5 ms·

It seems weird Buddhism is such a minor religion in Europe while it is so rational, based on individual experience (rather than belief) gained through reproduci

It seems weird Buddhism is such a minor religion in Europe while it is so rational, based on individual experience (rather than belief) gained through reproducible applied self-regulation techniques, backed by neuroscience and explained with consistent philosophical logic.

foxyv 5y ago
A lot of secular buddhists tend to identify as humanists instead. It's a very popular saying: "Don't use buddhism to become a buddhist. Use buddhism to become a better whatever you are."
brink 5y ago
As a child I had a subconscious assumption that Christianity wasn't rational, and maintained that view into my mid-twenties. Thankfully, I had the drive to do research on it, and an open enough mind to accept it, because I was ready to reject Christianity completely for a short period. I know this view isn't popular, but today, I see Christianity as the most rational philosophy/religion out there. I think it's been wrongfully misconstrued as irrational by people who don't really understand the religion, inside and out.
- tomcooks 5y ago
  Could you explain what's rational about Christianity? Moreover, do you refer to a specific branch or Christianity as a whole?
  - cyberbanjo 5y ago
    On that subject the blog undivided looking touches on using applied history and theology to rationalize Christianity. It appeals to my sense of mrationality at least. http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/ http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/
    - andredz 5y ago
      I would recommend that blog as well; it is among my favorite places on the internet. Aron's writings have had a huge and very positive impact in my life.
    - bnralt 5y ago
      I took a look at that blog, but it doesn't seem historical at all to me (for example, I can't think of any historian that dates the synoptics to before 70 AD). I also can't say I'm a fan of the way he treats other denominations of Christianity as non-Christian religions. For a good historical look at Christianity, I'd recommend people look into the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean podcast, the NT Pod podcast, or, for the old testament, the writings of Mark S. Smith (you can also find lectures of his on Youtube).
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Speaking as an Atheist, Christianity gets a very bad rap from popular culture and because of the fact that so many people in the west know about it's core tenets but they only have a casual understanding of the theology. And thus, it's much more readily criticized.
- boxed 5y ago
  You don't need to know much about it. Christians believe in a god. That's open and shut right there.
  - collias 5y ago
    Belief in a god in itself is not really that irrational. Even secular thoughts like simulation theory agree in some sort of force that is outside of the material space-time universe we exist in.
  - tengbretson 5y ago
    I don't think the belief in creation by God requires any more leaps of faith than a belief in other cosmologies, such as the big bang, etc.
    - skywal_l 5y ago
      The big bang is a scientific hypothesis. You don't have to believe in it. You can accept it because it was proven, reject because it was disproven or suspend your judgement in between.
    - DataGata 5y ago
      The Big Bang has physical evidence for its existence that you can personally verify.
      - biztos 5y ago
        Yes, but in practice who follows it to that level of detail? From a layperson's point of view, are the astrophysicists that much different than a priestly caste? I believe the physicists, but I don't think that by itself makes me a particularly rigorous thinker. In the ancient world I probably would have believed the priests, because it was what made sense to people. And for better or for worse we have lots of evidence that people can reject science and still enjoy its benefits. It's not like refusing to believe in the Big Bang gets you blacklisted from using rockets or microchips, or rejecting evolution means you can't get vaccinated.
- x3iv130f 5y ago
  Christians have always been 1/3 scholar, 1/3 philosopher, and 1/3 priest. The premise of Christianity is "revelation". That a higher power revealed knowledge to humans that is not knowable by any other means. That there is revealed knowledge has meant that Christians spend much of their time thinking about and working out the implications of their revealed knowledge and trying to fit it into the rest of the world. How rational you find Christianity depends on willing you are to accept it's premise. If you are then it is completely rational. If you aren't then it is nothing but castles built in the clouds.
