Question on the proper use of philosophy

Question

Glanced at the SEP for the first time today, and noticed that most of it is focused on questions of the existence and character of deity or deities.

Admittedly, that is the subject matter that has driven European philosophy since the introduction of religions whose deities judge beliefs about them as much as, or more than, beliefs and actions about humans and our place in the world.

But it leaves me wondering whether those of us who have no axe to grind and honestly don't care about that specific debate really belong in a discussion of philosophy at all, except in understanding the history of the field and being entertained by how it evolved, or occasionally clarifying that being neither a believer or a disbeliever is a perfectly defensible stance, given the appropriate assumptions.

Or is it just that that set of topics is the one that people have felt most strongly about and spent (and spend?) the most time and effort on, and the SEP was written to support education about that history?

Having stepped in because a clarification/example of genuine agnosticism seemed to be needed, I am starting to feel that perhaps I have reached the end of my usefulness here and should step out again.

If I do remain, I may have to set up some tag filtering to keep myself from getting distracted by/involved in topics where I really have nothing insightful to add but insufficient restraint to keep my hands off the keyboard. That has been helpful in some of the other stacks.

Answer 1

I don't think the SEP is mostly about God or religion, it covers all sorts of other subjects in greater depth. There ARE limitations to the SEP -- it mostly reflects academic Anglo-American philosophy, so its contemporary sections are primarily oriented to analytic philosophy. Both continental philosophy and Eastern philosophy get pretty short shrift. As a pragmatist, I also find pragmatism very underrepresented.

If you dig into the historical entries, you will find a lot of God and religion thinking. Most early philosophers were theists, and sought to outline worldviews that meshed "naturalism" with theist thinking. The European Rennaissance and Enlightenment philosophy has a major interest in breaking the intellectual stranglehold of Church dogma on philosophic thought, so anti-theocracy and anti-dogma arguments were a huge aspect of Western philosophic heritage, and that included a big dose of anti-theism.

Young people first encountering philosophy often reprise this historical process, and both anti-theism and theistic apologism questions often attract a lot of attention here. As philosophy served as the means to break theocratic thought control, and was the inspiration for non-theist thinking (atheism, agnosticism, and "seeker" categories to thought were all at risk to legal execution pre-enlightenment, and all three have spread as alternatives since), it is unsurprising that these questions are hot topics for those forging their moral and ontological worldviews.

Despite the enthusiasm for religious questions on these boards, I find the dominant posting category to be questions about logic, and mathematical and computational philosophy. These subjects are generally unrelated to religion and God. I think this is because of our stack exchange heritage, with coders and mathematicians sharing our boards.

The most common religion questions DO tend to be "logic" questions about religion and Gods, which I also find annoying. Since Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, the nature of our world has increasingly been seen as a purely empirical question, not a "logical" or analytic one. But again, with the logician and coder heritage of most SE contributors, the "logic" focus of much early thinking of people entering philosophy from that background is not surprising, and a feature of our members that should be treated with tolerance.

If you find religion questions to be dead-end uses of your time, BUT also an attractive hazard, yes developing a self-discipline filter would be wise.

Answer 2

Besides the fact that only a small fraction of contemporary philosophy, may it be western or not, revolves around religion, I would like to add another frame challenge:

Don't you think it odd that when you look into Asian pop culture like manga, anime, graphic novels, etc, there is a recurring theme that is very close to Christian (or at least Abrahamic) religion? Angels, the suffering of humanity for their sins, human finitude, the soul transcending the limits of the body - all of this happens to be part of many of the most successful series (in the adult's market branch I might add). This might have to do with the human condition including a longing for transcendence, as Plessner argued.

That being said, it cannot be stressed enough that most of these questions are posted by a small number of users and multiplied mainly through the fact that questions about God are almost a 100% candidate for Hot Network Questions because everyone has so strong opinions about them.

I cannot tell you how much I am fed up with the millionth variation of the ever same question trying to fish for popularity votes but here we are, discussing it again.

Answer 3

It is simply not true that God is most of the content in the SEP so your question is based on a faulty premise.

