The intrinsic value of religious institutions and the belief in religious dogmas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

It's true that one would have to twist the Buddhist doctrine quite a bit to use it as a tool for racial violence or genocide. There has been some conflicts where Buddhists have taken up arms (for instance in Sri Lanka), but it's true that Buddhism has been used as a tool of violence far less than Islam or Christianity. But if there is even a possibility that this social structure could be hijacked by extremists and used as a tool for massive scale discrimination or violence, I see it to be more harmful than valuable.

---

What you seem to be promoting by refusing to tolerate the idea of religious people gathering together on their own is "state atheism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Just looking at the article should give you historical evidence that atheism is no better than any of these religions when it comes to racial violence or genocide. I would trust any of these religions over atheism. However, the best solution is to have neither a theocracy nor state atheism, but a society in which people are allowed civil liberties to congregate on their own without state supervision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

What you seem to be promoting by refusing to tolerate the idea of religious people gathering together on their own is "state atheism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Just looking at the article should give you historical evidence that atheism is no better than any of these religions when it comes to racial violence or genocide. I would trust any of these religions over atheism. However, the best solution is to have neither a theocracy nor state atheism, but a society in which people are allowed civil liberties to congregate on their own without state supervision.

---

I agree completely. I don't support state atheism either, but rather a secular society that's based on common moral values. But as I said before, atheism cannot endorse violence since there are no holy books or scriptures of atheism that could be interpreted in a harmful way. Can we agree on this premise?

I also believe that people should never be forced to believe or not to believe in anything. The fact that I presented the possibility some religious practice could just as well be taught inside the educational system didn't mean that this should be forced by the state. However religious institutions have a natural tendency to dissolve when a society becomes more secular and when people receive science-based education. In the future societies might adopt some good practices from religious institutions, but if the institutions themselves don't have any intrinsic value, they will probably disappear over time. The whole point of my statement about the secularisation of religious practice was to show that religious institutions do not have any intrinsic value. If you don't agree, please give us examples of religious institutions intrinsic values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

I agree completely. I don't support state atheism either, but rather a secular society that's based on common moral values. But as I said before, atheism cannot endorse violence since there are no holy books or scriptures of atheism that could be interpreted in a harmful way. Can we agree on this premise?

I also believe that people should never be forced to believe or not to believe in anything. The fact that I presented the possibility some religious practice could just as well be taught inside the educational system didn't mean that this should be forced by the state. However religious institutions have a natural tendency to dissolve when a society becomes more secular and when people receive science-based education. In the future societies might adopt some good practices from religious institutions, but if the institutions themselves don't have any intrinsic value, they will probably disappear over time. The whole point of my statement about the secularisation of religious practice was to show that religious institutions do not have any intrinsic value. If you don't agree, please give us examples of religious institutions intrinsic values.

---

Atheism cannot endorse violence? Ask the Russians before we got them out of the way. I'm closing this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Atheism cannot endorse violence? Ask the Russians before we got them out of the way. I'm closing this case.

---

I'm surprised by your comment since I already stated that no dictator or regime has never done acts of violence in the name of atheism. If you disagree then maybe you can provide me some evidence that there has been acts of violence specifically inspired by atheism? In the case of USSR the acts of violence were directed toward groups and individuals that were seen as a treat toward the unquestioned power of the ruling oligarchy. Believers were unquestionably harassed, imprisoned and killed, but there actions were inspired by a dictatorial pursuit for unquestioned power rather than an atheistic conviction. Marx saw religious institutions as yet another tool for oppression in class warfare and that's why it had to be obliterated for the working class to be free - again, the reason was not atheism. I might agree that Marxism - or rather the Marxism-Leninism, which was one interpretation of Marxism - inspired the killing of countless people, but Marxism is not a synonym for atheism. Another motivating factor for the state terror against religions was the fact that the Orthodox Church was one of the richest institutions in Russia and the state was eager to steal all it's wealth.

