anyways, you really need to study more, read more and contemplate more before calling  some jainism theories as “false” because that is not the way of science as well. 

twitter/jainism

I think that karma can be observed. It is really just the principle of your deeds coming back to you. This principle may not hold strictly true on a personal level — you and I know unethical people who have prospered greatly and suffered few consequences — but collectively, I believe we can see the basic concept of karma affirmed. Look at how we live, without regard for the long term consequences of our actions. We see what this is doing to the environment on which we depend. When we failt to invest in education, we get young people who can’t get jobs –> become desperate –> turn to crime. This cycle plays out not with flawless accuracy on an individual level, but on a societal level it does. And, more often than not, we can see “karma” (or use whatever word you want) play out on an individual level. More often than not, as my grandmother would say, “the chickens come home to roost.” There are consequences to behaving carelessly or exploitatively.

I think that if you interpret karma more loosely, the concept of karma can be valid. Also, if you think of karma as a collective phenomena rather than an individual one, its is a good way to create an understanding of how all things come back to us.

We have been pouring pesticides on our lawns for decades to kill insects we found pesky. “Bad karma.” The pesticide runoff is impacting water quality, fish, etcetera. Also, it is now believed that a particular pesticide is responsible for the deaths of the honey bees, without which we lose a key pollinator.

Global warming is another example of what could be called “karma.” Our harmful behavior toward other creatures, gluttonous and wanton use of resources far beyond what we truly need, and overpopulation are coming back at us, by destroying the atmosphere on which we depend for life.

These can be seen as purely scientific phenomena, entirely explicable physically. And they are. But they can also be seen in their moral or ethical dimension as karma. In this sense, I see these Jain beliefs, interpreted from a more modern viewpoint, as compatible with science.

You might rightly ask: Why have ANY religion? You don’t need to adopt an external system of proscribed beliefs to understand these realities. True. But an ethical system is in some ways a “shortcut” or provides convenient metaphors for moral principles.

I think that is quite clearly Dawkins & Harris’ point. They don’t endorse any religion. They just pointed out the pervasive power of belief. More specifically, how one belief can result in violence while another can yield the exact opposite. In other words, they are indicating that it’s not just inherrent human nature to be bad – these religios doctrines have a powerful effect on our behavior and reasoning. That is their point.

Your article reads like a refutation of this point, or at least a misunderstanding of this point. They never endorse Jainism or indicate a lack of knowledge on the subject. More importantly, they never say there is NOTHING illogical in Jainism (or any other religion.) They don’t even imply that.

“For all the insults Harris/Dawkins bestow on religions that have similar beliefs, they are too kind to Jainism.”

No they aren’t too kind. They never excuse it as an acceptable religion. That’s never their point when they bring it up, and saying it is is unrepresentative of what they are talking about.

Why would they hurl “insults”? They carefully save those for the immoral beliefs brought to us by religion: Advocating the death penalty for apostasy, acceptance of human sacrifice, endorsement of slavery/stoning/killing, the commitment of those who don’t accept gods divinity to hell etc. They usually don’t say “hey, how about those silly hats jews wear?!” or “how about that silly belief in karma!” because its implicit in their stance and really does not need “insulting”.

—

This is just my lengthy opinion, and I didn’t mean it as a debate or argument. Infact, we agree on most things as I am a fellow atheist. I have a lot of respect for the fact that you run this blog.

So, if you’re going to reply, I’d ask that you spell out the blatant absurdities that bother you so much about fundamental Jain philosophy.

Where do I start…? Belief in heaven/hell? Karma? Reincarnation? knowledge of Thirthankars’ lives? Belief in Nirvana/moksha?

Like I said, Jainism isn’t as bad as other faiths, but it has its fair share of false beliefs.

I’m an atheist and former Jain myself.

“give credit to Jainism as a good philosophy and simply ignore the fact that it also teaches patently absurd beliefs that have no place in our society”

What Dawkins, Harris, and others do is to display that religion can have very real effects. One promoting violence can (and will in some cases) lead to it. That is all.

It seems you take issue with not calling out Jainism at every chance. I find this interesting, because you yourself have trouble finding things to call it out for, specifically speaking.

