Buddhism is often categorized as a religion, but because it doesn't mandate belief in any gods some argue that it should be treated like a philosophy instead. Buddhism isn't the only 'religion' like this. Are they really philosophies, or is demand that there be a belief in some god the wrong way to define religion?
I find that defining religion exclusively as theistic is very provincial and ethnocentric. It may be standard for religions in the West to be theistic, but this is hardly a sound basis for making declarations about the nature of religion as a whole for all cultures at all times. We might as well say that religion requires belief in a single creator god or belief in a savior figure.
Religion is a very diverse phenomenon and while religions have a number of common elements, no one element -- not even theism -- serves as the sole determining factor for separating religious from secular belief systems.
For those who may hold that Buddhism is a not a religion, the Buddha did start a monastic order, and constructed a formalized system of beliefs as well as ethical guidelines.
As an ignorant American, I think I would’ve benefitted here from a brief summation of some of the basic structures and principles of Buddhism.
Many Eastern philosophies tackle the “big questions” humans naturally have about existence and self, so they are often confused with being religions. But it’s not accurate to point to the Buddha character and say that is the “god” of Buddhism, or to point to the Shiva character and say that is the “god” of Hinduism, when those identities, characters, or labels/titles work more as metaphor in Eastern philosophy than as literal deities. For example, ask a traditional “Buddhist” (they may not embrace the label, but I use it for convenience here) “Where is Buddha now?”, you might not anticipate the variety of possible responses, such as “right here”, “when is now?”, and “where is the Buddha NOT?”. The traditional Buddha character is not meant to represent a deity, but rather a state of mind (and not a mystical one, as you might expect).
There is a problem though. If you research Eastern philosophies on the internet or in a bookstore, you’re likely going to get the American or Western interpretation, which in many cases means visualizing Buddha as a jolly fat skydaddy, kind’ve like the Christian god but not for Christians. Or if you find a YouTube video of Hindus chanting, you might be tempted to assume they are praying to or about something, as a follower of Western religions might, in request form. Mis-educated comments from Western users on sites like YouTube only reinforce this bias. For example, I often run into information on the internet regarding Taoism which is taken by a Western audience and converted into a kind of religion in which “the Tao” is equivalent to the Christian “Spirit”, and thus the related characters in Taoist metaphor and mythology being taken in as literal historical figures the way a religious Western audience tends to project realism and assumed sincerety to the stories of the Christian bible, when in reality the philosophical ponderings of Taoism in no way intend to infer that kind of interpretation. This parallax is spurred on by a trendy fascination with Eastern components like meditation, yoga, and so on, which are taken out of their philosophical (non-theistic) contexts and turned into analogies for prayer (for many) in a religious Western world. It’s not uncommon to hear phrases in an American yoga class like “let the spirit enter you” or “clear your mind and make your body a prayer”, etc. I won’t say that Eastern concepts have been “corrupted”, but they’ve definitely been modified for Western use, and that modification includes the religi-fication of those philosophies or their various elements.
In general there seems to be a lot of stretching and squishing of the word “religion” lately. Though some may enjoy seeing Eastern philosophies as religions, it requires a shift in definition to accomplish that view, and such a shift will require us to subsequently use the word “religion” for anything artistic, philosophical, or based in poetic observation. This seems inappropriate for concepts or systems of thought which, in their fundamental original states, neither request nor require supernatural “faith” of any kind.
I find Darwin Finch’s comment disturbing for a couple of reasons.
1st is the assertion that Budhism, Tao and other Eastern religions do not require supernatural faith of any kind. That is only true with regard to some of the sterilized Western versions of them. One could (and some have) done the same with Christianity and Judaism. However, it doesn’t negate the fact that the vast majority of believers in those RELIGIONS depend on faith based supernatural beliefs as a basis for their view of the world.
2nd, Darwin Finch says that these “philosophies” have been confused with “religion” because of the way they “tackle the big questions humans naturally have about existence and self”. However, the inescapable fact is that they tackle these questions based on supernatural beliefs regarding the nature of reality!
^ (4) Eric (4unate1): RE “disturbing”?
