Reflecting on Atheism.

[MindForgedManacle]

This is why I despise philosophers. Pointless rambling about inconsequential nonsense.

Welcome.

That post... is nonsense. To say that philosophers 'ramble about inconsequential nonsense' is about as untrue as you can get. Are ethics unimportant? Is political philosophy? Knowledge? Logic? The nature of the mind? The basis and problems with the methods of science?

Philosophy is essentially the widest framework of enquiry possible. The criticism of it as being nonsense is in essence the labeling of all enquiry as nonsense.

[The Reality Salesman01]

---

I have to say I agree. However, I think Mini gets worked up when bullshit gets tossed into the proverbial fan, and at times he makes blanketing statements driven by emotion. I doubt very seriously that he's talking about philosophy as a whole, but more specifically, as he said, "philosophers". Those that by motive of profession, must force themselves to fill voids of intellectual silence with superficially profound dung.

I'm sure if you asked him, "How do you know that it's nonsense?", He'll have no problem engaging you in an epistemological discussion.

[genkaus]

Well, Christianity has a certain structure which makes it into a religion.This same structure is shared by two other entities: Islam and Judaism. So these three are the only religions in the world.

Nonsense - the part of the structure that makes these two religions is shared by many other religions of the world.

In my last post I spoke about the need for a scientific theory of religion, which lays bare the structure of religion, outlines the empirical consequences. Fortunately such a theory exists: http://www.hipkapi.com/2011/03/05/the-re...angadhara/

Where is it? All I found on the site was a bunch of drivel.

The theory solves many problems (as any scientific theory should) and answers many questions, such as:

It'd seem my definition answers these questions quite well.

Are beliefs central to religion? If so, Why?

Yes. Because they are the source of the rest - traditions, morals etc.

Why are doctrines so important to religion?

Because it lays out what the beliefs are supposed to be. Which is why it is important, not necessary.

What is the relationship between doctrines and religious practice?

Doctrine dictates practice.

What is worship?

Regarding something as "sacred" or "revered" as a result of certain beliefs and one's actions towards that entity.

This theory shows us why Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the only religion. And its not so much about the word or concept religion. These three phenomena share a structure. Instead of calling this structure religion, call it X. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are examples of X. The pagan traditions of Greece, Rome, and Asia are not examples of X

Wrong again - as much of the structure you've laid out here, pagan traditions of Greece, Rome and Asia are examples of X as well.

And for the members mentioning that there were those that identified themselves as atheists long before Judaism and Christianity:

When Greeks and Romans used the word Atheos, they were referring to those who refused to take part in certain traditions, and rejected certain practices. The same applies to 'Nasthiks' (commonly translated as Atheists) in India. These were people who refused or rejected practices like going to the temple or participating in certain festivals.

But this had nothing to do with beliefs, as traditions weren't based on and didn't revolve around a belief system.

After Europe became Christian, the meaning of the word 'Atheos' radically transformed. Now it meant not believing in or 'lack of belief' in God. it became all about belief.

How do you not get this simple logical connection between belief and tradition? If you don't believe in the core doctrine, you are not going to follow the traditions. If a person doesn't believe in gods like Zeus or Athena, then it wouldn't make any sense for him to go to the temple to pray to them. If I don't believe in the authority of Vedas - the actual philosophical implication of being a 'Nastika', by the way - then I'm not going to follow all the traditions listed there. The traditions and practices always revolve around a belief system. Without them, the traditions die out pretty quickly.

[MindForgedManacle]

---

I have to say I agree. However, I think Mini gets worked up when bullshit gets tossed into the proverbial fan, and at times he makes blanketing statements driven by emotion. I doubt very seriously that he's talking about philosophy as a whole, but more specifically, as he said, "philosophers". Those that by motive of profession, must force themselves to fill voids of intellectual silence with superficially profound dung.

I'm sure if you asked him, "How do you know that it's nonsense?", He'll have no problem engaging you in an epistemological discussion.

I hope so. No doubt, some philosophers have said and continue to say bat shit crazy things. Then again, people tend to do that regardless of profession. And that of course doesn't make them wrong or inconsequential mumbo-jumbo. I mean, Aristotle was wrong about a looottt of things (and right about a lot of things too), yet we recognize his brilliance and intellectual contributions, almost unmatched in history by any single individual (maybe Plato and Newton). Mathematics shows that non-Euclidian geometry is possible... ah forget it, you see where I'm going.

