetuates lazy stereotypes about groups of people, for example by implying that it is somehow controversial or newsworthy to suggest that atheists can exhibit devotion, selflessness and wisdom.
See also my examples relating to racism, sexism and homophobia.
Sriram - I think you are from India - no doubt you will also be aware of lazy stereotypes that are aimed at Indian people as a group, which you may well find frustrating at best, insulting or worse. So please think a little more carefully about your choice of words when discussing attributes that you imply about a group, rather than about an individual person.
-
Communication is a two way process. What I say is one thing....what you understand is the other. I cannot help your touchiness and your misinterpretations.....
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Communication is a two way process. What I say is one thing....what you understand is the other. I cannot help your touchiness and your misinterpretations.....
Cheers.
Sriram
If you say something that implies that it is somehow newsworthy or controversial to claim that atheists can be devoted, selfless or wise, then it should come as no surprise if someone interprets it in that manner. If that isn't what you wish to convey then better to use clearer language. And frankly it took several goes for you even to understand why your comments may be interpreted in such a manner and only when I asked a very direct question did you clarify your position. Indeed you seemed rather bemused that someone might interpret your comments in the manner I did.
If someone said:
'Even some black people can be hardworking' - would you find it hard to understand why that might be interpreted in a negative manner by black people (and others who oppose racism). If not why did you struggle so much to recognise how someone who is an atheist might interpret your posts in a negative manner.
-
But he isn't - because the attributes he uses, being devoted, selfless and wise aren't limited to an inward facing philosophical approach or being spiritual (as he claims), whether theistic or not. They are pretty universal human attributes and behaviours. He is perpetuating a lazy stereotype that somehow exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with being spiritual, which is just as much a lazy stereotype as considering that exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with a belief in god.
I didn't read his opening post that way. I saw the emphasis on path of devotion, of selflessness, of wisdom. It would have been better if he had used the expressions Bhakti yoga, Karma yoga and Raja Yoga and explained what those terms mean, in which case the opening post would have been better in the Eastern Religion Section. I notice that he did use the word 'spiritual' in a later post. It would have been better not to use a Christian term, especially when confronting atheists. We don't want to precipitate any heart attacks.
-
I didn't read his opening post that way.
Perhaps so, but the post, particularly when posted on the Philosophy section rather than Eastern religions is open to different interpretations and I don't think mine was a particularly unusual or unexpected interpretation. Frankly it is just another one of the 'you atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion' tropes.
So very predictable, so very condescending and insulting. The very notion of his OP that even atheists can be saved providing they follow the rules set out by Hinduism demonstrates that mind-set in spades.
-
Who the heck needs to be saved anyway? Where are "these" paths supposed to be going?
There's a huge presumption in the OP that it is already known to be correct.
-
Who the heck needs to be saved anyway? Where are "these" paths supposed to be going?
There's a huge presumption in the OP that it is already known to be correct.
Yup - I agree with that. The sort of condescending 'certainty' - akin to 'well we all agree what the truth is, why don't you guys just follow it.'
-
I saw the emphasis on path of devotion, of selflessness, of wisdom.
But the point is that devotion, selflessness and wisdom aren't something exclusively about hinduism or spiritualism, nor frankly is a philosophical view that we should try to attain (i.e. follow a path) devotion, of selflessness, of wisdom in any way exclusively about hinduism or spiritualism. Actually, although it might be phrased slightly differently secular humanism follows exactly the same path, although they might talk of commitment (devotion) to treating others as you'd wish to be treated (selflessness) and having consideration for others (wisdom).
So imagine if a humanist had posted the following, analogous to the OP.
'Humanism considers that to be an ethical person you should strive to attain the virtues of devotion, of selflessness, of wisdom. Anyone can follow humanist principles, even Hindus and Christians and if they follow those humanist principles they too can become an ethical person.'
Can't you see just how condescending and insulting that would come across to a Hindu or a Christian, who quite reasonably would reply 'sod you, those aren't exclusively humanist principles, our religion teaches us the same thing. We are perfectly capable of following our own teaching if we want to be a good person, we don't need you lecturing us. How dare you imply that the only way we can demonstrate our ethical nature is by aligning ourselves with your philosophy which doesn't teach us anything new'.
-
I think you're ranting PD. I didn't read Sriram's OP in the way you did. I think the problem is you making lazy Western-centric assumptions about what Sriram meant based on your biases. In the East theological philosophy is very much part of philosophy in all its guises.
I also think you owe Sriram an apology for misrepresenting him in reply #8 and #18. You inserted the word "too" in your examples about black people and homosexual people etc. Sriram never used the word "too". Nor did Sriram use the word "even" in his OP in relation to atheists. So your "Even some black people can be hardworking' is a complete misrepresentation since you inserted the word "even", which wasn't there in the OP.
Sriram started his OP "according to Hindu philosophy" and then stated that part of Hindu philosophy includes the idea of salvation. He then went on to expand on some ideas in Hindu philosophy such as "There are many paths and we can choose any one that works for us."
Given all the full stops in between his sentences the next line "We can choose the path of devotion or the path of selfless action or the path of wisdom. You can also be an atheist" just means that according to Hindu philosophy you don't have to believe in a god to follow these paths of devotion, selflessness or wisdom.
Sriram then mentions that according to Hindu philosophy the path of devotion does not limit you to choosing any particular deity. Within Buddhist philosophy there is an idea that devotion can be practised without needing any gods to be devoted to. Cultivating a devotional state of mind is a mechanism for not focusing on your own needs, and is seen as a way of overcoming ego.
This is the philosophy board. It isn't called "philosophy in all its guises excluding theological philosophy".
Everything else you read into his OP and your condescending response (reply #16) about his use of the English language just comes across as patronising racism to me.
-
We aren't talking about salvation (whatever that actually means) we are talking about very human attributes of devotion, selflessness and wisdom.
Google is your friend. Salvation = preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss.
-
Thanks a lot ekim and Gabriella for your correct understanding of my OP.
Some peoples minds are so microscopic and 'Zoom-In' that they need to micro analyse everything, even simple words. Add to that their complexes and need to defend their atheism....and you get an impetuous mixture.
-
Thanks a lot ekim and Gabriella for your correct understanding of my OP.
Some peoples minds are so microscopic and 'Zoom-In' that they need to micro analyse everything, even simple words. Add to that their complexes and need to defend their atheism....and you get an impetuous mixture.
No problem - just calling it how I see it.
But we all have our biases and complexes- it's not just some people - it's all people including you, me and PD. Your posts seem to reflect your own complexes, including many times some generalisations about the West. Sometimes your posts seem to make some condescending assumptions about people who are not interested in your ideas of religious / supernatural / untestable spirituality. A lot of atheists I meet over here think very deeply about spiritual matters and seem very selfless and devoted. They just choose not to accept as true and to follow every unproven possible explanation that blows by in the wind.
For example some of your posts seem to assert that people who are not interested in your brand of spirituality and are only interested in science have not evolved spiritually, unless I have misunderstood? Whereas Susan Doris, for example, and some other atheist posters have talked about their sense of the spiritual but justifiably reject the unproven assertions of any particular philosophy (including your unproven philosophical assertions). I think a while back Susan even referred us to a book she read called the The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality.
-
So imagine if a humanist had posted the following, analogous to the OP.
'Humanism considers that to be an ethical person you should strive to attain the virtues of devotion, of selflessness, of wisdom. Anyone can follow humanist principles, even Hindus and Christians and if they follow those humanist principles they too can become an ethical person.'
Can't you see just how condescending and insulting that would come across to a Hindu or a Christian, who quite reasonably would reply 'sod you, those aren't exclusively humanist principles, our religion teaches us the same thing. We are perfectly capable of following our own teaching if we want to be a good person, we don't need you lecturing us. How dare you imply that the only way we can demonstrate our ethical nature is by aligning ourselves with your philosophy which doesn't teach us anything new'.
That sounds more like the way an intolerant humanist would react. I think Sriram has answered the likely outcome "There are many paths and we can choose any one that works for us. There is no one organisation or authority who dictates what all Hindus should do." They would probably accept humanism as just another 'path' and allot it a space amongst all others. A Christian, if feeling insulted, would probably 'turn the other cheek', forgive you and pray for your soul.
-
Gabriella
I don't think I have criticized anyone for their lack of interest in spirituality. As I have said many times...I believe that everyone develops spiritually regardless of their beliefs. So, that's not an issue with me.
I only criticize people who are willing to speculate on matters that they classify as 'science' but criticize people who might speculate on matters that they choose to classify as 'woo'. What I call the 'Two Boxes Syndrome'.
I also criticize people for their insistence on physical and measurable evidence for phenomena that are not measurable. Their insistence on treating the brain as a living, thinking entity that can by itself conjure up imagery of an after-life and other such things. Their dismissal of scientists who choose to take a more open view of what reality could be ..... and so on and so forth........
Anyway thanks.
-
Gabriella
I don't think I have criticized anyone for their lack of interest in spirituality. As I have said many times...I believe that everyone develops spiritually regardless of their beliefs. So, that's not an issue with me.
I only criticize people who are willing to speculate on matters that they classify as 'science' but criticize people who might speculate on matters that they choose to classify as 'woo'. What I call the 'Two Boxes Syndrome'.
I also criticize people for their insistence on physical and measurable evidence for phenomena that are not measurable. Their insistence on treating the brain as a living, thinking entity that can by itself conjure up imagery of an after-life and other such things. Their dismissal of scientists who choose to take a more open view of what reality could be ..... and so on and so forth........
Anyway thanks.
I would agree that there is nothing wrong with speculating, whether it is speculating about the material or the abstract. It's part of the exploratory process and what it is to be human IMO.
-
I would agree that there is nothing wrong with speculating, whether it is speculating about the material or the abstract. It's part of the exploratory process and what it is to be human IMO.
Speculation is fine and can be interesting, however assuming the validity or truth of speculation and going around organising society on that basis, or even chest thumping on an assumed superiority, is not.
-
But none, it seems, that don't require belief in the fundamental disembodiment of the self. Why must spirituality always involve an immortality project?
Because, like many people, Sriram needs to believe there is something more to existence than the one lifetime he has on earth. For some people, the idea of ceasing to exist is an uncomfortable one to accept.
-
That sounds more like the way an intolerant humanist would react. ... A Christian, if feeling insulted, would probably 'turn the other cheek', forgive you and pray for your soul.
Yup, of course christianity, and other religions, have always been in the business of graciously accepting any insults. And there was me thinking that religions in general and christianity in particular have a longstanding history of promulgating laws which make it illegal to insult christianity (and other religions). And this isn't just something from the past - I think that a quarter of countries across the world have blasphemy laws which make it illegal to insult one or more religions. And in some cases they are so prepared to 'turn the other cheek' if their religion is insulted that the penalty for blasphemy is death.
And just to make sure I am being even handed in my information, let's also consider all the countries that have specific laws that make it illegal to insult humanism in a similar manner. Oh yes, that would be exactly zero.
So if there are any people that so touchy about the beliefs being insulted that they make it an offence, that would be religious people and their beliefs not humanists.
-
Speculation is fine and can be interesting, however assuming the validity or truth of speculation and going around organising society on that basis, or even chest thumping on an assumed superiority, is not.
I agree that assuming the truth of speculation without objective evidence leaves any resulting organising of society open to challenge.
I don't think this is peculiar to religion though - it seems to be a human trait to try to organise society around political / philosophical speculations based on what people believe to be their truths e.g. in relation to ethics. We as humans like telling other people how they ought to behave and think and people seem to be prone to trying to convince others to agree with them.
-
Yup, of course christianity, and other religions, have always been in the business of graciously accepting any insults. And there was me thinking that religions in general and christianity in particular have a longstanding history of promulgating laws which make it illegal to insult christianity (and other religions). And this isn't just something from the past - I think that a quarter of countries across the world have blasphemy laws which make it illegal to insult one or more religions. And in some cases they are so prepared to 'turn the other cheek' if their religion is insulted that the penalty for blasphemy is death.
And just to make sure I am being even handed in my information, let's also consider all the countries that have specific laws that make it illegal to insult humanism in a similar manner. Oh yes, that would be exactly zero.
So if there are any people that so touchy about the beliefs being insulted that they make it an offence, that would be religious people and their beliefs not humanists.
Yup, of course you are talking about religions and countries organised to support a power structure by conditioning the masses, much as atheistic communism does, the same sort of structure which cost Jesus his life. I was talking about a Christian i.e. an individual who is endeavouring to follow the straight and narrow path advocated by Jesus rather than marching down the wide path leading to eternal conflict. It would not surprise me that, if humanism ever became a widespread organisation, there would be some power hungry group which would seek to use it as a source of control. Anyway, I'm glad you got that off your chest. Perhaps we could return the topic to Hinduism.
-
Yup, of course christianity, and other religions, have always been in the business of graciously accepting any insults. And there was me thinking that religions in general and christianity in particular have a longstanding history of promulgating laws which make it illegal to insult christianity (and other religions). And this isn't just something from the past - I think that a quarter of countries across the world have blasphemy laws which make it illegal to insult one or more religions. And in some cases they are so prepared to 'turn the other cheek' if their religion is insulted that the penalty for blasphemy is death.
And just to make sure I am being even handed in my information, let's also consider all the countries that have specific laws that make it illegal to insult humanism in a similar manner. Oh yes, that would be exactly zero.
So if there are any people that so touchy about the beliefs being insulted that they make it an offence, that would be religious people and their beliefs not humanists.
No point widening it out to the rest of the world to try to distract from the point that on this board, you seem to be doing a fine job of being somewhat intolerant of some of the language used by those who have a different world-view from you, making assumptions based on your biases, and looking for insults where they don't exist.
Out of the theists on this forum, who has been complaining about blasphemy in people's posts? Maybe I missed it?
-
... you seem to be doing a fine job of being somewhat intolerant of some of the language used by those who have a different world-view from you...
I am perfectly entitled to express my opinions on this MB whether or not you agree with them and whether or not you have a different world view to me. And you are equally entitled to do the same.
However on this thread when I have expressed my views I have been variously described by you and Sriram (who both hold different world views to me) as ranting when I express my opinion, that I must be berserk for having such views and that my views are racist.
And apparently it is me who is intolerant of those who have a different world-view.
Beyond parody.
-
I am perfectly entitled to express my opinions on this MB whether or not you agree with them and whether or not you have a different world view to me. And you are equally entitled to do the same.
However on this thread when I have expressed my views I have been variously described by you and Sriram (who both hold different world views to me) as ranting when I express my opinion, that I must be berserk for having such views and that my views are racist.
And apparently it is me who is intolerant of those who have a different world-view.
Beyond parody.
In your posts on this thread: #3, #4, #5, #6, and #8, you described Sriram as either being casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping. So 5 accusatory posts by you against one poster in such a short space of time can accurately be described as you ranting I think. I think Sriram was being charitable when he wondered if you had gone berserk. But no one is denying your right to go berserk or rant on here when expressing your opinions.
By the way, I mentioned you ranting because you described someone else as ranting on another thread. I thought you liked the word and that is why you used it, and naturally I assumed if you use it about other people's posts then obviously you would not mind your posts being described as a rant, especially as your post was a rant. It's all a bit of fun remember - that's how you described all the arguing on here.
I described your post #16 as coming across as patronising racism because you were telling a poster from a different country that this board was not the place for their Hindu philosophy even though this board is called "Philosophy in all its guises" and you also told the foreign poster "you need to take more care with your language" after the poster had confirmed that it was you who had misunderstood his post. I suspect you misunderstood it due to your own lazy negative stereotyping and prejudices, as I assume your English comprehension skills are adequate.
Telling someone from another country and culture that their culture's philosophy does not belong on this board, and that you are insulted by the way they express themselves in English, even though their posts were fairly polite and articulate could be seen as racist.
Good - so you have no evidence of any theist on here trying to moderate people's posts by accusing them of blasphemy. Presumably if you had evidence of that you would have linked to it. So it's just you then trying to tell people what language they should be employing when addressing atheists. If you feel the need to launch into another rant about it, as you correctly pointed out, it is your right to be able to express your opinions on this MB.
