This sorta kinda goes along with the current spotlight feature, "Misunderstanding Buddhism." At the religion blog of the Dallas Morning News, columnist Rod Dreher poses the questions "What don't most people understand about religious faith?" and "What don't most people understand about your faith tradition?" A panel of people of several religious traditions provide thoughtful answers.
Ric Dexter of Soka Gakkai International provided the response for Buddhism (fourth response down), which on the whole I think is very good. The first paragraph might provoke some discussion, however. He begins,
From a Buddhist viewpoint, when a person begins their practice, it is with some expectation. This is faith. When that expectation is answered, there develops an intellectual acceptance of a causal relationship. This is faith. As understanding grows through study and actual proof, this intellectual acceptance grows to become an internalized belief. This is also faith. These are not lesser, then greater faith, simply different awakenings.
What do you think?
The comments to the Dallas Morning News blog post also are worth reading. One I liked in particular said,
My point is that the idea that faith = belief is unique to Christianity in general, Protestantism in particular, and especially the modern American versions thereof.You see little of this concept in Judaism and Islam and virtually none in Hinduism, Buddhism, and the remaining indigenous religions. For most of the world, religion and faith is about who you are, whose you are and how you live, not what you think about God or life after death.
That doesn't make it right or wrong, but it does point out the fallacy (and danger) of assessing religions (for whatever purpose, from academic curiousity to the quests of the soul) from the viewpoint that they're primarily about what you believe.
This is a point I rant about from time to time. Most people with some experience with Buddhism appreciate that "faith" in Buddhism is not about "believing in" doctrines. But I think it's less well understood that this is also true of many other religions. I agree with the author of the comment that "faith = belief" is mostly a modern Christian notion. Religious historian Karen Armstrong has written about this quite a bit, saying that the emphasis on belief in religious "facts" developed in Christianity after the 17th century or so.
“For most of the world, religion and faith is about who you are, whose you are and how you live, not what you think about God or life after death.”
Sorry, but I just don’t agree with this, that emphasis on faith is mainly Christian. This statement may apply to Hindus. However, Orthodox Jews and Muslims stress faith a great deal and take the idea of God and life after death very, very seriously. What perhaps confuses the issue is that these religions place much emphasis on community and on obeying many ritual and legal commandments. But the reason these commandments are obeyed is because, according to the believers, they originate with God, and if they are defied there will be dire consequences in the afterlife. Just ask any Orthodox Jew or devout Muslim. They will be happy to tell you that faith, God and the afterlife are on their minds every single day.
David,
I think you might be missing the point, although you are wording the same thing differently. I live in the Bible Belt and when you ask most Christians about them and their faith, they start rattling off what they believe in… they give long speeches about their creed. However, and I am not meaning to be offensive, what they believe is usually not in line with how they live. This is different among other religions. Take Judaism, whether orthodox or ethnically Jewish, being Jewish is who you are, not necessarily about what you believe. The difference is that belief for most Christians (at least the ones I know) is that belief is primary, for Jews and others (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists) belief is secondary.
Make sense?
I meant to say ‘…or a secular Jew’.
Sure, when you include Jews in general, then of course it does make sense, and technically speaking anyone born of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of what he or she believes. The same often applies to members of various Christian churches who are there not because of what they believe, but because they feel it is who they are, e.g. Catholics who feel they have a Catholic cultural identity, or my neighbor who goes to the church on the corner every Sunday because it is part of who she is, yet personally she is an agnostic. Sorry I get a bit exercised over this subject, but it is because, as a very non-Orthodox Jewish person myself, I often find that Jewish people like me are in denial about the divide that exists between them and their Orthodox counterparts (who are a Jewish Bible Belt), and how this can play out in various political and cultural struggles. But thanks for your clarification. I appreciate it.
“When that expectation is answered, there develops an intellectual acceptance of a causal relationship.”
What a peculiar view of Buddhism … imagining that our expectations might be met or, if those expectations were met, that they might represent a satisfactory understanding of Buddhism. Most peculiar.
He does say “From a Buddhist viewpoint” and not “From the Buddhist viewpoint” – and seems to be essentailly Buddhist.
essentially, I mean of course . . .
I think the major difference is where to locate God or our true nature. Locating God without causes followers and the fight about who has got the real God, where as locating God within can both experience God for yourself and see God in everything. This includes your neighbor even if he/she believes in another God.
…the point was that locating God without, you let others tell you what to believe (faith) but where as in locating God or your true nature within you rely on your own direct experience.