i am normally skeptical of straight-line functional inferences from religious beliefs, but my personal experience suggests to me that there really is something to hindu reverence for nature because of the dominant philosophical monism within that religion. in contrast, muslims tend to espouse a set of values more in keeping with the abrahamic conception of the earth as man's dominion, given to him by god, for his pleasure. this is too extreme, but my parents would always find it amusing how soft-hearted their friends from west bengal were about animals. in fact, my father used to joke that hindus were more tender-hearted toward animals than they were toward muslims!

Arab sheikhs fly into Pakistan every year to hunt the endangered houbara bustard, carving up the deserts into exclusive playgrounds

my father used to joke that hindus were more tender-hearted toward animals than they were toward muslims!

Hmm..... I'd say your parents weren't far wrong, Razib. Anybody remember the incident last year in Maharashtra of Gujarat where 5 dalits were killed by the feudal upper class for killing a cow and selling the meat?

Maharashtra or Gujarat

Interesting point razib. I would add Hinduism isn't necessarily predominantly monistic, I think that is the philosophical bent of the Upanishads and the Arya Samajis, whereas there are some dualists, and some "qualified non-dualists". Also the Vedas and the religion as-practiced today in most temples is probably closer to polytheistic. Maybe Saheli can enlighten us on this further, she seems to know this stuff well. You are right though, respect for animals pretty much pervades all of these branches.

Also I'm no Sufi scholar but I suspect Sufism and devotional Islam had a pretty decent regard for nature as well (judging from the ghazals and the art), maybe more so than traditional Koranic Islam. That is one of the things I love most about South Asia, is that it added diversity of thought to ideas and philosophies that came in. Which is why it is so annoying that many Muslims in South Asia today want to Arabize everything and lose out on their OWN cultural heritage with respect to the Sufis and Chishtis and whatnot. Actually I take that back, I think Muslims back in S. Asia probably stay the way they've been, its the ones here who get all super "conservative".

Anybody remember the incident last year in Maharashtra or Gujarat where 5 dalits were killed by the feudal upper class for killing a cow and selling the meat?

Hey whatever happened to victims' rights? :-)

Nah but seriously, that is pretty ridiculous. I am sure caste prejudices had a lot to do with it as well.

i am aware that there is a lot of diversity in hinduism philosophically, though my impression is that monism and pantheism, for example, are dominant, i am aware of dualist and atheist strands. i was making a general characterization of expectation of a "hindu" from a random sample of hindus. as for islam, it is not heartlessly brutal toward animals, halal laws of slaughter do indicate the importance of humane treatment. but, the point is that the abrahamic religions make a sharp distinction between man and animal, while hinduism does not, abrahamists must "anthropomorphize" animals to empathize with them because they are beings without soul. in contrast, the continuity between man and non-man in hinduism would i think make it impossible to develop a system of thought like renee descartes did which turned animals into mindless organic machines, without soul, simulcura's of the living.

all that being said, i was cautious precisely because i am skeptical that the philosophical mumbo-jumbo really means anything on the experiential level. i think cognitively believers tend to experience their religion similarly, though they express constrasting verbal mantras (i wouldn't know from direct experience, i am, thank god, constitutionally incapble of god-belief). i don't think that believers really know what the hell they are talking about most of the time, and their intellectuals who elucidate the bizarro ideas don't really get what they are talking about either (though they are far more consistent about the nonsense implications of god being both three and one, for example). to be precise, i believe when hindus and muslims worship god(s), they address their prayers to the same generic mental construct of a temporally constrained supernatural agent with personal attributes. philosophically of course the hindu and muslim god(s) are very different, outside of time, suffused or present in all of space, and difficult to encapsulate in language, almost paradoxical so as to elicit "mystery" and require the faux-translational services of religious professionals.

as for the peculiar qualities of islam and its "arabicization," i would argue that the spread of literacy makes "arabicization" inevitable to some extent, as disparate cultures look to the same source texts and begin to establish a universal consensus. it is simply an epiphenomena of the homogenization of practice, belief and outlook that is happening throughout the world.

i believe when hindus and muslims worship god(s), they address their prayers to the same generic mental construct of a temporally constrained supernatural agent with personal attributes.

This is an interesting point, but I have two issues with it: one, you approach religion as a mental process rather than a culture or way of life or any of the other ways it can be viewed; two, I think that within each faith, there are a variety of approaches one can take within any given religion--I'm not a scholar of religion so I wouldn't be able to offer a complete taxonomy or anything, but off the top of my head--mysticisim (e.g. sufis, pirs, etc.), philosphical religion (plato, upanishads, etc.), dogmatism (you do the puja because that's what you're supposed to do), etc.

This is also colored by personality too. For example, I reflexively touch my hand to my head if I touch a book with my foot; I don't necessarily have the same level of neurosis about other objects that may be of less value to me but others might. This is probably a combination fo western modernism, family influence (including what i was taught about saraswati and the holiness of knowledge and all that), and temperament.

