Buddha, Jesus, Mohamed. Does it really matter who we believe

[Loburt]

The influence of European colonizers is not responsible for the Thai's interpretation of Buddhism.

[pr0nmaster]

man....all these western couch buddhists really annoy me...

seriously romanticised version of buddhism most people have.....and getting more and more irritated with having people after one or 2 many glasses of wine (and hearing i spent a lot of time in asia) wanted to telling me all about it...

Nothing against buddhism at all...trust me.... just taking a few yoga /tai chi classes , or suddenly feeling a great send of pride in your crappy car....does not make you buddhist.....

[zeusbheld]

as for theism, reason and belief in a god are no more incommensurable than

ethics and atheism.

Regardless of their incommensurability, comparisons are made all the time. In this very forum reasonable people have taken jabs at stupid Christians, Jews, and Muslims whom they deem unreasonable. Thats fine, and to be expected. But it ignores the fact that even though western philosophers are more logical, they don't speak at all to the aspirations of the majority of people in this world. The conclusions of western metaphysics are of little use to the common person who would much rather hear grandpa talk about David and Goliath than about the a priori rationalism of Leibniz's theory of monads.

well, if people make comparisons all the time, constant repetition doesnt make the thousandth time any more valid than the first 999. that only works in rockabilly.

the conclusions of western philosophers pre-20th century were at least nominally judeo-christian (this includes 'natural philosophers', pracitioners of 'scians' like newton and darwin). the intellectual rigor was an esoteric practice that was highly compatible with christianity. yeah the 'common person' would rather hear about david and goliath, but that is true of ANY religion. how many taoists do you think read chuang-tze, vs how many indulge in folk-taoist talismen and ghosts? and do you think islamists like bin-laden give a toss about the sufis?

the conclusions of western intellectual tradition were until very recently tied completely to the christian church. to claim that the rationalism of kant was somehow athieistic is not just absurd it's flat out WRONG.

My guess is fundamentalists, jihadists, and fanatics are increasing in numbers because we feel the need to call their religions and their cultures "turgid bullshit."

my guess is, that sentence is turgid bullshit and the real reason they're pissed off is coz of economics--they're at the bottom of the food chain, and they damn sure dont think it's fair and thus when someone comes along with a fundamentalist fairy tale that promises everything will be great, they want to believe because they're completely disempowered and disenfranchised.

rich kids like bin laden are made when they look around them, and have some empathy with the poor folks around them, and see westerners living large and get really really pissed off. OK i'm paraphrasing (in my own erudite and learned form of ghetto speak) but bin laden himself has as much as said so.

Well, that is totally unproductive and only serves to alienate people, who then become clannish and move into the same housing developments, only to later burn Paris to the ground.

it's unproductive, i agree-- because it's salt in the wound. the wound is an economic one, not a religious one.

People react violently when they are misunderstood and looked down on.

i've seen real live unrest (in bombay, it's kind of a routine). people react viiolently when they're damn sure poor, getting screwed, and some fatcat in a bmw or mercedes stretch limo is turning the screws on them. being misunderstood and looked down on definitely fans the flames though.

For example, although we might find Thai Buddhism (among other religions) to be overly obsessed with elephant gods, bird-men and holy monkeys, it would be unneccessary to ridicule the Buddhist majority and flog them publically for believing such crap. If we did so, I imagine the Thais who value the integrity of their culture and heritage would swiftly kick our asses out of town. And I would applaud them for doing so.

there's something to this, but i'd bet you would be better received making fun of ganesha than making fun of the king. not that they shouldnt run ya out of the country for either.

I imagine religious violence will wane as society learns to accept that religious symbols are much more complex and meaningful than a radioactive rabbit, which is devoid of any meaning whatsoever, and thus symbolizes nothing but arrogance.

i think this is off-base. the current jihad, according to the islamists themselves, has a lot to do with palestine getting screwed over, and all the brown muslim countries getting economically raped by the west and resentment against the permissive western sex-crazed fantasy world of hollywood et al.

