If God Is Dead Can Religion Be Far Behind?

[Galong]

Strange days we live in.

I read Dawkins book a few months ago and posted a thread about it then.

He made some points which made me think, but at the end of the day he has nothing to offer.

He is just another person pointing out the faults in others without offering anything positive in return.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

Um, organized religion has PLENTY of money. I seriously doubt that Mr. Hawkins' bank account will ever come close to, say, the Catholic church's.

What they are 'adding' if that's important to you, is the disassembling of a mindset that has caused as many wars as anything else in history. A current example would be the battle between Bush's Christians and the Muslim world.

The most dangerous person on this planet is one who 'believes' that killing someone else or blowing oneself up will result in a better seat in the afterlife.

Advances in science are being held back by religious beliefs. If the money thrown into the churches was put into more worthwhile causes, such as fighting HIV/AIDS or cancer or anything else, that could make a difference. Oh, but wait, according the many of the faithful, AIDS is God's punishment for being a homosexual, even though that's not the only way people contract this horrible virus.

So, I beg to differ, what Mr. Dawkins and others are doing does have merit and could potentially add a lot to the growth of humanity. We are stuck in the Dark Ages and much of this can be contributed to organized religion. I have no problems with anyone's personal beliefs, but the organizations are dangerous and scary.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

Can you give examples? You mean that all of the medical advances, transportation, chemistry, math, engineering, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is actually round and not flat, etc are all based on faith?

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

Horse hockey… nothing, in my opinion, matches the arrogance of religious fundamentalists. I came from the bible belt and the crap I had to endure was part of what drove me to move to Thailand.

Your closed-mindedness is a prime example… science relies on faith… give us a break.

I already mentioned in a previous post why science relies on faith.

I admire your faith in medical technology but surely you must know that most drugs originate from traditional herbal remedies.

I am sure that you are also aware that surgery was first practiced in India before the the rise of modern science.

I am also sure that you are familiar with the fact that many great mathmatical discoveries were made by followers of Islam.

I am glad to hear that Dawkins et al are publishing their books for the good of humankind.

Have they stopped charging for this 'literature' and attendence at their lecture tours?

I find it worrying that followers of atheism feel the need to preach to followers of other beliefs, such as Buddhism, about how they are getting it wrong but I suppose they are merely following the example of other evangelistics in their need to have everyone think the same as they do.

I admire your faith in medical technology but surely you must know that most drugs originate from traditional herbal remedies.

I am sure that you are also aware that surgery was first practiced in India before the the rise of modern science.

I am also sure that you are familiar with the fact that many great mathmatical discoveries were made by followers of Islam.

OK, with that in mind, we need to define science. If someone involved in a belief-based system accidentally or intentionally comes across a finding that to most would satisfy the criteria for being considered a science, what is it? Herbal remedies work because of chemistry. The fact that old-timers and/or 'religious' people discovered them doesn't, in my mind, mean that it was faith-based. They found a chemical compound that worked... scientifically.

"Before the rise of modern science" doesn't mean it wasn't science back then. It merely wasn't labeled that. "Religious" people aren't dumb necessarily , so the fact that they discover or invent things that most would feel fall under the realm of science doesn't mean that they aren't scientists.

I don't think that I preach at anyone. I merely point out incorrect assumptions and/or correct historically inaccurate information. My degree is in Eastern Philosophy and I've read the vast majority of source material for all of the major religions and many of the minor/less popular beliefs... so I'm not talking from a position of ignorance about the subject. I admit that my professor taught it as strictly a philosophical study and took the religious aspect out of it.

Again, I have absolutely no problem with a person's personal beliefs. If it makes someone happy and doesn't hurt anyone else... cool! Historically however, organized religion has a very bad and violent reputation.

Demon Est Deus Inversus

[blaze]

sorry too many edit attempts and double posted-

Edited November 25, 2007 by blaze

[Jingthing]

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

If science is a faith system and just another religion, then it is indeed the first one that is based on human reason and logic. I don't understand all the intelligent people throughout history who have a solid belief in the divine without any direct proof of it, and can only explain it that we are "wired" that way to need this, and also of course FEAR OF DEATH. I am agnostic.

One guy here said his proof is the scriptures. A document written by humans. Where is the logic of believing in that as pure fact?