-
In your posts on this thread: #3, #4, #5, #6, and #8, you described Sriram as either being casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping. So 5 accusatory posts by you against one poster in such a short space of time can accurately be described as you ranting I think.
Blimey - pot, kettle.
So you accuse me of five accusatory points in five separate post (note not including my first post on this thread). Not quite sure how your are counting there VG
For consistency - in your very first post on this thread you made the following slurs about me:
That I am ranting (1)
That I am making lazy (2) western centric assumptions (3)
That I am biased (4)
That I am misrepresenting (5)
That I am condescending (6)
That I am patronising (7)
That I am racist (eight)
So if I am ranting, what on earth does that make you VG - is there some kind of word for a mega-rant, and uber-rant etc etc. No idea.
And frankly, I'll take 1-7 on the chin in the spirit of knock-about etc. I won't take 8.
-
Telling someone from another country and culture that their culture's philosophy does not belong on this board, and that you are insulted by the way they express themselves in English, even though their posts were fairly polite and articulate could be seen as racist.
But I never said that VG - do not misrepresent me and do not accuse me of racism based on your misrepresentation.
Note that is wasn't me, but Enki who first suggested this thread would be better on the Eastern Religions section of the MB if it was to be a narrow discussion of Hinduism, rather than a broader philosophical discussion:
I think perhaps Sriram's opening post should have been in the 'Eastern Religions' section rather than the 'Philosophy in all its guises' section as all he seems to be doing is limited to and expounding areas of Hindu philosphy for those who are interested in such things.
Is he/she also racist VG for suggesting this.
All I did was also indicate that if Sriram only wanted to discuss the Hindu religion (reply 13) Then as Enki suggests this might have been better in the Eastern Religion section.
How on earth is that racist.
I note also that Enki also suggested that the thread might be better in the Eastern Religion section - again is he/she racist for suggesting this VG.
-
Blimey - pot, kettle.
So you accuse me of five accusatory points in five separate post (note not including my first post on this thread). Not quite sure how your are counting there VG
For consistency - in your very first post on this thread you made the following slurs about me:
That I am ranting (1)
That I am making lazy (2) western centric assumptions (3)
That I am biased (4)
That I am misrepresenting (5)
That I am condescending (6)
That I am patronising (7)
That I am racist (eight)
So if I am ranting, what on earth does that make you VG - is there some kind of word for a mega-rant, and uber-rant etc etc. No idea.
Seemed like a fitting response to your ranting in your earlier posts on this thread. And as I mentioned before I used the word "rant" because you described someone else's post as a rant so I thought you were comfortable with the word. Why so touchy if you're comfortable using "rant" about other people's posts? Sure you can describe my post as a rant if you want - it was intended as a reflection back to you of your posts on this thread.
I did not say you are racist - I actually addressed the contents of your posts and said your reply #16 just comes across as patronising racism to me. I have no idea if you are a racist - I don't know you. You really need to work on your English comprehension skills. I thought they were adequate but clearly not judging from your latest posts.
And frankly, I'll take 1-7 on the chin in the spirit of knock-about etc. I won't take 8.
Doesn't matter what you will take. I still think your response in post #16 about a foreign poster's use of language comes across as patronising racism to me, especially since it was you that misunderstood the meaning of Sriram's post.
-
But I never said that VG - do not misrepresent me and do not accuse me of racism based on your misrepresentation.
Why not? You seem comfortable misrepresenting Sriram and accusing him of either being casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping. Therefore not seeing the problem with saying your reply #16 comes across as patronising racism to me.
Note that is wasn't me, but Enki who first suggested this thread would be better on the Eastern Religions section of the MB if it was to be a narrow discussion of Hinduism, rather than a broader philosophical discussion:
I think perhaps Sriram's opening post should have been in the 'Eastern Religions' section rather than the 'Philosophy in all its guises' section as all he seems to be doing is limited to and expounding areas of Hindu philosphy for those who are interested in such things.
Is he/she also racist VG for suggesting this.
All I did was also indicate that if Sriram only wanted to discuss the Hindu religion (reply 13) Then as Enki suggests this might have been better in the Eastern Religion section.
How on earth is that racist.
I note also that Enki also suggested that the thread might be better in the Eastern Religion section - again is he/she racist for suggesting this VG.
Yes agree that Enki first raised the suggestion that the OP should be on another board. However, in context, Enki did not repeatedly misrepresent Sriram, accompany his suggestion with a flurry of rants about Sriram being casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping, nor did Enki come across as patronising or advise Sriram to be careful about his use of language about atheists.
Enki's point was that "'devotion' as a Hindu term might well not raise much of an eyebrow, but as a philosphical idea, is open to all sorts of challenges and interpretations, as Prof Davey quite rightly, in my view, made clear." Maybe Sriram is open to being challenged.
I don't see the problem with discussing the different interpretations of "devotion". Sriram mentioned it in a Hindu philosophy context and mentioned atheists could follow that philosophy. Buddhist philosophy incorporates the idea of devotion without requiring gods to be devoted to. So my response to Enki would be philosophical ideas about devotion can be discussed on this board. I don't think we're constrained by Sriram's OP to only talking about Hindu philosophy on devotion or selflessness or wisdom.
-
Hi everyone,
According to Hindu philosophy, there is no one path to salvation. There are many paths and we can choose any one that works for us.
We can choose the path of devotion or the path of selfless action or the path of wisdom. You can also be an atheist. Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity. There is no one organisation or authority who dictates what all Hindus should do.
No specific book or scripture is authoritative for all Hindus. You can follow or question any scripture. Generally, most Hindus will follow a combination of multiple paths.
In spite of this loose structure it has certain features that are common to all Hindus....Dharma (righteousness), Karma, reincarnation and Moksha (liberation). The idea is to experience life in many forms and through these experiences to finally go inwards and realize our own inner divinity.
For information.
Cheers.
Sriram
Here is an interesting take on Western philosophical ideas around selflessness. As there appears to be no demonstrable, repeatable, testable, objective evidence for anyone experiencing life in many forms or divinity, beliefs about reincarnation and divinity are not addressed in this essay. But it does support your idea that lack of belief in gods does not preclude people from a path of selflessness.
https://euppublishingblog.com/2020/09/29/selfless-philosopher/
Yet, the aversion to self-conceit fares well behind the limits of religious thought. Even some of the most radical Enlightenment thinkers did not hesitate to proclaim the harshest words against the passions of the self and to deprecate the desire for prestige in all its forms.
According to French Enlightenment philosopher Baron d’Holbach (1723–89), one of the fiercest critics of religion, vanity and pride generate a feedback loop that pushes human beings towards illusions and false beliefs. The only way for an individual to achieve philosophical knowledge is through renouncing their selfishness.
-
I still think your response in post #16 about a foreign poster's use of language comes across as patronising racism to me, especially since it was you that misunderstood the meaning of Sriram's post.
Once again you have got it wrong.
Your rather unsubtle inference being that I somehow think that because Sriram is from India that he can't write English properly. I've never said this and I don't think it. I have no issue whatsoever with Sriram's written English, - there are a number of posters on this MB who regularly produce posts with written English that comes across as poorly written and incomprehensible. Sriram isn't one of those - his posts, and indeed his blog pieces are always well written.
The issue isn't how he says something but what he says.
Secondly - sometimes a post (from whoever) can post something which is confusing or unclear (we all do it). My approach with others (including yourself) and with Sriram, is often to ask them to clarify, and then if I'm still not clear to pose a straightforward question that gets to the heart of the matter. I've done this with you, I've done this with Vlad, I've done this with AO, I've done this with Jeremy P, I've done this with NS. And I did it with Sriram - so exactly the same approach - why is this somehow racist when used with Sriram, yet not when I use exactly the same approach with you, NS, Jeremy, OA, Vlad etc etc.
Third - sometimes people make comments which may not be intended to cause offence, but actually do. That isn't anything about the written English, nor does it relate to whether someone has English as a first language (I've no idea whether Sriram has, but his written English doesn't suggest he doesn't). It relates to the differing perspectives, values and experiences of the writer of the piece and the reader of a piece. It is perfectly acceptable to point out to someone who may have made a point that could cause offence that they might want to think about their choice of words, particularly where as I made plain, I didn't feel that Sriram intended to be insulting.
But the broadest point here is as follows:
Atheists regularly come across arguments that effective run as follows:
'you atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion'
I perceived Sriram's posts, including following his clarification as another articulation of this trope, which, not unreasonably, I have a problem with. But I don't just have a problem when Sriram posts in this manner - I also have a problem (and make my point) when Vlad makes a similar argument, when AB makes a similar argument, when AO makes a similar argument etc. So why is it racist when I raise the same point with Sriram that I have with others who happen to be based in the UK, ex-UK but Finnish etc etc.
And, of course, it wasn't just me who took issue with Sriram's moral certainty about his religion/spirituality, which is casually dismissive of other philosophical positions that may also consider devotion, selflessness and wisdom as important. Note that Bramble, Enki, Udayana and Jeremy P did so too.
-
Why not? You seem comfortable misrepresenting Sriram and accusing him of either being casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping. Therefore not seeing the problem with saying your reply #16 comes across as patronising racism to me.
Yes agree that Enki first raised the suggestion that the OP should be on another board. However, in context, Enki did not repeatedly misrepresent Sriram, accompany his suggestion with a flurry of rants about Sriram being casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping, nor did Enki come across as patronising or advise Sriram to be careful about his use of language about atheists.
Enki's point was that "'devotion' as a Hindu term might well not raise much of an eyebrow, but as a philosphical idea, is open to all sorts of challenges and interpretations, as Prof Davey quite rightly, in my view, made clear." Maybe Sriram is open to being challenged.
I don't see the problem with discussing the different interpretations of "devotion". Sriram mentioned it in a Hindu philosophy context and mentioned atheists could follow that philosophy. Buddhist philosophy incorporates the idea of devotion without requiring gods to be devoted to. So my response to Enki would be philosophical ideas about devotion can be discussed on this board. I don't think we're constrained by Sriram's OP to only talking about Hindu philosophy on devotion or selflessness or wisdom.
I have no problem whatever with anyone discussing/challenging/objecting to all sorts of ideas(such as what devotion means for whatever religion you care to mention).
Just to add to what I said as to why I think the opening post was better suited to the 'Eastern religions' section, I took Sriram's remark about it being 'for information' at face value, and therefore as it concerned information about Hinduism, it would probably be better suited to an area where those who wished to seek such information would be most likely to look.
-
I have no problem whatever with anyone discussing/challenging/objecting to all sorts of ideas(such as what devotion means for whatever religion you care to mention).
Just to add to what I said as to why I think the opening post was better suited to the 'Eastern religions' section, I took Sriram's remark about it being 'for information' at face value, and therefore as it concerned information about Hinduism, it would probably be better suited to an area where those who wished to seek such information would be most likely to look.
Indeed - that was also my point.
If Sriram expected a narrow discussion about Hinduism, then the place for that discussion is the Eastern Religions section. For it to be appropriate on the Philosophy section the discussion needs to be much broader than simply about a single religion.
But according to VG to make that point makes you a racist (or rather makes me a racist, she seems to have let you off the hook despite the fact that you and I were making exactly the same point).
-
Hi everyone,
This thread is not about Hindu religion. It is not about its scriptures, its gods, temples and rituals.
This thread is about Hindu philosophy that stands at the base of the religion. It is a secular philosophy that applies to all humans and all living beings. Also, pl refer to the Perennial Philosophy (and Aldous Huxley).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
Most major religions have their secret teachings or their esoteric aspect that forms their base. These secret teachings have many similarities with each other, highlighting a common philosophical understanding of the world among many ancients down the ages.
It is important that we see beyond religions and their mythology.....and try to understand their philosophical base. This will point to a more secular and common understanding of our lives. Science does its bit as regards the physical world....but this is clearly not enough when it comes to a deeper reality.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
This thread is about Hindu philosophy that stands at the base of the religion. It is a secular philosophy that applies to all humans and all living beings.
It is a secular philosophy that applies to all humans and all living beings.
That is a very bold statement asserted as fact.
How do you know that Hindu philosophy applies to all living beings (or living things?). And I don't mean in a top-down manner akin to claiming this to be the case because the humans that developed this philosophy says it applies to, let's say, the oak tree in my front garden, or a gut bacterium in the gut of a hyena. No, I mean in a bottom-up manner. So how is this philosophy relevant to the oak tree in my front garden, or a gut bacterium in the gut of a hyena. How would their living existence be any different were hindu philosophy not to have been developed by humans a few thousands of years ago. How would the existence of an oak tree living before humans evolved, or a bacterium living before humans evolved be any different in a philosophical way.
-
Haven't I said somewhere before......'You can ask more questions than I can answer'.......?!
-
Haven't I said somewhere before......'You can ask more questions than I can answer'.......?!
To an extent, fair enough, none of us have all the answers - which is one of the reasons I'm a scientist.
But if you don't have answers to my questions why make such a bold statement, asserted as fact, which simply begs the questions I posed.
-
Nothing bold about it. It is a fact that the philosophy takes into account other forms of life besides human and includes them in the process of spiritual evolution. The unity of all life is recognized. It is not a human centric philosophy.
I am sure you will have lots of questions on that..but my answer is the same. If you want read up on Hindu philosophy or the Perennial Philosophy.
-
It is a fact that the philosophy takes into account other forms of life besides human and includes them in the process of spiritual evolution.
If it is a fact as you claim then surely you will be able to answer my questions.
The reality is that it is not a fact, but an opinion.
The unity of all life is recognized. It is not a human centric philosophy.
Of course it is human centric as this philosophy did not exist and could not exist without humans. It is a philosophy derived by humans and therefore cannot reasonably engage with the lived experience of other species.
-
It is a fact that the philosophy takes into account other forms of life besides human and includes them in the process of spiritual evolution.
That doesn't mean it isn't human centric - all it means is that it considers non human life. I accept that many eastern religions are less focussed on humans than the judaeo-christian tradition that either ignore other species or see them largely as 'play things' for humans. But this is all degrees. Just because Hindu philosophy doesn't ignore other species doesn't mean that it isn't human centred.
-
That doesn't mean it isn't human centric - all it means is that it considers non human life. I accept that many eastern religions are less focussed on humans than the judaeo-christian tradition that either ignore other species or see them largely as 'play things' for humans. But this is all degrees. Just because Hindu philosophy doesn't ignore other species doesn't mean that it isn't human centred.
I am not really sure that any 'philosophy' can avoid being anthropocentric.
-
I am not really sure that any 'philosophy' can avoid being anthropocentric.
I agree - some are to a greater extent than others, but all are necessarily informed from human experience and cannot be similarly informed by non-human experience.
-
If it is a fact as you claim then surely you will be able to answer my questions.
The reality is that it is not a fact, but an opinion.
I presume you are an Englishman and understand english. It is a FACT that the philosophy takes into account other forms of life... That is factually true.
-
It is a secular philosophy that applies to all humans and all living beings.
That is a very bold statement asserted as fact.
How do you know that Hindu philosophy applies to all living beings (or living things?).
'Hindu philosophy' is such a broad and generalised term that a comprehensive answer is probably impossible but there are aspects of it which might give a clue. These aspects seem to distinguish between ' life' (living being) and 'life forms' ( living things), terms which you seem to have implied as meaning the same. Much of the philosophy seems more in line with the original meaning of philo-sophia - love of wisdom (wisdom in its original sense of vision representing consciousness). It tends to be esoteric in nature rather than exoteric and is used together with a variety of methods to guide the individual inwards beyond the objective and subjective mind which the scientific method might focus on.
-
I agree - some are to a greater extent than others, but all are necessarily informed from human experience and cannot be similarly informed by non-human experience.
Not sure the gradation makes any sense. If no 'philosophy' is informed by non human experience, then they are all exactly as anthropocentic as each other.
-
I presume you are an Englishman and understand english. It is a FACT that the philosophy takes into account other forms of life... That is factually true.
