Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

[tiltbillings]

Show me a definition of atheism that affirms the existence of gods and higher realms?

That has already been done above.

No it hasn't. Show me a quotation from a philosophy text of a definition of atheism which affirms the existence of gods and higher realms.

Yes it has, and I would refer you to Arvind Sharma's THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: A BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE, pub Oxford, 1995, pages 25, 34, and 74.

If one limits the definition of atheism to simply, and not unreasonably, to a rejection of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, no problem.

As already shown, this is an overly restrictive definition of the term.

Not at all.

[Ñāṇa]

No it hasn't. Show me a quotation from a philosophy text of a definition of atheism which affirms the existence of gods and higher realms.

Yes it has, and I would refer you to Arvind Sharma's THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: A BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE, pub Oxford, 1995, pages 25, 34, and 74.

You'll have to provide a quotation. I don't have the text.

If one limits the definition of atheism to simply, and not unreasonably, to a rejection of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, no problem.

As already shown, this is an overly restrictive definition of the term.

Not at all.

It most certainly is.

[Kenshou]

And he demoted them from higher powers worthy of worship to beings like you and me trapped in samsaric realms.

Yes, I don't really understand what appears to be an intentional conflation of the common Western idea of "God" and the Buddhist understanding of "deva", which there is good reason to distinguish.

The thread would be less argument-prone and to the point if it said something like "denial of devas and deva-realms is a false dhamma", or something.

Continuing to insist upon framing it in this way ignores a number of real-world subtleties and isn't productive.

[Goofaholix]

Again, the Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms. He was the teacher of gods and men. The Pāli canon contains many assertions regarding the existence of gods, higher realms, past lives, and rebirth in the next world. Contrary to the opinion of Stephen Batchelor, et al, the Buddha was neither an atheist, an apatheist, nor an agnostic.

... and he demoted them from higher powers worthy of worship to beings like you and me trapped in samsaric realms. He also affirmed the existence of cows and water buffaloes and never suggested we worship these either.

[mikenz66]

The thread would be less argument-prone and to the point if it said something like "denial of devas and deva-realms is a false dhamma", or something.

I was hoping for it to be more along the lines of a discussion of the proposition:

"Annihilationism is unskillful false Dhamma."

Mike

[Goofaholix]

The thread would be less argument-prone and to the point if it said something like "denial of devas and deva-realms is a false dhamma", or something.

Continuing to insist upon framing it in this way ignores a number of real-world subtleties and isn't productive.

Actually I think he is more interested in discussing annhiliationism, which is very different from nihilism, and lumping Buddhism in with theism by contrast doesn't help either.

We shouldn't have to buy into someone's extreme view in order to discuss a topic.

[Goofaholix]

The thread would be less argument-prone and to the point if it said something like "denial of devas and deva-realms is a false dhamma", or something.

I was hoping for it to be more along the lines of a discussion of the proposition:

"Annihilationism is unskillful false Dhamma."

Agreed, nobody would have objected to that.

[Ñāṇa]

lumping Buddhism in with theism by contrast doesn't help either.

Nonsense. Nowhere have I lumped Buddhism in with theism.

[Ñāṇa]

Continuing to insist upon framing it in this way ignores a number of real-world subtleties and isn't productive.

Actually, it highlights a couple of points pertaining to the contemporary culture of real-world Western pop Buddhism, especially the type of pop Buddhism with leanings towards an inaccurate reading of the Pāli suttas, such as what is being peddled by Stephen Batchelor. As already mentioned:

(i) The term "Buddhist Atheism" is a contradiction in terms. The Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms. He was the teacher of gods and men. The Pāli canon contains many assertions regarding the existence of gods, higher realms, past lives, and rebirth in the next world.

(ii) Contrary to the opinion of Stephen Batchelor, et al, the Buddha was neither an atheist, an apatheist, nor an agnostic.


Of course, the response on this forum was predictable.

[daverupa]

lumping Buddhism in with theism by contrast doesn't help either.

Nonsense. Nowhere have I lumped Buddhism in with theism.

Again, the Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms.

[Ñāṇa]

lumping Buddhism in with theism by contrast doesn't help either.

Nonsense. Nowhere have I lumped Buddhism in with theism.

Again, the Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms.

What does mean? Are you tacitly implying that he didn't?

[Goofaholix]

Of course, the response on this forum was predictable.

In Buddhism part of wisdom is seeing the predictability of causes and conditions and changing them in order to get a better outcome rather than insist that everyone should think the same way you do.

[Kenshou]

Actually, it highlights a couple of points pertaining to the contemporary culture of real-world Western pop Buddhism...

While I don't think that the gist if what you're saying is really incorrect, the way you are choosing to phrase it continues to be a little awkward in light of the actual details of these concepts, and I don't really think that the opposition is as much to what you are saying as to the specifics of how you are choosing to say it.

[daverupa]

Nonsense. Nowhere have I lumped Buddhism in with theism.

Again, the Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms.

What would it be to lump Buddhism and theism together? It would be to say that both affirm the existence of at least one deity, variously defined. If the Buddha affirms the existence of gods, then Buddhism is, among other things, a theist doctrine, but you deny this. The shrugging-shoulders is because this obvious contradiction is confusing, and your meaning less than clear.

[Ñāṇa]

In Buddhism part of wisdom is seeing the predictability of causes and conditions and changing them in order to get a better outcome rather than insist that everyone should think the same way you do.

Agreement and consensus isn't required or even desired.

[Ñāṇa]

What would it be to lump Buddhism and theism together? It would be to say that both affirm the existence of at least one deity, variously defined. If the Buddha affirms the existence of gods, then Buddhism is, among other things, a theist doctrine, but you deny this. The shrugging-shoulders is because this obvious contradiction is confusing, and your meaning less than clear.

Theism (including polytheism) generally includes the worship and propitiation of one or more gods. This is not a part of the Pāli dhamma or Theravāda Buddhism.

[Prasadachitta]

Again, the Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms. He was the teacher of gods and men. The Pāli canon contains many assertions regarding the existence of gods, higher realms, past lives, and rebirth in the next world. Contrary to the opinion of Stephen Batchelor, et al, the Buddha was neither an atheist, an apatheist, nor an agnostic.

Hi Nana,

I am sympathetic to the idea that atheism has unhelpful associations that tend towards nihilism lending to the shutting down of communication and that Buddhism is not helped by being associated with it.

However...

I think we should not overlook the value of the phenomenological context.

as Thanissaro states in his paper "The Truth of Rebirth"

By placing rebirth in the context of dependent co-arising, he was presenting it in a phenomenological context — i.e., one that focused on phenomena as they can be directly experienced and that refused to take a stand on whether there is a reality of "things" underlying them.

I take that to mean that the "many assertions regarding the existence of gods, higher realms, past lives, and rebirth" are best taken within that phenomenological context.

Metta

Prasadachitta

[Goofaholix]

Theism (including polytheism) generally includes the worship and propitiation of one or more gods. This is not a part of the Pāli dhamma or Theravāda Buddhism.

Correct, and what would you call something that has no part of this other than a-theism?

[Ñāṇa]

Correct, and what would you call something that has no part of this other than a-theism?

This has already been explained to you multiple times.

[Goofaholix]

This has already been explained to you multiple times.

I think not.