Reflecting on Atheism.

[arvind13]

I'm pretty sure Hinduism is a form of Polytheism, I honestly don't know much about it. Apo will know what to tell you if she sees this. I also don't know for certain, but I think it's native origin is India as well.

---

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

-Sam Harris

You have to understand something about terms like theism, monotheism, polytheism, worship, faith, piety etc. Each of these concepts has been coined by Christian priests (or appropriated from elsewhere) to talk about Christianity. These are theological concepts and parts of the Christian religious life.

Through many centuries of Christian domination in Europe, these terms have become part of the daily natural language use (in European languages).

When Europeans (travelers, traders, missionaries) first traveled to Asia and Africa and America, they didn't even consider the possibility that they would not find religions there. Whatever practices they saw there, they presupposed that it MUST be religion. e.g An African bowing before a statue: oh this must be their god, and the African bowing before the statue is the way he worships his god. As I said, concepts like worship were first coined by Christian priests.

It is inconceivable to westerners both then and now to see these practices as anything other than religion.

Why this pervasive belief in the universality of religion? This is because the universality of religion itself was originally a Christian theological belief. God at one time inscribed the true religion in the hearts of man, but gradually it became corrupted by the Devil and his minions and degenerated into many false "polytheistic relgions" which worshipped false 'gods'.

This religious belief (and other associated beliefs) became secularized over many centuries, so even atheists/freethinkers are operating within this framework.

So when Europeans went to Asia, they assumed what they saw was religion and started creating and constructing all sorts of religions (in their head, not in actual reality) that didn't exist and don't exist now either. Religions like 'Hinduism', 'Buddhism', 'Taoism' etc. These are constructs that only exist in western universities and books written by those operating within the western framework. 'Hinduism' doesn't exist in India; it is a western experiential construct that only exists in the minds and books of westerners and the western educated.

Please read through and really think about what I said before you respond.

thank you.

[pocaracas]

You have to understand something about terms like theism, monotheism, polytheism, worship, faith, piety etc. Each of these concepts has been coined by Christian priests (or appropriated from elsewhere) to talk about Christianity. These are theological concepts and parts of the Christian religious life.

---

Through many centuries of Christian domination in Europe, these terms have become part of the daily natural language use (in European languages).

When Europeans (travelers, traders, missionaries) first traveled to Asia and Africa and America, they didn't even consider the possibility that they would not find religions there. Whatever practices they saw there, they presupposed that it MUST be religion. e.g An African bowing before a statue: oh this must be their god, and the African bowing before the statue is the way he worships his god. As I said, concepts like worship were first coined by Christian priests.

It is inconceivable to westerners both then and now to see these practices as anything other than religion.

Why this pervasive belief in the universality of religion? This is because the universality of religion itself was originally a Christian theological belief. God at one time inscribed the true religion in the hearts of man, but gradually it became corrupted by the Devil and his minions and degenerated into many false "polytheistic relgions" which worshipped false 'gods'.

This religious belief (and other associated beliefs) became secularized over many centuries, so even atheists/freethinkers are operating within this framework.

So when Europeans went to Asia, they assumed what they saw was religion and started creating and constructing all sorts of religions (in their head, not in actual reality) that didn't exist and don't exist now either. Religions like 'Hinduism', 'Buddhism', 'Taoism' etc. These are constructs that only exist in western universities and books written by those operating within the western framework. 'Hinduism' doesn't exist in India; it is a western experiential construct that only exists in the minds and books of westerners and the western educated.

---

Please read through and really think about what I said before you respond.

thank you.

This one is even more deluded than most!

About hinduism.... and how it predates your puny religion:

Hinduism consists of many diverse traditions and has no single founder.[4] Among its direct roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India.[5] As such, Hinduism is often called the "oldest religion"[6][7][8] or "oldest living religion" in the world.[1][9][10][11] Since Vedic times, a process of Sanskritization has been taking place, in which "people from many strata of society throughout the subcontinent tended to adapt their religious and social life to Brahmanic norms".[12]

Oh... when did that Vedic religion come by?

(1500 BC to 500 BC[1])

Oh, but there were other religions... which predate even the Vedic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_mythology

Mesopotamian religion refers to the religious beliefs and practices followed by the Sumerian and East Semitic Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Chaldean peoples living in Mesopotamia (approximately the area of modern Iraq and north east Syria) that dominated the region for a period of 4,200 years from the fourth millennium BCE throughout Mesopotamia to approximately the 10th century CE in Assyria.[1]

Do tell me how these existed before christianity... or even judaism... and are somehow dependent on christianity... I can't wait!

[Zen Badger]

You're a special one aren't you Arvind.