Although religion may no longer mean anything to many of us, we should at least maintain respect for it as billions still find use for it.

And if you can't respect it, than for Chrissakes ignore it.

i think that is not quite right, i dont have to respect what they believe, i do have to respect them as human beings, and their dignity. there hasnt' been a whole lot of that going on. the popularity of fundamentalist islam definitely isnt entirely for religious reasons and has a hell of a lot more to do with certain groups being marginalised wholesale.

i'ts economics, not religion, that starts wars, including the crusades, the current bush-led crusade, and the current jihad.

[zeusbheld]

The influence of European colonizers is not responsible for the Thai's interpretation of Buddhism.

ditto.

the buddhism in thailand had long established before that colonizing time..

yep even if you slept through comparative religion class you should recognize the elephant gods and flying monkeys as hindu.

[Tinian]

The influence of European colonizers is not responsible for the Thai's interpretation of Buddhism.

ditto.

the buddhism in thailand had long established before that colonizing time..

yep even if you slept through comparative religion class you should recognize the elephant gods and flying monkeys as hindu.

Not so easy to say that it's purely Hindu as opposed to Buddhist. Buddhism has always had gods, deities, demons, you name it - they're not enlightened, but they are powerful beings who can help humans (which is why it's worth transferring merit to them, giving them a prayer or two, etc.). Right from the earliest evidence, Buddhism has had cosmologies, heavens, and deities. The Hindu god Indra was quickly incorporated as one of the most important deities in Buddhist cosmology, thunderbolts and all. Even though Ganesh (the elephant headed one) has not had a long history in Buddhism, there is no conflict at all for Buddhists to worship him as a god just as they have always honoured numerous gods. The only conflict would be if they saw him as an ultimate God who could offer soteriological liberation from rebirth.

[Tinian]

But Thai do belive in heaven and hell too. But I'm not sure if this was influenced by the Europeans when they went on a colonization spree in Asia (Thailand avoided that :wink: )

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Buddhist beliefs in heavens and hells has absolutely nothing to do with Western missionaries or colonizers. This is often a tactic people use - take what they don't like about a religion and then blame it on the corrupting influence of nasty colonizers (especially if it reflects a hang-up that they have about the Christian religion that they were brought up with). Heavens and hells have been discussed and represented in Buddhist painting, literature, philosophy, folk stories, sculpture, ritual from the earliest evidence to the modern day in every Asian country that it has ever existed in.

If there has been an interesting interplay between the West and modern movements in (Theravada) Asian Buddhism, it is actually in quite the opposite direction - it's toward developing a 'rational', anti-ritual form of Buddhism that has been coined as 'Protestant Buddhism' because of the complicated interaction that occurred (with both 'sides' influencing the other) between Westerners (some of whom were Protestant missionaries) and Theravada countries.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

I was born being a Catholic.

I was raised being a free-minded person ... I am always a None-Religion person.

BUT....

I am now learning & reading more and more of Buddhism's philosophy. :idea:

[Tinian]

There have been a lot of comments in this forum about organised religion and antagonism against organised religion. This seems to be a common trend which people feel is something that can be safely said and we all nod accordingly with the assurance that it allows a certain social acceptance. But I wanted to ask: what exactly do we mean by organised religion? As has been said a few times in recent posts, in the Christian tradition, philosophers who offer their own particular take on things (the Kierkegaards or Schopenhauers or Kants of the world) are all using categories that work within an understood framework that allow their propositions to have meaning. Is it really possible to have any religious discussion without certain frameworks being in place?

Is the fashionable statement of being against organised religion bound up in an antagonism against stereotyped ideas of a repressive Church?

The problem is that religions simply do not survive or have much meaning on a pan-society level unless they are rooted in cultures and engaging on multiple levels of human experience and aspirations. Where does organised religion start and stop? Is it really beneficial to favor a totally individualistic approach to religion that has no connection to tradition, community, or long embedded symbols? Is such an approach actually possible or meaningful in any way? Or does it lead to superficial egocentric forms of 'spirituality' (sometimes perhaps not far from New Age).

