Many paths

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[Sriram]

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? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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. 

[ekim]

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).

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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"

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

(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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.