No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
dhammafriend
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:19 am

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by dhammafriend »

Belief in God, gods, spirits etc are all taught to people, hence you have churches, temples, bible study, Islamic schools etc.
The creator god concept comes from a very basic mistake in logic: The assumption that we just have to find the right god who made all this stuff.
No-one seriously questions the assumption that there is a god in the first place (because the argument would collapse). Also, how do you prove it was not 3 gods who made everything or 33 for that matter?

The concept of God/ gods serves an emotional function for human beings. i.e.: That there is ultimately a way to control your experience (because even if you are not in charge the god / goddess is) This provides immense comfort and solace when things get out of control: sudden deaths in the family, change of fortune etc. Its a coping mechanism thats thousands of years old. The problem with the concept is that its only as good as what we can image it to be. If people are aggressive and war-like, their chosen deity simply reflects that. And the reverse as well.

At the end of the day the Buddha spoke against it as wrong view as it is another manifestation of tanha and upadana based on avijja. So whether you are monistic, monotheistic, polytheistic, henotheistic etc. Whatever point of attachment you have, no matter how sublime the experience or refined the argument, if you cling to it, you suffer.

Thats the whole point of Dhamma (utterly unique in this world). He didn't teach to give us more things to build up and cling to. Especially ditthi (views) The best view is right view (samma ditthi) that leads to the end of attachment to all views. Fools try to cover the earth with leather, the wise put on sandals. Sadhu X3

Dhammafriend
Metta
Dhammafriend

Natthi me saranam annam buddho me saranam varam
For me there is no other refuge, the Buddha is my excellent refuge.
Etena saccavajjena vaddheyyam satthu-sasane
By the utterance of this truth, may I grow in the Master’s Way.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote:But would they not be believing in an eternal self/permanent spiritual substance/essence by believing in God?
He would be the eternal one, not them.
Some do, some don't.
There are even self-identified Christians who believe in evolution and who believe that all that about God and the Bible is somehow a metaphor.

Bottomline, there is so much variety among people who say that they believe in God that I really see no reliable pattern or conclusion to come to about belief in God as such.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by tiltbillings »

  • "The assumption that a God is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in the eternal self (atman, i.e. permanent spiritual substance, essence or personality); but that belief has to be abandoned, if one has clearly understood that everything is impermanent and subject to suffering." Abhidharmakosha 5, 8 vol IV, p 19

Sam Vara wrote:
I think one can choose to believe, however, at least in a limited sense. One might not know the roots of one's belief, or one might wilfully ignore them. One goes to sources where the belief is confirmed, and one thinks about it in a positive light, etc. If we can choose to cultivate a belief and make it stronger, then to that extent we are choosing it.
One of the things that must be understood here is that the belief referred to is not necessarily referring to conceptual beliefs volitionally assumed. The sense of self, with which we assume -- believe -- we are, is a manifestation of ignorance, and in many ways that ignorance fueled belief trumps any sort of volitionally assumed belief. It would be out of that ignorance fueled "belief" that the assumption of a god grounded.

Point taken, and there are indeed such Christians. But would they not be believing in an eternal self/permanent spiritual substance/essence by believing in God? He would be the eternal one, not them.
  • Samyutta Nikaya III 144; CDB 954: "Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a small lump of dung on his palm], there is not even this much of individual existence [attabhava] that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was this much individual existence that was permanent , stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living the of the holy for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned."
The point is that the fundamental ignorance driven self belief assumes a reality about itself that is not true, according to the Buddha, to the way things are in fact. The assumption of a god, self writ large, is a way of protecting oneself against the reality that constantly encroaches the assumed reality of our ignorance driven self.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by binocular »

tiltbillings wrote:The assumption of a god, self writ large, is a way of protecting oneself against the reality that constantly encroaches the assumed reality of our ignorance driven self.
Do you have a reference from the Pali Canon (and not secondary or tertiary texts) that supports this?

