Dawkins and Jainism

Wow Hemant, all I can say it that I think you have erred tremendously in this article. I will provide my view and I hope I do not disrespect or offend anyone. I only mean to do so in a respectful friendly manner.

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.

I have recently been looking into Jainism and I have to say that while I agree the idea of individual reincarnation is proposterous, I do not find the idea of karma preposterous — only the metaphors used to help one understand “karma.” Since Jainism is so ancient, they may have created concepts to embody beliefs that were at that time unexplainable by science.

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’m not a jain and i am not defending jainism, but I am not sure how you can be so sure that the metaphor of karma (yes, i know jains believe it is a physical substance which sticks to you, and that is pretty preposterous) is not true.

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.

It has been a year since my last comment but I happened upon this page and felt the need to reply.

Firstly as I mentioned I am not in disagreement about evolution or the scientific method but I feel the problem with your analysis is you are taking 1 small relatively non-important stance (indifference to evolution that some Jains may have) and blowing it far out of proportion. Jains are very scientific and logic oriented people. They will in general not decry or criticize evolution or science and most will openly acknowledge it. Jainism simply has no firm stance on the matter unlike Islam, Christianity or practically any theistic religion. Additionally to say not admitting evolution as fact is as bad as saying its wrong is a laughable point. The latter is clearly much more severe in terms of its infraction upon the intellectual analysis of reality.

You remark about letting go of baggage about reincarnation and karma and I do appreciate this point. But to not believe in these aspects and still follow the principles of Jainism does not make you a non-Jain in my view. The most important aspect of the Jain practice is not thinking about the next life or past lives or about your soul/karma, it is simply being a good person and not harming other people or living things (or as little as possible in the case of microorganisms and plants). The talk of karma is merely a mythological way enforcing the ultimate tenet of non-violence. An intelligent follower of the religion can easily disregard this aspect of it, still follow Jainism like a philosophy and visit the Jain temple/partake in Jain activities.

You don’t care to pray to Tirthankara and thats fine but doing so is not illogical even from an atheistic perspective.   Tirthankaras like Mahavir are no more than inspirational people who we strive to be like. When we bow down to them its no different then bowing doing to our parents or a master sensei in a dojo after martial arts training.  Furthermore, Tirthankaras are deistic entities. They do not influence our world, they don’t grant us wishes, they don’t forgive us, they don’t bring about miracles when we cry out for them. They are simply role-models we aspire to be like. When you pray to them you are really reinforcing your desire to have the strength to emulate them and their profound examples of non-violence. 

As for the Jains you know that believe in ‘god’, you can inform them that they have no idea of what their religion even is. There is no theistic, creationist or intervening  ‘god’ in Jainism. You can perhaps pluck out what might be considered ‘gods’ in the Jain mythology, but that is a far cry from the interventional judeo-christian god. Their belief in such a singular god has nothing to do with Jainism and simply demonstrates their lack of understanding of the religion rather than any point against Jainism as a religion. Thus, such an argument is baseless and irrelevant save to say it would be apt to educate these people further about their religion and the incongruency between such beliefs and the Jain religion.

Through my writing on your blog I simply cannot distance myself from the truth of my tic-tac analogy because thats what this entire blog, posts and your speaking out as an Atheist amounts to. I’m glad you gave up the tic-tac addiction… but was there any big paradigm shift or accomplishment made to begin with? While you decline to walk anywhere near candy stands for fear of conjuring up horrors of your old addiction to the minty white abominations, other individuals (breaking faith with religions of much more substantial violations of the intellectual pursuit of reality and morality) are getting over nicotine, alcohol, cocaine and heroin dependence. Please keep this analogy in mind when doing any further writings or when thinking about yourself and the stance you have taken.

Thanks.

As for the other two points, just trusting in our 5 senses is arbitrary as it is so my philosophy is just believe what you want since we all have a tiny chance of getting it right.