RE: Reflecting on Atheism.
November 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2013 at 10:23 pm by arvind13.)
Genkaus:
"Don't worry about it, your explanation is quite clear - transparent, in fact.
What your argument boils down to is this:
Christianity is a religion.
Christianity has properties X, Y and Z.
Hinduism does not have properties X, Y and Z.
Therefore, Hinduism is not a religion.
Its a formal logical fallacy called "talking out of your ass". Also, Denying the Antecedent.
Your only failure is the failure to come up with intelligible response to my counter-arguments - and, as a result, you are stuck repeating your position in different ways while pretending I didn't understand it. But that's hardly your fault - intelligible defense to unintelligible position can be pretty hard to come by."
Ah see, that's where you have completely misunderstood my argument.
My argument boils down to this:
Christianity is a religion.
Christianity has properties X, Y and Z.
Without X, Y and Z Christianity fails to be a religion
Without X, Y and Z Islam fails to be a religion
Without X, Y and Z Judaism fails to be a religion
Pagan traditions do not have X, Y and Z.
Therefore, pagan traditions are not religion.
Your counter argument has simply been the following: No, the pagan traditions DO have X,Y, and Z. Ofcourse without an explicit theory to support an argument, the discussion becomes deadlocked.
If you study philosophy of science you'll realize that the distinction between theory and data is a false distinction. All our so called data and facts are theory laden. All 'facts' are facts of a theory. Indians worship gods is a simple self evident fact to most people. but our descriptions of facts are saturated with background theories. How we interpret and describe what we observe is determined by the background theory we are operating under (whether we are aware of it or not). Now, what is the background theory the European travelers and missionaries were operating under when they described the 'religion' of India and they described it as a coherent unit called hinduism?
Because all of us observe things through some theoretical lens. Some theories explain things better than other theories.
Now, there is a theory that explains what religion is, and it does it better than the other theories in the market:
Religion is an explanatorily intelligible account of the cosmos and itself. Remember the 'and itself'. It becomes important later on. There are two kinds of explanations of events in the world. One is a causal explanation. The other is an intentional explantion. For example, the opening of a door. A causal explanation of the door opening would be the hand gripping the door and pulling the door, the velocity of the pull etc. An intentional explanation of the door opening would be that the guy felt that the room was hot and wanted to open the door to let in air. In other words, intentional accounts postulate an agent. Phenomena are seen to embody the intentions of an agent.
Religion is an account in which the causal and intentional explanation are fused. That is, they become one and the same. the relationship between ‘intending’ and ‘acting’ is not only constant but that nothing else interferes between the former and the latter to such an extent that they virtually become identical. Such an account, when it is forthcoming; of such sets of actions, if they are possible; of such a being, if it exists; these, together, will give us an explanatory intelligible account of that agent and its actions.
This being is God. His actions are the universe. His message is precisely the above doctrine. We now have on our hands what we call a ‘religious doctrine’. It says that the cosmos, and by cosmos I mean everything there is, was, and will be, is an expression of God's purpose, intention and plan. God's intention is the cause of the cosmos. In biblical words, "the will of the sovereign governs the world". Now remember what I said earlier, Religion is an explanatorily intelligible account of the cosmos and itself.
Not only does the account make the cosmos into an expression of God's plan, since that very account is also part of the cosmos, it too expresses God's will or plan. This is where the notion of revelation comes from. The bible is a revelation of God, expressing God's plan and purpose.
This is what makes religion 'The TRUTH' for believers. Correspondingly, the question of truth takes a radical form. The problem is not whether religion is true the way my belief about Brussels is true. The truth about the capital city of Belgium depends on other beliefs being true as well (this is what we call evidence). This is not the case with religion at all. Religion is the truth in the specific sense of not being dependent on the truth of any other belief we hold about the world.
to be continued......
Now, this theory explains the structure which allows the different parts of Christianity to cohere together as a unit. parts like doctrine, eschatology, faith, worship. These are contingencies of religion once it is present among human beings:
As human beings, we know of only one kind of intelligibility account,
viz. that which appeals to reasons or purposes. Because religion makes
both itself and the Cosmos intelligible, both embody the reasons or
purposes of some entity or being, which is capable of having reasons
or purposes and acting accordingly. For the sake of convenience, let us
call such an entity ‘God’. Consequently, as soon as we say that human
beings have religion, we require that God has provided such an account.
That is to say, existence of creatures like us with religion requires
that God has provided such an explanatory intelligible account. In this
sense, the first contingent property that religion acquires amidst human
beings (but a necessary condition for the existence of such an account
among us) is that God is such an entity.
The second contingent property that religion acquires among human
beings is that some claim is made about the kind of beings to whom
such an account is provided. Human beings are part of the purposes
of God, i.e. they fulfil some purpose or another. The specification of
these purposes says something about the kind of beings that humans
are. That is, religion must specify the addressee of the message. Let us
say, some kind of anthropology is required.