Although I'll grant that when people _assume_ the existence of God ("assume" as opposed to "know"), they may indeed be attempting to protect themselves in some way.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
dhammafriend
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:19 am

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by dhammafriend »

For those intent on positing God* (why not 2 or 3 or 45 gods? ) please read through these suttas below. Buddhist epistemology will not allow for such a being/reality within its own systems, whether pantheistic, monistic, monotheistic etc. It's not something that been overlooked for 2500 years. It's been dealt with in every tradition from Sri Lanka to China, Tibet, you name it.

Sabba Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
...Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Kalama Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Bhara Sutta The Buddha cuts to the chase here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Brahmajala Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html

Can you add salt to cement? Yes. Is it necessary? No. All religions are free to interpret their religious experiences as they wish. Nothing wrong with that. If its true for them subjectively then great! The problem arises when others do not see it the same way. And we can't have that now can we?

*I mean a creator deity who caused all existence and is involved in the day to day affairs of humans.

Dhammafriend
Metta
Dhammafriend

Natthi me saranam annam buddho me saranam varam
For me there is no other refuge, the Buddha is my excellent refuge.
Etena saccavajjena vaddheyyam satthu-sasane
By the utterance of this truth, may I grow in the Master’s Way.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by Spiny Norman »

tiltbillings wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote: We can choose to believe or disbelieve.
It is not quite so simple as choosing, as in choosing between a red shirt or blue shirt, given the roots of such a beief:
Sure, some of this stuff goes quite deep. But I don't accept that we have no control over our beliefs or that we are stuck with them for all time. And the same goes for disbeliefs.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by Spiny Norman »

binocular wrote: An example of such people are some modern Christians who believe in Darwinian evolution, believe in God, call themselves Christians, but don't believe they are eternal.
Modern Christianity is very diverse, and there is a degree of secularisation - there are now some non-theist Christians, strange as that may seem.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote:
Sam Vara wrote:But would they not be believing in an eternal self/permanent spiritual substance/essence by believing in God?
He would be the eternal one, not them.
Some do, some don't.
There are even self-identified Christians who believe in evolution and who believe that all that about God and the Bible is somehow a metaphor.

Bottomline, there is so much variety among people who say that they believe in God that I really see no reliable pattern or conclusion to come to about belief in God as such.
Yes, there are a small number of self-identified Christians who are non-realist and pragmatist. The "Sea of Faith" group associated with Cambridge theologian Don Cupitt are one example. Interestingly, the Buddhist writer Stephen Batchelor draws heavily upon Cupitt's ideas. It's quite easy to find agreement between faiths when the underlying assumption is that there is no objective reality over which one might disagree!

In the case of those Christians who believe in a contingent God, I am happy to say that there is no disagreement with Buddhism. "God" becomes part of a khanda, an idea in the mind.

Credit to you, binocular. If I have understood this right, you are using the complexity and contingent nature of the world to avoid needless disputes over essences.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by Sam Vara »

tiltbillings:
One of the things that must be understood here is that the belief referred to is not necessarily referring to conceptual beliefs volitionally assumed. The sense of self, with which we assume -- believe -- we are, is a manifestation of ignorance, and in many ways that ignorance fueled belief trumps any sort of volitionally assumed belief
Very possibly, which is why I was careful to say that to a limited extent, we can choose our beliefs. For example, if subject to ignorance, we can to some degree choose what to do with our sense of self, or a belief in another "essence".
It would be out of that ignorance fueled "belief" that the assumption of a god grounded.
If you are saying that a belief in God is dependent upon our sense of self, that may well be true; but it is not self-evidently so. It doesn't appear to be inherently contradictory for a person to believe in God, while not being subject to the type of ignorance which gives rise to our own sense of self. You say that
The assumption of a god, self writ large, is a way of protecting oneself against the reality that constantly encroaches the assumed reality of our ignorance driven self.
but this looks like a statement of psychological fact. It may be true, and it may not be, for any sentient being capable of holding the beliefs in question. But why should I believe it to be true?
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by Mkoll »

Sam Vara wrote:If you are saying that a belief in God is dependent upon our sense of self, that may well be true; but it is not self-evidently so. It doesn't appear to be inherently contradictory for a person to believe in God, while not being subject to the type of ignorance which gives rise to our own sense of self.
I would argue that belief of any sort automatically implies a sense of self. For there to be a belief, there must be "one who believes" that belief. How can there be a belief if there is no believer?

