Buddha and Agnostics

[chookyman]

Hi Every One

Ok, there have been discussions about whether an agnostic believes in a god or not. However from an academic view point, the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is, that an atheiest does not believe in god, nor any religion. As for an agnostic, an agnostic does not believe in conventional religions, but also does not say whether there is or is not a god.

On the weekend I was talking to a bunch of buddhist monks and they were telling me that buddism today, was never a religion in the first place, but a more like a set of rules in which one should live their life if they wanted to achieve bliss and loss the suffering in their lives. They went on to explain that the religious side of buddism is more hindu / toaist.

Based on this fact, if Buddha himself did / did not believe in god, and buddhism was not actully a religion, but a way of life in which to reduce suffering and gain a level/s of bliss, does this not make buddha an agnostic?

 

[Green Gaia]

I believe a case could be made that Buddhists are agnostics or even atheists, based on my very limited knowledge of Buddhism. Buddha did not claim to have special relationship with God. In fact, Buddha did not consider the matter of God's existence to be important because it did not pertain to the issue of how to end suffering. Buddhists do not believe in God as most in the Western world think of God.

Do Buddhist believe in god?

No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:
"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".

Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.

Also, I'm not going to copy all of this article here, but check out The Buddhist Attitude to God

 

[chookyman]

Hi Maize

This is a really great article. I love the Buddhist way of life. Thank you for going to all the trouble to this.

Kindest Regards
Chookyman

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ok, there have been discussions about whether an agnostic believes in a god or not.

Some do. Some do not.

However from an academic view point, the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is, that an atheiest does not believe in god, nor any religion.

An atheist does not believe in God(s). Her/his attitude toward "religion" depends entirely upon whether or not s/he believes "religion" implies God(s).

As for an agnostic, an agnostic does not believe in conventional religions, but also does not say whether there is or is not a god.

An agnostic asserts, minimally, that s/e does not know if God(s) exist, and, maximally, that the existence of God(s) is unknowable.

Most rational atheists are agnostic. We recognize that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven, but maintain that there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief. Agnostic theism (fideism) is also possible, i.e., the position that the existence of God(s) is unknowable but embraced as a matter of faith. I believe that such noteworthy people as Martin Gardner and Edward O. Wilson could be classified as fideists.

There is a third stance called noncognitivism, which essentially asserts that the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless - somewhat akin to asking "Does Thursday taste good?". A fairly recent (and ugly, and probably unnecessary) synonym for noncognitivism is "igtheism".

Based on this fact, if Buddha himself did / did not believe in god, and buddhism was not actully a religion, but a way of life in which to reduce suffering and gain a level/s of bliss, does this not make buddha an agnostic?

If Buddha did not believe in God(s), he was an atheist.

This raises something that I believe to be important. More fundamental than the counterposition of nontheist to theist is the counterposition of naturalist to supernaturalist, of materialism to idealism and mechanism to teleology. Buddhism, with its belief in life after death, clearly falls in the latter camp. This renders it, in my opinion, every bit as flawed as any God-based theology.

 

[Scott1]

Most rational atheists are agnostic. We recognize that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven, but maintain that there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief. Agnostic theism (fideism) is also possible, i.e., the position that the existence of God(s) is unknowable but embraced as a matter of faith.

Thank you for this.......... the best explaination I have ever read.

Peace,
Scott

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That was a great post Deut, I especially liked:

"This raises something that I believe to be important. More fundamental than the counterposition of nontheist to theist is the counterposition of naturalist to supernaturalist, of materialism to idealism and mechanism to teleology. Buddhism, with its belief in life after death, clearly falls in the latter camp. This renders it, in my opinion, every bit as flawed as any God-based theology."

Good point.

 

[chookyman]

Mmmmmm becareful about the last point. A lot of people mistaken the concept of Buddha's view of life after death. Buddha explained that life exist on 34 levels and that life is an ongoing process from one level to the next based on your kama. People mistaken that the fact you die and move up or down or even do not move at all is reancarnation or life after death.

No this is not what Buddha meant. Death is just a process required to move on. The soul if you want to put it is still alive, but the body to which it exist in is not capable of existing in another level to which it currently occupies. Death as we call it is just the spirit freeing it self of the shell to allow it to move on. So based on this fact, Buddha's view was not flawed, but rememeber, Buddhism was never a religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mmmmmm becareful about the last point. ... So based on this fact, Buddha's view was not flawed, but rememeber, Buddhism was never a religion.

I am sorry that you have issues with my methodology, but advising me to "be careful" would be more valuable if you also made clear (a) that you understood my remarks, (b) what, specifically, I handled carelessly, and (c) why you came to than conclusion. As it is, you've now managed to demonstrate a misunderstanding of agnosticism, a misunderstanding of atheism, and an apparent misunderstanding of the distinction being made in my closing paragraph.

There was, in fact, nothing careless about my statement. Buddhism is predicated upon a supernaturalist and teleological world view. I consider that a flawed foundation. You are, of course, free to disagree with that assessment.

Parenthetically, Buddhism (along with Taoism and Pantheism) "was never a religion" only if your definition of religion requires belief in Deity. There are many that do not insist on such a dependency. For example:

Religion is that set of beliefs and/or institutions, behaviors and emotions which binds human beings to something beyond their individual selves and fosters in its adherents a sense of humility and gratitude that, in turn, sets the tone of one's world-view and requires certain behavioral dispositions relative to that which transcends personal interests. In other words, religion connects a person with a larger world and creates a loyalty that extends to the past, the present and the future. This loyalty not only makes demands upon the person but -- and this is the part that makes it distinctively spiritual -- it creates a sense of humility. So religion provides a story about one's place in the larger scheme of things, creates a sense of connection and it makes one feel grateful.

