The Western Creed by Charles T. Tart

BuckyG

Greetings All:

Anyone ever come across this?

The Western Creed by Charles T. Tart

"I believe in the material universe as the only and ultimate reality, a universe controlled by fixed physical laws and blind chance.

I affirm that the universe has no creator, no objective purpose, and no objective meaning or destiny.

I maintain that all ideas about God or gods, supernatural beings, prophets and saviors, or other nonphysical beings or forces are superstitions and delusions. Life and consciousness are totally identical to physical processes, and arose from chance interactions of blind physical forces. Like the rest of life, my life and consciousness have no objective purpose, meaning, or destiny.

I believe that all judgments, values, and moralities, whether my own or others', are subjective, arising solely from biological determinants, personal history, and chance. Free will is an illusion. Therefore, the most rational values I can personally live by must be based on the knowledge that for me what pleases me is Good, what pains me is Bad. Those who please me or help me avoid pain are my friends; those who pain me or keep me from my pleasures are my enemies. Rationality requires that friends and enemies be used in ways that maximize my pleasure and minimize my pain.

I affirm that churches have no real use other than social support; that there are no objective sins to commit or be forgiven for; that there is no retribution for sin or reward for virtue other than that which I can arrange, directly or through others. Virtue for me is getting what I want without being caught and punished by others.

I maintain that the death of the body is the death of the mind. There is no afterlife, and all hope for such is nonsense" (http://www.ctschicago.edu/index.php/mnuacademicprograms/cts-centers/259-western-creed).

The first time I read this I found it deeply instructive to see all my cultural conditioning laid bare & made explicit. TO CLARIFY: this is NOT MY CREED (i'm probably creedless)! It is an EXERCISE....
Metta
BuckyG

federica

Could you tell me why you put this in Advanced Ideas?

The Advanced Ideas Forum is to discuss aspects of Buddhist teachings, the suttas/sutras, and the Dhamma/Dharma which may be beyond the ability for some newer and novice members to get their teeth into... It would involve stringent analysis of "originals" in traditions, open to interpretation and debate....

BuckyG

I flipped a coin over this and Modern Buddhism.

BuckyG

Greetings federica,

The Advanced Ideas Forum is to discuss aspects of Buddhist teachings, the suttas/sutras, and the Dhamma/Dharma which may be beyond the ability for some newer and novice members to get their teeth into... It would involve stringent analysis of "originals" in traditions, open to interpretation and debate....

Is this stated anywhere on NB.com? It makes sense, but I can't find it anywhere but here, which is weird because I thought there were guidelines to actually eyeball here.
Metta
bucky

federica

It hasn't got anything to do with Buddhism, and I don't see why these are supposedly "Advanced Ideas".
I've seen it phrased in different ways, in different places, by different people.
It just seems to be a new-age re-hash of a composite view....

Where would you like it put instead?

BuckyG

Modern Buddhism!!! Did you look at the link? Tart is a Buddhist!!! It's a tongue-in-cheek thought experiment. It's from his book on MINDFULNESS!!! Look deeper.

BuckyG

Federica: did u see my comments on the bottom?

federica

It's a tongue-in-cheek thought experiment. It's from his book on MINDFULNESS!!! Look deeper.

In that case it's not advanced ideas, is it.
It's not 'Modern Buddhism' either....

Hmmm.
Dilemma.
Tempted to shove it in General Banter.
But people don't like that, it takes them off the discussions page....

Let's put it to the vote, see what others have to say.

OK?

BuckyG

Let's put it to the vote, see what others have to say.

OK?

OK. I didn't know you could vote.

Cinorjer

Since the discussion will quickly turn to Western and Rationalist Buddhism, then Modern Buddhism is probably technically correct. Anything but basic.

Cinorjer

Now, as for the question of did I hear this before? Yes, I was aware of Dr. Tart's so-called "Western Creed test". It's actually an exercise supposed to be done by a classroom full of people. Your place your hand over your heart and recite the words as if it's some sort of pledge. Then you write down how you feel about doing this. Then you all sit around and criticise the "materialist, skeptical, rationalist belief system" that's supposed to be represented in the creed. Since this is a favorite exercise of fundamentalist Christian university classrooms, it puts the students in the proper emotional state to vent their anger at the enemy. The creed is designed to hit buttons with terms like "blind chance" which is a buzzword used by creationists against evolution. Real scientists know evolution is certainly not blind chance, but that's not the point. The code words tell the creationist it's time to feel angry. And being forced to recite them as a creed reinforces the belief that those people are trying to force them to convert. Well done, Dr. Tart!