No - it is an opinion. That is takes into account other forms of life is an assertion - have you asked those other forms of life whether their experiences etc are 'being taken into account' in your philosophy. Whether or not a philosophy takes x, y, or z into account is surely in the eye of the beholder - i.e. x, y, or z. Otherwise all it is is an assertion.
If I said that I'd taken into account the views of other people in developing a policy, this wouldn't be anything more than assertion unless you could demonstrate that the views of those other people were sought and those people confirmed that their views had been considered in the development of that policy. Merely claiming you've taken them into account doesn't come anywhere near close to being sufficient.
It might, arguably, be a fact that it attempts to take into account other forms of life, it is not a fact that it actually does, that is an opinion.
-
Not sure the gradation makes any sense. If no 'philosophy' is informed by non human experience, then they are all exactly as anthropocentic as each other.
I know what you mean, but I do think there is a difference between:
1) A philosophy that ignores non-human species or considers them to be simply a commodity to be used by humans ... and
2) A philosophy that attempts to include non-human species but is necessarily unable to do so properly as the philosophy cannot incorporate any element of lived experience from those non human species.
Both are human centric but the former makes no attempt not to be, while the latter makes an attempt that is futile.
-
I know what you mean, but I do think there is a difference between:
1) A philosophy that ignores non-human species or considers them to be simply a commodity to be used by humans ... and
2) A philosophy that attempts to include non-human species but is necessarily unable to do so properly as the philosophy cannot incorporate any element of lived experience from those non human species.
Both are human centric but the former makes no attempt not to be, while the latter makes an attempt that is futile.
Surely both of those are just about different types of anthropocentric experiences? And also, surely, that's a false dichotomy?
-
Surely both of those are just about different types of anthropocentric experiences?
They are.
And also, surely, that's a false dichotomy?
Both are athropocentric - but one is overtly and deliberately so - not caring at all about the existence and experience of other life forms. The other does attempt to consider them but is unsuccessful as it cannot get beyond an experience of the world from a human perspective.
So I don't know whether it is a false dichotomy, but I do think the distinctions between the two are significant.
-
They are.
Both are athropocentric - but one is overtly and deliberately so - not caring at all about the existence and experience of other life forms. The other does attempt to consider them but is unsuccessful as it cannot get beyond an experience of the world from a human perspective.
So I don't know whether it is a false dichotomy, but I do think the distinctions between the two are significant.
What's the real difference between something that accepts or doesn't recognise what its limitations are, and something that ignores or doesn't recognise those limitations?
-
What's the real difference between something that accepts or doesn't recognise what its limitations are, and something that ignores or doesn't recognise those limitations?
Answers on a postcard please ;)
Actually recognising limitations is important - but I don't think that christianity (as an example) ignores other species because it recognises its limits in only being able to base a philosophical/religious approach from the perspective of human experience. I think it ignores them because its philosophical position is that humans are superior to other species.
So perhaps we have a trichomy.
1. My philosophy is anthropocentric because I ignore other species as I don't give a damn about them
2. My philosophy is anthropocentric because I ignore other species as I recognise the limitations of my approach are such that they can only reasonably take into account the experience of the human species.
3. My philosophy is anthropocentric because, although I attempt to take into account other species this isn't possible because the limits to my approach.
-
Once again you have got it wrong.
You mean like you did when it came to Sriram's OP - which you then ranted about based on your misunderstanding of his OP. Still not seeing why you think it's fine for you to misunderstand someone's post and accuse them of being casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping, but you seem to have a problem with me saying your reply #16 comes across as patronising racism. What's the difference?
Your rather unsubtle inference being that I somehow think that because Sriram is from India that he can't write English properly. I've never said this and I don't think it. I have no issue whatsoever with Sriram's written English, - there are a number of posters on this MB who regularly produce posts with written English that comes across as poorly written and incomprehensible. Sriram isn't one of those - his posts, and indeed his blog pieces are always well written.
Nope, I wasn't implying that you think Sriram can't write English properly. That is clearly untrue as you pointed out.
No, my point was that Sriram is from another culture and is politely expressing his thoughts about where atheism meets Hindu philosophy, that stem from his cultural understanding of atheism. Telling him that his interpretation is casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping based on your cultural interpretation of atheism comes across as patronising racism - cultural racism. I don't think your cultural interpretation of atheism carries any more weight than any other culture's interpretation of atheism.
Sriram seems to think atheism can fit in with the Hindu philosophical ideas he posted about, and you don't. Despite Sriram clarifying what he meant at your request you felt it was fine to go on to accuse Sriram in multiple posts of being prejudiced based on your interpretation. Therefore by the same token it's fine for me to say your post is prejudiced based on my interpretation. If you hold a cultural belief that describing your prejudice as patronising racism is worse than accusing Sriram of being prejudiced, it's entirely your right to hold that opinion. I'm not you so I have no idea how it feels for you to be told your opinion comes across as patronising racism. You're not Sriram so you have no idea how it feels for Sriram to be told his opinions are prejudiced and lazy negative stereotyping against atheists.
As far as I can tell Sriram was saying that Hindu philosophy about devotion, selflessness and wisdom makes room for atheists to also follow that philosophy because the philosophy does not require a belief in the supernatural or gods.
Secondly - sometimes a post (from whoever) can post something which is confusing or unclear (we all do it). My approach with others (including yourself) and with Sriram, is often to ask them to clarify, and then if I'm still not clear to pose a straightforward question that gets to the heart of the matter. I've done this with you, I've done this with Vlad, I've done this with AO, I've done this with Jeremy P, I've done this with NS. And I did it with Sriram - so exactly the same approach - why is this somehow racist when used with Sriram, yet not when I use exactly the same approach with you, NS, Jeremy, OA, Vlad etc etc.
I did not say that your reply #1 came across as patronising racism. I referenced reply #16 where after repeatedly telling Sriram in #3, #4, #5, #6, and #8 that he was insulting/ prejudiced based on your misunderstanding, you quoted Sriram confirming that he thinks that according to Hindu philosophy atheists can get salvation. You then thanked him and then went on to say "you could have made things a lot easier by being clear about this in the first place. And I would also urge you not to engage in language the perpetuates lazy stereotypes about groups of people, for example by implying that it is somehow controversial or newsworthy to suggest that atheists can exhibit devotion, selflessness and wisdom...So please think a little more carefully about your choice of words when discussing attributes that you imply about a group, rather than about an individual person."
Sriram was clear and he repeatedly clarified his meaning that he was saying atheists and theists could both be devoted, selfless and wise according to Hindu philosophy as a belief in gods was not a prerequisite. So not sure why you repeatedly laboured the point that you thought his posts were insulting and prejudiced against atheists.
Third - sometimes people make comments which may not be intended to cause offence, but actually do. That isn't anything about the written English, nor does it relate to whether someone has English as a first language (I've no idea whether Sriram has, but his written English doesn't suggest he doesn't). It relates to the differing perspectives, values and experiences of the writer of the piece and the reader of a piece. It is perfectly acceptable to point out to someone who may have made a point that could cause offence that they might want to think about their choice of words, particularly where as I made plain, I didn't feel that Sriram intended to be insulting.
On this MB I have lost count of the number of times atheists have been insulting to theists and theists have been insulting to atheists- intentionally. Both give as good as they get. Why are we suddenly worrying about unintentional insults to atheists and asking people to moderate their language to atheists when it comes to a post by Sriram about Hindu philosophy where he is basically saying Hindu philosophy does not require a belief in gods so can apply to atheists too?
What was it about Sriram's post that has set you off? Why worry about insulting atheists now, given all the insults flying back and forth between theists and atheists on this MB?
But the broadest point here is as follows:
Atheists regularly come across arguments that effective run as follows:
'you atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion'
I perceived Sriram's posts, including following his clarification as another articulation of this trope, which, not unreasonably, I have a problem with. But I don't just have a problem when Sriram posts in this manner - I also have a problem (and make my point) when Vlad makes a similar argument, when AB makes a similar argument, when AO makes a similar argument etc. So why is it racist when I raise the same point with Sriram that I have with others who happen to be based in the UK, ex-UK but Finnish etc etc.
I thought that was obvious - apparently if you have more melanin than people who criticise you for being an annoying narcissist, their criticism is due to racism. Ask Meghan Markle. But seriously, as explained above Sriram is from a different culture with a different cultural outlook on a UK board talking about Hindu philosophy and you launched into multiple posts telling him he was insulting/ prejudiced etc based on your misunderstanding of his posts. I think that seems dismissive of a different cultural outlook. If you have repeatedly told others on here that they are insulting and prejudiced in multiple posts over a short period of time I haven't noticed - perhaps you could reference the threads where you did it.
And, of course, it wasn't just me who took issue with Sriram's moral certainty about his religion/spirituality, which is casually dismissive of other philosophical positions that may also consider devotion, selflessness and wisdom as important. Note that Bramble, Enki, Udayana and Jeremy P did so too.
A lot of people on this MB are casually dismissive of other people's ideas - it doesn't become suddenly more obnoxious when Sriram does it. Also, Bramble, Enki, Udayana and Jeremy P didn't post multiple times accusing Sriram of being insulting and prejudiced. As explained multiple times now, only you did that.
-
No - it is an opinion. That is takes into account other forms of life is an assertion - have you asked those other forms of life whether their experiences etc are 'being taken into account' in your philosophy. Whether or not a philosophy takes x, y, or z into account is surely in the eye of the beholder - i.e. x, y, or z. Otherwise all it is is an assertion.
Is that like saying biology is asserting it takes into account other life forms apart from humans because no one has asked the penguins or the trees if they agree with what is written in our biology books?
I agree with Sriram. It is factually true that the Hindu philosophy takes into account non-human life, albeit from a human perspective. "Takes into account" means the philosophy has something to say about it. We don't need to ask the trees if they concur.
If I said that I'd taken into account the views of other people in developing a policy, this wouldn't be anything more than assertion unless you could demonstrate that the views of those other people were sought and those people confirmed that their views had been considered in the development of that policy. Merely claiming you've taken them into account doesn't come anywhere near close to being sufficient.
Until Dr Doolittle appears to advise us otherwise we'll go with the assumption that the penguins are not going to correct human understanding of their existence and perspectives.
It might, arguably, be a fact that it attempts to take into account other forms of life, it is not a fact that it actually does, that is an opinion.
Is there any reason you are being so pedantic when it comes to correcting Sriram as opposed to any other poster? ;)
-
You mean like you did when it came to Sriram's OP - which you then ranted about based on your misunderstanding of his OP. Still not seeing why you think it's fine for you to misunderstand someone's post and accuse them of being casually insulting, prejudiced, or pandering to lazy negative stereotyping, but you seem to have a problem with me saying your reply #16 comes across as patronising racism. What's the difference?
Actually I don't think I misunderstood his post and this was confirmed in Sriram's later posts.
My initial thought on the OP was that this was yet another of the 'you atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion' type views. And so it appears to be, hence reply 15.
Nope, I wasn't implying that you think Sriram can't write English properly. That is clearly untrue as you pointed out.
Really, I think your own words:
'... your condescending response (reply #16) about his use of the English language just comes across as patronising racism to me.'
tell a rather different story VG
-
I think that seems dismissive of a different cultural outlook. If you have repeatedly told others on here that they are insulting and prejudiced in multiple posts over a short period of time I haven't noticed - perhaps you could reference the threads where you did it.
I've no intention of trawling back through previous threads, but I've been just as vociferous in my condemnation towards others for the lazy stereotyping of atheists and atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion type views. Just ask AB, AO, Spud, Vlad and a bunch of other posters over the years.
But apparently when I act in an entirely consistent manner with Sriram that I use with other posters I am racist - hmmm.
-
Is there any reason you are being so pedantic when it comes to correcting Sriram as opposed to any other poster? ;)
I'm not - I've been just as pedantic with NS just a couple of posts above. But you clearly only see my engagement with Sriram, perhaps because it is only if you can justify to yourself that this is different to my engagement with other poster can you sustain you claim that I am racist. Kind of doesn't work if I have the same approach with NS, or Vlad, or Jeremy P, or AO or AB etc.
-
I agree with Sriram. It is factually true that the Hindu philosophy takes into account non-human life, albeit from a human perspective. "Takes into account" means the philosophy has something to say about it.
I disagree - takes into account needs to mean more that an attempt to do so, even less a mere assertion that you do.
If I said that we'd taken account of the views of woman (in some consultation) and actually no-one had even discussed the matter with a single woman, I imagine you'd counter that I hadn't taken account of the views of women whatsoever.
If I said it was a fact that I'd taken account of the views of women (just because I claimed to have) you'd quite rightly laugh me out of court.
That Hindu philosophy takes into account non-human life is a subjective opinion not a demonstrable fact. The notion that I and others can easily counter this view through appeal to the anthropocentric nature of philosophies (as NS and I have been doing) shows that we are talking about opinion, not fact. So happy to discuss Sriram's opinion on the matter, as we are currently doing.
-
Until Dr Doolittle appears to advise us otherwise we'll go with the assumption that the penguins are not going to correct human understanding of their existence and perspectives.
True - and therefore we need to conclude that human-derived philosophies do not, and cannot, take account of other species as they cannot be based on an meaningful understanding of their experiences and perceptions. And therefore these philosophies are to a greater, or lesser, sense anthropocentric in nature and limited as such.
-
A lot of people on this MB are casually dismissive of other people's ideas - it doesn't become suddenly more obnoxious when Sriram does it.
Indeed - you are correct, which is why I challenge all sorts of posters on their casually dismissive views of atheists and atheism. But it also doesn't suddenly become racism when I challenge Sriram in exactly the same manner as I challenge others.
-
... you quoted Sriram confirming that he thinks that according to Hindu philosophy atheists can get salvation.
Except, of course, Sriram didn't say that - what he actually said was:
... even atheists can get salvation
And on devotion, selflessness and wisdom which he sees as spiritual:
... even atheists could be spiritual (by which Sriram indicated he meant devotion, selflessness and wisdom)
It is the word even which is the problem as it clearly implies that this is unexpected, exceptional etc. It is this word which turns a sentence which is otherwise anodyne into one that is casually insulting and pandering to lazy stereotyping of groups of people based on certain attributes.
So let's try some more analogies for size (note none of these are phrases I would use except for the purposes of this analogy):
... even women can be rational
... even jewish people can be generous
... even black people can be hard-working
... even muslims can be peace-loving
... even gay people can be monogamous
If you cannot see the issue, then, frankly I give up.
-
No - it is an opinion. That is takes into account other forms of life is an assertion - have you asked those other forms of life whether their experiences etc are 'being taken into account' in your philosophy. Whether or not a philosophy takes x, y, or z into account is surely in the eye of the beholder - i.e. x, y, or z. Otherwise all it is is an assertion.
If I said that I'd taken into account the views of other people in developing a policy, this wouldn't be anything more than assertion unless you could demonstrate that the views of those other people were sought and those people confirmed that their views had been considered in the development of that policy. Merely claiming you've taken them into account doesn't come anywhere near close to being sufficient.
It might, arguably, be a fact that it attempts to take into account other forms of life, it is not a fact that it actually does, that is an opinion.
Oh...my...my...my! What can I say about your powers of comprehension!? And you are a professional scientist you say...well...well...well!
First of all. It s not my opinion that Hindu philosophy includes other life forms. It is a fact! If you had any background in other cultures besides your own....you might have understood.
Secondly....including other life forms in ones philosophy does not mean we have to ask them their opinion before we include them. It is just our understanding of the totality of life and its purpose in which the lives of other animals is integrated with our own.
I am sure you are not going to get it...well...never mind!
-
Actually I don't think I misunderstood his post and this was confirmed in Sriram's later posts.
It was confirmed in Sriram's later posts that you misunderstood his OP. Sriram confirmed that he wasn't saying in his OP that atheists cannot be devoted, selfless or wise.
My initial thought on the OP was that this was yet another of the 'you atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion' type views. And so it appears to be, hence reply 15.
