A Christian Speaks In Defence of Hinduism

I was googling for a definition of “Kenotic theology” when I stumbled across this blog maintained by a Southern Baptist Pastor called James Attebury. As I browsed his articles, I landed on this one titled “Why I am not a Hindu”. It was interesting, and I can’t resist posting a response. I should be straight up and say that while I identify as both Christian and Hindu and regularly attend my local temple, I am a neophyte and not an expert in Hindu theology. However I know enough about Advaita Vedanta and other schools of Indian thought that I feel equipped to make a response.

Response to the Objections

1. Hinduism is scientifically impossible because it teaches that the universe never had a beginning because it is divine.

The Upanishads teach that God is the whole world (pantheism):

“Brahman, indeed, is this immortal. Brahman before, Brahman behind, to right and left. Stretched forth below and above, Brahman, indeed, is this whole world” (Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.11).

“Thou art the dark-blue bird and the green parrot with red eyes, Thou hast the lightning as thy child. Thou art the seasons and the seas. Having no beginning, thou dost abide with all-pervadingness, wherefrom all beings are born” (Svetasvatara Upanishad 4.2.4).

Since “Brahman, indeed, is this whole world” and he has “no beginning,” therefore, the world must have no beginning.

But this goes against everything that we know about the universe from science. While many atheists try to defend an eternal universe because they don’t want to believe in God, their arguments have insurmountable problems.

A couple of things come to mind. Firstly, citing “science” as an authority comes across as incredibly simple-minded and vague. Whenever someone says “Science says xyz” it comes across to me in exactly the same way as when fundamentalist evangelicals say “The bible says xyz” or fundamentalist Catholics claim “The Church teaches xyz”. Usually in these cases, science does not say xyz, and neither does the bible or the church.

Secondly, if we take “Science” to mean “empirical investigation of reality” and “theories grounded in consistent results derived from repeated experiments”, then science suffers from the problem of induction. For those who are unfamiliar with this problem, here is an illustration: We tend to observe, day after day, the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. This consistent pattern gives us the confidence to be sure that the sun will continue to behave in this way. We try to predict the future behaviour of things by examining how they have behaved in the past. However there’s one catch: we do not have absolute certainty that just because something behaved a certain way in the past, it will continue to behave that way in the future. It is entirely conceivable that one day the sun will simply stop rising and setting.

Hopefully this sheds light on why James’ objection is unfounded. Just because today “science” teaches that all things begun at the big bang, does not mean that it will continue to teach this tomorrow. In any case, there is nothing in the quotes he provides from the Upanishads that actually contradicts the current scientific consensus. He is just insisting on interpreting it with a hermeneutic of disagreement, rather than a hermeneutic of charity and openness. He seems to be seizing on certain words in the translation and using these to justify his rejection of something which he doesn’t truly understand.

2. Hinduism teaches that the universe is an illusion or maya:

“This whole world the illusion maker projects out of this [Brahman]. And in it by illusion the other is confined. Now, one should know that Nature is illusion, and that the Mighty Lord is the illusion maker” (Svetasvatara Upanishad 4.9-10).

But if this world is an illusion, then that would make scientific inquiry impossible. We would be unable to trust our own senses or believe anything at all. Yet Hindus use science all the time and act as if their senses are trustworthy. In this sense, Hinduism suffers from many of the same problems as Christian Science which teaches that death is just an illusion.

The notion that maya makes scientific enquiry impossible is a false implication. As James himself states, “Hindus use science all the time and act as if their senses are trustworthy”; surely this would clue him in to the fact that he’s missing something and doesn’t properly understand that which he is criticising.

Furthermore, he’s got the maya doctrine all wrong. Maya claims that the descriptions of events in the Hindu Scriptures are “more real” than the mundane reality we perceive day to day. The colour and beauty described in the Indian Scriptures is not often seen and manifested in day to day life. The doctrine of Maya claims that these poetic descriptions are “more real” than the reality we currently inhabit. The doctrine of Maya does not claim that everything is just an illusion. Our reality is still real, just less so than the “true” reality which is hiding behind all things.

3. Hinduism offers no means for atonement in this life or assurance of salvation.

There is no forgiveness in Hinduism, only reincarnation into a lower caste of people to pay off the sins from our previous life. The caste system is inherently racist and forbids marriage between the castes. It condemns people to a life of poverty and is cruel to the poor. It justifies the attitude that poor people are getting what they deserve so there is no incentive to help those who are poor and suffering.

