If God Is Dead Can Religion Be Far Behind?

[Sarathi]

Buddhism does require a certain amount of 'beliefs' - that is, Right View (essentially, that there is karma and rebirth), and faith in Buddha (that there is enlightenment), Dhamma (Natural Law) , Sangha (Disciples can attain enlightenment)

While Dawkins does discount Buddhism as quoted above, at other points in the book (not the documentary) he lumps Buddhism in with all other religions. Further, the attacks of Hitchens and Dawkins on the stupidity of looking to ancient scripture and not science for answers, show they have no truck with giving any religion a free pass.

It will be interesting to see people's views on Saturday. Seems Buddhists are not sure where they stand on this issue.

[Brucenkhamen]

Buddhism does require a certain amount of 'beliefs' - that is, Right View (essentially, that there is karma and rebirth), and faith in Buddha (that there is enlightenment), Dhamma (Natural Law) , Sangha (Disciples can attain enlightenment)

I may be splitting hairs but you don't necessarily have to hold any of the above as beliefs, again I refer to the Kalama Sutta, I see them more as hypotheses or assumptions.

The kind of belief you need in Buddhism is along the lines of "I followed the Buddhas teaching and did x, the result was y so it worked the way he said it would, on the strength of that I'll carry on and do z as my confidence in where I'm heading is growing".

That does,'t mean to say faith based belief has no place, but a Buddhist practitioner should always be willing to challenge and look deeper into things that could crystallize into rigid beliefs.

[blaze]

Buddhism does require a certain amount of 'beliefs' - that is, Right View (essentially, that there is karma and rebirth), and faith in Buddha (that there is enlightenment), Dhamma (Natural Law) , Sangha (Disciples can attain enlightenment)

While Dawkins does discount Buddhism as quoted above, at other points in the book (not the documentary) he lumps Buddhism in with all other religions. Further, the attacks of Hitchens and Dawkins on the stupidity of looking to ancient scripture and not science for answers, show they have no truck with giving any religion a free pass.

It will be interesting to see people's views on Saturday. Seems Buddhists are not sure where they stand on this issue.

It would be interesting if this discussion were to address the arguements posed by Dawkins and Hitchens in the context of Buddhism as practiced in Thailand (interesing that Hitchens is included but not the much more eloquent and persuasive, Sam Harris) rather than on the propriety of their daring to criticize religion.

But that may be off topic- though no more so than most of our (my) tangents.

Camerata raised a very vital point earlier when he asked if people can live without organized religion.

And can they survive without a belief in the supernatural? And how do these relate to Buddhism as practiced in Thailand?

Edited November 27, 2007 by blaze

[blaze]

But I think that in this discussion- there are too many ambiguous words being used- ie- what is 'God' in the sense that the 'new atheists' (no different than the 'old atheists') use it. What is Buddhism? What is a 'Buddhist'? What is an 'atheist'? And what is 'religion'?

I have no problem with any of the definitions you've put forward... so carry on.

A I know little about Buddhism, meditation as a kind of mental

discipline to manipulate your mind in beneficial directions, I could

easily imagine. In reciting a mantra in a repetitive way - it's

entirely plausible to me that might have some sort of trance-inducing

effects which could even be beneficial. "

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins (2006) pg 37:

While a small minority of the myriad Buddhist practices might be descibed in this way it sounds like Dawkins understanding of Buddhism is very shallow indeed.

These are the practices that would exempt Buddhism from the denunciation Dawkins reserves for 'religions'. Would the 'myriad Buddhist practices' you refer to further exempt it- or would they place Buddhism squarely in the company of those religions for whom Dawkins reserves his venom?

What are the criticisms that Dawkins has of organized religion?

Are those criticisms justified?

Do they apply to Buddhism?

[Brucenkhamen]

These are the practices that would exempt Buddhism from the denunciation Dawkins reserves for 'religions'. Would the 'myriad Buddhist practices' you refer to further exempt it- or would they place Buddhism squarely in the company of those religions for whom Dawkins reserves his venom?

The practices that he describes sounds like he is confusing Trancendental Meditation with Buddhism, I suppose not too difficult to do if one hasn't done any research into the various philosophies that have come out of India, he did state at the beginning he knew little about Buddhism after all.

I'm a bit concerned that he seems to think trance inducing effects could be a positive thing. Maybe I understand the word trance differently but I understand it as some kind of hypnoses in which one loses awareness and I guess the ability to come out of it freely. I see no value in that to a Buddhist, can you see any value to an athiest? Unless of course one is using it to quit smoking I guess.