  - tom_mellior 5y ago
    What knowledge would that be? At least in these Catholicism-dominated parts, that knowledge seems to look something like "you better watch it because you're a sinner and might end up burning in hell, except that Jesus saved you because he loves you, but for some reason despite being saved you are still a sinner and might end up burning in hell". You kind of sound like that's not the premise you mean.
    - wirrbel 5y ago
      The roman branch of christianity (from which Roman Catholicism and protestantism arise) are hugely influenced by lawyers and roman law, which emphasises sinning and punishment a lot. If you are a sinner your priest is a parole officer. The eastern christianity still recognises sin, but treats it more like a disease, the priest is more of a doctor. I find this more appealing from a philosophical point of view, yet I lack any reason to believe.
    - cryptochamorro 5y ago
      The whole "Catholic guilt" thing is of often pointed to as some whacky vehicle of control, which is a total mischaracterization of what that perspective is meant to do. Many religions and philosophers understand the idea that humans are not basically good people. They are generally self centered and not sacrificial. So to say that Catholicism or Christianity is strange for placing emphasis on our "fallenness" is a little unfair IMHO. The daily struggle of a Christian is to strive to rid one's self of their sinful desires (selfish / evil) and live as Christ commands. This a continual process, and one that cannot be stopped. If one just "gets tired" of being a Christian, and lives differently, then they are in danger of losing their salvation. I only go into this detail to illustrate that there is more to "Catholic guilt" than a flippant "critique".
- vmception 5y ago
  It is rational to say that creature won. It is not rational to worship it out of love, which Christians began doing. Whatever it is, it does not act in the interest of mankind.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  > I think it's been wrongfully misconstrued as irrational by people who don't really understand the religion, inside and out. You mean by 99.9% of the people. I have no doubt there is everything one may need to get enlightened in Christianity also but Christians have seemingly done amazing job obscuring that. And I can't recognize Christianity as rational because it requires you to just believe all the way through (in Buddhism as I know it believing is considered harmful, you are meant to experience it yourself and even then you are considered a fool if you start believing).
today20201014 5y ago
Perhaps people experience cognitive dissonance when reconciling the things that you mentioned with beliefs about reincarnation? I am relying on a rather common and uninformed understanding of Buddhism here, so I may be way off base. EDIT: I had to look it up, but I guess European culture has contained some sort of belief in reincarnation (Plato's Republic, Book X / Myth of Er). I don't suppose this belief has much traction anymore, despite the strong influence of Plato (or Greek philosophy in general) on Christianity.
- boxed 5y ago
  It's not reinkarnation. It's rebirth. Buddhism explicitly rejects the idea of a soul so reinkarnation would be very strange. Rebirth is something else that can be difficult to explain...
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  > Perhaps people experience cognitive dissonance when reconciling the things that you mentioned with beliefs about reincarnation? Reincarnation was the only thing to come into my mind when I heard "buddhism" when I was a schoolboy. I had zero idea of what else is Buddhism about back then. Later, as I learnt more I found out (or came to an opinion) "reincarnation" itself is a fairly unimportant concept. Perhaps it is only there to attract/repel public and to be another target for becoming indifferent to as you progress. It may also be beneficial to imagine you being reincarnated in a particular realm of existence and contemplating what you would experience. Imagine you are going to heaven where you are going to live millennia never forgetting... that you are going to hell after that, inevitably, like for real, and try to come in peace with that. That would be an exercise.