How do you figure that? You asked Sriram in #14 "Do you accept that it is perfectly possible to demonstrate the attributes of devotion, selflessness and wisdom without being spiritual or religious or a believer in god?
Simple question, requires just a simple yes/no answer"
And Sriram replied in #15 "yes". As in yes it is perfectly possible to demonstrate the attributes of devotion, selflessness and wisdom without being spiritual or religious or a believer in god
Really, I think your own words:
'... your condescending response (reply #16) about his use of the English language just comes across as patronising racism to me.'
tell a rather different story VG
No - you've misunderstood again. You seem to be making a habit of it. 'Can't write English properly' is an objective assessment meaning his spelling or grammar is incorrect. "
'His use of the English Language' is a subjective assessment based on your opinion. You patronisingly admonishing him in #16 by saying "you could have made things a lot easier by being clear about this in the first place" and "I would also urge you not to engage in language the perpetuates lazy stereotypes" and "So please think a little more carefully about your choice of words when discussing" is nothing to do with implying Sriram has poor spelling or grammar. It is you blaming Sriram for your own poor comprehension skills.
Telling someone with excellent English language skills that their use of language is insulting or prejudiced simply because you lack comprehension skills or you have made unfounded assumptions is not a good look at the best of times. I said it comes across as patronising racism to me when you say it to someone from India multiple times in the context of this topic of a Hindu philosophy and its views on atheism, even after it has been explained to you that you misunderstood the OP. Obviously it is not your prerogative to determine how words in the English language should or should not be used by Sriram in relation to explaining Hindu philosophies, but you are free to express your opinion on his use of language and I am free to express my opinion on your use of language.
-
I've no intention of trawling back through previous threads, but I've been just as vociferous in my condemnation towards others for the lazy stereotyping of atheists and atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion type views. Just ask AB, AO, Spud, Vlad and a bunch of other posters over the years.
Ok up to you. Until you can link to some examples of this, I'll stick with my initial assessment that your #16 comes across as patronising racism. Similarly, you can continue with your assessment that Sriram was being prejudiced and insulting if you want.
But apparently when I act in an entirely consistent manner with Sriram that I use with other posters I am racist - hmmm.
On this thread, I don't think you did act in an entirely consistent manner.
-
I disagree - takes into account needs to mean more that an attempt to do so, even less a mere assertion that you do.
If I said that we'd taken account of the views of woman (in some consultation) and actually no-one had even discussed the matter with a single woman, I imagine you'd counter that I hadn't taken account of the views of women whatsoever.
If I said it was a fact that I'd taken account of the views of women (just because I claimed to have) you'd quite rightly laugh me out of court.
That Hindu philosophy takes into account non-human life is a subjective opinion not a demonstrable fact. The notion that I and others can easily counter this view through appeal to the anthropocentric nature of philosophies (as NS and I have been doing) shows that we are talking about opinion, not fact. So happy to discuss Sriram's opinion on the matter, as we are currently doing.
Invalid comparison. Sriram said "the philosophy takes into account other forms of life besides human"
Sriram did not say "takes into account the views of other forms of life besides humans"
-
True - and therefore we need to conclude that human-derived philosophies do not, and cannot, take account of other species as they cannot be based on an meaningful understanding of their experiences and perceptions. And therefore these philosophies are to a greater, or lesser, sense anthropocentric in nature and limited as such.
No we don't need to conclude that. It's a fact that science and philosophy takes into account other life forms apart from humans. No one is suggesting that science and philosophy are taking into account the views of those other life forms, as no one has suggested that the other life forms have completed a survey for us to know their views.
-
Except, of course, Sriram didn't say that - what he actually said was:
... even atheists can get salvation
And on devotion, selflessness and wisdom which he sees as spiritual:
... even atheists could be spiritual (by which Sriram indicated he meant devotion, selflessness and wisdom)
It is the word even which is the problem as it clearly implies that this is unexpected, exceptional etc. It is this word which turns a sentence which is otherwise anodyne into one that is casually insulting and pandering to lazy stereotyping of groups of people based on certain attributes.
So let's try some more analogies for size (note none of these are phrases I would use except for the purposes of this analogy):
... even women can be rational
... even jewish people can be generous
... even black people can be hard-working
... even muslims can be peace-loving
... even gay people can be monogamous
If you cannot see the issue, then, frankly I give up.
Irrelevant examples.
Sriram said "even atheists could be spiritual". An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods. Therefore Sriram's point was that Hindu philosophy does not say a belief in gods is a prerequisite for spirituality, despite some traditional meanings of the word "spirituality" in the dictionary referencing religion, as there are also definitions of "spirituality" that do not require a belief in gods, souls or spirits e.g some definitions from the internet below:
Spirituality
as relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things
relating to religion or religious belief
relating to deep feelings and beliefs, especially religious beliefs
of or relating to the inner character of a person
The inner character of a person is not a material or physical entity but nor does an inner character require a belief in souls or gods with all their religious connotations. So a person can agree with the concept of an inner character while being atheist, as inner characters are not linked to beliefs in gods or souls.
Your examples using "rational" , "generous", "hard-working", "peace-loving" or "monogamous" do not compare to "spiritual" because unlike "spiritual" they do not contain root words that are linked to women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gay people respectively. If you look up "women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays" the dictionary does not mention "ir/rational, un/generous, lazy/ hard-working, violent /peace-loving, promiscuous/ monogamous"
-
I have no problem whatever with anyone discussing/challenging/objecting to all sorts of ideas(such as what devotion means for whatever religion you care to mention).
Just to add to what I said as to why I think the opening post was better suited to the 'Eastern religions' section, I took Sriram's remark about it being 'for information' at face value, and therefore as it concerned information about Hinduism, it would probably be better suited to an area where those who wished to seek such information would be most likely to look.
Fair enough - you are of course entitled to hold that view. The reason I disagree is because Sriram has posted in the "Philosophy in all its guises" section before in relation to Hindu philosophy, for our information. Hindu philosophy is not the same as Hindu religion.
Hindu philosophy is concerned with philosophy - it does not necessarily include a belief in gods. https://slife.org/hindu-atheism/
-
Irrelevant examples.
Clearly I disagree - but let's park our disagreement on their relevance for a while, I'll return to it. Can we just address whether you think the statements are problematic.
So VG do you think that certain groups, including (but not limited to) women, jewish people, black people, muslims, gay people may find the following statements insulting and condescending (note none of these are phrases I would use except for the purposes of this discussion):
... even women can be rational
... even jewish people can be generous
... even black people can be hard-working
... even muslims can be peace-loving
... even gay people can be monogamous
VG - do you think it would be considered even more insulting and condescending if the ability of these groups to exceptionally demonstrate these characteristics was linked directly to adopting attributes ascribed to a different group. So:
... even women can be rational if they start thinking more like men
... even jewish people can be generous if they adopt a humanist philosophy
... even black people can be hard-working if they adopt the work ethics of white people
... even muslims can be peace-loving if they follow the teachings of christianity
... even gay people can be monogamous if they follow the morality of heterosexual couples
Now again I'm simply using these examples for the purposes of this discussion - I do not agree with the statements and personally find them all deeply insulting and condescending.
Do you agree with me VG - do you find these statements insulting and condescending towards women, jewish people, black people, muslims, gay people?
-
Clearly I disagree - but let's park our disagreement on their relevance for a while, I'll return to it. Can we just address whether you think the statements are problematic.
So VG do you think that certain groups, including (but not limited to) women, jewish people, black people, muslims, gay people may find the following statements insulting and condescending (note none of these are phrases I would use except for the purposes of this discussion):
... even women can be rational
... even jewish people can be generous
... even black people can be hard-working
... even muslims can be peace-loving
... even gay people can be monogamous
VG - do you think it would be considered even more insulting and condescending if the ability of these groups to exceptionally demonstrate these characteristics was linked directly to adopting attributes ascribed to a different group. So:
... even women can be rational if they start thinking more like men
... even jewish people can be generous if they adopt a humanist philosophy
... even black people can be hard-working if they adopt the work ethics of white people
... even muslims can be peace-loving if they follow the teachings of christianity
... even gay people can be monogamous if they follow the morality of heterosexual couples
Now again I'm simply using these examples for the purposes of this discussion - I do not agree with the statements and personally find them all deeply insulting and condescending.
Do you agree with me VG - do you find these statements insulting and condescending towards women, jewish people, black people, muslims, gay people?
Yes I agree.
Our disagreement was on the following point:
Did Sriram make similar statements about atheists to the sentences you have listed above.
I say no on the basis that just focusing on the word even does not indicate to me that he did, as the word even has to be considered in the context of his statement. Western or Christian notions of spirituality are intrinsically linked to religion or a belief in gods, Eastern notions of spirituality are not hence in various Eastern philosophy you can be spiritual and atheist.
We also disagreed about whether Sriram's phrasing (use of language) about Hindu philosophy excluded atheists from being devoted, selfless or wise or spiritual. I say his phrasing did not exclude atheists, you think it did. You asked him to clarify using a simple yes or no - and he clarified that yes he was saying Hindu philosophy included atheists as being capable of being spiritual, selfless etc
-
Your examples using "rational" , "generous", "hard-working", "peace-loving" or "monogamous" do not compare to "spiritual" because unlike "spiritual" they do not contain root words that are linked to women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gay people respectively. If you look up "women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays" the dictionary does not mention "ir/rational, un/generous, lazy/ hard-working, violent /peace-loving, promiscuous/ monogamous"
Nope - you are making a bit of a category error here.
You are quite correct that the dictionary definitions of women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays does not include ir/rational, un/generous, lazy/ hard-working, violent /peace-loving, promiscuous/ monogamous.
But the comparator to women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays in Sriram's statement is atheists, hence:
... even atheists can get salvation
And on devotion, selflessness and wisdom which he sees as spiritual:
... even atheists could be spiritual (by which Sriram indicated he meant devotion, selflessness and wisdom)
As far as I'm aware the dictionary definition of atheist is someone who does not believe in god or gods - no dictionary definition of atheist that I know of mentions saved/not saved; devoted/not devoted; selfish/selfless; foolish/wise; spiritual/not spiritual.
Perhaps you know of another dictionary definition of atheist that does mention those terms, but if not your point about dictionary definitions of women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays is entirely irrelevant.
However the broader point about lazy negative stereotyping of groups of people remains valid and is just as valid for atheists as for women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays (albeit the nature of the negative stereotype is different in each case), hence why my comparisons were completely valid and relevant.
-
Gabriella....I think you are wasting your time trying to discuss this matter in detail with Prof D. He is a person who will not be able to see the totality of what I have been saying. He latches on to words here and there and enters into an argument. IMO you should just ignore his views.
Thanks again.
-
Nope - you are making a bit of a category error here.
You are quite correct that the dictionary definitions of women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays does not include ir/rational, un/generous, lazy/ hard-working, violent /peace-loving, promiscuous/ monogamous.
But the comparator to women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays in Sriram's statement is atheists, hence:
... even atheists can get salvation
And on devotion, selflessness and wisdom which he sees as spiritual:
... even atheists could be spiritual (by which Sriram indicated he meant devotion, selflessness and wisdom)
As far as I'm aware the dictionary definition of atheist is someone who does not believe in god or gods - no dictionary definition of atheist that I know of mentions saved/not saved; devoted/not devoted; selfish/selfless; foolish/wise; spiritual/not spiritual.
Perhaps you know of another dictionary definition of atheist that does mention those terms, but if not your point about dictionary definitions of women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays is entirely irrelevant.
However the broader point about lazy negative stereotyping of groups of people remains valid and is just as valid for atheists as for women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays (albeit the nature of the negative stereotype is different in each case), hence why my comparisons were completely valid and relevant.
Nope - I already addressed this point in my reply #82. It is you who is making the error by taking words out of the context they are used in, and you are persisting in your error even after Sriram clarified his meaning. I can think of a couple of possible reasons why you refuse to accept Sriram's clarification and persist in your error - some of them involve prejudice on your part.
I suggest you take a leaf out of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and further develop your devotional mindset so you focus less on your ego.
Atheists can follow a devotional path - according to Hindu philosophy (see Sriram's OP) - so feel free to explore and see where it takes you.
-
Yes....atheists can be devotional.
Matru devo bhava (Mother is god)....Pitru devo bhava (father is god)....Acharya devo bhave (teacher is god). These are very popular and well known teachings in Hinduism.
It is said that if we are devoted to ones parents and ones guru...no other form of prayer is required.
-
Yes....atheists can be devotional.
Matru devo bhava (Mother is god)....Pitru devo bhava (father is god)....Acharya devo bhave (teacher is god). These are very popular and well known teachings in Hinduism.
It is said that if we are devoted to ones parents and ones guru...no other form of prayer is required.
Here you go again Sriram - by definition an atheist does not believe in god or gods. Hence your philosophical approach is anathema to an atheist as either they'd have to not believe that mothers or fathers or teachers exist if they are to be both atheist and accept your philosophical position (that mother/father/teacher is god). Or alternatively they'd accept that mothers, fathers and teachers exist but reject your philosophical teaching as to accept that they both exist and are gods then they couldn't be an atheist.
For the record this particular atheist is convinced that mothers, fathers and teachers exist - however I do not consider that mothers, fathers or teachers are gods, not least because I do not believe that god or gods exist.
Why do you focus devotion on dieties, gods etc. I can be devoted to my mother, to my father, to my teacher without the need to consider them to be a god (actually) or , nor to feel the requirement to use the language of deities in relation to them (i.e. using god metaphorically).
-
Here you go again Sriram - by definition an atheist does not believe in god or gods. Hence your philosophical approach is anathema to an atheist as either they'd have to not believe that mothers or fathers or teachers exist if they are to be both atheist and accept your philosophical position (that mother/father/teacher is god). Or alternatively they'd accept that mothers, fathers and teachers exist but reject your philosophical teaching as to accept that they both exist and are gods then they couldn't be an atheist.
For the record this particular atheist is convinced that mothers, fathers and teachers exist - however I do not consider that mothers, fathers or teachers are gods, not least because I do not believe that god or gods exist.
Why do you focus devotion on dieties, gods etc. I can be devoted to my mother, to my father, to my teacher without the need to consider them to be a god, nor to feel the requirement to use the language of deities in relation to them.
I am sorry....but your powers of comprehension are seriously in doubt! You really need to get out a little more....
-
I am sorry....but your powers of comprehension are seriously in doubt! You really need to get out a little more....
What is so difficult to understand Sriram.
As an atheist I do not believe in god or gods (that's what it says on the tin) - therefore if I show devotion to my mother, father or teacher, which I clearly can, it will not be to a god. And nor will I feel it necessary to wrap up that devotion metaphorically or actually in the language of gods. Therefore I will reject your philosophy, not because I am unable to show devotion, nor because I am not devoted to my mother, father or teacher, but because I do not believe in god or gods.
Is that really so hard to understand Sriram.
-
What is so difficult to understand Sriram.
As an atheist I do not believe in god or gods (that's what it says on the tin) - therefore if I show devotion to my mother, father or teacher, which I clearly can, it will not be to a god. And nor will I feel it necessary to wrap up that devotion metaphorically or actually in the language of gods. Therefore I will reject your philosophy, not because I am unable to show devotion, nor because I am not devoted to my mother, father or teacher, but because I do not believe in god or gods.
Is that really so hard to understand Sriram.
Well...ok.
-
Well...ok.
Blimey - that was hard work.
Again - why is it so hard to get you to understand that someone who is an atheist won't see things in the same manner as someone who believes in god. But that doesn't mean that they cannot be just as devoted, selfless and wise as a person who does believe in god and likely will use their own philosophical compass (e.g. humanism) to recognise that being devoted, selfless and wise are positive attributes that we should strive to attain and really don't need to be told that if they are being devoted, selfless and wise that we are somehow adopting hindu philosophy.
