Reflecting on Atheism.

[pocaracas]

Hey, not too long ago, there was this guy who started a thread on the evolution of religions... didn't go very far...

That would be a good thread. Someone should make it. I volunteer you.

Here it is... but beware! it's necro'ed....

https://atheistforums.org/thread-15942.html

[arvind13]

In reply to Genkaus:

"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."

Except in Christianity, there is a theological structure that determines who is a Christian and who isn't. Who is a 'true' Christian. In Christianity, each of their practices have specific doctrinal reasons behind them. And there are certain actions (predicated on beliefs) and beliefs that are obligatory in order to be a Christian. For example, no Christian can ever believe that Jesus is the son of the Devil or that God doesn't exist and still be a Christian. In other words, Christian theology allows us to determine who is a Christian and who isn't

Among the Indian traditions no such structure or belief system exists. You can believe whatever you want and still be a member of these traditions and take part in the practices of the tradition. There is no source of excommunication. There is no criteria for saying who is a "Hindu" or "Buddhist" and who isn't.


"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?"

There are texts which tell us how to perform a ritual. The sequence of steps in performing a ritual. How does that make it theological or religious? That's like saying a Karate training book which outlines the sequence in executing a move is a religious book, or a yoga book which outlines certain steps is a religious text





"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."

Ok, what is a "divine source"? and what makes a belief system into a religious belief system? What makes a text, any text into a religious text?

As for the hindu traditions, we don't have religious doctrines. Texts like Vedas provide action heuristics and insights gleaned from practicing those actions much like Yoga or meditation. They don't make truth claims about the world. The thing about Vedas coming from the 'gods' or the mouth of Brahma is a story just like the puranas. The puranas don't have the status of truth claims. They are stories.


Look, you won't be able to make sense of what I'm saying or where I'm coming from unless you atleast glance at the research where my ideas come from. I sent you the link (what makes a phenomenon into a religion), but you just dismissed it as drivel without even reading it.

My whole purpose of starting this discussion thread was to engage in a discussion and get people interested in the new research that is going on in the social sciences, challenging the old paradigms; and to critically think about our common sense deeply sedimented assumptions.

not to engage in one upmanship or mudslinging.

[Bob Kelso]

Hey, not too long ago, there was this guy who started a thread on the evolution of religions... didn't go very far...

That would be a good thread. Someone should make it. I volunteer you.

I second this motion.

[genkaus]

Except in Christianity, there is a theological structure that determines who is a Christian and who isn't. Who is a 'true' Christian. In Christianity, each of their practices have specific doctrinal reasons behind them. And there are certain actions (predicated on beliefs) and beliefs that are obligatory in order to be a Christian. For example, no Christian can ever believe that Jesus is the son of the Devil or that God doesn't exist and still be a Christian. In other words, Christian theology allows us to determine who is a Christian and who isn't

Among the Indian traditions no such structure or belief system exists. You can believe whatever you want and still be a member of these traditions and take part in the practices of the tradition. There is no source of excommunication. There is no criteria for saying who is a "Hindu" or "Buddhist" and who isn't.

Wrong. On both counts.

Hindu theology has as much of a say in who is a Hindu as the Christian theology does in determining who is a Christian.

Anyone who "accepts" the scriptural authority of the Bible can call himself a Christian and anyone who "accepts" the scriptural authority of Vedas (and the other scriptures) can call himself a Hindu. A person need not actually read either of those texts in order to "accept" it. He need not even believe they are an accurate representation of reality in order to "accept" them. A Christian can call the Bible a "collection of metaphorical anecdotes providing philosophical and moral lessons" and remain a Christian and a Hindu can call the Vedas and Puranas a "collection of metaphorical anecdotes providing philosophical and moral lessons" and remain a Hindu.

There is no definite identifying feature of a "True Christian" - given that there are many, many sects of Christianity, each with their own criteria and there is no definite identifying feature of a "True Hindu" - given that there are many, many sects of Hinduism, each with their own criteria. Therefore, Christian theology and Hindu theology play equal role in determining the "True Christian" and "True Hindu", respectively.