In cases of religious violence the aggressors themselves often admit and even stress that they were inspired by their religious beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

I don't support state atheism either

---

We agree on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

But as I said before, atheism cannot endorse violence since there are no holy books or scriptures of atheism that could be interpreted in a harmful way. Can we agree on this premise?

---

We do not agree on the use of literature by State atheists.

One of the scriptures that Mao insisted everyone be exposed to was "The Little Red Book", or Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse Tung: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotati...m_Chairman_Mao

A quick search brought me this collection of posters from the cultural revolution with the little red book on display along with rifles: http://kdgeorge.com/propaganda/chinese-propaganda-art/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

I also believe that people should never be forced to believe or not to believe in anything. The fact that I presented the possibility some religious practice could just as well be taught inside the educational system didn't mean that this should be forced by the state.

---

We agree on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

However religious institutions have a natural tendency to dissolve when a society becomes more secular and when people receive science-based education.

---

In the Wikipedia article on State atheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism, there is the following comment:

Author Niels Christian Nielsen has written that the post-Soviet population in areas which were formerly predominantly Orthodox are now "nearly illiterate regarding religion", almost completely lacking the intellectual or philosophical aspects of their faith and having almost no knowledge of other faiths.[76] Nonetheless, their knowledge of their faith and the faith of others notwithstanding, many post-Soviet populations have a large presence of religious followers. In Russia, the 2007 International Religious Freedom Report published by the US Department of State said that approximately 100 million citizens consider themselves Russian Orthodox Christians.

Based on Russian history, it does not look like there is a natural tendency for religion to dissolve. What evidence do you have that there is such a natural tendency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

In the future societies might adopt some good practices from religious institutions, but if the institutions themselves don't have any intrinsic value, they will probably disappear over time. The whole point of my statement about the secularisation of religious practice was to show that religious institutions do not have any intrinsic value. If you don't agree, please give us examples of religious institutions intrinsic values.

---

I think there is evidence to claim that religious experiences are part of our biology. I've mentioned some of this before, but here they are again:

1) Developmental psychology: Justin L Barrett, Born Believers
2) Neuroscience: Kevin Nelson, The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain

The above texts are summaries themselves of research. They provide enough evidence for me to feel confident that religion is intrinsic to us as a species and therefore religious institutions have intrinsic value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

I don't see why the roots of Buddhism couldn't be respected and upheld even if the Buddhist practice would primarily be practiced as a part of the educational system. Children learn the roots of psychology, geography and chemistry at school, even though some of the old theories are dated and thus not relevant to current scientific knowledge. It's important to know the roots of different ideologies and practices.

.

---

There would be no problem using Buddhist techniques - there is no problem using Buddhist techniques - in any walk of life or instiution. What you seem to suggest with "old and dated theories" is that a modern equivalent would be more relevant to Buddhists. I don't think they would see it that way, though, as I said, using techniques in a secular way is not a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

The relationship between students and the teacher could be improved gradually. This is a problem universally in public schools and it's obviously solvable if enough resources are allocated to the educational system.

---

The Student / Teacher relationship operates at different levels. There are of course ordinary teachers who will pass on teachings about Buddhism. There is another and much rarer teacher - rare as in perhaps not in this or the next lifetime - who introduces the practitioner to their own mind. This is said to be a karmic relationship and very precious.

Asian attitudes to teachers are very different to western views, and this stems from the cultures. Our often negative views of teachers stems from the all too negative attitudes of the teachers themselves. I think the answer to that one is not to try to inculcate a false sense of respect, but for the right kinds of teachers to be selected and rewarded fo dealing with certain students. Anyone can teach a willing class, but it takes a teacher who can earn respect to be able to effectively teah certain groups. How they get that respect is very difficult to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

The indoctrination of religious dogmas as a part of Buddhist practice is something that I see to be unnecessary since people can strife toward self-control and inner harmony without any religious dogmas. The concept of nirvana is of course based on religious belief, but I'm not sure whether the idea of reaching this state of oneness or release from the cycle of rebirth is crucial to most practitioners of Buddhism in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me the concrete search of inner balance seems like a much more valuable part of Buddhist practice even for the practitioners themselves than the metaphysical idea of a persons possible place in the afterlife? Religions change in the course of history and therefore I don't see secularisation of religious practice as a serious conceptual problem.