I could equally argue that if you are striving to be devoted, selfless and wise you are clearly demonstrating just how important secular atheistic humanist philosophy is. That you've finally come around to accept that secular atheistic humanist philosophy is the correct 'path'. Of course I won't as I recognise striving to be devoted, selfless and wise seem to be pretty well universal in moral philosophy (whether religious or not) so none of us has any particular claim on them, any more than anyone else. I will be striving for these things as I have a broadly secular humanist philosophical outlook while you will be doing so as you have a broadly hindu religious philosophical outlook. That we both strive for the same things doesn't make me an adherent of hindu religious philosophy nor does it make you an adherent of a secular atheistic humanist philosophy.
-
Here you go again Sriram - by definition an atheist does not believe in god or gods. Hence your philosophical approach is anathema to an atheist as either they'd have to not believe that mothers or fathers or teachers exist if they are to be both atheist and accept your philosophical position (that mother/father/teacher is god). Or alternatively they'd accept that mothers, fathers and teachers exist but reject your philosophical teaching as to accept that they both exist and are gods then they couldn't be an atheist.
For the record this particular atheist is convinced that mothers, fathers and teachers exist - however I do not consider that mothers, fathers or teachers are gods, not least because I do not believe that god or gods exist.
Why do you focus devotion on dieties, gods etc. I can be devoted to my mother, to my father, to my teacher without the need to consider them to be a god (actually) or , nor to feel the requirement to use the language of deities in relation to them (i.e. using god metaphorically).
Oh dear. How many different ways can it be explained that Hindu philosophy does not require devotion to a god. A devotional mindset does not require deities to be devoted to. Sriram has said this repeatedly. Which part of the words "deity not required" are you not able to take in because of your prejudiced assumptions?
-
Oh dear. How many different ways can it be explained that Hindu philosophy does not require devotion to a god.
Except Sriram continually folds discussion of devotion back into deity territory.
A devotional mindset does not require deities to be devoted to. Sriram has said this repeatedly. Which part of the words "deity not required" are you not able to take in because of your prejudiced assumptions?
But being devoted and having a devotional mindset does not equate to being an adherent of hindu philosophy.
-
A devotional mindset does not require deities to be devoted to. Sriram has said this repeatedly.
Except he hasn't has he - have you actually read his posts - he has only directly discussed his views on devotion briefly, I think in two posts:
So in the OP:
'Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity.
-pick a deity, any deity you fancy being devoted to, but devotion is about deities.
And recently:
Yes....atheists can be devotional.
Matru devo bhava (Mother is god)....Pitru devo bhava (father is god)....Acharya devo bhave (teacher is god). These are very popular and well known teachings in Hinduism.
It is said that if we are devoted to ones parents and ones guru...no other form of prayer is required.
- seems to be getting somewhere but then straight back into the devotion = deities mantra - you can be devoted to your parents because they are god.
Can you show me where Sriram has unequivocally uncoupled devotion from deities in his posts, let alone repeatedly. I can't see it - whenever he mentions devotion in his posts he links it to deities.
-
Blimey - that was hard work.
Again - why is it so hard to get you to understand that someone who is an atheist won't see things in the same manner as someone who believes in god. But that doesn't mean that they cannot be just as devoted, selfless and wise as a person who does believe in god and likely will use their own philosophical compass (e.g. humanism) to recognise that being devoted, selfless and wise are positive attributes that we should strive to attain and really don't need to be told that if they are being devoted, selfless and wise that we are somehow adopting hindu philosophy.
I could equally argue that if you are striving to be devoted, selfless and wise you are clearly demonstrating just how important secular atheistic humanist philosophy is. That you've finally come around to accept that secular atheistic humanist philosophy is the correct 'path'. Of course I won't as I recognise striving to be devoted, selfless and wise seem to be pretty well universal in moral philosophy (whether religious or not) so none of us has any particular claim on them, any more than anyone else. I will be striving for these things as I have a broadly secular humanist philosophical outlook while you will be doing so as you have a broadly hindu religious philosophical outlook. That we both strive for the same things doesn't make me an adherent of hindu religious philosophy nor does it make you an adherent of a secular atheistic humanist philosophy.
Blimey this is really hard work, Why is it so hard to get you to understand that Sriram was not saying that only Hindu philosophy has these ideas. That just seems to be your interpretation of what is being said - possibly based on prejudices.
It is possible for multiple philosophies to promote the same idea in the same way. Telling us about one philosophy does not negate the similar ideas held by other philosophies. As Haidt mentioned in his TED talk (that I posted on the Materialism thread) evolutionarily we may have developed to become self-righteously divided into teams or tribes and oppose each other. You could try following some of the Buddhist philosophies ;) relating to moral humility - apparently that helps reduce moral self-righteousness.
-
It is possible for multiple philosophies to promote the same idea in the same way.
Indeed they can, which is why it isn't a very smart move to align attributes that one groups of people may hold to be important because of their own philosophy to a totally different philosophy. We may come to the same conclusion, but (as Sriram might phrase it) we come to it via different paths. And we should be careful not to imply that the path (or paths) of a particular philosophy (e.g. hindu religious philosophy) are how a different group (secular humanist atheists) may have come to consider a set of highly universal attributes (e.g. devotion, selflessness, wisdom) to be important.
-
As Haidt mentioned in his TED talk (that I posted on the Materialism thread) evolutionarily we may have developed to become self-righteously divided into teams or tribes and oppose each other.
That may indeed be true - but it may also be equally true that devotion, selflessness and wisdom are evolutionarily hard-wired as they are incredibly important for the successful functioning of human societal interactions within those tribes or teams.
So actually the much more interesting question here is why certain attributes seem to be universally accepted as beneficial by many moral philosophies (religious or otherwise) rather than claiming these attributes as being about my philosophy and if someone else holds those attributes to be important it somehow indicates that they are really adhering the importance of my philosophy all along.
-
Except he hasn't has he - have you actually read his posts - he has only discussed devotion briefly:
So in the OP:
'Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity.
-pick a deity, any deity you fancy being devoted to, but devotion is about deities.
And recently:
Yes....atheists can be devotional.
Matru devo bhava (Mother is god)....Pitru devo bhava (father is god)....Acharya devo bhave (teacher is god). These are very popular and well known teachings in Hinduism.
It is said that if we are devoted to ones parents and ones guru...no other form of prayer is required.
- seems to be getting somewhere but then straight back into the devotion = deities mantra - you can be devoted to your parents because they are god.
It's an expression - like "all mouth and no trousers" or "put up or shut up" as mentioned by JeremyP in British culture- you do not have to take it literally. So a mother does not transform into an immaterial being or concept and stops being biological flesh and blood.
If you Google the expression "Matru devo bhava" it brings you to Hindu philosophy about respecting your parents. It is a way of expressing love, respect, reverence, care and in Hindu philosophy it is considered good for people to feel this way about things.
https://www.swaminarayan.org/news/uk/2009/06/mdbpdb/index.htm
Can you show me where Sriram has unequivocally uncoupled devotion from deities in this thread, let alone repeatedly. I can't see it - whenever he mentions devotion in his posts he links it to deities.
I can't show you something if your mind only has one way of interpreting words. The only thing I can say is that not everyone interprets words in the same way that you do, hence we are disagreeing about the meaning of Sriram's words.
Even if we do not believe in gods we can comprehend the feelings of reverence displayed by those who do believe in gods because considering something as sacred is not confined to deities - people who don't believe in gods can still consider ideas, concepts or objects sacred. So if someone says Mother is god they mean respect her the way someone religious would respect a god - in this case in Hindu traditions as the reference was to Hindu philosophy, which may not be the same as how gods are viewed in the cultures that historically have had an Abrahamic faith intertwined in them.
Of course some people believe that nothing should be considered sacred, maybe due to worries about where this can lead people, but other people think it is a good thing most of the time to have things we consider sacred as a focus point of a devotional mindset - it doesn't need to be the Judaeo-Christian concept of a deity or the statues in Hindu religion but it can be considered from a philosophical perspective.
Of course you don't need to acknowledge that there can be different interpretations of words - that's up to you.
I can interpret gods the way you did and get your meaning and I can also interpret the words the way Sriram did and get his meaning that Hindu philosophy is inclusive of a lack of belief in gods.
-
It is possible for multiple philosophies to promote the same idea in the same way. Telling us about one philosophy does not negate the similar ideas held by other philosophies. As Haidt mentioned in his TED talk (that I posted on the Materialism thread) evolutionarily we may have developed to become self-righteously divided into teams or tribes and oppose each other.
Just made some comments on this on the other thread
-
If you Google the expression "Matru devo bhava" it brings you to Hindu philosophy about respecting your parents. It is a way of expressing love, respect, reverence, care and in Hindu philosophy it is considered good for people to feel this way about things.
I get that, but however you look at it is is still couching devotion in the language of gods/deities. This is anathema to an atheist, who may also express love, respect, reverence and care but is highly unlikely to couch any of those in the language of god/deities, let alone actually consider them to be linked to a real (rather than metaphorical) god. Choice of language and mind-set are closely linked.
-
Indeed they can, which is why it isn't a very smart move to align attributes that one groups of people may hold to be important because of their own philosophy to a totally different philosophy. We may come to the same conclusion, but (as Sriram might phrase it) we come to it via different paths. And we should be careful not to imply that the path (or paths) of a particular philosophy (e.g. hindu religious philosophy) are how a different group (secular humanist atheists) may have come to consider a set of highly universal attributes (e.g. devotion, selflessness, wisdom) to be important.
Sriram did not imply this.
You may have inferred it - that's up to you. And that is not because of Sriram's use of language. We all have in-built prejudices or lack of knowledge about other perspectives that can cause us (you included) to make assumptions that were not intended by the poster.
-
I get that, but however you look at it is is still couching devotion in the language of gods/deities. This is anathema to an atheist, who may also express love, respect, reverence and care but is highly unlikely to couch any of those in the language of god/deities, let alone actually consider them to be linked to a real (rather than metaphorical) god. Choice of language and mind-set are closely linked.
Why does it sound like you think you speak for all atheists? Is that what you meant to convey? We haven't done a survey of atheists to find out if they all have the same reaction as you to the word god being included in a philosophy. We also haven't asked the Hindu atheists what they think for example of whether a devotional mindset has to include gods or whether they think they can subscribe to a Hindu philosophy and follow a devotional path as an atheist.
-
Why does it sound like you think you speak for all atheists? Is that what you meant to convey? We haven't done a survey of atheists to find out if they all have the same reaction as you to the word god being included in a philosophy.
I've never claimed to speak for all atheists - show me where I've said I do. But the point is that, by definition an atheist doesn't believe in god or gods, hence it is unlikely that they are going to couch their moral philosophy in the language of god or gods. Would you be shocked (and request a survey of all christians) if I suggested that it is unlikely that christians would couch their moral philosophy in the language or Vishnu, or Thor or the giant spaghetti monster - rather unlikely I'd imagine. And similarly unlikely that atheists will couch theirs in the language of god or gods.
-
I've never claimed to speak for all atheists - show me where I've said I do. But the point is that, by definition an atheist doesn't believe in god or gods, hence it is unlikely that they are going to couch their moral philosophy in the language of god or gods. Would you be shocked (and request a survey of all christians) if I suggested that it is unlikely that christians would couch their moral philosophy in the language or Vishnu, or Thor or the giant spaghetti monster - rather unlikely I'd imagine. And similarly unlikely that atheists will couch theirs in the language of god or gods.
I think there are some Christians who can find commonality in Hindu language. https://www.christianforums.com/threads/vishnu-krishna-kalki.1812577/page-2
Some people are open to different ideas and language and some are not regardless of what tribe they identify with - Haidt's TED talk had something to say about that in highlighting differences between conservative and liberal approaches within tribes.
So I think we'll find atheists who are comfortable with talk of deities and not take the terms literally.
We should ask the Hindu atheists who are following a devotional path mentioned in Hindu philosophy whether they utilise any references to deities when following the path. I don't happen to know any Hindu atheists who consider themselves on a devotional path off the top of my head though if I travelled to India I would probably find some to speak to. Do you know any?
-
I think there are some Christians who can find commonality in Hindu language. https://www.christianforums.com/threads/vishnu-krishna-kalki.1812577/page-2
I had a scan of that particular thread and there seems to be a general view that the christian god and Krishna are very different, even if both are claimed to be gods by their adherents. Interesting to discuss their similarities and differences, but as far as I can recollect I've never heard a christian describe their god as krishna or use language of hindu deities to describe their god. So my point is why would an atheist be any more likely to frame their morality in the language of god or gods (who they don't believe in) than a christian would be to frame their morality in the language of krishna, vishnu etc.
-
So I think we'll find atheists who are comfortable with talk of deities and not take the terms literally.
But I think that is somewhat different - sure atheists often come out with common cultural colloquialisms - 'good god', 'christ' when something goes wrong etc, but this isn't really what we are discussing here. We are talking about philosophies and those are things that are purely about metaphorical or colloquial references to gods etc. The question is whether an atheist would frame their moral philosophy around god or gods (who they don't believe in) and therefore choose to use the language of god or gods to describe their morality. I doubt it very much, because it would be non-sensical. Why do I think x is right and y is wrong - because of god - makes no sense as an atheist.
-
We should ask the Hindu atheists who are following a devotional path mentioned in Hindu philosophy whether they utilise any references to deities when following the path. I don't happen to know any Hindu atheists who consider themselves on a devotional path off the top of my head though if I travelled to India I would probably find some to speak to. Do you know any?
Nope I don't know any either. But there are plenty of atheists on this MB and we can ask them about their views. And realistically when we post on this board we are engaging with the other people on this MB and we largely know who they are. So when people on this board are talking about atheist their most obvious audience is the atheists on this MB.
-
We also haven't asked the Hindu atheists ...
I also wonder whether we are talking at cross purposes and using differing definitions of atheism.
Sure - I'm no expert but some general reading around what is being described as hindu atheism doesn't really sound like atheism as we may consider it in secular western society - specifically that we do not believe in god, gods, deities etc etc. Some of the information I've been reading describes it more akin to not believing in a personal or creator god (western view of atheism would go rather further than that) and even not explicitly affirming the existence of God, which sounds more like agnosticism to me. Also other descriptions framed around there being no need for a god in terms of revelation etc which sounds more like deism rather than atheism. I tis perfectly possible to believe that there is no need for a god to exist but still believe that god does exist. That isn't atheism.
Would be interested in view on this - so when Sriram and I talk about atheism are we meaning the same thing. I think most of the atheists on this MB would say they are atheist because they do not believe in the existence of god, gods, deities etc. Perhaps Sriram means something different.
-
I think the Bhakti path is about moving towards being absorbed in that state of being called 'love' with the idea you can only express love if you are in love. The practice can start with father, mother, child etc. It doesn't have to be a God but for some it might be easier to project that state of being on to a divinity rather than claim it in a self centred way. I believe within Christian theology it is said 'God is Love' and the Jesus saying 'Love God and love your neighbour as yourself' which could be seen as 'Be absorbed in Love and express it to all'
-
I think the Bhakti path is about moving towards being absorbed in that state of being called 'love' with the idea you can only express love if you are in love. The practice can start with father, mother, child etc. It doesn't have to be a God but for some it might be easier to project that state of being on to a divinity rather than claim it in a self centred way. I believe within Christian theology it is said 'God is Love' and the Jesus saying 'Love God and love your neighbour as yourself' which could be seen as 'Be absorbed in Love and express it to all'
Which again is a pretty universal claim for moral philosophies religious or otherwise - love each other - and quite possibly driven from evolution.
I would also argue against the notion that the presence of a god makes the relationship less self centred. From an atheistic perspective it appears to make it more so as I, and I suspect, many atheists consider god to be a man made concept. So by introducing god (who you have made up) you are in effect expressing love towards something that is, in reality just an expression of yourself. By removing god you are able to genuinely and unequivocally express love towards someone else and receive it in return unfettered by the presence of a god that you have made up.
Now I'm sure if you believe in god you'll disagree but I want you to understand this from the perspective of this atheist.
