Author Topic: Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?  (Read 6433 times)

Positive Change

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?
« on: December 22, 2013, 09:14:12 PM »
I came across this interesting article which  I reckon is worth debating on. Do let me know your thoughts on the matter!

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


Some of Tibet's most eminent high lamas visit the Kagyu Samye Ling Buddhist Monastery in Scotland Photograph: Murdo Macleod/The Guardian

A recurring criticism I've face in this series is that I talk about religion but focus almost exclusively on the Judaeo-Christian tradition. In some ways that's fair, but given my concerns are with the broader features of religious belief, not the minutiae of doctrinal differences, I'm pretty confident that all or at least most of my main points apply to the monotheistic religions at least, and many are also relevant to others.

Nonetheless, it is true that several eastern religions look very different indeed, at least superficially. Could it be that those of us with spiritual urges unable to get any satisfaction from the Abrahamic faiths should head east in search of enlightenment?

Many certainly find it appealing, with Buddhism especially tempting. One of the main reasons is that there is a widespread belief that it is more of a philosophy than a religion, and that being without God, it requires us to buy into fewer – perhaps even none – supernatural beliefs than Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

As a matter of historic and sociological fact this appears to be wildly mistaken. This becomes painfully evident if you care to look. Just watch Werner Herzog's documentary Wheel of Time and you'll be disabused of any notion you might have that Buddhism is not up to its neck in superstition.

It came home to me when I visited the first Tibetan Buddhist centre to be established in the west, Kagyu Samye Ling in Dumfriesshire. It was dismaying enough to find electric-powered prayer wheels, but much worse to discover that for a minimum donation of £500 you can have your remains buried in the Stupa, which is supposed to contain a grain of the Buddha's bone. The ceremony that accompanies the placing of the remains involves "empowerments and prayers for purification and blessing of the ashes (Ru cho) with three days of prayers for the dead, and for dispelling of obstacles, called a Drupcho". This is "the appropriate procedure for ensuring a good rebirth".

Buddhism emerged out of the same Vedic tradition as the polytheistic Hinduism, which is rich in supernatural thinking. From this, Buddhism inherited a number of beliefs that are starkly at odds with naturalistic thinking.

The most obvious of these is karma. I've heard Hindus, Buddhists and Hare Krishnas bravely try to insist that karma is an entirely scientific principle, being "simply the extension of Newton's law" that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". But this is grasping at straws: Newton's three laws of motion concern the conservation of energy in a physical system and can only be extended to morality by either analogy or wild distortion.

There is no escaping the fact that Buddhism is full of, as the philosopher Owen Flanagan put it, "superstitious nonsense" and "hocus pocus". Yet Flanagan has written a brilliant book in which he asks the question of what we have left if Buddhism is stripped of its supernatural elements, "naturalised, tamed, and made compatible with a philosophy that is empirically responsible, and that does not embrace the low epistemic standards that permit all manner of superstition and nonsense, sometimes moral evil as well, in the name of tolerance". This would not be "authentic" Buddhism, and Flanagan says he doesn't much care if we don't call it Buddhism at all. But it could it be a coherent life-view nonetheless?

Flanagan's slightly tentative conclusion is that it can. And this is what I think makes it different to many other religions. Take away the empty tomb and Christ is just a moral teacher. Take away Gabriel revealing God's exact words to Mohammed in the Qur'an and you're left with a deluded or deluding cult leader. Take away karma, rebirth, nirvana, deities, oracles, reincarnated lamas and the like for Buddhism, however, and you still have a set of beliefs and practices to cultivate detachment from the impermanent material world and teach virtues such as compassion and mindfulness.

But here's the rub. 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.


extracted from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/feb/09/religion-survive-stripped-superstitions-buddhism

eyesoftara

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
Re: Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2013, 06:56:39 AM »
What is superstition but something that we cannot explain and cannot be proven. We then to mix up certain spiritual belief with what is actually nonsense and lump everything into one label and call it superstitions. Even the unproven belief can be examined and the nonsense filtered out. What remains is spiritual.


yontenjamyang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 733
    • Email
Re: Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2013, 07:27:49 AM »
No, religion cannot survive being stripped of its superstitions. The author has pointed out that Christianity and Islam relies and the basis of certainly superstitious that based its dogma on. Stripped of these assumptions, these dogmas cannot have no basis and the religion itself will be stripped of its central belief. Resurrection did not happen and the Quran is written by human does not bode well for Christianity and Islam.

However, personally, I have an alternate view. These "superstitions" exist because there is a need for human to hold on to something outside of the teachings. In other words, human need the teachings to be credible based on something incredible.

Buddhism on the other hand based its teaching on credible logic and from there extrapolate to the incredible. It is a much more "scientific" approach.  For example, karma can be observed in everyday events and when we exhaust the cause of the effect we extrapolate to past lives. Then we go on to test this axiom again and again and if it still holds we adopt it as the law as in the "Law of Karma".

Hence, there is nothing superstitious in Buddhism. Not surprisingly Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in the world today.

Kim Hyun Jae

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
    • Email
Re: Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2013, 03:04:23 AM »
I look at "superstition" as "customs" handed down by their respective ancient beliefs, ancient culture, philosophies and ancient practice handed down by ancestors and was merged into "superstition".

