Discussions

Can a religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?

Removing a religion's supernatural core is a revealing exercise, especially when applied to the supposedly 'godless' Buddhism

by Julian Baggini. The Guardian 9 February 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/feb/09/religion-survive-stripped-superstitions-buddhism

I did a search and did not find any ref to this text here
so I though maybe it is interesting to read and discuss.

Within Secular Buddhist Association you have talked about if SB is a religion or not. Referring to that Stephen Batchelor have mention the word religious in some context.

It is not an easy topic at all because the word religion in academic peer reviewed texts has some 300 different definitions and is a very including term.

Amongst average Joe ordinary persons Buddhism is a religion by definition but AFAIK very few Western Buddhists would see it as such and they would prefer to see it as a philosophical view or a way of life practice.

The reason Buddhism can be so naturalised is because,
stripped of its supernatural elements, its core teachings
can be giving a sound, secular philosophical interpretation.

In other words, it becomes a religion acceptable
to the contemporary, naturalistic mind only
when it ceases to be a religion.

You might think this begs the question as to whether religion has to be defined in terms of having a supernatural element. I don't think it does. If a world-view is entirely describable without loss in atheistic, secular terms, then there is nothing of substance you add to the understanding of it by describing it as religious. An adjective that fails to describe anything should not be used.

The border between the natural and the supernatural, religion and philosophy, may not always be clear. But there are lines and we should know and accept which side of it we are on.

So if I get him? I am skeptical about my grasp of English and such texts but as I do read him he tells me that I should not named it religious.

Okay that is logical from the way he set it up.
On the other hand. f I feel religious then what is that about?
Would then SB not be satisfying for me to be part of?

And will it survive as a movement if it fails to be a religion?
Or rather is it intellectually consistent to refer to it as Buddhism?

Guardian had more than 400 comments to that text.
I doubt we get that many here

So have at it.

Edit Note: I changed the mark-up from HTML formatting to that of this forum.

Oh I have to learn such things too. I struggle all the time with my editing.

Okay back on topic. I have now read maybe half or so of all the texts by Julian Baggini in Guardian.

I am not sure what to think. He failed with the "atheists should take ourselves lightly" using his example of We are not Atheists we are rather Heathens manifesto

Not his words my poor recollection. But he sure look very positive to Buddhism due to him stressing that one are for science but against Scienctism.

Good link there to Religious Naturalism. I get the feeling that many of them are former Chardin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
and Alfred North Whitehead supporters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

But that could be my prejudices. Many of them comes from Pantheism views.
So as I get it they rather tend to be "spiritual minded" and not religious minded.
And they do like Buddhism of the Mindfullness of Jon Kabat-Zinn fame used at retreat centers and at Communal Health courses. We have these in Sweden too.

My prejudice is this. Western Buddhists prefer to see themselves as spiritual rather than as religious. They also love to point out that they love science but hate Scientism and Reductionism and they are rather supporting relativism and postmodernism than objective modernism. And they also add they are against materialism.

That is only a prejudice I have. I know too little and have no statistic to back it up.

I come from a very strong atheism where one rather prefer to be religious than to be spiritual. Rather objective than relative, One love reductionism as a tool and one are a physicalist and philosophical materialist but know that that word seems out of vogue in philosophy.

Personally I am a strong anti-philosopher. I have not read any philosopher that I can trust. Three that comes close to put some trust in are Paul and Patricia Churchland with their Scientific Realism and Dan Dennett with his Compatibilism.

I doubt very much that there really exists scientists that adhere to or support Scientism. As I see it Scientism only exists in the head of those that hate science.

But that is my personal temporal take on it.

I wish I where more intelligent so I could get what is really going on.
I can understand that "spiritual" people dislike religion as an institution that force their values and rules onto the believers. I've been a very strong anti-religious person myself but I hated spirituality equally strong so I am too biased to really get what "spiritualists" talk about. I see no evidence for a spiritual world. But much evidence for a religious world understood as a human constructed cultural tradition that makes claims that can not be studied by science.