So after having read that I couldn't possibly comment on what he might think may or may not exempt Buddhism from his venom, and don't really care.

States that are desirable as a result of intensive Buddhist meditation are states of heightened awareness in which one is intensely aware of what is arising and passing away through the six sense doors from moment to moment. Contrary to a trance it is difficult to maintain these states and one can easily fall out of them with the subtlest attempts to manipulate or react to ones experience. This is equally true of both Insight and Concentration practices the main difference is the latter is more focussed on one aspect of what is being experienced.

The purpose of this heightened awareness is like when a scientist puts something under a microscope, you see things broken down to the smallest level, you observe whats really happening, and when you see that you understand the experiences you have in your day to day life much more clearly.

As you can probably imagine any belief in god is irrelevant to the process, maybe we get some marks for that?

Edited November 27, 2007 by Brucenkhamen

[blaze]

These are the practices that would exempt Buddhism from the denunciation Dawkins reserves for 'religions'. Would the 'myriad Buddhist practices' you refer to further exempt it- or would they place Buddhism squarely in the company of those religions for whom Dawkins reserves his venom?

The practices that he describes sounds like he is confusing Trancendental Meditation with Buddhism, I suppose not too difficult to do if one hasn't done any research into the various philosophies that have come out of India, he did state at the beginning he knew little about Buddhism after all.

I'm a bit concerned that he seems to think trance inducing effects could be a positive thing. Maybe I understand the word trance differently but I understand it as some kind of hypnoses in which one loses awareness and I guess the ability to come out of it freely. I see no value in that to a Buddhist, can you see any value to an athiest? Unless of course one is using it to quit smoking I guess.

So after having read that I couldn't possibly comment on what he might think may or may not exempt Buddhism from his venom, and don't really care.

States that are desirable as a result of intensive Buddhist meditation are states of heightened awareness in which one is intensely aware of what is arising and passing away through the six sense doors from moment to moment. Contrary to a trance it is difficult to maintain these states and one can easily fall out of them with the subtlest attempts to manipulate or react to ones experience. This is equally true of both Insight and Concentration practices the main difference is the latter is more focussed on one aspect of what is being experienced.

The purpose of this heightened awareness is like when a scientist puts something under a microscope, you see things broken down to the smallest level, you observe whats really happening, and when you see that you understand the experiences you have in your day to day life much more clearly.

As you can probably imagine any belief in god is irrelevant to the process, maybe we get some marks for that?

Fully agree with you. And (surprisingly) nothing to add.

Except- re 'marks'- do I come across as THAT pedandic?

Anyway, it's been a very enjoyable few days on this thread- and a lot of food for thought. Thanks.

Blaze-

over and.... out.

[Sarathi]

The Kalama sutta is over quoted, and spoken only to the Kalamas in their situation. Right view, and the three refuges are given as the minimum requirements by the Buddha to be in his lineage. That's what the suttas say, but I'd agree that you don't necessarily have to have them all as 'beliefs' so much as 'confidence in'. Interestingly, if you have the Right View and Refuges, just add "virtues of the Devas" and you have qualified as a Stream Enterer. Seems a lighter qualification that the other more oft quoted one of reducing the Samyojana.

Dawkins does lay off Buddhism, but is clear that he attacks ALL religion as bogus, and proved bogus. Hitchens lumps Buddhism with other "Eastern Solutions" as essentially destroying free thought via mind numbing trances. Most of his experience is in Rajnish TM system. Dr Will, who started this thread and then disappeared, has been devouring all the books - Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and more. Not quite sure what his conclusions are yet.

[Plus]

In my (admittedly limited) understanding of Buddhism.. It is a way by which those who can not hope for divine guidance and help, can still attain ultimate peace through their own efforts.

..I also agree that Buddhism seems to be a perfect religion for people who have been similarly traumatised by that western concept of God.

... who has suggested that Buddhism is a perfect religion for people who have been traumatized by the western concept of God?

ARe you referring to atheists? None that I know of arrive at that state as a result of personal psychic injury incurred by exposure to western notions of God.

Not a psychic injury but insult to the intellegence, perhaps.

This very forum is also full of people bitter of Christianity, people who apreciate Buddhism because there's no God to surrender to, no strict rules and no eternal damnation - things we were forced to live with in the West.

Dawkins is one of them, he just found a different outlet.

[rychrde]

I'm a Buddhist yet find myself agreeing with Dawkins on pretty much every count, except his claims that you can't be a real scientist, and religious.

