The Dangers of Secularism

I think that the phrase secular ideology may be more appropriate.

quote:

---

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

---

Can too!When it comes to the human brain, science and religion can go hand in hand. Take for instance the emerging field of neurotheology:Nielsen's Psychology of Religion: The Hollow Curriculum by Robert Sollod
Page not found -
Neuroscience of religion - Wikipedia

I'm not sure that putting up some URL's, in itself, is an appropriate post on this forum, unless somebody asks you for them.But I will leave that up to the Admins.

Thanks for the interesting discussion up to this point. I am a little unclear about your URLs though. I'm not sure that this supports your position. If it does, perhaps you could clarify?

So you are stating that as far as the brain is concerned scientific methodology is no longer appropriate? Please explain why that is.You might also explain how that is consistent with ID, which rejects religion in science. If you are claiming here that ID allows for this, you have just put a nail in the coffin as ID being able to be taught in schools, as it would now be creationism.And I am still waiting for a credible explanation of how ID would be any less reductionistic?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Robinrohan, I'd suggest you throw your dictionary in the garbage. Of course religion is much more than worshipinng gods or the supernatural. Isn't Buddhism a religion? Of course it is, although Buddhists believe neither in God nor in a supernatural. They view the universe as a constant flow of the "dharma," eternal unchanging particles (quarks, gluons, etc.?), which may combine and recombine, causing all the infinite variety of the manifestations of being. That's a very "naturalist" view, as far as I understand, and yet hundreds of millions of Buddhists worldwide pray, worship in temples, etc. They have their religious community, the hierarchy, religious authorities and sacred texts, like any religion. Confucianism is another example of a very materialistic, naturalist, atheist religion.

Who or what are the Buddhists praying to?

In most cases it is far less an external object then an internal practice. It is not so much praying to something as internally contemplating an idea.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Robin,I was and am dimly recalling my impressions of Hoffer's True Believer. I do think that fervent Communist Party members were "true believers" and their belief and faith in communism had a "religious" quality to it. I guess I think of secularism as more like rational atheism rather than fervent communisim, or facism is all.I'm fine with the distinctions you make. Your definition of religion applies to most religions but I'm not sure if Buddhism fits those criteria or not. I think not but I may not quite be getting how you are using them. Do you think Buddhism is a religion?lfen

Robin,I'd have to ask if you are asking about popular Buddhism or ... don't know what to call it, core? Buddhism. Popular Buddhists people pray for the same reasons anyone prays.Here's another explanation: Middle Eastern religions were/are religions of states or tribes and are sectarian. "If we righteously obey our God, he will lead us to victory". Buddhism prays for all sentient beings to be saved. It's not factional or sectarian.lfen

In Pure Land Buddhism, the followers pray and worship Amitabha, who is a bodhisatvva that has his own 'heaven' or pure land. In this pure land he (and I think another 2 bodhisatvvas)will teach devoted beings how to gain Nirvana.Apparently, if you know you are dying and say 'Amitabha' ten times, then you go to his Pure Land, called Sukhaviti.Brian.

But they do believe in many gods, however these gods are inferior to humans as it is only as a human that you can follow the dharma. I would disagree.Samsara sounds supernatural to me, as does the various realms of existence, the realm of hungry ghosts for example.Brian.

Brian,I think you are speaking of nirvana? Samsara is meant as a discription of our ordinary experience. Nirvana is more supernatural in Hinduism than in Buddhism. Samsara refers to this world of birth and death, things coming into being and ending and the suffering and grief and dissatisfaction this entails.One understanding of Nirvana is the state that the Buddha realized and the assertion is that it is can be realized in this life. There is also para nirvana, the beyond nirvana. These can be non ordinary states of consciousness so I don't think strictly speaking supernatural.The different realms can be thought of as supernatural but for example Chogyam Trungpa explained them as metaphors for various human states. I think it's typical of Buddhism to not insist on literal interpretations. In the West we can speak metaphorically of demons, but fundamentalist insist that demons literally exist. You can find attitudes like this in Buddhism but I don't think you have this idea that those who disagree with you are going to suffer eternal damnation cause there is no concept of eternal damnation in Buddhism.lfen

Buddhism is complicated because there is a popular version and an educated version. The educated version might be described as psychological therapy rather than a religion, although even in this version you have concepts of the Absolute and soul. But perhaps Absolute just means reality and soul just means mind. The popular version is most definitely a religion, I think.

In that case, ProfessorR, give me a definition of "religion."