Answer 4

I don't know about the SEP, but there are definitely lots of places in the Internet, especially America-based Internet, that claim to be about philosophy but waste a lot of time discussing god.

It's kind of like joining up on a discussion board that says it's for foodies and discovering that it's mostly people talking about what their favorite thing to order at McDonald's is. Disappointing.

Answer 5

I know this is a hard ask, but we do need to ferret out the distinction between heat and light. Religion is something that people love to argue about, so there is a lot of heat that comes from that direction: lots of people wanting to make their voices heard, often in strident tones. If we filter out the heat, there are still a lot of religious thinkers producing light, but they are much more appropriately proportioned to people producing light in other branches of philosophy.

I mean, we will always have the issue that a lot of philosophical problems have crossovers with religion. Wherever philosophy wants to dig into the nature of what it means to be human, we'll find that religions have spent a few millennia trying to cover the ground, and we can't just toss out millennia's worth of thinking because it comes with baggage. Everything in philosophy comes with historical baggage. The trick is to keep our eyes on the problem and try to avoid slugging each other with the baggage.

Being agnostic sucks, I know. I am absolutely agnostic on most religious issues (neither accepting nor rejecting them in principle), and that usually means that I'm accused by turns of being atheist or theist, according to the preconceptions of the person I'm talking to. You gotta shake it off like a dog in the rain. If you're feeling stressed you should take a break, sure. But from what I've seen you're generally reasonable and insightful; you just need to 'grrr' a little less. But then don't we all…

Answer 6

One of the major virtues of the SEP is that all of its entries (as well as I remember) include a significant, sometimes almost overwhelming, number of citations/references. (C.f. the caliber of the IEP, for that matter.) So there is a reference base for all this, which can be seen at e.g. philpapers.org. With respect to the "Metaphysics and Epistemology" category, that site apparently lists more essays about philosophy of religion than any other direct subcategory besides philosophy of mind.

However, the number given for that is 103,768. Under "Value Theory," applied ethics gets 187,687 listings (as of 5:38 AM, December 6th, 2024). Presumably there is immediate and mediate overlap between the above subcategory, and this one (e.g. applying concepts of/from religious ethics to specific beliefs or whatever). Social and political philosophy get 180,083 listings.

Next, in the "Science, Logic, and Mathematics" area, it's cognitive science (to me somewhat surprisingly) that has "pride of place": 119,017 listings. Under "Philosophical Traditions," analytic philosophy isn't even specified and continental philosophy has the most listings (148,088). Finally, it's arts and humanities, with 42,024 listings, that "dominates" the "Other Academic Areas" category.

Now if you search "God" on the SEP, it returns "1058 documents found." I think that the search function also ranges over "supplementary" sections, which usually link-through from their pertinent articles. Searching "existence" yields "1837 documents found," "Plato" returns 1046. (I can't tell if "documents" means articles/supplements specifically, or whether it means that those words show up that many times throughout any articles/supplements. Reportedly, there were 1800 entries as of mid-2023, and I doubt over a thousand entries have been added since, so I don't know why searching for the word "the" returns over 3000 "documents found.")

Incidentally, "Jesus" gets the number 168, here.

Answer 7

You say:

Glanced at the SEP for the first time today, and noticed that most of it is focused on questions of the existence and character of deity or deities.

'God' and 'reality' are certainly central preoccupations of Western philosophy. But, I've been reading it for years, and never read anything theological and only "Philosophy of Religion". I suspect your perspective is skewed, and for some reason, the appearance of God (which to be fair was a central preoccupation of European philosophy during the Dark and Medieval ages and well past the Renaissance) in the SEP is as much a historical as well as a technical topic. It's hard to imagine Descartes or Kant without reference to God given how thoroughly immersed philosophy was in Christianity.

You say:

Having stepped in because a clarification/example of genuine agnosticism seemed to be needed, I am starting to feel that perhaps I have reached the end of my usefulness here and should step out again.