-
I've never understood how it might be possible (or, indeed, why anyone would want) to love the idea of a disembodied mind - in this case God. Quite apart from it being (at least to me) rather obviously an oxymoron, the notion of disembodied consciousness is so abstract as to be wholly un-relatable. Life - and minds are a property of living things - is so fundamentally embodied that attempting to disembody any of its aspects, such as love, just doesn't compute.
-
I've never understood how it might be possible (or, indeed, why anyone would want) to love the idea of a disembodied mind - in this case God. Quite apart from it being (at least to me) rather obviously an oxymoron, the notion of disembodied consciousness is so abstract as to be wholly un-relatable. Life - and minds are a property of living things - is so fundamentally embodied that attempting to disembody any of its aspects, such as love, just doesn't compute.
I'm with you there Bramble - from the perspective of an atheist it seems just plain odd, but I wonder how much would also seem odd for theists if it wan't just tradition.
So here's a good example - when I got married I made vows directly to my now wife and she made vows directly to me. Seems very normal and 'right'.
When we had kids we derived our own ceremony that worked for an atheist/catholic mixed couple. In this ceremony we made direct commitments and vows to our children - again this seemed just normal and 'right', to commit yourself as a parent to your new child.
Yet in a catholic baptism ceremony the parents make no vow or commitment directly to their child - all the vows/commitments are to god/the church, nothing actually to the child. It was as if the church is ramming god in between the most normal and important relationship there should be, between a parent and their child. This seems really, really weird to me and I suspect if it wasn't traditional and people really thought about it it might seem really weird to a catholic parent too.
-
I also wonder whether we are talking at cross purposes and using differing definitions of atheism.
Sure - I'm no expert but some general reading around what is being described as hindu atheism doesn't really sound like atheism as we may consider it in secular western society - specifically that we do not believe in god, gods, deities etc etc. Some of the information I've been reading describes it more akin to not believing in a personal or creator god (western view of atheism would go rather further than that) and even not explicitly affirming the existence of God, which sounds more like agnosticism to me. Also other descriptions framed around there being no need for a god in terms of revelation etc which sounds more like deism rather than atheism. I tis perfectly possible to believe that there is no need for a god to exist but still believe that god does exist. That isn't atheism.
Would be interested in view on this - so when Sriram and I talk about atheism are we meaning the same thing. I think most of the atheists on this MB would say they are atheist because they do not believe in the existence of god, gods, deities etc. Perhaps Sriram means something different.
OK....according to Hindu philosophy....life is about spiritual evolution. Developing from lower levels of consciousness to higher levels of consciousness. All of us have different mindsets depending on our cultural background.
Being an atheist is one such mindset. Its not as big a deal as you are making it out to be.
Hindu's don't care any more about an atheist than they care about which deity someone worships. You are not likely to understand such flexibility because your background is both a very rigid Christianity and a very rigid materialism.
Atheism to me is just a lack of belief in a God. It need not be materialistic. Samkhya, Jainism and Buddhism are all atheistic philosophies without being materialistic. They accept spiritual existence without a supreme God.
Even if someone is an atheist and a materialistic in the western sense.....that is still only a mindset based on his background and according to Hindu philosophy, that is his path of development. He or she is not outside the remits of the philosophy.
No doubt we don't understand everything about everything on these matters....but that's the general idea.
Have fun!
-
I had a scan of that particular thread and there seems to be a general view that the christian god and Krishna are very different, even if both are claimed to be gods by their adherents. Interesting to discuss their similarities and differences, but as far as I can recollect I've never heard a christian describe their god as krishna or use language of hindu deities to describe their god. So my point is why would an atheist be any more likely to frame their morality in the language of god or gods (who they don't believe in) than a christian would be to frame their morality in the language of krishna, vishnu etc.
I was not arguing that an atheist would frame their morality in the language of god or gods. I was arguing that some atheists would be able to understand the idea that people could be revered as if they were a god. Not all atheists need to feel reverence for gods in order to understand the feelings that a theist was trying to convey when they reference gods.
On the thread I linked to I was referring to the posts where Christians were discussing Krishna and Hindu philosophy and Krishna and Christ as different names for the same entity, without finding it insulting.
My point was it's impossible to generalise - atheists will feel more discomforted than others during conversations with theists. So all atheists would not read Sriram's post the way you did, nor had your reaction to the posts.
-
But I think that is somewhat different - sure atheists often come out with common cultural colloquialisms - 'good god', 'christ' when something goes wrong etc, but this isn't really what we are discussing here. We are talking about philosophies and those are things that are purely about metaphorical or colloquial references to gods etc. The question is whether an atheist would frame their moral philosophy around god or gods (who they don't believe in) and therefore choose to use the language of god or gods to describe their morality. I doubt it very much, because it would be non-sensical. Why do I think x is right and y is wrong - because of god - makes no sense as an atheist.
My reading of Sriram's posts was that in Hindu philosophy atheists can be on a devotional path without being devoted to gods, so there is no need for atheists to frame their morality with reference to gods. Though they presumably can understand the idea of revering something the way that theists revere gods i.e. something better, greater than themselves?
-
OK....according to Hindu philosophy....life is about spiritual evolution. Developing from lower levels of consciousness to higher levels of consciousness. All of us have different mindsets depending on our cultural background.
Morning Sriram
So where does being an atheist sit within this hierarchy of consciousness from lower to higher. Where does the mind-set of not believing that god or gods exist slot into this hierarchy of 'spiritual evolution'?
-
Morning Sriram
So where does being an atheist sit within this hierarchy of consciousness from lower to higher. Where does the mind-set of not believing that god or gods exist slot into this hierarchy of 'spiritual evolution'?
Such precise positions and status up the ladder are not known. Like climbing Mount Everest from different directions. Paths are different but the ultimate goal is the same.
Many other factors besides being an atheist are also important.
-
My reading of Sriram's posts was that in Hindu philosophy atheists can be on a devotional path without being devoted to gods, so there is no need for atheists to frame their morality with reference to gods. Though they presumably can understand the idea of revering something the way that theists revere gods i.e. something better, greater than themselves?
Sriram, can of course answer for himself, but his OP was crystal clear that in his mind devotion is about gods - doesn't matter which god, but about god.
'Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity.
However I don't see devotion in this manner at all. What you seem to be implying is that atheists can be devoted, but that devotion, while not to god, must be to something better, greater than themselves, in other words god-like, a proxy for god. That isn't how I see devotion at all. I'd like to think I am devoted to my children, certainly I strive to be - I certainly don't see them as better or greater. And I certainly don't revere my children. That isn't the point at all.
In my mind reverence and devotion are entirely separate things, one is about an attitude towards something, the other about actions towards something. Sure there may be times when you do both, and I get that from a theist perspective they may both revere and be devoted to their concept of god. However you can revere something that you aren't devoted to and vice versa - I'm certainly struggling to see any overlap in my life. I don't revere the things I am devoted to as they tend to be pretty standard (but very important) parts of my life, e.g. family, kids, my career etc etc.
So I do take issue with any notion that sees devotion as being exclusively about something better/greater and I cannot agree that devotion and reverence are somehow necessary linked. That sounds to be a very theistic mindset position (and really is just a reframing to a notion that devotion is about either god or a proxy-god) and not one that aligns with my atheistic mindset at all.
-
Such precise positions and status up the ladder are not known. Like climbing Mount Everest from different directions. Paths are different but the ultimate goal is the same.
Come on Sriram, don't be so coy. You must have a broad view. To use your Everest analogy - is being an atheist generally towards the lower end of that spiritual hierarchy, or generally towards the top end? Would you expect proportionately the same number of atheists sitting at the summit of Everest as theists?
Your previous use of the word even in relation to atheists and spiritualism, in other words by exception, suggests to me that you'd see atheists (who certainly in the UK reject the notion of spiritualism, largely because the concepts of theism and the concepts of spiritualism are largely linked) to be unlikely to be at the summit of that 'spiritual evolution'.
-
Many other factors besides being an atheist are also important.
So two people - same in all other respects, background, life, upbringing, attitudes, actions etc, etc. One is a theist and by inference accepts the notions of spiritualism, the other is an atheist and by inference does not accept the notions of spiritualism. Are they both at exactly the same place on that path - is the length of their journey to the summit of Everest likely to be the same?
I thought you wanted to discuss hindu philosophy - surely you must have an opinion on this.
-
I have already told you. You are giving too much importance to atheism and belief in a God. This is due to your background in a Christian culture. In Hindu philosophy belief in God is not at all important even though it is the most easy and popular path.
Samkhya and even some schools of Yoga don't talk of a God at all. You need to broaden your base knowledge before you can appreciate or even understand many of these concepts.
-
Sriram, can of course answer for himself, but his OP was crystal clear that in his mind devotion is about gods - doesn't matter which god, but about god.
'Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity.
However I don't see devotion in this manner at all. What you seem to be implying is that atheists can be devoted, but that devotion, while not to god, must be to something better, greater than themselves, in other words god-like, a proxy for god. That isn't how I see devotion at all. I'd like to think I am devoted to my children, certainly I strive to be - I certainly don't see them as better or greater. And I certainly don't revere my children. That isn't the point at all.
In my mind reverence and devotion are entirely separate things, one is about an attitude towards something, the other about actions towards something. Sure there may be times when you do both, and I get that from a theist perspective they may both revere and be devoted to their concept of god. However you can revere something that you aren't devoted to and vice versa - I'm certainly struggling to see any overlap in my life. I don't revere the things I am devoted to as they tend to be pretty standard (but very important) parts of my life, e.g. family, kids, my career etc etc.
So I do take issue with any notion that sees devotion as being exclusively about something better/greater and I cannot agree that devotion and reverence are somehow necessary linked. That sounds to be a very theistic mindset position (and really is just a reframing to a notion that devotion is about either god or a proxy-god) and not one that aligns with my atheistic mindset at all.
I don't see devotion as needing to involve gods either. But I can see that devotion to a cause that a person believes is greater than themselves can invoke different feelings to devotion to your family. That isn't to say one type of devotion is better than another, but I can see that some people may leave behind family they claim they are devoted to in order to devote themselves to what they believe is a greater cause. Maybe the feelings of devotion in the 2 cases feel different because the cause seems something special or more exclusive, whereas lots of people are devoted to their families so maybe that feels less awe-inspiring or sublime.
I did not read Sriram's comment about devotion as meaning you have to have a deity involved. I read it as Sriram talking about devotion where a deity was involved because that was a point he wanted to make.
I don't see anything as being crystal clear from the OP. I think whatever you believe is crystal clear is down to your own assumptions based on your biases. Your claim that you know what was in Sriram's mind is not supported by any evidence that it is possible for people to know what is in another person's mind. But it's fine if you want to believe that your interpretation is correct. No reason why anybody else has to accept your claim.
I think it would become too burdensome to post on this forum if you have to be inclusive to all. People should post to talk about what they want to talk about and if some people don't like the way they express themselves - tough. From what I can interpret from his posts, I doubt Sriram's cares about anyone else's opinion on his use of language, and he will carry on posting as he wishes. For me - arguing over his use of language has been fun. So all in all - thanks Sriram - this has kept me entertained and I learned something about Hindu philosophy's views on atheism in the process.
-
I have already told you. You are giving too much importance to atheism and belief in a God. This is due to your background in a Christian culture. In Hindu philosophy belief in God is not at all important even though it is the most easy and popular path.
Samkhya and even some schools of Yoga don't talk of a God at all. You need to broaden your base knowledge before you can appreciate or even understand many of these concepts.
Not actually an answer to my question.
In my example is the theist and the atheist in exactly the same place on that spiritual path and is the length of the path to the summit (as you described it) exactly the same.
-
So two people - same in all other respects, background, life, upbringing, attitudes, actions etc, etc. One is a theist and by inference accepts the notions of spiritualism, the other is an atheist and by inference does not accept the notions of spiritualism. Are they both at exactly the same place on that path - is the length of their journey to the summit of Everest likely to be the same?
I thought you wanted to discuss hindu philosophy - surely you must have an opinion on this.
I thought atheists can be spiritual? For example Susan said she thinks the term "spiritual" should not limit itself to only referencing religious spiritualism. How are you defining "spiritual" that all atheists are rejecting and how does that fit in with Susan's use of the word?
I am not sure what you mean by asking if two people are at the same place - how would anyone know who is at which place on any journey? Each journey is for the individual to judge for themselves.
Each person is unique - in the way their genes code brain development and how interactions and experiences influence their "moral mind" if you use Haidt's terminology.
-
Not actually an answer to my question.
In my example is the theist and the atheist in exactly the same place on that spiritual path and is the length of the path to the summit (as you described it) exactly the same.
It's a metaphor PD - no one has a tape measure for this type of thing.
-
I don't see devotion as needing to involve gods either. But I can see that devotion to a cause that a person believes is greater than themselves can invoke different feelings to devotion to your family.
I didn't say that people cannot be devoted to something they see as 'greater' - of course they can and that 'greater' thing may not be god but it would certainly have god-like characteristics. But that something is greater, or better etc doesn't seem to be in any way a necessary element for devotion - except within a narrowly religious sense I think devotion is defined as love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person or activity. There is no aspect of that definition that requires the object of that devotion to be greater, bigger, better etc. In a theistic mindset I get how devotion becomes equated with reverence, a greater cause, awe etc, but that isn't a part of its general definition whatsoever. So as an atheist I think I see devotion within its generally-accepted definition and therefore it has nothing (necessarily) to do with awe, or reverence, or greater, albeit of course the object of some people's devotion might be that.
That isn't to say one type of devotion is better than another
Pleased to hear it,
but I can see that some people may leave behind family they claim they are devoted to in order to devote themselves to what they believe is a greater cause.
But I suspect that the reverse is much more common - people leaving behind big causes because they have children and now focus their devotion onto their new family.
Maybe the feelings of devotion in the 2 cases feel different because the cause seems something special or more exclusive, whereas lots of people are devoted to their families so maybe that feels less awe-inspiring or sublime.
Do they feel different - I don't know whether they do. However I suspect if you ask people to name one thing they are devoted to many will answer 'my children'.
-
Not actually an answer to my question.
In my example is the theist and the atheist in exactly the same place on that spiritual path and is the length of the path to the summit (as you described it) exactly the same.
Depending on so many other factors..yes..they could be.
Why are you focusing on this aspect so much? Are you getting scared that you might be far behind most believers? ;)
-
I didn't say that people cannot be devoted to something they see as 'greater' - of course they can and that 'greater' thing may not be god but it would certainly have god-like characteristics. But that something is greater, or better etc doesn't seem to be in any way a necessary element for devotion - except within a narrowly religious sense I think devotion is defined as love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person or activity. There is no aspect of that definition that requires the object of that devotion to be greater, bigger, better etc. In a theistic mindset I get how devotion becomes equated with reverence, a greater cause, awe etc, but that isn't a part of its general definition whatsoever. So as an atheist I think I see devotion within its generally-accepted definition and therefore it has nothing (necessarily) to do with awe, or reverence, or greater, albeit of course the object of some people's devotion might be that.
Pleased to hear it,
But I suspect that the reverse is much more common - people leaving behind big causes because they have children and now focus their devotion onto their new family.
Do they feel different - I don't know whether they do. However I suspect if you ask people to name one thing they are devoted to many will answer 'my children'.
I will look online and see if there are any studies about this type of thing. I think many people would describe themselves as being more energised when devoted to a purpose or cause that seems more important than their family. But at the same time, it would be exhausting if they could not take a break from devotion to that purpose or cause and shift to devoting themselves to family.
So yes I think people also leave causes to focus on family but not sure if it invokes the same feelings. Also, people who devote themselves to a cause tend to come together with like-minded people so there would be a feeling of group loyalty for a cause that may feel different to the devotion to family/ children.
-
Which again is a pretty universal claim for moral philosophies religious or otherwise - love each other - and quite possibly driven from evolution.
I would also argue against the notion that the presence of a god makes the relationship less self centred. From an atheistic perspective it appears to make it more so as I, and I suspect, many atheists consider god to be a man made concept. So by introducing god (who you have made up) you are in effect expressing love towards something that is, in reality just an expression of yourself. By removing god you are able to genuinely and unequivocally express love towards someone else and receive it in return unfettered by the presence of a god that you have made up.