TL;DR I agree. :p

[The Reality Salesman01]

I hope so. No doubt, some philosophers have said and continue to say bat shit crazy things. Then again, people tend to do that regardless of profession. And that of course doesn't make them wrong or inconsequential mumbo-jumbo. I mean, Aristotle was wrong about a looottt of things (and right about a lot of things too), yet we recognize his brilliance and intellectual contributions, almost unmatched in history by any single individual (maybe Plato and Newton). Mathematics shows that non-Euclidian geometry is possible... ah forget it, you see where I'm going.

TL;DR I agree. :p

Did you know Aristotle was convinced that thoughts came from the heart and that blood was cooled through the thing between the ears (the brain)? Lol...But, yes. I use his forms of causation to dispute the KCA all the time.

All things that come into being have a cause (yes, and don't ignore the necessary material cause)

The universe came into being (didn't come from nothing)

Therefore, the universe had a cause (and what wood, pray tell, did this carpenter construct his table from?)

If something existed for God to exert his causal power on, it seems as though there's still something that has yet to be explained away, eh?

(That's the short version, for the full version I'll have to refer you to debate.org)

Socrates is my favorite. I think if I had one wish, it would be to have Socrates examine Jesus at The Mandalay Bay casino in Vegas, and have it broadcasted on every local network in the world. There would be a vast amount of ignorance exposed at that event!

[arvind13]

In reply to Genkaus:

Ok, but the question is why in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, do beliefs become the foundation of practices. That is what the theory answers successfully.

This is NOT the case in the pagan traditions. The Greeks did not have huge theological tracts justifying their traditions with beliefs. Indians do not have theological literature or scripture justifying this or that puja.

"The traditions and practices always revolve around a belief system." This is just how people who come from a religious culture (islamic, judeo-christian cultures) experience human action. In Indian and Chinese culture, actions and traditions are not seen as embodiments of belief states. The most common justification for continuing a tradition is the fact that it is a tradition: "Why do you do Puja?" "Because I have learnt how to do puja" is a common answer. Or "because my father taught me how to do it". "We have been doing this for generations".

So in those cultures, actions justify other actions not beliefs.

About doctrines: The question is, why in those semitic religions do doctrines have such an authority in determining what one ought to believe and what qualifies or disqualifies one from being a Christian, Muslim, or Jew.

and even more fundamental than all that: What makes a belief into a religious belief?

---

anyways, the purpose of the post wasn't to change your mind. Just something to think about. to reflect upon, instead of dismissing it.

[genkaus]

Ok, but the question is why in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, do beliefs become the foundation of practices. That is what the theory answers successfully.

Without the belief, the practice is meaningless - its that simple. Also, that's the answer in case of all the other religions.

This is NOT the case in the pagan traditions. The Greeks did not have huge theological tracts justifying their traditions with beliefs. Indians do not have theological literature or scripture justifying this or that puja.

On the contrary, that IS the case in pagan traditions. Greeks did have theological tracts justifying their traditions with beliefs - as do Hindus.

This is just how people who come from a religious culture (islamic, judeo-christian cultures) experience human action. In Indian and Chinese culture, actions and traditions are not seen as embodiments of belief states. The most common justification for continuing a tradition is the fact that it is a tradition: "Why do you do Puja?" "Because I have learnt how to do puja" is a common answer. Or "because my father taught me how to do it". "We have been doing this for generations".

So in those cultures, actions justify other actions not beliefs.

Wrong. As a matter of fact, tradition as never been the explanation given for conducting pujas - the reason is always an embodiment of beliefs.

I have asked that question ant the answers I've received have always been based on belief. "We conduct the Vaastu Puja to bring good luck within the new home". "Satyanayrayan Puja is done at the start of a new venture to have success in it". "Specific days are auspicious for worshipping specific gods - so be sure to visit the Hanuman temple on a tuesday".

About doctrines: The question is, why in those semitic religions do doctrines have such an authority in determining what one ought to believe and what qualifies or disqualifies one from being a Christian, Muslim, or Jew.

and even more fundamental than all that: What makes a belief into a religious belief?

Because that's how religions work - you have a central doctrine on which your worldview is formed. If you don't accept that doctrine as true, then following the practices consequent of it makes no sense at all.

anyways, the purpose of the post wasn't to change your mind. Just something to think about. to reflect upon, instead of dismissing it.

I've reflected on it - and dismissed it, because it makes no sense.

[arvind13]

In reply to Genkaus:

"Wrong. As a matter of fact, tradition as never been the explanation given for conducting pujas - the reason is always an embodiment of beliefs.

I have asked that question ant the answers I've received have always been based on belief. "We conduct the Vaastu Puja to bring good luck within the new home". "Satyanayrayan Puja is done at the start of a new venture to have success in it". "Specific days are auspicious for worshipping specific gods - so be sure to visit the Hanuman temple on a tuesday".

