Let's Talk About Religion
I stumbled on this essay by a gentleman who wants to challenge religion. He is, apparently, frustrated that people keep their religious beliefs to themselves and won't drag them out into the open where he can have a good whack at them. (I should add the gentleman is writing in Canada. I haven't noticed excessive reticence in discussing religion in the U.S.)
There are any number of points the author makes with which I disagree, but for now I'd like to limit the discussion to what is religion, anyway? I infer the essay author defines religion as a belief system in which the things believed in are supernatural or at least cannot be empirically proven. To me, this is a terribly unsatisfactory definition, although it's a common one. By this definition Zen and some other forms of Buddhism are not "religion" at all, since no belief in anything supernatural is required.
Indeed, one runs into people all the time (especially on the Web) who declare with great certainty that Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy. This is a point I address in "Buddhism: Philosophy or Religion," and I don't want to repeat the argument here, except to say that the way to wisdom sometimes requires defining what the bleep we are talking about.
The definition of religion as belief in supernatural or unprovable things is common in the West, but it's also a mirror reflection of a trend in the Abrahamic religions that has elevated literalness and dogmatism over transcendence and insight. As historian Karen Armstrong has written in several places, since the West began to embrace scientific rationalism (the past three centuries or so) religious texts and teachings that once were understood as mythos are now read as simple fact.
But fact and truth are not necessarily the same thing. A myth can express truth, and facts out of context are a propagandist's tools.
But I'm drifting. Is there a way to define religion that takes in all the things that call themselves "religions"? I don't think many religions other than present-day, conservative factions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism define themselves primarily according to what followers are supposed to believe. And there are great theologians of those religions, past and present, who would disagree with that definition.
And then there are snarky Zen students, for whom the answer to "What do you Zen Buddhists believe?" is "As little as possible."
You could argue that arguing about how to define something is getting stuck on words, and it probably is. But if people are going to get stuck on words anyway, we should be clear about what it is we are stuck on.
Comments
Whether Buddhism is called a religion or a philosophy, it won’t change my day-to-day life. If Buddhism were to be “formally” classed as a philosophy and not religion, would that mean the government could openly endorse and fund Buddhisms practices since it wouldn’t be violating the separation of church and state? Just an interesting thought to me.
Regarding the gentleman who likes to ‘whack’ religious beliefs, my experience is that typically this urge occurs when someone is not completely comfortable in their atheism. I think it’s just a case of the pendulum swinging too far one way or the other - for example, the way I’ve seen this occur is:
Dogmatic Religion –> Disillusionment –> Atheism (and the need to attack other’s beliefs to counter one’s own feelings of uncertainty) –> Agnosticism –> Spiritual Beliefs (non-dogmatic) and Tolerance.
I’ve gone through this whole cycle myself, so now when I find people who constantly want to challenge other’s beliefs I just ignore it, knowing that this will probably pass in due time.
I simply do not feel the need to label anything as being a religion or not. In fact I try not to make it a habit of labeling anything, including myself.
What would happen if everyone suddenly stopped worrying what others believed? Why does a person’s beliefs cause any concern at all? Unless of course the beliefs relate to matters of harming other living beings. That I know of, none of the mainstream doctrines teach to seek harm to others.
Is it that difficult to just allow people people to think what they want to? How could another person’s thoughts alone hurt anyone.
To quote a man that I greatly admire: “Live simply so that others may simply live”.
Dog Bless!
Whether one uses the tag religion or philosophy those terms remain merely convenient concepts. I agree with writer of the essay who wish to challenge religion to certain extent. Ideas should be open for discussion, but one also have to realise that people differ. Many people in the West are highly educated and highly intelligent. Does there views carry more weight than those less endowed? Does the highly educated intellectual mind not sometimes lack something? That does not mean the intellect is to be neglected. Perhaps there is place for rational thought and also for (for lack of a better word) less than rational thought?
In Buddhism (and more particularly Zen) one is generally taught to observe phenomena without judging it. Observing an overly intellectual approach (I have found) is sometimes not skillful. Equally so; observing a unshaken believe in mythical stuff (like Gods etc) is also not skillful.
Having as a starting point the Great Doubt I observe all phenomena as empty of anything, but I realise that our conditioning have “created” a temporal or provisional world. As a puny human I have to accept that in order to survive, but am not attached to it. “Go with the flow” so to speak.
Generally I like Buddhism. It is a self-questioning religion (nothing have to be eaten as ’sweet cake’) and have a build-in self-destruction “button”; once you reach the other shore (”nirvana”) you don’t need Buddhism anymore.
Zen that is all for now.