Being a secular naturalist I wild guess that these religious claims work as a kind of placebo behavior that trigger feel good chemicals like oxytocine or what name these have.

I like to compare it with the "Runners high" and similar release of chemicals that makes one feel good. People get easily hooked on "Training" and pumping muscles and such "Sport" and that seems also be the case for practicing spiritual or religious meditation and such.

It does look like a dependence to me from outside. Could be seen as an unfair description but that is how it looks like.

Julian Baggini point out something that I've noticed too. Some atheists tend to polarize us into one of two groups. Accomodationists or Faithists as they nickname them and themselves which they see as something more positive I've forget their word for it.

Anyway I would not be surprised if they see Baggini as an Accomodationists and to them that is very bad. Worse than being a true fundy believer?

Thanks mufi! I've read that book by
Ursula Goodenough and I liked it.
I've also read other Religious Naturlists books.
"Religion is not about God" by Loyal Rue
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_Rue
And a historic book about how Religious naturalism started.
Jerome A. Stone - Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative

Very interesting such. I feel sympathy for what they do.
Ursula may be active in the local Church but as I get her
she is more into Mindfulness than into Church rituals.
But I can be wrong it is just an impression I get reading her.

Many of these are active in a quaterly Zygon Magazine.

their practice may not be all that different
from supernaturalist religious adherents.)

I very much doubt that. I did not get that impression
reading them. Many are active in Unitarian Universalists
but that does not mean they need to be supportive of
supernaturalist religious practices at all. maybe those
that belong to Reconstructionist Judaism are active in
their Synagog that seems reasonable to guess. I know one
guy who seems rather active. I used to read up on them
at our Royal Library when I only had 20 minutes commute
but now I have some 80 minutes so that is too tiring to me.

I am not a FaceBook member and I got the impression that SBA
maybe is rather active there on FB. I guess those that join
there have no great motivation to also be active here at the site?

I did find one Swedish guy who had join the FB:ers who relates to SBA so I tried to "befriend" him using email but I may end up in some filter due to me not a member.

I wish some Swede set up a SBA in Sweden. Would be a good thing to do.

How many of Julian Baggini's texts there on TheGuardian did you read?
I guess I read one third or half of them. I took all of those with titles that seemed to relate to me just now

One aspect important to me is his criticism of the more arrogant part of "New Atheism" These most likely don't approve of what Julian Baggini does there in TheGuardian. They would see his texts as too accepting of dialog with believers.

I don't like that it has come to this "US vs Them" war between atheist that are very aggressive and whom love to ridicule believers and that see any atheist that talk to believers as worse than the believers.

This polarisation is not a good thing. Unfortunately the war get fuel from the believers too where we have those that also use ridicule as a weapon against the other.

My views is that we are all humans and should try to understand each other. we don't have to agree but we should be kind and friendly and not aggressive and mean spirited. No need to ridicule the others.

PS: I ignore in my story above the few visits I made to "services" at Ethical Culture and Humanistic Judaism congregations, because those events were so stripped of traditional liturgy and rituals (even reinterpreted) that I'm more reluctant to label them "religious."

Thanks Mufi,

Topic: Julian Baggini: "Can a religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?"

By tradition Buddhism is seen as a religion by most secular takes of the word religion.

As I get it Secular Buddhism has not decided on it yet??? Or have I failed to find that text? Western Buddhism as I get it do not like the religious part of Buddhism and want to go back to the "real" or "pure" Buddhism which they see as pure philosophy or a practical way of life. "A Life Philosophy"

Re survival that words meas so many things. Buddhism survive as a practice while the "Buddhism as a religion" may not survive?

Take the native Buddhism of the settlers from Japan that went to USA in late 1890? or something. Their grand grand children don't want to uphold the "religion" of Buddhist Church of America. They lose members and dwindle and have financial problem paying for the service of keeping a Temple going.

On the other hand a "secular" version of Buddhism in the form of "Mindfulness" is a huge success among the "Health" institutions all over the world.

