Is Buddhism a Religion?

[Akamu]

For some reason this website isn't alowing me to reply to and quote a particular poster, it keeps asking me to log in when I already have done so. So I will use bold text to refer to your words.

the_aphid:
Fair enough. I will simply reiterate that I believe that Faith is both necessary and essential, not just in one's practice of Buddhism

You are perfectly free to believe that for yourself, but can't you imagine a scenario in which no faith is involved in doing the practice? Just simple trial, error, adjustment, etc. If you can imagine this, then faith is not necessary and essential to the practice of Buddhism.

I also think now would be a good time for me to define faith. When I say "faith" I mean holding a belief without any reference to proof or even personal experience. Maybe this will put us on the same page. Having faith, for me, would be like learning about the notion of reincarnation and accepting it as true based merely in the fact that you find it appealing or even if it just makes sense to you. I don't find this a very wise thing to do.

the_aphid:
For example, in a loving relationship I really don't feel that it is pure logical reasoning that absolutely provides an individual with trust in their partner. Reasoning assists, it reminds you of the behaviors of your partner and calculates probabilities to some degree whether or not you feel they can be trusted, but at some point you have to submit to Faith, a sort of intuition. If you do not, you will likely become jealous or paranoid, constantly questioning them in order to fuel the reasoning process you depend upon. You need to know where she has been, or what he has been doing, or who they were seeing in order to reason whether or not you feel they are remaining faithful.
I don't see choosing to trust and having faith to be the same thing. Trusting a partner should be based on your knowledge of her character and your evaluation of the strength of your relationship. As I said above, having faith would mean holding the belief that your partner isn't cheating on you based on no prior experiences. I am assuming you trust your partner because she has not betrayed you in the past. If she had, it would be harder to trust her...only then would faith become predominant. The distinction is subtle: trust arises from prior experience with a partner; faith would be employed if your partner cheated and you then gave her a second chance, choosing to have faith she won't make the same mistake.

I do agree with you in that faith is sometimes necessary in certain life situations. I will maintain, however, that it needn't be necessary in the practice of Buddhism...though it is perfectly fine if that is your approach and it works.

the_aphid:
You see the immediate benefits at all times, even in times of strife? Have you not had moments where you encounter doubt, and are forced to rely upon the memory of past experiences where you perceived beneficial results? In your eyes, is this reasoning or faith?

I'm not sure what you mean. I am definitely better off in times of strife now than I ever was before I began to practice. What is it to apply practice in times of strife if it isn't to recall past experiences? Whether it is conscious or subconscious, I am sure athletes refer back to their practice during game-time and do not rely on faith.

I also want to clarify one thing in my argument. I think it is constructing a false dichotomy to say that everything is either reason or faith. I practice and I observe the results and reinforce them with further practice. I'm not even sure how "reason" is involved; I'm just observing and acting accordingly. But perhaps you define this as reason, in which case reason is what I am doing.

the_aphid
However, I see this is a conflict of reasoning, a struggle in which your current (present) reasoning perhaps should not be trusted, and you are in fact being faithful. I feel this way because when I personally have been in those experiences, I cannot necessarily recall exactly what my line of reasoning was that led me to those convictions, basically they become lost to me in the moment of stress. And therefore you are not founding your present/future actions on the reasoning of the present moment, but are founding it on the belief that a line of reasoning not presently available to you is to be trusted (faith).

I hope I'm understanding you. You are saying that times of strife cause a conflict of reasoning because my present reasoning fails me during crisis (perhaps because I am too flustered) and I instead refer to back to a time when my head was on straighter? If this were the case, I am again not sure how faith is involved; I am referring back to anexperience. If I drop my pen 1,000 times in the past and every time it falls down, is it then an appeal to faith that it will fall for the 1,001st time? Or is it reasonable to believe it will? I'll grant you that inductive arguments are not foolproof, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that appeal to past experiences does not invoke faith. We could just have conflicting definitions at this point though (yay for trying to approach truth via language). Something which always makes me glad I know how to sit down for a long time and not say anything at all

the_aphid:
I find this interesting as I've heard this a number of times and don't entirely understand it. When you are led to the conclusion that any particular belief you had is indeed false, you are simultaneously led to a sort of truth are you not? I personally have always seen this as a good thing which in fact relieves me of suffering. It is a form of relief, like removing a splinter that only hurts when you touch it. By removing it, you immediately recognize that it will no longer cause you any pain.