I find that to be a rather odd way of describing your reaction to Darwin Finch’s somewhat interesting, IMO, observations about Eastern thought.
As a rather old atheist, things like the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the continuation of the, IMO, hypocritical maintenance of STILL huge Nuclear arsenals in countries like the US and Russia, to be “disturbing”. The existence of ANY Nuclear weapons…ANYWHERE on the Planet…is, I think, “disturbing”.
[RE Afghanistan, Austin's recent article about the continued Sharia policy regarding the treatment of Afghan women is HIGHLY disturbing. No comparison with this comment thread...not even close!]
For that matter, as an atheist; just the realization…perhaps ala Nietzsche’s “Existence is Absurd” contention…about my (assumed) “chance existence” on this tiny speck in a rather baffling Evolutionary Universe, is for me…on a somewhat daily basis…a rather “disturbing” concept.
Of course, the inevitable alternative…(that’d be death)…is a whole other disturbing matter, me thinks.
What!…”Just sayin’”…or maybe…
“Everything is Relative(s)”
Darwin Finch,
I would disagree with your sweeping generalizations about Hinduism (I would more likely agree with you on Buddhism. The Buddha is not a god). Have you even been to a Hindu puja (worship ceremony) for a deity? This is no metaphor. The god or goddess is treated as an honoured guest–offered food, clothing, and so on. He or she is also prayed to and requests are made. There is certainly a philosophic component to Hinduism But it certainly is not the only one and Hindus recognize this. And since there are texts predating Western influence depicting worship ceremonies, this is not a “westernization”.
Of the 13 definitions given between Random House and Merriam-Webster dictionaries only only 1,in M-W,uses god in it.All the rest are defined as belief systems and support of them.Given this,then Buddhism is a religion.No stretching or squishing necessary.
No god is needed for a religion,Mr Finch.Also Hindu’s do pray to various incarnations of Brahma.
Outside of watered-down American Buddhism, this question would never even be asked. Buddhism in Asia talks constantly about all the things that make Americans uncomfortable: sin, god, transcendence, etc. Here is a paragraph from the Wikipedia page on Mahayana Buddhism:
“Devotional” Mahayana developed a rich cosmography, with various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas residing in paradisiacal realms. The concept of trinity, or trikaya, supports these constructions, making the Buddha himself into a transcendental figure. Dr. Guang Xing describes the Mahayana Buddha as ‘an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities …[He] is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead.”[62].
The whole debate of whether certain belief systems are to be recognized as religions or not rests upon a popular misconception, and that is equating religion with religiosity; they’re related but still separate topics.
The former is about metaphysics, while the latter is about liturgics.
And I disagree with the premise that there’s nothing that all religions have in common as a defining characteristic or an epistemic building block, actually there is, it’s posthumous fears.
There are characteristics that constitute religiosity (anthropomorphization, blind obedience, hatred of skepticism, ritualism, fetishizing or idolizing the charismatic and traditional symbols of authority, etc.) that are compatible with rejecting the pillars of traditional religion (heaven, hell, angels, cosmic retribution, etc), which explains the famous immoral, irrational and bigoted atheists (Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, Milosevic, Ayn Rand, Lukashenko, etc.)
People can have religiosity/liturgics while lacking religion/metaphysics (Soviet Stalinists, Chinese Maoists, etc.) and the other way round (non-practicing Christians, secular Jews, etc.)
Once people’s fantasies about what happens after death pollute reality, and subsequently abandoning making judgments proportional to evidence, the mind becomes a welcoming place for religion and all its friends.
And finally, all religions and/or religious belief systems are venomous, but not equally so, Islam is like a king cobra while Thelema is like a platypus.
OK, please describe how “posthumous fears” are a defining characteristic or epistemic building block of religions like: Religious Humanism, Ethical Culture, Raelians, atheistic Buddhism.
I can’t help but get the feeling that this whole “Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion” meme is some sort of bad attempt to protect Buddhism from the criticism that’s normally aimed at religion. “Religion” does not have all the positive connotations that it used to have, and I think a lot of people that would normally be considered religious have tried to distance themselves from that term.
