Positive and negative atheism

Michael Martin elaborates on positive atheism vs negative atheism and explains that the former is the positive belief that there are no god(s), whereas the latter is just the absence of belief in any god(s). He then adds:

These categories should not be allowed to mask the complexity and variety of positions that atheists can hold, for a given individual can take different atheistic positions with respect to different concepts of God. Thus, a person might maintain that there is good reason to suppose that anthropomorphic gods such as Zeus do not exist and therefore be a positive atheist with respect to Zeus and similar gods. However, he or she could, for example, be only a negative atheist with respect to Paul Tillich’s God. In addition, people can and often do hold different atheistic positions with respect to different conceptions of a theistic God. For example, someone could be a positive atheist with respect to Aquinas’ God and only a negative atheist with repsect to St. Teresa’s God. (Martin 2007, p. 2)

Martin does not discuss the case of a person convinced that there is, for instance, no Zeus while they believe in the Christian God, possibly because he considers this just a case of inner-antagonism among theists. The phenomenon might be, however, more interesting than that, since it might have rather to do with a belief in a completely different kind of god. This is particularly evident in the case of Indian atheists who might be positive atheists regarding Īśvara or devatās, but then believe in brahman or in a personal god.

A quote from the Mahābhārata on sphoṭa?

Within a discussion on the sphoṭa in the Seśvaramīmāṃsā, Veṅkaṭanātha adds a quote he ascribes to the Mahābhārata. The quote is found in a different form in other printed works by Veṅkaṭanātha and in the various manuscripts of the Seśvaramīmāṃsā. However, I could not identify anything similar in the Mahābhārata itself.

The SM 1902 edition reads:

sphoṭas tvaṃ varṇasaṃghasthaḥ iti mahābhāratavacanam

The Mahābhārata statement “You are the sphoṭa, which is present in the conjunction of phonemes”.

Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions: Call for papers for the 2019 Symposium

I received the following announcement from Brian Black:

We invite proposals for papers for the 43rd Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions, which will be hosted by Lancaster University, 12-14 April 2019.

The theme this year is ‘gender’. Our purview includes both religions of South Asian origin wherever in the world they are being practised, and those of non South Asian origin present within South Asia. We welcome papers based upon all research methods, including textual, historical, ethnographic, sociological and philosophical.

Can you guess what manuscripts say?

A debate on sphoṭa

I am editing a portion of the Seśvaramīmāṃsā on a linguistic controversy about what is the vehicle of meaning. As often the case in Indian philosophy, an upholder of the sphoṭa theory speaks and says that the sphoṭa is the vehicle of the meaning, as hinted at by our own intuition that we understand a meaning śabdāt, i.e., from a unitary linguistic unit, not from various phonemes. The opponent replies saying that no independent sphoṭa exists independently and above the single phonemes, like no unitary assembly (pariṣad) exists independently of the single people composing it. The Sphoṭavādin replies that phonemes are unable to convey the meaning either one by one or collectively (because they never exist as a collective entity, given that they disappear right after having been pronounced.

We must be careful not to believe things simply because we want them to be true. No one can fool you as easily as you can fool yourself!

Richard Feynman

Teaching religious texts in a respectful way?

A colleague working in an area with a strong Indian minority sent me the following question:

Some of our Indian students have difficulty with how certain Sanskrit texts are taught. They are frustrated that we treat, e.g., the Rāmayāṇa as literature, and the Bhagavad Gītā as philosophy, and feel that this does not show respect to the texts. Our instructors have tried to challenge everyone to consider their definitions of what texts count as religious, whether from ancient Greece, China, or India, but some students still find these approaches to be disrespectful. I wonder if you have any thoughts about how to engage with students coming from (I’m guessing) relatively conservative Hindu contexts who are being taught their favorite religious texts in a non-religious way. Do you have any strategies for helping them feel less alienated? Or for demonstrating respect for the texts even while applying critical reading strategies?

Defending Atheism?

Julian Baggini is certainly right that being an atheist does not necessarily mean being an associate of the holocaust. Still, in order to defend atheism from the accusation of having been the cause of mass murders in the 20th century, Baggini seems to go very far:

[R]eligion is by nature not only divisive, but divisive in a way which elevates some people above others. It is not too fancicul, I think, to see how the centuries of religious tradition in Western society made possible the kind of distinction between the superior Aryans and the inferior others which Nazism required. (Baggini, Atheism, 2003, p. 86)

If Baggini is right, any thought implying distinctions (such as Plato’s utopian Republic) would lead to this kind of effect. And supporters of Christianity could claim that they were the ones who said that we are all children of God… Again, I am led to think that putting the history of atheism in a wider context, e.g., taking India and China into the picture would help enhancing the debate.

Research associates in Hamburg

Following the approval of the Cluster of Excellence “Understanding Written Artefacts”, the University of Hamburg invites applications for 55 new positions for research associates. The initial fixed term is three years. The application deadline is 16 November 2018.

Further information and calls for applications: https://www.written-artefacts.uni-hamburg.de/en/vacant-positions.html

6 ys post doc position in intercultural philosophy (Vienna)

I apologise for the late posting and hope it might be interesting for some readers.

University Assistant (post doc)
at the Department of Philosophy

Reference number: 8994

The advertised position is located at the Department of Philosophy which is part of the Faculty of Philosophy and Education. The Department of Philosophy at the University of Vienna is large in international comparison and its members are active within a considerable variety of research areas. The department furthermore offers a range of courses reflecting the breadth of the fields of philosophy while upholding the highest standards within each specialized subject area. Special focus is placed on gaining insight and developing competences in order to contribute to the discussion of current philosophical problems. This intention to acknowledge new philosophical developments and tasks is reflected in a number of co-operations and research fields of the department.