I am happy we live in age where people aren't tortured and murdered for even asking these questions, except in places like Iran, another example of religion gone mad.

I wish there was eternal life, I wish I would be reincarnated as someone who is good at sports as well as a Nobel prize winner, I wish I ended up in a paradise surrounded by 2000 lovely horny virgins of the sex of my choice (because Pattaya isn't quite at that level), but these are only wishes and fantasies to me, to the dogmatic, they are facts. I don't get it.

Nothing any dogmatic religious person says can PROVE a dam_n thing; at least scientists try.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Jingthing

[garro]

Strange days we live in.

I read Dawkins book a few months ago and posted a thread about it then.

He made some points which made me think, but at the end of the day he has nothing to offer.

He is just another person pointing out the faults in others without offering anything positive in return.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

Um, organized religion has PLENTY of money. I seriously doubt that Mr. Hawkins' bank account will ever come close to, say, the Catholic church's.

What they are 'adding' if that's important to you, is the disassembling of a mindset that has caused as many wars as anything else in history. A current example would be the battle between Bush's Christians and the Muslim world.

The most dangerous person on this planet is one who 'believes' that killing someone else or blowing oneself up will result in a better seat in the afterlife.

Advances in science are being held back by religious beliefs. If the money thrown into the churches was put into more worthwhile causes, such as fighting HIV/AIDS or cancer or anything else, that could make a difference. Oh, but wait, according the many of the faithful, AIDS is God's punishment for being a homosexual, even though that's not the only way people contract this horrible virus.

So, I beg to differ, what Mr. Dawkins and others are doing does have merit and could potentially add a lot to the growth of humanity. We are stuck in the Dark Ages and much of this can be contributed to organized religion. I have no problems with anyone's personal beliefs, but the organizations are dangerous and scary.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

Can you give examples? You mean that all of the medical advances, transportation, chemistry, math, engineering, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is actually round and not flat, etc are all based on faith?

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

Horse hockey… nothing, in my opinion, matches the arrogance of religious fundamentalists. I came from the bible belt and the crap I had to endure was part of what drove me to move to Thailand.

Your closed-mindedness is a prime example… science relies on faith… give us a break.

I already mentioned in a previous post why science relies on faith.

I admire your faith in medical technology but surely you must know that most drugs originate from traditional herbal remedies.

I am sure that you are also aware that surgery was first practiced in India before the the rise of modern science.

I am also sure that you are familiar with the fact that many great mathmatical discoveries were made by followers of Islam.

I am glad to hear that Dawkins et al are publishing their books for the good of humankind.

Have they stopped charging for this 'literature' and attendence at their lecture tours?

I find it worrying that followers of atheism feel the need to preach to followers of other beliefs, such as Buddhism, about how they are getting it wrong but I suppose they are merely following the example of other evangelistics in their need to have everyone think the same as they do.

I admire your faith in medical technology but surely you must know that most drugs originate from traditional herbal remedies.

I am sure that you are also aware that surgery was first practiced in India before the the rise of modern science.

I am also sure that you are familiar with the fact that many great mathmatical discoveries were made by followers of Islam.

OK, with that in mind, we need to define science. If someone involved in a belief-based system accidentally or intentionally comes across a finding that to most would satisfy the criteria for being considered a science, what is it? Herbal remedies work because of chemistry. The fact that old-timers and/or 'religious' people discovered them doesn't, in my mind, mean that it was faith-based. They found a chemical compound that worked... scientifically.

Yes lets define science. It comes from a latin word and is generally used to refer to experiments which use the 'scientific method' which involves creating a hypothesise and then trying to disprove it. Nothing is ever proved only 'not rejected'. The one thing that has been consistent in the history of science is that very big theories later turn out to be wrong. To say that any way of discovery other than science is accidental appears very naive to me.

"Before the rise of modern science" doesn't mean it wasn't science back then. It merely wasn't labeled that. "Religious" people aren't dumb necessarily , so the fact that they discover or invent things that most would feel fall under the realm of science doesn't mean that they aren't scientists.

Yes it does mean they are not scientists if they are not using the scientific method.

I don't think that I preach at anyone. I merely point out incorrect assumptions and/or correct historically inaccurate information. My degree is in Eastern Philosophy and I've read the vast majority of source material for all of the major religions and many of the minor/less popular beliefs... so I'm not talking from a position of ignorance about the subject. I admit that my professor taught it as strictly a philosophical study and took the religious aspect out of it.

