So, Robert Wright has a new book.
Like his older “Evolution of God,” it applies ev psych to
religion, in this case one specific religion.
I won’t bother to read, as I one-starred that previous book
for both that reason and the fact that Wright uses his old one-trick pony of “non-zero,”
as in applying non-zero sum game theory to religious evolution.
That said, one can derive anthropological-based insights from the best of ev psych, and THEN apply THAT to the study of religious origin and development. Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer, among others, have done it quite well. And Robert Wright can't hold a candle to either.
Besides, I don’t need to review it for another reason.
Adam Gopnik, in a long piece at The New Yorker, has already
done the favor both with him, and his somewhat older quasi-paralleling British
secularizer of Buddhism, Stephen Batchelor. It's so good I re-read the whole thing.
I agree with Gopnik a LOT on both of them. That said, while
still not planning to read the book (I’ve read previous Batchelor, too) I did
click link to the Amazon page for Batchelor's one book.
I wanted to look at the one- and two-star reactions.
Funny, most of the people who accuse him of
"pillaging" Buddhism for secularist ends most likely do their own
pillaging for New Agey ends.
And, this also ignores that the history of all religions is
full of pillaging. Today's Hinduism, whether Vedanta or many other branches,
isn't the Brahmanism of 2,000 years ago. Today's Judaism isn't the
proto-Rabbinic Judaism of 2,000 years ago or the Israelitism of 2,500 years ago
and more. Today's "fundamentalist" Christianity isn't that of the
pre-Nicene age.
That said, my personal, philosophy-of-religion definition of
religion remains a basic two-item one.
First: A belief in metaphysical matters that are of ultimate
concern to human life. Note that this allows atheistic versions of Buddhism to
be — rightly — defined as religion. Note that this also rightly, versus many
Gnu Atheists — uses the word "atheist(ic)" as what it is, not a
synonym for "irreligious."
Second: A set of praxis and/or dogma that is developed to
rightly "align" believers with these matters of metaphysical concern.
Note that this allows for both what are called "orthodoxy" religions
and "orthopraxy" religions.
So, Buddhism — if not stripped of ALL metaphysics, is a
religion. Certainly, it originally developed as one. Brahmanism of circa 500
BCE believed in some form of reincarnation and karma. Most versions of Buddhism
today, setting aside things like Pure Land Buddhism that believe in a one-off
afterlife, not reincarnations in a cycle. And, though not really having a
dogma, Buddhism does indeed have a praxis. (Note to meditating New Agey
Westerners — most Buddhism in its homeland still has plenty of other praxis for
the laypeople, most of whom don't have the time or the inclination for
meditation.)
This, then, gets to my earlier comment.
Wright isn't offering up Buddhism. He's offering up
"Buddhist secularism." Per good linguistics, the noun is controlling,
the adjective is modifying.
In a discussion with David Hoelscher on a Facebook page, I
say the same. Ditto for what we should call “Jewish secularism” rather than “secular
Judaism.”
That said, what about “secular humanism”? Shouldn’t it
really be called “Christian secularism,” at least in some cases? I’m thinking
primarily of non-Wiccan/pagan Unitarian churches and similar.
Shows that “cultural Christianism,” per Samuel Huntington,
Rodney Stark and others, still dominates American culture, that we don’t do
that.
One doesn't have to be a Gnu Atheist to critique — critique to the point of heavily criticize — Wright.
And, that all said, regular readers of this blog know that I am in general unfriendly toward attempts to pass Buddhism off as something it is not. Above all, that's when it's done by — speaking of "secular Judaism" — so-called BuJews.
And, that all said, regular readers of this blog know that I am in general unfriendly toward attempts to pass Buddhism off as something it is not. Above all, that's when it's done by — speaking of "secular Judaism" — so-called BuJews.
No comments:
Post a Comment