[eagle]

There have been a lot of comments in this forum about organised religion and antagonism against organised religion. This seems to be a common trend which people feel is something that can be safely said and we all nod accordingly with the assurance that it allows a certain social acceptance. But I wanted to ask: what exactly do we mean by organised religion? As has been said a few times in recent posts, in the Christian tradition, philosophers who offer their own particular take on things (the Kierkegaards or Schopenhauers or Kants of the world) are all using categories that work within an understood framework that allow their propositions to have meaning. Is it really possible to have any religious discussion without certain frameworks being in place?

Is the fashionable statement of being against organised religion bound up in an antagonism against stereotyped ideas of a repressive Church?

The problem is that religions simply do not survive or have much meaning on a pan-society level unless they are rooted in cultures and engaging on multiple levels of human experience and aspirations. Where does organised religion start and stop? Is it really beneficial to favor a totally individualistic approach to religion that has no connection to tradition, community, or long embedded symbols? Is such an approach actually possible or meaningful in any way? Or does it lead to superficial egocentric forms of 'spirituality' (sometimes perhaps not far from New Age).

Very intellectual sounding but .. I think what people are refering to is Christians Destoying Native cultures as they try to convert them. And perhaps Christanity and Muslims Waging war in the name of Mohammad and Jesus. Or perhaps the Crusades where people were tortured in the name of the Lord. Terrisim in the name of Allah. YOu want more I could go on and on but I think its safe to say that religion has caused more pain then it claims to alleviate. Organized or not :twisted:

[eagle]

I dont see christians rioting all over the world. Only Muslims.

Yea you missed the crusades and the Monks invading north america infecting with syphilus as they go. And modern priests molesting young children. You want to point the finger at Muslim as the current most ignorant religion go ahead but its the pious attitude created by religious fanatics that creates the atmosphere. Once again I remind you Tigger its not all Muslims rioting and its their misguided "religious" leaders leading them to riot. PEACE

[zeusbheld]

constant repetition doesnt make the thousandth time any more valid than the first 999. that only works in rockabilly.

haha. anybody who prefers early Johnny Cash would surely disagree.

was duane eddy who said 'make a mistake, you repeat it enough times, it becomes your 'style' or something to that effect.

pre-20th century were at least nominally judeo-christian (this includes 'natural philosophers'

Natural philosphy did not dominate the centuries previous to the 20th. 21st century capitalism is founded on Bentham, Ricardo and Smith, all pre-20th century philosophers whose assumptions were not particularly influenced by Judeo-Christianity. Likewise, natural philosophy did not end at the turn of the century. Judeo-Christianity still influences our economic decisions. In Israel for example.

arguably natural philosophy dominated the 19th century. on the other hand, arguably it's still not dominating the 21st.

i believe you have the cart pulling the horse, i think the ideology came along to justify rich people getting richer. capitalism being founded on the work of a few philosophers sounds kind of comical, like a bunch of guys sat around wanting to get rich exploiting the proletariate, but they couldnt do it without the proper ideology.

i dont think bentham belongs on that list btw. in many ways he's borderline socialist.

to claim that the rationalism of kant was somehow athieistic is not just absurd it's flat out WRONG.

I agree, thats why I never claimed it.

you had implied that rationalism was inherently opposed to religion, or at least that was the understanding (possibly mistakenly) came away with.

i believe that western rationalism comes from the judeo-christian tradition. with the rise of science, this has led to many assumptions being adopted from judeo-christian tradition, many of which proved innacurate. the reverse of what hume said applies--you can't get an is from an ought, either.

as far as science goes, the chinese had fairly advanced science, and a lot of modern science and mathematics is built on advances made during the muslim renaissance.

