Armstrong Vs Dawkins On The God Question

[Xangsamhua]

Review of Karen Armstrong's new book, The Case for God: What Religion Really Means.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5003900,00.html

I haven't read the book yet, but am confident from what I know of her work that by "God" she is not referring to the cosmic mover of simple theism. The book was written as a refutation of the simple a-theism of Richard Dawkins and his followers. She makes the point that Dawkins' atheism is a reaction to the theism of the abrahamic religions in their current, often questionable forms. Atheism must be understood in its context; the early Christians were attacked as atheists because they did not follow the cults of deities in Rome at the time.

Many Western Buddhists describe themselves as atheists; however, I've not detected any more atheism in Buddhism than in apophatic (negative) theology, process theology, mysticism, theological non-cognitivism or non-realist theology. The acceptance of a fundamental law of cause and effect, albeit the causes are said to be interdependent, suggests something fundamental, whether one calls it "God" or something else or nothing at all.

The review appeared in today's Australian newspaper. I accessed it from the Sea of Faith website. Sea of Faith is a network of people who come from a Christian background, but do not accept the idea of an objectively real God. They are "non-realists" inspired by the writings of Don Cupitt.

[sirineou]

The God question is a difficult one if not an impossible one.

I read Recharsd Dawkins . The God Delusion and 2/3 the way through the book I got bored, and stopped, it seems to me that he was making the same point over and over but in different ways. He made a fatal mistake made when arguing philosophical questions, and that is he failed to set his definitions so that we all are arguing about the same thing, If you are arguing against the existence of the Abrahamic religions god, a case could be made, but If you are arguing against the existence of Baruch Spinoza’s God ( the sum total of all the laws that govern the Universe) , maybe a different case could be made. In any case you can only argue against false Gods, you can possible , with reason discredit a particular notion of God but you can never say with certainly there is no God, because God is Supernatural in nature, and we can only argue reasonably and scientifically for things that are with in the Natural world. Everything else is speculation.

The only thing that anyone can be and maintain a certain amount of Intellectual integrity, is in my opinion Agnostic.

I am not an expert in Buddhism not even an novice but this is my understaning.

When Buddha was asked by one of his disciples as to the Nature of God, he replied with a little story , I don’t remember the story exactly so I will paraphrase. For those of you who are familiar with the story please forgive me is I get it a little wrong.

He tells the story of a Traveler who is fatally shot by an arrow, as he lay on the road an other traveler arrived and ask the first one what had happen , the injured man replied I was shot by a bandit, please help me, I will help you said the second man but first tell me which way he went, the injured man told him which way the bandit went, and pleaded for help as he was greatly suffering, the second man said wait I will help you but what did he look like, the injured man tried to describe him and pleaded for help, I will help you said the second man but can you tell me his name, at which point the injured man died from his injuries.

Buhdda explained to his disciple , I am not concerned with the nature of god , as it is a question that can not be answered , I am concerned with the alleviation of Human suffering. So in essence Buddhism is not atheistic it is Agnostic, or possible indifferent to the question.

I Have not read Karen Armstrong's book ,it sounds like interesting reading, I am in the states (east coast) now I will be coming to Thailand in a few months , 21-24 hrs traveling , a good time to read it, But….. I read the article http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5003900,00.html and she is described as a former Catholic nun, with interests in Judaism and Islam, and I am afraid her arguments will not be for God but rather for Abraham’s God. I Hope I am pleasantly surprised.

Any way , thank you for bringing the book to our attention, and I Hope i made my points ( how ever muddled they might be) with out offending anyone, If I have I apologize it was not my intention i have great respect for all points of view.

[rockyysdt]

Buhdda explained to his disciple , I am not concerned with the nature of god , as it is a question that can not be answered , I am concerned with the alleviation of Human suffering. So in essence Buddhism is not atheistic it is Agnostic, or possible indifferent to the question.

Could it be that the Buddha was not concerned with the nature of god because it would be impossible for a finite human to comprehend the infinite without first hand experience? Wouldn't words fail?