Congratulations on your degree. I have one too but it hasn't made me an expert on the subject I studied either.

Again, I have absolutely no problem with a person's personal beliefs. If it makes someone happy and doesn't hurt anyone else... cool! Historically however, organized religion has a very bad and violent reputation.

I am glad that you have no problem with another person's belief and have chosen to prove this by posting in a Buddhist forum.

Demon Est Deus Inversus

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris

Edited November 25, 2007 by garro

[suegha]

One guy here said his proof is the scriptures. A document written by humans. Where is the logic of believing in that as pure fact?

2 Peter 1 says "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

So it's 'penned' by men, but written by the power of God.

Now Jingthing, if you take time to read the bible you might see things differently.

[blaze]

One guy here said his proof is the scriptures. A document written by humans. Where is the logic of believing in that as pure fact?

2 Peter 1 says "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

So it's 'penned' by men, but written by the power of God.

Now Jingthing, if you take time to read the bible you might see things differently.

Do you accept that the Koran was also penned by men and written by the power of God? After all, that is the claim it makes.

If you reject the Koran's claim to be the word of God - then you can surely understand why some would question the Bible's similar claim.

Edited November 25, 2007 by blaze

[Jingthing]

Now Jingthing, if you take time to read the bible you might see things differently.

What, so I can get brainwashed (xxxxxx)?

Whatever is written in any of those holy books is written by men just like you and me, and no human can prove differently.

Without any proof, and there is no proof, it really is hard to see religion as anything more than a crutch and a way for people to conform to their communities. Some good things are done in the name of religion, and some horrendous things. The fact there are still so many religious people in this enlightened age other than in fundamentalist regimes like Iran is again evidence of the power of the fear of death and the human need to conform and perhaps have a higher meaning. Nothing all that wrong with that per se, but it doesn't make any of it TRUE.

It is nice to be able to say these things without being put on a body stretcher and having boiling oil poured down my throat (thank you Vatican).

Edited November 25, 2007 by camerata
Insult deleted.

[camerata]

These are also the goals of secular humanism. Not a whole lot diffrerent from how a truly Buddhist world would look.

That's exactly my point. The ideal world of the atheists is no better than the ideal Buddhist world, so why lump Buddhism in with the monotheistic religions and condemn it? There haven't been any wars fought in the name of Buddhism. Buddhists aren't insisting that science is wrong (as Creationists are) or evil. Buddhists aren't insisting that their way is the only way.

Then again, the Buddhism described by Hitchens in Sarathi's post doesn't sound like the Buddhism I practice. I don't see Buddhist practice as replacing the intellect or reason. It's more like giving the mind an extra capability to deal with suffering.

[camerata]

Any more off-topic posts about Christianity or Islam will be deleted. You have all been warned.

[blaze]

These are also the goals of secular humanism. Not a whole lot diffrerent from how a truly Buddhist world would look.

That's exactly my point. The ideal world of the atheists is no better than the ideal Buddhist world, so why lump Buddhism in with the monotheistic religions and condemn it? There haven't been any wars fought in the name of Buddhism. Buddhists aren't insisting that science is wrong (as Creationists are) or evil. Buddhists aren't insisting that their way is the only way.

Then again, the Buddhism described by Hitchens in Sarathi's post doesn't sound like the Buddhism I practice. I don't see Buddhist practice as replacing the intellect or reason. It's more like giving the mind an extra capability to deal with suffering.

I fully agree with you- what I think Hitchins is attacking is the practice of Buddhism in some communities which regard the Buddah as a deity who can intercede in events. And that such intercession can be petitioned through prayer- that amulets can fend off gun shots- that ghosts are ready to pounce at the drop of a hat- and that see Karma as a kind of sprit at play- one which would say for instance, that a guy in a Mercedes is a better man than the one on a Honda 125 because in his past life he must have done good deeds- and so we are all held hostage to our previous incarnations- as opposed to the much less arcane law of simple cause and effect. These things would place Buddhism in the same league as other religions- a triumph for irrationality.

And irrationality at that level, for Hitchins anyway, is viewed as a potentially dangerous thing. But Hitchins is a potentially dangerous thing (when he's sober) if you ask me.