There are texts which tell us how to perform a ritual. The sequence of steps in performing a ritual. How does that make it theological or religious? That's like saying a Karate training book which outlines the sequence in executing a move is a religious book, or a yoga book which outlines certain steps is a religious text.

They are rituals and prayers for specific gods. That's what makes them theological and religious. If a Karate training book outlined the sequence of moves by saying that "god asks you move in such a way", then it too would be a religious book. As it happens, the Yogic school is one of the six schools of orthodox Hinduism and therefore, if a yoga book goes beyond detailing exercises, then it too would be a religious text.

Ok, what is a "divine source"? and what makes a belief system into a religious belief system? What makes a text, any text into a religious text?

A supposed divine source - which means, it is assumed that the person who authored the texts is a supernatural entity worthy of worship. It is this association with the supernatural that makes a belief system a religious one and it is the same reference to the divine that makes a text a religious text.

As for the hindu traditions, we don't have religious doctrines. Texts like Vedas provide action heuristics and insights gleaned from practicing those actions much like Yoga or meditation. They don't make truth claims about the world. The thing about Vedas coming from the 'gods' or the mouth of Brahma is a story just like the puranas. The puranas don't have the status of truth claims. They are stories.

Reality begs to differ.

As it happens, Hindu traditions do have voluminous religious doctrines behind them. The Vedas and Puranas make many truth claims about the world - that those claims happen to be false is something they share with all the other religions. That they are, in fact, just a bunch of stories is as irrelevant as the fact that Bible is a bunch of stories authored by men.

Look, you won't be able to make sense of what I'm saying or where I'm coming from unless you atleast glance at the research where my ideas come from. I sent you the link (what makes a phenomenon into a religion), but you just dismissed it as drivel without even reading it.

My whole purpose of starting this discussion thread was to engage in a discussion and get people interested in the new research that is going on in the social sciences, challenging the old paradigms; and to critically think about our common sense deeply sedimented assumptions.

not to engage in one upmanship or mudslinging.

What you are trying to do is what others have tried before - and that trick don't work. You are not the first to come around saying "my religions is not a religion". It has become commonly accepted that no one religion is any better than others - given that they all share the absence of evidence. So, the easiest way to circumvent that is to say that whatever bullshit you are peddling is not a religion to begin with. Chrsitians try to sell "Christianity is not a religion, its a relationship with god". Others try "its a way of life". You try to peddle - "Hinduism is not a religion, its a collection of traditions".

Sorry, not buying it.

[MindForgedManacle]

Hah. When I was a 'born-again' Christian, I too did the "I'm not religious, I'm a Christ-follower" schpeal. xD Silly shit.

[arvind13]

Genkaus:

You have already made up your mind about who I am and where I'm coming from. I'm not an 'apologist', i already told you why i am doing this discussion. its for a purely scientific purpose and a personal interest in a certain kind of research

It doesn't really bother me that you are disagreeing with what I'm saying. I really don't. What bothers me is that you don't understand what I'm saying. I would rather that someone understand what I'm saying and disagree, rather than not understand what I'm saying and agree.

So in some sense, I consider it my failure. Because I have failed to make you understand what I'm saying.

so maybe i'm not explaining it properly. I'll try again.




First of all, we can never study beliefs. We can only study actions. We infer beliefs from actions. Why do we do this? Because of the idea (in western culture, especially) that actions are expressions of belief or intentional states. Whether they are or not is a discussion for another time. I'm not going to argue about it.

so when a Christian or Muslim says I go to Church and pray because I believe in God, we don't really know if that particular individual really believes or just says he believes. We don't. There is no way of knowing or affirming an individual's belief state.