This criticism of Hinduism is inaccurate, and flows from a culturally imperialistic attitude towards other faiths and cultures. Unlike Christianity, Hinduism does not see the world primarily in terms of sin, guilt, forgiveness and retribution. These categories are relevant to Hinduism, but Hindus and Buddhists see the world through the lens of samsara: the cycle of birth and rebirth that carries on for all eternity. The primary problem to be solved according to Hinduism is not guilt and sin, but instead eternal suffering. Salvation is called moksha and is conceived of as an escape from this eternal cycle of suffering into a state of permanent and everlasting bliss. According to certain schools of Hinduism, there is indeed an assurance of achieving Moksha. According to other schools there is no such assurance. This is similar to the divide between Catholic and Protestant Christianity on the issue of assurance. (Perhaps James is the sort of person who would not acknowledge that Catholics are also fellow believers worthy of the title “Christian”. He’ll have to let us know in the comments)

I am however happy for now to agree with his criticism of the caste system. But my agreement is provisional, as I don’t actually know enough about it to accurately pass judgement.

4. Hinduism is filled with pagan religious practices which demonstrate its human origin.

I remember a great illustration from my Biblical Counseling class with Paul David Tripp where he told a story about how he visited India once and entered into a Hindu temple where the people were bowing down before statues of male and female private parts. He was so revolted by what he saw that he ran out of the temple as quickly as he could. Then he realized the disgust he felt is how God sees his sin.

Hindus still do this today as you can see from this sad video. Some Hindus even worship rats and other animals as Paul warned against in Romans 1:22-23. Historically, Hindus practiced sati where widows were burned alive with the bodies of their husbands. It was only because of the work of Christians in India who raised awareness about this evil practice that resulted in it being banned.

The attitude that “Pagan = bad. Bible = good” really irks me. Non-Christian philosophies, theologians, religions and traditions have so much to offer us; so much beauty and richness of thought. Rather than having a knee jerk reaction to practices such as those performed by the Hindus, we should seek to understand why they do what they do, and then try and replicate that in our own traditions. We should strive for unity and ecumenism with those who are different from us, rather than further division, schism and disunity. It is important to acknowledge our differences, but rather than allowing those differences to serve as a wall that divides us, we should treat them as the beautiful manifestations of God that they are, and then come together in love, charity, dialogue and understanding.

I think James’ analysis of what the Hindus are actually up to is not 100% accurate. Hindus don’t worship rats, they worship Brahman; the supreme godhead. However just as Christians worship God through Christ, (and Catholics through the Eucharist), so too Hindus worship God through many and various mundane intermediary objects. It might look like idolatry, but it’s not.

5. Hinduism is not a faith grounded in real historical events.

There is no corroborating evidence for Hinduism outside of its sacred texts. In contrast, Christianity is rooted in the historical events of the Bible, a book grounded in history. And there are good answers for those who object to the historical reliability of the Bible.

I personally know many Hindus who would dispute this point. I have no dog in the fight either way, but I would tend towards agreeing with my Hindu mates rather than James here. The bible is a beautiful mixture of mythology and history, and sometimes it’s hard to separate the factual core of the stories from the surrounding poetic embellishment (The Genesis creation stories are notorious for this. I’d be curious to see if James holds to a strictly literal interpretation). It is exactly the same with Hinduism. There is definitely a historical core to many of the Hindu tales, but it’s tricky to work out what is fact and what is embellishment.

6. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus from the Bible, fulfilled prophecy, and history is overwhelming.

I have already written about the evidence for the resurrection of Christ in this article.

7. The Bible is filled with incredible prophecies which confirm its truthfulness.

While there are many prophecies in the Bible about the kingdoms of this world and the coming of Jesus, the most incredible one is the messianic prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 which gives us the exact date when the Messiah would die.

I don’t actually disagree with these two points at all. The evidence for the resurrection is vast and astonishing. However it is somewhat odd that James includes this in a blog post aimed at criticising Hinduism. Isn’t it completely irrelevant to the argument? I imagine his thought process is something along the lines of “If Christianity is true, then everything else must be wrong”, but of course, that simply does not follow in any way. Both Christianity and Hinduism can be 100% true and compatible, but the only way we are going to see that is if we approach each of them in a spirit of charity and ecumenism, with a willingness to listen and entertain foreign ideas and world-views.

I will register one small reservation about point 7. Just because a book accurately predicts future events, does not automatically prove that every single other thing that it reports is correct and truthful. I don’t mean this as an attack on the bible, as I myself am happy to affirm that it is 100% true (with qualifications). I simply mean to point out that it is fallacious to claim that a couple of prophecies that were fulfilled in a book prove the entire book 100% inerrant and infallible. The biblical prophecies also tend to be incredibly vague and open to interpretation; it is rather telling that James is willing to entertain these non-specific prophecies whilst nonchalantly rejecting anything that the Hindu scriptures have to say without giving them any further thought.


I don’t mean this post as an attack on James. I’m sure he’s a lovely guy and his congregation is blessed to have him as a pastor. But I think his rejection of Hinduism is incredibly rash and ill-informed, if the reasons he reports in his post are to be believed. Hinduism is a beautiful and colourful family of traditions, and Christians would do well to seek out and meet Hindus, and perform interfaith exchanges with them. We have so much to share with each other and teach each other, so let us come together and edify each other, rather than bashing each other over the head with holy books and demanding that we renounce one faith for another. As the classic meme goes: “Why can’t we have both?”



