Discussion: Buddhists Who Are Atheists
Wednesday October 18, 2006
A forum member writes: I recently encountered some atheists who said they are also buddhists. I thought that was kind of interesting. I grew up thinking that buddhism was a religion and atheism is, for lack of a better term, the absence of religion. Now I realize some of my assumptions must have been wrong but I don't know exactly which and how. If there are any buddhists in here, can you tell me how you can reconcile the two? And for those non-buddhist atheists here, what are your thoughts/feeling toward buddhist atheists? Do you think they're irrational?
If you are a Buddhist who is also an atheist, what are your feelings on this matter? If you are an atheist who isn't a Buddhist, what are your thoughts about Buddhism and Buddhist atheists? Read More...
Comments
I would not describe myself as buddhist or atheist. Neither term is entirely useful.
A buddhist is simply one who aspires to become awakened, or enlightened (i.e., a buddha). Gautama Siddhartha was an actual person who was considered to be the first buddha. In my experience, the proper noun Buddha refers to Gautama. The heart of Buddhist practice relies on meditation; personally, I prefer the practice of zazen meditation, which I understand to be the use of breath to focus one’s awareness on the happenings of the here and now, much like hatha yoga practice.
Atheism is a religiously-centric term that describes a belief system in terms of what it lacks, rather than what it proposes. Most if not all atheists, are, in fact, methodological naturalists: they propose that the world can be understood by observation, experimentation, and analysis.
In my experience, the reliance of both disciplines on observation from a neutral point of view dovetail quite nicely, and it is to this extent that I find I can use both to help me find a philosophical, ethical, and moral standpoint for living in the world.
However, neither is entirely perfect. Methodological naturalism does not lend itself well to helping one deal with “fuzzy” problems, such as feelings. At the same time, there is little data to suggest the veracity of more esoteric Buddhist teachings, such as the innate intelligence in all things, past lives, etc. This is why I refrain from calling myself either a buddhist or an atheist. I am neither one nor the other entirely, but I find both have their uses.
Does this answer your question?
Oops. Last sentence of 2nd paragraph should read: “, while at the same time rejecting all supernatural explanations of observable phenomena on the premise that such explanations are inherently untestable, non-falsifiable, and ultimately unprovable.”
The term atheism has nothing to do with religion. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, not the absence of religion. There are many atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Ethical Culture, Raelians, and even some forms of Hinduism. Buddhism is usually placed on this list because it often doesn’t involve belief in gods.
Many atheists are not methodological naturalists. There are many atheists who belief in ghosts, astrology, psychics, and other things which methodological naturalism should eliminate as rational options.
There is no inconsistency in Buddhism an atheism, it atheism is defined as an absence in God belief. Buddhism centers on a central universal essence of being, a oneness with and of the universe. The end point is Nirvana, a submergence of self identity into that universal concsiousness, the abandonment of the illusion of individuality and personal importance. There is no god, per se, only a profusion of deities and demons in some sects that are merely active spiritual manifestations of being and personality.
#3 — thanks for the clarification.
I consider all the crook religions to be atheistic because they worship idols in an effort to work some sort of magic.
The contemplative religions like Buddhism and Quakerism know they have to wait upon the lord (figuratively speaking).
As anagnostic/critical thinker i find many concepts of buddhism do not contradict science, in fact they compliment them. Buddhists don’t worship their gods as religions of the west do, they are mainly used to demonstrate foibles in human nature. an excellent book that shows how buddhism compliments Quantum mechanics is Einstein and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings
http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha
Buddhism is, I think, a concept to the world that each one in the world is connected each other by “Cause and Effect Law”. Our comprehension to the world and myself is very limited by linguistic view or metal view. The truth says that there is no constantly defined myself as I have known. If you see the true world itself, you realize that your identity is just a state caused from universal components, and you can cause to your neighbor, your town, your nation, your earth and your universe!! You are not yourself, also not universe. However, you are yourself and also universal mind.
Please reply me anything I misunderstood about Buddhism. Thanks~
Buddhism only technically qualifies as a religion. It is more a philosophy and guide to live a more balanced, peaceful life. It is merely that, a guide. There are no commandments and no sin. There are only skillful and less skillful actions. A Buddhist is free to live however he/she pleases. Those who wish to live as monks, however, will face a certain code. Mostly because it is seen as a discipline sort of like a martial art.
Karma is simple. It is the law of cause and effect. Then there is the concept of rebirth. Some believe rebirth to be reality and others see it as only occurring in our lifetime.
Such as watching one be reborn into new moments all the time. We grow, we mature, we make mistakes and we learn and adjust.
Each time we grow we are reborn into a new paradigm. Sometimes we find our new situation to be an improvement and sometimes it’s not an improvement at all. This is where I fall with rebirth.
I don’t worry about rebirth. Buddhism would rather you concentrate on making the most of the present moment as it is the only moment that we have.
I am a Zen Buddhist Atheist. I do not believe in a Creator/God like most Buddhist (Pure Land Buddhism sort of believes in a God-like being). Buddhism embraces science and is very fluid and adaptive to new ideas and evidence. The Dalai Lama has said that if science proves something in Buddhist philosophy as wrong then Buddhism must change.
Some Buddhists believe in Bodhisattvas which are basically beings who vow to help others become enlightened. In Zen It is freedom from beliefs, opinions, ideals and concepts. Freedom from beliefs isn’t exactly a traditional religious idea.
