Dear Anthony & Friends,

I enjoy the short theology discussion we had at the ROM cafeteria (but not the cold sandwich) last week, after viewing the Dead Sea scrolls again. We agreed that the so-called 'God' in the monotheistic religions like Judaism & Christianity, seemed to be something that the human race had outgrown, a projection of human needs, fear and desires, of which the atheists (Darwinists, Buddhists included) rejected.

There are more to it, of course, but just that we didn't have time to finish the discussion (it was 8 pm & ROM was closing). Hence, I feel obliged to share the following thoughts with you:

Further readings about the origins of Judaism, Christianity & Islam convinced me that the idea of 'God' is nothing more than a fabrication by humankind to serve their psychological, social & political needs, which change courses accordingly at different times of human history.

A good academic reference can be found in many sources, particularly from the following two books:

1. 'The Evolution of God' by Prof. Robert Wright, specialized in philosophy, psychology and archaeology.
2. 'A History of God' by Karen Armstrong, an ex-Roman Catholic nun turned into a religion essayist & commentator.

I highly recommend them, especially 'The evolution of God,' which tells the story of how 'God' in the western world 'grew up,' from the stages of hunter-gatherers, Shaman & chiefdom, polytheism and eventually to monotheism. It is intriguing to understand how & why the human religious thoughts are developed and evolved over time, from psychological and archaelogical standpoints. Absolutely thought provocative!!

Nothing can be more comprehensive than Prof. Richard Dawkins' two books: 'The God Delusion' and his latest 'The Greatest Show on Earth - the evidence of evolution.' They provide a panoramic view of the theory of evolution by natural selection, a strong academic and empirical argument against those non-believers who still have a misconception about a divine creator of the universe, or those who believe that human and dinosaurs co-existed at a particular time of history (that by itself, is a wake-up call for some of our friends, who mistakenly assume that "evolution is just a theory.")

More than a century ago, Nietzsche announced that 'God is dead,' so that human can enjoy the new kind of freedom, the freedom to find value for ourselves. But according to the evolution theory, he is alive and well, but just adapts & transforms...

Have you seen him (sorry ladies, Bible said God is man!) lately - is he the man in sunglass, carrying a Blackberry and buying stocks online while sipping his latte at Starbucks??

Last but not least, as Buddhists, we should follow the 'Noble Eightfold Path,' of which the cultivation of wisdom or insight (right view, right thought) is of prime importance and pre-requisite to attain 'nirvana.' How do we reconcile those misconceptions if you will, some of which are embedded in the traditional beliefs and doctrines in most of the religions till this date? And what would the 'prajna' or real wisdom lead us to?

Some foods for thought, indeed.  

Let me know when you're ready to discuss more.

Your Dharma pal,

Stephen

Dear Stephen,

Nietzsche said ‘God is dead’, but God said ‘Nietzsche is dead’.

Remember those graffiti in the U of T boys’ room. It goes to show that ‘Ch’an Moment’ can burst forth at any time. (I’ve never been to the U of T girls’ room, so I am not sure if the fairer sex is also so philosophically inclined.)

While I agree with many of the arguments put forth by the atheists to disprove the existence of God, I think the issue goes much deeper than rational discourse.

As you well know, a diversified portfolio has a much better chance of survival. I venture to say (with tongue-in-cheek) that God is the ultimate diversifier. The notion of God in the Western monotheistic tradition covers a wide range of meaning, as Karen Armstrong has so convincing showed in her writings. There was the Old Testament God who could be quite vengeful, to a kinder and gentler version in the New Testament. There is the God who embodies Rationality to the God who is beyond reason. There is the God who rewards and punishes, to the God who holds your hand while you are in distress. There is also the God who is unknowable, and the only way to approach Him is through total silence. (Does it sound like Ch’an?)

We humans have a yearning to be part of something bigger and better and perfect, and as long as that need exists, religion will survive.

So far we have been discussing the Western monotheistic religions. How about the Eastern tradition? How about the Hindu God and gods? The Hindus are both monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time. How about the Daoists? Is Dao equivalent to God but in a more naturalistic fashion? How about the Chinese Buddhists? Is Dharmakaya the same as an unknowable God?

When you read the history of religions, you see ideas and practices influence each others and evolve over time. That’s why it is sometimes frustrating to the practitioners of various faiths but is also makes it very interesting.

My only assessment of a religious person is whether piety has made him/her a wiser and better person, or, in many cases, turns him into stupider person with a closed mind. Equally important, a truly religious person does not really need to know all these big theories. A good heart is more than enough.