[KichigaiNeko]

arvind

[The Reality Salesman01]

it is a western experiential construct that only exists in the minds and books of westerners and the western educated.

Please read through and really think about what I said before you respond.

thank you.

I'm sorry, but I'm really having a hard time understanding what it is you're trying to say without thinking that you are crazy.

Perhaps you could just write out your conclusion in one sentence. What are you trying to say?

Nothing is making sense to me because Christianity isn't even the oldest religion. Hell, Greek mythology predates Christianity. Socrates, as portrayed by Plato predates Jesus by about 400 years. Read The Apology. St. Augustine practically plagiarized the entire thing when incorporating it into The Bible.

[arvind13]

[/quote]

I'm sorry, but I'm really having a hard time understanding what it is you're trying to say without thinking that you are crazy.

Perhaps you could just write out your conclusion in one sentence. What are you trying to say?

Nothing is making sense to me because Christianity isn't even the oldest religion. Hell, Greek mythology predates Christianity. Socrates, as portrayed by Plato predates Jesus by about 400 years. Read The Apology. St. Augustine practically plagiarized the entire thing when incorporating it into The Bible.
[/quote]

It sounds crazy because I'm questioning the entire paradigm which has informed anthropological/historical/archaeological scholarship for the past 400 years.

You and another member mention that Greek religion, sumerian religion, Egyptian religion etc etc predate Christianity. I'm not questioning the fact that Greeks, Egyptians had their practices and traditions and stories and that it predates Christianity. What I'm questioning is what makes those vedic, Greek, Sumerian practices into religious practices. That is where I'm coming from.

Yes, Archeologists discovered sumerian relics and buildings and statues and evidence of rituals. What makes these into religious phenomena?

and no, I'm not here to push some agenda. I'm just an anthropology student wanting to have a good intellectual discussion, critical discussion. and the latest research is challenging all the accepted ideas and theories in the field.

---

I'll use an example from philosophy of science. hopefully it makes it clearer.
It is meant to draw attention to the nature of modern scholarship in anthropology and social sciences in general. One simply assumes that all one has to do is `write down’ what one has `observed’ for it to count as 'neutral' observation or neutral `ethnography’, and so on. These assumptions literally belong to the `stone age’ of human knowledge: one’s observation is deeply saturated with theories, ideologies and prjeudices. There is no `neutral’ or `pure’ observation: either good theories guide one’s observation or bad ones do.

Observational terms and statements are already informed by specific background theories; no theory-neutral observational language is to be found. So there is no such thing as neutral unbiased observations. All observations and descriptions of 'facts' are guided by some background framework or 'theory'.

In the case of disciplines like religious studies, history, and anthropology; these disciplines unknowingly function within the framework of Christian theology.

over the centuries, this background framework has shaped the natural-language use in European vernaculars where these discuss religion and human nature.

[pocaracas]

You and another member mention that Greek religion, sumerian religion, Egyptian religion etc etc predate Christianity. I'm not questioning the fact that Greeks, Egyptians had their practices and traditions and stories and that it predates Christianity. What I'm questioning is what makes those vedic, Greek, Sumerian practices into religious practices. That is where I'm coming from.

Oh well... Then it is the same thing that makes christian, judaic, islamic, etc. practices into religious practices.

Yes, Archeologists discovered sumerian relics and buildings and statues and evidence of rituals. What makes these into religious phenomena?

Remove all the people from christianity... what's left? buildings, statues, writings, evidence of rituals.... what makes these into religious phenomena?

[The Reality Salesman01]

I think I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's accurate.

If you read the works of Plato, their filled with references to scripture and scrolls. They had many practices and beliefs regarding what pleased their gods.

Many of their discussions about government focused on the ethical duties, if any, society had with regards to whether or not their theological and religious information should be taught in schools or should influence the government in any way. Read The Republic (400 bc) for extensive examples of this.

Additionally, when St Augustine got his hands on platonic philosophy, he began weaving it into the fabric of Christianity. The parts he felt supported Christianity (dualism for example) he kept and incorporated, the stuff he felt was incompatible or unnecessary, he left out.

If you read The Apology, which was written 400 years before Jesus is thought to have been born, you will see an uncanny likeness between Socrates (as portrayed by Plato) and Jesus of Nazareth. They're practically the same person, but Jesus steps away from the humble awareness of ignorance that Socrates is so famous for, and instead takes a path of what Socrates would call "Pretending to Knowledge). The attributes of selfless devotion to a cause are mutually depicted by both characters. What separates them is the type of cause they were willing to die for. Socrates wanted people to examine their lives and not put worldly things above the desire to know and understand. When the character Jesus came on the scene, he claimed to know and understand that a specific God was what was important, and that God is what we should put above all else.