I differ from him in so far as he has OMITTED consideration of Enlightenment or other genuine spiritual goals, and has only attacked religion as a social institution, and for being less able to describe say, evolution or biology, as well as he can.

So to go back to the real question here - can a Buddhist be an atheist ?

I agree, Dawkins says nothing about the spiritual science that underpins buddhism (and hinduism and taoism). Yes, there are faith rituals in all three religions that take into account people's capacity for belief, but without their spiritual scientific core they would end up like our batch of monotheisms.

I don't like the words atheism and agnosticism. One is a belief in no-God, so a belief. The other literally means without-knowledge which rather charitably means that believers have knowledge - they don't, they have a belief.

My favourite word that is etymologically correct is infidel - without faith.

Can I be an infidel Buddhist? yes, easy. Take the spiritual science and leave the cultural baggage outside. I am happy to have found tibetan masters who are willing to teach in that way.

and btw science is not a faith. Before boring me with the law of induction, the law starts with statements of facts. Faith has no facts and therefore cannot step on the first rung of the inductive process.

The real key to all this is what validity do we give to what people believe. Religious beliefs are metaphysical speculations given the erroneous status of statements of facts. At least scientific metaphysical speculations are admitted as such.

being an infidel Buddhist in Thailand is quite hard - this isn't Tibet (or rather, pre-chinese Tibet). Apart from attending births, marriages and funerals, the feeling I get from Thais is that there is very little spiritual help forthcoming apart quoting from texts - a shoulder to lean on but not a ladder to climb up.

rych

[rychrde]

The purpose of this heightened awareness is like when a scientist puts something under a microscope, you see things broken down to the smallest level, you observe whats really happening, and when you see that you understand the experiences you have in your day to day life much more clearly.

Exactly... so the penny may one day drop on Dawkins. The spiritual sciences are experiments on the self. The problem here is that the spiritual sciences are not yet regarded as sciences. I had a long debate at the Royal Society with one of the scientists on the platform about this. Can't remember her name, actually can't even remember the name of one guy who half defended me. Anyway, it's a technical problem - will let you know if I solve it and get published.

None that I know of arrive at that state as a result of personal psychic injury incurred by exposure to western notions of God.

Actually, psychic injury is exactly what catholicism can induce. I recall having to deprogram myself because despite being an infidel I still had rituals that were hard to shake off - pretty similar to breaking hypnotic suggestions. I had actually taught myself to meditate, with some success, before I ever came across Buddhism. Wish I'd had a master when I was 8, that would have been really useful. So don't tell me I have to respect everyone's beliefs.

rych

[Rasseru]

So to go back to the real question here - can a Buddhist be an atheist ?

I would propose that the question should rather be whether a Buddhist can be anything other than an atheist, and that the answer is probably yes, because a Buddhist could possibly be an agnostic. The last thing I think a Buddhist could properly be, though, is a theist. If anyone thinks that is not right, please enlighten me.

[Brucenkhamen]

I would propose that the question should rather be whether a Buddhist can be anything other than an atheist, and that the answer is probably yes, because a Buddhist could possibly be an agnostic. The last thing I think a Buddhist could properly be, though, is a theist. If anyone thinks that is not right, please enlighten me.

I prettty much agree with you but I do find there are a lot of people practicing Buddhist techniques or following Buddhist philosophies that have a thesitic world view.

No fundamentalists though, they're pretty broad minded theists, as you'd expect.

[AYJAYDEE]

The purpose of this heightened awareness is like when a scientist puts something under a microscope, you see things broken down to the smallest level, you observe whats really happening, and when you see that you understand the experiences you have in your day to day life much more clearly.

Exactly... so the penny may one day drop on Dawkins. The spiritual sciences are experiments on the self. The problem here is that the spiritual sciences are not yet regarded as sciences. I had a long debate at the Royal Society with one of the scientists on the platform about this. Can't remember her name, actually can't even remember the name of one guy who half defended me. Anyway, it's a technical problem - will let you know if I solve it and get published.

None that I know of arrive at that state as a result of personal psychic injury incurred by exposure to western notions of God.

Actually, psychic injury is exactly what catholicism can induce. I recall having to deprogram myself because despite being an infidel I still had rituals that were hard to shake off - pretty similar to breaking hypnotic suggestions. I had actually taught myself to meditate, with some success, before I ever came across Buddhism. Wish I'd had a master when I was 8, that would have been really useful. So don't tell me I have to respect everyone's beliefs.

rych

i agree. christian guilt can be a very strong form of psychic injuy, especially to children