On Definitions, and Reality (?)

Image via WikipediaRachel has a page on her blog (click here) called "Buddhism Is a Religion." She concludes her page by saying: “Clearly, Buddhism has all the elements of a religion… Buddhism contains the same fallacies of other religions and at the right time, it is just as dangerous as other religions.” I talked a bit about part of my conversation with Rachel in an earlier post (here). But the conversation continued after that, and I am still thinking about some of what we discussed. So, at the risk of a bit of re-hashing and repetition, I am writing again about all this, today.

To begin with, I was curious about what Rachel considered the necessary (and sufficient) “elements” of a “religion,” and in what way Buddhism (broadly speaking; there are a LOT of subtypes, with different ideas about cosmology, “gods,” bodhisattvas, hell realms, etc.) necessarily meets the elements of her definition of "religion.” For example, is "dogmatism," or a required belief in something that cannot be established, a defining characteristic of "religion"? Certainly, within the Christian religion, dogma is a chief feature. Christianity (along with some other religions) has a very unfortunate history of trying to force its dogmatic beliefs onto others... [And this is still going on, we are learning, within the U.S. military forces (see this article).]

But, might it not be true that, within every worldview, some dogmatism can be found? For some scientists, especially among those who describe themselves as atheists, it appears that reductionistic materialism occupies the function of a dogma; and scientists who are not convinced that reductionistic materialism can ever fully describe some phenomena (consciousness, for example) are often told that they are not truly “scientists.” And some atheists proclaim a dogmatic belief that there is no entity that can accurately be described as "God," or an intelligent creator of the universe.

I have studied Buddhism quite a bit, and I quite sure that not all Buddhists have a set of dogmas (necessary but un-provable “beliefs”) about, for example, “divine” figures or “gods.” But, certainly, a person would not accurately be described as a Buddhist if s/he did not agree that the core teachings are sound. The same, of course, is true within many disciplines; if a psychotherapist comes to the conclusion that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is not effective for the alleviation of cognitive/emotional/behavioral problems, then that person could not accurately be described as a “cognitive-behavioral therapist.” But that really doesn’t make CBT a “religion,” does it? Whether or not CBT is helpful is an empirical question, and I think the same is true of the core teachings (or principles) of Buddhism. And that is something that makes Buddhism attractive to me.

Can Buddhist principles truly be “empirically tested”? Buddhism claims, and has claimed for a very long time, that it opens itself up to experiential (or phenomenological) verification. But some would point out that this type of verification does not involve what we like to think of as “hard” empirical data… “hard” being a reference to measuring sticks, and material “stuff” that can be "objectively" measured or weighed. I am a psychologist, so I occupy a sort of middle realm of measurement, in which we find ways to measure such (perhaps "softer") constructs as: depression; attentional capacity; anxiety… that sort of "stuff." And I believe that science itself has demonstrated that we are just a bit naive as to what we think of as “matter,” perhaps not so far advanced as we might like to think... We actually seem to resemble the pre-Socratic Greek fellows who were debating much the same questions that we are, today: What is the ultimate nature of reality? Is it stuff… or is it mind? And, if it is “stuff,” then… What is “stuff”?

Rachel mentioned various Buddhist ideas: e.g., reincarnation, and karma, and the “wheel of samsara,” (which of course is not a wooden wheel somewhere in a particular place, like maybe an old ferris wheel in Ohio); but, in my experience, these ideas are understood at various levels, and in various ways, by Buddhists. For some Buddhists, reincarnation is thought of in very literal, physical, materialistic terms. For others, not so much so. And the same is true within Christianity: some think of the “resurrection” of Jesus very literally (something that could have been videotaped)… others, not so. And psychologists would say that the capacity to understand such beliefs in metaphorical (non-literal) ways is a developmental achievement... one that not everyone achieves.

What is a "religion"? Appealing to a powerful deity, and requiring belief in unprove-able dogma(s) might be considered “core” characteristics of a religion. Another core characteristic I would like to add would be that religions generally tend to meet (more or less!) the human need (or desire, if you prefer) for meaning, for community, for a basis for morality, and (for some people, and in some religions) for a sense that there is something larger than humanity that “cares about” humanity. So, I think that you might say that Buddhism functions as a “religion” for many people, even if you strip away the requirements of belief in a “powerful deity,” and “dogma.”

Can a person be a “real” Buddhist if s/he does not believe in the “historical Buddha,” or reincarnation (for example)? Can a person be a “real” Catholic if s/he does not believe that “artificial birth control” is sinful… or if s/he does not believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary ascended bodily into “heaven”? We would have to say that it depends on whose definition you accept!

The fundamentalist right-wing “traditionalist” Catholics enjoy telling the more liberal, Vatican II-type Catholics that they are not REALLY Catholic; and the same sort of thing goes on in many religions, world views, academic disciplines, etc. Certainly it happened within psychoanalysis, with a vengeance. We humans are strongly driven to the creation of groups, from which we can then exclude others! Happily, Buddhists (especially in the West!) are not usually so dogmatic and parochial; I cannot imagine being chastised, in Buddhist circles, for expressing doubt as to any of the Buddhist teachings. "Doubt" might be considered a "hindrance," but it is not a grounds for being judged un-orthodox. And, even in the Catholic Church, which is MUCH more monolithic and authoritarian than (I think) any branch of Buddhism, you will find a host of variation in the private reality of individual “beliefs” … (and I truly doubt that there are very many who would pass an orthodoxy exam, using a polygraph…)

And, as to the "Is It A Religion, Or Not" question? The bottom line is: I am not optimistic about trying to define the "essential elements” of "religion." Not all constructs or entities lend themselves to this kind of definition, even though we might strenuously attempt to force them to do so. And, even lacking any single required essential element, they do not then disappear, as if they were not "real"! A good example, with which I am all-too-familiar, is the set of entities known as “mental disorders,” which are “defined” in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR). For many, if not most, of these disorders, the diagnostic criteria are polythetic, meaning that there might be, for example, three diagnostic criteria, of which none of them is required for diagnosis. To make the diagnosis, you might just need any two of the three. So you will have four different manifestations of the “disorder” without any single “essential” characteristic. These are what are called “fuzzy” categories, and there are a lot of them; "religion," clearly, is one of them. This is why I prefer to inquire about “core” characteristics without insisting that a proper definition include any one (or more) “essential” characteristics.

I think that we tend to get a bit too anxious to reify our definitions, to set them in stone, so that we can experience some certainty, and so that we really feel that we know what we are talking about. That makes us feel comfortable. But reality, I think, is wilder than that. And this brings us to one of the core teachings of Buddhism, called anatta (sometimes translated as "no self"). One of the great insights within Buddhist thinking is the realization that all of our attempts to "nail down" reality are going to fall short. The closer we look at anything (including what we think of as our own "self") the more we realize that the "thing" we are looking for eludes our grasp; we can name its characteristics, but they are always in flux, and they don't ever really add up to a fixed, solid object, with nice sharp "edges" that separate it from all that surrounds (and penetrates) it. And the more that we cling to our cherished definitions and beliefs, the more we tend to suffer.

Related articles

• Christianism In The Military [via Zemanta]
• Atheist versus Bishop [via Zemanta]