Reflecting on Atheism.

[genkaus]

Clearly, it is you who have not studied philosophy of science. Because if you had, you would realize that there the theory/data distinction is a false distinction.

Clearly, it is you who has not studied the philosophy of science. Because if you had, you'd realize that the theory/data distinction is fundamental to scientific inquiry.

There is not such thing as an unbiased neutral observation. We all come with our cultural, intellectual, and theoretical baggage, and we observe phenomena through a lens coloured by that baggage. There is no avoiding that. Some frameworks are better than the other.

And correcting that bias is a significant step in the scientific process.

I would recommend Theory and Reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science by Peter Godfrey Smith and Progress and its Problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth by Larry Laudan.

I'll pass.

IF you did read it, you would realize that Science is primarily a problem solving activity. The best theories are those that offer the best solution to important problems.

And in order to be best, they have to be based on objective and unbiased observations.

In this case, the problems are manifold:

And the current theory gives the solutions.

What is are the properties that make any phenomena into religion?

The list has already been provided.

Do all these properties need to be present, or just some of them enough?

It also indicates which are the basic ones.

What is the structure of religion that makes these properties necessary or consequences of that structure?

Also answered.

Do all the phenemena in the world that get labled as religion have these properties?

The basic ones - yes. Which is why they are labeled as religions.

Is the question of truth important for any phenomena to be called a religion?

Important - yes. Necessary - no.

Since all facts are theory laden, what theory were the missionaries and travelers who first started traveling the world and discovering all these religions operating under?

Irrelevant - since their theory is not the one currently accepted. As for the anthropologists who define it, their methods correct for any theory-ladenness.

A good theory of religion should address and solve these problems.

And the best one does.

The theory I outlined above solves these problems better than any other theory in the market.

Ha. In your dreams.

This is not my theory, btw, I don't want to take false credit. But I can tell you that there has been a good amount of sweat and labour that has gone into developing this theory, lots of research.

Then I feel sorry for the guys who wasted their time in developing it.

If you want to refute this theory, come up with a better theory.

I already have refuted it. And no, I don't need to come up with a better theory to refute yours - I just need to show the many reasons why your theory is wrong. Which I've already done. As for a better theory, look it up on google - there already is one available.

---

I will respond to some of the comments and leave it there. you can respond back and have the last word.

Is that a promise? That once I tell you how wrong yo are, you'll shut-up? I wish other discussions were this easy.

If the intentions of the agent is the cause and governs everything (past, present and future), how can there be multiples of that agent? A logical consequence of the above framework is that there can only be one such agent. That's why Christians, Muslims, and Jews insist there is only one God. I don't believe in God myself, but there is an internal logic to their claims. It makes sense within their theological framework.

That would be the Single Cause Fallacy. You are assuming that there can be only one agent whose intentions would govern everything. Why you are assuming such a ridiculous premise, I have no idea. That the Abrahamic religions start by assuming a single cause doesn't mean that some other framework cannot start by assuming multiple causes and yet others without any intentional cause.

There is nothing inherent in the nature of human existence that makes them provide a purpose of life. Except for Christian and Islamic cultures, no other culture has even asked such questions about human existence.

Wrong. The capacity to consider your life beyond your immediate needs - something that comes from our advanced capacity to reason - is what results in needing a purpose for life. Which is why every religion, every culture and every philosophy has come up with the very same question - what should I live for - and answered it in their own way.

Brahman is not an agent. Brahman doesn't have intentions, goals, or desires.

It is a conscious entity that is claimed to be the efficient and teleological cause of existence - it is an agent.

and The EIA is of the cosmos, not of this or that aspect. you cannot have an EIA of this or that aspect, because those aspects doesn't exist in isolation and are affected by other factors. For example you can't have an EIA of a house and say everything that happens in this house expresses the intention of a "house god", because whatever happens in the house is influenced by so many factors that lie outside the house. So an EIA automatically has to be all encompassing and about the whole cosmos and not about this or that aspect.

If that were the case then nothing that we currently define as religion would fit your definition. No current 'religion' is capable of giving the explanatory account for the whole cosmos. An explanation that encompasses the entire universe does not exist yet. So, congratulations, you have refuted your own theory.

This is irrelevant to what we are talking about. I was just using those examples to differentiate between a causal and intentional account. Ok fine, the wind blows and the door opens is also an example of a causal account.

A causal account without an intentional account. Which is significant here. If causal accounts can exist without intentional accounts then there is no necessity for a phenomenon to provide both in order to be regarded as a religion.

As much variety as you can have within Christianity, there is a common framework that makes all these denominations into Christian denominations. and the theory I provided outlines such a structure

Unfortunately, the structure you provided does not fit all denominations - which means, it has been falsified. You were not able to correctly identify that "common framework". Further, your "common framework" was simply about finding common elements of Christian denominations. Thus, what you gave, if it had been correct, would've been the framework of Christianity, not framework of religion. In case you forgot, you were aiming for the latter.

Oh wait, I forgot, you think that the Abrahamic religions are the only religion, don't you?