Coffee Table Buddhism

Some time ago, there was an outcry in the Religion forum against only practicing parts of any religion, but I specifically remember Buddhism. I'm an atheist, and for a while I was a very outspoken one. I've learned that religion is not really important in day to day life. What would the harm be in following the moral 'imperitives' of certain religions? "Surface" Buddhism teaches to avoid anger- how can following that directive alone be harmful? Do we have to believe in reincarnation to follow actions that would result in good Karma? After all, good Karma nets the same positive effect that many Humanitarian thinkers seek. Dawkins claims that following a religion makes it safe for fundamentalists, but if we ignore the supernatural is it possible to harvest only the benefits of a religion?

I could ramble further, but my question boils down to: Must we accept the supernatural aspects of a religion to reap the benefits of its moral code?

No.

Case closed.

Originally posted by Jbill311
What would the harm be in following the moral 'imperitives' of certain religions?

The counter argument is typically that some (well, many) the moral dictates of religion don't make any sense or are destructive. You just end up back at the beginning, picking and choosing what you want to think.

Originally posted by Jbill311
Do we have to believe in reincarnation to follow actions that would result in good Karma?

IIRC, all Karma is negative. Shaky would know for sure.

Originally posted by Jbill311
Must we accept the supernatural aspects of a religion to reap the benefits of its moral code?

Of course not. The opposing argument would be that morality in inherent to humanity so we don't need codified moral lessons.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The counter argument is typically that some (well, many) the moral dictates of religion don't make any sense or are destructive. You just end up back at the beginning, picking and choosing what you want to think.

If the morals of a religion do not make sense or have a destructive side, then that religion should be ignored. However, you must keep in mind that religion is a natural part of being human. I believe that you cannot have a world without religion because people will simply invent new religions. There is a basic need for religion within the human condition. Therefore, I think it is our responsibility to guide religion by rejecting the negative and implementing the good.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
IIRC, all Karma is negative. Shaky would know for sure.

Karma is nether negative or positive. Good and evil are relative and cannot be set in stone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course not. The opposing argument would be that morality in inherent to humanity so we don't need codified moral lessons.

I disagree. We need moral lessons for guidance. However, morality has been misused in the past and present to ensure that some maintain power over others. That is something that needs to be fought against.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If the morals of a religion do not make sense or have a destructive side, then that religion should be ignored. However, you must keep in mind that religion is a natural part of being human. I believe that you cannot have a world without religion because people will simply invent new religions. There is a basic need for religion within the human condition. Therefore, I think it is our responsibility to guide religion by rejecting the negative and implementing the good.

I think that's pretty much what I said.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Karma is nether negative or positive. Good and evil are relative and cannot be set in stone.

Let me rephrase. Is Karma the thing that keeps one trapped in the cycle of reincarnation? I think there's a quote somewhere about the "chains" of Karma.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree.

So do I. I was just putting out a possible counter argument.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think that's pretty much what I said.

😄 But not what you said.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Let me rephrase. Is Karma the thing that keeps one trapped in the cycle of reincarnation? I think there's a quote somewhere about the "chains" of Karma.

Not really. Buddhahood is outside of Karma, and we keep ourselves trapped in the lower worlds.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So do I. I was just putting out a possible counter argument.

not all karma is bad. think about it this way, good karma = blessed life, nirvana/escape from karma=heaven. in a very western sense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that you cannot have a world without religion because people will simply invent new religions. There is a basic need for religion within the human condition.

Why do you think that? No religions in a thousand years seems very probable actually.

Karma is Karma, right then?

Jbill, it's a matter of terminology to me. Discard the supernatural aspect of a religion, and there's certainly still something left. But is it really a religion anymore? I prefer to think of such things as philosophies. I happily accept that there are aspects of religions (primarily eastern, though not entirely) that are beneficial to assimilate into our personal worldview. Yet I am what you might call a stone-cold materialist. That doesn't invalidate religious teachings...it just means I take them for what they are: stories. Myths. Aesop's Fables are important tools for children, despite the fact that animals don't talk and nature doesn't ever become personified. Same idea, only for adults.

So yeah, it's fine. A lot of people do it, because they are able to filter information to latch onto what is truly important about a text. Not its literal import, nor its theological implications, but its practical value for our lives.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why do you think that? No religions in a thousand years seems very probable actually.