The term "Western Creed" has been used by some scholars to describe the European and American mindset as distinguished from Eastern and other cultures, both good and bad. Dr. Tart is mocking this, in his own delightful way. And his Creed vastly distorts the actual beliefs of a skeptical, rational person who might be an atheist but is at least an agnostic, and sees irrational beliefs in paranormal powers and nonscientific healing techniques like homeopathy to be dangerous and something people should have discarded long ago.

But the mockery and distortion of what is actually believed by both sides goes both way. Go to someplace like Randi.org, home to the Amazing Randi's campaign against what his group openly mocks as the "Woo-woo crowd" and you will find lots of folks who claim religion is itself responsible for all the conflict in the world and only stupid people let themselves get taken by the crooks who sell homeopathic remedies, spiritual advancement through positive thinking, etc.

So as a Buddhist of a particularly "Western" variety, what do I think of the actual creed? Well, while I'm a skeptical person, a rationalist, and certainly not a fundamentalist of Buddhist or whatever persuasion, there is not a single one of those creed statements that accurately reflect my beliefs. On top of that, as a Buddhist, I reject the entire concept of a creed or list of beliefs as a meaningful expression of who I am and what motivates me. Every single one of those creeds is irrelevant, believed or not. It's what you do with your beliefs that matter.

andyrobyn

Seems to me also Cinorjer that it is what we do with our beliefs and knowledge that counts in the end .... it is wisdom when it is acted upon, to quote a ' western cultural saying, "talk is cheap " ,
" mate " ( the mate is the Aussie bit - lol ).

Cinorjer

For some reason my favorit Aussie quote is, "You call that a knife?" Heh.

Yes, I agree it's what we do with our beliefs. I know for people who are used to religions composed of creeds and beliefs, trying to get a creed out of a Buddhist is frustrating. What do we believe? The world has fixed on the Noble Truths, I suppose.

BuckyG

Greetings Cinjorner:

The "creed" is not, as you claim, a criticism of science. It's a criticism of scientism. Also you would define what you mean "rationalist" and "skeptic"?

I just picked the first google entry from search that had the "creed" in it. I'm sure there are other online versions that aren't on Christian site. I'm NOT a Christian & forgot how that could offend some. I 1st saw the "creed" in the Shambala publication Living The Mindful Life.

Dr. Tart's so-called "Western Creed test" [is]...an exercise supposed to be done by a classroom full of people.

or group of retreatants, workshoppers, etc....

...I reject the entire concept of a creed or list of beliefs as a meaningful expression...

The "creed" is itself a criticism of creed-ism. Tart does not recommend a creed.
Metta,
bucky

Cinorjer

Greetings Cinjorner:

The "creed" is not, as you claim, a criticism of science. It's a criticism of scientism. Also you would define what you mean "rationalist" and "skeptic"?

I just picked the first google entry from search that had the "creed" in it. I'm sure there are other online versions that aren't on Christian site. I'm NOT a Christian & forgot how that could offend some. I 1st saw the "creed" in the Shambala publication Living The Mindful Life.

Dr. Tart's so-called "Western Creed test" [is]...an exercise supposed to be done by a classroom full of people.

or group of retreatants, workshoppers, etc....

...I reject the entire concept of a creed or list of beliefs as a meaningful expression...

The "creed" is itself a criticism of creed-ism. Tart does not recommend a creed.
Metta,
bucky

Nope, not gonna get into a debate on the difference between rationalist and skeptic. Means different things to different people, and I've already talked about what it means to me. However, we can have an interesting discussion on what this Buddhist might see when I look at this creed.

My Buddhist practice is designed to recognize the dangers of duality when I encounter it. I see this as an honest expression of how Dr. Tart and the people who use this test think their critics believe. It defines a skeptic in their minds. "Scientism" is another of those labels that raises warning flags in my mind of being a shorthand way of identifying the enemy. What does that word even mean? The suffix "-ism" used in this manner denotes a system of beliefs held by some group. Nobody I know, especially anyone educated in what science is all about, believes anything close to this creed.