Sure, people give all kinds of reasons as to why they do this or that puja. All of them are accepted. Or you have the option of giving no reason at all. This is itself evidence for the fact that beliefs are irrelevant to performing a ritual in Indian and Chinese cultures.

Because if these practices are predicated on beliefs, then there would have been huge theological tracts written about what to believe, what not to believe, truth claims. We do not have such doctrines. The Vedas and Bhagavad Gita are not doctrines. The vedas contain ritual chants and instructions on how to reflect on our experience. The bhagavad Gita is just a poem instructing the reader on appropriate action depending on the context

There are no doctrines or 'belief system' behind puja or going to temples. There are plenty of books on how to perform a puja, but that is a different matter.
And yes, the fact that it is a tradition is given as its own justification in many instances. I have personally seen it many times, especially among the older generation.



"Because that's how religions work - you have a central doctrine on which your worldview is formed. If you don't accept that doctrine as true, then following the practices consequent of it makes no sense at all. "




when it comes to the semitic religions, you're right, without doctrinal justification (based on beliefs) none of their practices make sense. Why is this the case? What is it about the structure of the semitic religions that makes belief central? Why can't one be a Christian and not believe in the bible? What gives doctrines their authority?

One needs to do research and build and develop a theory of religion in order to answer such questions. Definitions can't help us in the matter, because anyone can make up any definition. There are no empirical consequences or constraints.

So without a theory, any answer you provide to such questions will be ad hoc and unscientific.

[pocaracas]

Definitions can't help us in the matter, because anyone can make up any definition. There are no empirical consequences or constraints.

So without a theory, any answer you provide to such questions will be ad hoc and unscientific.

Dictionary definitions are not what you claim.

Lexical definition of a term, also known as the dictionary definition, is the meaning of the term in common usage.
[...]Note that a lexical definition is descriptive, reporting actual usage within speakers of a language, and changes with changing usage of the term, rather than prescriptive, which would be to stick with a version regarded as "correct", regardless of drift in accepted meaning.

[genkaus]

Sure, people give all kinds of reasons as to why they do this or that puja. All of them are accepted. Or you have the option of giving no reason at all. This is itself evidence for the fact that beliefs are irrelevant to performing a ritual in Indian and Chinese cultures.

By the same metric, a Christian may give traditional reasons for going to Church on a Sunday or celebrating Easter - or he may give no reason at all. That would mean belief is irrelevant to their religion as well. Which makes Hinduism as much a religion as Christianity.

Because if these practices are predicated on beliefs, then there would have been huge theological tracts written about what to believe, what not to believe, truth claims. We do not have such doctrines. The Vedas and Bhagavad Gita are not doctrines. The vedas contain ritual chants and instructions on how to reflect on our experience. The bhagavad Gita is just a poem instructing the reader on appropriate action depending on the context.

Except - that's what doctrines do. Which is precisely why Bhagvad Gita and the Vedas are doctrines. They are the huge theological tracts upon which Hindu beliefs are predicated.

There are no doctrines or 'belief system' behind puja or going to temples. There are plenty of books on how to perform a puja, but that is a different matter.

So, let's get this straight - for Hindu tradition to be regarded as part of a religious belief system, there would need to be huge theological tracts informing that belief system and the consequent practice. As it happens, there are huge theological tracts that tell you all about those ritual, but "that' a different matter"? Are you high?

And yes, the fact that it is a tradition is given as its own justification in many instances. I have personally seen it many times, especially among the older generation.

Except, tradition is not given as "its own justification" - belief is. Especially among the older generation.

when it comes to the semitic religions, you're right, without doctrinal justification (based on beliefs) none of their practices make sense. Why is this the case? What is it about the structure of the semitic religions that makes belief central? Why can't one be a Christian and not believe in the bible? What gives doctrines their authority?

The assumption that those doctrines came from a divine source - that's what makes them central to their particular belief system and that's what gives them the authority. And guess what - its the same with Hinduism - gods are credited with the authorship of central doctrines - such as the Vedas - and that's what makes them central and authoritative to Hinduism.

One needs to do research and build and develop a theory of religion in order to answer such questions. Definitions can't help us in the matter, because anyone can make up any definition. There are no empirical consequences or constraints.

So without a theory, any answer you provide to such questions will be ad hoc and unscientific.

Been there, done that. There is a pretty comprehensive theory on what a religion is, its definition, its characteristics and so on. The only one "making up" definitions here is you.