Now I'm sure if you believe in god you'll disagree but I want you to understand this from the perspective of this atheist.
Well, I'm more inclined to be ignostic as I find it difficult to discuss 'god' until somebody defines what they mean by it. Most of the words translated as 'god' are pretty ancient and often the translation of the word in use is often vague. The word 'god', if I remember correctly, meant 'that which is to be invoked', which seems to suggest an outer power or quality and probably attracts worship through images picked from the external which represent those qualities, in order to focus the attention. So in this case it might not be about expressing love towards something made up but more about endeavouring to focus the attention on the quality e.g. love, which that 'god' represents and unite with it. This may explain why there are many gods in some cultures. In Abrahamic based cultures there is one god with many attributes which perhaps makes worship (focused attention) a bit easier. Religious egotism arises when the powers (usually men) which control the doctrine assert it through indoctrination as 'the only way' which often resulted in conflict and wars. As Sriram has said, there are many paths in Hinduism (and Hinduism is probably a lazy British Empire term to lump them all together through lack of understanding).
-
I thought atheists can be spiritual? For example Susan said she thinks the term "spiritual" should not limit itself to only referencing religious spiritualism. How are you defining "spiritual" that all atheists are rejecting and how does that fit in with Susan's use of the word?
I never said all atheists are non-spiritual. I simply used as an example an atheist how is also non-spiritual as that person infers that the notion of spirituality isn't consistent with their atheism.
And of course that is a very common situation - I posted on this extensively some while ago. Certainly in europe (and let's face it we don't have any non european atheists posting here I think) there are very few people who do not believe in god but describe themselves as spiritual. So my example was the most 'common' type of atheist, if you like. An ordinary atheist rather than an unusual one.
-
It's a metaphor PD - no one has a tape measure for this type of thing.
I understand that, but it is a metaphor that Sriram uses both in terms of a 'path' but also his Mount Everest analogy.
I am of course not asking him to be precise, but I would have thought with his knowledge and opinions on hindu religious philosophy and atheism that he'd be able to give a broad view, effectively whether being a theist who considers themselves to be spiritual is likely to provide more 'ticks in the box' on that pathway compared to someone who is atheist and does not consider themselves to be spiritual, all other things being equal.
-
I understand that, but it is a metaphor that Sriram uses both in terms of a 'path' but also his Mount Everest analogy.
I am of course not asking him to be precise, but I would have thought with his knowledge and opinions on hindu religious philosophy and atheism that he'd be able to give a broad view, effectively whether being a theist who considers themselves to be spiritual is likely to provide more 'ticks in the box' on that pathway compared to someone who is atheist and does not consider themselves to be spiritual, all other things being equal.
I have already told you it depends on many many factors. We can never know what a person really is just by seeing or listening to him.
Belief in God is not as important as you are imagining.
-
I understand that, but it is a metaphor that Sriram uses both in terms of a 'path' but also his Mount Everest analogy.
I am of course not asking him to be precise, but I would have thought with his knowledge and opinions on hindu religious philosophy and atheism that he'd be able to give a broad view, effectively whether being a theist who considers themselves to be spiritual is likely to provide more 'ticks in the box' on that pathway compared to someone who is atheist and does not consider themselves to be spiritual, all other things being equal.
I can't speak for Sriram's views - I suspect they are similar to mine based on what I have read on this thread - but I personally don't like the tick in the box approach to religion. My experience of religion is that there is nothing precise about it and it's not for us to judge on who is better as we do not have even a fraction of the knowledge needed to make that judgment as we can't see into anyone else's mind.
It's hard enough trying to fathom our own minds and motivations and strengths and weaknesses as there are many things we don't acknowledge / admit to ourselves and may things we are not even aware of about why we say and do and feel many of the things we say, do and feel.
-
I have already told you it depends on many many factors. We can never know what a person really is just by seeing or listening to him.
Belief in God is not as important as you are imagining.
But surely Sriram you can give some kind of view - in my example I've suggested that the only difference between my two hypothetical people one being a theist who considers themselves to be spiritual, the other an atheist and does not consider themselves to be spiritual.
And I note you are rather careful in saying that Belief in God is not as important as you are imagining which is not the same as indicating that belief in god/spirituality is completely unimportant - in other words that my two hypothetical people would be the same in the eyes of the philosophy.
-
I can't speak for Sriram's views - I suspect they are similar to mine based on what I have read on this thread - but I personally don't like the tick in the box approach to religion.
It is a turn of phrase, a colloquialism, hence the ''.
But Sriram still seems incredible unwilling to get off the fence on this one, which is rather strange as, to me (and I think a number of others on this MB) he comes across as unreasonably certain on matters whether there isn't evidence. It is almost as if he is being a tad elusive and not wanting to give an answer, rather than being unable to.
-
Belief in God is not as important as you are imagining.
Another question for you Sriram.
You claim that hindu religious philosophy can be atheistic - and indeed there are articles on this, although I'm not sure that they are using atheism in the same was as we might in the west, it seems more akin to agnosticism or deism.
However what about in practice - while theoretically there may be convinced atheist hindus, how common is this. I suspect this to be rather uncommon which tells you something about the philosophy in practice rather than in theory.
-
It is a turn of phrase, a colloquialism, hence the ''.
I know - I was using it as a colloquialism as well. In sermons by SOME Muslims we are constantly reminded that praying etc doesn't make you better than someone who doesn't or better than an unbeliever or better than someone who has openly done things that would be considered bad, because they might have done something good that we know nothing about and a judgment should taken every single atom and thought into consideration. So the people who congratulate themselves for being good based on their outward piety are considered by many to be missing the point.
But Sriram still seems incredible unwilling to get off the fence on this one, which is rather strange as, to me (and I think a number of others on this MB) he comes across as unreasonably certain on matters whether there isn't evidence. It is almost as if he is being a tad elusive and not wanting to give an answer, rather than being unable to.
No I think that's just your bias seeing what you want to see.
I agree with Sriram - there are so many factors - your question is impossible to answer.
ETA the word "SOME" in first para. Also I know a lot of Muslims who follow the Sufi tradition, which is different from the Wahabi , Qutbist or ISIS traditions that you may all be more familiar with thanks to recent Muslim terrorist incidents reported endlessly by certain media outlets in a way to outrage as many people as possible.
Also, regarding Sriram's answer what was wrong with his reply #127 "Depending on so many other factors..yes..they could be."
That seems to answer your question.
-
Another question for you Sriram.
You claim that hindu religious philosophy can be atheistic - and indeed there are articles on this, although I'm not sure that they are using atheism in the same was as we might in the west, it seems more akin to agnosticism or deism.
However what about in practice - while theoretically there may be convinced atheist hindus, how common is this. I suspect this to be rather uncommon which tells you something about the philosophy in practice rather than in theory.
You have no clue. Many people in the state of Tamil Nadu are rationalists and atheists while still believing in spiritual matters and practicing Yoga etc. Followers of Samkhya philosophy are generally atheists. Jains and Buddhists are generally atheists.
What do you mean it is just theoretical?!
Travel around and get to know of other cultures. You have been having a very sheltered life I expect...culturally.
-
Another question for you Sriram.
You claim that hindu religious philosophy can be atheistic - and indeed there are articles on this, although I'm not sure that they are using atheism in the same was as we might in the west, it seems more akin to agnosticism or deism.
However what about in practice - while theoretically there may be convinced atheist hindus, how common is this. I suspect this to be rather uncommon which tells you something about the philosophy in practice rather than in theory.
Has anyone done a survey? I imagine Sriram has not done a survey so how would Sriram know? And guessing without evidence seems to be a tad pointless.
Why don't you PD find a survey on the the different types of atheists and what they mean by atheism in different cultures across the world and then we can have a look and see what we can deduce.
After all this is called the Philosophy in all its guises board as opposed to Western Secular Philosophy board. And the title of this thread is "Many Paths"
-
You have no clue. Many people in the state of Tamil Nadu are rationalists and atheists while still believing in spiritual matters and practicing Yoga etc. Followers of Samkhya philosophy are generally atheists. Jains and Buddhists are generally atheists.
Really? My understanding (in other words actual data rather than anecdote) is that just 3% of the population of India describe themselves as atheist - so I'm not sure how you square that with your assertion. It is very rare for someone in India to consider themselves to be atheist, let alone convinced atheist hindus as I suspect this small portion of atheists aligns with similarly rather small proportions in other studies that indicate that they aren't religious.
What do you mean it is just theoretical?!
Meaning that although you could potentially be atheist and a follower of hindu religious philosophy it is very rare in practice. Similar to the notion that although it is possible to describe yourself as both atheist and spiritual very few people actually do.
Travel around and get to know of other cultures. You have been having a very sheltered life I expect...culturally.
An extremely condescending comment, I'm afraid.
-
Really? My understanding (in other words actual data rather than anecdote) is that just 3% of the population of India describe themselves as atheist - so I'm not sure how you square that with your assertion. It is very rare for someone in India to consider themselves to be atheist, let alone convinced atheist hindus as I suspect this small portion of atheists aligns with similarly rather small proportions in other studies that indicate that they aren't religious.
Meaning that although you could potentially be atheist and a follower of hindu religious philosophy it is very rare in practice. Similar to the notion that although it is possible to describe yourself as both atheist and spiritual very few people actually do.
An extremely condescending comment, I'm afraid.
So....what is your point? 3% of 1.4 billion is 42 million....nearly the population of Britain.
-
Really? My understanding (in other words actual data rather than anecdote) is that just 3% of the population of India describe themselves as atheist - so I'm not sure how you square that with your assertion. It is very rare for someone in India to consider themselves to be atheist, let alone convinced atheist hindus as I suspect this small portion of atheists aligns with similarly rather small proportions in other studies that indicate that they aren't religious.
Good to know. I would be interested to find out about any differences in how those people who self-identified as atheist in India (in whatever survey you are going to link to) define atheism and how various different people in the West define atheism and how Jains etc define atheism.
Who decides which definition is correct if there are differences in definition or cultural understanding?
-
So....what is your point? 3% of 1.4 billion is 42 million....nearly the population of Britain.
Actually when you specifically ask the question 'Do you believe in god' as Pew research have done, 98% of hindus say they do. So the atheist hindu is a very, very rare person.
And your claim that Jains ... are generally atheists is flat out wrong - again from the research (you know evidence) just 1% of Jains say they do not believe in god. So 1% is a rather different definition of generally that I and I suspect many other people use.
-
Who decides which definition is correct if there are differences in definition or cultural understanding?
The person answering the question - so this is clearly sensitive to cultural understanding. If you ask someone if they believe in god or gods they will answer that in a manner that uses their own interpretation of the question and what they understand by god or gods. And actually this survey, which is rather interesting scratched below the surface, so also asking whether people believed in 'one god'; 'one god with many manifestations'; 'many gods' - makes no difference to the proportion who do not believe in god or gods.
-
(in whatever survey you are going to link to)
There you go
https://www.pewforum.org/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/
Stuff on belief in god/gods is about half way down. Rather detailed and rather impressive research I think you'll find. Pew are good for this kind of stuff.
-
Actually when you specifically ask the question 'Do you believe in god' as Pew research have done, 98% of hindus say they do. So the atheist hindu is a very, very rare person.
Again good to know that the majority of the population don't consider themselves atheist Hindus. But some do. So...it is possible to follow Hindu philosophies and be an atheist. It doesn't matter if it's a popular self-identification so long as atheism does not rule you out from following the relevant Hindu philosophies.
And your claim that Jains ... are generally atheists is flat out wrong - again from the research (you know evidence) just 1% of Jains say they do not believe in god. So 1% is a rather different definition of generally that I and I suspect many other people use.
Again - good to know.
-
Actually when you specifically ask the question 'Do you believe in god' as Pew research have done, 98% of hindus say they do. So the atheist hindu is a very, very rare person.
And your claim that Jains ... are generally atheists is flat out wrong - again from the research (you know evidence) just 1% of Jains say they do not believe in god. So 1% is a rather different definition of generally that I and I suspect many other people use.
So...what is your point Prof? People will believe what they wish to believe. Does the system allow for different beliefs including atheism...yes it does. That is all this thread is about....not about what percentage are what.
Look....this is getting tiresome. You are just latching on to one or the other argument...without a clue as to what you are arguing about.
I am done here.
Thanks.
-
Again good to know that the majority of the population don't consider themselves atheist Hindus. But some do. So...it is possible to follow Hindu philosophies and be an atheist. It doesn't matter if it's a popular self-identification so long as atheism does not rule you out from following the relevant Hindu philosophies.
Again - good to know.
Actually, and rather interestingly in India muslims and christians are considerably more likely to say they are atheist than hindus or jains, despite Sriram's notion that hinduism is compatible with atheism while I image we'd probably think that islam and christianity aren't really compatible with atheism.
As one might expect there is a relatively high proportion of atheist buddhists, but this is still a minority.
-
Look....this is getting tiresome.
Why does something suddenly become tiresome when you are confronted with evidence that proves you not just wrong but spectacularly wrong, in the case of jains where your claim was that Jains ... are generally atheists when the reality is that just one in one hundred jains is atheist.
-
...without a clue as to what you are arguing about.
Says the person who claims that jains are generally atheist when the actual evidence shows that just one in one hundred are.
-
Does the system allow for different beliefs including atheism...yes it does.
Actually even that (in a theoretical sense) is a highly contested point. Not just by me Sriram, but by your co-religionists within your own county (assuming you are a hindu based in India).
So nigh on half of Indian hindus think that you cannot be a hindu if you do not believe in god.
So not only are virtually all hindus theists it is very far from universally accepted that you even can be an atheist hindu.
-
So...it is possible to follow Hindu philosophies and be an atheist.
But even that point is highly contested ... amongst ... err ... hindus. See above.
-
There you go
https://www.pewforum.org/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/
Stuff on belief in god/gods is about half way down. Rather detailed and rather impressive research I think you'll find. Pew are good for this kind of stuff.
Thanks - this is really interesting. In India despite rapid economic growth, India’s population so far shows few, if any, signs of losing its religion. Religion is prominent in the lives of Indians regardless of their socioeconomic status or level of college education. Which is very different from the Western European experience since WW2. But the biggest exception is Christians in India, among whom those with higher education and those who reside in urban areas show somewhat lower levels of observance. So there seems to be something common to Christian beliefs and practices in Europe and to a lesser extent in India, that leads to a higher degree of non-observance.
A substantial minority of Muslims express a degree of open-mindedness on who can be a Muslim, with fully one-third (34%) saying a person can be Muslim even if they don’t believe in God. (The survey finds that 6% of self-described Muslims in India say they do not believe in God). I can't find any further info on what they mean when they say they don't believe in God.
Most Muslims in India say a person cannot be Muslim if they never pray or attend a mosque. Similarly, about six-in-ten say that celebrating Diwali or Christmas is incompatible with being a member of the Muslim community. And what's funny is that more Muslims think eating pork is incompatible with identifying as a Muslim compared to not believing in God.
Nice to see 85-91% of those surveyed from the following religions - Hindu, Muslim, Christian Sikh, Buddhist, Jain - feel they can practise their religion freely. Of the Muslims surveyed 89% said that so it paints a different picture from the one created by the media by focusing on Hindu nationalist violence against Muslims in India.
But 64% of Hindus say it is very important to be a Hindu to be truly Indian - so that seems a Hindu nationalist view. Of those 64% about 80% also say it is very important to speak Hindi to be truly Indian. Though this view is far more common in the parts of India where Hindi is spoken, compared with just 5% having this view in South India, where Hindi is not spoken much. But despite this support for Hindu nationalism about half the Hindus seem to think that on balance religious diversity benefits India. More Muslims than Hindus think Partition was a bad thing for Hindu-Muslim relations.
And 78 - 85% think it is an important part of being truly Indian to respect all religions.
And 73- 85% think it is a very important part of their religious identity to respect other religions
So this supports the Many Paths idea.