But what we can do is study Christianity. There is a phenomenon in this world called Christianity. There are many aspects to Christianity: bible, prophet, Chruch, certain practices, worship, eschatology, commandments and laws.

and they are not discrete unrelated parts. all of these different parts cohere together to form something called Christianity. that is what i mean by a structure (I will get into what that structure is in the next post, because its too long for this post. It will make things a lot clearer).

and within the structure of Christianity, throughout history Christians have put lots and lots of emphasis on what to believe, whether that belief is true or false, and they even have means of excommunication based on belief. Only if you believe so and so can you be a Christian otherwise you're not
each of their practices have doctrinal justification based on belief. and there are tracts justifying the belief itself; theological arguments

This is in stark contrast to the Indian/Asian traditions. The landscape in the West is littered with the battered corpses of literature dealing with the truth and historicity of the Bible, Biblical events, and its figures. It has always been important that at least some of the Testament ‘stories’ are true, known to be so, and indubitable. This attitude towards the scriptures, and issues generated thereby which grip the intellectuals of the West to this day, hardly disturb or excite their counterparts in India. The questions about the ‘truth’ or ‘falsity’ of their texts are irrelevant within the Indian intellectual tradition.

there are no doctrines of the sort in Christianity which say that we do this and this practice because of this and this reason/belief. and this is the true belief. this is false etc. Sure, people come up with all sorts of reasons and beliefs as to why they do a certain practice. But the fact that any reason or no reason at all is equally acceptable is indicative that beliefs aren't important to these traditions. Throughout Indian history, all the intellectual energies went into developing, modifying and creating different rituals and practices, with the focus being on the practice itself, not on the belief or principle behind the practice.

infact, the attitude encouraged in such a culture is that if you perform a ritual without desires, goals, or reasons it is exalted and admirable. Detached action is the highest form of action. This attitude is not unique to India, but also found in the Chinese and Japanese traditions.

Whereas in the Christian and Islamic history, 95% of their effort and energies went into developing theological arguments of the truth of their beliefs, the correct interpretation of beliefs so on and so forth.


You talk about the 'fact' that Indians have gods and doctrines and theology and pretty much the same structure as Christianity.

The real issue is that the so-called facts missionaries collected about Asian cultures are the base-point for western and westenrized scholars. When they explain/describe Indian and Asian traditions, they are explaining the facts that missionaries (later, anthropologists) have collected. No fact is neutral, as philosophy of sciences show: every fact is theory-laden, in this case laden with christian theology and its secularized variants (in the current case). So, what western scholars and the western educated are doing: they are trying to understand Christian-theology-laden descriptions of Indian/Asian culture. So, one has to study the western culture and its common sense.

[genkaus]

Genkaus:

You have already made up your mind about who I am and where I'm coming from. I'm not an 'apologist', i already told you why i am doing this discussion. its for a purely scientific purpose and a personal interest in a certain kind of research

It doesn't really bother me that you are disagreeing with what I'm saying. I really don't. What bothers me is that you don't understand what I'm saying. I would rather that someone understand what I'm saying and disagree, rather than not understand what I'm saying and agree.

So in some sense, I consider it my failure. Because I have failed to make you understand what I'm saying.

so maybe i'm not explaining it properly. I'll try again.

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.

First of all, we can never study beliefs.

Yes, we can. We have a whole branch dedicated to it. Its called "epistemology".

We can only study actions. We infer beliefs from actions. Why do we do this? Because of the idea (in western culture, especially) that actions are expressions of belief or intentional states. Whether they are or not is a discussion for another time. I'm not going to argue about it.

Fine, let's not argue. Let's just accept that yes, actions are expressions of belief or intentional states. And that, as a norm, people do act according to what they believe and that their actions can be regarded as indicators of such. And what makes you think its a western idea?

so when a Christian or Muslim says I go to Church and pray because I believe in God, we don't really know if that particular individual really believes or just says he believes. We don't. There is no way of knowing or affirming an individual's belief state.

It wouldn't make sense for him to do that if he didn't actually believe - so I'd rather take him at his word.

But what we can do is study Christianity. There is a phenomenon in this world called Christianity. There are many aspects to Christianity: bible, prophet, Chruch, certain practices, worship, eschatology, commandments and laws.

But what we can do is study Hinduism. There is a phenomenon in this world called Hinduism. There are many aspects to Hinduism: Vedas, Avatars, temples, certain practices, worship, eschatology, commandments and laws.

See how that works?

and they are not discrete unrelated parts. all of these different parts cohere together to form something called Christianity. that is what i mean by a structure (I will get into what that structure is in the next post, because its too long for this post. It will make things a lot clearer).

and they are not discrete unrelated parts. all of these different parts cohere together to form something called Hinduism. that is what i mean by a structure.

