Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Is Buddhism a religion?
The more I am exposed to Buddhism the more I ask this question. It seems more like a philosophy than a religion.
Comments
As Cremlian said, it depends heavily on the Buddhism in question. I'd say most qualify as religions, but there are some that are very atheistic.
It really all depends on how you define a religion.
Religion is the (arguably unfounded) belief in a supernatural entity of some sort. It is faith in an unproven quantity as fact. At its most generic, it could be taken to be the culture or community surrounding said belief, but at its core is a clearly supernatural element.
Philosophy is best taken as something along the lines of "the pursuit of wisdom: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means, or an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs." (paraphrased from a dictionary definition)
Philosophy speculates. Philosophy questions. Philosophy does not answer. Religion is only philosophy in the sense of taking the intellectually dishonest route of philosophising an answer and then accepting it as being true.
Both religion and philosophy are unfounded speculation. Only one of the two admits this fact.
And for the record, I think the defining difference between philosophy and religion is organization. If there's different levels, it's a religion. If its just a way of looking at life, its a philosophy.
I know I really didn't say anything but I like that line :P
It doesn't matter what you call it. It doesn't matter if people are organized or not. The only thing that matters is if people are believing things without evidence. Whether it's god, vishnu, buddha, valhalla, sangri-la, acupunture, big foot, nessy, conspiracy theories or the Phantom game console, it makes no difference. As long as your view of reality is painted using evidence, reason, logic and rationality, as opposed to faith, then that is what is important. This semantic argument about the exact meaning of the word "religion" deflects you away from this core point that actually matters.
Really? So people who believe that the Phantom console will come out eventually are believers in the Phantom religion?
I'm going to have to agree with Neito here. A religion is best defined through its organization and hierarchy. A person who has religious beliefs does not make up a religion, they're just some dude. It's only when you get loads of people all forming an organization that I think you can call it a religion. I think a problem here is that there's a difference between religious beliefs and a religion.
Really? So people who believe that the Phantom console will come out eventually are believers in the Phantom religion?
That's not what he is saying. He is saying that it doesn't matter if you call those things religion or not. The point is that those people are under a delusion and are disregarding evidence in order to stay in that delusion.It doesn't matter what you call it. It doesn't matter if people are organized or not. The only thing that matters is if people are believing things without evidence. Whether it's god, vishnu, buddha, valhalla, sangri-la, acupunture, big foot, nessy, conspiracy theories or the Phantom game console, it makes no difference. As long as your view of reality is painted using evidence, reason, logic and rationality, as opposed to faith, then that is what is important. This semantic argument about the exact meaning of the word "religion" deflects you away from this core point that actually matters.
Really? So people who believe that the Phantom console will come out eventually are believers in the Phantom religion?
That's not what he is saying. He is saying that it doesn't matter if you call those things religion or not. The point is that those people are under a delusion and are disregarding evidence in order to stay in that delusion.
Alright, misunderstood the point. Nevertheless: Assuming this is a totally semantic argument, religion requires organization.
Here is the definition of the word religion copied from dictionary.com.
re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8.
Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.
get religion, Informal.
a.
to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.
to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
End of discussion.
Of course, considering No Child Left Behind, he might not have.
P.S. - Not all of us Christians believe in the delusional. ;-) In fact, because I am a realist, my mom always accuses me of being an atheist.
Hell, no! Moses parted the Red Sea? Yeah, right. Water turned to wine? No way. Thomas Jefferson had a Bible, and he cut out all of the mumbo jumbo. The only reason I don't is because it would take forever.
To put it simply, the only difference between me and a normal Christian is that I believe thoroughly in science and the scientific method. I have noticed since Hurricane Rita that I have grown less and less religious. Frankly, if it is proven to me in an unbiased, completely scientific and easily replicated experiment, I might become an atheist. The problem is, the subjective nature of belief will probably make this idea very impossible. I only put stock in objective truth.
You see, if you can take out certain parts of the Bible, what makes you think any of it is valid? If it is the divine work of god, and god is infallible, then obviously something doesn't fit. The scientific method states that you, the person making an extraordinary claim (there exists some sort of supernatural being that controls our lives) has to prove it to me with sufficient evidence that this phenomenon, which has no evidence or even observational occurrence to even support that it exists, is part of the universe. People need to understand that there is zero reason to believe that there is a god other than the fact that some old books states that there is some supernatural force. I wish skeptical thinking was a basic skill taught in elementary school, because the world is full of "flim flam".
Now for pure opinion, WaterIsPoison: Who are you to say with 100% certainly that there is nothing out there? Who am I to say that there is? Like I said, belief is subjective. We don't know for certain what the truth is. The thing is that we think we know. All that matters right now is not what we believe, but what we know for an objective fact.
P.S. - WaterIsPoison, I apologize if I seem rude. I couldn't think of another way to put it. For that, I am sorrowful.
You have made it clear that you are a Christian, yet you do not believe in the resurrection, the main tenet of Christianity. It sounds to me that you are more of a Theist than Christian.
Who am I to say that there is?You obviously missed the episode and discussions where we explained the concept of "Burden of Proof.
Saying there is requires some form of proof, as it's clearly an unevidenced and extraordinary claim. Saying there isn't by default requires no futher backing, as this position is already supported by the evidence and is an ordinary claim.
He's perfectly justified in saying there isn't, and the burden of proof is squarely on anyone who wants to say there is.
WiP isn't claiming that there is no god. He's claiming that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such a thing, and therefore he has no reason to believe god exists. In a 100% pure vacuum of evidence, he can be 100% sure he is correct. If someone accused you of committing murder, but provided a 100% vacuum of evidence, then there would be a 100% reason for acquital.
Do you believe that Harry Potter exists? Of course you don't. There's no evidence, other than a fictional book, to suggest he does. Do you believe unicorns, invisible, pink, or otherwise, exist? Of course you don't. There is no evidence to suggest they do.
So why do you believe in god? Give us one piece of verifiable, duplicable evidence for god, and we'll all convert immediately.