Reflecting on Atheism.

[arvind13]

@Arvind,

Whether of not cultures originating in India, China or ancient Greece had an explicit term for "religious belief" or not is irrelevant. The only factor in determining whether or not a cultural phenomena is a religion or not is what you mean by religion and if the shoe fits. That they themselves could not separate the religious aspects of their lives does not mean they had none.

You start with the assumption that religion is defined with a Christian bias and therefore, any negation carries with it the same bias. And you assume that giving the etymological history somehow bolsters this argument. It doesn't.

Identifying religion is pretty easy. If a cultural phenomenon has following aspects:
1. Belief in supernatural and/or divine entities - such as gods, deities, angels, spirits and so on.
2. Regarding certain objects/times/places as sacred or profane due to those beliefs.
3. A supposedly historical narrative explaining those beliefs.
4. Rituals and practices consequent of those beliefs and centered on them.
5. A moral code based on those beliefs,

- if this shoe fits, then the phenomenon can be correctly regarded as a religion. The Western colonists had the right idea when they assumed they wouldn't find any culture without a religion - because as far as Hinduism is concerned, the shoe fits better than Cinderella.

And as I explained above, the shoe doesn't fit at all. Because the Asian traditions, Roman traditions are not predicated on beliefs. Sure there are Indians with certain beliefs when it comes to their "gods", but belief is irrelevant to continuing a tradition.

But there's a much bigger problem at stake; you can't solve the problem of what religion is by providing definitions. Because definitions don't allow of counterexamples and there are no constraints when it comes to definitions. You can give whatever definition you like. So each person gives a definition according to his/her assumptions and pre-conceived notions. No one is under any compulsion to modify their definition.

On the other hand, a theory about the phenomenon of religion would have certain implications/consequences. If these consequences are falsified, the theory gets refuted as well. Exactly this feature is missing. We are unable to test for the presence or absence of religion using our current explanations. We cannot spell out the what the implications would be if religion is absent.

If there is a phenomena (religion) that exists in this world, then we need to have a theory that describes the structure of that phenomena. Such a theory must be testable, falsifiable. It must also be able to predict empirical consequences. Only then can we even begin saying that something or the other is an example of that phenomena. A definition is not a theory.

Let me give an example: Suppose that one defines grass as everything that is green. Could the yellow grass that is found beneath a stone be a counter-example to this definition? No, it could not, because according to this definition this yellow grass is not grass at all, because it is not green.Now take the example of a theory of photosynthesis which explains why grass is green. Contrary to definitions, this theory has consequences or implications, one being that if grass is not exposed to sunlight for a longer period of time, it will not turn green. Hence, the example of the yellow grass under the stone confirms the theory. Suppose that one does find green grass in a dark cave, this grass would indeed be a counter-example to the theory of photosynthesis and it would be falsified.