On the basis of this type of argument, you should consider Judaism more: the mass revelation argument for Judaism https://youtu.be/VarUODJ9uPo?si=RQaN773xBODJz3pT, survival despite threats to end (a low probability prediction made in the Torah), going back to the land of Israel after a lot of years (also a prediction made), small nation becoming the successor to the two largest religions in the world, and more.
I also have some sympathy for elements of Hinduism (as did C.S. Lewis, as does David Bentley Hart). But a few scatted thoughts (in the order I had them, rather than the order in which the relevant parts appear in the piece):
"Not all Hindus are vegetarian, but about 4 in 10 Hindus in India are, and 8 in 10 place some restriction on meat in their diets."
Unfortunately, this is probably net negative (as vegetarianism promotes egg consumption, maybe the worst thing from an animal welfare perspective, and the dietary restrictions discourage beef consumption, probably the least bad thing from an animal welfare perspective). Hard to know exactly how to think about this, as the underlying principles are good and the bad consequences are maybe because of things unique to modern conditions.
"Also, if you buy the highly convincing anthropic argument for theism—an entailment of which is that God has created every possible person—it’ll turn out to be the case that, in all likelihood, for every Hindu minor deity, there exists a person God has created who is both (a) equal in power to that deity, and (b) has the precise character traits the deity is said to have."
I don't see how this is supposed to follow, assuming (as I think you think?) that what's essential to me is my haecceity rather than my power level and character traits.
"Christianity which, while not incompatible with pre-existence, doesn’t have a pre-existence doctrine at the core of its tradition, or even on the periphery."
The part about the periphery is false (Origen, etc.).
Re: karma, it seems to me that the idea of post-mortem punishment serves the same function re: desert while also avoiding potential counter-intuitive/repugnant moral implications (is the starving kid starving because they're being punished? should I therefore not help them? etc.).
"The best move here is to revise moksha a bit"
Idk, I think the revision is awfully important--so important that it really kind of calls into question whether the doctrine can serve the same purpose. The problem of evil seems much easier to me to solve if this present darkness is an infinitesimal blip at a beginning that's leading somewhere else than if it's the same damn thing forever. It does seem like, wherever it's leading, this life doesn't always do a good job of leading there--you can fix with either purgatory or reincarnation. But on the Huemer view, it's not leading anywhere over the long term.
Re: religious experience, I think Hinduism may have some advantage here insofar as it's more naturally inclined to some sort of pluralism. But the monotheistic traditions still have angels, archons, spirits, fae, etc. I think you could get a lot of the same stuff in that framework. (Think of Lewis' space trilogy, where the Roman gods basically do exist and rule planets--they are just something more like angels and demons.)
It's cool that you're interested in this type of thing. I recently got my Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies, where I did my dissertation on the problem of evil from a Hindu perspective. I've also published various papers on Hindu philosophy of religion. I'd love to talk more about this with you if you're still interested in exploring Hindu theism further - Hindu philosophy of religion is growing and there's a lot of promise in the field. I don't know if I'll check this comment thread much, but my email is akshayg95@yahoo.com if you wanted to chat more.
I think most of these work better for Sikhism (the most true religion!) Also, the Sikh conception of God and scriptural canon is a lot more organic and congruent with a rationally derived theism.
Nice post, I also recommend you look into Hinduism’s sister religion, Zoroastrianism. Both are surviving examples of the Indo-European religious family that once spanned India to Iceland.
Somewhat OT, but as a substance dualist, what do you see the role of the brain being?
Wouldn't some version of Neoplatonism be a better fit? It also has reincarnation and ethical vegetarianism, both God and minor gods, and is even more parsimonious than Hinduism. Neoplatonists also were explicit fictionalists about classic pagan myths.
Good post! Though FWIW, Huemer's proof works if you either accept SIA or think the future is infinite in the past or future (you don't need both--if there will be infinite people, the odds I'd be around now are zero).