-- Arthur Dobrin, Leader Emeritus of the Long Island Ethical Humanist Society and an instructor at Hofstra University

All human beings are religious if religion is broadly defined as the impluse for coherence and meaning. The strength of the impluse varies enormously from culture to culture, and from person to person. A nonreligious person or culture is defined as secular. What does secular mean? It means the religious impulse is reduced to a minimum. A secular person is a pragmatic person who does not act from a set of unwavering principles; his acts are ad hoc, based on the needs and conditions of the moment. He feels no urge to integrate his experience and knowledge with a larger system. He has many short term projects, but no ultimate concern. Modern technological society is secular because its orientations are largely pragmatic; its members do not subscribe to any authoritative world view. It is a mistake, however, to equate modern industrial society with the secular outlook. Some nonliterate peoples are very pragmatic. They may practice magic, but magic is mainly a technique for achieving limited ends and is not integrated with any system of religious thought. A humanistic approach to religion would require that we be aware of the differences in the human desire for coherence, and note how these differences are manifest in the organization of space and time, and in attitudes to nature.

-- from Tuan, Yi-Fu. June 1976. "Humanistic Geography". Annals of the Association of American Geographers Vol. 66, No. 2: 266-276.[Quote is from pages 271-272]

 

[St0ne]

I've heard Buddhism be called an Atheist religon before in fact I hear it called atheistic more than agnostic. Personally my take on what Buddha tought points to it being and agnostic religion. I believe that the evidence points to there being no god or at best one who is indifferent to our existance and most likely not our creator, but I realise the unknown is too great to completely rule that out. On the flip side I believe that the evidence points in the favour of buddhism although I also realise the unknown is again to large to be sure so I approach Buddhism with some skepticism. Thats right even my beliefs in Buddhism are agnostic.

Hope that helps.

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor...]

[/QUOTE]Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea.

Thats one point my understanding of Buddhism doesnt coincide with. The buddha said that every thing was always. Meaning that there is no begining or end, just cycles leading to more cycles.

Buddhism, with its belief in life after death, clearly falls in the latter camp. This renders it, in my opinion, every bit as flawed as any God-based theology.

I believe that the fundamental message, just as jesus, of buddha was misinterpeted or possibly obstructed by social constraints. Through contemplation and meditation i have come to realize that a conscienceness was and always is, just as the universe nothing can be its own cause, including god, there fore this "stream" of conscienceness is always there, just as it is present in all of us it can never change, but can only be. Making us a mirror of our world and the world a mirror of ourselves.

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor...]

opps hehe

 

[gnostic]

Taoism also reminds me of agnosticism too.

I don't mean they believe in the gods in Taoism, but the 2 spirits in ying-and-yang. And I don't mean agnosticism believe in these 2 spirits, but agnostics are generally open-minded, seeking balance between the 2 extremes, which in this case, represented by theism and atheism.

In layman's term, agnostics are "fence-sitters". LOL

 

[gnostic]

Don't some people believe that the Buddha is Visnu's incarnation?

 

[Master Vigil]

Taoism also reminds me of agnosticism too.

I don't mean they believe in the gods in Taoism, but the 2 spirits in ying-and-yang. And I don't mean agnosticism believe in these 2 spirits, but agnostics are generally open-minded, seeking balance between the 2 extremes, which in this case, represented by theism and atheism.

In layman's term, agnostics are "fence-sitters". LOL

Interesting view on Taoism. I wondering what you mean by 2 "spirits" in yin and yang. And why it has anything to do with being a "fence sitter"? Perhaps if you believe being balanced is key, than perhaps you are part taoist.

 

[gnostic]

Well, if you need to sit on the fence for any length of time, you will definitely need a good balance. Oh, my aching butts.

 

[Engyo]

This raises something that I believe to be important. More fundamental than the counterposition of nontheist to theist is the counterposition of naturalist to supernaturalist, of materialism to idealism and mechanism to teleology. Buddhism, with its belief in life after death, clearly falls in the latter camp. This renders it, in my opinion, every bit as flawed as any God-based theology.

Jayhawker -

I am very confused. I am a Buddhist, and nowhere in all of my study of Buddhism have I run across a belief in "life after death". Can you please clarify to what you are referring here?

If it is the concept of rebirth, then I feel that either you have not clearly understood the concept, or have chosen an unfortunately poor phrase to express that.

As for a supernatural and teleological basis, I feel that this statement reflects a superficial (at best) understanding of Buddhist theory and principle. Of course, if one wishes to discount Buddhism this is all that is required. My opinion only, naturally.

I am perfectly willing for anyone to disagree with Buddhist theory and principle, but I would prefer that disagreement to be based on relatively accurate understandings of what Buddhism is and says. Again, just my personal preference.

 

[zasetsu57]

The buddha was often approached on the subject of God(s)...there is an large body of evidence based on the various sutras that the buddha indeed shared a common cultural belief in Gods...Goddesses...all manner of supernatural deities...but believed them all subordinate to buddhas (fully awakened beings)...in most cases his reply to questions concerning God was "nopeti" which means "it doesn't have merit as a question"..meaning in this case that speculation about God was not conduscive to liberation from samsara (the cyclical round of birth/death/rebirth).....When asked the core of what he taught...he is reputed to have said...."I teach only suffering...and liberation from that suffering"