Edited November 25, 2007 by blaze

[camerata]

I fully agree with you- what I think Hitchins is attacking is the practice of Buddhism in some communities which regard the Buddah as a deity who can intercede in events.

He probably is. But in that case (assuming he understands what Buddhism really is), I think it would make more sense to advocate reform rather than atheism. I shudder to think what Thailand would be like without Buddhism.

[blaze]

I fully agree with you- what I think Hitchins is attacking is the practice of Buddhism in some communities which regard the Buddah as a deity who can intercede in events.

He probably is. But in that case (assuming he understands what Buddhism really is), I think it would make more sense to advocate reform rather than atheism. I shudder to think what Thailand would be like without Buddhism.

Yes- that opens up the whole question- what is more important- the quest for 'truth'- or the social harmony that myths taken as reality can provide. Is it realistic to think that people can flourish without religion- in the classical sense of the term- (you, I think would agree)- that religion- and a belief in the supernatural is nescessary to provide most people with a moral framework- to give them hope in the face of setbacks, suffering, existential isolation and mortality.

That only the most deep and hard thinking can even prepare one for Buddhism- that until one recognizes the reality of the first noble truth-- and that in itself is too horrifying for most to contemplate- people are better left with their spirits and gods- because they sure aren't going to get to the fourth if they don't recognize the truth of the first two.

And that from the selfish pursuit of enlightenment- to make the leap to selfless compassion- the logical leap- is just expecting too much- I can't do it- I don't know if we can expect whole societies to do it.

But at the same time, I personally think that as soon as divine or supernatural is introduced to Buddhism- then the whole essence of Buddhism is lost. And the brilliance of the four noble truths become meaningless- since a divine intercession can relieve the suffering.

[blaze]

These are also the goals of secular humanism. Not a whole lot diffrerent from how a truly Buddhist world would look.

That's exactly my point. The ideal world of the atheists is no better than the ideal Buddhist world...

But would you not agree that the ideal Buddhist world would be a world of atheists? Atheists who had accepted that the teachings of Buddhism are the best way to provide the meaning and relief from despair that deism used to- before they became atheists?

Edited November 25, 2007 by blaze

[Brucenkhamen]

But would you not agree that the ideal Buddhist world would be a world of atheists? Atheists who had accepted that the teachings of Buddhism are the best way to provide the meaning and relief from despair that deism used to- before they became atheists?

I would have said the ideal Buddhist world would be a world of agnostics.

Athiesm implies that what you believe/understand is set in stone, it's decided, that part of your mind is now closed. A partially closed mind is counter productive to Buddhist practice, doesn't matter whether it's closed because of theism, or athiesm, or animistic Thai pseudo Buddhist ritual.

Better to maintain a skeptical openness of mind so that when things arise that could be explained in spiritual terms you don't reject them immediately because you're an athiest, but examine them scientifically to gain further insight into your human experience.

[blaze]

But would you not agree that the ideal Buddhist world would be a world of atheists? Atheists who had accepted that the teachings of Buddhism are the best way to provide the meaning and relief from despair that deism used to- before they became atheists?

I would have said the ideal Buddhist world would be a world of agnostics.

Athiesm implies that what you believe/understand is set in stone, it's decided, that part of your mind is now closed. A partially closed mind is counter productive to Buddhist practice, doesn't matter whether it's closed because of theism, or athiesm, or animistic Thai pseudo Buddhist ritual.

Better to maintain a skeptical openness of mind so that when things arise that could be explained in spiritual terms you don't reject them immediately because you're an athiest, but examine them scientifically to gain further insight into your human experience.

In the first place, I don't think the supernatural can be 'proved' to exist- not by science- since the domain of science is natural law. And by definition, God is beyond natural law. (Previous attemtps to do so have led to the 'god of the gaps' approach which is most definitely not science).

But I also think that Buddhism -with its core emphasis on the notion that you are completely alone in your quest to aleviate suffering- exists with the assumption that no divine figure will or can come to your aid.

So to be agnostic about the existance of a god who can be petitioned through prayer and who can intercede in the events of man- would have to lead to being agnostic about Buddhism.

Either it's all up to you (as Buddhism claims) or it's not.