cscurmudgeon 5y ago
> consistent philosophical logic Agree on the rest, but not sure about that. Buddhism is well known for inconsistencies. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=phi_facpubs https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... I feel poetic inconsistencies/contradictions are the ancient world's equivalent of clickbait.
rthomas6 5y ago
Western/secular Buddhism popularized in the west is generally not the same as Buddhism practiced in Buddhist countries. The actual Buddhist religion teachings can include, depending on the branch: - Hell and heaven realms where you can get reincarnated into if you've lived an especially bad or good life - Various gods and demons - A timeline spanning trillions of years and hundreds of Buddhas - "Celestial Buddhas" that came from space - Enlightenment is now impossible in this world because it's too corrupt. If you chant enough, this or that Buddha will reincarnate you into their personal realm where you can become enlightened. The majority of Buddhists in the world believe and teach these things. The modern secular western Buddhist community is sort of like a Theravada-lite in my opinion. Theravada already doesn't have a lot of the above, but they do have reincarnation, different realms, magic powers, etc. In the west the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path are emphasized while chanting, ritual, etc. as well as supernatural beliefs are downplayed. So when you say that Buddhism is rational and consistent, you're referring to a westernized version of it. In my opinion, what Siddhartha Gautama actually taught, or at least what early Buddhism seems to have been, is somewhat close to the pared-down westernized version of Buddhism, just in a Hindu context and belief system due to the time and location of the teachings. But this set of teachings is NOT the same as the religion of Buddhism as practiced by most Buddhists. All that being said, something real is in the core teachings. You don't have to take anyone's word for it. You don't have to have faith in anything. Just learn to look inside, and see for yourself.
- tralarpa 5y ago
  The same also happened with Daoism. The West took the philosophical part and ignored for many years the cultural aspects, belief system, and worshipping rituals (i.e., the religion) behind it. Until some scientists pointed out (quite recently actually, if I remember correctly) that you cannot just do that. I don't know much about Daoism and Buddhism, but I know a guy who compliments people in the West who claim to be Daoists on their excellent Chinese. Most of them don't get the joke (it seems many important texts have never been translated). Concerning Buddhism, don't certain sub-branches of Zen buddhism come quite close to the Western "no magic" version?
  - 5y ago
biztos 5y ago
Plenty -- most? -- forms of Buddhism also have tons of mysticism, gods, reincarnation, and other stuff that would have to compete with Europe's other religious traditions. What you're saying is sort of like reducing Christianity to "love thy neighbor" and wondering why that didn't catch on wherever people are nice. I'm in a Buddhist country right now, and I really dig it, and I'm learning all kinds of awesome things about how people live -- but I'm not sure I'd say the locals are more rational than the Europeans. Nor would I say the Europeans are necessarily more rational than anybody else... maybe "performative rationalism" would be a good term?
vmception 5y ago
Have you been to Europe? Many countries there masquerade as the developed nations seen in Northwest and Central Europe, while actually unaffiliated countries around the world aspire to be seen as developed. A lot of irrational things happen at the cultural and state level in Europe, with an iron thumb of redundancy keeping those silly states in check.
ksec 5y ago
>Buddhism is such a minor religion I guess there are group of people who believe in Buddhism as philosophy rather than religion. Although comparatively speaking still very minor.
yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
> Buddhism … is so rational … and explained with consistent philosophical logic. Are you sure? Perhaps you ought to read about Sokushinbutsu[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  I can recognize no problem in this. To me this seems a particularly rational way to die once you feel it's time to. Dying the traditionally western way - suddenly, following disability and sickness, seems way more scary.