---

people can strife toward self-control and inner harmony without any religious dogmas

They can - anyone can - but that's not what Buddhism is about.

The concept of nirvana is of course based on religious belief, but I'm not sure whether the idea of reaching this state of oneness or release from the cycle of rebirth is crucial to most practitioners of Buddhism in the first place.

It is - otherwise they would not be, or call themselves, Buddhists. It might be that you are thinking in terms of one life, and that it seems impossible to achieve. Buddhism is a long game. A Stream Enterer in the Therevadan tradition, describes someone who has realised Renunciation - seen Samsara, this life, as the source of their and other's suffering. A Stream Enterer has seven more lives to go before reaching Enlightenment. A Stream Enterer is not a beginner, but an advanced practiioner.

the concrete search of inner balance seems like a much more valuable part of Buddhist practice even for the practitioners themselves than the metaphysical idea of a persons possible place in the afterlife? Religions change in the course of history and therefore I don't see secularisation of religious practice as a serious conceptual problem.

I see the secularisation of society as a positive thing. Then people can really be free to practice, in every society, the religion, or phiosophy, or worldview they want without prejudice.

If by "inner balance" you mean psychological and emotional stability - then yes this is one of the aims of Buddhists in the short term. If the methods which exist achieve this, then this indicates that there may be more to The Buddha's teaching, all The Buddha's teaching, and that his deeper insights become more plausible. In fact this is how Buddhism works. The Buddha's instructions were to not take his word for it but to investigate. If they prove to be correct, then you can begin to trust the teachings.

Afterlife is not really the concept of Nirvana, which is a state The Buddha achieved whilst still alive. It is a state of mind rather than a concept like a heaven.

It is true that religions change, and Buddhism is no different. Hence you have various schools ith different focus of practice. What changes is the cultural context, so for example alms rounds were normal in India, but were culturally unacceptable in Japan and China. The texts that are used though are still very similar, and the core beliefs and practices are the same.

I see attempts to secularise religious practice as another form of oppression. I see attempts to take effective practices and use them in a secular context as sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

It's true that one would have to twist the Buddhist doctrine quite a bit to use it as a tool for racial violence or genocide. There has been some conflicts where Buddhists have taken up arms (for instance in Sri Lanka), but it's true that Buddhism has been used as a tool of violence far less than Islam or Christianity. But if there is even a possibility that this social structure could be hijacked by extremists and used as a tool for massive scale discrimination or violence, I see it to be more harmful than valuable.

---

I have often said that religion is often used as an excuse, or a shield for the motives of power. Situations become complex when religious intolerance is used to fire up populations. Religions become the primary motive for the people and this makes it easy for the power wielders to mask their true intentions. Genocides and atrocities committed have other motives, and the question "who gains" should be kept to the forefront. There's no doubt that religions lose in these situations. Yes, Buddhist countries have used violence - as you said Sri Lanka. Thailand too. Who knows what motives drove the events - but the people who won in those struggles were the governments.

there is even a possibility that this social structure could be hijacked by extremists

I don't see this. What extremists? In Christianity and Islam, there are concpts of the Just War and Jihad. Both could be used to intellectually call populations to arms - and are. There isn't a similar idea in Buddhism, but you could and should have an army strong enough to defend yourself. Not to do this would be remiss as the situation would be capitalised upon by others. The great example in this case was KIng Ashoka, who fought a war to expand his Empire, but who then, after seeing the suffering and destruction, halted a war he was winning. I don't know of any instance when this has happened.

