(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

As introductory books go, What Do Hindus Believe is fair to middling, but it contained a couple of eye-opening remarks about the relationship between the West, and the huge and various collection of traditions and practices called Hinduism, which particularly interested me in the light of militant atheism.

Firstly, there was a reference to attempts to "formalize" Hinduism, specifically, to "semitize" it: "that is, giving it the formal features of Abrahamic religion" (p 69). There's a parallel, I think, with trying to jam the promiscuous Germanic mess of the English language into the crisp, rigid Romance grammar of Classical Latin. You may shed some light, but much of what you'll come up with will be nonsensical or downright misleading.

Secondly, and similarly:

"Western ideas of secularism, which evolved where Christianity was regarded as the only religion and where it had a particular historical relationship with the state, are not necessarily relevant to India. There is no need to stigmatize Hindu religious belief and practice as forms of cultural chauvinism; they can be incorporated into a politics of Indian secularism which centres on the traditional value of equal respect for all religions."

Comments

[stevencaldwell.livejournal.com]

'Indian secularism which centres on the traditional value of equal respect for all religions.'

What does it say about Buddhism being relegated to being an offshoot of Hinduism, a variant of I think Vishnu practice?

This has always been of concern to me.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

It sez: "The ninth incarnation [of Vishnu] was the Buddha - not a belief held by Buddhists, although they do recognise the divinity of Vishnu." (p 15) Hmm, I'm not sure if that really answers your question.

[stevencaldwell.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested in their reasoning for the ninth incarnation of Vishnu. can you source it for me?

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Not from this little book, but I'll keep an eye out for you.

[infinitarian.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine in my university days, a postdoctoral philosopher and a Hindu, used to claim that there was no such thing as Hinduism -- that it was, essentially, the label given by westerners to all the indigenous religious stuff in India that they couldn't categorise as something more identifiable and monolithic like Buddhism or Jainism or what-have-you. Given the size of the population and the variety of beliefs that Hinduism comprises -- not to mention that he was in a far better position to judge the matter than I was -- I've remained fairly convinced by that.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I like the phrasing in that first sentence. Hinduism is a huge and various collection of traditions and practices, such that (by implication) to use the word Hinduism to indicate it shows sloppy and superficial thinking. The West is just the West; nothing huge or various about us, it's okay to lump us all into one word. From the Vatican all the way to California, just one homogeneous puree. I know that wasn't what you intended to say, but I think it shows something about the way we right-on types think of ourselves and of others.

The last sentence (in the quote) is interesting too, as it confirms and highlights something I've felt for some time about militant atheism in general: that it's perfectly happy for people to believe in any gods or goddesses or fairy tales they like, just as long as they're not Christian. "Religious belief and practice...can be incorporated into a politics of...secularism"? That doesn't even make sense, assuming the word "secularism" actually means anything*.

I don't know enough about the h. and v. c. of t. and p. to comment on whether it's cultural chauvinism or not, but I'd have thought the fact that it involved believing in the existence of supernatural entities that cannot be proved to exist (which is the usual criticism levelled at Christianity) would be a bit of a problem. Apparently not, though.

Militant atheism = militant anti-Christianity. Everyone else is fine.

*Actually, of course, "secular" means "of or pertaining to a period of time," so strictly speaking it doesn't mean anything, but that's what happens when you try to confine the lyrical poetic flow of Latin within the almost brutal simplicity and directness of the Germanic languages. :)

[zombie-buddha.livejournal.com]

If it helps, I'm a militant atheist (self-described) and I'm no more fond of Hinduism than any other religion.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Oh, I wouldn't doubt it. Atheism is huge and varied as well. But when I see militant atheists attacking "religion" on the net, it's usually Christianity they're attacking, and much more seldom Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism, or any of the others. There are valid reasons for that, in that Christianity is about the only religion that's actually bothering to attack back...but the other religions have their faults as well, cultural chauvinism or no cultural chauvinism.

[zombie-buddha.livejournal.com]

That's because most people who frequent english language websites on the internet, atheist or not, live in countries where the dominant religion is Christianity. In terms of social and political activism, it makes sense to go after a target you can actually effect.