I really don’t care how people want to classify Buddhism. It’s a system of beliefs about how the universe works and about how people should act. It can be critically examined like any other belief system, whether it’s religious or secular.
The systems you’ve mentioned aren’t religions in the first place, they’re religious belief systems (clearing the difference is what I meant by my previous post)
All those who belong to the systems you mentioned, are agnostic – at best – about death not being the end of personal existence, including humanist Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and so on, if that’s the case, what distinguishes them from secular and atheist skeptics? Simple answer, religiosity not religion, a religious belief system cannot be called a religion until it includes positive teachings about death not being the end.
Yes, they are. In law and in academics, “religion” is how they are categorized.
No, previous post was arguing for a difference between “religion” and “religiosity.” Now you’re alleging a difference between “religion” and “religious belief system.”
All religions are belief systems. What, then, is supposed to differentiate belief systems that are religions and belief systems that are religious? And what purpose or goal does such a differentiation serve?
I can’t believe that you can’t see that there’s something perverse in saying “a religious belief system is not a religion.” That’s like saying “a conservative belief system is not conservative”.
Religion doesn’t require you to not be agnostic about that. It’s not in the definition.
Lots of things, all of which are part of what define religion: belief in sacred things, rituals, moral codes, shared world view, “religious” feelings, social group, etc.
Except that, as far as I can tell, you’ve simply just made up out of nowhere the idea that religion is defined by “positive teachings about death not being the end”. Why should anyone adopt that definition? The law doesn’t use it. Academics doesn’t use it.
Can you demonstrate that this isn’t just an ad hoc definition created for no other reason than to group together particular systems that you don’t like while leaving untouched related systems which you do like (or at least don’t disapprove of so strongly)?
First, I concur with Immanuel Kant that there is and can be only one philosophy. Talking of several ’philosophies’ is abusing the term. It is a blurry way of expressing that there be differing worldviews, or manners of doing something. One cannot learn philosophy but only philosophizing. As Socrates is supposed to have said, philosophy is not the possession of knowledge but the urge to acquire it. By philosophizing, of course, one can try to systematize one’s beliefs, yet no system of beliefs is philosophy in itself, as it were.
Second, judging from this premise, Buddhism actually is a (form of) religion. There are certain philosophical aspects to it, to be sure; there are also, however, rules to abide, and beliefs not to be questioned. In philosophy, there are no rules, and no beliefs not to be questioned, save some logical aspects: tertium non datur, for instance, which means that something A cannot be ~A at the same time in the same respect. It is characterstic for philosophy, though, that even these basic rules of thought – as it appears, at least – have been and continue to be questioned by some people.
In other words, philosophy does not consist in a certain worldview (although certain philosophical systems of belief may do), whereas Buddhism in all its variants does.
I meant that people are more or less religious, in my last post it was originally “How it can be decided which is to be considered religious enough, they’re religious belief systems to different degrees”. Sorry, I made a mistake because I was typing a draft outside the posting box and in the posting box at the same time and I posted the unrevised draft.
Are there laws that recognize Stalinism and Maoism as religions? They’re usually called “civic religions” “state cults” so even if they weren’t, they should be. Their followers show many of the signs that indicate religiosity and a lot of them mentioned in the link you provided. Religiosity is a continuum, so based on what – especially in law – it can be decided that a particular belief system is religious enough to be called a religion and therefore granted protections against discrimination in housing, employment, school, etc.? And what was implicitly meant by the earliest post was pointing out those who profess certain religions (especially Abrahamic ones) but are not practicing; have something in common even with the most practicing followers and that is posthumous fears. The correlation between religions and posthumous fears is quite strong and there is much evidence that it’s causal rather than coincidental.
No, and I didn’t say there were. They don’t fit any of the definitions, but in some forms they may be more “religion like” than the average political ideology.
So you admit that it’s a correlation, not an essential element.
Belief in gods also strongly correlates with religions, but it’s clearly not an essential element.
Just because something is commonly associated with religions in your personal experiences doesn’t mean that it must therefore be necessary for any and all religions.