See how that works?

and within the structure of Christianity, throughout history Christians have put lots and lots of emphasis on what to believe, whether that belief is true or false, and they even have means of excommunication based on belief. Only if you believe so and so can you be a Christian otherwise you're not
each of their practices have doctrinal justification based on belief. and there are tracts justifying the belief itself; theological arguments

and within the structure of Hinduism, throughout history Hindus have put lots and lots of emphasis on what to believe, whether that belief is true or false - they just missed out on having means of excommunication based on belief. Only if you believe so and so can you be a Hindu otherwise you're not
each of their practices have doctrinal justification based on belief. and there are tracts justifying the belief itself; theological arguments

This is in stark contrast to the Indian/Asian traditions.

No, it isn't. As demonstrated, all the aspects listed here are present in Indian/Asian traditions as well.

The landscape in the West is littered with the battered corpses of literature dealing with the truth and historicity of the Bible, Biblical events, and its figures. It has always been important that at least some of the Testament ‘stories’ are true, known to be so, and indubitable. This attitude towards the scriptures, and issues generated thereby which grip the intellectuals of the West to this day, hardly disturb or excite their counterparts in India. The questions about the ‘truth’ or ‘falsity’ of their texts are irrelevant within the Indian intellectual tradition.

No, they aren't. They are simply assumed to be true. That's the attitude most Hindus today have about their scriptures - regard them as true and don't think too much about it.

Actually, it is almost fascinating how different levels of beliefs on the veracity of scriptures match up across religions.

On one end, you have the fundamentalists who argue that scriptures are literally true - word for word - and go through all sorts of logical convolutions to justify that.

On the other end, you have the modernists - who say that the scriptures talk about philosophical and moral wisdom of the ancients and that they are true in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one.

Then you have the everyday layman, one who has never read the scripture, but has a general idea what goes on in them and believes that they are true without actually knowing the content and refuses to think any more deeply about it.

And you can find these categories in both Hinduism and Christianity. The only reason why there aren't as many texts and tracts trying to justify the historicity of Vedas is because there aren't that many people questioning it.

there are no doctrines of the sort in Christianity which say that we do this and this practice because of this and this reason/belief. and this is the true belief. this is false etc.

Since you've been arguing the exact opposite so far, I'd say you meant Hinduism there and not Christianity. But, that's wrong as well - there are doctrines of precisely that sort in Hinduism which say that you should do this and this practice for this and this reason/belief and that this is a true belief.

Sure, people come up with all sorts of reasons and beliefs as to why they do a certain practice. But the fact that any reason or no reason at all is equally acceptable is indicative that beliefs aren't important to these traditions. Throughout Indian history, all the intellectual energies went into developing, modifying and creating different rituals and practices, with the focus being on the practice itself, not on the belief or principle behind the practice.

Not only is this demonstrably wrong, it is also callously ignorant of actual Indian History and the formative influence of philosophers through the ages over the core Hindu beliefs. The Smriti texts of Sangam period, identifying the Hindu Darsanas were not about creating different rituals and practices. The Bhakti movement, works of Adi Shankara and the development of Puranic Hinduism are not about developing practices with no rhyme or reason to them. And frankly, saying that Hinduism is about rituals and practices without any need for beliefs behind them would be extremely insulting to any practicing Hindu. And no, people don't come up with "all sorts of reasons" to justify those practices, nor would any arbitrary reason or no reason at all would be acceptable.

infact, the attitude encouraged in such a culture is that if you perform a ritual without desires, goals, or reasons it is exalted and admirable. Detached action is the highest form of action. This attitude is not unique to India, but also found in the Chinese and Japanese traditions.

Its also found in all the other religions as well - detachment from worldly desires is a common theme in many religions. The idea of going through the rituals and practices with no personal agenda and only the goal of pleasing god or gods is considered admirable in Christianity and Islam as well.

Whereas in the Christian and Islamic history, 95% of their effort and energies went into developing theological arguments of the truth of their beliefs, the correct interpretation of beliefs so on and so forth.

And if you look at the actual history of Hinduism - and not your ignorant version of it - you'd find the same effort in developing the justification for their beliefs. Though, I would contest the figure of 95% in both cases.

