The God Survey: a noun, a verb, or what?
|
 |
By TG Staff in Faith and Religion Published: Monday, 08 March 10 - 10:24 AM (GMT) Last Updated: Monday, 08 March 10 - 11:51 AM (GMT) |
| ||
The William Temple Foundation (www.wtf.org.uk ) recently circulated a questionnaire to a range of faiths including Buddhists. On attempting to complete the questionnaire, many found that the questions made assumptions which rendered it difficult or impossible to answer from a Buddhist perspective.
The difficult questions generally assumed that ‘god’ exists, and that ‘he’ is central to our religious practices of prayer and worship. The assumptions made in the WTF survey are widely encountered; we meet them all the time in the media, in books and on posters. We have become so used to being browbeaten or bemused by the ‘god’ word and the assumptions made about it that most Buddhists have long ago learnt just to ignore this and keep on meditating.
However, since the word ‘god’ is so widely used, perhaps we should try to clarify its meaning. It may be that it could link with something in Buddhist teachings, or it may be that at the very least we can explain to those who believe in ‘god’ just where Buddhists stand on this question.
One of the queer things one finds when looking at the way ‘god’ is used is that the meaning is always assumed. It is assumed that if someone asks ‘do you believe in god’ that both of you know what is meant by ‘god’ and that you have a common understanding. Of course, unless the meaning you both hold is the same, the question cannot be answered easily or without misunderstanding.
The assumption that we all know what ‘god’ means can be a convenient one for those who want to use ‘god-talk’ since it avoids them having to explain themselves. It also avoids having to deal with the awkward fact that the word ‘god’ has widely divergent meanings even amongst ardent theists.
Amongst theists we find non-realist positions (that ‘god’ refers to no-’thing’), we find realist positions (that ‘god’ is a thing or object), we find mystical positions (that ‘god’ is an experience or state), we find ‘super-being’ anthropomorphic definitions, we find ‘god’ as meaning goodness and right living, we find God as Jesus, we find complex mixtures of positions. But what we do not find is a clear, unambiguous and agreed meaning amongst theists even within a single faith.
One also gets the distinct impression that for some, ‘god’ is used as a trademark, slogan, password, or tribal rallying call intended to stop rather than as inviting communication.
The word ‘god’ is not unique in its ambiguity; plenty of other words dealing with abstract or imaginative ideals such as ‘justice’, ‘love’, ‘sympathy’, ‘self’, ’world’, ‘absolute’, and many others, are difficult to define and agree. In fact this is a problem with language itself – it is fluid and by its very nature, as a humanly created set of symbols, gives only an approximate and conventional indication of what is being referred to.
Although other widely used words are also ambiguous, the sheer divergence of meanings associated with ‘god’ is a particularly severe communication problem that leads to many other difficulties.
It means, for example, that the word ‘atheist’ is also ambiguous. Just what definition of ‘god’ am I atheistic towards? As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, we are all atheists in some sense, even if this is towards Isis, Thor, Zeus and so on.
Agnostic generally means to occupy a position where one neither affirms not denies the existence of ‘god’. However, as with atheism this begs the question as to what definition of ‘god’ one is being agnostic towards.
‘Worship’ is also dependent upon what definition of ‘god’ we hold to. It would seem odd to ‘worship’ a non-realist or mystical meaning of ‘god’. It would appear most appropriate to worship anthropomorphic deities – the ‘Father’ and so on, (and perhaps also to the ritual honouring of the memory of revered teachers or deeply respected aspects of a faith or teaching).
So what is the Buddhist position on God? Buddhism is usually regarded as ‘non-theistic’. This means that the whole question of God, gods and theism in general is regarded as a distraction from skilful spiritual practice. This is not an agnostic position since there is no value placed on adopting any opinion with regard to ’god’ (or many other metaphysical questions that take us into abstract thought).
There is another aspect to Buddhist non-theism. Nibbāna (or nirvana) is the transcendent aspect of Buddhist teaching. This is also referred to as the ‘unconditioned’ or ‘emptiness’ and by other epithets. In Christian theology, mainly using negative descriptions of the transcendent is called the apophatic approach to God.