Fair enough, but don't you find it equally conceivable to suspend all groundless belief and arrive to the same conclusion through experience? Do you really need to hold a belief and prove it wrong in order to learn anything? People seem very attached to their beliefs. If you find it a relief to have your beliefs falsified, then you are quite ahead of most people.

Also, you speak of removing the belief as likened unto removing an irksome splinter. So I ask you, why must you get a splinter in your finger in the first place?

[the_aphid]

Originally Posted by Akamu

You are perfectly free to believe that for yourself, but can't you imagine a scenario in which no faith is involved in doing the practice?

No, and you are right, it has to do with our differing definitions of faith. I'll try to get us on the same page

Originally Posted by Akamu

I also think now would be a good time for me to define faith. When I say "faith" I mean holding a belief without any reference to proof or even personal experience. Maybe this will put us on the same page. Having faith, for me, would be like learning about the notion of reincarnation and accepting it as true based merely in the fact that you find it appealing or even if it just makes sense to you. I don't find this a very wise thing to do.

I would require adjectives in order to define what you are describing. Blind faith, or groundless belief as you stipulated in your last post, as not all beliefs are groundless, and not all faith blind. In the most basic sense, people can either possess knowledge or belief, and reasoning is just the process that bring those things about. It is simply a poor practice of faith, and simultaneously a poor practice of reasoning, to simply adopt beliefs that are not based on experience.

To better illustrate my point, I am going to provide a paragraph from a chapter discussing The Spectrum of Consciousness from the Dalai Lama's book, The Universe in a Single Atom.

On the phenomenological level, we can discern the process by which our mind can go through transitions between several different, in some cases diametrically opposed states. For example, let us ask whether it was on the moon or on Mars that Neil Armstrong set his foot in 1969. A person could begin by believing strongly that it was Mars. Then, as a result of hearing about the latest Mars probe, he or she might start to waver in this conviction. Once it becomes clear that no manned mission to Mars has yet taken place, he or she might lean toward the correct conclusion that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. Finally, as a result of speaking to other people and reading accounts of the Apollo mission, the individual may arrive at the correct answer to the original question. In a case like this, we can see that the mind goes from a state of total error, through a state of wavering, to correct belief, and finally to true knowledge.
- Dalai Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom, p.174

I feel this adequately represents a process of reasoning, within which belief is an essential component. Beliefs are necessary in order to bring about knowledge, and are inevitably held when knowledge on certain things is simply not attainable. For example, on the topic of God everyone holds a belief, as nobody can know whether or not God exists. Furthermore, there is very little choice in the matter, as your experience and process of reasoning inevitably leads you towards a particular conviction. You can either believe in God or not. Even if your reasoning leads you to conclude that you cannot know of the existence of God, one way or another, you will most certainly form a belief on the subject. At best, what you can do from here is simply suspend this belief and make the best effort not to let it influence your actions/decisions.

Let me also clarify what I mean when I say "God." I don't mean a stereotypical omniscient old man with white beard, living amongst the clouds. I simply mean a transcendental force, creator, a prime mover. The former I would consider a groundless belief, as there really is no reason to conclude that such an entity exists. However, from our experience of existence, observing the cause-and-effect nature of reality, the perceived order and beauty, it is at the very least reasonable to believe that there was a beginning to it all, a first cause. I don't adopt this belief myself, but I can most certainly empathize with those that do.

Originally Posted by Akamu

I don't see choosing to trust and having faith to be the same thing. Trusting a partner should be based on your knowledge of her character and your evaluation of the strength of your relationship. As I said above, having faith would mean holding the belief that your partner isn't cheating on you based on no prior experiences.