there are differences in how it's practiced but i think the universal aspect of science is that a) scientific claims are testable/falsifiable, and science is descriptive, not prescriptive. a culture has to bring values to the table in the practice of science, the acceleration of gravity will be 9.81 meters per second per second regardless of ideology, religion or values.

nature provides the world, we humans must provide ourselves with values. they cannot be obtained through studying nature.

the real reason they're pissed off is coz of economics--they're at the bottom of the food chain

Right, economics forged entirely within the western intellectual tradition, and have nothing to do with the religious, ethnic, and cultural identities of Algerians living in the slums of Paris.

while the latest war between the muslim and christian worlds is certainly based on ideology (not to mention a few centuries of acrimony) economic factors would be in play regardless of ideology. sure rich guys use ideology to justify amassing wealth, as did royalty.

disrespect is part of it, but dismissive ideology is all part of screwing the little guy isnt it?

when someone comes along with a fundamentalist fairy tale that promises everything will be great, they want to believe because they're completely disempowered and disenfranchised.

This is my point, you call it a fairy tale while they insist it is their identity.

well, fundamentalism is inherently evangelical, at least in islamic and judeo-christian traditions. (yes jewish traditions too, as anyone who has ever seen the lubavicher 'mitzvah tank' in new york will attest).

fundamentalism usually involves taking the sacred text as literal fact and the basiis for literal description of history and nature. i say usually because there may be some other form of fundamentalism, but talking about what i know more about--judeo-christian and islamic fundamentalism.

fundamentalism usually promises a scapegoat, as the islamists have done. this literal scriptural interpretation of the world combined with a scapegoat who is in league with the devil--therein lies the fairy tale.

and since fundamentalists are out to either convert me to their world view or in some cases, like radical islamism, kill me just for being a western infidel, no i dont owe them any ******* respect.

You have just demeaned them, so they run off to burn stuff down. I bet if you went and asked the rioters in Paris why they are rioting, they will tell you it is because they have no place, they are second-generation Muslims who don't fit in back home where they are too 'Western,' and who don't fit in in secular France where they are not allowed to wear headresses in public schools. Their identity is being dismantled.

i dont have to respect their beliefs to respect their right to practice them. those who have bought into the islamist ideology basically want to kill me for not being a muslim and doing horrible things like having sex out of wedlock. apparently though, i'm not due the same respect from them, that you want me to give them?

I doubt they would say it is based on economics as France takes care of the poor.

i suspect people involved in the actual rioting would give muddle-headed reasons. what i've seen of riots in general, it's not the intellectuals burning cars and throwing rocks through windows.

of course it's aobut economics! even if they're well off, they identify with other muslims around the world, and see them suffering at the hands of the west. this was what insipired bin laden and al quaeda! all the islamist mullahs are telling them that even if they personally are not being screwed, people just like them are being screwed by western socieities all over the world, and therein lies the root of the ideological war. it's rooted in one group having economic conttrol over most of the resources and the other group damn sure wondering why.

when a group of people can look around and see all sorts of people they identify as being like them suffer, they damn sure wonder why. people tend to want to believe life is fair. so when some yahoo like an islamist mullah comes along and pumps sunshine up their ass for being on the correct side of things, and gives them an enemy who is the cause of all their problems, it's easy for them to believe because they want to.

hitler's rise worked similarly to the rise of islamism. that was economic too, even though there were some rich, well fed nazis.

Immigrants get free health care, housing, and paychecks in the mail. I think it is about economics AND identity. Bin Ladin was not made when he saw 50 Cent's million dollar bling bling, he was made when the USA interfered in the Middle East and imposed western political and economic ideologies on Muslim nations. Bin Ladin and most jihadists say so.

well the 'economic ideology' is 'we the united states are going to make money by screwing you over'. so if that is ideology then so be it but i was under the impression that a rich group trying to take resources from a poor group would fall under the heading 'economic conflict'.

israel, and the US support of israel, was cited as the root cause of 9/11. bin laden et al, mostly rich guys, looked around and saw the palestinians suffering at the hands of the israelis, who they believed were the rich guys taking the palestinians stuff and killing/torturing them in the process.

all the people who looked, talked and believed like them were being exploited and / or killed by people who dress like westerners and percentage-wise are overwhelmingly christian. thus ideology followed on from economics.

