Quote:
Originally Posted by RickyMaveety
No, Buddhism is a philosophy without gods. It is only a "religion" when people (mostly who don't understand the distinction and some who are merely semanticly lazy) decide to call it one.
Actually happens because many people thought, and still think, that the Buddh is supposed to be a god figure that we worship.
|
That is absolutely and positively a load of bull.
It's the exact opposite. It gets called a philosophy when people take a good long look at it's Western expression or read some of its popularizers and don't know how it is actually practiced or lived.
Buddhism is a religion. Though it is distinctly an argument against "religion means belief in God.' It is a nontheistic religion, but it is absolutely a religion. It has gods, it has spirits, it has a supernatural existence. The Buddha may not have wanted that, but in its expression in Asia it absolutely is (and has been for over two thousand years). You mention the Dalai Lama... you have any idea how odd Tibetan Buddhist theology is? The Dalai Lama is great, but he is absolutely a religious figure.
My organization hosted a group of Tibetan monks a few months back (with the help of :gasp: a local Methodist church who let them practice in their sanctuary)... They are absolutely religious.
Westerners like to dress Buddhism up as "philosophy" and at some level it certainly is - Buddhist psychology is also very interesting - but it has a cosmology, superstitions, heavens and hells, demons, gods, afterlife, reincarnation.
I could sit here and say that Christians are actually very progressive, ethically charged people that support science and equal rights for all and don't promote destructive social ideologies and all that... and I'd be full of it. SOME religious Christians, the minority, are progressive and like that. Many are not. I may be talking about me and my friends, but I know better than to imagine the bulk of Christian history or experience is that.
And you're right... the Dalai Lama has said that one should not believe things that science has proved incorrectly (and something I absolutely believe as well). Science doesn't "disprove" religion. You can't prove the lack of something's existence. You can't prove an afterlife or God or anything else. Even if you explain, in excellent detail, theories regarding the origination or expression of religion you don't prove anything with these arguments. It is not at all hard to believe in that fact while staying religion
I happen to practice a very non-religious Buddhism myself along with my religious practice, and it is possible to do so, but don't think for a moment it isn't a religion as it is largely and most frequently expressed both now and historically.
But it does speak to the problems with defining "religion." It isn't particularly clear cut but it sure as hell doesn't entail the necessity of a theistic God. Hell, even coming out of a very Jewish/Christian background I don't go for a theistic God either. Neither do a lot of the clergy and theologians I know.
Ultimately, that's what I've tried to get at... these issues are not simple nor black and white. There is a reason scholars in the fields Dawkins discusses (that is not biology) do not take him or his arguments seriously. His good ones are not new and his new ones are not good. It's a more complicated and nuanced question than "Oh religion is evil because it makes people do bad things..." yada yada. Or "oh no.. kids grow up with religion!" Yeah, it sucks if that religion is terrible.. but all parents raise their children up with an ethos and it is quite capable of being terrible without religion and very often is. If you're going to address that than you're addressing a MUCH bigger question than just religion... you're talking about all people raising their children everywhere and who will decide that they should be raised with? You? Me?
Anyway, I'm done.