All major religions are under tremendous challenges in the Modern Age. This may be a prelude to something new and exciting.

Anthony

Thanks again Stephen for yet another two informative pieces.

Religion is normally not my cup of tea though I have my own stand by now (which I prefer to keep private and personal; the enclosed short piece for those who read Chinese may give a glimpse). I almost went crazy trying to prove/disprove God's existence after reading the likes of Descarte & Neitzsche in Philosophy 101 in 1973-74, but wisely (sic!)concluded before I finished the UoT course that it was a futile exercise: one either believes, or he/she does not. I have tremendous respect for the true believers: they are mostly kind and wise indivuduals, willing to share with us their kindness and wisdom as their respective religions would have taught them to. I also have the same respect for those who choose not to believe, as men and women of great character and personal integrity are not products of religiouis houses alone.

I normally describe as silly any attempt to rate any religion any higher/lower than any other. A god, if there is one, or the gods, if there are many, must be "above the fray" to be a true god, or gods, though Greek mythodology, inter alia, would want us to believe otherwise.....Such standard should apply to the "true beliver" too!!

Schoolmate: just that there is evolution, of the Darwinist school or not, does not NECESSARILY negate the existence of god. Science and religion/God's existence need not rule each other out (even Einstein chose to believe, friends!) The reasoning? How about the legitimate question that : COULD IT BE THAT EVEN SCIENCE (which would include evolutionary theories I believe) WAS CREATED BY GOD (to create jobs for scientists, among other reasons/purposes)....?

I said it's not my cupo'tea. Pardon me for this "hit and run". Unlikely that I will engage in any further discourse after this halfpence piece...

SK/HG

»

From Stephen:

"Dear Friends,

Thank you for your invaluable comments. The more ideas we exchange, the deeper we drill, think & reflect, the farther we move away from ignorance, and hopefully bring us a step closer to the truth?

I'd like to share some of my thoughts which correspond to both of your last emails,
by using Anthony's text, in purple color as below. Hope this may of interest to you.

Dear Stephen,

Nietzsche said ‘God is  dead’, but God said ‘Nietzsche is dead’.

While the 'old God' is dead, 'The Absolute' (or the 'Ultimate' if you will) and the idea of Nietzsche are alive & well. They have adapted and transformed, in tandom with the changes of our minds, just like any other evolutionary behaviors of our ancestors throughout the history of humankind.

Nietzsche remains one of the 19th century's most misunderstood and misquoted philosophers, as most people who have misquoted him have never read his books or have misinterpreted his meaning from its face value (just like Darwin's evolution theory, sigh!). His famous catchphrase: 'God is dead' is not an out-cry of despair or desperation. On contrary, he prophetically points out that the western civilization is on the verge of a spiritual crisis, and something new is badly needed to sustain us, otherwise we'll plummet into the horrors of nihilism. Nietzsche views this crisis with excitment or even euphoria, because he sees in it as a new kind of freedom, a freedom to find new values for ourselves, without the shackles of the religious burden.

Let's take a listen to what he exactly said:"In fact, we philosophers and 'free spirits' feel ourselves irradiated as by a new dawn by the report that the 'old God is dead'; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, presentiment and expectation..." 

Isn't this the same challenge the western civilization (majority Judeo-Christian
religion based) still faces today, or more stringent than ever with more advanced scientific developments than a century ago? 

In hindsight, his most notorious concept, that of the 'Superman' (you bet, he coined this phrase!), is in fact closer to Aristotle's man of virtue, is exactly what the doctor's order for today, in the wake of the near-collapse of the western faith, thanks to the challenges of the various disciplines of the modern science.

On a similar vein, the challenge to look for new human values free of superstitions & rituals, that are driven by fear & desire, or projections of human needs (i.e. political, economical, psychological & social), is equally devastating to all religions around the world, be it eastern or western traditions.

Remember those graffiti in the U of T boys’ room. It goes to show that ‘Ch’an Moment’ can burst forth at
any time. (I’ve never been to the U of T girls’ room, so I am not sure if the fairer sex is also so philosophically inclined.)

While I agree with many of the arguments put forth by the atheists to disprove the existence of God, I think the issue goes much deeper than rational discourse.