I always encourage everyone to participate to their fullest extent. You don't have to be useful. As an absurdist, I condone your being useless, ultimately because even the most knowledgeable contributors here are useless in their own way. It's an ironic aspect of philosophy that it is a humbling, overwhelming experience no matter how much "expertise" and "sophistication" one acquires in the topic. If one holds one's self up to the Western canon, the breath, depth, and width of it being overpowering, one must deal with one's own inconsequential existence, even most professional philosophers. We throw around names like Spinoza, Hume, and Kant, but we should never aspire to their fame. If nothing else PhilSE is a place to acquire patience, humility, and the odd lesson on critical thinking, history, and philosophical theory.

Answer 8

This guy doesn't like to read questions about religion. He doesn't just not want to read the full questions; he doesn't even want to see the titles.

He's looking to clean up this town! Maybe he thinks we'll have visitors.

If I do remain,

I better stop asking questions about religion or this guy might go back to Reddit!

I may have to set up some tag filtering to keep myself from getting distracted

Yeah, I guess I'd do that too if I were as easily distracted. You sound like a distinguished, but elderly gentleman.

Do those of us who have no axe to grind and honestly don't care about that specific debate really belong in a discussion of philosophy at all?

Well, yeah, I mean, you could read the questions about stuff you're interested in and ignore the religion ones.

Hell, some Bozo here keeps posting questions pushing solipsism. I've had 'bout enough of it, but I put up with it.

See?

Questions may be interesting or boring, but they don't have to trigger distressed and agitated affect. At any age.

...I have to apologize for the simple answer, but I find that oftenimes, concepts that many folks find impossibly difficult are actually really simple. I'm good at explaining stuff, if you'd like to understand something else.

is it just that that set of topics is the one that people have felt most strongly about and spent (and spend?)...

You're trying too hard. The smarter you are, the more you talk like Szilard and Feynman. Word.

the most time and effort on, and the SEP was written to support education about that history?

Well, we can assume that the writers of those questions thought they were important, yeah. But your mileage may vary, see?

Having stepped in because a clarification/example of genuine agnosticism seemed to be needed

Ahhh! Let there be WORDS from this rando! All must respect The Smart Person!

I ain't seen it yet.

I am starting to feel that perhaps I have reached the end of my usefulness here

Naw, come on man, you might be of some use to somebody.

and should step out again.

Again?

You threatened to leave before and everyone called your bluff?

And you snuck back in to see if anyone was talking about you.

If I do remain, I may have to set up some tag filtering

Ooo, ooo, filter me twice! Then let your friends filter me!

Maybe I shouldn't be involved in topics where I really have nothing insightful to add

Yeah, well, y'know, as the kids say... DUHHH!

but insufficient restraint to keep my hands off the keyboard.

Yes, you best restrain yourself. Keep your hands off that thang. Like the religious people say, "Idle hands in the Devil's playground," or some s***.

Answer 9

Preliminary Note

Kristian Berry's answer reminds me there is a literal reading of this question.
But then a literal reading is about SEP, making it off-topic for SE, still more an SE-meta. So as a preliminary note:
This answer interprets the SEP reference as saying that if SEP represents the objective state of philosophy and SEP is found to be overfilled with God can someone explain to me why I should be interested — in SEP/Phil-SE/philosophy?

Short Version of Long Answer

This is a Western-Christian site, populated by Western-Christians with a definite anglophone/US slant.

People dont notice this and seem generally to get more upset when this is pointed out than to see the glaring facts.

So with the aid of chatGPT I've put together this case in a broad based way.

Religion, Christianity and Western Philosophy

A sane view on the matter would run as:

• Christianity is one religion among many
• Philosophy may overlap and intersect religion/Christianity but is distinct

Unfortunately it does not pan out that-a-way for many reasons as I elaborate below.

To start with, the central figures of the western philosophical canon were for the most part religious persons. This may not be true in the last ½ century but a century is a thin translucent veneer on 2½ millennia of history.

Consider:

• Kant was a pietist
• Descartes escaped solipsism via God
• Berkeley was a priest (and slave owner)
• Hegel's summum bonum was God
• Spinoza was of course God mad
• Wittgenstein claimed that as a frontline soldier during WW-I, he owed his life to carrying about Tolstoy's summary of the Gospels in his pocket
• And Schopenhauer was irreligious because he preferred Buddhism and the Upanishads to Christianity!

