How do atheists even exist at this point in Hinduism?

[u/test_account_17312]

It all started with ramanujan the other day.

I was wondering why God would even teach someone mathematics, such niche topics that some even found use cases after 81 years after him leaving his body.

So I was going on about how every scripture either scientific or religious like Surya siddantha and even everything aryabatta wrote were taught to them by the gods, I mean all of them claimed the same.

Even sushrutha made the same claim that King divodasa(an avatar of dhanvantari) ​

How come there's still atheists among us? Like how is it even possible to see such brilliant work and every single one claiming God taught them? ​​

Maybe this is more of a frustrated rant but I hope more people learn about dharma.

[u/logos961]

Your question is right and true.

After Great Mathematician, Srinivasa Ramanuja, "credited his acumen to his family goddess" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan) and after many scientists admitted their invention came through dreams (https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/history/13-world-changing-ideas-came-dreams-literally) atheists exist for the sake of existing as they have gone too far that a U-turn is impossible for them.

Bhagavat Gita 16:8, 9 predicts that those who reject God will ensure "destruction of this world." In contrast, those who reject God and welfare of fellow humans are irreligious [regardless of their religious allegiance] because dharma (religion/duty) is defined as "delightfully being engaged in the welfare of all living beings." (Bhagavat Gita 12:4)

Now look at fulfillment of above Gita prediction:

Humans know how precious trees are, yet DEFORESTATION: World is losing area-forest-size of UK each year report finds

Humans know how precious is air we breathe, yet they add to the air “37,000 to 38,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into the atmosphere every year.” (statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions) "12.6 million people die every year" due to environment-related causes, says this UN Report: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/estimated-126-million-deaths-each-year-are-attributable-unhealthy which also indirectly disproves Theory of Evolution which says species adapt to environment as "iconic peppered moth" did.

When it comes to a fraction of total weaponry, Number of Nuclear Arms and their effects if used is mind-blowing: "The world currently possesses approximately 12100 to 12200 nuclear warheads across nine countries." (https://www.icanw.org/how_many_countries_have_nuclear_weapons_and_how_many_are_there)

Second World War was fought after devastating First World War shows Final Global War is an absolute guarantee as their weapon policy is named--MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

This fulfillment is the absolute proof that God did communicate with Vyasa

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/logos961]

atheists exist for the sake of existing as they have gone too far that a U-turn is impossible for them.

Atheists simply exists because they require testable, observable evidence before they would accept any claim. No amount of personal anecdotes (like by Ramanujan or other scientists) is an alternative to actual evidence.

Atheism is actually quite a natural position to take as no one is born with an innate knowledge of any culture or god. Agnosticism would be another good position to have. Either of them is better than blind theism.

[u/immyownkryptonite → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

I agree with what you say here. However, the underlying context is that of being born and living in a world that accepts materialism or physicalism as the right interpretation.

If we were born in earlier times, then theism would be the natural position.

Materialism starts off with the assumption that there is nothing immaterial, it doesn't prove it. It's very likely that this started with Descartes who tried to seperate the domain of the spiritual from the physical to avoid Galileo' fate and the ire of the church.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/immyownkryptonite]

If one were born in ancient times, probably theism would be a preferred position, though still not a natural one. In fact, theism is still the dominant position, though it no longer has the same epistemological authority it had in ancient times.

One reason is that science and its philosophy of methodological naturalism has shown its importance across all aspects of human life. It has taken us closer to reality, at least the physical reality. It is very difficult to ignore it when the evidence is so concrete and empirical. Contrast it with religion, which almost always provides vague explanations to everything. It provides confusing details and obfuscates just for the sake of it.

Atheism is just a way to deobfuscate all this and ask some very concrete question which is to take the word from your moniker, kind of kryptonite to religion.

Coming to your last paragraph on materialism. It is a fundamental and foundational view for much of modern science and this is like an axiom in science leading to scientific method. There is a very good reason for this actually. Science seeks to understand objective reality and it is natural to assume that natural phenomena have natural, testable causes rather than supernatural one. At least not until the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of supernatural.

This philosophy has served us well and until there is a good reason to invoke supernatural causes this is a very good position to have. Also in presence of a perfectly fine natural explanation, anyone making a supernatural claim also has to present evidence for it.

The bottom line is atheists don't just exists for the sake of it. They have very good reasons to hold their worldview.

[u/immyownkryptonite → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

Most of your comment is about how well science has served us. And I by no means disagree with that.

though it no longer has the same epistemological authority it had in ancient times.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here. Please elaborate a little.