I got the impression that it is fully accepted as a practice here in Sweden.
That every such education of "Health" personal involved had to learn it and teach it? I can be wrong though. Maybe it is just the Mass Media that is enthusiastic?

Is not "Mindfulness" as secular as you can get? But is it Buddhism as a religion or a way of life?

Thanks Mufi, I agree with most of what you write.
I have also looked into all these acronyms like
CBT, DBT, ACT, and MBSR and bought a book about ACT
and many supporters of ACT do refer to Buddhism
while Steven Hayes rather want to refer to
science research than to Buddhism.

That could be about where to place the authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_and_Commitment_Therapy

I wonder what it is to be spiritual and to be religious and
how these terms overlap each other and what about being mindful
and being mindful in the way that a Buddhist refers to using it
in that context of Buddhist practice.

I know too little about B. Alan Wallace to make any comment on him.
He seems very critical of Stephen Batchelor. Ted Meissner made a
comment to that criticism on SBA I wish we could discuss this more
it could be an important issue. Or just something that I have to work on alone.

Mufi, I suddenly get aware of that
you and I are the only ones active
in this thread? How come?

The topic where interesting enough
to get some 490 plus answers in
TheGuardian. Just a thought.

I may count myself as a word nerd too.

Edit just a short example. Take my user name here.
Natural Entrust. It combines two concepts.
Naturalism and Jodo Shinshu entrust in Amida Buddha.
But change the interpretation to be an entrust
in the natural science study of what it is to be human

When I joined the email list for Skeptical Buddhists
then the word nerd in me hit hard and changed the
natural to basic. So the end result where BasicEntrust.

I trust next time I would change it again.
The word nerd within me is too demanding
and craving to get it right. I should let go
of that need to find the right word.

You have a much better command of your
language than what I have and I don't
refer to that you are a native user
I mean you seems to be way better at
expression on using concepts and such
while I ramble around too much not even
getting what I try to say.

Okay so it is their practice and pragmatism
that makes them make other priorities then.

If I got you right, Or I put this interpretation
upon your words. Maybe you had something else in
mind.

This is one thing that makes me reluctant to
go deep into Buddhism. It seems to demand that
one are very good at it for to get responses?

Sadly Jodo Shinshu is a Buddhism even if many
other Buddhists see it as a religion and then
do look down upon it as not worthy their interest.

I got that answer from two atheist Buddhists.

It did not help to tell them that I had a natural
and secular and metaphoric view on Amida Buddha.

Pure Land as such where bad in their eyes and
Jodo Shinshu are by history firmly placed as
Pure Land Buddhism. I see it as metaphor for
something natural and most likely even biological
or at least a human cultural learned construct.

I guess another question would be, Does a religion need to survive after being stripped of its superstitions, or can the real world teachings just be incorporated into everyday life without it?

Dana: My previous post was a long-winded intro to my attempt to answer your question:

Does a religion need to survive after being stripped of its superstitions, or can the real world teachings just be incorporated into everyday life without it?

A religion that has been "stripped of its superstitions" (or its supernaturalism) may still qualify as a religion, in the metaphysically neutral sense of "religion" that I fleshed out above.

To use Secular Buddhism (SB) as an example, insofar as SB can be characterized as a particular set of "attitudes, beliefs, and practices" or a "cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", then I see no contradiction in labeling SB a religion.

I realize that some (most?) folks here may prefer to avoid describing SB as a "religion", as they read negative, supernaturalistic connotations into that term. Indeed, the use of "secular" might even be intended as an opposite to "religious", but then I believe that there are definitions of "secular" that are in harmony with religion (including the dominant, supernatural kind).

Ted:

This is somewhat of a tangent, but I feel like sharing it with you...