You talk about the 'fact' that Indians have gods and doctrines and theology and pretty much the same structure as Christianity.

They do. It maybe different in content, but the nature is the same.

[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.

[arvind13]

and by the way, Genkaus, another way you misunderstood my claim: I don't claim that Hinduism is not a religion. My claim is that Hinduism doesn't exist. It is just a conceptual gestalt that westernized scholars used that helped them make sense of the various traditions in India. The different parts that went into the creation of such a gestalt are real like temples, statues, festivals, pujas etc are real. But there is no unity between these different parts that make them into a coherent unit called hinduism. The theory that guided these scholars was Christian theology.

Now the question is: why did so many brilliant minds over all these years consistently make the same mistake without realizing they were operating under a christian framework?

---

Since Christianity claims to be the truth about the cosmos, and this truth is for all humankind, it is compelled to spread and universalize. This process of universalization has a double dynamic.
One of the methods it spreads is something everybody is familiar with: proselytization and conversion. There is another way that Christianity spreads. It is called Secularization:

On one hand Christianity is ‘a’ religion. A specific religion with specific features and doctrines. On the other hand, because of its claim to be THE truth about the cosmos (everything there is, was, will be), it is also an all-encompassing worldview.

Because of this, Christian theological doctrines and beliefs gradually start breaking out of the confines of Christianity and becomes the common sense of the society in question (western culture); to the point where they don’t see them as Christian anymore, it just becomes a self-evident truth. Self-evident truths like: all human actions are based on belief/intentional states. In other words, Christian doctrines shed their “Christianness” and spread in a secularized form . This is what is called secularization.

In fact the very distinction between religion and secular is a distinction drawn by a religion within a religion and is part of the double dynamic of religion. Two worlds are created within a religion: the world of religion and the world of human beings. The latter includes Law, State, child-rearing practices, working as a computer engineer, building cars, setting up factories, designing and building cities. The world of religion is, of course, the world of God’s Will, His creations, His creatures. That means, it necessarily includes the `secular world’. That is to say, the `secular’ world of ours is how the religious world brings it forth, as a secularised religious world.

This double dynamic of religion has shaped western culture for the past 2000 years. The Christian theological framework becomes the foundation for studying and understanding human beings, their societies and cultures.

I can give a long list of examples to support to demonstrate this claim:
Rights, Nation State, the notion of ‘person’ and personality, freedom of choice, rule of law, capitalism, the social sciences themselves (anthropology, psychology, sociology) and yes Atheism

All of these were born out of a Christian framework. If anyone is interested, I can elaborate.

[genkaus]

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.

I see I have been generous in my interpretation. Not only are your listed properties of X, Y and Z not necessary for Abrahamic religions, those properties are, in fact, present in pagan traditions.

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.

There is no deadlock - and you don't need a theory to support the argument, you need facts. Whether or not pagan traditions have the properties X, Y and Z is a matter of fact and since facts in this case is that they do, the discussion isn't deadlocked, it is over.

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.

An ignorant statement made by someone who hasn't studied philosophy of science. Theory and data are distinct. Theory-laden data is regarded as biased and therefore, unreliable and every effort is made to remove the the influence of preconceived theories and sanitize the data. That is one of the fundamental requirements for a valid scientific inquiry.

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?

Are you under the impression that anthropologists simply accept the conclusions of travelers and missionaries and that is why they regard Hinduism as a religion? Are you under the impression that social scientists describe any religion - much less Hinduism - as a coherent unit?

Because all of us observe things through some theoretical lens. Some theories explain things better than other theories.

And the one that explains the facts best is accepted among the scientific community. Clearly, that is not something yours does.

Now, there is a theory that explains what religion is, and it does it better than the other theories in the market:

Unfortunately for you, its not yours.

Religion is an explanatorily intelligible account of the cosmos and itself. Remember the 'and itself'. It becomes important later on.

Close, but insufficient. Before giving an explanatory intelligible account of the cosmos, it must establish a view of the cosmos it seeks to explain. That is the aspect of religion which makes it a precursor to philosophy and science and separates it from them.