Edited August 15, 2009 by rockyysdt

[glegolo]

Review of Karen Armstrong's new book, The Case for God: What Religion Really Means.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5003900,00.html

I haven't read the book yet, but am confident from what I know of her work that by "God" she is not referring to the cosmic mover of simple theism. The book was written as a refutation of the simple a-theism of Richard Dawkins and his followers. She makes the point that Dawkins' atheism is a reaction to the theism of the abrahamic religions in their current, often questionable forms. Atheism must be understood in its context; the early Christians were attacked as atheists because they did not follow the cults of deities in Rome at the time.

Many Western Buddhists describe themselves as atheists; however, I've not detected any more atheism in Buddhism than in apophatic (negative) theology, process theology, mysticism, theological non-cognitivism or non-realist theology. The acceptance of a fundamental law of cause and effect, albeit the causes are said to be interdependent, suggests something fundamental, whether one calls it "God" or something else or nothing at all.

The review appeared in today's Australian newspaper. I accessed it from the Sea of Faith website. Sea of Faith is a network of people who come from a Christian background, but do not accept the idea of an objectively real God. They are "non-realists" inspired by the writings of Don Cupitt.

--------------------------------------------

hmmm this really makes me sleepy. For me this is competely and utterly bull and not interesting. so by this post I promise

I have made this thread a little bit more interesting!!

Glegolo

Edited August 16, 2009 by glegolo

[camerata]

I haven't read the book yet, but am confident from what I know of her work that by "God" she is not referring to the cosmic mover of simple theism. The book was written as a refutation of the simple a-theism of Richard Dawkins and his followers.

The thing is, that's the way most people think of God, and it's that idea of God that causes all the trouble, which is why Dawkins is against it.

Many Western Buddhists describe themselves as atheists; however, I've not detected any more atheism in Buddhism than in apophatic (negative) theology, process theology, mysticism, theological non-cognitivism or non-realist theology.

Sticking to the topic of Buddhism, it's pretty simple. My Webster's Dictionary defines an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in God, and "God" as "any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature." By that definition, Theravada Buddhism is atheistic, whereas classical Mahayana (excepting Zen) possibly isn't.

In the popular imagination, atheism these days seems to mean rejection of belief in anything supernatural (presumably meaning anything that can't be proven by today's science), which means that doctrinal Buddhism is not atheistic and no one who believes in ghosts, horoscopes or bad luck from breaking a mirror can be an atheist.

The Buddha told his monks that one of the most serious hindrances was attachment to views. If I describe myself as an atheist (in the popular definition), it's a rejection of much of doctrinal Buddhism and a very rigid view. That's why if one doesn't have faith in the Pali Canon descriptions of rebirth and karma, the only thing that makes sense to me is to be agnostic about it - an agnostic Buddhist. Then there is no attachment and I'm open to all possibilities that may unfold through practice.

IMO, it's a waste of time trying to redefine God/Heaven to match Karma/Nirvana. Adherents of all religions may well be looking for the same thing (relief from suffering, particularly caused by the cessation of existence), but Buddhism has a unique approach. I also don't see much point in trying to redefine God as the totality of the universe, infinity, nothingness, or whatever. Carl Sagan said humans seem to need a sense of wonder in their lives, and I agree with that, but it doesn't have to be called "God."

Just my opinion, of course...

[Abrak]

The God question is a difficult one if not an impossible one.

I read Recharsd Dawkins . The God Delusion and 2/3 the way through the book I got bored, and stopped, it seems to me that he was making the same point over and over but in different ways.

Absolutely. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist (I have read virtually every book he has written, so it is just a personal view). His book on religion 'The God Delusion' was simply an embarrassment. (I got a 3/4 of the way through before binning it.)

Any argument about religion should not 'use' this diatribe as a reference point.

[xylophone]

The whole "argument/discussion" about religion reminds me of a quote from a very good friend of mine, when he said that it is the same as "arguing about how many fairies you can fit on a pinhead". A pointless discussion.