If the Buddhist says there MAY be a personal god (and I am using atheism here to refer to a personal, intercessionary God) then he is also saying that Buddhism -or the type of Buddhism that emphasises rational thought and behavior, MAY not be the way to attaining peace.

[Brucenkhamen]

In the first place, I don't think the supernatural can be 'proved' to exist- not by science- since the domain of science is natural law. And by definition, God is beyond natural law. (Previous attemtps to do so have led to the 'god of the gaps' approach which is most definitely not science).

I'm not sure what this is in response to, it doesn't appear to be in reply to anything in my post.

But I also think that Buddhism -with its core emphasis on the notion that you are completely alone in your quest to aleviate suffering- exists with the assumption that no divine figure will or can come to your aid.

Buddhism does not say you are completely alone, it encourages you to seek the support of other like minded practitioners, though certainly it encourages you to take responsibility for your own development, which is probably what you are alluding to. There is also a sense that if you purify your own mind you benefit those around you and society as a whole, as you are not creating suffering for yourself and for others. So certainly you are not alone.

So to be agnostic about the existance of a god who can be petitioned through prayer and who can intercede in the events of man- would have to lead to being agnostic about Buddhism.

Either it's all up to you (as Buddhism claims) or it's not.

Why?

One is a system of beliefs, the other a system of techniques and guiding principles.

If the Buddhist says there MAY be a personal god (and I am using atheism here to refer to a personal, intercessionary God) then he is also saying that Buddhism -or the type of Buddhism that emphasises rational thought and behavior, MAY not be the way to attaining peace.

Again why? You seem to be taking a very black and white stance and ignoring the shades of grey in between. Your statement is like saying if you don't like Toyotas then you MUST like Hondas, not necessariily so.

[blaze]

In the first place, I don't think the supernatural can be 'proved' to exist- not by science- since the domain of science is natural law. And by definition, God is beyond natural law. (Previous attemtps to do so have led to the 'god of the gaps' approach which is most definitely not science).

I'm not sure what this is in response to, it doesn't appear to be in reply to anything in my post.

But I also think that Buddhism -with its core emphasis on the notion that you are completely alone in your quest to aleviate suffering- exists with the assumption that no divine figure will or can come to your aid.

Buddhism does not say you are completely alone, it encourages you to seek the support of other like minded practitioners, though certainly it encourages you to take responsibility for your own development, which is probably what you are alluding to. There is also a sense that if you purify your own mind you benefit those around you and society as a whole, as you are not creating suffering for yourself and for others. So certainly you are not alone.

So to be agnostic about the existance of a god who can be petitioned through prayer and who can intercede in the events of man- would have to lead to being agnostic about Buddhism.

Either it's all up to you (as Buddhism claims) or it's not.

Why?

One is a system of beliefs, the other a system of techniques and guiding principles.

If the Buddhist says there MAY be a personal god (and I am using atheism here to refer to a personal, intercessionary God) then he is also saying that Buddhism -or the type of Buddhism that emphasises rational thought and behavior, MAY not be the way to attaining peace.

Again why? You seem to be taking a very black and white stance and ignoring the shades of grey in between. Your statement is like saying if you don't like Toyotas then you MUST like Hondas, not necessariily so.

re my statement about scientifically proving that God is at play: this was in response to "when things arise that could be explained in spiritual terms you don't reject them immediately because you're an athiest, but examine them scientifically".

Re 'you are on your own'- I meant this in terms of the idea that there is a personal God helping you when needed and as He sees fit. And ultimately, even though you may find support and encouragement from the fellowship that Buddhism encourages- it is your Karma- and yours alone that determines your progress. Nothing they- or 'God'- can do to change that. They can affect it but you are the one who ultimately makes the choices. The old saw, you live alone and you die alone. Like a cancer patient- you may find solace in the companionship of others so afflicted- but ultimately the progress and treatment of your cancer has nothing to do with anyone (unless you believe in God) beyond the moral support that they offer YOU to make the right choices and the treatment options your doctor offers. But how well your cells respond to those treatment options is determined by your cells ultimately). And ultimately, it is you who makes the choices and you who takes the consequences you alone who experiences the highs and lows of life.