Further, providing an "intelligible account of cosmos" is a very tall order - and no religion accounts for all the aspects of reality. Most seek to provide an explanation as it relates to humans - a distinction that means that religions are free to pick and choose the aspects they provide an account for.

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.

If you are going to plagiarize Aristotelian causation, atleast do a better job of it.

Having a teleological cause of not a universal aspect of events - unlike the efficient cause. To use the example of your the door opening - if the wind blows and door opens then you have the presence of efficient cause and an absence of teleological cause. Not all phenomena embody the intentions of an agent - a fact that is inconsistently applied within religion. Further, the presence of a teleological cause can postulate more than one agent - a fact that you conveniently ignore.

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.

WRONG.

First error is the assumption that any religious account would explain all the aspects of cosmos - it doesn't. Religions frequently pick and choose the aspects they wish to explain and ignore the rest.

The second error is the assumption of consistent application of teleological cause - something that religious explanations do not follow.

The third error is the assumption that a religious explanation would posit only one agent whose intentions are to be given as the explanation.

Correctly applying the basic premise leads to the conclusion that religions seeks to establish a view of the cosmos and provide explanation for its certain aspects (sp. the ones that relate to human existence) and itself - usually by invoking both efficient and teleological causation (and often other forms of causation as well) and by positing one or more agents for it.

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".

Given the corrections, the correct view would be:

These beings may be one god or many gods or no gods at all. There may be no message at all and the doctrine may refer to the religious explanatory account.

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.

An extremely limited application of a broader theory of religion.

Ironically, the same limited application is sufficient for Hinduism. The name of the agent is Brahman. His actions and his very being form the universe. Thus everything in existence is an expression of his will and his revelations are given in form of Vedas.

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.

That's called "taking it on faith". Which is something Hindus do all the time.

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:

So much fail . Don't know where to start.

First of all, different parts of Christianity do not cohere together as a single unit. The multitude of philosophers, divisions and movements have seen to that.

Secondly, your derivation of properties of religion is based on faulty premises - an incorrect understanding of application of causation. Which results in your ignorance of other possibilities. That I'll enumerate with each contingency.

Thirdly - note the use of the word "contingent property". Which means any functional equivalent of these contingent properties would suffice to make Christianity a religion and these properties are not necessary for that purpose. Which means, your contention that "Christianity would not be a religion without X, Y and Z" is false from the get-go.

Fourthly, even accepting your theory of religion, it still fits Hinduism. Something else I'll enumerate with each one.

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 other possibilities are that EIA posits the existence of multiple entities or it forgoes providing a teleological cause and posits no agent or it posits agency for some aspects of the explanation and none for the other or it posits multiple agencies for some aspects or it provides a layered structure - providing some agencies for some aspects and another set of agencies for those agencies and so on. All of these are viable alternatives to the first contingent property.

As it happens, if you replace the word god with Brahman, you have the first contingent property as it applies to Hinduism.

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.

The other possibilities would be - there are multiple agents specifying different purposes or there is no supervening agency, but the purpose is provided by the nature of human existence.

As it happens, the claim made within Hinduism is that the purpose is to transcend to cycle of karma and become one with Brahman.

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.

Postulating a relationship between humans and god or gods or the universe at large does not necessitate eschatology. Even assuming the existence of an agent with specific purpose does not mean that that purpose is about humanity as a whole or one to be achieved in future. It is quite possible that the postulated relationship between individual humans and god/gods/universe is the purpose as dictated by the religion. Further, the knowledge or achievability of the supposed purpose is not a necessity for the intelligibility of the account. Thus, the third contingent property is invalid.

As it happens, Hinduism does have doctrinal eschatology, involving the cycle of creation and destruction.

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.

Ironically, you are half-right here for the wrong reasons. Given that the existence of an agency is not a necessity, the inclusion of a god-given purpose is not a requirement. However, since religion seeks to explain the cosmos as it relates to humans, the provision of an overall goal for humanity and the means of achievement is quite common.

And, ofcourse, as it happens, we have that in Hinduism too. There is a lot of worship and a lot of insistence on being close to god.

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

Except, as it happens, a lot of religions - including branches of Christianity - forgo scriptural forms of worship. So, this property is also not applicable.

