A Syllogism

[Kismet]

I'm wondering if anyone (maybe wundermonk) could chime in on this little argument I've cooked up. I won't say it's perfect, and I probably need to retouch it a bit (or a lot), but I'm just curious what anyone here might think. Thanks.

***

1. Religious phenomena can be explained through naturalism.

2. Evidence against religion can be explained supernaturally.

3. Naturalistic explanations of religious phenomena do not constitute positive knowledge. (1,2)

4. Supernatural explanations of religious phenomena do not constitute positive knowledge. (1,2)

5. Evidence against religion is in the form of empirical research.

6. Evidence for religion is in the form of testimony.

7. Testimony cannot be dispensed with without already assuming the naturalist position as the correct one. (6,3)

8. Empirical research cannot be dispensed with without already assuming the religious position as the correct one. (5,4)

9. Testimony and empirical research contradict.

10. The possibility of ascertaining positive knowledge is non-existent regarding either testimony or empirical research (i.e, human speculative endeavor). (7,8,9)

11. The idea of positive knowledge exists and is desirable.

12. Positive knowledge must be derived from a source external to human speculative endeavor if it is to be positive knowledge. (10)

13. Higher authority other than the human is to be preferred as it does not derive from human speculative endeavor (i.e, God). (11,12)

14. Theism is epistemically warranted and to be preferred over naturalism. (13)

[TatTvamAsi]

I fail to see how this pertains to Hindu Dharma or any of the Dharmic traditions for that matter.

First and foremost, "religion", as understood today, is not what Dharma is. This has been repeated ad nauseum on this forum and elsewhere. Hinduism, as a 'religion' is concerned more with experience rather than things like testimony, belief, and history (of its principal figures).

Thus, applying Abrahamic paradigms to Dharma not only convolutes the essence of the latter, but also confuses those who are either new to it or are not familiar with the underpinnings of its philosophy.

Hindus are not and should not be concerned with "explaining" themselves and their 'beliefs' to others. It not only detracts from one's sadhana (spiritual practice), it actually positively hinders it (as a distraction). That is why Hindu Dharma is a journey for the individual. It is not a 'one-size fits all' path and never was. Those who come from (or still remain) in ideologies that cater to egotistic fantasies (aka Abrahamic nonsense), will neither understand nor appreciate the profundity of the Dharmic approach.

Ergo, if someone is trying to "disprove" your beliefs, the best manner to counter them is to ignore them in totality. :)

I would also comment that a syllogistic approach to these issues is futile as that is a very weak form of 'logic'. Nyaya and other Hindu theories of logic take many more pointers into consideration before arriving at any given conclusion.

[wundermonk]

Hi K:

That is a long syllogism! Is the goal to prove that theism is a rational position to hold? IMHO, theism is based on faith, ultimately. All theistic arguments have atheistic rebuttals.

[devisarada]

I fail to see how this pertains to Hindu Dharma or any of the Dharmic traditions for that matter.

First and foremost, "religion", as understood today, is not what Dharma is. This has been repeated ad nauseum on this forum and elsewhere. Hinduism, as a 'religion' is concerned more with experience rather than things like testimony, belief, and history (of its principal figures).

Thus, applying Abrahamic paradigms to Dharma not only convolutes the essence of the latter, but also confuses those who are either new to it or are not familiar with the underpinnings of its philosophy.

Hindus are not and should not be concerned with "explaining" themselves and their 'beliefs' to others. It not only detracts from one's sadhana (spiritual practice), it actually positively hinders it (as a distraction). That is why Hindu Dharma is a journey for the individual. It is not a 'one-size fits all' path and never was. Those who come from (or still remain) in ideologies that cater to egotistic fantasies (aka Abrahamic nonsense), will neither understand nor appreciate the profundity of the Dharmic approach.

Ergo, if someone is trying to "disprove" your beliefs, the best manner to counter them is to ignore them in totality. :)

I would also comment that a syllogistic approach to these issues is futile as that is a very weak form of 'logic'. Nyaya and other Hindu theories of logic take many more pointers into consideration before arriving at any given conclusion.

Absolutely! Tat, you are so right!