Religion can still survive even if you stripped them of "superstition". Religion teaches us sets of beliefs and practices to cultivate detachment from the impermanent material world and teach virtues such as compassion, mindfulness, care, love, good deeds, good thoughts, good words and lastly gives us HOPE. People needs hope to live. This does not base on "superstition" alone.

vajrastorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
Re: Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2013, 01:31:52 PM »
This writer claims to be using a scientific analysis and approach to ascertain a religion as purely naturalistic or full of superstition. So he claims that when we strip away the superstitious elements of Buddhism, we are left to wonder if it can hold up to the yardstick of scientific scrutiny and naturalistic thinking.

The superstitious elements of a religion are , according to this writer, the mystical and supernatural elements or beliefs that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. Buddhism, he thinks, has inherited certain such beliefs. Yet what I cannot accept, among other things here, is his citing our belief in karma(which is central to our belief) as one such belief that borders on superstition. Rebirth and karma  are central to Buddhism.

In the case of Karma, 'The Wheel of Sharp Weapons', shows us, precisely,  how our actions will come back to us in like kind and degree. Is there any further need to elaborate? Karma and rebirth can be observed. Only, rebirth has to be observed introspectively through retrogressive meditation.

From my viewpoint, a religion is one that should provide a clear spiritual roadmap to guide us to our ultimate destiny. Buddhism, as a roadmap has no equal. The Lamrim provides us with an unexcelled  roadmap and graduated path out of suffering into full Liberation and Buddhahood.




         

gbds3jewels

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • Email
Re: Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2013, 02:51:09 PM »
Superstition and supernatural are two very different thing and is not inter-changeable. If we are talking about superstitions, then yes I would say religion can survive being stripped of its superstitions because the basis of most religions are not superstitions. Superstitions are related to races, traditions and cultures, not religions.

For example in Chinese culture pregnant women are not allowed to hammer nails. This is a superstition but what has this got to do with religion. Buddha did not teach this. Or did he? I don't know. But anyway, it's a cultural thing. A Chinese Buddhist May follow this superstition but western buddhist may not even know of such superstition.

Religion crosses all races and cultures while superstition is usually confined within a certain culture.

I think the title of this topic is incorrect. It should be "Can religion survive being stripped of its supernatural elements". Even then IMO the answer would technically be no but I think the question is irrelevant. Human by nature sought out religion and "created" religion because of our inadequacy to comprehend our existence. So we contribute all that we do not understand to a higher being call God/Allah/Buddha/Science/The Power To Be. What is supernatural but that which is beyond our understanding. So religion in that sense is supernatural.

Buddhism to me is only categorized as religion for the ease of classification.

dondrup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2013, 05:02:24 PM »
Whether a religion is natural, supernatural, religious or philosophical is secondary. What is  important is that religion is able to guide its followers to discover the truths about us and our environments. Buddhism points out the way how things actually exist. Buddhism is the only religion that fulfills these requirements.

Whether a phenomenon is natural or supernatural is subjective. Similarly for a phenomenon that is perceived as religious or philosophical.

If Buddhism is objective just like the other 'god'-based religions, then liberation from samsara and enlightenment will not be possible.

Buddhism is based on the truths of nature, it can never be challenged by any other secular religions or views. The truths always prevail.


fruven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 659
Re: Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2013, 06:15:32 PM »
Quote
Flanagan's slightly tentative conclusion is that it can. And this is what I think makes it different to many other religions. Take away the empty tomb and Christ is just a moral teacher. Take away Gabriel revealing God's exact words to Mohammed in the Qur'an and you're left with a deluded or deluding cult leader. Take away karma, rebirth, nirvana, deities, oracles, reincarnated lamas and the like for Buddhism, however, and you still have a set of beliefs and practices to cultivate detachment from the impermanent material world and teach virtues such as compassion and mindfulness.

I laughed out loud when I read this part. On a second thought I am very sad that this writer think all of these are superstitious. Ohhh... if no one ever discover Newton laws wouldn't it be considered superstitious to belief in Newton laws?

Why would you need to take away karma? So you can do whatever you want without consequences? Don't you know the fact that moral disciplines stem from being aware of consequences of our our actions to others. Karma means actions. You own your actions, dude. You can't run away even from the court due to your actions.

Positive Change

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
Re: Can religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2013, 11:12:26 PM »
This writer claims to be using a scientific analysis and approach to ascertain a religion as purely naturalistic or full of superstition. So he claims that when we strip away the superstitious elements of Buddhism, we are left to wonder if it can hold up to the yardstick of scientific scrutiny and naturalistic thinking.

The superstitious elements of a religion are , according to this writer, the mystical and supernatural elements or beliefs that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. Buddhism, he thinks, has inherited certain such beliefs. Yet what I cannot accept, among other things here, is his citing our belief in karma(which is central to our belief) as one such belief that borders on superstition. Rebirth and karma  are central to Buddhism.

In the case of Karma, 'The Wheel of Sharp Weapons', shows us, precisely,  how our actions will come back to us in like kind and degree. Is there any further need to elaborate? Karma and rebirth can be observed. Only, rebirth has to be observed introspectively through retrogressive meditation.

From my viewpoint, a religion is one that should provide a clear spiritual roadmap to guide us to our ultimate destiny. Buddhism, as a roadmap has no equal. The Lamrim provides us with an unexcelled  roadmap and graduated path out of suffering into full Liberation and Buddhahood.

Thank you Vajrastorm on your thoughts here. I agree with what you have said. It is rather presumptuous that the writer should assume that karma is but a superstition. If only he knew how so far from the truth he was for this point.

However it is interesting to read how intellectuals seem to word their thoughts out which seem "logical" to them but not to others. Perhaps ignorance after all is something everyone shares and not just for the uneducated... ;)