Secular view - The Future of Religion

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by mikenz66 »

I agree, it seems to be a hijacking of the term "secular", which I would have thought would mean "open to a variety of viewpoints.

"Rationalist Buddhism" would, perhaps, be a more accurate name.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Sam Vara »

That the term ""Secular Buddhist" has been claimed by a particular camp is, in my opinion, a bit of a shame and rather odd, as it is a misnomer.
I agree with this. Batchelor's take on Buddhism is not important or wide-ranging enough to merit a title as general in scope as "secular". If it is called anything other than "Stephen Batchelor's view", then we might consider "Anti-realist", "antirepresentationalist" (following Rorty) or maybe even "pragmatic". It is an application of the ideas of Don Cupitt to Buddhism, and little else besides.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by daverupa »

What of seeing it as a burgeoning Buddhist community among Buddhist communities, all of which comprise the Buddhist tradition?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Kim OHara »

mikenz66 wrote:I agree, it seems to be a hijacking of the term "secular", which I would have thought would mean "open to a variety of viewpoints.

"Rationalist Buddhism" would, perhaps, be a more accurate name.

:anjali:
Mike
Hi, Mike,
I have to disagree with your understanding of the word 'secular' because my nearest dictionary backs up my memory by saying, "adjective denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis : secular buildings | secular moral theory. Contrasted with sacred."
On the other hand, I agree that "Rationalist Buddhism" would seem a better fit with Batchelor's programme.
But language is tricky. Any word evokes associations, not only of itself but of its opposite. For instance, 'Mahayana' implies 'Hinayana' ... and we are not enthused :tongue:
In the same way, and perhaps more strongly, 'rationalist' implies that unreformed Buddhism is 'irrational', and that's not very nice. Perhaps Batchelor was trying to avoid that implication. 'Secular' only implies that unreformed Buddhism is 'sacred', and there's nothing wrong with that.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Kim OHara »

Mr Man wrote:That people with an active religious life are nicer than those without - sorry I don't buy it.
Compared to me, you must meet some very unpleasant religious people or lots and lots of really nice materialists. I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or envy you.

Seriously, if their religion doesn't make people into better people, there must be something wrong with it.
:thinking:

Kim
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by ground »

Kim O'Hara wrote:Compared to me, you must meet some very unpleasant religious people or lots and lots of really nice materialists.
So there is only this alternative? Be religious or materialistic?
What if one does not care about these fabricated categories at all?

Kind regards
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Kim OHara »

ground wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Compared to me, you must meet some very unpleasant religious people or lots and lots of really nice materialists.
So there is only this alternative? Be religious or materialistic?
What if one does not care about these fabricated categories at all?

Kind regards
Hi, ground,
Religious/materialistic are not the only possibilities but I think they are by far the most common.
As I said in the comment which is attracting a surprising-to-me amount of dissent, "... since the basic morality of all the major religions is 'treat others as you would like them to treat you', that tends to make the world a better place. On the other side you have (mostly) a moral void which tends to default to selfish hedonism if not social Darwinism."

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Mr Man »

Kim O'Hara wrote: As I said in the comment which is attracting a surprising-to-me amount of dissent, "... since the basic morality of all the major religions is 'treat others as you would like them to treat you', that tends to make the world a better place. On the other side you have (mostly) a moral void which tends to default to selfish hedonism if not social Darwinism."
Kim, but that morality (treat others etc.) is not an exclusive to religion. For example it is present in Confucianism. I would imagine that many non-religious would instinctively apply that principle to there life and also many professed believers would ignore it regularly.
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Mr Man wrote:That people with an active religious life are nicer than those without - sorry I don't buy it.
Compared to me, you must meet some very unpleasant religious people or lots and lots of really nice materialists. I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or envy you.

I think you have come to the wrong conclusion here. :)

:anjali:
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Buckwheat »

Mr Man wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote: As I said in the comment which is attracting a surprising-to-me amount of dissent, "... since the basic morality of all the major religions is 'treat others as you would like them to treat you', that tends to make the world a better place. On the other side you have (mostly) a moral void which tends to default to selfish hedonism if not social Darwinism."
Kim, but that morality (treat others etc.) is not an exclusive to religion. For example it is present in Confucianism. I would imagine that many non-religious would instinctively apply that principle to there life and also many professed believers would ignore it regularly.
How many non-religious types get together in a group once a week (give or take) and discuss ethics, inspiration, and goodwill? This doesn't mean non-religious people can't be ethical, inspired, or full of goodwill, but they are not constantly drilling that into their minds at church or temple every week. I'm inclined to agree with Kim, although I would like to see a scientific study of some sort to support that conclusion.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Coyote
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Coyote »

Buckwheat wrote: How many non-religious types get together in a group once a week (give or take) and discuss ethics, inspiration, and goodwill? This doesn't mean non-religious people can't be ethical, inspired, or full of goodwill, but they are not constantly drilling that into their minds at church or temple every week. I'm inclined to agree with Kim, although I would like to see a scientific study of some sort to support that conclusion.
And how likely are non-religious people to abstain from lying, stealing, killing, drinking entirely, rather than take the position that these things in moderation, or if they don't adversely affect others, are OK? At least most religions maintain that it is morally wrong to kill, steal and lie, whereas the non-religious have a variety of views on these actions.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Buckwheat »

