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.
Mike
Secular view - The Future of Religion
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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.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.
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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]
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
Hi, Mike,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.
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
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.
Kim
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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.Mr Man wrote:That people with an active religious life are nicer than those without - sorry I don't buy it.
Seriously, if their religion doesn't make people into better people, there must be something wrong with it.
Kim
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
So there is only this alternative? Be religious or materialistic?Kim O'Hara wrote:Compared to me, you must meet some very unpleasant religious people or lots and lots of really nice materialists.
What if one does not care about these fabricated categories at all?
Kind regards
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
Hi, ground,ground wrote:So there is only this alternative? Be religious or materialistic?Kim O'Hara wrote:Compared to me, you must meet some very unpleasant religious people or lots and lots of really nice materialists.
What if one does not care about these fabricated categories at all?
Kind regards
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."
Kim
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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: 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 O'Hara wrote: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.Mr Man wrote:That people with an active religious life are nicer than those without - sorry I don't buy it.
I think you have come to the wrong conclusion here.
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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.Mr Man wrote: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: 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."
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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.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.
"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
Iti 26
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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.Coyote wrote: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.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.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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.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.
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
Iti 26
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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.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.
- "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]
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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.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.
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.
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
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.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.
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.
"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
Iti 26