The other point about extremists is that what would they hijack? Monks and Monasteries? Buddhist goverments might be hijacked, but that could happen to any political structure. The great brake on extremism being inculcated by charismatic leaders is the instruction not to follow any instruction from your teachers that contravenes your conception of right. Given the focus of the teachings and the central tenets of Karma and reincarnation, it would be very difficult to justify extremist acts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

We do not agree on the use of literature by State atheists.

One of the scriptures that Mao insisted everyone be exposed to was "The Little Red Book", or Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse Tung: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotati...m_Chairman_Mao

A quick search brought me this collection of posters from the cultural revolution with the little red book on display along with rifles: http://kdgeorge.com/propaganda/chinese-propaganda-art/

---

Mao's Red Book is not a scripture of atheism. I haven't read it, but as far as I know, it doesn't deal with religious or atheistic themes. None of it's 33 chapters is dedicated to religious or atheistic issues. It is purely a propaganda tool for promoting state communism and has nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotati...m_Chairman_Mao

Quote:

---

Based on Russian history, it does not look like there is a natural tendency for religion to dissolve. What evidence do you have that there is such a natural tendency?

---

Well, according to Wikipedia the definition of secularization is "the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward nonreligious (or irreligious) values and secular institutions". It has been proven time and again that there is a direct correlation between the secularization process and the decline of religious institutions. It is undeniable that western nations are going through a process of secularization. It's also a part for the secularization process that services previously provided by religious institutions will become run by the government or other secular institutions:

"When discussing activities, secularization refers to the transfer of activities from religious to secular institutions, such as a shift in provision of social services from churches to the government."

One example is current state of European religious institutions. Wealthy Western European nations are arguably the most secular societies on the planet. In all these nations religious institutions have lost members dramatically. For instance in Sweden the amount of people belonging to the Church of Sweden dropped from 82,9% to 72,9% in the course of 8 years (2000-2008).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe

Quote:

---

I think there is evidence to claim that religious experiences are part of our biology. I've mentioned some of this before, but here they are again:

1) Developmental psychology: Justin L Barrett, Born Believers
2) Neuroscience: Kevin Nelson, The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain

The above texts are summaries themselves of research. They provide enough evidence for me to feel confident that religion is intrinsic to us as a species and therefore religious institutions have intrinsic value.

---

You don't specify why religious belief requires religious institution to be functional.

Since you didn't want to discuss the specifics of Berrett's books earlier, I consider that case closed. I read some reviews about the The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain and it seems to be an interesting book. From what I can gather he suggests that there is a close neurological correlation between religious experiences and REM sleep and he is particularly interested in the mental state between sleeping and waking state. The main relevance of this arguments seems to be the fact that psychologists have not traditionally associated religious experiences with REM sleep. The book does not seem to offer any new evidence regarding near-death experiences, rather it recycles old cases like that of Pam Reynolds', which invoked wide criticism in the field of neurosciences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I have often said that religion is often used as an excuse, or a shield for the motives of power. Situations become complex when religious intolerance is used to fire up populations. Religions become the primary motive for the people and this makes it easy for the power wielders to mask their true intentions. Genocides and atrocities committed have other motives, and the question "who gains" should be kept to the forefront. There's no doubt that religions lose in these situations. Yes, Buddhist countries have used violence - as you said Sri Lanka. Thailand too. Who knows what motives drove the events - but the people who won in those struggles were the governments.

there is even a possibility that this social structure could be hijacked by extremists

I don't see this. What extremists? In Christianity and Islam, there are concpts of the Just War and Jihad. Both could be used to intellectually call populations to arms - and are. There isn't a similar idea in Buddhism, but you could and should have an army strong enough to defend yourself. Not to do this would be remiss as the situation would be capitalised upon by others. The great example in this case was KIng Ashoka, who fought a war to expand his Empire, but who then, after seeing the suffering and destruction, halted a war he was winning. I don't know of any instance when this has happened.