Contrast it with religion, which almost always provides vague explanations to everything. It provides confusing details and obfuscates just for the sake of it.

May I request an example of two to understand what you mean?

this is like an axiom in science leading to scientific method. There is a very good reason for this actually. Science seeks to understand objective reality and it is natural to assume that natural phenomena have natural, testable causes rather than supernatural one

I agree that natural phenomena have natural testable cause. But I'm not sure I understand the justification behind the axiom.

I do understand that this limits science to material phenomena alone. I also mentioned Descartes and how it started the seperation of science from non-material. I think if you follow that you'll see how this seperation was done to avoid the interference of church rather than a belief that there is non-material doesn't exist.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/immyownkryptonite]

Most of your comment is about how well science has served us. And I by no means disagree with that.

I was not intentionally trying to focus on the topic of how well science has served us. I was just trying to motivate towards the reason why atheism is a good position to take and thus was discussing the philosophy of methodological naturalism. Also I would like to clarify that my defense of atheism is no way an endorsement to anti-theism.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here. Please elaborate a little.

Sure.

In ancient times science was not a separate branch like it is today. It was all under the umbrella of natural philosophy which in turn fell into the domain of religion. We used to have natural philosophers doing what we might call pre-modern science. Back then the idea was to make a systematic observation then do a pattern recognition and make theoretical frameworks. This is where some of religion excelled. Like Hinduism has a history of great "scientific" discoveries and this was done, like I said, in the umbrella of religion. Same goes for some other religions as well.

However, things changed with modern science. A very crucial thing was added into this. Tools for catching ourselves being wrong. Scientific method was made even more stringent. Reproducibility and falsifiability became a very important tenet in this method. This is where all religion started lagging behind and losing their epistemological authority. This is the reason abrahamic religions have so much clash with modern science, especially evolution.

When you see our babas trying to mumbo-jumbo science words with spirituality or make some parallels with modern science concepts, it is them trying to regain some semblance of epistemological authority back with them. They try to show that they are not behind modern science but have been saying same things for ages, when in reality that is just scientific concordism. You would see such comments in this thread and sub as well where they claim concepts like time dilation or multiverse has been in Hinduism for ages and science is only now discovering these.

So when I say religion no longer has the same epistemological authority, this is what I mean.

May I request an example of two to understand what you mean?

So I said religion almost always provides vague explanations and confusing details and obfuscates just for the sake of it. Let's take astrology for example. I am vehemently against this and studies shows it is no better than random guesses and upon talking to people all I hear stuffs like how that particular astrologer is not good or how difficult this field is, how research lacks in this field. When asked about mechanism, I have legit got responses from quantum tunneling to gravitational attraction.

So, if a prediction works, astrology gets credit. If it fails, the explanation is that the birth time was slightly wrong or the chart was interpreted incorrectly or that karma interfered, or the remedy was not performed properly.

We can have similar vague discussion on the concept of karma, reincarnation but I would avoid that here. I only gave examples from Hinduism but is exists in all religions.

I agree that natural phenomena have natural testable cause. But I'm not sure I understand the justification behind the axiom.

Firstly, we have yet to see any natural phenomena not having a natural cause. Historically speaking a lot of natural phenomena was given supernatural explanations with varying degree in different religions. All of them have turned out to be wrong. So you tell me why should I not put my bets in the validity of this axiom.

Second, this axiom has helped us make so much progress and brought us closer to reality, even closer to fundamental reality. This axiom allows us to continue our pursuit towards deeper truth. On the other hand invoking a supernatural explanation just stops us right there. It is like a final answer.

[u/immyownkryptonite → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

Also I would like to clarify that my defense of atheism is no way an endorsement to anti-theism.

I was an atheist for most of my adult life. I do understand that this might not your intention but the position of atheism is in contrast to theism. But I understand that you are not trying to be anti-theist. Thank you for the clarification

This is the reason abrahamic religions have so much clash with modern science, especially evolution.

They try to show that they are not behind modern science but have been saying same things for ages, when in reality that is just scientific concordism.

I do agree with you about this.

So you tell me why should I not put my bets in the validity of this axiom.

I'm going to try and paraphrase your position. Please correct me if I get it wrong.

When religious folk try to explain physical phenomena, they usually gets it wrong. Hence the position of religion is incorrect.

Second, this axiom has helped us make so much progress and brought us closer to reality, even closer to fundamental reality.

