Dawkins Strips Away Religion's Dead Wood

[churchill]

Dawkins is doing religion a favour – by exposing faith and spirituality to criticism, he paves the way for their renewal

I doubt it was his intention, but in 100 years time Richard Dawkins could be hailed as a prime architect of 21st-century religion. Though strident to the point of comic fundamentalism, the New Atheist diatribe has not only laid bare the irrationalities of believers, but forced those of us who favour scientific-spiritual accommodation to sharpen our arguments. And that can only aid the development of spiritual forms fit for the modern world.

When I first picked up The God Delusion, I was a bit disappointed to find it was rather polite about my own tradition. Right up there in chapter one, Dawkins sensibly suggests that Buddhism might be seen as an ethical or philosophical system rather than a religion, and so not a major focus for his ire. We've got off lightly from other anti-religionists too – Sam Harris even goes on Buddhist meditation retreats.

The International Buddhist Film Festival, which opened in London last week, has at least provoked a bit of poking at our flabby underbelly. On Radio 3, Martin Palmer accused western Buddhists of creating their own version based on "the religion we don't want, which is Judeo-Christian, and the religion we would love to have, which isn't quite religion, which … doesn't have too many rules, and the rules it does have, like the Tibetan ban on homosexuality, are conveniently forgotten." Mark Vernon, relaying Palmer's comments on his blog, agreed, describing western Buddhism as "deeply partial, a pick 'n' mix religion". Their criticisms would appear to be supported by a glance at the IBFF schedule, which includes films – such as Donnie Darko and Hamlet – for which the label Buddhist seems pretty tenuous.

But Buddhism has always changed shape according to place and time. Impermanence, as one of the three marks of existence, must apply also to Buddhism itself. It accepts, even demands, that every culture must find its own unique expressions of awakening. To prevent them becoming pieces of stale ideology, its discoveries must be tested anew by each practitioner, rather than being swallowed from scripture. Whenever Buddhism is embraced in a new location, it has mixed with pre-existing wisdom – hence, for example, why Zen looks so different from Tibetan Vajrayana.

In Buddhism there should be no room for dogma – the ultimate criteria for performing an action is its role in alleviating the suffering of oneself and others. A course of action could reduce suffering in one circumstance and magnify it in another, so the rules are there to be broken and the traditions are there to be changed, provided, of course, you can do it skilfully. When asked to sum up the essence of Buddhism, Japanese teacher Shunyru Susuki replied "Not always so". The pliability of the teachings means that mistakes can be learned from, and culturally created doctrines or codes of behaviour that are unwise, outdated or harmful – the aforementioned approach to homosexuality for example – can be freely consigned to the bin.

Does that make western Buddhism a pick 'n' mix religion? Perhaps it does – but if we pick and mix well, we might create something good. Indeed, if we pick wise insights from the past and mix them with the ever-accumulating knowledge from our own cultural heritage, then what we might have a viable model for 21st-century spirituality. It needn't even be called Buddhism, which is, after all, just a word.

As a path that simultaneously emphasises both constant change and a relentless search for truth, perhaps Buddhism is in a good position to develop more mature forms. However, the rational onslaught must inevitably spur other traditions to self-question and adapt too. And this is where Richard Dawkins may well be one of religion's greatest allies. The old code that sacred beliefs cannot be challenged for fear of causing offence has been shattered – and it needed shattering. If the sacred dimension just means articles of faith that provoke outrage when assaulted, then religion and the religious would be better off without them. Dawkins and his ilk may have their sights trained on eliminating religion, but what they are actually doing is exposing its dead wood, the anachronisms that have been protected from critical thinking, and that needed cutting away.

Claims to special privilege in society, indoctrination of belief as fact, repressive or violent acts as a means of evangelism, and the upholding of outdated worldviews on scriptural grounds – all these and many other examples of the misuse of spiritual traditions do them no favours and should be dropped. If that is pick 'n' mix religion, can I be first in the queue at the sweet counter?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/be...eligion-dawkins

[camerata]

When I first picked up The God Delusion, I was a bit disappointed to find it was rather polite about my own tradition. Right up there in chapter one, Dawkins sensibly suggests that Buddhism might be seen as an ethical or philosophical system rather than a religion, and so not a major focus for his ire. We've got off lightly from other anti-religionists too – Sam Harris even goes on Buddhist meditation retreats.