Coyote wrote:
Buckwheat wrote: How many non-religious types get together in a group once a week (give or take) and discuss ethics, inspiration, and goodwill? This doesn't mean non-religious people can't be ethical, inspired, or full of goodwill, but they are not constantly drilling that into their minds at church or temple every week. I'm inclined to agree with Kim, although I would like to see a scientific study of some sort to support that conclusion.
And how likely are non-religious people to abstain from lying, stealing, killing, drinking entirely, rather than take the position that these things in moderation, or if they don't adversely affect others, are OK? At least most religions maintain that it is morally wrong to kill, steal and lie, whereas the non-religious have a variety of views on these actions.
I think this is taking my point too far. I think there is a similar percentage of non-religious people that consider it immoral to kill, steal, and lie. Drinking is more likely, and therefore some reckless behavior, but I don't think any higher percentage of non-religious people would be so foolish as to justify their killing, stealing, and lying as morally acceptable. My point was one simply of behavioral conditioning, that coming together in church, temple, or forum, we come together as a group to reinforce the moral lessons, keeping them at the fore and pondering the minutia of how to enhance virtue. As a former non-religious type, I can say that non-religious still have these discussions, but not as frequently.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Coyote
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Coyote »

Buckwheat wrote:
I think this is taking my point too far. I think there is a similar percentage of non-religious people that consider it immoral to kill, steal, and lie. Drinking is more likely, and therefore some reckless behavior, but I don't think any higher percentage of non-religious people would be so foolish as to justify their killing, stealing, and lying as morally acceptable. My point was one simply of behavioral conditioning, that coming together in church, temple, or forum, we come together as a group to reinforce the moral lessons, keeping them at the fore and pondering the minutia of how to enhance virtue. As a former non-religious type, I can say that non-religious still have these discussions, but not as frequently.
I don't know. I think there are quite a lot of non-religious people who see it morally acceptable to kill during times of war or if it protects the lives of enough people. I think the same can be said of lying in certain circumstances, or at least this has been my experience as someone brought up non-religious and with the people I have known throughout my life. Stealing perhaps less so, at least, in our property-focused society.
Also it depends what you mean by religious. Just because someone claims that label for themselves doesn't mean they are going to abide by the moral code of that particular religion, so I can see your point there.
I do think a point can be made that religious people are more likely to adhere to strict or absolutist views of morality, whereas the non-religious are more likely to make certain immoral acts justified by their circumstances.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by daverupa »

Coyote wrote: I do think a point can be made that religious people are more likely to adhere to strict or absolutist views of morality, whereas the non-religious are more likely to make certain immoral acts justified by their circumstances.
Adherence to strict morality codes from religious dogmas is at the root of abortion clinic bombings, countless misogynist policies, and human sacrifice, to name just a few. Suggesting that religious adherence equates with stronger and better ethical reasoning & moral behavior is spurious.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Aloka »

daverupa wrote:
Coyote wrote: I do think a point can be made that religious people are more likely to adhere to strict or absolutist views of morality, whereas the non-religious are more likely to make certain immoral acts justified by their circumstances.
Adherence to strict morality codes from religious dogmas is at the root of abortion clinic bombings, countless misogynist policies, and human sacrifice, to name just a few. Suggesting that religious adherence equates with stronger and better ethical reasoning & moral behavior is spurious.

Some of my friends are atheists and have never had any interest in religion and yet they're amongst the kindest, most moral and trustworthy people I've ever know.
Coyote
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion

Post by Coyote »

daverupa wrote: Adherence to strict morality codes from religious dogmas is at the root of abortion clinic bombings, countless misogynist policies, and human sacrifice, to name just a few. Suggesting that religious adherence equates with stronger and better ethical reasoning & moral behavior is spurious.
I am not talking about strict morality codes or dogmas, I am talking about moral absolutism. My point is that religious and non-religious people tend to approach morality in different ways, and the way religious people understand morality might lend them to see certain acts as always wrong, whereas the non-religious are more likely to make exceptions even in banal cases. Personally, I find the first to be more in line with what I understand about morality. I only have my own experience with non-religious people as proof.
Besides, I think it is a bit of a leap to say a person who blows up an abortion clinic is motivated by adherence strict morality codes or dogmas. Believing that abortion is wrong in every circumstance doesn't logically lead one to go and blow up an abortion clinic, rather it might be belief that the end justifies the means or even mental health issues. I don't know if either of us are in a position to know what makes a person blow up an abortion clinic or sacrifice another human being.
Aloka wrote: Some of my friends are atheists and have never had any interest in religion and yet they're amongst the kindest, most moral and trustworthy people I've ever know.


All I can say is that my experience has been the opposite, in terms of being "moral", but I think you are right in terms of kindness. :shrug:
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Post Reply