The other point about extremists is that what would they hijack? Monks and Monasteries? Buddhist goverments might be hijacked, but that could happen to any political structure. The great brake on extremism being inculcated by charismatic leaders is the instruction not to follow any instruction from your teachers that contravenes your conception of right. Given the focus of the teachings and the central tenets of Karma and reincarnation, it would be very difficult to justify extremist acts.

---

Thank you for all the insightful knowledge on the Buddhist worldview. I guess my point about extremists hijacking religious practice was mainly based on the presumption that if a group of people share a set of beliefs, they will be more likely to turn toward radicalism if a leading authority encourages them to do so. Religious authorities can also be motivated by monetary or political interests, and their position as a religious authority figure gives them the option to misuse that power. If the religious practice would be regulated by the state's educational system, the entire educational system would have to be corrupted before such misuse of power could occur.

I had not heard of King Ashoka before, thanks for mentioning him.

As I mentioned earlier, religions tend to change and adapt to the cultural environment. In many Western churches the priests don't believe in the virgin birth or the concepts of heaven and hell - they serve merely an allegorical role, even though they're central parts of the religious ideology. I don't see why the Buddhist theology/philosophy might not change over time like all other religions do. Maybe one day the concept of nirvana could be see as an allegory instead of a concrete state of being (or nonbeing).

Quote:

---

I see attempts to secularise religious practice as another form of oppression. I see attempts to take effective practices and use them in a secular context as sensible.

---

I agree that there is a difference between these practices and that forcing any change in religious practice would not lead to desirable results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

Mao's Red Book is not a scripture of atheism. I haven't read it, but as far as I know, it doesn't deal with religious or atheistic themes. None of it's 33 chapters is dedicated to religious or atheistic issues. It is purely a propaganda tool for promoting state communism and has nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.

---

I doubt that there is one set of dogmas that atheists adhere to any more than there is one religion that encompasses all the others. They are human cultural creations.

That atheists adhere to dogmas I have no doubt, but to claim that atheists have no scriptures is to say that they do not read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

Well, according to Wikipedia the definition of secularization is "the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward nonreligious (or irreligious) values and secular institutions". It has been proven time and again that there is a direct correlation between the secularization process and the decline of religious institutions. It is undeniable that western nations are going through a process of secularization. It's also a part for the secularization process that services previously provided by religious institutions will become run by the government or other secular institutions:

"When discussing activities, secularization refers to the transfer of activities from religious to secular institutions, such as a shift in provision of social services from churches to the government."

One example is current state of European religious institutions. Wealthy Western European nations are arguably the most secular societies on the planet. In all these nations religious institutions have lost members dramatically. For instance in Sweden the amount of people belonging to the Church of Sweden dropped from 82,9% to 72,9% in the course of 8 years (2000-2008).

---

What I see you presenting is that religious institutions change, not that they naturally dissolve. My main wonder is why after a couple of centuries of secularization, both in Europe and in the US, religions are around at all. It is another bit of evidence that there is more going on here than cultural indoctrination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

You don't specify why religious belief requires religious institution to be functional.

---

A religious institution, whether that is a gathering of people in a home or in a temple, is a formalized cultural expression of human experiences. Now the specific institutions will change, but the underlying human experiences that provide them with validity will not change unless the species dies out.

That is why I consider religious institutions, of whatever kinds, to have intrinsic value. They are a cultural expression of our biology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

Since you didn't want to discuss the specifics of Berrett's books earlier, I consider that case closed. I read some reviews about the The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain and it seems to be an interesting book. From what I can gather he suggests that there is a close neurological correlation between religious experiences and REM sleep and he is particularly interested in the mental state between sleeping and waking state. The main relevance of this arguments seems to be the fact that psychologists have not traditionally associated religious experiences with REM sleep. The book does not seem to offer any new evidence regarding near-death experiences, rather it recycles old cases like that of Pam Reynolds', which invoked wide criticism in the field of neurosciences.