I'd agree though, if only from personal experience, that the notion that "God is in everything" pervaded the Hinduism tha I was raised on and that this extended to animals. It also gets frighteningly neurotic when you try to figure out what part of the kitchen counter you're allowed to put your coffee mug on.

The cow killings have a different element to them though--cow protection societies are a much more modern phenomenon and tie into the escalation of hindu-muslim tensions and other things--I think they're primarily an easy symbolic tool that makes uses of underlying sentimental attachments for the purposes of riling people up for political ends.

This is an interesting point, but I have two issues with it: one, you approach religion as a mental process rather than a culture or way of life or any of the other ways it can be viewed; two, I think that within each faith, there are a variety of approaches one can take within any given religion--I'm not a scholar of religion so I wouldn't be able to offer a complete taxonomy or anything, but off the top of my head--mysticisim (e.g. sufis, pirs, etc.), philosphical religion (plato, upanishads, etc.), dogmatism (you do the puja because that's what you're supposed to do), etc.

i think "religion" exists on multiple levels. on the scale of the individual it is predominantly a cognitive trait. but yes, there are emergent properties that come out when you view it as social orthopraxy. the cognitive properties, i believe, are nested within the social orthopraxy, that is, most of the influence is from cognitive -> social (though some the other way too). and yes, i think there is cognitive variation, a small number of people are mystics, some are systemizers, etc. etc.

my view is that the system builders have constructed bizarro quasi-propositional theologies and worked together with the dominant individuals who favor institutionalization to generate "organized religion." but undernearth it all, the majority of believers are basically same the same, which explains why prior to modern times there was a lot more mixing between hindu and muslim peasants when it came to religious festivals and practice. basically they were experiencing the same mental states. but the modern literate societies emphasize the systematic theology mumbo-jumbo mantras which act as coalitional markers (though religious people either believe they actually mean something, or, like most catholics i know about the trinity, just go along with it to get the "smells, bells and jesus").

but anyway, my overall point is that i expressed caution about the monism -> animal sensitivity inference because i think it is more like this: animal sensitivity monism. to some extent i think social consensus is closer to random walk or frequency dependent than some functional adaptation-that is, most religious practices serve to bind communities, rather than an adaptive purpose. whether you touch your head or wash your butt more thoroughly after walking by a dalit's house, it's all about what everyone's doing, not what they're doing.

hm. the tags swallowed some text. i mean:

monism - social matrix - animal sensitivity

the two outside elements are dependent on the inner element.

to some extent i think social consensus is closer to random walk or frequency dependent than some functional adaptation-that is, most religious practices serve to bind communities, rather than an adaptive purpose.

Interesting. What do you make of allegedly more adaptive beliefs (like not eating pork)? In other words, in premodern (i.e. before the developemnt of a system and subculture of developing scientific knowledge), don't you think that social consensus might have served a more rudimentary version of the same ends--to try and figure out what's going on? For example, when someone passes away, I'm not supposed to cut my nails, cut my hair, eat anything spicy, etc. for a period. All of these things seem to me to have rational purposes (keep you away from blades, not get you too riled up, etc.) although they're justified on traditional grounds. Similarly notions of purity--while horrendous in a social context--or decent public health measures in a personal context. It makes sense to use one hand for some things and another for the others. I won't specify out of my Victorian sense of etiquette :)

the majority of believers are basically same the same, which explains why prior to modern times there was a lot more mixing between hindu and muslim peasants when it came to religious festivals and practice. basically they were experiencing the same mental states. but the modern literate societies emphasize the systematic theology mumbo-jumbo mantras which act as coalitional markers

I would take issue with the idea that the majority of believers have the same "mental states"; during the actual worship or puja or ritual, I could see that, but which of the particular one gravitates towards is something totally difference. And further, that people are capable of experiencing more than one. Basically, I would probably say there's more "cognitive variation"--to use your phrase--among people and within people than you give them credit for.

I agree with you that there's a significant difference between premodern and modern experience of religion. However, as to the causes--well, I think it has more to do with economics (if everyone pretty much lives the same way, they're going to have similar baseline mental and emotional needs), politics, and other things, than with literacy. Basically, taxonomy is a hallmark of European led scientific thinking, and it was applied worldwide to people, religions, etc. Add to that industrialization, dislocation, blah blah blahm, and i think you get a better understanding of why things are a little more topsy turvy than the glory days that you point to (although even there, if we looked carefully, we would probably find more diversity--it's hard for me to buy that the policies of the Mughal empire under, Akbar, say, was the same as under Aurangzeb or that people's religious needs in the Sunderbans were the same as in Rajasthan).

Perhaps I'm just mincing words though.