I think that Shambala publication did a disservice if they promoted this as an honest expression of a critics's beliefs, because it's designed to foster and encourage an "us versus them" mentality. I would have the same reaction if some skeptic publication posted a series of beliefs about Buddhism that included such gems as, "I believe sitting and meditating all day long is all that is required to give me supernatural powers and make me omniscient."

Dr. Tart seems to mistake the scientific approach to examining and testing reality with a set of preconceived beliefs about what constitutes reality. Some rationalists mistake an active spiritual search for meaning in life with a set of meaningless rituals. Can I do anything else but laugh at myself and life?

shanyin

I vote members only, because it's not really Buddhism, and people who aren't members are probably looking for Buddhism.

Dakini

If Tart is a Buddhist, it should've been stated from the outset ("Thoughts of a Buddhist Scientist", or something of that nature)in order to help guide the mods, who may not be familiar with the author.

Bucky, what I was told is that if a Buddhist-topic OP is of a speculative nature, then it goes in General Banter. If the question has a basis in teachings or scripture (sometimes we don't know until the discussion evolves, and someone contributes passages from teachings or scripture), it belongs in a Buddhist category. I wonder, though, what's the fine line dividing "Modern Buddhism" from "Advanced Ideas"? We also had a "Current Events" topic that was moved to "General Banter", so I missed it entirely. I agree, as I've said on the "What Constitutes a Buddhist Thread" thread (New Buddhist.com category) and on the "Welcome to NB.com" thread, that a permanent reference thread delineating the categories to the extent possible (recognizing that this is not an exact science) would be helpful, not only for members, but for the mods who have to review topics for relevancy to the category, and go to the trouble of moving them when deemed appropriate. It could be stated on the reference thread that these are only general guidelines, and final discretion on thread placement is with the mods.

federica

Dakini, you really don't need to keep repeating your points in different threads.
Your queries have been dealt with in two others....
As I said elsewhere (thereby shooting myself in the foot!) Duplication really isn't necessary....

BuckyG

Nope, not gonna get into a debate on the difference between rationalist and skeptic. Means different things to different people, and I've already talked about what it means to me.

I don't want a debate, just your working definitions so when you use the terms I know what you mean. I PROMISE I will not debate you stipulative definitions. I'll look for your previous posts.

Dr. Tart seems to mistake the scientific approach to examining and testing reality with a set of preconceived beliefs about what constitutes reality. Some rationalists mistake an active spiritual search for meaning in life with a set of meaningless rituals. Can I do anything else but laugh at myself and life?

I've only read Tart's Shambala pub. I've tried to read his others but found them dumb. The new one on "materialism" seems to be a New Age re-run of the same arguments against scientism Huston Smith presented in his book "Why Religion Matters." Personally, I find Kuhn's & Feyerbend's views on science to be the most compelling.

BuckyG

If Tart is a Buddhist, it should've been stated from the outset ("Thoughts of a Buddhist Scientist", or something of that nature)in order to help guide the mods, who may not be familiar with the author.

Good point Dakini, thanks for the tip.

Bucky, what I was told is that if a Buddhist-topic OP is of a speculative nature, then it goes in General Banter. If the question has a basis in teachings or scripture (sometimes we don't know until the discussion evolves, and someone contributes passages from teachings or scripture), it belongs in a Buddhist category. I wonder, though, what's the fine line dividing "Modern Buddhism" from "Advanced Ideas"? We also had a "Current Events" topic that was moved to "General Banter", so I missed it entirely. I agree, as I've said on the "What Constitutes a Buddhist Thread" thread (New Buddhist.com category) and on the "Welcome to NB.com" thread, that a permanent reference thread delineating the categories to the extent possible (recognizing that this is not an exact science) would be helpful, not only for members, but for the mods who have to review topics for relevancy to the category, and go to the trouble of moving them when deemed appropriate. It could be stated on the reference thread that these are only general guidelines, and final discretion on thread placement is with the mods.

I think your points are valid, but you seem to have this one under "control" & I still haven't looked at the Book Club updates yet.
peace
bucky