[zeusbheld]

The influence of European colonizers is not responsible for the Thai's interpretation of Buddhism.

ditto.

the buddhism in thailand had long established before that colonizing time..

yep even if you slept through comparative religion class you should recognize the elephant gods and flying monkeys as hindu.

Not so easy to say that it's purely Hindu as opposed to Buddhist.

it's perfectly fine for buddhism to poach gods from hinduism. however, ganesha, indra et al dont suddenly become less hindu by virtue of being borrowed by buddhism. they were hindu before the buddhists found a use for them obviously.

so yeah, it's really easy to say. ganesha is a hindu god.

[zeusbheld]

There have been a lot of comments in this forum about organised religion and antagonism against organised religion. This seems to be a common trend which people feel is something that can be safely said and we all nod accordingly with the assurance that it allows a certain social acceptance. But I wanted to ask: what exactly do we mean by organised religion?

well it seems fairly obvious--religion as a social institution with officers and a managing infrastructure of some sort.

As has been said a few times in recent posts, in the Christian tradition, philosophers who offer their own particular take on things (the Kierkegaards or Schopenhauers or Kants of the world) are all using categories that work within an understood framework that allow their propositions to have meaning. Is it really possible to have any religious discussion without certain frameworks being in place?

philosophical underpinnings and ideology are not organized religion. organized religion is churches, temples, etc. and people running them.

The problem is that religions simply do not survive or have much meaning on a pan-society level unless they are rooted in cultures and engaging on multiple levels of human experience and aspirations. Where does organised religion start and stop?

it seems fairly obvious to me, but you must have missed the turn--people are disappointed with organized religions because of their involvement in the material world, in politics, power etc. not because of the intellectual framework.

the same disappointment that leads to movements like the protestant reformation in christianity...

Is it really beneficial to favor a totally individualistic approach to religion that has no connection to tradition, community, or long embedded symbols? Is such an approach actually possible or meaningful in any way? Or does it lead to superficial egocentric forms of 'spirituality' (sometimes perhaps not far from New Age).

well first off you're begging the question of whether everyone NEEDS an approach to religion, which is insulting to those who dont feel they need one. that seems entirely unjustified.

secondly, being against organized religion doesnt necessarily entail having no connection to tradition, community, or long-embedded symbols. dont know where you got that straw man from, but you can stop beating him now it isnt the issue.

[zeusbheld]

I dont see christians rioting all over the world. Only Muslims.

at the moment this is true.

you're also not seeing that a mere few hundred years ago it was christians doing charming stuff like the spanish inquisition while muslims were doing the strong back stuff like mathematics and science. that may seem like a long time ago, but the basic teachings of islam and christianity havent changed that much since then.

currently islamism has way too much sway over islam, and therein lies the root of the current jihad, but that is another thread. if you want to take this up, please add to one of the existing threads in politics.

[robbie36]

Although religion may no longer mean anything to many of us, we should at least maintain respect for it as billions still find use for it.

And if you can't respect it, than for Chrissakes ignore it.

We should 'maintain respect' for religion? I hate this argument - it gives free rein to christian evangelists and muslem clerics to indoctrinate kids from birth. I strongly believe that religious teachings should be exposed for the farce that they are.

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. A belief that has driven many people to do unbelievably stupid things throughout the history of mankind.

Any respect for religion should have disappeared after September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.

Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for far too long.

[eagle]

Although religion may no longer mean anything to many of us, we should at least maintain respect for it as billions still find use for it.

And if you can't respect it, than for Chrissakes ignore it.

We should 'maintain respect' for religion? I hate this argument - it gives free rein to christian evangelists and muslem clerics to indoctrinate kids from birth. I strongly believe that religious teachings should be exposed for the farce that they are.

