It is utterly irrelevant what they called themselves.
When Da Gama first encountered them they were introduced as 'Krishnas' and claiming the Hinduism isn't a religion is utterly absurd.
Do you honestly think they didn't realise the Achaeminids, Macedonians, or the Chinese had different beliefs?

(April 4, 2020 at 1:35 am)Mr Greene Wrote: It is utterly irrelevant what they called themselves.

What's relevant to me is how they drew the boundaries among things like [what we would call] science, justification for government sovereignty, necessary social conduct. In our time we can conceive of these things independently of [what we call] religion. 

Quote:When Da Gama first encountered them they were introduced as 'Krishnas' and claiming the Hinduism isn't a religion is utterly absurd.

You know that Vasco da Gama wasn't the first European to encounter people from India, right? He was the first to use a sea route (that we know of) but exchanges of ideas had been going on for a very long time. He was in the 15th century, and you started out by talking about cavemen, so you seem to be somewhat unfocused in your time frame here. 

The way Western people think of Hinduism as a religion -- as some sort of unified system of thought --- was imposed on a diverse variety of traditions and ideas by colonizers. 

If you want to call it a religion, OK. I think that "religion" is one of those Wittgenstein words that has no definition. But it's possible to be atheist and Hindu, so it may be wise to be careful. 

Quote:Do you honestly think they didn't realise the Achaeminids, Macedonians, or the Chinese had different beliefs?

Of course they knew. What thing have you imagined about me to make you think that I don't know that? Anyway, you've galloped a long way from cavemen. 

I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing about here. It seems almost entirely unrelated to what I've said. Are you at all understanding the point I'm making about how different people in different ages categorize things differently? 

To repeat the point: what we call secularity becomes possible only when people begin to separate a category called religion from other things in their culture. In some cultures, ideas of government, social rituals, education, and health care were not separable, conceptually. In those cultures, the idea of a secular sphere wouldn't make sense. 

Anyway, this is cut down from the Wikipedia page on Hinduism:

Quote:To its adherents, Hinduism is a traditional way of life.[64] Many practitioners refer to the "orthodox" form of Hinduism as [i][i]Sanātana Dharma[/i], "the eternal law" or the "eternal way".[65][66] The Sanskrit word dharma has a much broader meaning than religion and is not its equivalent. All aspects of a Hindu life, namely acquiring wealth (artha), fulfillment of desires (kama), and attaining liberation (moksha), are part of dharma, which encapsulates the "right way of living" and eternal harmonious principles in their fulfillment.[67][68][/i]
[...]

To many Hindus, the Western term "religion" to the extent it means "dogma and an institution traceable to a single founder" is inappropriate for their tradition, states Hatcher. Hinduism, to them, is a tradition that can be traced at least to the ancient Vedic era.[70][71][note 12]
[...]

The term Vaidika dharma means a code of practice that is "based on the Vedas", but it is unclear what "based on the Vedas" really implies, states Julius Lipner.[71] The Vaidika dharma or "Vedic way of life", states Lipner, does not mean "Hinduism is necessarily religious" or that Hindus have a universally accepted "conventional or institutional meaning" for that term.[71] To many, it is as much a cultural term. Many Hindus do not have a copy of the Vedas nor have they ever seen or personally read parts of a Veda, like a Christian might relate to the Bible or a Muslim might to the Quran. Yet, states Lipner, "this does not mean that their [Hindus] whole life's orientation cannot be traced to the Vedas or that it does not in some way derive from it".[71]
Many religious Hindus implicitly acknowledge the authority of the Vedas, this acknowledgment is often "no more than a declaration that someone considers himself [or herself] a Hindu." Some Hindus challenge the authority of the Vedas, thereby implicitly acknowledging its importance to the history of Hinduism, states Lipner.[71]


[...]

The definition of Hinduism in Indian Law is: "Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large".[95][31][page needed]

The term Hinduism is coined in Western ethnography in the 18th century,[43][96] and refers to the fusion[note 3] or synthesis[note 4][6] of various Indian cultures and traditions.[7][note 5] which emerged after the Vedic period, between 500[10]–200[11] BCE and c. 300 CE,[10] the beginning of the "Epic and Puranic" c.q. "Preclassical" period.[10][11]
Hinduism's tolerance to variations in belief and its broad range of traditions make it difficult to define as a religion according to traditional Western conceptions.[99]
Some academics suggest that Hinduism can be seen as a category with "fuzzy edges" rather than as a well-defined and rigid entity. Some forms of religious expression are central to Hinduism and others, while not as central, still remain within the category. Based on this idea Ferro-Luzzi has developed a 'Prototype Theory approach' to the definition of Hinduism.[100]

[...]