As you well know, a diversified portfolio has a much better chance of survival. I venture to say (with tongue-in-cheek) that God is the ultimate diversifier. (The ultimate goal of diversification is to hedge against potential risks. Is that what you have in mind, Dr. Kwok?)  The notion of God in the Western monotheistic tradition covers a wide range of meaning, as Karen Armstrong has so  convincing showed in her writings. There was the Old Testament God who could be quite vengeful, to a kinder and gentler version in the New Testament. There is the God who embodies Rationality to the God who is beyond reason. There is the God who rewards and punishes, to the God who holds your hand while you are in  istress. There is also the God who is unknowable, and the only way to approach
Him is through total silence. (Does it sound like Ch’an?)

Karen Armstrong, the ex-Catholic nun, heads down the wrong path in my humble opinion. Robert Wright, also a Christian by birth, has a more analytical & compelling argument in explaining the gradual changes of character of the Abrahamic 'God' or 'Yahweh' in the Old Testament. He suggests that these changes were primarily driven by the political, economical and social factors at that time (& he explains the links to history & geopolitics along with it) that had  transformed Abrahamic belief from polytheism with many gods (with specific  names based not on speculation, but on evidence) along with 'Yahweh' (the jealous & struggling god at one time), to a single god in the end thru mergers and acquisitions, just like the business world of today; and from a 'warrior or angry god' that destroys and kills all non-believers or dissents, 'handy-man god' (he'd done
everything by himself with flying colors!) to a 'lais-sez faire god' shortly before the Common Era, as monopoly began to take hold. The discrepancy in God's character described in the different gospels is also due to the later editions   corrections by the establishment based on the political needs of the Catholic Church in various medieval times.

We have to use our logics & common sense to de-mystify those stories created by the people who were religious bias! Equally so, we should guard against our own intuition or misperception which may be the result of some uncontested education since our childhood.

We humans have a yearning to be part of something bigger and better and perfect, and as long as
that need exists, religion will survive.

Be careful with your assumption about human nature, it's been proven dubious at best or simply dead wrong by many scientists. In his book called 'The Blank Slate' by Steven Pinker, a fellow Canadian as well as the MIT distinguished professor of psychology, he challenges the three linked dogmas being embraced by many intellectuals who have denied the existence of human nature: the 'Blank Slate' (the mind has no innate traits), the 'Noble Savage' (people are born good and corrupted by society), and the 'Ghost in the Machine' (each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology). Each dogma carries a moral burden, so their defenders have engaged in desperate tactics to discredit the scientists who are now challenging them on the grounds of neuroscience & genetics.

So far we have been discussing the Western monotheistic religions. How about the Eastern tradition?
How about the Hindu God and gods? The Hindus are both monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time. How about the Daoists? Is Dao equivalent to God but in a more naturalistic fashion? How about the Chinese Buddhists? Is Dharmakaya the same as an unknowable God?

When you read the history of religions, you see ideas and practices influence each others and evolve over time. That’s why it is sometimes frustrating to the practitioners of various faiths but is also makes it very interesting.

I see the probable linkage and cross-influence between these religions, and the commonality of the undeniable 'human creation' among them, especially when we look at them from a historical and geographical perspectives - the 3 monotheistic religions (Judiasm,Christianity, & Islam are all based on Abrahamic beliefs written in the Hebrew Bible) and Zoroastrianism of Persia (whose concepts about the creation, the evil twins - angels & demons, hell & heaven, coming of savior &
last judgement day had proven to be earlier than the Jews'. I speculate that the
Israelites, being a smaller state than the more powerful & culturally advanced Mesopotamia-Persian empire, had taken a large page from them in terms of their ancient belief and probably had adopted these concepts into their Hebrew Bible?) are originated in the Middle East; while Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism are all from the Ancient India, which is within proximity to the M.E., where trades, travels & wars between them have provided ample opportunities for them to cross-fertilize each other since the beginning of time. The big melting pot hypothesis is something one should bear in mind when studying religion history.

My only assessment of a religious person is whether piety has made him/her a wiser and better person, or, in many cases, turns him into stupider person with a closed mind. Equally important, a truly religious person does not really need to know all these big theories. A good heart is more than enough.

I have reservation to this notion - "a truly religious person does not really need to know all these big theories. A good hear is more than enough?" If so, then why in Buddhism, 'prajna' or wisdom has always been the top priority or pre-requisite if you may, though seldomly been neglected by many Buddhists, to displace ignorance, which is the root cause of all karmas amd hence all sufferings?

All major religions are  under tremendous challenges in the Modern Age. This may be a prelude to
something new and exciting.

That's the question I've raised in my last email and that's what we all need to meditate, I mean deeply meditate & reflect:

How do we rediscover the true values of human race, free from superstition or religious dogmas, while in conciliation with the latest modern science developments by using our 'prajna' ?

