God, No God, and Buddhism
Ed Halliwell has a must-read essay at The Guardian on God and Buddhism. As he says, in the current debates between theists and atheists, we Buddhists find ourselves in an odd place.
For the most part, the Buddhist position on the God question is neither yes nor no. Although some Buddhists consider themselves to be atheists, and some (sorta kinda) conceptualize the buddhas and bodhisattvas as godlike beings, the Buddha taught that belief in God is irrelevant. Believing in God or not believing in God will not help you realize enlightenment.
OK, so far. But I'm a compulsive mediator; by instinct, I take everybody's side at once. It pains me when atheists dismiss the God of monotheism as a "sky fairy," because I know my theist friends to be thoughtful and intelligent people whose understanding of God is far more subtle and sophisticated. As Ed Halliwell writes, "Part of what makes the argument [about God] so comical is how the concept of 'God' onto which atheists project is rarely the same as the one defended by believers."
At the same time, I take the side of atheism when someone argues that people need religion to be moral. At a time when much of the planet is rocked in violence and atrocity connected to religion, such an argument is, um, dumb. Whenever someone makes that argument I almost want a giant hand to come out of the clouds to smack them.
In my experience, good socialization is a better indicator of basic good behavior than religious beliefs. I will trust a well-socialized atheist over a religious psychopath any day.
I see belief in God as neither right nor wrong, but as a potential upaya. Could atheism also be a upaya? Well, why the bleep not? I think how one holds beliefs or not-beliefs is far more critical than the thing believed in, or not. (If you need to re-read that last sentence a few times for sense, I understand.)
The Buddha's refusal to make a declaration on the God question may seem like an evasion, but it was anything but. Disciples were always asking the World-Honored One to answer the Big Questions, like who they might have been in a past life, or who they might be in the future, and his response -- that the questions were unskillful -- denied them the dead-end comfort of certainty. Instead he left them dangling in the vast openness of What is this? Upaya, indeed.
Comments
After I deconverted back in Dec. of 2006 I dived head first into the world and culture of atheists, joining several atheist and humanist groups (local and national). The more vocal atheists tend to congregate online at different places. At first I had a lot of zeal, but now that I have had time to settle a bit, I realize that the zealousness of some of the “New Atheists” is bordering on the fanatical. Some strong atheists are calling for the eradication of all religions. Though I don’t take this as a physical threat, it does tell me that atheists have been far too long focused on the Abrahamic faiths, and assume all the world’s religions and faiths fall under the same heading, which they don’t.
I find that some atheists can be as close-minded as some theists. When a few of my atheist friends found out that I have taken an interest in Buddhism, now calling myself a Buddhist, they quickly break out the keisaku to whack me back into reason.
What a world… and the people in it!
Nice essay!
My sense is that from the perspective of Buddha Dharma, the question “Does God exist?” is understood to be much less useful than the question: “Does the one asking this question (and needing an answer) ‘exist’?”
Jamie G., if you’ve never read it, I highly recommend the book The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. It was written almost 60 years ago, after World War II, but it still applies to our crazy species. And it has the grace of being short and readable. Anyway, in one place Hoffer makes the point that the opposite of a religious fanatic is not a fanatical atheist, but “the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a God or not.” A fanatical atheist and a religious fanatic, Hoffer said, are at the same end of the scale, not the opposite ends.
Anyway, in one place Hoffer makes the point that the opposite of a religious fanatic is not a fanatical atheist, but “the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a God or not.”
Gentle cynic… that about describes me, except I’d change cynic to skeptic.
I’ll check out the book, thanks for the recommendation.
I’m quite partial to Buddha’s answer on God. Even if god came to visit me in “person” and had tea with me, I would not start worshiping him. I would continue my way of life, free of worship, and full of compassion.
I think there are essentially two kinds of religious people. Those who are mostly against something and those who are mostly for something. Some things may be absolutely true (you disagree I know but bear with me) but adhering to the truth alone is not enough. How and why we adhere to the truth as we understand it is crucial too. If we are Buddhists because it is part of our cultural identity as Sri Lankans, say, then we might with our lips profess things which our hearts are far from accepting. Or we might be gentle atheist who all unknown to ourselves have a warm and close relationship to the poor Christ whom we do not believe in. Or to put it another way it ain’t what you do its the way that you do it.
I don’t give much time in debating whether there is a God or not. As a Taoist/Tibetan Buddhist, my altar is filled with Gods, yet I don’t believe they ARE God. They are there to help me to the Way, to enhance my compassion, to protect me from evil. But I don’t debate whether or not I believe in them. They just are, leading me to Tao, leading me to enlightenment.
I’m enjoying everyone’s comments.
My position on the God question has been very fluid for the last couple years. Right now I’m attempting to explore the question from a contemplative/phenomenological perspective. I find that when I try to use reason (such as ontological arguments), I am able to rationalize a belief in God. But when I consider the nature of reality through contemplative modes, such as insight meditation, I find no absolutes and no trace of a necessary Self (whether in myself or the divine).