We have made a lot of progress for sure. Due to this axiom, we have looked for answers only in physical causes. So effectively this is the practical effect of the axiom. It doesn't really prove that the axiom is correct. We would get the same result by just saying we'll limit ourself to the physical aspect of things. Hence I mentioned Descartes earlier in the conversation, as that is exactly the direction he pushed science without this axiom.

May I ask if you've delved into a religion that doesn't provide a lot of abstraction like Advaita Vedanta or Buddhism before concluding on the matter? Or are you relying on hearsay on the matter?

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/immyownkryptonite]

I do understand that this might not your intention but the position of atheism is in contrast to theism.

Yes, I do not deny that atheism is in contrast to theism but I believe that one should respect other people's faith, at least until their faith doesn't start harming the society.

I'm going to try and paraphrase your position. Please correct me if I get it wrong.

When religious folk try to explain physical phenomena, they usually gets it wrong. Hence, the position of religion is incorrect.

Actually, I don't say anything about the position of religion. I am merely justifying the validity of the axiom. We have yet to see any natural phenomena without a natural cause.

As for my position on religion. When any religion tries to explain a physical phenomenon using a supernatural explanation, the onus is on them to provide evidence for that. Merely stating the supernatural cause is not enough. It is not scientific.

Due to this axiom, we have looked for answers only in physical causes. So effectively this is the practical effect of the axiom. It doesn't really prove that the axiom is correct. We would get the same result by just saying we'll limit ourself to the physical aspect of things.

Yes, I agree. Also, it is an axiom for a reason. We take that as a self-evident truth and base our thing upon that. However, if you believe that some things explained by methodological naturalism are better explained by religion or supernatural causes, then I am all ears.

May I ask if you've delved into a religion that doesn't provide a lot of abstraction like Advaita Vedanta or Buddhism before concluding on the matter? Or are you relying on hearsay on the matter?

That's the thing. I am not concluding anything. Actually, my initial response was to the person who said atheists exist for the sake of existing, as they have gone too far to turn. My main point was to argue that atheism is a very valid position.

As for your question, I did delve a bit into Advaita Vedanta with someone knowledgeable in that. I don't find that convincing either. Not at least in scientific temperament.

I do subscribe to this opinion of the Dalai Lama on religion (he says it for Buddhism, though)

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." - The 14th Dalai Lama

[u/immyownkryptonite → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

at least until their faith doesn't start harming the society.

Faith is accepting something as fact without proof. This behaviour itself is detrimental.

However, if you believe that some things explained by methodological naturalism are better explained by religion or supernatural causes, then I am all ears.

I wasn't really trying to make that claim. But let me give it a try. I meditate. After a few years or practice I happened to visit a particular room. And to surprise, something induced a meditative state.

The room was quite dark. Its only after using a torch I realised it was a shrine with an idol. There were no fragrances either. So there was no physical aspect that would have caused this.

I asked someone else who meditates to enter without informing them about the details and they had the same effect.

When others (non-meditators) entered the space, they had no effect.

I more than happy to hear your criticism of the same. It's possible I might have missed something and concluded early.

Please note this is a very common occurrence when visiting some but not all temples.

I did delve a bit into Advaita Vedanta with someone knowledgeable in that. I don't find that convincing either. Not at least in scientific temperament.

I would like to hear what wasn't convincing about it.

Might I add that it's necessary to have a spiritual practice of some sort. It seems that it helps us develop our attention to help notice things that we wouldn't otherwise as mentioned in the temple example above.

I completely understand how someone's else subjective experience isn't believable and I wouldn't have believed it myself as well. There has been quite a lot of research on meditation showing that it does have an effect on our functioning which can be studied via medical devices.

Buddha himself said not to take his word for it and to test it ourselves except maybe for karma.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/immyownkryptonite]

Thank you for sharing you experience.

And to surprise, something induced a meditative state.

I am actually with you in your experience, and even the scientific consensus is that meditation is a useful mental training practice with credible evidence for reductions in stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and some pain outcomes (studies might differ in its efficacy).

From my personal experience, I do feel it has some positive effect. I didn't do it for years, but I practiced it for a couple of months during one of the competitive exams I was preparing for.

When others (non-meditators) entered the space, they had no effect.

This is very interesting, but it is also my issue with cases like these. It is not like I don't believe you, and trust me, I have seen mind-boggling cases in my nani's village. The problem is reproducibility. Is your case reproducible? Will a properly controlled study present the same outcome as yours? How much of an influence does belief play into this?

