This entry was posted
on Saturday, November 1st, 2008 at 7:41 am and is filed under Philosophy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I always find it useful to replace every instance of the general word “religion” in Pat’s videos with a specific religion, usually “Buddhism”, and see if it still makes sense. It almost always doesn’t.
The video is a mix of things that are true of religion in general, and things specific to some religions. The inspiring parts are the parts that generalize.
But religion in general (Buddhism, Judaism, etc.) has many messages besides obedience, fear, and submission. The church as an institution that sustains itself by converting people and taking their money does not generalize to all religions. The people who wrote the Torah had some views that we would do well to allow ourselves to question, but they weren’t salesmen trying to feel good about themselves by subjugating the populace.
Personally, I think atheism is a virtuous quality, and an atheistic person who thinks enough about religion and sees it in its most extreme forms will start to have difficulty tolerating even its milder forms. But we still must be careful not to exhibit ignorance or sweeping intolerance ourselves.
“The Law is given after God has saved his people, not before… Israel did not try to keep the Law in order to win salvation. Christians do not try to be good in order to get to heaven. God has already acted to bring salvation. The Red Sea has been crossed. Christ has died and risen. Obedience to God is the response to salvation, not a qualification for it.” - Marcus Maxwell
Atheism is just another religion, though not organized and pretty much harmless. Any time you cling to an idea with certainty you become religious.
Agnosticism makes more sense. I don’t know the answers to the questions, and I would be foolish to think I do.
Being an agnostic I identify more with atheists, though, as I think organized religion is mostly pretty disgusting to me. I think some atheists are actually agnostics in that they think there is no god, but accept that they could be wrong.
N, you are wrong. Atheism is not just another religion since there are no “ideas with which to cling”. You seem to be confused about Agnosticism (your specific error is quite common). Almost all Atheists are also Agnostic (e.g. myself). Also, many Theists are also Agnostic (most of those that I meet if pressed on the issue).
Your mistake is to assume that Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive. That is, you assume the set of Atheists and the set of Agnostics are disjoint. Once you understand what Agnosticism means, you will look back at your mistake with as much absurdity as the following proposition, “Atheists are wrong. It is much more rational instead to dye your head purple. At least then there are no ideas to cling on to”.
If you are to claim to be Agnostic, I implore you to understand what it means (makes sense right?).
Atheism is a not a religion. Atheism means non-theism, a person who is not a theist. There is indeed something called “strong atheism”, which describes somebody who says there definitely is no gods, but I have never heard of anyone who seriously holds such a odd position. Atheism does not describe a dogma, it is simply a lack of belief. If you were to propose that something like Secular Humanism was a religion, then there might be more to talk about (but not much more IMO).
I am an atheist in so much as I don’t see any evidence for gods, and so no reason to think that it might be true. I don’t see how that can be classed a religion. As it happens, I am very interested in religion as a cultural phenomenon, and like debating the subject, but I can’t see how that can be classed a religion either.
It seems to me that, by any measure, if you call atheism a religion you are warping the word “religion” so much that it becomes meaningless.
The atheist v. agnostic thing has become a little confused of late, based on the common usages of the terms. The main problem is that religious people are okay with agnostics, because they interpret your being agnostic as an acknowledgment that _maybe_ they’re right, when I suspect that most people that claim agnosticism would acknowledge no such thing.
If you’re anything like me, even if you’re not 100% positive there is no God (you’d have to be dense to think there’s 100% certainty in almost anything), you would be willing to lay your life on the line and bet that there’s sure as hell no God that matches up with what Christians mean when they say it, and you see the possibility that the Bible is correct as written as so unlikely that it might as well be zero. In that case, it’s a little dishonest to pretend that you possess any of the “openness” to (their) religion that religious try to read into the word “agnostic.”
Really, most atheists (probably 99% or more) acknowledge that they don’t _know_ for sure that there’s no God; all they really mean is that it seems impossibly unlikely that there is a God that matches any of the major religions. Hedging that near certainty with a weak word like agnostic is just not appropriate.
Tony. I listened to the video, replacing religion with ‘Buddhism’. It made no sense to me whatsoever. In what way does it still make sense to you? Give me some example sentences.
“…..Nearly every human suffers; this is obvious. But this suffering exists because we ignore or we are unaware of the fact that nothing is permanent, even ourself.
We grasp to the false ideas that desire can be satisfied, that loved ones will always be with us, that `I’ is fundamentally different from `you’.
Because of our ignorance, we suffer; however, there is a path out of suffering: the middle way. The middle way is the crevice between idealism and materialism, hedonism and asceticism, the one and the many; it can be thought of as neither indulgence nor starvation, but the perfection in between.
