04.19.09
Tricycle responds on Buddhists and atheism
Tricycle responds to Gene Expression:
God-fearing Buddhists?
Do Buddhists believe in God? Last year, science writer and blogger Razib Khan wrote that they do—American Buddhists, anyway. He drew his conclusions from the Pew Forum’s U.S. Religions Landscape Survey. Khan now contends that this is likely true of Buddhists worldwide, extrapolating from data supplied by the World Values Survey. In his April 15 post to Gene Expression, a Seed Media Group science blog, he takes a look at data from Japan, Taiwan and Singapore, and notes that Sri Lankans tend to fit into a similarly theistic pattern
It is misleading to speak of ‘Buddhism’ (another word with ‘ism’ at the end, always a bad omen), and that for many reasons, among them that adherents show immense variety over space, the present, and time, from the Axial Age to the present. We hardly know what the beliefs were of those on the verge of becoming monks, then again after remaining in the Sangha over time, in the time of Buddha. The point is important for the present, since saying you are a Buddhist counts for Zero by the standards of the tradition, and ordinary front door beliefs would be considered entirely a matter of social background and conditioning.
Most in the modern age would be hardpressed to grasp the complex belief system of Buddhism, designed to move in a world of polytheism.
Thus the original dharma refers to the stack of beings, e.g. those of the god-realm, the titanic, hungry ghosts, etc,…
How many modern Buddhists know what the sam hill was meant by the realm of hungry ghosts?
Buddhism is a clever hybrid, and an almost miraculous premonition of Kant’s system of critiques.
It maintains a critical stance, yet also grants a sidelined and stylized rendering of the psychological preoccupations of polytheists.
The idea of the one god was not invented by the Israelites, and, as the myth of Abraham of Ur suggests, was present very early in Sumer, thence we can be sure in India. But that still doesn’t tell us anything specific.
It is generally vacuous to use the term ‘god’ in such contexts.
In the meantime it is important to not let Buddhism get homogenized with monotheism (something Karen Armstrong and the Dalai Lama would be glad to do). We are already in sufficient muddle.
James said,
April 19, 2009 at 4:26 pm
One of the main problems is the sheer impossibility of giving a precise definition to “theism” and “atheism” across time and space. There are many possibilities within each category and different varieties of “theism” may not be logically compatible with each other (sames goes for “atheism”). Historically, it’s a bit absurd to claim that “theism” can only be conceived in Judeo-Christian terms. Decent discussion here:
“In those terms, God may be no more a logical problem than the universe. But that doesn’t resolve the contradictions. God as conceived in Judeo-Christian and monothesitic terms is not the only such possible conception of the transcendent. Thus, we have theologies as different as those of Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibniz, Whitehead, etc. We have Supreme Beings that are not personal Gods at all, as in the impersonal Brahman of the Advaita Vedânta of Shankara. Or, we have the impersonal Forms of Plato. Indeed, all these possibilities are counter-examples to arguments for God like those of St. Thomas, for although he ends his demonstrations with statements like “This all men speak of as God,” there is really a rather large logical gap between an identity like “Prime Mover” or “First Cause,” and the God of Abraham and Issac.”
http://www.friesian.com/proof.htm
Darwiniana » Comment on Buddhits and atheism said,
April 19, 2009 at 5:25 pm
[...] Comment on Tricycle responds on Buddhists and atheism James said, April 19, 2009 at 4:26 pm · One of the main problems is the sheer impossibility of giving a precise definition to “theism” and “atheism” across time and space. There are many possibilities within each category and different varieties of “theism” may not be logically compatible with each other (sames goes for “atheism”). Historically, it’s a bit absurd to claim that “theism” can only be conceived in Judeo-Christian terms. Decent discussion here: [...]
nemo said,
April 19, 2009 at 5:26 pm
In fact, Christians were sometimes called ‘atheos’ by the Pagans in the Roman era.