foxyv 5y ago

A lot of secular buddhists tend to identify as humanists instead. It's a very popular saying: "Don't use buddhism to become a buddhist. Use buddhism to become a better whatever you are."

brink 5y ago

As a child I had a subconscious assumption that Christianity wasn't rational, and maintained that view into my mid-twenties. Thankfully, I had the drive to do research on it, and an open enough mind to accept it, because I was ready to reject Christianity completely for a short period. I know this view isn't popular, but today, I see Christianity as the most rational philosophy/religion out there. I think it's been wrongfully misconstrued as irrational by people who don't really understand the religion, inside and out.

tomcooks 5y ago
Could you explain what's rational about Christianity? Moreover, do you refer to a specific branch or Christianity as a whole?
- cyberbanjo 5y ago
  On that subject the blog undivided looking touches on using applied history and theology to rationalize Christianity. It appeals to my sense of mrationality at least. http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/ http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/
  - andredz 5y ago
    I would recommend that blog as well; it is among my favorite places on the internet. Aron's writings have had a huge and very positive impact in my life.
  - bnralt 5y ago
    I took a look at that blog, but it doesn't seem historical at all to me (for example, I can't think of any historian that dates the synoptics to before 70 AD). I also can't say I'm a fan of the way he treats other denominations of Christianity as non-Christian religions. For a good historical look at Christianity, I'd recommend people look into the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean podcast, the NT Pod podcast, or, for the old testament, the writings of Mark S. Smith (you can also find lectures of his on Youtube).
BitwiseFool 5y ago
Speaking as an Atheist, Christianity gets a very bad rap from popular culture and because of the fact that so many people in the west know about it's core tenets but they only have a casual understanding of the theology. And thus, it's much more readily criticized.
boxed 5y ago
You don't need to know much about it. Christians believe in a god. That's open and shut right there.
- collias 5y ago
  Belief in a god in itself is not really that irrational. Even secular thoughts like simulation theory agree in some sort of force that is outside of the material space-time universe we exist in.
- tengbretson 5y ago
  I don't think the belief in creation by God requires any more leaps of faith than a belief in other cosmologies, such as the big bang, etc.
  - skywal_l 5y ago
    The big bang is a scientific hypothesis. You don't have to believe in it. You can accept it because it was proven, reject because it was disproven or suspend your judgement in between.
  - DataGata 5y ago
    The Big Bang has physical evidence for its existence that you can personally verify.
    - biztos 5y ago
      Yes, but in practice who follows it to that level of detail? From a layperson's point of view, are the astrophysicists that much different than a priestly caste? I believe the physicists, but I don't think that by itself makes me a particularly rigorous thinker. In the ancient world I probably would have believed the priests, because it was what made sense to people. And for better or for worse we have lots of evidence that people can reject science and still enjoy its benefits. It's not like refusing to believe in the Big Bang gets you blacklisted from using rockets or microchips, or rejecting evolution means you can't get vaccinated.
x3iv130f 5y ago
Christians have always been 1/3 scholar, 1/3 philosopher, and 1/3 priest. The premise of Christianity is "revelation". That a higher power revealed knowledge to humans that is not knowable by any other means. That there is revealed knowledge has meant that Christians spend much of their time thinking about and working out the implications of their revealed knowledge and trying to fit it into the rest of the world. How rational you find Christianity depends on willing you are to accept it's premise. If you are then it is completely rational. If you aren't then it is nothing but castles built in the clouds.
- tom_mellior 5y ago
  What knowledge would that be? At least in these Catholicism-dominated parts, that knowledge seems to look something like "you better watch it because you're a sinner and might end up burning in hell, except that Jesus saved you because he loves you, but for some reason despite being saved you are still a sinner and might end up burning in hell". You kind of sound like that's not the premise you mean.
  - wirrbel 5y ago
    The roman branch of christianity (from which Roman Catholicism and protestantism arise) are hugely influenced by lawyers and roman law, which emphasises sinning and punishment a lot. If you are a sinner your priest is a parole officer. The eastern christianity still recognises sin, but treats it more like a disease, the priest is more of a doctor. I find this more appealing from a philosophical point of view, yet I lack any reason to believe.
  - cryptochamorro 5y ago
    The whole "Catholic guilt" thing is of often pointed to as some whacky vehicle of control, which is a total mischaracterization of what that perspective is meant to do. Many religions and philosophers understand the idea that humans are not basically good people. They are generally self centered and not sacrificial. So to say that Catholicism or Christianity is strange for placing emphasis on our "fallenness" is a little unfair IMHO. The daily struggle of a Christian is to strive to rid one's self of their sinful desires (selfish / evil) and live as Christ commands. This a continual process, and one that cannot be stopped. If one just "gets tired" of being a Christian, and lives differently, then they are in danger of losing their salvation. I only go into this detail to illustrate that there is more to "Catholic guilt" than a flippant "critique".
vmception 5y ago
It is rational to say that creature won. It is not rational to worship it out of love, which Christians began doing. Whatever it is, it does not act in the interest of mankind.
qwerty456127 5y ago
> I think it's been wrongfully misconstrued as irrational by people who don't really understand the religion, inside and out. You mean by 99.9% of the people. I have no doubt there is everything one may need to get enlightened in Christianity also but Christians have seemingly done amazing job obscuring that. And I can't recognize Christianity as rational because it requires you to just believe all the way through (in Buddhism as I know it believing is considered harmful, you are meant to experience it yourself and even then you are considered a fool if you start believing).

today20201014 5y ago

Perhaps people experience cognitive dissonance when reconciling the things that you mentioned with beliefs about reincarnation? I am relying on a rather common and uninformed understanding of Buddhism here, so I may be way off base. EDIT: I had to look it up, but I guess European culture has contained some sort of belief in reincarnation (Plato's Republic, Book X / Myth of Er). I don't suppose this belief has much traction anymore, despite the strong influence of Plato (or Greek philosophy in general) on Christianity.

