The Christian ministry which argued against Islam (see a previous posting) also has arguments against Buddhism. These are somewhat stronger, but I still think it could be fun to pretend being a Buddhist and answer them (or most of them). Not being an expert on Buddhism, I can´t guarantee that all Buddhists (or any Buddhist) would answer in just this way, but here we go anyway...
1. Is there any way to know whether we should choose one religion over another?
2. How can you determine if Buddhism is true?
This is really the same question. One possibility is to simply appeal to tradition, and then point out that the Christian does the same. So how can *he* know what religion is true? But this might not work with an evangelical, who rejects Church tradition in favor of "Scripture alone". Besides, it doesn´t really answer the question. So another possibility would be an appeal to reason. On the basis of reason, we can know that the tradition must be true, at least in the sense of going all the way back to a historical Buddha. And when we analyze meditative, mystical and spiritual experiences through the lense of reason, we realize that the traditional Buddhist interpretations are indeed correct. (Speaking as an imaginary Buddhist here, of course.)
3. If Buddhism teaches that desire is wrong, how does your practice of Buddhism fit with your desire to win the lottery?
This is a surprisingly silly question. A Buddhist could respond that he *doesn´t* have a desire to win the lottery!
4. Doesn’t the law of karma only postpone the solution to the problem of evil and suffering, but never really solves the problem?
Yes. And? Here, the Christian interlocutor takes the Buddhist position, and pretends that it is an argument *against* Buddhism! The real solution to the problem is (of course) to break free from samsara and enter nirvana, which also means breaking free from the law of karma. Otherwise, all solutions are indeed only postponements, such as a better rebirth in a temporary heaven-world.
5. If the death of Christ satisfied the punitive demands of the righteous laws of God, then what need would there be for more payment (see Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:17-18)?
I don´t care what your holy scripture says.
6. If there is no continuity with yourself after death, then how can it be the same person who is being rewarded in the next life?
7. If it is not the same person who is reborn into another body, then why should someone pay for the karmic debt left by someone else?
These two questions are connected, and they *are* good questions. At least orthodox Theravada Buddhism claims that there is no "soul" (the doctrine of anatta), and that the person does indeed disappear at death, when the skandhas (metaphysical atoms) are scattered. Later, the very same skandhas eventually re-unite to form an entirely *new* person. "Joe Smith" is reborn as "Jane Hudson", the only continuity between them being the karmically affected skandhas. There is no unchanging metaphysical substrate, neither in general, nor individually.
So yes, this means that "Jane Hudson" is forced to pay the karmic debts of "Joe Smith" (who has disappeared). Or reap the karmic benefits, as the case might be. I don´t know what a real life Buddhist would answer to this, but one possible answer is to treat this as a brute fact of samsaric existence, an existence which is after all afflicted by suffering. A being of great compassion would do meritorious deeds even if his own personality would be dissolved at death, knowing that he will benefit the next person formed by his skandhas. Perhaps one could also argue that it *is* the same person that is reborn, since the skandhas are the same?
A related mystery in Buddhist doctrine is how the Buddha could remember all his past lives, if personality (and hence memory) is destroyed at death, and there is no permanent and unchanging essence.
8. Is it not true that if there is an ultimate moral law, then there is an ultimate Moral Lawgiver?
9. And if there is no ultimate moral law, then why should we follow the Buddhist 10 Precepts and the Eight-fold “Right” paths and reincarnation based on actions?
I think much hinges on the meaning of the term "ultimate moral law". If Buddhism is seen as a technique to break free from samsara, it doesn´t have to be "moral" or "ethical" in the Christian sense. It need simply to specify what actions lead to such a liberation, and since desire is the great hindrance to be overcome, these actions will tend to be "non-actions", i.e. ascetic in nature.
What is perhaps more difficult to justify is the morality prescribed for laypeople. Why should contributions to the sangha make you a demigod who enjoys all kinds of pleasures in a heaven-world, for instance? Why are kshatriyas and vaishyas de facto better in the Buddhist system than brahmins? Sez who? Some rando from a tribal chiefdom in Nepal? Should serfs obey a king who acts as a "dharma-protector"? Can I kill and eat peacocks?
These morals seem somewhat arbitrary, and also obviously human-centred, yet are connected to a cosmic-wide karmic law. I think both Christians and theistic Hindus are justified in asking a Buddhist why this doesn´t imply a cosmic creator-god! (Perhaps a Mahayana Buddhist could justify this with some argument about "skillful means"?)
10. Is it true that Buddhism teaches that we are in reality an aspect of God and in some respects less than real as an individual? If so, how did this metaphysical amnesia arise and come to pervade and dominate our whole experience?
No, it´s not true.
11. How can we know that the world of our senses is an illusion (not real) unless we know a backdrop of reality against which we can make this judgment?
This may be an interesting question to ask a Mahayana Buddhist, but a Theravadin doesn´t believe the world is an illusion. Besides, the term "illusion" carries a lot of baggage, not all of which may be part of original Mahayana (or Hindu) teachings either. If you believe the world is *both* an illusion in the literal sense *and* has no abiding substance, then the questioner has a point when he says that such a position is incoherent, since there must be a "backdrop of reality" against which we can make the judgment.
But if you hold that Atman-Brahman is the abiding substrate underneath the illusion, Atman-Brahman becomes the "backdrop". The Theravadin position is, in a strange way, similar to materialism, in which a really existent reality is in constant flux, but the flux is nevertheless slow enough and regular enough for our human minds to analyze it and draw firm conclusions. (It could be argued that Theravada is inconsistent in a different way: since the skandhas are unchanging in and of themselves, isn´t *that* a kind of substance?)
12. Does not the goal to eliminate all desire involve the desire to eliminate all desire?
Toast! This is just a game of verbal paradox.
13. If we should eliminate all desire, how about the desire to have children, help others, enjoy life, and experience nirvana?
The first three desires are acceptable for laypeople and lead to positive karma and better rebirth, but as already pointed out, they just postpone the deeper problem of suffering. The last "desire" isn´t a desire, so the Christian polemicist is just engaging in more verbal paradox here. To enter nirvana, you have to get rid of all desires. If you want to play semantic games and call this "desire", be my guest, though!
14. Would it not be better to redirect desire to God who alone can fulfill rather than eliminate all desire (Matthew 4:4; 5:6; 6:33)?
I don´t care what your holy book says.
In general, the questions on the webpage are too Christian-centric (or evangelical-centric) and in some cases also based in Christian (or popular) misconceptions of what the various non-Christian worldviews actually entail. This is most obvious when the imaginary Christian interrogates an "atheist" and an "agnostic".
The constant Bible quotes strongly suggest that the "questions" are really intended as in-house arguments for why the damn heathens are wrong, rather than genuine probing (or even polemical) questions to said heathens, since (of course) nobody except the Christian street missionary cares what the Christian holy book says. The strongest case is against monist Hinduism, but here the problem is that monism is considered normative, when in reality many Hindus aren´t monists!
Questions for atheists, agnostics and other non-Christians
No comments:
Post a Comment