Apophatic theology (or negative theology) is an attempt to refer to God indirectly through knowledge of what God is not rather than by describing what God is. The apophatic tradition is often linked with mysticism, which cultivates experience of the reality beyond our ordinary conditioned perception. In apophatic theology, all attempts to describe ’God’ are mistaken and misleading because this renders ‘God’ as a conditioned ‘thing’ or object. The word ‘God’ is actually a marker or pointer beyond language itself, because language is a barrier if we mistake it for what it refers to.
Although Buddhist non-theism does not regard anthropomorphic gods as central to the path to enlightenment, early Buddhist cosmology does describe multiple realms, the higher ones of which are regarded as occupied by gods of various types. However, these are regarded simply as fortunate forms of life for the occupants, who eventually must die as humans do. These realms are also seen as psychological ‘places’ that one can tune into through meditation. The higher realms being experienced as happy, blissful, or pleasant states of mind.
Since this debate started from a survey, I have produced a short Buddhist influenced one which hopefully the William Temple Foundation and other prolific users of the word ‘god’ can consider before issuing any new surveys.
Q1. When you hear people speaking of or about God what do you think they mean by this? More than one choice can be made.
1. A ‘thing’ or ‘object’, (a noun);
2. An ‘activity, doing or being’, (a verb).
3. An invisible anthropomorphic being existing somewhere in the universe who created everything, who can act in the world through miracles, who can heal people, and who finally judges us after death.
4. A special being subject to birth and death and occupying a higher realm who has various supernatural powers and can sometimes interact with humans in various ways
5. An idea standing for all that is good.
6. A mystical inner state or realisation of mind or being beyond words.
7. A sense of communion with a higher being that we can relate to in our mind through prayer or meditation and who personally guides us
8. A trinity of beings - the father, son and holy spirit - which nevertheless are unified in some way
9. A mysterious higher force or reality
10. A complex and inspiring work of our imagination
11. An intuition of there being something special beyond normal perception
12. A combination of the above. (If so give the numbers.)
13. The word has lost its meaning
14. Something else not covered by any of the previous meanings
Q2. If you believe in god which of the above definitions (or combination) best fits your belief?
Q3. If belief in a god or gods is theistic and a belief that god or gods do not exist is atheism, what do you think is meant by non-theism?
1. It is the same as atheism, just an alternative name
2. It is a term which refers to a transcendental reality in a non-personal and non-’objectified’ way
3. It refers to a spiritual path or goal for which the idea of God is irrelevant
4. Don't know
Q4. Do you agree that ‘worship’ forms part of your religious practice? If so, what do you worship?
1. My particular understanding of ‘god’ (See above)
2. A revered teacher of my faith (eg the Buddha)
3. The early scriptures of my faith
4. Particular teachings (for example, the three refuges in Buddhism)
5. Worship is not a relevant concept for my faith and practice
1 Comment so far: |
Leave a comment |
| MrCritical | jvalamala | 03/08/10 |
|
Top | Reply to this Title: MrCritical Author: jvalamala Date Posted: 08 Mar 2010 10:42 PM (GMT) "This is not an agnostic position since there is no value placed on adopting any opinion with regard to ’god’ (or many other metaphysical questions that take us into abstract thought)." I would be very careful with dogmatic statements like this. If you say there is no value, then say for who / for what purpose. For the purpose of one's own individual liberation? Perhaps. But then the being who knows this is not in jeopardy - it must be for others. Just as Buddha wasn't bound, so his sermons were spoken expressly for others - pointing out the dependent connections. We are trying to define 'God', but as we arrive at this sentence, we now have to define 'value'. This can easily get out of hand. There's also the definition of 'Buddhism' which can mean any number of things to any number of people. Perhaps a more fruitful approach, instead of asking, So what is the Buddhist position on God? would be to ask, So what is Buddha's position on God? I don't think this is an easy question to answer, but surely it is the more valuable. |
Have your say on this article:
<-- Back