And you haven’t explained why systems that are declared religions by their adherents, accepted as religions by the legal system, and categorize/studied as religions academically, should somehow suddenly not be regarded as religions anymore.
People can believe in some sort of soul that survives death without also having a religion. People can have a religion without believing in an afterlife. People can have a religion that includes an afterlife, but it’s an afterlife that isn’t very attractive (and thus hardly a motive for having the religion).
So, now when I say that atheism is not a religion, the theist will just point to this article and say, “see atheism can be a religion.” I get it all of the time that atheists include evolution as part of their religion. Because evolution is a religion, then it shouldn’t be taught in schools because of separation of church and state. This article gives theists a lot of ammunition against atheism.
Have you ever heard of a JewBu or a BuJew. I’m a Jew who finds Buddhism interesting, so maybe I’m one of those. Anyway, this article asks a question which I too have asked. Since Buddhism has chant / prayer / meditation / services, and in some places has monks, priests, and nuns, it sure looks like a religion (or religious philosophy) to me. However, over the centuries, Buddhism has taken root in so many countries, and so many different sorts of Buddhism have developed that it doesn’t look very globally uniform to me, though I think all the varieties certainly share some important principles. Every Buddhist I ask gives a different answer when I ask, “What’s the deal with Buddhism? Is there G-d or not or what?” Sometimes I get a kind of Agnostic response; sometimes I get what might be Theistic response.
Here’s an example of an Atheistic Buddhist response I got: My friend Clingman showed me his Japanese / English Buddhist prayer book. I noticed that there were some values there which can be found in the Siddur (Jewish Prayer Book), but I also commented that the difference was that unlike the Jewish prayers, the Buddhist prayers didn’t address G-d personally. Clingman said, “Aw, there ain’t no G-d. You don’t need no G-d!” I told my dad this. Mind you, my dad is very secular, and also very committed to proper use of the English language, so all my dad had to say was, “He said ‘ain’t'?!”
Rob said;
“Buddhism has chant / prayer / meditation / services, and in some places has monks, priests, and nuns, it sure looks like a religion (or religious philosophy) to me.”
You are close but in Buddhism they do not pray to anything or anyone.
The “prayer” is just the affirmation of positive thought through vocalization and not all Buddhist do it. Chanting is meant to bring forth a greater inner power by harmonizing with a group, or with your inner self, and to give a point of focus to clear the mind of all thought which is a part of meditation.
In Buddhism the priests, and Buddha for that matter, aren’t called priests, or “master”, they are called Teacher. The monks are apprentice teachers and the others in the temple are workers without the attached tag of teacher. Though the women do help girls with their understanding of the philosophies and teachings they are not considered nuns but rather Helpers.
Services are more or less open ended and followers come and go throughout the time when the temples are open, however there are usually monks in a temple 24/7 so they can go at any time they feel a need.
Priests do have the power to “bless” objects to bring good luck and such. In the time I was living in Buddhist culture they only blessed small things like trinkets that would be worn by the follower, as opposed to houses, businesses, cars or other such things. (This is what I personally saw done so they may very well bless other things.)
Buddhism does, however, have books and specific teachings about how to lead one’s life and behavior and also has the provision that followers should give offerings to the temple for the use of the monks and the maintenance of the temples. It is this that, to me, makes it a religion rather than a simple philosophy.
If you are not going to draw the line on belief in the supernatural where do you draw it. After all we do have two different words.
“Of the 13 definitions given between Random House and Merriam-Webster dictionaries only only 1,in M-W,uses god in it.All the rest are defined as belief systems and support of them.Given this,then Buddhism is a religion.No stretching or squishing necessary.”
I just checked again. The above from # 7 is still true.
Nothing in those definitions makes atheism a religion. As Mr Cline rightly points out atheism is a single data point. It implies nothing other than a disbelief in any gods. Even a gathering of atheists doesn’t change that since they all agree on only that one single point.
# 17 Daniel: I don’t see anything in the three paragraphs Mr Cline wrote with the poll that gives theists any ammunition. If you can’t defend your atheism it’s not from anything in his writings.