The problem is that if you look at Jainism scientifically, or analytically, they do not denounce evolution and they do not really believe in a God. If someone in Jainisim is praying to God for help, they are simply doing it wrong. Jains themselves aspire to be “godly” and consider those who have done so to be teachers. Demigods etc don’t really seem to play a significant role and are often misunderstood because they are often comprehended as “gods” as described in other religions/mythology.

So, if you’re going to reply, I’d ask that you spell out the blatant absurdities that bother you so much about fundamental Jain philosophy.

A few last things…

Jains do not claim to know about evolutionary science – the texts are rather old – however it’s quite clear to most that Jains believe in evolution and do not believe in creation (they believe the world has always been here, in some way or another – which is in line with science.)

So your only other issue (stated so far) was reincarnation. As an atheist I cannot accept this paradigm, however it is a religion – so of course we (as atheists) must reject it. But on the scale of all theistic philosophy it’s just not what we as atheists find offensive though, as it doesn’t carry many implications other than being nice to everyone (a principle of natural human nature, shared by atheists.)

Also, I do have problems with any Jain who believes in reincarnation or the concept of karma actually existing. Those are both ridiculous notions, not based in reality. Is it harmful? Certainly not in the same way other religions’ dogmas are. But it’s mythology accepted as fact in the Jain community. That’s why I cannot call myself a Jain and I encourage others not to, either.

I still follow certain Jain values (vegetarianism, for one) but those ethics transcend life cycles and thirthankars and religions. Why not just drop the silly stories and follow the good teachings? We don’t need Jainism to follow them.

Anyway, I know you didn’t ask for that sort of response But I don’t like it when people give credit to Jainism as a good philosophy and simply ignore the fact that it also teaches patently absurd beliefs that have no place in our society. I think Jainism teaches wonderful ethics, but that doesn’t mean people should adopt all the baggage that comes with it.

While Jains may be technically atheists, most Jains I know will admit to believing in a god. Furthermore, Jains still believe in supernatural deities and superstitious nonsense. To me, that’s the same thing.

I appreciate your comment!

– Hemant

Its almost like saying I used to be a Tic Tac addict but now I have broken my addiction! I can talk about my struggles and do a blog about how I transformed from being an addict to not being an addict anymore and hold talk and conferences about my harrowing experience.

I don’t mean to say this as an insult but just to express my profound curiosity of your position.

Thanks.

I am a Jain but I am a Scientist and fully acknowledge the fact of evolution and the scientific process. In modern Jainism you will find that notions of evolution are rarely if ever discussed or touched on and indeed in the very document you provide there is no strong opposition to evolution that is taken. Instead the position is really more of indifference or lack of emphasis. It is RADICALLY different than the fundamentalist Christian stance that demands evolution be false and the age of the earth be 10,000 or so years old. Saying Jainism doesn’t agree with Darwinian evolution is not as correct as saying it is really indifferent to it. The only principles that Jains (certain Jains) follow is the notion of the never ending cycle which you mention. Indeed even Stephan Hawking in his writing remarked on the possibility of a universe with no beginning.

In regards to karma and reincarnation there is no doubt that this belief is strongly held. Personally I don’t give too much weight to it one way or another and instead choose to focus on Jainism as a philosophy and taking the teachings of Mahavir about learning how to best improve myself and live life. Regardless this and many more mystical components of the religion are magnitudes less harmful then the beliefs of other religions such as those of Islam and thus criticism of them should be markedley less. Yes they are typically mystical and without Scientific merit but at least they do not negatively impact society. Moreover I think young Jains (especially in my temple at least) are growing up with the ability to understand that such principles are more metaphysical and thus not as prudent in the immediacy of their lives.

Of course I am biased but Jainism is really the highest religion (or philosophy). A religion whose core tenet is Non-violence no matter what (even if someone insults Mahavir or damages your temple, you do not respond, you do not go on holy wars or kill people to defend your religion). This is a great and pure example of a religion that has mostly beneficial effects and little negative effects.

The same arguments apply to karmic theory being a non-harmful belief. If you look at the totality of Jainism it really drives the individual and society to respect others, never harm others and operate in the noblest possible manner.

When Dawkins discusses about how morality should never come from the bible or christianity he is absolutely right. But is Jainism a good template of morality? Absolutely it is.