---

It is not that I don't want to discuss Barrett or Nelson. I don't have anything further at the moment to say about them. I understand that you need to dismiss them. I'm not expecting you to do otherwise.

What both of these summaries provide is evidence that religious expressions are not purely the result of cultural indoctrination. That means that an atheistic program of re-indoctrination will not get rid of religion. It is a waste of time.

It gets worse.

Having a biological basis for religion raises the possibility that the human religious experience, and let's emphasize the word "experience", may have an objective reality behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I doubt that there is one set of dogmas that atheists adhere to any more than there is one religion that encompasses all the others. They are human cultural creations.

That atheists adhere to dogmas I have no doubt, but to claim that atheists have no scriptures is to say that they do not read.



What I see you presenting is that religious institutions change, not that they naturally dissolve. My main wonder is why after a couple of centuries of secularization, both in Europe and in the US, religions are around at all. It is another bit of evidence that there is more going on here than cultural indoctrination.



A religious institution, whether that is a gathering of people in a home or in a temple, is a formalized cultural expression of human experiences. Now the specific institutions will change, but the underlying human experiences that provide them with validity will not change unless the species dies out.

That is why I consider religious institutions, of whatever kinds, to have intrinsic value. They are a cultural expression of our biology.



It is not that I don't want to discuss Barrett or Nelson. I don't have anything further at the moment to say about them. I understand that you need to dismiss them. I'm not expecting you to do otherwise.

What both of these summaries provide is evidence that religious expressions are not purely the result of cultural indoctrination. That means that an atheistic program of re-indoctrination will not get rid of religion. It is a waste of time.

It gets worse.

Having a biological basis for religion raises the possibility that the human religious experience, and let's emphasize the word "experience", may have an objective reality behind it.

---

My dear fellows. All of these subjects could elicit a historical interest. As a matter of contemporary interest leading anywhere beyond where they took in the last century, they are obsolete.
One more thing: what you call cultural creations are transformations. Humans are incapable of creativity. They have always been playing with what's given and rearranging it. That's science. In science, it is inportant to know the difference between the hole men carry and one in the ground. But in no case can either hole be created. Have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

One more thing: what you call cultural creations are transformations. Humans are incapable of creativity. They have always been playing with what's given and rearranging it.

---

Yes, I can see these cultural changes being better described as "transformations" rather than "creations".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

Thank you for all the insightful knowledge on the Buddhist worldview. I guess my point about extremists hijacking religious practice was mainly based on the presumption that if a group of people share a set of beliefs, they will be more likely to turn toward radicalism if a leading authority encourages them to do so. Religious authorities can also be motivated by monetary or political interests, and their position as a religious authority figure gives them the option to misuse that power. If the religious practice would be regulated by the state's educational system, the entire educational system would have to be corrupted before such misuse of power could occur.
.

---

There is always the possibility that leaders could be corrupt in any field. I think you consider that religions are more susceptible, but I disagree. The three most corrupt leaders in history - Hitler, Mao and Stalin were not religious but anti-religious. They used their own personal charisma, and the cold logic of apparent necessity, and the chaos they caused when they negated viable opposition to them to generate cults of personality.

Having said that, an institution - religious or otherwise - should have checks and balances in place. The teachings stress the need for this, and not slavish adherence to what anyone says. If things go against sense, or morality, then the instructionas are to disregard and oppose instructions and teachings. That didn't stop the Japanese sect using a chemical weapon in the subway, and illustrates human susceptibility. Unfortunately, it is not possible for an ordinary mind to know the true motives of others, but, as history shows, they tend to be egotists and reveal themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

As I mentioned earlier, religions tend to change and adapt to the cultural environment. In many Western churches the priests don't believe in the virgin birth or the concepts of heaven and hell - they serve merely an allegorical role, even though they're central parts of the religious ideology. I don't see why the Buddhist theology/philosophy might not change over time like all other religions do. Maybe one day the concept of nirvana could be see as an allegory instead of a concrete state of being (or nonbeing).