Quote:[/url]

Part of the problem with a single definition of the term Hinduism is the fact that Hinduism does not have a founder.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#cite_note-121][104]It is a synthesis of various traditions,[105] the "Brahmanical orthopraxy, the renouncer traditions and popular or local traditions".[97]
Theism is also difficult to use as a unifying doctrine for Hinduism, because while some Hindu philosophies postulate a theistic ontology of creation, other Hindus are or have been atheists.[106]

Who claimed Hinduism was a unified system?
As earlier stated The Greeks were well acquainted with the civilizations of Asia. indeed claiming that Asian civilizations were ignorant of each other until European colonists pointed them out is ludicrously arrogant and your 'anthropology' teacher blatantly didn't know their arse from their elbow.
The fact that China (Seres) is mentioned by Herodotus should have been a clue but the Catholic church considered ignorance to be a virtue...

(April 4, 2020 at 6:04 am)Mr Greene Wrote: As earlier stated The Greeks were well acquainted with the civilizations of Asia. indeed claiming that Asian civilizations were ignorant of each other until European colonists pointed them out is ludicrously arrogant and your 'anthropology' teacher blatantly didn't know their arse from their elbow.

Neither my teacher not I ever claimed that. 

Quote:The fact that China (Seres) is mentioned by Herodotus should have been a clue but the Catholic church considered ignorance to be a virtue...

Yes, everyone was aware of the existence of China. What this has to do with the Cathipolic Church is unclear to me. 

Seriously, you've gone back to a kind of Gish Gallop of non sequiturs. 

I'll stop here, as you're not responding to what I actually say.

You are claiming that they were ignorant of what a religion is.
Underlying that is the presumption that they were isolated from each other which they blatantly weren't.
As such the claim that the people of Asia didn't know what a religion was is untenable.
The fact that the founder of Zoroastrianism supposedly developed his beliefs during conversations with Hindu traders regarding their beliefs on the Silk Road at Baku demonstrates that your claim about Hindus not knowing they had a religion is laughable.

(April 4, 2020 at 4:53 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: You are claiming that they were ignorant of what a religion is.
Underlying that is the presumption that they were isolated from each other which they blatantly weren't.
As such the claim that the people of Asia didn't know what a religion was is untenable.
The fact that the founder of Zoroastrianism supposedly developed his beliefs during conversations with Hindu traders regarding their beliefs on the Silk Road at Baku demonstrates that your claim about Hindus not knowing they had a religion is laughable.

I am not claiming any of those things.

If we were able to have a respectful conversation instead of an insult match I'd be happy to clarify further.

It's possible I'm wrong about some things. But you're not going to correct me if you're not addressing what I actually said. 

The first rule of a real debate is that you can describe your opponent's position in a way he would agree with. If you can't do that then you can't make a fair critique.

Wow, I'm away from my computer for a bit and this is what this thread devolved in to.

LOL. Right?

Anywho, the central question that confucius sought to answer was the basis of an orderly society -if not- for ancestral and nature spirits. He spent plenty of time thinking about and discussing "religions" and their relationship to proper governance. Gods too. My favorite piece of his advice about them - is to stay away from them, lol.

It didn't take westerners showing up and importing the idea of religion or of secularism, and then interpreting things along those lines. The chinese have always been capable of doing that themselves.

Indeed, it's almost as arrogant as coming to a group predominantly composed of former xtians and trying to tell them that you know how xtians think better than they do...

(April 5, 2020 at 10:06 am)Mr Greene Wrote: Indeed, it's almost as arrogant as coming to a group predominantly composed of former xtians and trying to tell them that you know how xtians think better than they do...

Thanks, this is a good opportunity to address this sort of insult. I've explained my position on this kind of thing many times, but this will give me a chance to put it in one place.

First, Christians are an enormous and diverse group, and there is almost nothing you can say about them that will be true for all of them. So I want to be very clear that when we say something about Christians in general, it isn't something that's only true for the worst ones. 

Second, as I have said many times, I am not interested in percentages among Christians, as to how many believe what. Nor do I care about what the people said in the church you went to until last Sunday. In just about any subject, looking at the majority is not the best way to find the best thinking -- unless you want to argue that Dan Brown is a better novelist than Dostoevsky. 

I have always been careful not to say "Christians believe" without further attribution. I will say that Christians in a certain tradition believe a thing, or that a given theologian says something. Christian thought (in some cases non-thought) is too diverse to say that any given thing is believed by all of them. 

Naturally I get scolded for mentioning the names of important Christian thinkers. But I get insulted for not mentioning them, too. The insults are irrelevant. 

If you want to spend time arguing against the stupidest Christians I think that's great. That's not how I want to spend my time, however. 

It seems that many atheists on the Internet realized that the stories they were hearing in church were silly, and quit believing when they were about twelve. That's perfectly reasonable. The twelve-year-old's image of God is almost invariably silly. Sometimes, though, those same atheists assume that the twelve-year-old's image is all that there is in theology, and they don't have to address anything else. That's overly simple. 

One of the greatest of Christian poets, William Blake, addressed the difference between the child's view and the adult's view in his Songs of Innocence and Experience. He knew of the tendency a long time ago. 

As for the topic at hand, which you pushed all over the place from cave men up to 16th century explorers, if we were able to focus on my specific claim I think it would be clear that what I'm saying is very limited and defensible. What people think of as religion changes. Secularity is possible in some times and not others. Concepts that we think of as religious are sometimes detachable from medicine, government, and general education, and sometimes not.