On the basis of this type of argument, you should consider Judaism more: the mass revelation argument for Judaism https://youtu.be/VarUODJ9uPo?si=RQaN773xBODJz3pT, survival despite threats to end (a low probability prediction made in the Torah), going back to the land of Israel after a lot of years (also a prediction made), small nation becoming the successor to the two largest religions in the world, and more.
I also have some sympathy for elements of Hinduism (as did C.S. Lewis, as does David Bentley Hart). But a few scatted thoughts (in the order I had them, rather than the order in which the relevant parts appear in the piece):
"Not all Hindus are vegetarian, but about 4 in 10 Hindus in India are, and 8 in 10 place some restriction on meat in their diets."
Unfortunately, this is probably net negative (as vegetarianism promotes egg consumption, maybe the worst thing from an animal welfare perspective, and the dietary restrictions discourage beef consumption, probably the least bad thing from an animal welfare perspective). Hard to know exactly how to think about this, as the underlying principles are good and the bad consequences are maybe because of things unique to modern conditions.
"Also, if you buy the highly convincing anthropic argument for theism—an entailment of which is that God has created every possible person—it’ll turn out to be the case that, in all likelihood, for every Hindu minor deity, there exists a person God has created who is both (a) equal in power to that deity, and (b) has the precise character traits the deity is said to have."
I don't see how this is supposed to follow, assuming (as I think you think?) that what's essential to me is my haecceity rather than my power level and character traits.
"Christianity which, while not incompatible with pre-existence, doesn’t have a pre-existence doctrine at the core of its tradition, or even on the periphery."
The part about the periphery is false (Origen, etc.).
Re: karma, it seems to me that the idea of post-mortem punishment serves the same function re: desert while also avoiding potential counter-intuitive/repugnant moral implications (is the starving kid starving because they're being punished? should I therefore not help them? etc.).
"The best move here is to revise moksha a bit"
Idk, I think the revision is awfully important--so important that it really kind of calls into question whether the doctrine can serve the same purpose. The problem of evil seems much easier to me to solve if this present darkness is an infinitesimal blip at a beginning that's leading somewhere else than if it's the same damn thing forever. It does seem like, wherever it's leading, this life doesn't always do a good job of leading there--you can fix with either purgatory or reincarnation. But on the Huemer view, it's not leading anywhere over the long term.
Re: religious experience, I think Hinduism may have some advantage here insofar as it's more naturally inclined to some sort of pluralism. But the monotheistic traditions still have angels, archons, spirits, fae, etc. I think you could get a lot of the same stuff in that framework. (Think of Lewis' space trilogy, where the Roman gods basically do exist and rule planets--they are just something more like angels and demons.)
It's cool that you're interested in this type of thing. I recently got my Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies, where I did my dissertation on the problem of evil from a Hindu perspective. I've also published various papers on Hindu philosophy of religion. I'd love to talk more about this with you if you're still interested in exploring Hindu theism further - Hindu philosophy of religion is growing and there's a lot of promise in the field. I don't know if I'll check this comment thread much, but my email is akshayg95@yahoo.com if you wanted to chat more.
I think most of these work better for Sikhism (the most true religion!) Also, the Sikh conception of God and scriptural canon is a lot more organic and congruent with a rationally derived theism.
Nice post, I also recommend you look into Hinduism’s sister religion, Zoroastrianism. Both are surviving examples of the Indo-European religious family that once spanned India to Iceland.
Somewhat OT, but as a substance dualist, what do you see the role of the brain being?
Wouldn't some version of Neoplatonism be a better fit? It also has reincarnation and ethical vegetarianism, both God and minor gods, and is even more parsimonious than Hinduism. Neoplatonists also were explicit fictionalists about classic pagan myths.
Good post! Though FWIW, Huemer's proof works if you either accept SIA or think the future is infinite in the past or future (you don't need both--if there will be infinite people, the odds I'd be around now are zero).