I think that Buddhism is much more than a set of techniques and guiding principles- it is a set of techniques and guiding principles that seek to address conditions that are part of being a human-

and that is the philosophy expressed in the four noble truths- as well as the more arcane concepts of non-soul- delusion etc. Without those, those practices are effective- as - true- but I don't think that a person can claim to be a Buddhist and ignore or reject the philosophy that gives rise to the need for those practices. It would be like a someone following the teachings of Christ (which, surprisingly, many atheists do) but not accepting his divinity- or the concept of Christ as a personal saviour. Would that person be a Christian?

Would Buddhism have arose had Guatama been able, when confronted with the truth of universal and all pervasive suffering- been able to hope for divine intercession to remedy that unpleasantness?

I think that he said- this is awful- and no God or spirit is going to help us. Sp we must help ourselves.

In other words, I am suggesting that Buddah was responding to his understanding that there is no personal God and therefore we must seek to understand the nature of suffering and the nature of our existance and to find out own way out- without hope of divine intercession.

In my (admittedly limited) understanding of Buddhism- it is a antidote to atheism. 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.

Kind of like- ok- there is all this suffering- and there is no God who is going to rescue us- so what do we do now- and Buddah said- I got some ideas if you want to listen. First understand the nature of our being, then the nature of the suffering that our being experiences and finally the techniques and methods to transcend that suffering.

Edited November 26, 2007 by blaze

[tc101]

I read most of the new atheism books and found them helpful. They had no negative effect on my Buddhist practice. For me, meditation and Buddhism are about the 4 noble truths. When I actually experience freedom from the bondage of the illusion of self and am awake in the present moment it is totally wonderful beyond my ability to describe. It has nothing to do with any belief about anything. It just is. Freedom. Happiness. Right here and right now. So good. No beliefs needed. Life is good.

[ProThaiExpat]

Blaze: Thank you for your posts. They are "spot on" in my view and I appreciate your insight. I have only recently been able to "label" my self in this context as a "secular humanist" as a result of a test I took on the internet.

I am so drawn to Buddhism as it seems to be as good a fit as I am going to find for my orientation. I also admire your ability to discuss your thoughts with "religionists" compassionately, as I describe such efforts as a near impossibility, as you are trying to be rational with one, who by definition, is irrational.

[SiriusBlack1]

Atheism implies that what you believe/understand is set in stone, it's decided, that part of your mind is now closed.

Brucenkhamen, I respectfully disagree. I'm an atheist, and to me "atheist" means that I have taken a stand. I say there is no God. But if someone can offer me proof that He exists, instead of blind faith and wishful thinking, I am open to considering it. But the discussion must be based on fact.

[blaze]

Blaze: Thank you for your posts. They are "spot on" in my view and I appreciate your insight. I have only recently been able to "label" my self in this context as a "secular humanist" as a result of a test I took on the internet.

I am so drawn to Buddhism as it seems to be as good a fit as I am going to find for my orientation. I also admire your ability to discuss your thoughts with "religionists" compassionately, as I describe such efforts as a near impossibility, as you are trying to be rational with one, who by definition, is irrational.

Thank you PTE. I don't know that much about Buddhism- but like for TC101- it's a godsend- (if you'll excuse the oxymoron).

[Brucenkhamen]

re my statement about scientifically proving that God is at play: this was in response to "when things arise that could be explained in spiritual terms you don't reject them immediately because you're an athiest, but examine them scientifically".

Yes, but that statement didn't mention the word "god".

Re 'you are on your own'- I meant this in terms of the idea that there is a personal God helping you when needed and as He sees fit. And ultimately, even though you may find support and encouragement from the fellowship that Buddhism encourages- it is your Karma- and yours alone that determines your progress. Nothing they- or 'God'- can do to change that. They can affect it but you are the one who ultimately makes the choices. The old saw, you live alone and you die alone. Like a cancer patient- you may find solace in the companionship of others so afflicted- but ultimately the progress and treatment of your cancer has nothing to do with anyone (unless you believe in God) beyond the moral support that they offer YOU to make the right choices and the treatment options your doctor offers. But how well your cells respond to those treatment options is determined by your cells ultimately). And ultimately, it is you who makes the choices and you who takes the consequences you alone who experiences the highs and lows of life.

I agree with what you are saying here.

Without those, those practices are effective- as - true- but I don't think that a person can claim to be a Buddhist and ignore or reject the philosophy that gives rise to the need for those practices.