I picked up a term back in my Judaism period, "orthopractic", which refers to those who folks follow Jewish law & custom according to traditional or Orthodox standards (in terms of strict adherence to a kosher diet, sabbath & holiday observance, regular prayer and synagogue attendance, modesty in dress, etc.), but whose beliefs (if pressed) may actually bear more resemblance to those of the liberal denominations (e.g. Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist*). In fact, more than once did a fellow adherent confide in me about his doubts in God, the divine origin of the Torah, and other Orthodox tenets, yet you would never guess this from their outward behavior and appearance. What's more, not all Orthodox rabbis even necessarily discouraged such doubts. "Fake it 'til you make it" is an expression that I heard on occasion in sermons.

That said, I suspect that there are more "orthopractic Buddhists" than we know of - i.e. Buddhists (monks even) who blend in with the rest of the Buddhist flock, who meditate regularly and/or study & cite traditional Buddhist texts, yet whose beliefs are privately as naturalistic as yours and mine, or who at least harbor serious doubts about rebirth, karma, etc. SB might already serve to some extent as an outlet for these folks, where they can speak freely, yet carry on with the practice that they've developed over the years and still find rewarding, as members-in-good-standing of an established sangha. As far as I'm concerned, these are religious Buddhists, even if they are (in a sense) also secular thinkers.

It does seem more of a stretch to describe those of us who are stronger on the secular thought side than we are on the Buddhist practice side as "religious." But then there's no sharp dividing line in a spectrum like this one.

* Reconstructionism's founder, Mordecai Kaplan, openly embraced naturalism, but, as a Conservative rabbi, stressed more adherence to ritual & liturgical tradition than, say, Reform did at that time.

Dana: You're most welcome.

Owen Flanagan refers to Buddhism as a "wisdom tradition", analogous to Confucianism, Taoism, Western philosophy (following ancient Greek thought & practice), and (what he calls) Jesus-ism (a sort of secular, pre-Paulinian version of Christianity). That term works, too, and seems useful insofar as it helps us to see past the tradition's supernatural baggage and other aversions that we associate with "religion" (particularly in the Abrahamic mold), so that we can uncover whatever wisdom it may still possess.

This topic obviously can be seen
from many perspectives.

When they do social statistics then
Buddhism is seen as a religion.

When Atheistic Buddhists or Buddhist
atheists look at Jodo Shinshu Buddhism
they tell me that that is for sure a religious
way to relate to Buddha.

Seen from the perspective of Tax reduction
at least here in Sweden Buddhism are seen
as a religion while Secular Humanism is not.

Buddhists gets money from the state while
the Secular Humanists does not and they even
maybe get discriminated against and looked down upon.

Academic conferences that meet say once a year or
at least regularly had some statistic on how the
word religion got defined by scholars and 300 different
definitions had been suggested so it is not easy to
pin point at all.

You have "invisible religion" and "civil religion"
and "Implicit religion" and then my crazy "Religious atheist"

I may be alone adhering to that one though. or all the others
would dismiss my personal version as too fundy scientismistic?

Suppose I would slip back to my old ...
very aggressive atheism some 30 years ago?
And suppose I came upon this SBA site
and discussion. I would see 4NT and 8...
as very religious and supernatural too.

I would have asked where is the evidence
for it outside the subjective personal experience?

When I say that I am a religious atheist
then that is not me telling a metaphysical
or intellectual adherence to a religions belief
or me making claims about God but me telling
about how my body feels. I am fully within a
naturalistic secular setting in that I refer
to religious as a way to experience the world
from a subjective cultural perspective.

I am not religious but I feel like if I am religious.
I don't believe any of the beliefs the religious have
but I feel in my body the same subjective personal
experiences they have.

or at least I feel what I interpret to the best
of my knowledge what their words might refer to.

I claim that I fail to look inside my own head
and I know from experience that I certainly fail
to look into somebody else subjective personal experiences.

Tom, the aim of the *site* is examining and sharing a Buddhist practice outside of traditional settings. It feels like 'aim of secular Buddhism' implies that it can have intent, so, yeah, this has been a bugaboo! Most of us are probably atheists, but it's not all we're about. Talking about Buddha sure isn't it, either.