People who grew up Muslim and became atheists generally attack Islam.

(A particularly obnoxious strand of right-wing atheists single out Islam too, for obvious reasons)

But if you post a news-story about Hindus killing Muslims in India on a random message board I'm willing to bet you get a fair few 'this is why religion is stupid' comments.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

tbh, I've always been a bit annoyed when Australia is described as having been settled by "Europeans", which makes it sound as though it was the Belgians or someone, not the English. That said, in this context, "the West" and "Abrahamic religions" (and "militant atheism") are so close to synonymous as makes no bones.

Militant atheism = militant anti-Christianity. Everyone else is fine.

Not quite: the Brights stick it to Islam as well, though not so much to Judaism, 'cos they know a safe target when they see one.

[matthewwolff.livejournal.com]

I think it also has something to do with how Evangelical a religion is. Christianity and Islam, very Evangelical. Judaism and Hinduism? Not so much...

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Did you mean evangelical (lit: believing the good news), or evangelistic (lit: spreading the good news)?

Actually, I suspect you *really* meant proselytising (seeking/recruiting converts), which is where the clash really tends to happen. It was interesting to note when I was in West Africa, that one could stand on a street corner and tell people about one's religion (whatever it was), and get quite a lot of polite interest. People were genuinely interested in knowing more about each others' beliefs. Inviting them to switch, however, was considered very bad form. On the streets of Britain and the anglo/american chunks of the internet, however, it seems people hearing a presentation of Christian beliefs are expecting it turn into a "challenge" or "call to repentance" (or whatever formula they've come across) - understandably, since mainstream evangelicalism traditionally always *does* jump straight from the one to the other, regardless of whether its appropriate... =:o\ - and start to get grumpy and defensive in anticipation.

In other words, yes, we (evangelical Christians) brought this on ourselves; Worse, in the minds of the average Joe, we've also tarred all other branches of Christianity with the same brush.

[matthewwolff.livejournal.com]

The Oxford English dictionary contains within the definition of evangelical: fervent in advocating something. I think this best describes what I was trying to say. It's not just the active call for another to convert, it's a matter of preaching without having been asked to do so by a person, I suppose. There really isn't much of that sort of tradition amongst Jews or Hindus, IMHO anyway, although they are often quite enthusiastic to be evangelical if asked to do so.

You bring up an interesting point of view about the differences between proselytizing in West Africa and the anglo/american end of the world. I myself have never been approached by a person who was evangelizing that didn't have the specific goal of gaining my conversion. I wonder if it's a matter of anglo/american evangelicals not seeing a point in proselytizing to a person if it wasn't expressly for gaining their conversion?

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"The Oxford English dictionary contains within the definition of evangelical: fervent in advocating something. "

[DISTRAUGHT EXPRESSION] Even the OED has caved? Bugger. Another useful distinction swept away by the tide of popular misusage. =:o{

The emphasis on evangelism in Christianity is easy to explin: The instruction to spread the word sits right smack in the middle of our evangel (aka gospel). You either have to be very selective in your reading (i.e. not be an evangelical Christian!) or face that challenge. So (sticking with the historically accurate usage, and bugger the OED! =:o} ), an evangelical Christian is required to evangelise (and the question then becomes, "how?", or possibly "when?" or "to whom?"), but not everyone who evangelises is an evangelical (in the classical sense).

On your last point: Quite likely. In the 80s it was explained to me as a feature of the "push button culture": "I pushed the button, why aren't they responding?" If it doesn't "work" then the evangelist feels like a failure, and starts anxiously trying to push for a "solid result".

But umpteen church studies have shown that conversions won in the space of a single conversation can get reversed just as easily. The ones that last are those that the individual comes to after a long period of reflection on the message, asking questions and discussing their doubts and issues *not only* with those of the faith they're converting to, but also the people whose opinions they respect from elsewhere. Sometimes there is a specific conversation which they then count as their "moment of conversion", but generally its been preceded by a long period of mulling it over.