But not from Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great!

Impermanence, as one of the three marks of existence, must apply also to Buddhism itself. It accepts, even demands, that every culture must find its own unique expressions of awakening.

The Buddha never said anything like that.

[agent69]

Discussing or comparing religions is similar to having six blind men describing an elephant.

[phetaroi]

When I first picked up The God Delusion, I was a bit disappointed to find it was rather polite about my own tradition. Right up there in chapter one, Dawkins sensibly suggests that Buddhism might be seen as an ethical or philosophical system rather than a religion, and so not a major focus for his ire. We've got off lightly from other anti-religionists too – Sam Harris even goes on Buddhist meditation retreats.

But not from Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great!

Impermanence, as one of the three marks of existence, must apply also to Buddhism itself. It accepts, even demands, that every culture must find its own unique expressions of awakening.

The Buddha never said anything like that.

I accept that Buddha spoke truth. I do not accept that Buddha spoke all things that were truth. When we think and meditate, part of what we are doing is to extrapolate Buddha's teachings into our own lives. In fact, if we are not doing that, there is no sense to thinking about Buddhism.

I noticed in another posting you mentioned that you have been called a fundamentalist. That's one of the best things about you being a moderator in the group. You keep reminding the rest of us about what I will refer to a "strict path". Pushing the envelope through discussion, but maintaining the envelope, are both crucial to intelligent discourse.

[Xangsamhua]

Discussing or comparing religions is similar to having six blind men describing an elephant.

You're probably right, though Dawkins et al don't really need to be very insightful to expose the foolishness and dangers in some forms of religion. I haven't read the current crop of anti-religious, anti-theist books because (1) I can't imagine they're saying anything new and (2) I have no real disagreement with atheist positions anyway. Their critique of "God" is one that most liberal Protestants and Catholics would agree with, without getting passionate about it. The latter have a much more hopeful vision for religion, however.

Still, most Christians feel obliged to talk about "God" in some way, even if the avant-garde's understanding is not patriarchal, monarchic or anthropomorphic. But it's pretty hard to talk about something that isn't a "thing" and that doesn't intervene, answer prayers of petition or do anything much really other than just "be", so there's some ground for existence - ours and that of the cosmos in general. Some Christians now talk of "God" as "pure relationship", which leaves me mystified and would seem to be easy pickings for Dawkins' sarcasm. But, really, nothing makes much sense when viewed from the perspective of infinity.

I may be pretty naive, but it seems to me that Buddhists are good at denying things. Buddhist theology is not so much a-theology as negative theology - there's nothing that can be said about the absolute or ultimate that can't be unsaid. Hence, Buddhism is largely unassailable by old-style rationalists. Fairly contradictory views can be contained within Buddhism because there's no point trying to prove opposing positions wrong. They're just points of view for which reasons can be given. That's why I think the Buddha didn't encourage his followers to get caught up in speculation about "God". It doesn't take you where you want to go and it causes all kinds of conflict and irrationality - the very things that Dawkins and others are concerned about.

[agent69]

I may be pretty naive, but it seems to me that Buddhists are good at denying things. Buddhist theology is not so much a-theology as negative theology - there's nothing that can be said about the absolute or ultimate that can't be unsaid. Hence, Buddhism is largely unassailable by old-style rationalists. Fairly contradictory views can be contained within Buddhism because there's no point trying to prove opposing positions wrong. They're just points of view for which reasons can be given. That's why I think the Buddha didn't encourage his followers to get caught up in speculation about "God". It doesn't take you where you want to go and it causes all kinds of conflict and irrationality - the very things that Dawkins and others are concerned about.

I have once been told that the Buddha did not encourage us to think about the universe because it could drive us mad. It is something that most of us cannot comprehend and does not rid us of our burdens.