The Buddha makes no such demands, so who are you to demand it of his followers? Refer to the Kalama Sutta on what the Buddha says on whether you should accept or reject his philosophy.

It's like if somebody is taking medicine that will eventually cure them do you have to deny them painkillers in the meantime. If a god belief dulls someones pain as they slowly tread the path of awakening I'm not going to be the one tospoil it for them.

It's not about just following a set menu of truths, truth is universal, you can learn truth about the human existance from anything you encounter in your day to day lives.. but only if your mind is open.

It would be like a someone following the teachings of Christ (which, surprisingly, many atheists do) but not accepting his divinity- or the concept of Christ as a personal saviour. Would that person be a Christian?

That's not really for me to judge, and why should I care?

In my (admittedly limited) understanding of Buddhism- it is a antidote to atheism. 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.

Interesting thought.

Trying to understand your point of view you seem to be assuming that the only definition of God or the supernatural is the judeo-christian one, with all the creation and salvation stuff that goes with it. As far as I'm aware that world view wasn't present in North India during the Buddhas time, and it certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the world of non-athiesm now.

You also haven't considered the main point of my original post, that an open mind is more conducive to Buddhist practice than a closed one, the same is true for science. It's therefore better to not have a fixed view, especially on topics that are irrelevant anyway.

So how have you found having a point view fixed on athiesm has helped you in practicing the Buddhist path?

Edited November 26, 2007 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

Brucenkhamen, I respectfully disagree. I'm an atheist, and to me "atheist" means that I have taken a stand. I say there is no God. But if someone can offer me proof that He exists, instead of blind faith and wishful thinking, I am open to considering it. But the discussion must be based on fact.

Sounds like you are an agnostic athiest then, as am I. I fail to see the usefulness of adding a belief system to Buddhist practice, but that doesn't mean to say I'll always see things that way nor criticise those that do.

[Shah Jahan]

everything is magic

all that matters is personal power

religion and not-religion are nothing more than putting form unto emptiness

[camerata]

But would you not agree that the ideal Buddhist world would be a world of atheists? Atheists who had accepted that the teachings of Buddhism are the best way to provide the meaning and relief from despair that deism used to- before they became atheists?

Well, again, it depends on the definition of atheist. I suspect most atheists - especially the celebrity atheists like Hitchens - would deride the notion of nibbana, but nibbana to me is what sets Buddhism apart and gives it a spiritual dimension.

If you mean that the ideal Buddhism is one without devas, deities and celestial realms, I think that would be ideal for those Buddhists who really understand the teachings, but not many do. However, I don't really see what harm it does to believe in the "supernatural" elements of Buddhism (or Hinduism or Jainism), whereas the potential harm in believing in a single, vengeful, jealous, Creator God is obvious to anyone - as history shows us.

[camerata]

Yes- that opens up the whole question- what is more important- the quest for 'truth'- or the social harmony that myths taken as reality can provide. Is it realistic to think that people can flourish without religion- in the classical sense of the term- (you, I think would agree)- that religion- and a belief in the supernatural is nescessary to provide most people with a moral framework- to give them hope in the face of setbacks, suffering, existential isolation and mortality.

It would seem so. One of the few disagreements I ever had with Carl Sagan's ideas is that he thought without religion most people would turn out to be secular humanists. Some would, for sure, but the majority wouldn't.

And that from the selfish pursuit of enlightenment- to make the leap to selfless compassion- the logical leap- is just expecting too much- I can't do it- I don't know if we can expect whole societies to do it.

I don't see the pursuit of enlightenment to be selfish. That's mainly Mahayana propaganda. Compassion is an essential part of the path to enlightenment.

But at the same time, I personally think that as soon as divine or supernatural is introduced to Buddhism- then the whole essence of Buddhism is lost. And the brilliance of the four noble truths become meaningless- since a divine intercession can relieve the suffering.

With regards to divine intercession, I agree. If you look at early Japanese Pure Land, they took reliance on the grace of Amida Buddha to such an extreme that all one had to do was call on Amida's name once with sincerity at the time of death to gain access to the Tusita Heaven.

[Plus]

In my (admittedly limited) understanding of Buddhism- it is a antidote to atheism. 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.

Interesting thought.