Via the middle way, one understands that anger and joy, for example, leave the mind as quickly as they came, if allowed to do so.
One is no longer a slave to the rise and fall of all that is, but he exists outside of that realm; he steps aside and simply observes. The essence of Zen is the essence of non-attachment.”
Again what’s wrong with that??
Buddhism is no ‘tooth fairy’ and ’santa claus’ story.
Its only foolish and ignorance to dismiss something without even understanding it first.
Statements like “I do exactly that thought experiment and I find the it almost always does make sense, including Buddhism.” only shows the authors ignorant and jaundiced view of anything that gets tagged as religion.
I wonder if it actually pays to know what you are talking about……….
Is Zen a religion? It is not a religion in the sense that the term is popularly understood; for Zen has no God to worship, no ceremonial rites to observe, no future abode to which the dead are destined, and, last of all, Zen has no soul whose welfare is to be looked after by somebody else and whose immortality is a matter of intense concern with some people. Zen is free from all these dogmatic and “religious” encumbrances. …
As to all those images of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and Devas and other beings that one comes across in Zen temples, they are like so many pieces of wood or stone or metal; they are like camellias, azaleas, or stone lanterns in my garden. Make obeisance to the camellia now in full bloom, and worship it if you like, Zen would say. There is as much religion in so doing as in bowing to the various Buddhist gods, or as sprinkling holy water, or as participating in the Lord’s Supper. All those pious deeds considered to be meritorious or sanctifying by most so-called religiously minded people are artificialities in the eyes of Zen. It boldly declares that “the immaculate Yogins do not enter Nirvana and the precept-violating monks do not go to hell”. This, to ordinary minds, is a contradiction of the common law of moral life, but herein lies the truth and the life of Zen. Zen is the spirit of a man. Zen believes in its inner purity and goodness. Whatever is superadded or violently torn away, injures the wholesomeness of the spirit. Zen, therefore, is emphatically against all religious conventionalism. … ”
( that sure should be enough food for thought for a while. )
November 1st, 2008 at 9:50 am
I always find it useful to replace every instance of the general word “religion” in Pat’s videos with a specific religion, usually “Buddhism”, and see if it still makes sense. It almost always doesn’t.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am
I do exactly that thought experiment and I find the it almost always does make sense, including Buddhism.
November 1st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
The video is a mix of things that are true of religion in general, and things specific to some religions. The inspiring parts are the parts that generalize.
But religion in general (Buddhism, Judaism, etc.) has many messages besides obedience, fear, and submission. The church as an institution that sustains itself by converting people and taking their money does not generalize to all religions. The people who wrote the Torah had some views that we would do well to allow ourselves to question, but they weren’t salesmen trying to feel good about themselves by subjugating the populace.
Personally, I think atheism is a virtuous quality, and an atheistic person who thinks enough about religion and sees it in its most extreme forms will start to have difficulty tolerating even its milder forms. But we still must be careful not to exhibit ignorance or sweeping intolerance ourselves.
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:14 am
“The Law is given after God has saved his people, not before… Israel did not try to keep the Law in order to win salvation. Christians do not try to be good in order to get to heaven. God has already acted to bring salvation. The Red Sea has been crossed. Christ has died and risen. Obedience to God is the response to salvation, not a qualification for it.” - Marcus Maxwell
November 4th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
… if you believe so.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:19 am
@DavidLG
Atheism is just another religion, though not organized and pretty much harmless. Any time you cling to an idea with certainty you become religious.
Agnosticism makes more sense. I don’t know the answers to the questions, and I would be foolish to think I do.
Being an agnostic I identify more with atheists, though, as I think organized religion is mostly pretty disgusting to me. I think some atheists are actually agnostics in that they think there is no god, but accept that they could be wrong.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:24 am
N, you are wrong. Atheism is not just another religion since there are no “ideas with which to cling”. You seem to be confused about Agnosticism (your specific error is quite common). Almost all Atheists are also Agnostic (e.g. myself). Also, many Theists are also Agnostic (most of those that I meet if pressed on the issue).
Your mistake is to assume that Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive. That is, you assume the set of Atheists and the set of Agnostics are disjoint. Once you understand what Agnosticism means, you will look back at your mistake with as much absurdity as the following proposition, “Atheists are wrong. It is much more rational instead to dye your head purple. At least then there are no ideas to cling on to”.
If you are to claim to be Agnostic, I implore you to understand what it means (makes sense right?).