Interesting. What do you make of allegedly more adaptive beliefs

i think you can spin 'just so' stories for a lot of things. most religious people do justify their practice partly on 'rational' utilitarian grounds. i've been told that salat (muslim prayer) is good exercise, that eating pork is risky because of trichinosis (yeah, if you eat raw pig meat, it is a danger, really cookied), that hindus are often vegetarian because of spoilage in hot climates (bengali brahmins have good digestive systems see, that's why they eat fish!). on further inspection most of the utilitarian justifications don't stand up to scrutiny unambiguously adaptive on the personal level. many 'religious' purity ablutions aren't all that clean, american mosques are pretty anti-septic, but the wash basins in bangladesh were filthy. the key point is that it is ritual ablution, so hindus washing their mouths with foul ganges water has great ritual significance but really undermines the 'cleanliness' argument.

Basically, I would probably say there's more "cognitive variation"--to use your phrase--among people and within people than you give them credit for.

i haven't given you a precise breakdown though. i would say that 1% of people are genuine mystics, that 5% are systemizers (this multivariable, constrained by an intersection of high IQ as well as preference), 5% are social climbers and most of the rest 'normals' of some sort. i kind of pulled the numbers out of my ass, but it gives you a sense of what i'm talking about. also, i also assume a rough tendency toward a 'normal' distribution for 'religious intensity.' i think the mystics tend to be concentrated on one end, while the social climbers/institutionals on the other (they view religions as means toward their own social well being and status).

p.s. many of my ideas on religion are expressed in two books: in gods we trust by scott atran and religion explained by pascal boyer. they don't capture the total richness of the religious experience, but they do, i think, accurately characterize the cognitive roots of universal (to the first aproximation, some of us are thankfully discarded from the equation ;) god-belief.

sickening. as far as arabs are concerned, south asians exist to serve them. why should they care about the havoc they wreak on farms, with native fauna or even the people whose environmental legacy they are destroying? assholes.

i think you can spin 'just so' stories for a lot of things.

Of course--especially these days, when there are more reliable sources of information on public and personal health matters than lay consensus (religious and otherwise). My point wasn't really to defend using those arguments today, but whether or not they served a function in the premodern past in figuring out what was helpful and what was not. Just speculating, but I wonder if it's sort of like how painting moved away from any semblance of naturalistic depiction once photography really came into the fore and eliminated the need for portaiture and the such.

Anyway, a vegetarian or beef-free or alcohol free (well, mostly--especially given reported south asian propensity for alcoholism) or pork free diet is held up by modern methods as good for you as well. As is cleanliness, washing, prayer (probably), disclosing your personal guilt to someone else (i.e. confession), not gambling (too much), having festivals, taking sabbath, and many other things that were prescribed by various faiths.

Pakistan has become the world's whore - literally and metaphorically.

Anyway, a vegetarian or beef-free or alcohol free (well, mostly--especially given reported south asian propensity for alcoholism) or pork free diet is held up by modern methods as good for you as well. As is cleanliness, washing, prayer (probably), disclosing your personal guilt to someone else (i.e. confession), not gambling (too much), having festivals, taking sabbath, and many other things that were prescribed by various faiths.

it isn't monotonic. drinking alcohol and consumption of meat in moderation is healthful. there is of course even evidence that a mild degree of "dirt" is essential for the adaptive immune system. and as regards alcohol i have even inquired if muslims suffered higher rates of digestive tract disease in the premodern period, because one of the main uses of wine and beer was that it was a more sterile form of liquid.

r,

like i said before, my point was not that premodern social-consensus ways of figuring out what's healthy or not were stellar or precise--just that they may have served as rough approximations of how to figure out what's good or bad for you and used a religious imprimatur to get people to follow along. Sort of like FDA guidelines :)

i'll try to check out the books you recommended if they're not too kotin.

ust that they may have served as rough approximations of how to figure out what's good or bad for you and used a religious imprimatur to get people to follow along.

sure, but like i said, think it is more often reversed. that is, people glom on to some practice, it becomes "fixed" as the norm in a population, and post facto they create justifications for it. the main difference between religious customs and fads IMO is that religious customs somehow got attached to religion, making personal attempts to change them far more significant and the negative social consequences more severe. for example, there is a lot of evidence that joseph smith, the founder of mormonism, promoted polygyny because he liked the ladies and was a serial bigamist. of course, mormons have plenty of justifications for why polygyny was practiced, and then repudiated in 1890, that don't acknowledge smith's personal predelictions as the likely reason for this practice in that sect.

Many Muslims in South Asia today want to Arabize everything and lose out on their OWN cultural heritage with respect to the Sufis and Chishtis and whatnot

So true and this has been happening since long. Does anybody know why people chose Arabic scripts for Urdu language whereas the origin of the language is Sanskrit?

Does anybody know why people chose Arabic scripts for Urdu language whereas the origin of the language is Sanskrit?

It's actually a Persian script, which makes sense given where the Mughals were from.