Trying to understand your point of view you seem to be assuming that the only definition of God or the supernatural is the judeo-christian one, with all the creation and salvation stuff that goes with it. As far as I'm aware that world view wasn't present in North India during the Buddhas time, and it certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the world of non-athiesm now.

Yes, but it seems that it's the only concept of God Dawkins and Co are familiar with. They talk about God who is vengeful and jealous and cruel and so on.

Maybe I have gone native but I don't understand who are they talking about. I, personally, can't relate to their image of God at all.

>>>

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

[blaze]

In my (admittedly limited) understanding of Buddhism- it is a antidote to atheism. 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.

Interesting thought.

Trying to understand your point of view you seem to be assuming that the only definition of God or the supernatural is the judeo-christian one, with all the creation and salvation stuff that goes with it. As far as I'm aware that world view wasn't present in North India during the Buddhas time, and it certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the world of non-athiesm now.

Yes, but it seems that it's the only concept of God Dawkins and Co are familiar with. They talk about God who is vengeful and jealous and cruel and so on.

Maybe I have gone native but I don't understand who are they talking about. I, personally, can't relate to their image of God at all.

>>>

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

Re your first statement- I think Dawkins et al are going back to the Old Testament for this- and this is probably not the thread to discuss that.

Now as to your second- 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.

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 tried to make it clear that the "God' that I refer to- and it is the interpetation of God that Dawkins rejects- is a divine supernatural being capable of interceding in the lives of individuals. And for Dawkins, any belief system that is based on such a being is dangerous and false.

I am perfectly content however to regard God as the sum of all forces laws and principles. In which case I am a believer- I am a theist right down the line. And so is Dawkins. (he said so).

When I have used the term Buddhist- I have meant it to refer not to one who simply practices the techniques of meditation etc and/ or follows the 8 fold path- (by those standards, most Christian monks would qualify as Buddhists)- but rather one who ALSO accepts as truth the fundamental assumptions- about the 'self' about the world, about the extinguishing of 'self'- about karma and suffering and so on- of doctrinal (if there is such a thing) Buddhism.

Again if someone wishes to say that a Buddhist is anyone who obeys the 8fold path or who meditates with Buddhist monks- then - that's fine too. Just as long as we are using the same definitions.

I know there are two types of atheism- one which says- I am atheist because I have no rational reason to believe in the existance of a deity as the deitys are commonly used in the west (and atheism is a western term). (this kind of atheist is the type that will, when presented with proof, accept the existance of a second moon of the earth- or the double helix- or the God of which ever religion presents him with this proof).

There is another kind of atheist who says- not only have I no reason to believe- but the notion of deities is logically so inconsistent that they could NOT exist. And therefore the western notion of God does not exist- because it logically can't. For this kind of atheist- an open mind about the existance of god is like having an open mind about the possibility his table might start dancing around the room.

One kind of atheist (the first) is actually open minded. The second is not.

Finally there is the agnostic- who, I think, says there may be a god and may not be one. (Though they would probably be a bit more close minded were it suggested that on auspicious nights of the lunar calendar, they wrench the hearts from living virgins just in case the great Aztec deities were fact.)

Until we make at least an effort to agree on our terms, the conversation is doomed to get bogged down.

Anyway- here is a quote that might shed a little light on Dawkins' view of Buddhism:

"Q What about Buddhism, mysticism, contemplation, meditation?

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:

"I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religious at all, but as ethical systems or philospohies of life"

I haven't read Hitchens -nor will I- I don't have much respect for the old windbag- but I heard him debate a British theologian (he came off poorly in my estimation) and he made statements about Buddhism that suggest that Buddhism is about people praying to statues, believing in magic amulets, held hostage to previous lives etc. Which sounds a lot like saying Christianity is a religion where people handle snakes.

Edited November 26, 2007 by blaze

[rafval]

my believe is that its largely semantics, people talk about god etc as if it has a common meaning but it doesn't, it only has personal meanings and people assume it has a common meaning because their ego rule, if the meanings of these words was debated first and people had a clear understanding of what they were referring to much of the controversy would disappear, people like Dawkins are a natural and necessary overreaction to the people that push their own ego driven agendas of god etc , in reality religion is similar to music, each to their own but none is right or wrong, its a matter of taste, not fact

[Brucenkhamen]

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.