Enjoy your journey into epistemology
November 7th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
To add to Tony’s reponse to N…
Atheism is a not a religion. Atheism means non-theism, a person who is not a theist. There is indeed something called “strong atheism”, which describes somebody who says there definitely is no gods, but I have never heard of anyone who seriously holds such a odd position. Atheism does not describe a dogma, it is simply a lack of belief. If you were to propose that something like Secular Humanism was a religion, then there might be more to talk about (but not much more IMO).
I am an atheist in so much as I don’t see any evidence for gods, and so no reason to think that it might be true. I don’t see how that can be classed a religion. As it happens, I am very interested in religion as a cultural phenomenon, and like debating the subject, but I can’t see how that can be classed a religion either.
It seems to me that, by any measure, if you call atheism a religion you are warping the word “religion” so much that it becomes meaningless.
November 8th, 2008 at 3:31 am
The atheist v. agnostic thing has become a little confused of late, based on the common usages of the terms. The main problem is that religious people are okay with agnostics, because they interpret your being agnostic as an acknowledgment that _maybe_ they’re right, when I suspect that most people that claim agnosticism would acknowledge no such thing.
If you’re anything like me, even if you’re not 100% positive there is no God (you’d have to be dense to think there’s 100% certainty in almost anything), you would be willing to lay your life on the line and bet that there’s sure as hell no God that matches up with what Christians mean when they say it, and you see the possibility that the Bible is correct as written as so unlikely that it might as well be zero. In that case, it’s a little dishonest to pretend that you possess any of the “openness” to (their) religion that religious try to read into the word “agnostic.”
Really, most atheists (probably 99% or more) acknowledge that they don’t _know_ for sure that there’s no God; all they really mean is that it seems impossibly unlikely that there is a God that matches any of the major religions. Hedging that near certainty with a weak word like agnostic is just not appropriate.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Tony. I listened to the video, replacing religion with ‘Buddhism’. It made no sense to me whatsoever. In what way does it still make sense to you? Give me some example sentences.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:20 am
“when you are hungry, eat; when you are tired, sleep.”
That’s (Zen) Buddhism philosophy in a nutshell for you.
Now, what’s wrong with that?
November 30th, 2008 at 12:39 am
“…..Nearly every human suffers; this is obvious. But this suffering exists because we ignore or we are unaware of the fact that nothing is permanent, even ourself.
We grasp to the false ideas that desire can be satisfied, that loved ones will always be with us, that `I’ is fundamentally different from `you’.
Because of our ignorance, we suffer; however, there is a path out of suffering: the middle way. The middle way is the crevice between idealism and materialism, hedonism and asceticism, the one and the many; it can be thought of as neither indulgence nor starvation, but the perfection in between.
Via the middle way, one understands that anger and joy, for example, leave the mind as quickly as they came, if allowed to do so.
One is no longer a slave to the rise and fall of all that is, but he exists outside of that realm; he steps aside and simply observes. The essence of Zen is the essence of non-attachment.”
Again what’s wrong with that??
Buddhism is no ‘tooth fairy’ and ’santa claus’ story.
Its only foolish and ignorance to dismiss something without even understanding it first.
Statements like “I do exactly that thought experiment and I find the it almost always does make sense, including Buddhism.” only shows the authors ignorant and jaundiced view of anything that gets tagged as religion.
I wonder if it actually pays to know what you are talking about……….
November 30th, 2008 at 12:52 am
From An Introduction to Zen Buddhism
Is Zen a religion? It is not a religion in the sense that the term is popularly understood; for Zen has no God to worship, no ceremonial rites to observe, no future abode to which the dead are destined, and, last of all, Zen has no soul whose welfare is to be looked after by somebody else and whose immortality is a matter of intense concern with some people. Zen is free from all these dogmatic and “religious” encumbrances. …
As to all those images of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and Devas and other beings that one comes across in Zen temples, they are like so many pieces of wood or stone or metal; they are like camellias, azaleas, or stone lanterns in my garden. Make obeisance to the camellia now in full bloom, and worship it if you like, Zen would say. There is as much religion in so doing as in bowing to the various Buddhist gods, or as sprinkling holy water, or as participating in the Lord’s Supper. All those pious deeds considered to be meritorious or sanctifying by most so-called religiously minded people are artificialities in the eyes of Zen. It boldly declares that “the immaculate Yogins do not enter Nirvana and the precept-violating monks do not go to hell”. This, to ordinary minds, is a contradiction of the common law of moral life, but herein lies the truth and the life of Zen. Zen is the spirit of a man. Zen believes in its inner purity and goodness. Whatever is superadded or violently torn away, injures the wholesomeness of the spirit. Zen, therefore, is emphatically against all religious conventionalism. … ”
( that sure should be enough food for thought for a while. )