At the level which affects as mere humans, Muslims blow up/murder Muslims, and Christians, Christians do likewise to Christians and Muslims, the Catholic church is riddled with corruption and homosexuality, whilst teaching/preaching against it, other western religions of the Abrahamic god defile young boys and girls and the list goes on and on. The only legacy appears to be murder, corruption, homosexuality, bigotism, witch hunts, burnings, slayings............

Man's quest to believe in something he can look up to/revere/worship in times of need probably say more about man than any religion. And of course the thought that "this cannot be all there is to life; I must be here for a reason; I cannot believe this ends when I die" is a type of vanity and people look to religion to satisfy this vanity.

Evolution, as to how we got here and "what this all means" seems to fit the bill better than the many fables/fairy stories proffered by the various religions.

I too have read Richard Dawkins book, although not all the way through as it has become a little repetitive, however the one thing that stands out for me and which reflects my thoughts is the following: --

"The anthropologist, Pascal Boyer did some research on the Fang people of Cameroon who believe........

.........”that witches have an extra internal animal like organ that flies away at night and ruins other people’s crops or poisons their blood. It is also said that these witches sometimes assemble for huge banquets, where they devour their victims and plan future attacks. Many will tell you that a friend of a friend actually saw witches flying over the village at night, sitting on a banana leaf and throwing magical darts at various unsuspecting victims”.

Boyer continues with a personal anecdote:

“I was mentioning these and other exotica over dinner in a Cambridge college when one of our guests, a prominent Cambridge theologian, turned to me and said, ‘that is what makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficult too. You have to explain how people can believe such nonsense’. This left me dumbfounded, but the conversation had moved on before I could find a pertinent response”.

Assuming that the Cambridge theologian was a mainstream Christian, he probably believed some combination of the following:

 -- in the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

 -- -- the same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.

 -- -- the fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.

 -- -- 40 days later the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and disappeared bodily into the sky.

 -- -- if you murmur thoughts privately in your head, fatherless man, and his ‘father’ (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.

 -- -- if you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.

 -- -- the fatherless man’s virgin mother never died but was ‘assumed’ bodily into heaven.

 -- -- bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), ‘become’ the body and blood of the fatherless man.

What would an objective anthropologist, coming fresh to this set of believes while on field work in Cambridge, make of them??".

Any intelligent/objective person would see that both sets of beliefs belong in the pages of an Enid Blyton book (my observation).

[camerata]

OK, guys, remember this is the Buddhism forum, not the Religion forum. So either keep the discussion relevant in some way to Buddhism or expect your post to end up in the Twilight Zone or the topic to be closed.

[slim]

Is God willing to prevent Evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is God able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

Epicurus 341-270 BC

[xylophone]

Sorry, thought the OP was talking about "The case for God", Richard Dawkins book and arguments for and against!! I apologise if I have gone off topic.

[camerata]

Sorry, thought the OP was talking about "The case for God", Richard Dawkins book and arguments for and against!! I apologise if I have gone off topic.

Well, he was, basically. The problem is the original post and article had very little to do with Buddhism, so the topic will attract the God-bashers and end up being closed. Dawkins' book in fact only mentions Buddhism once, saying it's more of a philosophy than a religion. Karen Armstrong's book Buddha is quite a good read but contains some mistakes. She comes across as an author rather than a serious historian to me.

[OxfordWill]

So, have you read the book yet?

Edited August 16, 2009 by OxfordWill

[sirineou]

Absolutely right , If god is infinite , then we can never get to the end of it, so we will always have a n incomplete picture. Also any portion there of ,that can be perceived , that perception will be tainted by our own personal biases.

[phetaroi]

The Buddha told his monks that one of the most serious hindrances was attachment to views.

You will be tempted to think I'm being a wise-ass by asking this question, but it really is a serious question:

So, is attachment to the views of Buddhism an attachment?