I think the following suggestion by the British philosopher, A.C. Grayling said it all: "that it is only through reflecting the world, reading, thinking, questioning, enjoying,
that one can inculcate understanding, tolerance and the courage to live one's life."

--

hi Stephen, I do agree with you...we all need to be open-minded regardless of what belief system we are in...we can be closer to the truth when our Mind expands...

The mistake we make is often we reject others when "they" are different, under the assumption that if "they" are not like "us", they must be wrong or they must be of bad/evil influence etc. 

Why don't you lead the way?  I know you already are but further...

Yours truly in Dharma,

Grace

Dear Grace,

Thank you for your comments.

Allow me to borrow the title of the book 'Breaking the Spell - religion as a natural
phenomenon' by philosopher Daniel Dennett as an opening. (Btw, it is a good book and fun to read)

I appreciate your conviction on religion, but I'm somewhat concerned about your asymmetry on the merits of organized religion vs. its shortcomings, as clearly
manifested in your below message:

"Religions are established to help and to comfort humankind, in the midst of our fears, loss, sorrow, and pain etc.  The concept of the Christian "God" is meant to do exactly that, the idea served as a raft, a place where we can take refuge, a place where we can fall back on when all is gone, when we lose hope...Religions are there to serve the human needs.  There is no right or wrong, belief or disbelief."

In a separate note, I presume you blame the cause of conflict between different
religions, while failed to see the fundamental issues which are inherent in all
organized religions:

"The mistake we make is often we reject  others when "they" are different, under the assumption that if "they" are not like "us", they must be wrong or they must be of
bad/evil influence etc."

These arguments seem to have certain ground, yet a more analytical look will
demonstrate that they are just myths about organized religions which have been wrongly embedded in the minds of so many people.

While religion is "not the cup of tea" to my schoolmate SK; for many people around the world, there's nothing more important than religion, which remains as one of the most influential factors that shaped the social, political & cultural fabrics as well as the personal life of so many people around the world. Needless to say, it is crucial for us to place religion in a more balanced perspective, under the microscope of
TODAY'S proven scientific knowledge (even though my schoolmate SK suspects that science may be 'invented' by God to confuse us?) and common sense (i.e. by reason and not by the scriptures written in the medieval time!), to evaluate both its pros & cons with an open mind.

According to philosophy professor A.C. Grayling in his book 'The Reason of Things', he explained that there are four 'standard answers' to why religion exists, and I breifly quoted as follows:

"One is that it provides explanations - of the origin of the universe, of the way it
works, of the apparently inexplicable things that happen in it, and of why it includes evil and suffering. Another is that religion provides comfort, giving hope of life after death, providing reassurance in a hostile world, and a means (by supplication, propitiation, and the practice of one or another form of prescribed behavior) to get a better deal in it. A third is that it makes for social order, in promoting morality and social cohesion. And a fourth is that it rests on the natural ignorance, stupidity, superstitiousness and gullibility of mankind."

Concise and up to the point! It is a comprehensive overview why organized
religion has been in  existence since the beginning of human history. I would add to it that human insecurity, credulity, and desire (e.g. greed, love, hatred etc.) together with superstition and the need for comforting fables make us eager to
believe (oh, did I say, gullible?) anything that offers a glimpse of hope of the future.

As long as scientific ignorance or ill-educated human continue to dominate this world, organized religion WILL ALWAYS EXIST (as my dharma bro' Anthony would agree?). For the same reasons, rested the livelihood of  many charlatans - the palmists, astrologers, fung-sui masters (my friend Peter's day job after retirement?) & crystal-ball gazers. Isn't this a paradigm of all superstitions and wonderfully illustrates humanity's clever, igenious, and intricate capacity for folly, or we are just irrational?

Thanks to the many decades of consecutive peacetime since the end of WWII,
there have been astounding speed and extent of science progress, in the fields of astronomy (incldg, but not limited to erasing most of the myths about anything up in the sky), quantum physics (which deals with the fundamental structure of matter - a
challenge to the relation between mind and the world around us), biology (incldg. evolution and genetics science), psychology (esp. cognitive science, the study of brain & mind, consciousness etc.), computing (more powerful analyticals; artificial intelligence), geology (more understanding about the  planet earth and all living beings, incld. human & evolution), and archeology (more reliable evidence of human history, such as Dead Sea scrolls & biblical myths for example), just to name "a few."  While the modern science help to discover new knowledge, they challenge many of our conventional wisdom, religious beliefs, traditional thoughts, and moral values.