This does not even touch on Aquinas, Pascal, Kierkegaard and such. Note Occam in particular who is invariably (mis)used against his own more fideist-than-Aquinas purposes.

And all of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Epicurus, Epictetus, Seneca, were each religious in a pre-Christian world.

The only notable significant exceptions I can think of are Hume, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud.

Of these Freud is not quite a philosopher and Nietzsche is an atheist only by a literalist reading of his words. Marx's 'materialistic idealism' killed many more than the Nazis — 'nuf said. Only Hume is a real mainstream canonical western atheist — exception proves the rule?

Personal Note

I find Christians who — welcome or unwelcome — unctuously push their Christianity onto all an sundry irritating, but only mildly so.
I find atheists who thump their atheism (very much a religion though faux) more annoying simply because they are more cocksure that they are in the right — “Christianity is a belief, science is the Truth.”
But most of all I find the folks here who imagine they are not talking of religion at all but talking CI (Kant), democracy, liberalism, ethics, rights and so much else seemingly secular but all inexorably follows from the Protestant breakaway of Luther, Henry-VIII etc from Catholicism the most galling. See Brad Gregory for the long but straignt line from Catholicism to the Protestant breakup to modernity

I set out to write this answer because like you I think there is way more religion on this site than there should be on a healthy philosophy discussion forum. Worse, it is one-sided, misnamed religion because its called 'religion' but scratch it just a little and it's almost always a denatured ‘decaffeinated’ Christianity.

2. The Historical dominance of Christianity in the West

• Christianity has shaped Western thought, ethics, law, and education for centuries. Even secular or post-religious societies often operate within frameworks originally developed in Christian contexts.
• Western philosophy of religion has historically dealt with issues like the nature of God, arguments for God's existence (e.g., the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments), and the problem of evil, all of which are largely framed by Christian theological concerns.
• For example, the concept of a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity is not universal. Many Eastern and indigenous traditions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, and some strands of Hinduism, conceive of divinity differently or eschew the concept entirely. Yet these ideas are often sidelined in Western theological debates.

3. Christianity: A Fundamentally Teleological Universe

• Central Belief: Christianity posits that the universe has a definitive purpose and direction, established by a personal and transcendent God. Creation is part of God's plan, and the ultimate purpose of life is union with God through salvation and grace.
• Linear History: Time is seen as linear, with a beginning (Creation), pivotal events (e.g., the Incarnation), and an end (eschatology). The universe is heading toward a specific culmination in God’s Kingdom.
• Teleology: Human existence and the cosmos are inherently purposeful, directed toward fulfilling God's will.

For comparison The Eastern Traditions:

Hinduism

• Cyclic View of Time: Hindu cosmology views the universe as cyclic, undergoing endless cycles of creation (Srishti), preservation (Sthiti), and destruction (Samhara) by cosmic principles like Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
• Dharma and Liberation (Moksha): The purpose of life is not tied to a single divine plan but to realizing one's true self (Atman) and its unity with the ultimate reality (Brahman). This realization transcends worldly existence, aiming for liberation from the cycle of rebirth (Samsara).
• No Fixed Telos: The cosmos exists as a stage for individual souls to work out their karma and realize higher consciousness. It is not directed toward a final, universal end.

Buddhism

• Impermanence (Anicca): The universe is seen as transient and without inherent purpose. Everything arises and passes away due to dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda).
• No Creator God: Unlike Christianity, there is no divine being orchestrating the universe. Instead, the focus is on ending suffering (Dukkha) through enlightenment (Nirvana).
• Personal Path: The ultimate goal is individual liberation from Samsara, not a teleological destiny for the cosmos.

Jainism

• Eternal Universe: The universe is beginningless and eternal, governed by natural laws without a creator deity.
• Karma-Driven: The moral law of karma drives the cycle of rebirth, and liberation (Moksha) is achieved through ascetic practices and self-discipline.
• No Cosmic Purpose: Jain cosmology focuses on personal liberation rather than a teleological framework for the universe.