Further, this message also tells these beings what that purpose is. It
must be possible for them to achieve that purpose – otherwise there
would be no intelligibility to the doctrine. Therefore, accepting God’s
purpose is to seek and achieve the purposes that God has given to humankind.
God’s purposes are not exhausted by the act of any particular individual
or community at some place or time. Hence, an eschatology (because
the purpose can be achieved), or a goal for humankind as a whole,
is part of such a message. third contingent property is that religion must postulate a relationship between human beings and God.
Not merely must religion speak of God’s purposes, why human beings
are there and what their goal is, but also how this goal can be
achieved. That is, specifying God’s purposes involves giving the reason
for the existence of humankind; the goal it ought to pursue; and the
means for achieving it. This, then, is the fourth contingent property:
an explanatory intelligible account of the Cosmos must speak of the
means through which such an account continues to be explanatorily
intelligible. Such means must itself be part of that account.
Worship, I would like to suggest, is the means through which an explanatory
intelligible account continues to retain its character to the
believers. Worship sustains and expresses faith.
Because the means through which God’s purposes
can be achieved is itself rooted in doctrines, my explication captures
the attempt of the believers to find ‘scriptural grounds’ for worship. That is why doctrines are important to religion. This is the fifth contingent property
The sixth contingent property is the presence of Churches and religious authority like priests and reverends. Since religion claims to be the truth about the cosmos (everything there is, was, and will be), to preserve such an account and make sure the account is not corrupted and to put limits on and figure out the 'correct' interpretation of the bible. The interpretation that gets you closer to understanding God's will/plan. and they also serve as a source of excommunication. Because of the nature of an EIA (explanatory intelligible account), it becomes a crucial question who is a 'true' Christian? Belief and faith become extremely important, and the distinction between 'true' belief and 'false' belief makes sense within this framework. Because this account claims to be the truth about everything there is, was, and will be, other accounts automatically have to be rejected as false. Hence, the intolerance of Christianity.
Now, this is a theory that explains the X,Y,Z properties of Christianity and why those properties are contingent upon the structure of Christianity as a religion.
Islam and Judaism also share the structure of Christianity. That is, they are also explanatorily intelligible accounts of the cosmos and themselves.
The pagan traditions aren't EIAs. So it is not possible that they also have properties like priests, faith, eschatology, doctrines, faith, God/s, etc. Because these properties are contingent upon the EIA structure of religion.
"Don't worry about it, your explanation is quite clear - transparent, in fact.
What your argument boils down to is this:
Christianity is a religion.
Christianity has properties X, Y and Z.
Hinduism does not have properties X, Y and Z.
Therefore, Hinduism is not a religion.
Its a formal logical fallacy called "talking out of your ass". Also, Denying the Antecedent.
Your only failure is the failure to come up with intelligible response to my counter-arguments - and, as a result, you are stuck repeating your position in different ways while pretending I didn't understand it. But that's hardly your fault - intelligible defense to unintelligible position can be pretty hard to come by."
Ah see, that's where you have completely misunderstood my argument.
My argument boils down to this:
Christianity is a religion.
Christianity has properties X, Y and Z.
Without X, Y and Z Christianity fails to be a religion
Without X, Y and Z Islam fails to be a religion
Without X, Y and Z Judaism fails to be a religion
Pagan traditions do not have X, Y and Z.
Therefore, pagan traditions are not religion.
Your counter argument has simply been the following: No, the pagan traditions DO have X,Y, and Z. Ofcourse without an explicit theory to support an argument, the discussion becomes deadlocked.
If you study philosophy of science you'll realize that the distinction between theory and data is a false distinction. All our so called data and facts are theory laden. All 'facts' are facts of a theory. Indians worship gods is a simple self evident fact to most people. but our descriptions of facts are saturated with background theories. How we interpret and describe what we observe is determined by the background theory we are operating under (whether we are aware of it or not). Now, what is the background theory the European travelers and missionaries were operating under when they described the 'religion' of India and they described it as a coherent unit called hinduism?
Because all of us observe things through some theoretical lens. Some theories explain things better than other theories.
Now, there is a theory that explains what religion is, and it does it better than the other theories in the market:
Religion is an explanatorily intelligible account of the cosmos and itself. Remember the 'and itself'. It becomes important later on. There are two kinds of explanations of events in the world. One is a causal explanation. The other is an intentional explantion. For example, the opening of a door. A causal explanation of the door opening would be the hand gripping the door and pulling the door, the velocity of the pull etc. An intentional explanation of the door opening would be that the guy felt that the room was hot and wanted to open the door to let in air. In other words, intentional accounts postulate an agent. Phenomena are seen to embody the intentions of an agent.