---

I agree that religions adapt to cultural environments. Buddhism is no different in this, and there has been a scientific input into the benefits of meditation.

the priests don't believe in...the concepts of heaven and hell - they serve merely an allegorical role,

Oddly enough, Buddhists would concur with quite a few Christian beliefs - such as miracles. These are not ascribed to a divine being, but are recognised as a by-product of advanced meditation practice. Why aren't they displayed? Because it is unwise to do so, and these days would prove nothing to anyone, but cause controversy. Knowing others' minds - which I referred to earlier - is recognised as one. I have seen this demonstrated in a very low key, but no less startling way by a Venerable Teacher during a meditation session he was conducting. He was able to tell the practitioners - including my wife - what they had seen during their session, and give them advice accordingly. There was no big show, he didnt refer to it except in the context of advice, and if you hadn't considered what he was doing, it could even have been missed for what it actually was.

I don't see why the Buddhist theology/philosophy might not change over time like all other religions do. Maybe one day the concept of nirvana could be see as an allegory instead of a concrete state of being (or nonbeing).

It has already changed since The Buddha's time with the developments in Mahayana Buddhism which is practiced by Northern Buddhism - Tibet, China, Japan.

I think the view that as we go through time a common attitude is that things are improving. it would be difficult to deny this with the developments of science, medicine etc. But then that depends upon where you are. These developments will not have touched remote farmers in poor countries. I think we very fortunate westerners forget that we are fortunate, and that our state is not reflected in the lives of millions. Of course we all hope that the earth's wealth will begin to be extended to all, but is this possible with scarce resources and the possibility that economies could fail and plunge good many of us into poverty and possibly starvation. I sincerely hope not, but it isn't difficult to envisage a scenario where it could happen.

Anyway, my point is that it is not necessarily a correct attitude that we are naturally developing into a better world. We have had a relatively short period of calm, but 60 years ago we were in the midst of a deadly world war. What would Nirvana be an allegory for? Peace of mind falls far short of the meaning of Enlightenment, and it has no meaning without Karma and reincarnation. The phrase "concrete state" really has no relation to ideas about Nirvana. Not self/ or the Emptiness of Self is a radical idea which runs counter to what we all come to expect in life and people. It says that everything that makes up "me" is really a misapprehension based upon our impure view. It means there will be no more Paulclem when I die, but that this Paulclem's energy will cause another life. It is neither the idea of eternalism - an immortal soul - nor is it annihilation. It is The Middle way. So I don't think it will become an allegory for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

That atheists adhere to dogmas I have no doubt, but to claim that atheists have no scriptures is to say that they do not read.

---

The term atheism doesn't include any other connotations than the mere notification that there is no god. There is no other dogma to be found in the core of atheism, it's just a general term for all nonbelievers. Some atheists read Nietzsche, others have never even heard of him. Many atheists don't know anything about the complicated philosophical debates and theories surrounding atheism, they just don't see any reason to believe in something which isn't supported by any evidence. The term itself is a very politically colored term and many ignorant people associate it with concepts like nihilism and racism. In my opinion it would be more constructive to use a less colored term like 'nonbelievers'.

Quote:

---

What I see you presenting is that religious institutions change, not that they naturally dissolve. My main wonder is why after a couple of centuries of secularization, both in Europe and in the US, religions are around at all. It is another bit of evidence that there is more going on here than cultural indoctrination.

---

It has mainly to do with politics as I mentioned earlier. Especially in America political language is saturated with religious rhetoric because it serves a political function. Religious belief goes well together with "family values" and conservative values in general. Nationalism relies heavily on people's religious identity.

Also the invention of internet has exponentially accelerated the socialization process. Internet has been available for public use for some 20 years.

Quote:

---

A religious institution, whether that is a gathering of people in a home or in a temple, is a formalized cultural expression of human experiences. Now the specific institutions will change, but the underlying human experiences that provide them with validity will not change unless the species dies out.