Sikhism

• Creator and Sustainer: Sikhism posits a monotheistic God (Waheguru) who creates and sustains the universe. While there is a sense of purpose in aligning with divine will (Hukam), it does not emphasize a singular linear telos like Christianity.
• Union with God: The goal of life is spiritual union with God through selfless service, meditation, and devotion, rather than the cosmos heading toward a final resolution.

Taoism

• Natural Order (Tao):

  • Taoism centers on the Tao, the underlying, ineffable force that governs the universe. The Tao is not a creator in a theistic sense but a principle of harmony and balance that everything follows naturally.
  • There is no overarching teleological plan; instead, the universe unfolds spontaneously and cyclically, adhering to the Tao’s rhythms.

• Wu Wei (Effortless Action):

  • The ideal life aligns with the Tao through wu wei, or effortless action, which involves living in harmony with nature and the flow of the universe without forcing outcomes.

• Cosmic Perspective:

  • Taoism does not emphasize a personal or universal purpose. Instead, it focuses on being present, accepting the way of the Tao, and finding contentment in simplicity and balance.

• Cyclic Time:

  • Similar to Hindu and Buddhist traditions, Taoism views time and existence as cyclical rather than linear, lacking a teleological culmination.

Zen

• Here and Now:

  • Zen emphasizes direct experience and the immediacy of the present moment, de-emphasizing intellectual speculation about the universe’s purpose.
  • Like other Buddhist schools, Zen adheres to the principles of impermanence (anicca) and dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), rejecting teleological views.

• No Creator or Design:

  • Zen does not posit a creator or a cosmic designer. It is more concerned with awakening to the nature of reality as it is, beyond dualistic thinking.

• Satori (Enlightenment):

  • The goal in Zen is the realization of one's true nature through practices such as meditation (zazen), koan study, and mindfulness. This realization is non-linear and non-conceptual, emphasizing direct insight over theological frameworks.

• Absence of Teleology:

  • Zen shares the Buddhist perspective that the universe does not have a predetermined purpose. Instead, liberation comes from transcending attachments and dualities, embracing the void (śūnyatā).

Key Contrasts

Aspect	Christianity	Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Sikh	Taoism	Zen
Time	Linear and purposeful	Cyclical (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) or balanced (Sikhism).	Cyclical, natural unfolding	Non-linear; present moment is emphasized.
Purpose of Creation	Directed toward God’s plan	Liberation from cycles of rebirth; no fixed cosmic end.	Harmonizing with the Tao	Awakening to reality as it is.
Role of a Creator	Personal, creator, and sustainer	Varies: personal (Sikhism), impersonal (Hinduism), or absent (Buddhism, Jainism).	Absent; the Tao is not a deity	Absent; focuses on enlightenment.
Human Purpose	Salvation through divine grace	Self-realization, enlightenment, or Moksha through effort or devotion.	Aligning with the Tao; simple living	Awakening to true nature (Satori).
Universe’s End	Eschatological culmination	Eternal cycles or liberation beyond materiality.	No definitive end; perpetual balance	Irrelevant; transcendence of dualities.

Compare with “secular” western philosophy/science. Are these coincidences to arising Christian milieu?

• Hegel : History has a purpose
• Marx : Killing millions for that purpose is kosher
• Le Maitre (a Catholic priest) : Universe starts with Big Bang and ends with heat death

4. Atheists as "Christian Atheists"

• Many prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, critique a conception of God that is essentially Christian. Their arguments often presuppose:
  • A monotheistic, interventionist God who created the universe and is involved in human affairs.
  • Scriptures that claim divine authority, such as the Bible or the Qur'an.
• This has led to the observation that many atheists are "Christian atheists" in the sense that their rejection of religion is primarily a rejection of Christianity rather than religion in its global diversity. They often do not engage with, for instance, the atheistic elements of Jainism or the apophatic theology of Hindu Advaita Vedanta.

5. Indifference to Religion as Indifference to Chritianity

• Secular or "indifferent" attitudes toward religion often stem from disillusionment with Christianity's cultural and political dominance rather than with religion as a whole.
• This is evident in countries where Christianity was historically state-backed. For instance, in much of Western Europe, widespread secularization has left populations indifferent to religion, but this indifference is primarily toward Christian institutions and doctrines.