But this is using objective language as though these things abstractions were concrete. The reality of belief is more like a verb: "believing" which depends on causes and conditions, one of which is ignorance.

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by Sam Vara »

Mkoll wrote:
Sam Vara wrote:If you are saying that a belief in God is dependent upon our sense of self, that may well be true; but it is not self-evidently so. It doesn't appear to be inherently contradictory for a person to believe in God, while not being subject to the type of ignorance which gives rise to our own sense of self.
I would argue that belief of any sort automatically implies a sense of self. For there to be a belief, there must be "one who believes" that belief. How can there be a belief if there is no believer?

But this is using objective language as though these things abstractions were concrete. The reality of belief is more like a verb: "believing" which depends on causes and conditions, one of which is ignorance.

:anjali:
There can be a belief without a believer in the same way that there can be any mental activity without an enduring self. "Thoughts without a thinker", etc. As you say in your second paragraph, "believing" arises upon conditions. I'm not sure if ignorance is a necessary condition for that to happen, but I think the Buddha was clear that selfhood was not.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by tiltbillings »

Sam Vara wrote:
tilt brilliantly wrote:The assumption of a god, self writ large, is a way of protecting oneself against the reality that constantly encroaches the assumed reality of our ignorance driven self.
but this looks like a statement of psychological fact. It may be true, and it may not be, for any sentient being capable of holding the beliefs in question. But why should I believe it to be true?
Why should you? Damdifino. Whether you do or do not is of no interest to me. I am simply looking at how this question is looked at within the Buddha's teachings.
  • Bhikkhus, what exists by clinging to what, by adhering to what does view of self arise? … When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, view of self arises. When there is feeling…perception…voltional formations…consciousness, by clinging to consciousness, view of self arises. … Seeing thus… He understands: …there is no more for this state of being. – SN III 185-6
    Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. SN III 46
So, the question is what gives rise to a belief in a god, an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos? Given that such a thing is defined pretty much in this mold by theistic religions, particularly the monotheistic versions: "That Worshipful Brahma, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever", what drives such a belief?

In the Brahmanically derived systems we find in one of the very few Upanishads that pre-date the Buddha, the Chandogya Upanishad, tat tvam asi You are That. While variously interpreted by the various later Hindu schools, it certainly reflects a direct connexion between the atman, the "Inner Controller, and the ultimate divine, Brahman, That, also personified as Brahma.

Also from the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 1.4.10-11:

== 10. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman. It knew only itself
(atmanam): "I am Brahman!" Therefore it became the All. Whoever of
the gods became awakened to this, he indeed became it; likewise in the
case of seers (rsi), likewise in the case of men. Seeing this, indeed, the
seer Vamadeva began:-

I was Manu and the sun (surya)!

This is so now also. Whoever thus knows "I am Brahman!" becomes this
All; even the gods have not power to prevent his becoming thus, for he
becomes their self (atman).

So whoever worships another divinity [than his Self], thinking "He is
one and I another," he knows not. He is like a sacrificial animal for the
gods. Verily, indeed, as many animals would be of service to a man,
even so each single person is of service to the gods. If even one animal
is taken away, it is not pleasant. What, then, if many? Therefore it is
not pleasing to those [gods] that men should know this.
11. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman, one only. ==

The Buddha responds with one of most significant text in the whole of the suttas (SN IV 15):

"Monks, I will teach you the all. And what is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds the nose and odors, the tongue and
tastes, the body and touch, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. If anyone, monks, should speak thus: ' Having rejected
this all, I shall make known another all' --that would be a mere empty boast."