[phetaroi]

The whole "argument/discussion" about religion reminds me of a quote from a very good friend of mine, when he said that it is the same as "arguing about how many fairies you can fit on a pinhead". A pointless discussion.

I don't agree. What if Einstein and Bell and Edison and...well you get the idea...had decided not to let their imaginations run wild about things no one yet knew about? Is poetry pointless? Literature? Sonatas?

At the level which affects as mere humans, Muslims blow up/murder Muslims, and Christians, Christians do likewise to Christians and Muslims, the Catholic church is riddled with corruption and homosexuality, whilst teaching/preaching against it, other western religions of the Abrahamic god defile young boys and girls and the list goes on and on. The only legacy appears to be murder, corruption, homosexuality, bigotism, witch hunts, burnings, slayings............

What I think you're missing is a key question -- are they doing it as individuals or in the name of their religion. I think this is an essential point.

Man's quest to believe in something he can look up to/revere/worship in times of need probably say more about man than any religion. And of course the thought that "this cannot be all there is to life; I must be here for a reason; I cannot believe this ends when I die" is a type of vanity and people look to religion to satisfy this vanity.

Hmmmm...a teacher who wants to improve the lives of her students in just being vain? A doctor that wants to save lives is just being vain?

Evolution, as to how we got here and "what this all means" seems to fit the bill better than the many fables/fairy stories proffered by the various religions.

At the university, part of my major was paleontology and evolution. I knew most of the professors quite well, and every one was a practicing Christian. The idea that religion and science have to be totally separate is pure folly.

Assuming that the Cambridge theologian was a mainstream Christian, he probably believed some combination of the following:

 -- in the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

 -- -- the same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.

 -- -- the fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.

 -- -- 40 days later the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and disappeared bodily into the sky.

 -- -- if you murmur thoughts privately in your head, fatherless man, and his 'father' (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.

 -- -- if you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.

 -- -- the fatherless man's virgin mother never died but was 'assumed' bodily into heaven.

 -- -- bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), 'become' the body and blood of the fatherless man.

This relates more to the question of whether the Bible (and the Dhamma and other books of religious scriptures) are factual or allegorical. It does not answer the questions as to whether or not their is a god and what role he plays.

Any intelligent/objective person would see that both sets of beliefs belong in the pages of an Enid Blyton book (my observation).

While I know it's not the same, I am reminded of a number of people in my family, all Catholics, who after their divorces also divorced themselves from the Catholic Church...until they got old and suddenly found that maybe they needed their faith toward the end of their lives and upon their death.

[phetaroi]

Sorry, thought the OP was talking about "The case for God", Richard Dawkins book and arguments for and against!! I apologise if I have gone off topic.

Well, he was, basically. The problem is the original post and article had very little to do with Buddhism, so the topic will attract the God-bashers and end up being closed. Dawkins' book in fact only mentions Buddhism once, saying it's more of a philosophy than a religion. Karen Armstrong's book Buddha is quite a good read but contains some mistakes. She comes across as an author rather than a serious historian to me.

Not a criticism, but merely a suggestion. Can't a totally irrelevant post be deleted without closing an entire thread?

The question of whether or not their is a god is (or certainly can be) directly related to Buddhism's place among world religions and philosophies.

[sirineou]

The whole "argument/discussion" about religion reminds me of a quote from a very good friend of mine, when he said that it is the same as "arguing about how many fairies you can fit on a pinhead". A pointless discussion.

[/code

With all due respect, even though your post has many good points, I respectfully disagree with this point, even though any discussions about the existence of God and religion my not be productive towards a resolution of the subject, they are certainly not pointless, It serves many points. One point might be grater understanding of each others views. Understanding reduces fear and promotes tolerance, so in that respect the discussion is certainly not pointless.

[camerata]

Not a criticism, but merely a suggestion. Can't a totally irrelevant post be deleted without closing an entire thread?

Yes, they can. But when 90% of the posts are unrelated to Buddhism, it's easier to close the topic.

The question of whether or not their is a god is (or certainly can be) directly related to Buddhism's place among world religions and philosophies.