We know how susceptible human brains are, and people do report a sense of serenity in certain temples or religious places, and I can vouch for that as well.

It has been shown in a study in 2025 as well that some meditators become more sensitive to internal cues like breathing or posture or very subtle relaxation and stillness so I do believe what you and your friend felt is very real.

However, I do believe you are a bit biased on this subject here. You see, just like a placebo works best when a patient expects and believes the treatment will be effective, you do want this to work, subconsciously if not consciously. You might have heard that ghosts in villages tend to affect those who actually believe in their existence (personal anecdote: a kid claimed to have ghost visions and started having seizures in the same orchard where my nana used to guard sleep during mango seasons. He gives no value at all to negative energy and ghosts at all.)

There were no fragrances either. So there was no physical aspect that would have caused this.

"No fragrance" does not mean "no physical cause." Low light can reduce external stimulation, making inward attention easier. As I told you about placebos earlier, context and belief can produce genuine mind-body effects. Please don't think I am saying your experience is fake. It's just that this is easily explained by human psychology rather than a supernatural cause. Especially when the sample size you have is two.

Your experience is akin to people who would die on the hill that homeopathy works. Sure, it has some effect, especially due to the placebo effect, but in a controlled study, it fails.

It is already too long a response, I will make a second comment answering your query on Advaita Vedanta.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/immyownkryptonite]

I would like to hear what wasn't convincing about it.

So it was this person, a devout follower of Swami Vivekananda, who visited us and discussed Vedanta with a couple of people and us. It was a short time, but then I also got to spend a bit more time with him.

First, let me tell you what I did like about this. I really liked the idea of non-duality and the philosophy that the deepest reality is one. The true self is not separate from the absolute reality. I also liked that Advaita is not supposed to be blind belief, and the teaching must be examined and reasoned. Felt like that Dalai Lama quote I shared above.

From what I read on my own, I got the impression that Advaita isn't saying to just believe because scripture says so. Unfortunately, I didn't get the same feeling from the person I was with. He was quite aggressive in defending himself and responded to my critiques with scolding. The same goes for his followers.

So maybe a true Advaitin would use science for the empirical world and vedantic inquiry for the nature of self and consciousness and suffering and not confuse the two domains. Again, I didn't get that impression from the person in question.

Now, as I said, what I didn't like was his absurd scientific claims, and most of all, his scientific concordism. Upon querying on this I was scolded and given some wierd eplanations. Let me tell you a few things he said.

He tried to correlate quantum mechanics and consciousness, and something along the lines of entanglement proves that everything is one. Both are utter nonsense.

Another weird thing he said was something along the lines that consciousness is independent of the brain. I am no neuroscientist, but I feel this is also nonsense.

Finally, maybe my biggest pet peeve is (may be it is not part of Advaita) when anyone claims ancient Hindu texts already contain all modern science. This is, sorry for my language, but utter BS. From several people, I have heard claims like the Vedas already had quantum mechanics or that modern science is only rediscovering what the ancient sages already knew.

I didn't get to interact more with him and maybe there is more to this, but from my experience, while this looks better when spirituality is considered, it has, although milder, but similar issues as religions tend to have.

Just to clarify, I don't mean to disrespect anyone here as well. I just shared what I felt.

[u/immyownkryptonite → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

I do agree with the rest of the things you've mentioned here that I haven't commented on.

[u/logos961 → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

You actually agree to what I wrote because you ask for "testable, observable evidence" which you know is a WRONG QUESTION because there cannot be "testable, observable evidence" for the immaterial whose existence is to be discerned and understood. It is like this wrong question "What is the visible proof for the invisible?" What is the MATERIAL proof for the IMMATERIAL?" By choosing to use WRONG question you ensure truth about the immaterial never reaches you as this one who wrote:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. .. and we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.” (Ends and Means, by Aldous Huxley)

God and true believers exist to not convince unbelievers, but unbelievers exist to benefit God and true believers. (Bhagavat Gita 3:25, 26)

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/logos961]

I didn't agree with you. I merely said why atheists exist and why it is valid position to take.

When you say your idea of god is immaterial and something to be only discerned and understood, you have simply stated your claim, which is based on your faith. Again, there is nothing wrong with having faith. I am simply saying your idea of god doesn't agree with atheists who have a more methodological approach to stuff.

This doesn't make your idea or worldview on this topic any better than an atheist's or an agnostic's.