This simply makes me question whether or not trust is ever a choice. If your partner were to cheat on you, and you choose to give them a second chance, you are not simultaneously choosing to trust them. You cannot simply turn trust on like a light-switch. However you can choose to remain committed and make an attempt to allow trust to be replenished, you are giving them a second chance to earn your trust. Does that make sense? I realize that people often use the word 'trust' in that way, but I do not feel it is appropriate.

The whole point here is that reasoning on the topic of love and trust does not provide one with knowledge, it provides one with belief and faith. No matter how good or bad my relationship is, I am forced to have faith, not knowledge, that my partner will remain faithful.

Originally Posted by Akamu

I also want to clarify one thing in my argument. I think it is constructing a false dichotomy to say that everything is either reason or faith.

I couldn't agree more! As faith is not the antithesis of reason, it is the antithesis of knowledge. Even then it is not a clear-cut dichotomy, but rather just a useful distinction between a belief that is held based on cold, hard logic, and a belief that is held based on a sort of subtle intuition.

Originally Posted by Akamu

If I drop my pen 1,000 times in the past and every time it falls down, is it then an appeal to faith that it will fall for the 1,001st time? Or is it reasonable to believe it will?

I think this example might be an oversimplification of the topic at hand. Firstly, what reason would you have to doubt that the pen will fall for the 1,001st time in the first place? I'm talking about faith in things that cannot be subjected to controlled, empirical experiments. What you are describing is a process of reasoning specifically designed to bring about knowledge, not faith. But in the absence of empirical evidence people can remain faithful in a particular view.

Originally Posted by Akamu

Fair enough, but don't you find it equally conceivable to suspend all groundless belief and arrive to the same conclusion through experience?

Groundless beliefs yes, faith no. As I have made an effort to explain above, belief is in most respects simply a product of reasoning. You can try to remain unbiased by them, which is why the scientific method is so beneficial at providing facts and knowledge, but without beliefs the entire scientific frontier would simply be a random, stumble-and-roll method. Beliefs can provide people with insight, provide people with creative thoughts which can yield empirical tests to provide truth. Galileo, Newton and Einstein were not only reasonable, but faithful as well.

Originally Posted by Akamu

Also, you speak of removing the belief as likened unto removing an irksome splinter. So I ask you, why must you get a splinter in your finger in the first place?

Well, it was a metaphor. But to reiterate, people do not really choose their beliefs, just like people don't often choose to get a splinter. All I really meant is that if you are holding a particular belief and are provided with the necessary insight to either affirm or renounce that belief, it is beneficial either way. Like the process of scientific empiricism, falsification is key as it eliminates things from consideration. Does that make more sense?

[wuwei]

Originally Posted by Akamu

You are perfectly free to believe that for yourself, but can't you imagine a scenario in which no faith is involved in doing the practice? Just simple trial, error, adjustment, etc. If you can imagine this, then faith is not necessary and essential to the practice of Buddhism.

That does not eliminate faith. You still have the basic faith that what worked in the past work in the future, or what did not work in the past will not work in the future.

Hume taught us long ago why that isn't a logical reason to believe.

[Akamu]

Originally Posted by wuwei

That does not eliminate faith. You still have the basic faith that what worked in the past work in the future, or what did not work in the past will not work in the future.

Hume taught us long ago why that isn't a logical reason to believe.

It has been established that we are using different definitions of faith: something which is at the source of all disagreement in this thread. I defined faith as holding true a belief which is not grounded in anything other than maybe a strong desire for that belief to be true. Perhaps someone has faith in the Christian God because they like the sound of living forever in eternal paradise and will thus adhere to Christian morals so they reap the benefits.

This does not exist in the essentials of Buddhism, in my opinion (though I certainly admit some sects have "relgionized" Buddhism more than others). Under my definition, it isn't faith to believe if something happened many times before that it will happen again. This conclusion is based in observation, nothing more. Faith would entail me believing I can jump off my roof and take flight without ever having done so before.