Here are the additional posting guidelines for this forum:

"Posts about other religions, eg, Christianity, Islam, etc, or about the existence of God, intelligent design, creation, etc are allowable only when expressly discussed in the context of Buddhism. Any new topic where Buddhism is not thematically involved will be immediately deleted, or, if otherwise relevant to Thailand, moved to the appropriate subforum."

Simply discussing the existence of God isn't covered by these guidelines and we've already had at least one long topic on God in Buddhism.

[camerata]

The Buddha told his monks that one of the most serious hindrances was attachment to views.

You will be tempted to think I'm being a wise-ass by asking this question, but it really is a serious question:

So, is attachment to the views of Buddhism an attachment?

I think it's a question of attitude. If you aren't open to the possibility that your view may not be the only right way to do things, it's a rigid frame of mind that isn't beneficial to practice. As Ajahn Chah often said, everything is "not sure" (mai nae-nawn). There's a similar question asked by some people: "If Buddhists aren't supposed to have desire, how come they all desire nibbana?" But it's recognized in Buddhism that there are two kinds of desire, the kind that leads to enlightenment (good) and the kind that leads to suffering (bad). Ultimately, as Ajahn Chah said, "you have to let go of everything" (i.e. to attain nibbana).

[sirineou]

The Buddha told his monks that one of the most serious hindrances was attachment to views.

You will be tempted to think I'm being a wise-ass by asking this question, but it really is a serious question:

So, is attachment to the views of Buddhism an attachment?

Haaaaaa a good question , in my reply I will reveal how little I know about Buddhism, any corrections are greatly appreciated.

I guess total Detachment is the goal to ( am I using the correct term?) archiving nirvana and become Buddha, but the Vast majority of us fails short. The operative word in the above quote is " hindrance " , detachment happens in various degrees and steps and the finals step is total detachment. but before the final step can be taken one has to content with the proses , the process is both the empowerment and the hindrance, as you get closer to the final step the views of Buddhism become less and less important and hence less of a hindrance, until I guess you are Buddha your self and the views of Buddhism are your views .

.Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa have i managed to totally confuse you?? I know I have certainly confused my self.

[agent69]

The Buddha told his monks that one of the most serious hindrances was attachment to views.

You will be tempted to think I'm being a wise-ass by asking this question, but it really is a serious question:

So, is attachment to the views of Buddhism an attachment?

Haaaaaa a good question , in my reply I will reveal how little I know about Buddhism, any corrections are greatly appreciated.

I guess total Detachment is the goal to ( am I using the correct term?) archiving nirvana and become Buddha, but the Vast majority of us fails short. The operative word in the above quote is " hindrance " , detachment happens in various degrees and steps and the finals step is total detachment. but before the final step can be taken one has to content with the proses , the process is both the empowerment and the hindrance, as you get closer to the final step the views of Buddhism become less and less important and hence less of a hindrance, until I guess you are Buddha your self and the views of Buddhism are your views .

.Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa have i managed to totally confuse you?? I know I have certainly confused my self.

We have the chances to become arahant not Buddha. There have been many Buddha before this current one. The next one will emerge after our Buddhism is forgotten or is no longer been practising.

And yes, we gain the understanding through the period of practising. The saying 'practice makes perfect' is true in this regard too.

[camerata]

I guess total Detachment is the goal to ( am I using the correct term?) archiving nirvana and become Buddha, but the Vast majority of us fails short. The operative word in the above quote is " hindrance " , detachment happens in various degrees and steps and the finals step is total detachment. but before the final step can be taken one has to content with the proses , the process is both the empowerment and the hindrance, as you get closer to the final step the views of Buddhism become less and less important and hence less of a hindrance, until I guess you are Buddha your self and the views of Buddhism are your views .

That's pretty much on track except that in Theravada Buddhism (the type we have in Thailand) the goal is nibbana (a Pali word, "nirvana" in Sanskrit and "nipaan" in Thai) and becoming an arahant (enlightened one). The goal of becoming a Buddha is from Mahayana Buddhism.