Religion is an account in which the causal and intentional explanation are fused. That is, they become one and the same. the relationship between ‘intending’ and ‘acting’ is not only constant but that nothing else interferes between the former and the latter to such an extent that they virtually become identical. Such an account, when it is forthcoming; of such sets of actions, if they are possible; of such a being, if it exists; these, together, will give us an explanatory intelligible account of that agent and its actions.
This being is God. His actions are the universe. His message is precisely the above doctrine. We now have on our hands what we call a ‘religious doctrine’. It says that the cosmos, and by cosmos I mean everything there is, was, and will be, is an expression of God's purpose, intention and plan. God's intention is the cause of the cosmos. In biblical words, "the will of the sovereign governs the world". Now remember what I said earlier, Religion is an explanatorily intelligible account of the cosmos and itself.
Not only does the account make the cosmos into an expression of God's plan, since that very account is also part of the cosmos, it too expresses God's will or plan. This is where the notion of revelation comes from. The bible is a revelation of God, expressing God's plan and purpose.
This is what makes religion 'The TRUTH' for believers. Correspondingly, the question of truth takes a radical form. The problem is not whether religion is true the way my belief about Brussels is true. The truth about the capital city of Belgium depends on other beliefs being true as well (this is what we call evidence). This is not the case with religion at all. Religion is the truth in the specific sense of not being dependent on the truth of any other belief we hold about the world.
to be continued......
Now, this theory explains the structure which allows the different parts of Christianity to cohere together as a unit. parts like doctrine, eschatology, faith, worship. These are contingencies of religion once it is present among human beings:
As human beings, we know of only one kind of intelligibility account,
viz. that which appeals to reasons or purposes. Because religion makes
both itself and the Cosmos intelligible, both embody the reasons or
purposes of some entity or being, which is capable of having reasons
or purposes and acting accordingly. For the sake of convenience, let us
call such an entity ‘God’. Consequently, as soon as we say that human
beings have religion, we require that God has provided such an account.
That is to say, existence of creatures like us with religion requires
that God has provided such an explanatory intelligible account. In this
sense, the first contingent property that religion acquires amidst human
beings (but a necessary condition for the existence of such an account
among us) is that God is such an entity.
The second contingent property that religion acquires among human
beings is that some claim is made about the kind of beings to whom
such an account is provided. Human beings are part of the purposes
of God, i.e. they fulfil some purpose or another. The specification of
these purposes says something about the kind of beings that humans
are. That is, religion must specify the addressee of the message. Let us
say, some kind of anthropology is required.
Further, this message also tells these beings what that purpose is. It
must be possible for them to achieve that purpose – otherwise there
would be no intelligibility to the doctrine. Therefore, accepting God’s
purpose is to seek and achieve the purposes that God has given to humankind.
God’s purposes are not exhausted by the act of any particular individual
or community at some place or time. Hence, an eschatology (because
the purpose can be achieved), or a goal for humankind as a whole,
is part of such a message. third contingent property is that religion must postulate a relationship between human beings and God.
Not merely must religion speak of God’s purposes, why human beings
are there and what their goal is, but also how this goal can be
achieved. That is, specifying God’s purposes involves giving the reason
for the existence of humankind; the goal it ought to pursue; and the
means for achieving it. This, then, is the fourth contingent property:
an explanatory intelligible account of the Cosmos must speak of the
means through which such an account continues to be explanatorily
intelligible. Such means must itself be part of that account.
Worship, I would like to suggest, is the means through which an explanatory
intelligible account continues to retain its character to the
believers. Worship sustains and expresses faith.
Because the means through which God’s purposes
can be achieved is itself rooted in doctrines, my explication captures
the attempt of the believers to find ‘scriptural grounds’ for worship. That is why doctrines are important to religion. This is the fifth contingent property
The sixth contingent property is the presence of Churches and religious authority like priests and reverends. Since religion claims to be the truth about the cosmos (everything there is, was, and will be), to preserve such an account and make sure the account is not corrupted and to put limits on and figure out the 'correct' interpretation of the bible. The interpretation that gets you closer to understanding God's will/plan. and they also serve as a source of excommunication. Because of the nature of an EIA (explanatory intelligible account), it becomes a crucial question who is a 'true' Christian? Belief and faith become extremely important, and the distinction between 'true' belief and 'false' belief makes sense within this framework. Because this account claims to be the truth about everything there is, was, and will be, other accounts automatically have to be rejected as false. Hence, the intolerance of Christianity.
Now, this is a theory that explains the X,Y,Z properties of Christianity and why those properties are contingent upon the structure of Christianity as a religion.
Islam and Judaism also share the structure of Christianity. That is, they are also explanatorily intelligible accounts of the cosmos and themselves.
The pagan traditions aren't EIAs. So it is not possible that they also have properties like priests, faith, eschatology, doctrines, faith, God/s, etc. Because these properties are contingent upon the EIA structure of religion.