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. A belief that has driven many people to do unbelievably stupid things throughout the history of mankind.

Any respect for religion should have disappeared after September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.

Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for far too long.

Excellent point Robbie :idea: :idea:

[Tinian]

The influence of European colonizers is not responsible for the Thai's interpretation of Buddhism.

ditto.

the buddhism in thailand had long established before that colonizing time..

yep even if you slept through comparative religion class you should recognize the elephant gods and flying monkeys as hindu.

Not so easy to say that it's purely Hindu as opposed to Buddhist.

it's perfectly fine for buddhism to poach gods from hinduism. however, ganesha, indra et al dont suddenly become less hindu by virtue of being borrowed by buddhism. they were hindu before the buddhists found a use for them obviously.

so yeah, it's really easy to say. ganesha is a hindu god.

This is making a basic mistake of confusing origins with identity. Just because Indra may have had Hindu/Brahmanical origins before he had a role in Buddhism does not mean that his role in Buddhism is any less Buddhist.

Take the Genesis creation myth. Just because this originally was a Mesopotamian myth does not mean that it's any less Jewish when it was adapted and incorporated into the bible. It's about adaptation. If you got in a time machine and went up to any Theravada Buddhist over the last two millenia and said to them: 'You know, this god Sakka (Indra) is really Hindu and has no role in Buddhism', I think they'd think you were mad.

If Buddhists have a use for gods like Sakka (Indra) and if Sakka has a firm and established role in Buddhism, what is the point of saying it's somehow not Buddhist? It begs the question of why on earth Buddhists honor Sakka if he is so entirely unBuddhist.

Is the idea of rebirth now not Buddhist because the idea existed before the Buddha?

[Tinian]

There have been a lot of comments in this forum about organised religion and antagonism against organised religion. This seems to be a common trend which people feel is something that can be safely said and we all nod accordingly with the assurance that it allows a certain social acceptance. But I wanted to ask: what exactly do we mean by organised religion?

well it seems fairly obvious--religion as a social institution with officers and a managing infrastructure of some sort.

As has been said a few times in recent posts, in the Christian tradition, philosophers who offer their own particular take on things (the Kierkegaards or Schopenhauers or Kants of the world) are all using categories that work within an understood framework that allow their propositions to have meaning. Is it really possible to have any religious discussion without certain frameworks being in place?

philosophical underpinnings and ideology are not organized religion. organized religion is churches, temples, etc. and people running them.

The problem is that religions simply do not survive or have much meaning on a pan-society level unless they are rooted in cultures and engaging on multiple levels of human experience and aspirations. Where does organised religion start and stop?

it seems fairly obvious to me, but you must have missed the turn--people are disappointed with organized religions because of their involvement in the material world, in politics, power etc. not because of the intellectual framework.

the same disappointment that leads to movements like the protestant reformation in christianity...

Is it really beneficial to favor a totally individualistic approach to religion that has no connection to tradition, community, or long embedded symbols? Is such an approach actually possible or meaningful in any way? Or does it lead to superficial egocentric forms of 'spirituality' (sometimes perhaps not far from New Age).

well first off you're begging the question of whether everyone NEEDS an approach to religion, which is insulting to those who dont feel they need one. that seems entirely unjustified.

secondly, being against organized religion doesnt necessarily entail having no connection to tradition, community, or long-embedded symbols. dont know where you got that straw man from, but you can stop beating him now it isnt the issue.

I'm not so sure it can be brushed under the carpet like this. Take Buddhism. The Sangha (the monastic community) would be an example of what you are describing as organised religion. We would have absolutely no Buddhist texts or teachings if the Sangha hadn't preserved them (Buddhism full-stop would not have survived as well as it has if it were not for the Sangha). Teachings of modern reformists like Buddhadasa would never have existed if he were not reacting against - and therefore in the framework of - certain traditional concepts that have been upheld and continued by 'organised religions'. Many of the greatest Buddhist philosophers that people read to this day were monks who belonged to 'organised religions' - Nagarjuna, Tsong Kha Pa, Vasubandhu, etc. etc. And if they weren't, often the only way their teachings survived was through their finding a niche somehow within the framework of organised religions.