And 77% of Hindus and Muslims in India believe in Karma. Nearly three-in-ten Muslims and Christians say they believe in reincarnation (27% and 29%, respectively) despite the obvious theological contradictions and lack of Muslim or Christian religious doctrine supporting those beliefs. That just goes to show how prevailing culture can really influence beliefs. I don't think I know any Muslims here in the UK who believe in karma or reincarnation, in the few conversations I have had with people about it.
Substantial minorities of Christians (31%) and Muslims (20%) report that they do celebrate Diwali (Deepavali in Sri Lanka). Coincidentally, I was at a Deepavali celebration last night at the Sri Lanka High Commission, representing a Muslim organisation.
I see they seem to be following some of our evolutionary innate moral mind traits suggested by Haidt (based on research) that we tend to form groups and tribes and worry about sanctity/ purity (in relation to food). Though there is variation across regions. Southern Indian Hindus are considerably less likely than others to disqualify beef eaters from being Hindu (50% vs. 83% in the Northern and Central parts of the country).
Also the different religious groups see themselves as very different from each other. In-group loyalty seems important in Indian culture. 67% of Hindus surveyed think it is very important to stop Hindus marrying outside their religion. 80% of the Muslims surveyed think the same way about Muslims marrying outside their religion. I assume the Hindus and Muslims mean in situations where the spouse does not convert. So most Indians seem to want to keep separate from other groups but at the same time tolerate other groups - patchwork fabric rather than a melting pot of cultures.
-
But even that point is highly contested ... amongst ... err ... hindus. See above.
Yes but so what. I don't think anyone was claiming that there was group think all over India and everyone thought the same or even that the majority of Indians were atheist. Diversity of thought is a good thing. So long as Hindu philosophy does not rule out atheism as being compatible with it, then the point Sriram made that you can be atheist and follow Hindu philosophy stands. And there is no reason why we need to take your view of what atheism entails or even a Western European view of what atheism entails. This board is Philosophy in all its Guises. Who here is saying that should be read as meaning only Western European Philosophy in all its Guises?
You can disagree from your narrow perspective about the definition of atheism. Of course in relation to abstract concepts there will be a wide variety of thoughts and ideas from different parts of the world. There is diversity on the meaning of abstract concepts just in one region. Look at the arguments in the UK from people who identify as socialist about whether New Labour can be considered as Truly Labour or should be considered Tory Lite.
-
Thanks - this is really interesting. In India despite rapid economic growth, India’s population so far shows few, if any, signs of losing its religion. Religion is prominent in the lives of Indians regardless of their socioeconomic status or level of college education. Which is very different from the Western European experience since WW2. But the biggest exception is Christians in India, among whom those with higher education and those who reside in urban areas show somewhat lower levels of observance. So there seems to be something common to Christian beliefs and practices in Europe and to a lesser extent in India, that leads to a higher degree of non-observance.
A substantial minority of Muslims express a degree of open-mindedness on who can be a Muslim, with fully one-third (34%) saying a person can be Muslim even if they don’t believe in God. (The survey finds that 6% of self-described Muslims in India say they do not believe in God). I can't find any further info on what they mean when they say they don't believe in God.
Most Muslims in India say a person cannot be Muslim if they never pray or attend a mosque. Similarly, about six-in-ten say that celebrating Diwali or Christmas is incompatible with being a member of the Muslim community. And what's funny is that more Muslims think eating pork is incompatible with identifying as a Muslim compared to not believing in God.
Nice to see 85-91% of those surveyed from the following religions - Hindu, Muslim, Christian Sikh, Buddhist, Jain - feel they can practise their religion freely. Of the Muslims surveyed 89% said that so it paints a different picture from the one created by the media by focusing on Hindu nationalist violence against Muslims in India.
But 64% of Hindus say it is very important to be a Hindu to be truly Indian - so that seems a Hindu nationalist view. Of those 64% about 80% also say it is very important to speak Hindi to be truly Indian. Though this view is far more common in the parts of India where Hindi is spoken, compared with just 5% having this view in South India, where Hindi is not spoken much. But despite this support for Hindu nationalism about half the Hindus seem to think that on balance religious diversity benefits India. More Muslims than Hindus think Partition was a bad thing for Hindu-Muslim relations.
And 78 - 85% think it is an important part of being truly Indian to respect all religions.
And 73- 85% think it is a very important part of their religious identity to respect other religions
So this supports the Many Paths idea.
And 77% of Hindus and Muslims in India believe in Karma. Nearly three-in-ten Muslims and Christians say they believe in reincarnation (27% and 29%, respectively) despite the obvious theological contradictions and lack of Muslim or Christian religious doctrine supporting those beliefs. That just goes to show how prevailing culture can really influence beliefs. I don't think I know any Muslims here in the UK who believe in karma or reincarnation, in the few conversations I have had with people about it.
Substantial minorities of Christians (31%) and Muslims (20%) report that they do celebrate Diwali (Deepavali in Sri Lanka). Coincidentally, I was at a Deepavali celebration last night at the Sri Lanka High Commission, representing a Muslim organisation.
I see they seem to be following some of our evolutionary innate moral mind traits suggested by Haidt (based on research) that we tend to form groups and tribes and worry about sanctity/ purity (in relation to food). Though there is variation across regions. Southern Indian Hindus are considerably less likely than others to disqualify beef eaters from being Hindu (50% vs. 83% in the Northern and Central parts of the country).
Also the different religious groups see themselves as very different from each other. In-group loyalty seems important in Indian culture. 67% of Hindus surveyed think it is very important to stop Hindus marrying outside their religion. 80% of the Muslims surveyed think the same way about Muslims marrying outside their religion. I assume the Hindus and Muslims mean in situations where the spouse does not convert. So most Indians seem to want to keep separate from other groups but at the same time tolerate other groups - patchwork fabric rather than a melting pot of cultures.
I think these really in depth Pew studies are really interesting - there is certainly a lot to chew on in here. And previously I posted an even more in depth one on religion in western europe.
I think in the context of the current thread the interesting point is that while Sriram may claim that hindu religious philosophy is just as much for atheists as theists, the numbers don't bear that out with the overwhelming majority (98%) of hindus being theist. So the question is why hinduism in practice is overwhelmingly a religion of theists, why are there so few atheists if it is as Sriram described, not about belief in god.
The second point, which may relate to the first - why do pretty well half of hindus reject Sriram's notion that you can be hindu and atheist. Throw in the data on nationalism - with 64% of people saying that it very important to be a Hindu to be truly Indian and what you end up with is a sizeable minority (perhaps a third of the population) who in effect do not think that atheists can be truly indian, as you cannot be an atheist and hindua and you must be hindu to be truly indian. That is probably a quite chilling attitude for anyone who is atheist and indian.
And the different between the 'theory' and the reality is important. If there was a company who claimed that they were equally welcoming and open to people regardless of sex, yet 98% of their employees were men, we might very well ask whether it is really true that they are welcoming to women.
-
Yes but so what.
I think it is rather important in the context of this discussion - Sriram's main claim here is that hindu religious philosophy is for atheists just as much as for theists and that believe in god is unimportant. But this basic premise is clearly not a universal view even amongst hindus, indeed it is very far from a universal view with hindus pretty well split straight down the middle as to whether they even consider that you can be atheist and hindu, let alone whether hinduism is equally for atheists and theists. Clearly pretty well half of hindus certainly think belief in god is important in hinduism as they don't think you can be a hindu and not believe in god.
-
1. Whether the western definition of 'atheist' has been explained to everyone in the survey is a relevant issue. Most Indians think of an atheist as a person who does not believe in any spiritual matters including after-life, celestial realms etc. It is not restricted to disbelieving in just a supreme creator. Jains and Buddhists are most certainly atheists by the western definition but not by the broader definition.
2. With the rise of nationalistic tendencies in recent years, people may have developed a India is Hindu mentality specifically in relation to Muslims and their terrorist activities. When people feel threatened they close ranks. Like it happens in other countries also. Pakistan with its focus on Kashmir militancy does not help change the general mood. All this has nothing to do with Hindu teachings.
3. Why most people are theists and not atheists is not for anyone to question. You are now becoming evangelical....
-
I think it is rather important in the context of this discussion - Sriram's main claim here is that hindu religious philosophy is for atheists just as much as for theists and that believe in god is unimportant.
I don't think Sriram was making that claim in his OP - I read his claim as saying, being atheist does not prevent you following Hindu philosophy. Whether the actual followers of Hindu philosophy or the population of Indian are in practice equally made up of theists and atheists (they clearly are not) is a different claim and not one that is being made in this thread. There could be all kinds of reasons why in practice people prefer to belong to a religious group - maybe they find a lot of benefits from a religious identity e.g. feeling connected, shared rituals that can be performed together, shared traditions and history that might make bolster self-esteem, it's fun etc
But this basic premise is clearly not a universal view even amongst hindus, indeed it is very far from a universal view with hindus pretty well split straight down the middle as to whether they even consider that you can be atheist and hindu, let alone whether hinduism is equally for atheists and theists. Clearly pretty well half of hindus certainly think belief in god is important in hinduism as they don't think you can be a hindu and not believe in god.
Again - I think you misunderstood Sriram's claim. He said Hindu philosophy allows for atheism - so we're very much looking at the theoretical. The reality might not match theory because people have different tastes and preferences and in Indian culture their tastes run to being religious. But that doesn't mean a philosophy cannot say it's ok to be theist or atheist.
-
I think these really in depth Pew studies are really interesting - there is certainly a lot to chew on in here. And previously I posted an even more in depth one on religion in western europe.
I think in the context of the current thread the interesting point is that while Sriram may claim that hindu religious philosophy is just as much for atheists as theists, the numbers don't bear that out with the overwhelming majority (98%) of hindus being theist. So the question is why hinduism in practice is overwhelmingly a religion of theists, why are there so few atheists if it is as Sriram described, not about belief in god.
The second point, which may relate to the first - why do pretty well half of hindus reject Sriram's notion that you can be hindu and atheist. Throw in the data on nationalism - with 64% of people saying that it very important to be a Hindu to be truly Indian and what you end up with is a sizeable minority (perhaps a third of the population) who in effect do not think that atheists can be truly indian, as you cannot be an atheist and hindua and you must be hindu to be truly indian. That is probably a quite chilling attitude for anyone who is atheist and indian.
And the different between the 'theory' and the reality is important. If there was a company who claimed that they were equally welcoming and open to people regardless of sex, yet 98% of their employees were men, we might very well ask whether it is really true that they are welcoming to women.
I am not sure a philosophy can be welcoming. Surely it's the job of people to be welcoming and if the theory does not prevent them from being welcoming then the issue is the people practising the theory. A theory can't control how people interpret or practise it as all the structures and processes in a company or community or society that are not in the theory's control or remit are created by people and will have a significant impact on how any theory will actually be put into practice.
Also, I am not convinced by some of these gender equality concerns people raise. There seem to be lots of times women just don't want the job that men want.
For example, I am the 1st woman President of a 50 year old Muslim organisation because no other woman wanted the job in the last 25 years the organisation has been trying to push for a woman President. Women have served as Treasurer and Secretary but for some reason a woman did not want to lead it.
I couldn't be bothered either but was convinced by the argument that we need to break this unwillingness for women to take the position and if I do it, other women in the community are more likely to follow. And women are really good at certain aspects of the role so it's not a lack of skills that stop them taking the role. Maybe a lack of confidence - maybe due to lower levels of testosterone - which means maybe they are less likely to take a risk. But it's a thankless voluntary job, managing annoying petty politics amongst members, managing a building we own, legal paperwork, admin and technology issues, putting on events, representing the organisation at external events, holding regular Committee meetings etc, organising the AGM.
But the men in the community who have been President seem to like to be President, whereas the women's attitude is we have other issues we have to deal with (family, work) and we don't want to give up our spare time to meetings and we don't want to have to drive around the city attending events in the evening to represent the organisation when we could be at home or with our friends and family, and we don't want to have to go introduce ourselves to complete strangers and talk to them to raise the profile of the organisation we represent or try and secure sponsorship.
So I think in practice, whether you see diversity in a company, organisation or society has a lot more to do with other factors in society than just theoretical policies.
-
1. Whether the western definition of 'atheist' has been explained to everyone in the survey is a relevant issue. Most Indians think of an atheist as a person who does not believe in any spiritual matters including after-life, celestial realms etc. It is not restricted to disbelieving in just a supreme creator.
Did you actually bother to read the Pew research I linked to Sriram? I would have thought you'd have found it interesting. Had you done so you would have recognised that the researchers didn't ask people 'are you an atheist?' - no they asked people 'do you believe in god/gods'. So the definition of atheist isn't really relevant, is it, as they weren't asked whether they were atheist.
Now in terms of definitions I think firstly you are stretching things - atheist means, by definition, 'a' (i.e. not)-'theist' (i.e. believer in god/gods). There can't really be alternative definitions. But even if you argue that Indians consider atheism to go beyond just non belief in god, to include the other aspects you mentioned, this would shrink further the numbers captured by the research. So currently in the survey someone who does not believe in god but considers themselves spiritual etc will be in the 2%, not believing in god category. If you add in the having not to believe in any spiritual matters that person will shift from the atheist category further shrinking it. So your argument actually works the other way around - or at least does if you bothered to check what question was being asked.
Jains and Buddhists are most certainly atheists by the western definition but not by the broader definition.
The western definition (actually the definition) of atheist is someone who does not believe in god or gods, so will answer no to the question 'do you believe in god/gods' - that is what the survey asked of Jains and just 1% (using the western definition) indicated they were atheist. Sure there was a larger proportion of Buddhists who didn't believe in god (not unexpected), but still only 33%, compared to 66% who do believe in god.
So I'm sorry Sriram you cannot just make these hand waving assertions which are easily disproved by real research - ask Jains if they believe in god and 99% say they do - those 99% aren't atheist by any definition you choose to use.
-
I don't know what the research is worth when it goes against basic Jain tenets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Jainism
********
In Jainism, godliness is said to be the inherent quality of every soul. This quality, however, is subdued by the soul's association with karmic matter. All souls who have achieved the natural state of infinite bliss, infinite knowledge (kevala jnana), infinite power and infinite perception are regarded as God in Jainism. Jainism rejects the idea of a creator deity responsible for the manifestation, creation, or maintenance of this universe. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents (soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion) have always existed. All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws and perfect soul, an immaterial entity cannot create or affect a material entity like the universe.[1]
********
-
I don't know what the research is worth when it goes against basic Jain tenets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Jainism
********
In Jainism, godliness is said to be the inherent quality of every soul. This quality, however, is subdued by the soul's association with karmic matter. All souls who have achieved the natural state of infinite bliss, infinite knowledge (kevala jnana), infinite power and infinite perception are regarded as God in Jainism. Jainism rejects the idea of a creator deity responsible for the manifestation, creation, or maintenance of this universe. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents (soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion) have always existed. All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws and perfect soul, an immaterial entity cannot create or affect a material entity like the universe.[1]
********
Which makes it very clear that Jains do believe in god - just not in a creator god. Sriram, you seem to like definitions at the moment - not all gods purported to exist are creator gods.
To be an atheist you don't believe in any god or gods, not just that you don't believe in creator gods. So using your own post Jains most definitely are not atheist as they believe in a god. Which is exactly what the Pew research found - 99% say they believe in a gods/gods and are therefore not atheist.
Face it Sriram - the very notion that you'd have a wiki page entitled 'God in Jainism' tells you that err ... god is a part of Jainism.
-
Oh...for heavens sake Prof...! ::)
Ok..Cheers.
-
I don't know what the research is worth when it goes against basic Jain tenets.
The research tells us what proportion of Jains believe in god/gods. And that is 99%. Sorry if the evidence doesn't fit with your assertions, but I suggest you take that up with the researchers and more importantly with the 99% of Jains who say they believe in god/gods and are therefore, by definition, not atheist. And I suspect they are perfectly comfortable that their theism is completely consistent with Jainism, as indeed your wiki page demonstrates.