Socrates would have had a field day examining what Jesus claimed to know, and my guess is that the two would not have gotten along all that well.


Nonetheless, The religious tenets of Christianity are not at all the first on the scene. Far from it. It has evolved over time and is I itself continuing to evolve. I would recommend Daniel Dennett's video on TED.com pertaining to the evolution of religion.

[Simon Moon]

You see, the 'fact' that that atheism is found all over the world, only makes sense if one assumes that religion is found all over the world i.e a cultural universal. Most (99.99999%) anthropologists agree that this is the case. But there is new research coming out challenging this assumption that religion is found in all (or most) societies.

I think you are missing the larger point I was making.

The john Grey statement you quoted in your op was making the point that atheism exists and will have a future in a Christians world. He seems to be making 2 mistakes from what I can tell:

1. atheism is the opposite of Christianity (or at least the opposite of theistic religions). Which is wrong.
2. that atheism, as the position of having no beliefs in the existence of gods, needs theism to exist at all.

Then you replied,

You see, the 'fact' that that atheism is found all over the world, only makes sense if one assumes that religion is found all over the world i.e a cultural universal. Most (99.99999%) anthropologists agree that this is the case.

Which I also disagree with.

Seems you might be confusing the label 'atheist' or 'atheism' with the actual meaning of the terms. And so does John Grey.

If theistic religions disappeared tomorrow, atheists would still exist, in that people would not believe in the existence of gods, but the label would no longer be necessary.

Think about it this way, do you feel the need to label yourself a 'spherical earther'?

[arvind13]

Firstly, let me introduce where this kind of questioning comes from, because it does sound crazy as Texas Sailor pointed out. These questions and issues comes out of a research program in Ghent University, Belgium I ran across a couple of years back. This program has been running a research program 'Comparative Science of cultures' for the past twenty years, but in recent years, they're becoming more public with their results. One of the striking things, is the scientific robustness of their theories, which is very rare in the social sciences. It doesn't just question this or that, the research criticizes the entire paradigm of social sciences, religious studies and cultural studies.

Very simply put, the social sciences of today and yesterday are not producing any knowledge about human beings or cultures or religions, but are simply reproducing Christian theology in a secular scientific garb. Anyways, I digress.

http://www.cultuurwetenschap.be/

I think I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's accurate.

If you read the works of Plato, their filled with references to scripture and scrolls. They had many practices and beliefs regarding what pleased their gods.

Many of their discussions about government focused on the ethical duties, if any, society had with regards to whether or not their theological and religious information should be taught in schools or should influence the government in any way. Read The Republic (400 bc) for extensive examples of this.

This presupposes that they had religion and theology in the first place. Which is what the question is about. Because if pagan Greece and Rome did not have religion, then what they were discussing about teaching in schools could not have been 'theology' or 'religious information'.

And before someone tells me about the Greek 'gods' Zeus, Thor, Athena, and the stories about them, the temples, the rituals etc etc, I'm very well aware of all that, but what makes all those practices into religion.

What is Religion anyways?

This is where the discussion usually goes into definitions of religion. Religion is a 'belief in supernatural beings' , 'belief in invisible agents, transcendental etc etc', there are millions more. But that just muddles the issue and makes it vaguer, because the Greek practices of antiquity, and the 'Hindu' and 'Buddhist' and 'Taoist' practices of today have little to do with belief. For Indians, Chinese and Ancient Greeks, the main reason for continuing a practice is because it is a tradition, an ancestral practice that they are continuing and passing on to their children. They didn't write nor did they require theological tracts justifying their practices with belief. Belief that this or that 'god' exists is irrelevant to continuing a tradition.

and minor point: they didn't see their "gods" (another Christian theological concept) as supernatural agents.

and more importantly, we have to remember that the term 'Religion' itself was born out of Christian theology. and this brings us right back to the title of the thread. If 'Religion', 'God', 'gods', 'theism' are all Christian theological concepts, then what is Atheism?

Additionally, when St Augustine got his hands on platonic philosophy, he began weaving it into the fabric of Christianity. The parts he felt supported Christianity (dualism for example) he kept and incorporated, the stuff he felt was incompatible or unnecessary, he left out.

You hit upon a very important point, Texas Sailor. Thank you for bringing this up. Yes, Christianity did indeed absorb and incorporate lots and lots of Greek Philosophy into their theological framework. But they did this by distorting and transforming Greek philosophy and 'Christianizing' the contributions of Greek philosophy to the point where it had nothing to do with original. And like you said, Augustine discarded what couldn't be absorbed and 'Christianized'. And even modern scholars in the West who study Greek philosophy are not really studying Greek philosophy at all. They are reading Christianized versions of Greek philosophy.