---

It's true that religions often require some manner of institutions for organizational reasons. So the only value that religious institutions have is inseparable connected with the value of religious belief? Every cultural institution is based on socialization, so this aspect of religious institutions does not have intrinsic value. This actually means that religious institutions do not have any intrinsic value since it's only value derives from the (supposed) intrinsic value of religious practice.

Quote:

---

That is why I consider religious institutions, of whatever kinds, to have intrinsic value. They are a cultural expression of our biology.

---

Since you don't want to explain your sources further we can agree to disagree on this question.

Quote:

---

It is not that I don't want to discuss Barrett or Nelson. I don't have anything further at the moment to say about them. I understand that you need to dismiss them. I'm not expecting you to do otherwise.

What both of these summaries provide is evidence that religious expressions are not purely the result of cultural indoctrination. That means that an atheistic program of re-indoctrination will not get rid of religion. It is a waste of time.

It gets worse.

Having a biological basis for religion raises the possibility that the human religious experience, and let's emphasize the word "experience", may have an objective reality behind it.

---

I guess I don't have anything to add to this subject either since we cannot discuss the validity of your sources. I already questioned both researches and you didn't try to defend their findings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I agree that religions adapt to cultural environments. Buddhism is no different in this, and there has been a scientific input into the benefits of meditation.

the priests don't believe in...the concepts of heaven and hell - they serve merely an allegorical role,

Oddly enough, Buddhists would concur with quite a few Christian beliefs - such as miracles. These are not ascribed to a divine being, but are recognised as a by-product of advanced meditation practice. Why aren't they displayed? Because it is unwise to do so, and these days would prove nothing to anyone, but cause controversy. Knowing others' minds - which I referred to earlier - is recognised as one. I have seen this demonstrated in a very low key, but no less startling way by a Venerable Teacher during a meditation session he was conducting. He was able to tell the practitioners - including my wife - what they had seen during their session, and give them advice accordingly. There was no big show, he didnt refer to it except in the context of advice, and if you hadn't considered what he was doing, it could even have been missed for what it actually was.

I don't see why the Buddhist theology/philosophy might not change over time like all other religions do. Maybe one day the concept of nirvana could be see as an allegory instead of a concrete state of being (or nonbeing).

It has already changed since The Buddha's time with the developments in Mahayana Buddhism which is practiced by Northern Buddhism - Tibet, China, Japan.

I think the view that as we go through time a common attitude is that things are improving. it would be difficult to deny this with the developments of science, medicine etc. But then that depends upon where you are. These developments will not have touched remote farmers in poor countries. I think we very fortunate westerners forget that we are fortunate, and that our state is not reflected in the lives of millions. Of course we all hope that the earth's wealth will begin to be extended to all, but is this possible with scarce resources and the possibility that economies could fail and plunge good many of us into poverty and possibly starvation. I sincerely hope not, but it isn't difficult to envisage a scenario where it could happen.

Anyway, my point is that it is not necessarily a correct attitude that we are naturally developing into a better world. We have had a relatively short period of calm, but 60 years ago we were in the midst of a deadly world war. What would Nirvana be an allegory for? Peace of mind falls far short of the meaning of Enlightenment, and it has no meaning without Karma and reincarnation. The phrase "concrete state" really has no relation to ideas about Nirvana. Not self/ or the Emptiness of Self is a radical idea which runs counter to what we all come to expect in life and people. It says that everything that makes up "me" is really a misapprehension based upon our impure view. It means there will be no more Paulclem when I die, but that this Paulclem's energy will cause another life. It is neither the idea of eternalism - an immortal soul - nor is it annihilation. It is The Middle way. So I don't think it will become an allegory for anything.

---

I don't claim to know enough about Buddhism to be able to determine whether a concept like nirvana could become to have only allegorical meaning. Thanks for the nice discussion Paul.