I mentioned in the other thread that Buddha reminded himself of death every rhythm of his breathing. I cannot imagine what kind of things that mind can do. The machines that can perform almost like that nowaday would be computers. But they lack intelligence and wisdom a person would possess. What I am trying to say is that, with a mind like that, explaining God or universe might be trivial.

But we would not know until we reached a certain level.

Edited May 13, 2009 by agent69

[camerata]

The Buddha never said anything like that.

I noticed in another posting you mentioned that you have been called a fundamentalist. That's one of the best things about you being a moderator in the group. You keep reminding the rest of us about what I will refer to a "strict path". Pushing the envelope through discussion, but maintaining the envelope, are both crucial to intelligent discourse.

Something like that. People come to forums either to get facts or to exchange views. Exchanging views is a lot more fun but I think we mods have a responsibility to clarify views that are expressed as if they were facts (or at least from orthodox sources) so that those new to Buddhism don't get confused. I guess that makes us sound like pedants or fundamentalists at times, but I see it more as separating facts from opinions.

"The Buddha never said anything like that" is just my way of saying it's the writer's opinion, or it might be a code for "Mahayana says that but Theravada doesn't." For clarity's sake, I think it's important to point out teachings which are Mahayana. Buddhist leaders may have signed a UN-style declaration of common ground among the sects but I think that is mainly aimed at giving Buddhism more clout on the world scene. It fudges over some very significant differences in doctrine. Those will never be resolved, but I don't think they need to be. Vive la difference! All the Theravadins and Mahayanists have to do is stop criticizing each other. But one can't say "Buddhism says that..." if it is only only school that says it. There's a view that Mahayana "encompasses" Theravada, but it doesn't entirely. And "Hinayana" doesn't mean "Lesser Vehicle," it actually means Inferior Vehicle!

My personal interest is in seeing how the core teachings correspond with psychology, psychotherapy and evolutionary biology. Because if you take away the supernatural element of Theravada Buddhism, the goal of nibbana in this life can still be attained, and it seems like it could one day be entirely explained by psychology. That makes it different from other religions, and also from Mahayana. Other religions and Mahayana rely on some supernatural element for their final attainment (i.e. Heaven, Buddhahood, etc).

[mc2]

My personal interest is in seeing how the core teachings correspond with psychology, psychotherapy and evolutionary biology. Because if you take away the supernatural element of Theravada Buddhism, the goal of nibbana in this life can still be attained, and it seems like it could one day be entirely explained by psychology. That makes it different from other religions, and also from Mahayana. Other religions and Mahayana rely on some supernatural element for their final attainment (i.e. Heaven, Buddhahood, etc).

do you think enlightenment can cure neurosisis or curing neurosisis is a pre-requisite for enlightenment (or at least makes it easier), or they are unrelated. ?

[camerata]

do you think enlightenment can cure neurosisis or curing neurosisis is a pre-requisite for enlightenment (or at least makes it easier), or they are unrelated. ?

Well, enlightenment is a cure for everything, if you can attain it! I think psychotherapy tries to make "abnormal" people normal while Buddhism tries to make "normal" people perfect. I think you can cure minor neuroses with either psychotherapy or Dhamma because they have a similar approach: investigating your subconscious motivation and how it affects your behaviour. With psychotherapy you get external prompting to figure out what's going on in your mind, with Buddhism you do most of the work yourself.

Jack Kornfield is working in this area and describes it in his book A Path with Heart. But I believe he says something like, "You need to have a strong sense of self before you start getting rid of self." In other words, if you have serious mental problems the whole idea of not-self could be dangerous.

My personal view, based on what I've read, is that people whose childhood went wrong and they grew up without a conscience (serial killers, pedophiles, etc) are beyond cure by any method. They'll have to wait for another life. But someone like, say, a gang leader who killed to prove he was tough could reform through Buddhism. I've heard of some gangbangers reforming after embracing Christianity too.

In answer to your question, enlightenment means eradicating all the "defilements," however small, so IMO you couldn't attain it if you had some major personality disorders.