6. The Need for Broader Frameworks in Philosophy of Religion

• The dominance of Christianity-centric frameworks limits the scope of philosophical inquiry. For example:
  • Eastern philosophies like Buddhism or Taoism often focus on practical paths to enlightenment or harmony, rather than theological speculation.
  • Indigenous traditions may center on animistic or cyclical worldviews, which challenge linear, salvation-oriented narratives common in Christianity.
• Scholars like John Hick and Raimon Panikkar have worked to expand philosophy of religion to include comparative theology and pluralistic approaches, but these remain underrepresented in mainstream discourse.

7. Religion = Theism = Atheism is a rejection of Theism

• Framing: The equation of religion with theism, particularly monotheism, leads to the assumption that rejecting religion means rejecting a single, creator deity. This erases traditions that are nontheistic (e.g., Buddhism, certain strands of Confucianism) or polytheistic.
• Implications:
  • Atheism as a product of theism: In rejecting theism, atheism often remains entangled with the concepts it critiques, particularly the idea of a personal, interventionist God.
  • Traditions like Jainism or Advaita Vedanta already propose frameworks where "God" is irrelevant or purely symbolic. Western atheism rarely addresses these non-theistic systems.
• Broader View: Expanding the understanding of religion to include nontheistic and non-Abrahamic paradigms allows atheism to evolve beyond merely countering the Abrahamic deity.

8. Religion = Christianity = Protestantism = WASP Anglophone Protestantism

• Framing: Much of Western philosophy of religion focuses on Christianity, and within that, Protestantism — particularly in its Anglo-American, WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) form. This often marginalizes Catholic, Orthodox, and other Christian traditions, let alone non-Christian ones.
• Key Examples:
  • Scriptural focus: Protestant emphasis on sola scriptura (scripture alone) leads to debates about literal versus metaphorical readings of texts. Many other traditions prioritize rituals, oral traditions, or mystical experiences over scripture.
  • Individualism: Protestantism's focus on personal salvation shapes assumptions about religion as a primarily individualistic pursuit. By contrast, Hinduism and Confucianism often frame spirituality in collective or societal terms.
• Implications:
  • This narrow lens reduces the diversity of religious experiences and practices to a Protestant-like template. For example, concepts like karma, dharma, or Zen are often shoehorned into Western philosophical categories.
  • It also excludes religions without centralized scriptures or hierarchical clergy, such as indigenous traditions or animistic beliefs.

9. Religions as Personality Cults Around Divine Figures

• Framing: Abrahamic religions often emphasize prophets or divine figures (Jesus, Moses, Muhammad). This molds an assumption that religion revolves around charismatic founders or central figures.
• Contrast:
  • In Hinduism, while Krishna, Shiva, and others are venerated, the focus often extends to impersonal truths (Brahman) or cosmic principles (Rta).
  • Buddhism reveres the Buddha but also emphasizes practices and philosophies over personal worship.
  • Taoism lacks a single divine figure, focusing instead on the Tao as an impersonal force.
• Implications:
  • This framework leads to a dismissal of traditions where no single figure dominates (e.g., Shinto, Jainism).
  • It also reinforces a misleading view of religions as essentially leader-driven, ignoring the role of decentralized practices, community traditions, or evolving interpretations.

10. Theology = Philosophy of Religion

• Framing: Theological discourse, particularly in the West, is often synonymous with philosophy of religion, centering on questions like the nature of God or proofs for God's existence. This approach marginalizes non-theistic and non-Abrahamic traditions.
• Problems:
  • This equates the study of religion with justifying or debating God's existence — a distinctly Western concern.
  • Philosophies like Zen Buddhism, which avoid metaphysical speculation, are sidelined in favor of Abrahamic-style debates.
• Contrast:
  • Indian darshanas (philosophical schools) like Sankhya or Mimamsa explore metaphysics and epistemology without invoking a deity.
  • Taoist and Confucian thought often treat cosmology and ethics as inherently interwoven, without requiring theological justification.
• Implications:
  • This limits the scope of philosophical inquiry into religion, reducing it to theological concerns while ignoring ethical, aesthetic, or practical dimensions of spirituality.