I guess what I’m saying is that my answer to the God question varies with different modes of inquiry. Has anyone else experienced what I’m talking about?
I think that this is a fascinating conversation. As a “former” evangelical christian, I see the “800 lbs gorilla in the room” not in whether “God” exists, but the insistence of human beings to feel they have to “fit” themselves into a certain “group”, whether that be a “committed atheist” or a “born again Christian”. It is the ultimate “Self vs. Other” practice in our society today. I think the most unfortunate thing is that the “passion” of these beliefs generally make otherwise “enlightened” persons behave in extremely unenlightening ways.
I am truly enjoying this subject. I am a former Reform rabbi who has taken a more secular humanist path. The Buddhist answer that the question of God is not relevant is wonderful in that it sidesteps the second God question–If there is a God, then what is God’s will (Torah? Quran? Church doctrine?)? That’s the question that is the real bugbear.
“Hatred” is the problem with belief. God believers hates “Non-belief” and “non-believers” of their sort. Atheists hates believers and “God/s”. This very hatred towards anything is a hindrance to “Freeing the mind”. That is probably the reason Shakyamuni Budha told, any discussion or argument on that is unfruitful. If one has to live in this world can live and enjoy the fruits just by following the teachings of Dhamma. No need of a futile discussion and hatred generation….one more point from my side
Kendall,
I like what you said about “God” (forgive the quotes, but he/she/it/they have so many names…) joining you for tea. What an interesting conversation THAT would be. As for worshipping him, who’s to say that your attitude of compassion ISN’T a form of worship?
I used to spend a lot of time online with some pretty fanatical atheists, and thought that many of them had some great ideas. However, when they started discussing how awful ALL religions are, I started to have some issues. I don’t necessarily think that the religion is the problem (if one even exists), rather the people who follow that religion and how they interpret the teachings of Yahweh/Jesus/Mohammed/Ahura-Mazda or whomever.
As a former Mormon AND an ex-catholic you’d think I’d be rabidly pro or con “God”. I’m not really…..I’m growing to love and appreciate the teachings of the Buddha and I’ve also evolved into a neo-pagan. I like the whole notion of having a diety or two to worship and I don’t think that that belief has to run afowl of the dharma. Belief in the Goddess & God satisfies a part of me just as the teachings of the Buddha satisfies another part of me. Perhaps in time that will change but for now neither set of beliefs contradicts the other.
I have been exposed to buddhist teachings fora long time. my experience with the teachings is that, they resinate with me only in my head and not my heart. When I say my prayers and say a rosary, I see things in a transparently manner. I see GOD within others and myself. I see God within every aspect of my life, and respect them dispite their classes, race. I don’t tend to worship people
Jackson – really enjoyed your comment:
I guess what I’m saying is that my answer to the God question varies with different modes of inquiry.
It brought to mind the distinction made by Adyashanti between “practical mind” and “egoic mind.” Practical mind refers to the intelligence that can accomplish day-to-day tasks and/or engage in “higher thinking,” without making it into a battle of some sort.
Egoic mind, on the other hand, lives on resistance — needs struggle to remain in its trance-state.
So then I wonder: how might I engage in this kind of inquiry (re: the God question) in a way that remains spacious & relaxed (perhaps even playful) — rather than devolving into contraction/struggle, which would seem to be the seeds of fundamentalism?
Great thread, this topic always gets lots of responses. I’ve been dealing with the question too (particularly being that Dawkins calls belief in God a delusion, the word perks some of our ears up). Strange that he doesn’t point to our belief that, capitalist democracy is “best”, as a delusion. Neither does he question our belief that refined sugar, unnatural chemical dyes and additives etc. are “food”. The extreme atheists attend groups (one of my best friends is involved in some of these) ironically they don’t understand that they are just attending a religion that opposes religion. They accuse “theists” of blindly following rather than questioning(which can be true), but turn red arguing (and then pale) when it’s demonstrated that history doesn’t support their claim that “religion is responsible for all wars”. Likewise when it’s demonstrated that atheist movements (i.e. communist china, particularly Mao’s) have also committed violence against humanity.
Personally (I am an unskilled novice, so take with a grain of salt),I think both ideas God and No-God stem from wrong view, but I’ve already written too much to into that. Ultimately if your view, regardless of religion or non-religion, is leading you to selfishness, arrogance, etc. (delusional egos), hatred, fear, etc. (aversion), or greed, spoils, etc. (desire) than you already know that it is of no or little good. If the view leads to altruistic and beneficial action, compassionate and wise thoughts, and fair and truthful speech, then you already know that it is good. Something like that, as translated by my limited and conceptual mind, said the blessed one while speaking to the Kalamas.