[Xangsamhua]

Here are the additional posting guidelines for this forum:

"Posts about other religions, eg, Christianity, Islam, etc, or about the existence of God, intelligent design, creation, etc are allowable only when expressly discussed in the context of Buddhism. Any new topic where Buddhism is not thematically involved will be immediately deleted, or, if otherwise relevant to Thailand, moved to the appropriate subforum."

Thanks for the clarification, Camerata.

I guess I posted the article because I thought Buddhist Forum members might be interested, as I think they're interested in broader religious questions than just specifically Buddhist ones, and I thought this seemed a more appropriate forum than others on the board.

I am also interested in ideas about God and Buddhist perspectives on these, but perhaps I should have posted on the "God in Buddhism" topic. I'd forgotten we had that.

This all reminds me of Thich Nhat Hanh's response to a questioner at a Friend's House (London) Dharma Talk a couple of years ago. When asked where God and Jesus fitted in to the things he was teaching, TNH responded that "Everything I have been saying is about God and Jesus". Perhaps it's OK to talk about God in different ways, especially if one is trying to acknowledge the noumenal. The Sufis have done this quite effectively. It would be hard to talk with Muslims if one flatly rejects the possibility of anything beyond phenomena. It may also be unhelpful if the people you're talking to are araldited to a cosmic interventionist and "real" heavenly father.

Both atheism and theism agree on the fundamental point - something exists. Theists head off down the infinite regress road and say the "first" cause is God. Atheists turn back because they don't want to get involved in nonsense. But as Wittgenstein said, sometimes it's better to engage in nonsense than to just stand at the edge mouth agape. I neither agree nor disagree with him. Ultimately the universe is absurd, but we make meaning with what we can, like mindfulness practice and ethical behaviour.

Wittgenstein:... for in order to be able to set a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought). It will therefore only be in language that the limit can be set, and what lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense. (1922, Tractatus)

Don't for heaven's sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense. (1947, Culture and Value)

[camerata]

I guess I posted the article because I thought Buddhist Forum members might be interested, as I think they're interested in broader religious questions than just specifically Buddhist ones, and I thought this seemed a more appropriate forum than others on the board.

In my experience, many members are militant atheists and anti-Christians, which makes rational discussion near impossible. Bedlam is the forum for non-Thai related general discussion, including religious topics. Any member can request a "Religion Forum" or a Christianity Forum, but in the unlikely event it's approved he'll probably find he's expected to moderate it and it will be a total nightmare. Good luck if you decide to volunteer!

This all reminds me of Thich Nhat Hanh's response to a questioner at a Friend's House (London) Dharma Talk a couple of years ago. When asked where God and Jesus fitted in to the things he was teaching, TNH responded that "Everything I have been saying is about God and Jesus". Perhaps it's OK to talk about God in different ways, especially if one is trying to acknowledge the noumenal. The Sufis have done this quite effectively. It would be hard to talk with Muslims if one flatly rejects the possibility of anything beyond phenomena. It may also be unhelpful if the people you're talking to are araldited to a cosmic interventionist and "real" heavenly father.

This a big difference between accepting alternative views of spirituality (agreeing to disagree on some points and emphasizing the common views) and equating nibbana with the Kingdom of God, which TNH has done in the past.

[Xangsamhua]

I guess I posted the article because I thought Buddhist Forum members might be interested, as I think they're interested in broader religious questions than just specifically Buddhist ones, and I thought this seemed a more appropriate forum than others on the board.

In my experience, many members are militant atheists and anti-Christians, which makes rational discussion near impossible. Bedlam is the forum for non-Thai related general discussion, including religious topics. Any member can request a "Religion Forum" or a Christianity Forum, but in the unlikely event it's approved he'll probably find he's expected to moderate it and it will be a total nightmare. Good luck if you decide to volunteer!