11. Religious Exclusivity Reflects Universal Truth Claims

• Assumption: The exclusivist claims of certain religions (e.g., Christianity's "no one comes to the Father except through me") are generalized to represent all religions.
• Critique:
  • Many traditions embrace pluralism or relativism:
    • Hinduism: The Rigveda famously states, "Truth is one; sages call it by various names."
    • Buddhism: Encourages finding truth through personal experience rather than dogmatic adherence.
    • Indigenous religions: Often coexist with other faiths, seeing no conflict in acknowledging multiple spiritual realities.
  • This assumption projects a competitive, zero-sum view of religion, distorting traditions that emphasize coexistence or syncretism.

12. Religious Belief is Primarily Doctrinal or “Truth-claim” based

• Assumption: Religion is often framed as a system of beliefs, with doctrinal correctness being central. This is a distinctly Abrahamic trait, particularly Protestant, where faith and adherence to creeds are emphasized.
• Critique:
  • Many non-Abrahamic traditions prioritize practice over belief. For example:
    • Buddhism: The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path focus on ethical living and meditation rather than doctrinal assent.
    • Hinduism: Dharma (duty) and karma (action) are central, with belief systems varying widely among adherents.
    • Shinto: Emphasis is placed on rituals and honoring kami (spirits), not on systematic theology.
  • This doctrinal framing marginalizes experiential or ritualistic aspects of religion, which are primary in many traditions.

13. Religion is Primarily Moral Instruction

• Assumption: Religion is seen as a system for teaching morality, with divine commands or scriptures providing ethical guidelines. This assumption often reflects Abrahamic religions where moral codes (e.g., the Ten Commandments) play a central role.
• Critique:
  • In many Eastern traditions, morality is embedded in broader cosmological or practical frameworks:
    • Taoism: Morality arises naturally from aligning oneself with the Tao; it's less about commandments and more about harmony.
    • Confucianism: Focuses on relationships and societal roles rather than divine mandates.
    • Zen Buddhism: Emphasizes mindfulness and compassion as emergent properties of spiritual practice, not rigid moral rules.
  • This assumption reduces religion to a utilitarian tool for social control, ignoring its metaphysical, aesthetic, and existential dimensions.

14. Religion is Static and Immutable

• Assumption: Religions are often treated as unchanging systems of belief and practice, rooted in ancient texts or traditions, resistant to adaptation.

• Critique:

  • Religions evolve in response to cultural, political, and technological changes:
    • Christianity: Has splintered into thousands of denominations, adapting to diverse cultural contexts and social movements (e.g., liberation theology).
    • Buddhism: Spread from India to East Asia and adapted significantly, leading to Zen, Pure Land, and Vajrayana schools.
    • Hinduism: Continues to evolve, with figures like Swami Vivekananda reshaping its role in modern global contexts.

• Treating religion as static ignores its dynamic nature and ability to address contemporary issues.

15. Neglecting Sapir-Whorf Leads to a Slant of Viewpoint

• Assumption: Discussions of religion and philosophy often ignore the influence of language on thought, as proposed by the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. The assumption is that religious or philosophical concepts can be universally translated without distortion.
• Critique:
  • Language shapes thought processes and worldviews. Key religious concepts often have no exact equivalents across linguistic boundaries, leading to misinterpretation. For instance:
    • Sanskrit terms like Dharma and Brahman lose much of their layered meanings when translated into "law" or "God."
    • The Chinese term Dao (from Taoism) is often mistranslated as "the way," stripping it of its metaphysical connotations.
  • Neglecting Sapir-Whorf perpetuates a dominant linguistic framework (often English or Latin-rooted concepts) that molds discussions of religion into a Eurocentric pattern.
• Implications:
  • Comparative religion often ends up judging non-Western traditions by Abrahamic standards because their core ideas are reframed through Western linguistic and conceptual lenses.
  • Language's influence shapes everything from theological debates (e.g., the existence of a "personal God") to ethical structures (e.g., the individualistic versus collectivist framing of morality).