We will just make all new religions by then. Religion is a reflection of humanity; not the other way around.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Jbill, it's a matter of terminology to me. Discard the supernatural aspect of a religion, and there's certainly still something left. But is it really a religion anymore? I prefer to think of such things as philosophies. I happily accept that there are aspects of religions (primarily eastern, though not entirely) that are beneficial to assimilate into our personal worldview. Yet I am what you might call a stone-cold materialist. That doesn't invalidate religious teachings...it just means I take them for what they are: stories. Myths. Aesop's Fables are important tools for children, despite the fact that animals don't talk and nature doesn't ever become personified. Same idea, only for adults.

So yeah, it's fine. A lot of people do it, because they are able to filter information to latch onto what is truly important about a text. Not its literal import, nor its theological implications, but its practical value for our lives.

However, a philosophy does not have rituals and a religion does. So, if you took the supernatural out of religion, you would still have ritual; you would have Buddhism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, a philosophy does not have rituals and a religion does. So, if you took the supernatural out of religion, you would still have ritual; you would have Buddhism.

Well take that out too. Ritual can serve a function (usually it creates a comfort level for the adherent, or makes practice of the religion's principles easier by making it routine) but is ancillary to the stories/philosophies/teachings themselves.

The point is, at least what I think Jbill is getting at, you can strip that from a religion and still have valid teachings to draw from. It just doesn't have to extend into supernatural beliefs that one can't easily justify, nor does it have to extend to the ritualistic practice of the religion's ceremonies.

I love Taoism, for example. Yet I don't believe in reincarnation, nor do I practice Taoist meditation, nor other rituals and/or ceremonies associated with the religion. For these reasons I do not call myself Taoist. But the philosophy of the religion is magnificently simple, inspiring, and infinitely loving and tolerant. Imo, at least. I don't have to be a strict adherent to agree with much of the Tao te Ching, for example. It's not a bad way to approach life, and so certain aspects of it are assimilated into my worldview, while I discard those that make no rational sense to me (the supernatural) and the aspects that have no practical function in my life (the rituals).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well take that out too. Ritual can serve a function (usually it creates a comfort level for the adherent, or makes practice of the religion's principles easier by making it routine) but is ancillary to the stories/philosophies/teachings themselves...

I disagree. Ritual is a integral part of Buddhism. Buddhism without ritual is empty and has no way of become real. Perhaps we are not clear of what is meant by ritual. I include chanting as a type of ritual, and Nichiren Buddhism does not function without chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

I read a paper once that was fairly convincingly able to describe the animal rights movement as a religion based on some specific criteria, none of which talked about the supernatural iirc.

quoted from the abstract: "Using extensive interviews, the research discovered that activists and elites conform to the five necessary components of Yinger’s definition of functional religion: intense and memorable conversion experiences, newfound communities of meaning, normative creeds, elaborate and well-defined codes of behavior, and cult formation."

http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/422_s835.pdf

I personally feel, while maybe not agreeing entirely with those criteria, that the term religion refers to much more than just the supernatural side of things. If it did, psychic phenomena and alien abduction might qualify as "religions". To me, it is much more about the world view. In this vein, I would consider environmental activists much more religious than someone who sees a psychic to read their palm, and a 9-11 conspiracy theorist much more religious than, say, a lapsed catholic who was born into it, regardless of the "supernatural-ness" of their claims.

A religion that can't function without ritual adherence seems rather primitive to me.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A religion that can't function without ritual adherence seems rather primitive to me.

Ritual is taking action. It would be like being on a diet, but not eating anything that is recommended by the diet. You can't remove food choices from a diet just like you can't remove ritual from religion, or at least my religion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ritual is taking action. It would be like being on a diet, but not eating anything that is recommended by the diet. You can't remove food choices from a diet just like you can't remove ritual from religion, or at least my religion.

I agree

one can redefine whatever they want to serve their purposes, but it devalues the original term

If religions can be defined as loosely as "personal thoughts and feelings" there is no reason to have the term religion any longer, or, a new term is necessary to describe what is normally described by "religion"

Well maybe we're thinking of rituals in different ways but I always understood them to be actions that were followed purely because the religion recommends them, without thought applied to what their actual benefits might be.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well maybe we're thinking of rituals in different ways but I always understood them to be actions that were followed purely because the religion recommends them, without thought applied to what their actual benefits might be.

Most people who follow religious rituals with dedication can tell you the reasons for them, either in historical context or by providing explanation for their religious texts.