It also doesn't help when the person attempting to evangelise has no conversion experience of their own to help them relate to the people they're talking to: i.e. if they were raised in a Christian environment and have simply never seen the world through non-Christian eyes, it's easy to assume that once the poor uneducated non-C hears things explained properly, "*of course* they'll come to Jesus! - Or else they must be really dumb, right? Or even an agent of Satan sent to trip me up..." =:o\

[steve-roby.livejournal.com]

Ah, militant atheism. How I miss my days in the Young Secularist League, and the street battles we'd have with the splitters in the Rationalist Youth -- but how we'd all unite against the Anglican/Catholic Temporarily United Faction, the Baptist Brigade, and the Sikh/Muslim/Jewish Alliance of Convenience (Ravinder, Ali, and Ruth, until she decided the whole thing was too silly).

Kate, if you're trying seriously to work through all this stuff, perhaps you should consider that the concept of "militant atheism" is right wing Christian propaganda. Yes, Dawkins, Hitchens, and a few others have finally turned on the religious the kind of scorn the religious have aimed at atheists for a good long time. But it's not a movement. Atheism itself is not a movement, nor is it, for most atheists, a belief system. It's the refusal to take part in a belief system. The so-called militant atheist books of the last few years are an attempt to clear some space for the freedom to refuse following the aggressive resurgence of militant Christianity and Islam, in particular, in the post-9/11 world.

Talking unironically about militant atheism is like talking unironically about political correctness.

[mad-fool.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you just said, I would have posted somthing similar myself were I not too lazy.

Keep up the good work.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

My susceptibility to "right wing Christian propaganda" may be lower than you think.

[steve-roby.livejournal.com]

I get that. I've been reading your LJ for ages and I've read your books. But the idea that there is such a thing as militant atheism is essentially a creation of right wing Christians, and it sticks out like a sore thumb when someone who isn't one spreads the idea.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

I'm not clear on the problem. It can't be the idea that there is an atheist movement, 'cos there obviously is, even if it's varied and decentralised. It can't be the word "militant", since it's used to describe any confrontational movement, not just violent ones. Help me out here.

[steve-roby.livejournal.com]

It's the idea that Dawkins, Hitchens, etc represent a large group of hardcore atheists out to mock everyone who isn't atheist, who have the power to remove religion from the public square, etc. Even American liberals are trying to back away from this militant atheist movement. But no, there is no such thing as an atheist movement. I'm not part of any group. None of my friends, who are generally atheist, are part of any group. The few who've heard of that "bright" thing think it's stupid and counterproductive.

For the atheists I know (i.e., my friends, not my fellow conspirators), the idea of an atheist movement or militant atheism is on a par with the idea of a people who don't watch soap operas movement, or a people who don't have a favourite American college basketball team movement. We don't have a religion, we don't want to have to pretend we do, we don't want to have to say nice things about it. But that does not a movement or a militant make. But an alleged movement is handy for the American Christian right, which needs to present itself as a victim so that people won't notice that it's the bully.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

It's important not to fall into the trap of thinking that Dawkins and co represent all atheists. But this is exactly why I used the term "militant atheists" - to distinguish them from other, cooler atheists, much as we both refer to "right wing Christians" to avoid generalising their beliefs and behaviour to all Christians.

That the Christian right talks rubbish about the atheist movement doesn't mean the movement doesn't exist. The Freedom From Religion Foundation in the US boasts 13,000 members, and there are numerous smaller groups around the world (though not all of them are forthcoming about their actual membership).

[matthewwolff.livejournal.com]

I think it would be hard to characterize that there is no organized movement of atheism. I would certainly count myself as a member of such a movement, or at least a member of the skeptical movement which is closely tangential. Witness The Center for Inquiry, American Atheists, and the aforementioned Brights for a few examples. Not to mention the many heavily read atheist slant type blogs.

[steve-roby.livejournal.com]

I'm aware of them. They just don't matter a lot to any atheists I know personally. Could be that it's easier to be an atheist without a support network in Canada, where I live, than it is in America.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Looks like you're in for those bus ads, though. :)

[matthewwolff.livejournal.com]

Well, the religious right is certainly a lot more aggressive down here. ;) Atheists actually have to organize to keep nonsense like Intelligent Design from being taught in science classes...