Secondly, how organised are organised religions? They change with the times and are adapting too.

Thirdly, I wonder (and this is a genuine question) how religions could ever work in a way that reaches multiple levels of human society if it were not for the existence of organised religions (and their involvement in politics etc etc). There are, as you say, many problems with organised religions doing this, but if a religion is to be intricately bound up with a culture and respond to a whole mass of human aspirations and needs, can this be done without organised religion? (And, anyway, the idea of a religion somehow entirely separate from society seems more in the realm of an ideal that reality.)

Fourthly. I in no way stated that I thought everyone needs to have an approach to a religion - obviously they don't. That's clearly your particular bee in your bonnet. All I was asking is - if people want to have an approach to religion, how would that work and what would be the consequences of that if organised religion were totally taken out of the equation.

[robbie36]

Bjay,

Fair points.

(1) I am not advocating banning people from believing in Gods and after lives. People can believe in anything they want - God's, fairies, father christmas, Goblins, flying saucers and nirvanas. I am merely suggesting that I do not have to 'respect those views' and should be able to expose how ridiculous it is to have strong beliefs in things that you cannot possibly know exist or not.

(2) I do not believe these beliefs are 'innocuous' - especially the strong belief in life after death. If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr's death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?

(3) Most evidence suggests that humans are extremely susceptible to indoctrination - tell them a lie enough times and they will eventually believe it. (How the hell do you think Bush got re-elected.) So I am fundamentally against indoctrination of any sort. That applies to all philosophies - religious or otherwise - communist diktats etc...

(4) So what would I propose? Well at the very least I would like to think that we could take compulsory religious dogmas out of our daily lives. In the UK, a religious assembly is compulsory at school on a daily basis. Is that right? When you go to court you swear to tell the truth on the holy bible. When Bush takes the Presidency he appeals to the Lord. Let's teach ethics and values to our children and not religious dogma.

Individuals will always believe stupid things. That's fine.

Maybe it is as simple as this.

You believe that religious myths are inherently innocuous - I do not.

[Tinian]

Any respect for religion should have disappeared after September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.

Do you really think that it's appropriate to smear all religions with what what happened on September the 11th? Surely you accept that the vast majority of religious people, Muslim or otherwise, abhor acts of terrorism like that. Yes, there are extremists who committ such acts. But they are people who abuse and twist religion for vicious ends. And if it isn't religion, another format will be found.

[zeusbheld]

This is making a basic mistake of confusing origins with identity. Just because Indra may have had Hindu/Brahmanical origins before he had a role in Buddhism does not mean that his role in Buddhism is any less Buddhist.

it's hardly a mistake to say that ganesha is a hindu god appropriated by buddhism, and doesnt indicate his role in buddhism, let alone question how 'buddhist' his role is.

Is the idea of rebirth now not Buddhist because the idea existed before the Buddha?

if you take a look at how ganesha is implemented in buddhism it's pretty much the exact same god as in hinduism, and ganesha is still actively worshipped by hindus.

does the fact that buddhists admire ganesha make him any less hindu?

[Tinian]

This is making a basic mistake of confusing origins with identity. Just because Indra may have had Hindu/Brahmanical origins before he had a role in Buddhism does not mean that his role in Buddhism is any less Buddhist.

it's hardly a mistake to say that ganesha is a hindu god appropriated by buddhism, and doesnt indicate his role in buddhism, let alone question how 'buddhist' his role is.

