Many paths

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.   

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?   

[ProfessorDavey]

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. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ekim]

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'

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Bramble]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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'?

[Sriram]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.