All these latest scientific developments invite us, if you will, first to seek KNOWLEDGE (how much do we really know about these stuffs, DIRECTLY from RELIABLE SOURCES, not mouth-feed by some media or religious groups?), then to ask QUESTIONS & seek understanding of everything comprehended under them, including all the prevailing BELIEFS & VALUE SYSTEMS that have been
endlessly re-asked and re-examined throughout human history, with each  generation making its own attempt to answers.  (Questions: when was the
last time we check our stocks? what role does laziness or complacency plays?)

The most dangerous thing we've ever done to ourselves and others is to make
comments, or worst to take position, about something we don't even have a clue (things we don't know we don't know!!). Think about all political, social, economical, cultural, or environmental (like global "warming"?) issues that keep bombarding on us everyday. If we are not 'armed' with adequate knowledge and a logical mind, we may fall victims to all kinds of propaganda or wrong idea, or may act foolishly or harm others which can be avoidable in the first place. But we all see it happens every single day! How do we stop all these nonsenses? Or  rather, how can we stop ignorance if we put our minds on auto-pilot???

Only if we follow the above-mentioned mind-paths with openness and honesty (i.e. NO PRE-ASSUMPTIONS or religious dogmas, no-hold-barred), we can competently acquire science knowledge; and with cross-examined ethical reflection, it will enable us the endeavour to reach sound decisions. This is the only way, in my humble opinion, to attain 'Right View' and 'Right Thought' in the Eightfold Path in the modern sense. As one moves from morality to meditation, success is then measured by the development of 'Prajna' or 'Wisdom,' the existential knowledge as a result of meditative experience. I believe this is what a Buddhist
should do if he/she really understands & follows the teachings of Buddha, in the context of today's world, to attain enlightenment or 'nirvana.' 

This is my two-cent about how to put Buddhism into practice, in its very essence and without the burden of dogmas.

With this note, I will leave it to you to examine the issues with organized
religion, and to further arrive at your own conclusion.

But only if you accept the challenge and the inconvenience caused (i.e time & effort). Are you game?

Your dharma pal,

Stephen

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your insight.  I can't help but having one question here for you: 

Do you, or would you consider Buddhism as religion?  Why?  and why not?

Hmmm...there is another question in reference to your comment relating to the "Right View" described in the "Eightfold Noble Path":

How do you define Right View according to the Buddhist text?  What is the core
principle that constitutes right view in our daily life, in our waking moments?  Is the so-called Right View indeed to be lived, to be experienced? totally intrinsic?  or something
according to our own perceptions?  Is it the way how we view the world and our own existence? or the way how we view ourselves and others?

I look forward to your elaboration and helping to shed some light?!

Grace

Dear Grace,

Since Stephen prefer to "hidden dragon" his wisdom, allow me to "cast a brick to entice jade in return". I believe in 3 axioms:

1) the truth should be simple.

2) definition is the key to productive communications.

3) one's definition reflects how open-minded and open-heart an individual is, therefore, how holistic or all-embracing one's view is. The more the openness the less the apparent contradictions.

Therefore, "is Buddhism a religion or not" depends on one's definition of religion. If religion is defined as a way to seek the ultimate truth, then all forms of religions qualify, including Buddhism and science. If religion is defined as "Single God/creator based" then Buddhism does not. If religion is defined by pragmatism (having its inventor and subsequent lineages, religious texts, practices, traditions,  authorities, principles and believe systems) then Buddhism qualifies.

Did I express the "correct view" in the 8 Noble path?

Awaiting your wise view.

Ching

Dear Ching and Grace,

At the risk of being stormed by 'bricks' from friends, as a parting thought (hence, K.I.S.S.), how about this 'working definition of religion' by Daniel Dennett, the same guy who tries "Breaking the Spell," for your info:

"Religions are social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought." 

To further elaborate, "a devout Elvis Presley fan club is not a religion," and "a supernatural agent or agents need not be very anthropomorphic."

Bro' Ching, does this definition fit your bill?
And if so, what are you?

Stephen

Dear Stephen,

According to this definition, Chinese Ch’an Buddhism does not fit the bill of Religion.

The purpose of Buddhist practice is to open our heart-mind to our true nature, ‘The Nature of Mind, 真心’. Where does the supernatural agent come in?

We should not rely too much on the definitions by Western scholars. Sometimes they could be obstacles to our practice (所知障).

Knowledge is words that come from the mouth of other people. What are the words that come from the depth of our being? 

Anthony

Nice to exchange ideas.

I enjoy the Chit-Chat.