Excellent essay, Barbara, and it’s certainly generated some intriguing responses. I really resonated with your idea of either belief-in-God or not-belief-in-God as upaya, and with the assertion that it’s the way beliefs are held that’s more important than what the beliefs necessarily are. The “God” that athiests decry–and that a lot of my fellow Buddhists seem to be running from–is the ultimate straw man, but so is the God a lot of religious people so ardently cling to. I started out loving God, but it seems like the closer you move toward “him,” the more elusive he becomes; the more concepts about him are revealed as idols that naturally fall away when recognized as such. I feel a greater connection with the people I left behind in Christianity who got past the god-concepts and kept going than I do for a lot of the Buddhists I practice with.
emr – thanks for posting the Adyashanti video link. I’ve heard of him, but had not yet seen him speak. Regarding how you might go about engaging in spacious/open inquiry about the God question, I think it flows naturally out of insight meditation as one begins to dissolve their constricted identity. From the point of view of no-self (or perhaps it’s a non-point-of-view), the experiential response to the question turns up very different answers than one would find using other modes of inquiry. This is my experience, which I’ll admit is still very limited. What other kinds of approaches might one engage in?
Dave O’Neal – great comment. Coming from a biblical studies background (at a pentecostal college), I know that one derives a very different idea of God depending on how they get their information. At bible college, we used the biblical texts to find our God answers. My answers have become quite different since I began using contemplative modes of inquiry. As you stated, there are Christians who also use contemplative modes and are able to stay with their faith. I also have a great amount of respect for such individuals.
I would like to add on to the point I made on 9th. If we do believe there’s God, then we don’t even understand ourselves. That is why we are abusing each other and the environment as a whole. Thay Thich Nhat Hanh said that, if we are mindful and pay attention to every aspect of our our life we will see God from the time we are rising to sun set. In this case, I see God in all human beings, trees, rivers, because without these things I would never survive. I respect them and not worship them. To me God is very much alive in every second of my day
The question wether or not God exhists
doesnt find an answer since none knows what god is. Even if someone ventures to describe and locate god attributing some preferred qualities, a phenomenon which is also impermanent according to The Buddha.
Those who claim Buddhism isn’t about God should is non-sense. The 4th Noble Truth of the path leading to the end of suffering in Buddhism is taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and taking the 5 precepts — this is called, only then can one enter the stream of the Noble Eightfold Path.
Buddha himself in ALL Buddhist sutras is referred to as “Bhagavan” which means “God” and “anuttaro” which means the “Supreme” which is a commonly used term to mean “Supreme God” in north Indian languages.
People who some how think Buddhism is God neutral are fooling themselves and misrepresenting Buddhism — unfortuneatly, that’s the level of ignorance present in modern Buddhists.
Buddha is supposed to be God! Duh!
Who do these foolish Buddhists think they are taking refuge in? These pseudo-intellectuals…always ignorant!
Comments #21 & 22 — This has been a generously open-minded exchange until now. I hate to see it devolve into rancor. You are welcome to state your perspective, but in the future do so without insulting others.
As for what we take refuge in, with his final words the Buddha said we take refuge in ourselves. What do you think he meant by that? Are we God, too?
God is a concept. What is it a concept of? Don’t cling to views.
Now, after reading all the comments, I would like to take all to the concepts of gods we have
1. “God” as a super intellectual(omnipotent, omnipresent etc) who made this universe (Purpose unknown)
2. “God” Came to this universe along with evil and in constant fight, god helps us to liberate from Christopher or any other evil(Satan).
3. “Gods”(Plural) born to this universe like us with differing abilities. If we worship any of them gives that quality to us.
4. “God” appears himself here as Universe
5. “God” is quality less and cannot be understood by words or knowledge and any notion about God is ungodly.In Veda it is called “Brahma”.
I am able to collate only these many definition at this point of time and there can be many more. When we argue to another person, first we have to know what is his idea about “god”. Then, is “idea is god?” to be questioned. After that heated discussion, we may have to ask whether worship of any image is going to give any “relief from suffering” or “Engaging in pleasure”?. If we can deeply meditate on these subjects, our mind itself will answer as “pure consciousness” can penetrate all science and logic. To be frank, when I did a study on all the above possibility, 3rd one may be a possibility like ghosts(a creature lives in different frequency beyond the reach of our senses or scientific extension of our senses). May be “More purer consciousness can answer this” or that very pure consciousness in fragments may be Gods and in unison “God”. I would like to answer as “I don’t know”. Probably that is the honest answer anyone can give.
As Barbara said insulting others won’t do any good.
- The term “Bhagavan” or “Bhagavan-svayam” is a part of Hinduism not Buddhism. These are different.
- The term “anuttaro” means unsurpassed or unexcelled in the context of Buddhist teachings as written in the Dhammavibhāga I, 7.4. So as to speak Buddah was unsurpassed in Buddhist teachings, that has nothing to do with any form of gods or being god like. Since when are teachers god like?
Citing words out of context is like a captain without a ship and a crew.
Cheers