I should add I don't believe reason to be infallible, far from it. I admitted this early in the thread. Arguments from induction fall quite short of explaining the whole picture and often err. But it doesn't make much sense to me to adopt a conclusion before following the steps to confirm it. I'd rather start from the bottom and work my way up, purging those things from my experience that I deem unhelpful/unskillful/etc. and nurturing those opposite qualities. It seems like a superfluous step to me to first hold a groundless belief and then work to eliminate or confirm it. It is the human tendency to become too attached to these sorts of beliefs before they are put to the test. If you diagree with this, try having a civil, reasonable discussion about God with any Evangelical Christian. It takes a pretty extraordinary human not to become too attached to their beliefs...though it certainly isn't impossible. And for those of you who feel your way is better, so be it.

[the_aphid]

Originally Posted by Akamu

Faith would entail me believing I can jump off my roof and take flight without ever having done so before.

I simply think that this is an inadequate definition of faith. I mean, quite frankly if you were to tell me you believe you can fly and proceeded to jump off your roof, I wouldn't describe you as 'faithful', I would likely suggest you are deluded or insane. This is because you are strictly opposing logical, observable proof to the contrary, that being the consistency of gravity. Basically this is how I make the distinction, delusion opposes logical proof where faith simply doesn't rest upon it. Does that make sense?

[Akamu]

So you think the "faith" of various religions doesn't oppose logical, observable proof? I could give a near endless list that would demonstrate otherwise.

I'll grant you that maybe faith can extend towards the meaning you seem to be trying to convey through the term (not that "faith" essentially means anything, as language is utterly arbitrary and subjective, hence the constant semantic battles that ensue on forums like this), but if you are claiming that the same faith which resonates through other religions also forms a basis in Buddhism, then I am going to have to agree to disagree with you. Buddhism is perfectly capable of operating independently of this faith. What sets Buddhism apart, in my opinion, is one can not believe anything and still be a practicing Buddhist.

[the_aphid]

Originally Posted by Akamu

So you think the "faith" of various religions doesn't oppose logical, observable proof? I could give a near endless list that would demonstrate otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the faith of various religions", as there is a vast multitude of faiths and a rich diversity of religions in this world. It's almost like you are saying that on one side there are all the uncompromising and dogmatic Faithful Religions, and on the other side is Faithless Buddhism, as if every religious tradition is plagued by rigid orthodoxy except Buddhism.

As for opposing logic, what logical and observable proof does it oppose to believe in a first cause or creator? Is causality not observable? What exactly is opposed by belief in some form of afterlife or reincarnation?

If you are just talking about fundamentalist 'faith' in Creationism which is opposed to the observable evidence of Evolutionary theory, then yes, this 'faith' is opposed to reason. But as we've already established, this is not my definition of faith. There are a number of self-described Religious people in this world that do believe in Evolution and have lives dedicated to the empirical investigation of the environment. Are you suggesting those people are wrong to call themselves Christians or Hindus or Muslims?

Originally Posted by Akamu

I'll grant you that maybe faith can extend towards the meaning you seem to be trying to convey through the term ... but if you are claiming that the same faith which resonates through other religions also forms a basis in Buddhism, then I am going to have to agree to disagree with you. Buddhism is perfectly capable of operating independently of this faith. What sets Buddhism apart, in my opinion, is one can not believe anything and still be a practicing Buddhist.

Well, I would simply say that the faith you seem to be referring to is not a requirement of any Religion, it is a requirement of Orthodoxy, the thoughtless and unquestioning adoption of a particular 'right view'. However, the faith I am referring to is simply part of being human, which means that it is just as much a part of being an Atheist as a Buddhist. Whether or not you label yourself as Religious is irrelevant, you are inevitable forced to hold a set of beliefs and then allow those beliefs to impact your choices and actions to a varying extent. In Buddhism, this is what I believe saddha means, and it should be cultivated and perfected along with knowledge and wisdom.