In the 83rd discourse of the Middle Length Sayings: "God [Brahma] truthfully answers [the questions of the Buddha] in succession: 'Good sir, those views I previously held are not mine; I see the radiance the world of God as passing; how could I say that I am permanent and eternal?'"

The Buddha states (Anguttara-Nikaya X 29): As far as the suns and moons extend their courses and the regions of the sky shine in splendour, there is a thousandfold world system. In each single one of these there are a thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains, four times a thousand continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all stages of the realm of sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far as a thousandfold world system reaches in other words, the universe], the Great God is the highest being. But even the Great God is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be.'

The interesting point here is that there is no thing to be found that is not subject to coming-to-be and ceasing to-to-be.

Ratthaphala, in MN 82 ii 68, reports the Buddha as saying "The universe is without refuge, a Supreme God [Attaan.o loko anabhissaro]." Where does the belief in a god come from, what drives it? Simply, I would say, working from the Buddha's teaching that what drives it is the precarious sense of self that we have. A divine protector, creator certainly is not needed according to the Buddha, and he certainly did not speak of such a belief in a favorable light.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by Mkoll »

Sam Vara wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
Sam Vara wrote:If you are saying that a belief in God is dependent upon our sense of self, that may well be true; but it is not self-evidently so. It doesn't appear to be inherently contradictory for a person to believe in God, while not being subject to the type of ignorance which gives rise to our own sense of self.

I would argue that belief of any sort automatically implies a sense of self. For there to be a belief, there must be "one who believes" that belief. How can there be a belief if there is no believer?

But this is using objective language as though these things abstractions were concrete. The reality of belief is more like a verb: "believing" which depends on causes and conditions, one of which is ignorance.

:anjali:
There can be a belief without a believer in the same way that there can be any mental activity without an enduring self. "Thoughts without a thinker", etc. As you say in your second paragraph, "believing" arises upon conditions. I'm not sure if ignorance is a necessary condition for that to happen, but I think the Buddha was clear that selfhood was not.
I'm not saying that there is an enduring self behind the belief. Rather, there is "I-making" and "mine-making" which is a conditioned process. That conditioned process of I-making and mine-making is the "sense of self", "the one who believes", and the "believer" I was referring to. That's also why I said: "But this is using objective language as though these abstractions were concrete." As usual, the limits of language are stretched when it comes to talking about self and not-self.

Ignorance is a necessary condition as shown in dependent origination.
From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
-SN 12.15

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by Sam Vara »

tiltbillings

Most of what you post is about the Buddha explaining why God does not exist. That's all fine - unobjectionable and standard stuff. Anyone attempting to reconcile Buddhism with theism would need to take an extreme non-realist view of God, which simply makes him part of a khanda or "The All" - not the Brahma of the upanisads, nor the deity posited by most Christians. But you do ask the question:
Where does the belief in a god come from, what drives it?
and
So, the question is what gives rise to a belief in a god, an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos?
One would think, from the way you ask the question, that you have a convincing answer to offer. But you don't, and the "Damdifino" stuff looks like you want to reconsider such an offer unless it is accepted. Your point that a belief in self supports a belief in God is well made in the upanisadic case of "Thou art That". Brahmanism posits a literal identity between Atman and Brahman, so the case makes itself.

This is not so, however, when there is no literal identity: as, for example, in most forms of the Abrahamic religions. There, we have the problem of showing how the belief in a God who is somehow different from self, is dependent upon a belief in that self. I thought that your conviction that this is so would be somehow communicable, but I fully understand that it might not be.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: No believing in God is not such a good idea.

Post by Sam Vara »

Mkoll:

Sorry, you've lost me here. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. My original point is merely that a person does not need a belief in a self in order to believe in God. At least, they don't need to believe in a permanent personal existent in order to think that there is such a thing outside of them (i.e. a God). They do need ignorance, though...
Post Reply