This all reminds me of Thich Nhat Hanh's response to a questioner at a Friend's House (London) Dharma Talk a couple of years ago. When asked where God and Jesus fitted in to the things he was teaching, TNH responded that "Everything I have been saying is about God and Jesus". Perhaps it's OK to talk about God in different ways, especially if one is trying to acknowledge the noumenal. The Sufis have done this quite effectively. It would be hard to talk with Muslims if one flatly rejects the possibility of anything beyond phenomena. It may also be unhelpful if the people you're talking to are araldited to a cosmic interventionist and "real" heavenly father.

This a big difference between accepting alternative views of spirituality (agreeing to disagree on some points and emphasizing the common views) and equating nibbana with the Kingdom of God, which TNH has done in the past.

No, not volunteering for a Religion Forum (though I think it might be interesting). And the thought of a "Christianity" forum gives me the horrors . I'll just be careful about posting topics in the right place in future (and PM you if I'm not sure).

[TongueThaied]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

[xylophone]

The whole "argument/discussion" about religion reminds me of a quote from a very good friend of mine, when he said that it is the same as "arguing about how many fairies you can fit on a pinhead". A pointless discussion.

I don't agree. What if Einstein and Bell and Edison and...well you get the idea...had decided not to let their imaginations run wild about things no one yet knew about? Is poetry pointless? Literature? Sonatas?

At the level which affects as mere humans, Muslims blow up/murder Muslims, and Christians, Christians do likewise to Christians and Muslims, the Catholic church is riddled with corruption and homosexuality, whilst teaching/preaching against it, other western religions of the Abrahamic god defile young boys and girls and the list goes on and on. The only legacy appears to be murder, corruption, homosexuality, bigotism, witch hunts, burnings, slayings............

What I think you're missing is a key question -- are they doing it as individuals or in the name of their religion. I think this is an essential point.

Man's quest to believe in something he can look up to/revere/worship in times of need probably say more about man than any religion. And of course the thought that "this cannot be all there is to life; I must be here for a reason; I cannot believe this ends when I die" is a type of vanity and people look to religion to satisfy this vanity.

Hmmmm...a teacher who wants to improve the lives of her students in just being vain? A doctor that wants to save lives is just being vain?

Evolution, as to how we got here and "what this all means" seems to fit the bill better than the many fables/fairy stories proffered by the various religions.

At the university, part of my major was paleontology and evolution. I knew most of the professors quite well, and every one was a practicing Christian. The idea that religion and science have to be totally separate is pure folly.

Assuming that the Cambridge theologian was a mainstream Christian, he probably believed some combination of the following:

 -- in the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

 -- -- the same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.

 -- -- the fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.

 -- -- 40 days later the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and disappeared bodily into the sky.

 -- -- if you murmur thoughts privately in your head, fatherless man, and his 'father' (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.

 -- -- if you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.

 -- -- the fatherless man's virgin mother never died but was 'assumed' bodily into heaven.

 -- -- bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), 'become' the body and blood of the fatherless man.

This relates more to the question of whether the Bible (and the Dhamma and other books of religious scriptures) are factual or allegorical. It does not answer the questions as to whether or not their is a god and what role he plays.

Any intelligent/objective person would see that both sets of beliefs belong in the pages of an Enid Blyton book (my observation).

While I know it's not the same, I am reminded of a number of people in my family, all Catholics, who after their divorces also divorced themselves from the Catholic Church...until they got old and suddenly found that maybe they needed their faith toward the end of their lives and upon their death.

Would love to answer this in more detail, however I think the thread would be closed if I did. You make some good points, although in my opinion they are not directly applicable to some that I make, although you wish them to be so.

[rafval]

Any intelligent/objective person would see that both sets of beliefs belong in the pages of an Enid Blyton book (my observation).

Enid Blytons books contained both plot and humour, I think you are way off the mark here.

[phetaroi]

Would love to answer this in more detail, however I think the thread would be closed if I did. You make some good points, although in my opinion they are not directly applicable to some that I make, although you wish them to be so.

I accept your total surrender.

Only kidding!

[sabaijai]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)