9 thoughts on “A Christian Speaks In Defence of Hinduism

  1. There is nothing inconsistent between science and the nature of the universe vis a vis the descriptions in the isha, katha, and brihadarnyaka upanishads. There is stuff, space, and rules. Thats what the universe is made from. Awareness or consciousness is the space, vibrations are the stuff, and the rules is how they interact. I believe that there is ONE rule and variants of it from a micro to a macro level make it into the myriad of effects we see in the universe. The science is there, we just don’t know how to explain it yet. You hafta blackbox it until we figure out the details.

    • Thanks for responding!

      It sounds like you’re describing some sort of divine simplicity driving all the different laws of the universe. If you go to the “history of the universe” wiki page, you’ll discover that physicists actually agree. They say that a microsecond after the big bang (or something tiny like that), there were no different physical laws. Everything was collapsed into some sort of singularity. And then as time marched on, the laws of reality coalesced into what we witness today.

  2. Hi Alex,

    While there is much that could be said, I would like to comment on just one sentence from your article:

    “I imagine his thought process is something along the lines of ‘If Christianity is true, then everything else must be wrong’, but of course, that simply does not follow in any way. Both Christianity and Hinduism can be 100% true and compatible.”

    Here is where our fundamental disagreement lies. Jesus taught that there is only one God:

    John 5:44: “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?”

    Mark 12:30-32: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said to him, ‘You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.'”

    If Jesus rose from the dead, then that means he is the one he claimed to be and he claimed to be God incarnate and therefore everything he says is true. This is why the pluralist John Hick wrote the book “The Myth of God Incarnate” because he realized that if Jesus is God incarnate, then Christianity alone could be true because that is the consistent teaching of the Bible.

    In contrast, Hinduism teaches that there are thousands of gods and blatantly rejects Exodus 20:3-5.

    Either there is only one God or there are multiple gods. Logically, both of these statements cannot be true according to the law of non-contradiction.

    Jesus taught that all who reject him will die in their sins and go to hell:

    John 8:24: “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”

    Mark 9:43: “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell.”

    This is the historic teaching of the church, even in Eastern Orthodoxy:


    • Hi James, Thanks for stopping by!

      Hinduism actually is monotheistic too. All of their “gods” are ontologically at the same level as the Christian concept of “Angels and Demons”. Whereas the supreme reality and godhead in Hinduism is a purely monotheistic idea. Depending on which tradition of Hinduism we’re talking about it has different names, but the one I most commonly encounter is “Brahman”. It’s basically the Sanskrit translation of “Yahweh”. And so if you would actually care to dig a little deeper, you will discover that Hindus are worshipping the same God that Christians are.

      It gets messy of course, because the average Hindu probably doesn’t have a very sophisticated theological understanding and potentially they are literally worshipping rats. But it’s really not for us to say, or pass judgement.

      If Jesus rose from the dead, then that means he is the one he claimed to be and he claimed to be God incarnate and therefore everything he says is true.

      I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusions, but I think your logic is faulty. Lazarus was also reported to rise from the dead; does this mean that he is God incarnate and everything he says is true? In fact there have been many reported risings from the dead; are all of them God and infallible?

      I reject the law of non-contradiction in favour of the law of non-triviality. The law of non-contradiction has historically just been used to fan the flames of conflict and tribalism and fundamentalism. It keeps people trapped in unhelpful thought patterns. It creates division rather than unity. “My religion is right therefore your religion is wrong, because of the law of non-contradiction” – this sort of thing is satanic evil of the worst kind. Far better to say, “My religion is true, this I know. But yours is too, even though I don’t understand how”, and then a productive discussion and exchange can take place, and we can learn from each other.

      As far as Hell is concerned, where do any of those verses state that God is not going to rescue the people who are trapped there?

      • Not sure why I read this but as a Vedantic monk (sannyasin) I’d like to make sure you know that your knowledge of what you call “Hinduism” is rather on the “lite” side. In fact, it sounds non-existent.

        • Hi Jeff, thanks for your comment. Firstly, I was just responding to the original post. I’m aware that “Hinduism” is such a broad category as to be almost entirely vacuous.

          Secondly, thanks so much for stopping by and I just want to say I’d love to interact with you more 🙂 Since writing this post I’ve done a deep dive on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and so I’m much more informed (although still learning!). I’d love to chat with you and swap notes. If you see this, just know that it would mean the world to me if you left some more comments and taught me something!

          My main question would be, how is Sannyasin Vedanta different to Gaudiya Vaishnavism? (Of course, the differences will be massive, but what would be the biggest differences as you understand them?)

          • I read the book and it was great. I vibe with shankara, but I don’t quite agree that salvation consists of annihilating your individuality. I think it IS that, but that there’s also a bit more to it than that. My views are probably a combination mayavadi and shankarite views there. “acintya bheda abheda”

Leave a Reply