by mr dan
At a Halloween party last weekend hosted by the treasurer of CVA, it was not a surprise to me that the topic of atheism would come up. A very intoxicated Harvey Dent, in real-life an adherent of Buddhism, began to pontificate. My companions wisely sidled away and I was left alone like a highway crash barrier to absorb the impact of his rhetorical runaway 18-wheeler. For twenty minutes he soliloquized without pause. Summarized:
- Buddha was a prince, and he was sheltered from death, disease and old age, until one day he saw a sick old man dying and wondered what it was.
- Bhuddi-ism is the best religion, but it’s not a religion, but it’s the best religion.
- Buddhi-ism is atheistic.
- Atheism is stupid.
- Buddhi-ism is just like Judaism and Christianism.
- Buddhist philosophy is peaceful and enlightening, and there is a book I should read about it, but he can’t recall the title.
- Buddha was a prince, and he was sheltered from death, disease and old age, until one day he saw a sick old man dying and wondered what it was.
- Buddhi-ism is much better than Catholic-ism or Gandhi-ism.
- Vegetarians are idiots. They bear the greatest responsibility for global warming and are malnourishing themselves to death. Humans have incisors.
- He really wishes he could remember the title of that book, because my atheism friends and I should read it.
- Buddha was a prince, and he was sheltered from death, disease and old age, until one day he saw a sick old man dying and wondered what it was.
Et cetera.
Anyway, it got me thinking about the mistaken notion that Buddhism is not a religion. The exact definition of religion is too debated to go into here, but most would agree that religion embraces elements outside the realm of science; either, as religionists contend, because science has failed to grasp it, or, as we would say, because it is baloney. If you are talking about eternal life (either in an afterlife realm or through reincarnation), higher powers, abilities or phenomena which cannot be explained, or an other-worldly influence into human events, you are talking about religion.
Buddhism, like all religions, has many branches, and many interpretations within those branches, and of course has been polluted by Western thought as its lofty promise of enlightenment found favor with trendy Americans. There are those who claim to practice a strictly atheistic interpretation or Buddhism, a religion stripped of all superstition until only philosophy remains. Most fail. But many knowingly embrace the dogmatic elements and, in Western confusion, often invent their own.
To the lay Buddhist there are principles, known as the Five Precepts, which in my opinion are rather good guidelines for living: refrain from taking sentient life, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and the consumption of alcohol and drugs which cloud the mind. Debate on what exactly each of those things means aside, one does not need to believe in things unexplained by science to accept or reject these five ideas (it is worth pointing out that the omnivorous drunk fellow from the party does not fit this definition of a Buddhist).
But there is more to Buddhism than the Precepts. The concepts of karma and reincarnation do not hold up to even a moment of skeptic inquiry. Even in the West, where the practice is said to be dogma-free, these ridiculous concepts remain.
Karma is the belief that the sum of your actions and intentions today, and in previous states of existence, will have consequences in the future, either in this life or the next. Its vagueness sometimes affords it the opportunity to slip undetected through dogmatic checkpoints, but there is nothing scientific about it. Even if you could prove this absurd scenario, the alleged results are not directly related to the actions. To dole out reward or punishment in relation to the actions of a past life requires a judge of some kind. Even though Buddhism does not recognize a God in the Western sense, it has no explanation for this judge. Some would say that the judge is a sentient universe, but that is merely a disembodied deity and another article of dogma.
The result of this alleged judgement is reincarnation, and this too is a preposterous notion that ought to be expunged. Last week Dennis noted brilliantly that the soul is a flawed, disproved concept, but the soul (mind, essence, being, etc) is a necessary element in the reincarnation (samsara) cycle. The mind is a creation of the brain, and cannot exist independently of the body, nor can it be transfered from one to another. To confuse things further, the non-Western Buddhist will usually insist that what is transfered from one body to the next is not the “self” in the traditional sense but an “evolving consciousness” that still carries with it all appropriate karmic baggage. I don’t know exactly why they think that sounds less ridiculous.
These are but two flaws in Buddhism’s claim to intellectual validity. There are other things — the Buddha’s virgin birth, for instance — which add to my argument, but since they are disputed and contradicted within the schools of Buddhism I shall leave them out.
So, while Buddhist philosophy may be embraced as sound and wise, or rejected as yet another sub-par school of thought, Buddhism as a whole cannot be considered anything but a religion.
And even though the intoxicated man could not recall the title of his favorite book, his advice to me — “tell your atheism friends to read about Bhuddi-ism” — was not altogether inane. All philosophies are worth study, even those wrapped in dogma. I must say I much prefer the Buddhist religion, which claims to reward or punish deeds and thoughts, to the Christian religion, which claims to reward or punish faith or the lack of it. But a religion it remains.
Oh, and by the way, that thing about vegetarians causing climate change? Complete garbage.
mr dan is the vice president of Connecticut Valley Atheists. The views expressed in this posting are his own and do not necessarily represent those of Connecticut Valley Atheists or its individual members.