Luckily, Hinduism is not one of those religions. There is a lot of stock put in finding the scriptural forms of worship within this one.

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.

The only part of this property that is correct is the one about the need for some sort of religious authority. This authority need not be organized and it need not have any real power to excommunicate. In fact, if excommunication was a requirement for religion then many branches of Christianity and Judaism and Islam would stop being religions .

Also, as it happens, Hindus have their religious authorities as well - though not as consolidated and structured as some - but we have the priests and pandits and gurus who spend their time poring over the scriptures, divining their "true" meaning and telling people what they should believe.

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.

So, you see, in conclusion, not only are the listed properties X, Y and Z unnecessary for Christianity to be a religion, those properties aren't necessarily present, they are not fully shared between other religions such as Islam and Judaism and, as it happens, Hinduism does have most of them.

---

and by the way, Genkaus, another way you misunderstood my claim: I don't claim that Hinduism is not a religion.

You did claim that.

My claim is that Hinduism doesn't exist. It is just a conceptual gestalt that westernized scholars used that helped them make sense of the various traditions in India. The different parts that went into the creation of such a gestalt are real like temples, statues, festivals, pujas etc are real. But there is no unity between these different parts that make them into a coherent unit called hinduism. The theory that guided these scholars was Christian theology.

Except, coherency and unity are not required for a religion to be a religion. Further, your claim may have held some sway back in the middle ages, but since then, many different religious movements have coalesced those traditions into an identifiable religion.

Now the question is: why did so many brilliant minds over all these years consistently make the same mistake without realizing they were operating under a christian framework?

They didn't. There was no mistake.

Since Christianity claims to be the truth about the cosmos, and this truth is for all humankind, it is compelled to spread and universalize. This process of universalization has a double dynamic.
One of the methods it spreads is something everybody is familiar with: proselytization and conversion. There is another way that Christianity spreads. It is called Secularization:

Dial back a few centuries, replace Christian claims with Vedic ones, comparatively isolate the area with an ocean and high mountain range and you have the establishment of Hinduism.

On one hand Christianity is ‘a’ religion. A specific religion with specific features and doctrines. On the other hand, because of its claim to be THE truth about the cosmos (everything there is, was, will be), it is also an all-encompassing worldview.

That is precisely how Hinduism started - you have the Vedas claiming to be THE truth about cosmos (with the other derivative doctrines) and thus it became an all-encompassing worldview.

Because of this, Christian theological doctrines and beliefs gradually start breaking out of the confines of Christianity and becomes the common sense of the society in question (western culture); to the point where they don’t see them as Christian anymore, it just becomes a self-evident truth.

Similarly, the Hindu theological doctrines and beliefs started breaking put of the Vedic confines and became common-sense tenets of Indian society. People started regarding them as self-evident truths and ignored the religious origin.

Self-evident truths like: all human actions are based on belief/intentional states.

That one is not a part of Christianity.

In other words, Christian doctrines shed their “Christianness” and spread in a secularized form . This is what is called secularization.

If that is what you'd call secularization, then the spread of Hinduism throughout the Indian subcontinent and its loss of identity as a Vedic religion was the result of this process.

In fact the very distinction between religion and secular is a distinction drawn by a religion within a religion and is part of the double dynamic of religion. Two worlds are created within a religion: the world of religion and the world of human beings. The latter includes Law, State, child-rearing practices, working as a computer engineer, building cars, setting up factories, designing and building cities. The world of religion is, of course, the world of God’s Will, His creations, His creatures. That means, it necessarily includes the `secular world’. That is to say, the `secular’ world of ours is how the religious world brings it forth, as a secularised religious world.

This double dynamic of religion has shaped western culture for the past 2000 years. The Christian theological framework becomes the foundation for studying and understanding human beings, their societies and cultures.

I can give a long list of examples to support to demonstrate this claim:
Rights, Nation State, the notion of ‘person’ and personality, freedom of choice, rule of law, capitalism, the social sciences themselves (anthropology, psychology, sociology) and yes Atheism

All of these were born out of a Christian framework. If anyone is interested, I can elaborate.

The irony here is simply delicious. The dynamic presented is present in evolution of Hinduism as religion down to the development of atheism.