In essence neglecting Sapir-Whorf in studying religions produces an etic-but-not-emic reading of religion

You say you dont believe in God yet you believe in grammar
Nietzsche

More here

16. The exception becomes the rule

1. Anchoring

Beware of the man who's god is in the sky
George Bernard Shaw

Almost all extant world religions are geographically situated and anchored. Eg.

Religion	Holy Land
Judaism	Jerusalem
Islam	Mecca, Medina, Karbala
Hinduism	Benaras (Kashi), Ayodhya etc
Sikhism	Amritsar
Buddhism	Lumbini, Gaya

Not to mention more nativist/tribal/“primitive” religions

Christianity: Is it really Bethlehem? Or more like Vatican? chatGPT gives Vatican as 10-50 times more pilgrim visitors than Bethlehem depending on how/what you ask?

Now compare the Ṕlatonic actual significance of Vatican to Christianity as comepared to all the others. All the others are central to the respective religions; Vatican is incidental.

This makes Christianity an unrooted, 'ever-foreigner' religion. I believe this follows from the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusaelem in 80 AD which made Christianity an almost exclusively gentile religion

Since however Christianity sets the framing, the rooted aspect is treated as more primitive and the unrooted (called universal and other grand sounding names) as more advanced and civilized

2. Monotheism presumptions

Like secularism, monotheism is also a fantastic presumption. Islam, Christianity and Judaism self-describe as monotheism or even as the only (possible) monotheisms. As Dcleve described here, while Sikhism does not blow its trumpet on this front, it is arguably more authentically monotheistic than all these.

3. Pretensions to Secularism

UK, US and most of western Europe has fantastic pretensions to secularism. And yet have violations of Secularism galore:

United Kingdom

1. Act of Settlement 1701:

   • Prohibits Catholics or anyone married to a Catholic from ascending to the throne, ensuring Protestant supremacy. This explicitly intertwines religion and the state, favoring Anglican Christianity over other beliefs.

2. Church of England's Role in Public Education:

   • Many Church of England schools are publicly funded and incorporate religious worship and teachings, which blurs the line between religion and secular governance.

3. Daily Religious Worship in Schools:

   • State schools in England are legally required to hold a daily act of collective worship, predominantly Christian in nature, though parents can opt-out their children.

4. Blasphemy Laws (Historical, Until 2008):

   • The UK's blasphemy laws protected only Christian beliefs, a clear bias toward one religion before their repeal.

5. Public Holidays Based on Christian Calendar:

   • Holidays like Christmas and Easter are national holidays, while similar recognition isn’t given to other religious or secular observances.

—

United States

1. Presidential Oath of Office

   • Traditionally taken on a Bible, and often includes the phrase "So help me God," reflecting a religious bias despite the Constitution’s secular intent.

2. National Prayer Breakfast

   • An annual government-endorsed event that blurs the line between religion and state, as it often involves political leaders advocating faith-based initiatives.

3. Religious Symbols on Public Land

   • Christian crosses and monuments on government property often remain, despite legal challenges arguing they violate the First Amendment.

4. Faith-Based Initiatives Office

   • Established under President George W. Bush, this office directs federal funds to religious organizations, raising questions about the separation of church and state.

5. State-Led Religious Exemptions

   • Several U.S. states allow businesses or individuals to refuse services (e.g., to LGBTQ+ individuals) based on religious beliefs, which critics argue prioritizes religion over secular law.

Western Europe

1. French Funding for Religious Schools:

   • Despite France’s principle of laïcité (secularism), the government partially funds private religious schools, particularly Catholic institutions.

2. German Church Tax (Kirchensteuer):

   • A tax collected by the state on behalf of recognized churches, making the government an agent for religious funding.

3. Spanish Subsidies for the Catholic Church:

   • Spain funds Catholic schools and pays clergy salaries, while also providing substantial tax exemptions to the Church under its Concordat with the Vatican.

4. Constitutional Recognition of Christianity (Norway):

   • The Norwegian Constitution declares the Evangelical Lutheran Church the state church and mandates its support.

5. Religious Broadcasting Rights (UK and Others):

   • Many countries allocate public broadcasting time specifically for Christian religious programming, often excluding other faiths or secular views.