Is the idea of rebirth now not Buddhist because the idea existed before the Buddha?

if you take a look at how ganesha is implemented in buddhism it's pretty much the exact same god as in hinduism, and ganesha is still actively worshipped by hindus.

does the fact that buddhists admire ganesha make him any less hindu?

ok, i think we are talking at cross-purposes here - some twist in communication. if all that you are saying is that some of the deities that are found in Buddhism or worshipped by Buddhists have previously had a role outside of Buddhism or sometimes still do have a role outside Budhdism, that's of course the case. but what i thought (wrongly?) that you were saying is that therefore such gods are somehow not part of (true) Buddhism and that we should only think of them as 'Hindu'.

my point is simply that when a Buddhist honors a god like Indra or Ganesh, there is no reason why this should be thought of as a fundamentally 'Hindu' or non-Buddhist practice.

Issues of roles and identity are pretty complex with regard to gods in Buddhism and this can create confusion when discussing such things. Ganesh is pretty marginal. He's not part of the textual Buddhist pantheon. Buddhists tend to honor him like they would ANY god, because it can give you merit and the god may give you a helping hand. But he's not had a particularly central role in Buddhist cultures. Indra, on the other hand, has had an incredibly central role right from the time of some of the earliest sources. In fact, the irony is that in Brahmanism, or Hinduism or whatever you like to call it, Indra diminished in importance pretty rapidly when gods like Vishnu and Shiva hit the scene more, whereas in Buddhism he has been probably the most important god up until even modern times.

[zeusbheld]

ok, i think we are talking at cross-purposes here - some twist in communication. if all that you are saying is that some of the deities that are found in Buddhism or worshipped by Buddhists have previously had a role outside of Buddhism or sometimes still do have a role outside Budhdism, that's of course the case.

yep.

but what i thought (wrongly?) that you were saying is that therefore such gods are somehow not part of (true) Buddhism and that we should only think of them as 'Hindu'.

and i'm not sure where you got that idea... but it seems to have led to...

my point is simply that when a Buddhist honors a god like Indra or Ganesh, there is no reason why this should be thought of as a fundamentally 'Hindu' or non-Buddhist practice.

which, while not having much to do with what *i* was saying, is relevant to the topic overall... particularly relevant to the idea that there is a lot of overlap between what the various religions teach... funny how little cul-de-sacs lead back to the main road.

[Tinian]

. particularly relevant to the idea that there is a lot of overlap between what the various religions teach... funny how little cul-de-sacs lead back to the main road.

ok, so to get back to the main thread in a less tangential way, does Buddhism differ from other religions? Speaking purely from a doctrinal point of view for the moment, and leaving aside issues to do with popular buddhism and how it may view nirvana as a heaven or the buddha as a kind of deity, and speaking mostly from a theravada angle, I think the main difference between Buddhism and other religions is the idea of no-self and no ultimate creator God. This is the idea that there is no permanent soul, no essential self, but instead a process of causally related phenomena - on the human level this means that there is no essential, permanent 'I' or self, and on the cosmic level it means that there is no eternal God who forms the foundation of the universe.

[Tinian]

I think the main difference between Buddhism and other religions is the idea of no-self and no ultimate creator God.

Some Buddhists have rejected the idea of no-self (pugdalavadins) and some non-Buddhists reject the idea of an ultimate Creator (mormons and arguably taoists).

So even though organized religions do not always teach the same thing, they could. But a world where everybody thinks and believes the same thing would be pointless, wouldn't it? Maybe less violent, but boring nonetheless.

well, yes, every generalisation has qualifications (though that doesn't mean generalising isn't valid). but the idea of no-self is pretty much a steady theme or leitmotif through most buddhist traditions, even if it has various shadings. we know very little about the pudgalavadins, and although it seems they promoted an idea of an 'individual', it's probably also likely they tried to square it with the doctrine of no-self (and it should be said they are often criticised by most Indian buddhist traditions) .

you can see the same pattern with the tathagatagarbha tradition - they come dangerously close to accepting the idea of a substantial true identity (a buddha-nature) but continously claim at the same time that this is not a self. that said, it's true that some traditions do promote an underlying reality that comes close to a self.

anyway, as i said, i was coming mostly from a theravada perspective.