boxed 5y ago
It's not reinkarnation. It's rebirth. Buddhism explicitly rejects the idea of a soul so reinkarnation would be very strange. Rebirth is something else that can be difficult to explain...
qwerty456127 5y ago
> Perhaps people experience cognitive dissonance when reconciling the things that you mentioned with beliefs about reincarnation? Reincarnation was the only thing to come into my mind when I heard "buddhism" when I was a schoolboy. I had zero idea of what else is Buddhism about back then. Later, as I learnt more I found out (or came to an opinion) "reincarnation" itself is a fairly unimportant concept. Perhaps it is only there to attract/repel public and to be another target for becoming indifferent to as you progress. It may also be beneficial to imagine you being reincarnated in a particular realm of existence and contemplating what you would experience. Imagine you are going to heaven where you are going to live millennia never forgetting... that you are going to hell after that, inevitably, like for real, and try to come in peace with that. That would be an exercise.

cscurmudgeon 5y ago

> consistent philosophical logic Agree on the rest, but not sure about that. Buddhism is well known for inconsistencies. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=phi_facpubs https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... I feel poetic inconsistencies/contradictions are the ancient world's equivalent of clickbait.

rthomas6 5y ago

Western/secular Buddhism popularized in the west is generally not the same as Buddhism practiced in Buddhist countries. The actual Buddhist religion teachings can include, depending on the branch: - Hell and heaven realms where you can get reincarnated into if you've lived an especially bad or good life - Various gods and demons - A timeline spanning trillions of years and hundreds of Buddhas - "Celestial Buddhas" that came from space - Enlightenment is now impossible in this world because it's too corrupt. If you chant enough, this or that Buddha will reincarnate you into their personal realm where you can become enlightened. The majority of Buddhists in the world believe and teach these things. The modern secular western Buddhist community is sort of like a Theravada-lite in my opinion. Theravada already doesn't have a lot of the above, but they do have reincarnation, different realms, magic powers, etc. In the west the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path are emphasized while chanting, ritual, etc. as well as supernatural beliefs are downplayed. So when you say that Buddhism is rational and consistent, you're referring to a westernized version of it. In my opinion, what Siddhartha Gautama actually taught, or at least what early Buddhism seems to have been, is somewhat close to the pared-down westernized version of Buddhism, just in a Hindu context and belief system due to the time and location of the teachings. But this set of teachings is NOT the same as the religion of Buddhism as practiced by most Buddhists. All that being said, something real is in the core teachings. You don't have to take anyone's word for it. You don't have to have faith in anything. Just learn to look inside, and see for yourself.

tralarpa 5y ago
The same also happened with Daoism. The West took the philosophical part and ignored for many years the cultural aspects, belief system, and worshipping rituals (i.e., the religion) behind it. Until some scientists pointed out (quite recently actually, if I remember correctly) that you cannot just do that. I don't know much about Daoism and Buddhism, but I know a guy who compliments people in the West who claim to be Daoists on their excellent Chinese. Most of them don't get the joke (it seems many important texts have never been translated). Concerning Buddhism, don't certain sub-branches of Zen buddhism come quite close to the Western "no magic" version?
- 5y ago

biztos 5y ago

Plenty -- most? -- forms of Buddhism also have tons of mysticism, gods, reincarnation, and other stuff that would have to compete with Europe's other religious traditions. What you're saying is sort of like reducing Christianity to "love thy neighbor" and wondering why that didn't catch on wherever people are nice. I'm in a Buddhist country right now, and I really dig it, and I'm learning all kinds of awesome things about how people live -- but I'm not sure I'd say the locals are more rational than the Europeans. Nor would I say the Europeans are necessarily more rational than anybody else... maybe "performative rationalism" would be a good term?

vmception 5y ago

Have you been to Europe? Many countries there masquerade as the developed nations seen in Northwest and Central Europe, while actually unaffiliated countries around the world aspire to be seen as developed. A lot of irrational things happen at the cultural and state level in Europe, with an iron thumb of redundancy keeping those silly states in check.

ksec 5y ago

>Buddhism is such a minor religion I guess there are group of people who believe in Buddhism as philosophy rather than religion. Although comparatively speaking still very minor.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

> Buddhism … is so rational … and explained with consistent philosophical logic. Are you sure? Perhaps you ought to read about Sokushinbutsu[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu

qwerty456127 5y ago
I can recognize no problem in this. To me this seems a particularly rational way to die once you feel it's time to. Dying the traditionally western way - suddenly, following disability and sickness, seems way more scary.