Now some believe that Bodhisattvas are real. Others believe (like myself and many Western Buddhists) that they are more like ideals, the teacher within or teachers in our life that help us learn how to calm our mind, relax, deal with our anger and deal with stress in a rational manner.
So basically Buddhism is an ancient self-help guide. It is often called the religion of no religion or the religion of psychology.
The other thing that makes Buddhism different from many religions is that they do not seek to convert others. That is something very personal. If someone wishes to study Buddhism then that is their decision and theirs alone.
In the Kalama Sutra the Buddha was said to have advised not to believe in anything he or other teachers say unless it rings true to your experience and investigation. Now how many “religions” will let you get away with that?!!”
That is the Buddhist version of the scientific method.
I hope my long comment helps.
All the best.
Hi!
I’m a lifelong atheist, and since 2005 a student of buddhism. I’m now trying to build my own belief from all of this because I don’t agree with some of the [traditional] buddhist views on e.g. gouverment and the lack of feminism for example.
Now, to the question of believing in Something(s) VS Nothing, or Buddhism VS Atheism.
For me, the word atheism means not believing in an all powerful god; and/nor organized religion.
And buddhism for me is sort of the opposite in a way; It’s about Not believeing in a God above, but in the wealth and wisedom of the human mind. The best in each and every one of us, and how to tap into that resource to make the planet a better place for all living thing. And at the same time doing it in an open forum (which makes me kind of a seperatist compared to the Lama) without dogmatic rules and words carved in stone. I think of it as the character in the movie K-PAX, learning and choosing what I believe in from all the people around me.
Well, rambling aside, because I see such big similarities between atheism and buddhism, I define myself as exactly that, an atheist-buddhist. A uber-critical buddhist if you will.
I’m interested in the overlap of Buddhism and Naturalism, which is atheistic.
I believe we are what we must be, do what we must do, change as we must change, according to the laws of nature. The healthiest response to this is compassion for all, including ourselves. Note: I don’t claim that compassion “follows” from or is implied by naturalism, just that it is the healthiest reaction to a fully natural world.
We have an affect on others; as with all of nature, our actions have consequences. Our goal should be to develop compassionate and effective methods of increasing healthy behavior and decreasing unhealthy behavior.
Here’s my YouTube channel, with a few videos by me and links to some favorites by others.
http://www.youtube.com/user/NatureCompassion
Buddha came to the world to show the path of righteousness, to destroy the path of error, and to break down sorrow. Buddhism is not agnosticism or atheism. Buddha did not deny God. He only said: “Do not bother about questions like ‘Is there God?’, ‘Do I exist?’, ‘Is the world real or not?’. Do not waste your time and energy in useless discussions. Become a practical religious man. Purify your heart. Control the mind. Lead a virtuous life. You will attain Nirvana or emancipation or eternal bliss.”
To accuse Buddha as an atheist or agnostic is simply foolish. Buddha found no use in metaphysical wrangling. He declined to enter into metaphysics. Is there God or no God? Is life eternal or non-eternal? These questions were set aside as not requiring an answer for the attainment of Nirvana. The immediate great problem for Buddha was suffering and annihilation of suffering. He asked his followers not to bother about transcendental questions. He set aside all those things which did not help towards the attainment of the goal. He thought it wise to give his followers a way, and not a creed. He thought that speculation about the nature of the ultimate reality was an unnecessary drag on the path of truth and spiritual attainment. The vital and fundamental thing is not to discuss about the ultimate, but to tread the path which takes man out of the world of pain and suffering into supreme abode of eternal bliss and immortality. The nature of the ultimate truth is beyond the reach of mind and speech. If Buddha refused to define the nature of the Absolute, or if he contended himself with negative definitions, it is only to show that the Absolute or the Ultimate is above all definitions.
Buddha was, like everyone else, a product of his age. Before the dawn of science, there was no hope of understanding where we came from, whether the world was magical or not, etc. He concentrated on what made sense in his time, relieving suffering through mental discipline. We’ve added to that anti-suffering arsenal through the sciences, medical science, technology, etc. Of course those things have also unfortunately added to suffering, but still I’m glad there are anti-malaria drugs, modern dentistry, anaesthesia, etc.
Buddhism alone isn’t enough, I think Buddha recognized that.
Nirvana does not involve becoming one with the universe.
It is more like a fire going out.
I think that buddhists can be atheist. I myself, think the concept of God is irrelevant to my being a decent human being.
I’m an atheist who is an Humanist and a Zen Buddhist practitioner. I can relate completely with fellow atheists like Sam Harris and Sue Blackmore. Obviouly we get into all kind of odd definitions of what is “religion” what is “philosophy”. This comes from an assumption that many from a christian back ground assume that all other religions are and must be like the judeo-christian -islamic tradition and obviously they’re not. Actually, the general God idea in America is really a very modern concept of a god, that fact becomes very clear if any one ever studies any world history/anthropology.
The Buddhist idea is to let go of ideas,concepts,views,prejudices,and even beliefs. And to look more closely at the nature of the human condition, and at the nature of true reality.
I should say a buddhist who is an atheist. I don’t believe in the existance of God as if the God exists, there will be no sufferings and I do believe in “What Goes Around Comes Around”. So confusing, huh? Yup,Buddhism is based on practices and not in almighties. Cheers
Please provide me the evidence that Gautama Siddhartha acutally existed.
Who cares? Buddhist philosophy doesn’t require that he actually existed; Buddhist philosophy emphasizes that what’s important are the ideas traditionally attributed to the man. If they are right and work, then they should be used even if he didn’t exist. If they are wrong and don’t work, then they should be ditched even if he did exist.