Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Can you believe in God
Darren351
California New
Can one believe in God and still practice Buddhism? I am having problems believing their is no higher force in the Universe. I find it hard to believe all the plants and all the different animals were created by luck, by evolution. There are just to many well adapted species. I would like to hear some thoughts on this.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Well, if evolution is doing it’s job properly, there will be a vast majority of well-adapted species. It’s not just luck, it’s a process of gradual improvement in all sorts of directions. I’m quite a fan of the theory of evolution, I have to say.
The evidence for evoution is compelling and scientific and far outweighs the idea of a creationist god, for which there is no evidence. I am an atheist/agnostic and a buddhist without any problem. I suspect you can be a theist and a buddhist just as easily. Just dont take it all too seriously.
(Nihon Daizōkyō Hensankai, Shugendō shōso 1, bussetsu sanjin juryōmuhen kyō, Sutra on the Unlimited Life of the Threefold Body)
The Buddha of No Thought and No Mind is the dharmadhātu. Dharmadhātu is a word. God is a word. If the dharmadhātu is God, then the Buddha of No Thought and No Mind is God.
Where do you find the Buddha of No Thought and No Mind? In any dharma.
These are questions I would ask.
Do you believe god, evolution, and a higher force brings you to enlightenment?
Is it detrimental to your practice of The Dhamma?
Is god or higher force the source of your Practice?
I am of the opinion that:
You can practise a Theistic religion fully, AND incorporate Buddhist practice as much as you want.
You CANNOT practise Buddhism fully, and incorporate a Theistic religion as a fundamental and significant part of that practice.
The Buddha would not be drawn on whether God, as a single, omnipotent omniscient all-powerful creator-Deity, exists. Because such a notion is entire conjecture.
You can believe it if you want, but there is no proof, only Faith (in the guise of Hope).
The Buddha's teachings fully stand any amount of scrutiny, and can be examined and tested, (although re-birth might be questionable to some; it depends upon interpretation...)
And living according to the Buddha's teachings is a matter of Faith, as in 'Confidence in'.
Thus have I found. YMMV.
There is no such thing as 'luck' in Evolution.
Luck has nothing to do with it. It has taken millions of years to get where we are today. Evolution takes time.
That's why it has taken millions of years for species to evolve, adapt, change, and become at one with their surroundings. Bear in mind that the combined land-mass of the Earth was once one big place, which - over thousands and thousands of years - due to tectonic plates shifting, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and water displacement - all separated into the different continents we know today.
Species adapted to the new environmental conditions they found themselves confined to.
Asian and African elephants live on different continents, yet are members of the same species.
They have adapted to their environments. Asian elephants have smaller ears because the climate is different to that of Africa.
Not something I subscribe to at all. And I was a devout Roman Catholic for over 35 years or so.
The short answer is yes. Here's my answer to a similar question if you're interested. The reply following that is also relevant.
@Darren351 Is your question if you would be accepted in a Sangha? Would they not want you as a part of them if you also believe in God? I would say no. I have met people in Sanghas who believe in God. One Christian I recall found the Bodhisattva idea quite inspiring. That being (Bodhisattva) to save all beings from suffering. This might not apply to all Sanghas (accepting) rather might only apply to my experience.
@Darren351 Another question: are you talking about the God of the Bible? Or just a higher power personal spiritual feeling? On that I am just curious to know as I always found the God of the bible did not seem right to me like very capricious turning people into salt and other things that made no sense to me.
@Darren351, It's a good thread to read in its entirety, and another member therein (@Hozan) further gives a link, (further down from @Jason's post) to yet ANOTHER thread on this forum, discussing the same topic.
Safe to say the subject has been covered on this forum more than once....
The short answer is yes. However, be prepared to cop some shit from other Buddhists if you admit it
??????
There was an Episcopalian minister who attended teachings I went to for a while, he seemed to manage it. In general Buddhism doesn't ask you to accept a set of beliefs when you sign up (have you signed up yet and sent for your decoder ring and tinfoil hat?), so you can come with whatever worldview you have and find much of benefit in the practice. Over time, after contemplating the teachings and worldview's promoted, no matter where you originally come from, your views will inevitably be challenged. I'm of the opinion that it is good and healthy to repeatedly reexamine and challenge your views, but its not for everyone. So you can believe in God and practice Buddhism, but you may encounter ideas that will cause you to question and perhaps change or modify your views.
Hello
You can believe in the flying speghetti monster if that floats your noodle ...
https://www.venganza.org/about/
However you can practice with or with out god or gods as @Vimalajāti mentions
Meanwhile you can educate yourself on the evidence for devolution into fake thinking Trumpworld if you so wish ... Though that is not required ... Finding out how evolution works may be more rewarding than belief ... scientific evidence based evolution is about adaptation, not a progressive march toward perfection ...
Here is one from earlier ...
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/16333/opinions-on-evolution
I agree. I'm Jewish and when I decided to take Buddhism seriously and make it my main practice, I was tortured with thoughts like yours @Darren351 . I found it helpful to put my views on G-d aside and focus on the teachings when reading dharma/meditating etc. And it really helped. After all, even the Buddha didn't give a definitive answer (see the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow). I still don't know how a belief in G-d will help with the Dharma teachings, but I do firmly believe the Dharma teachings have helped me become a better Jew.
This is just my 0.02
_ /\ _
You can believe in whatever you want to believe in @Darren351 and still practice Buddhism...
However as you delve deeper into the Dharma, and Spring clean the mind through meditation some strongly held beliefs may start to crumble before your "I"s oops eyes, as experiential understanding opens up the mind to new truths...
And you may start to see this "God" in a different light...in other words not the kind of god that your mind has previously been 'conditioned' ( more often than not by a god-centric society) to portray...
As for this self well.... I'm an atheist till the day I die
........then I might be open to offers 
Some things like reincarnation, the deeper meanings of impermanence and dependent origination are harder to reconcile with the idea of a creator god who steers the world. But certainly a lot of the base concepts of what Jesus spoke about and Buddhism can be brought together, as Thich Nhat Hanh’s Book Living Buddha, living Christ attempts to do.
It’s a question of what you feel is important in your belief of god, the word of Jesus or the word of the church. But certainly there are forms which are compatible, and which are mutually enriching and which I think you will find bring much completeness to religious belief.
Yes, practicing Buddhism is not a set of beliefs but a set of practices that you actually do. For example, keeping the precepts, doing meditation, being compassionate and generous, etc. Belief in a higher power doesn't interfere with any of that.
Great book.
It's actually pretty easy if one realizes that Tao = Dhamma = logos = God. I tend to view these terms as giving expression to the same fundamental reality, hence my penchant for mixing Taosim, Buddhist, Stoicism, and Christian mysticism. Especially if one considers the possibility that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. Just one perspective, at any rate.
We had a member for a while that was pretty informed on Eastern Orthodox Christianity and the way he explained their conception of God was very similar to the idea of the Dharmakaya or Tao.
Have you looked into David Chalmers and Giulio Tononi and the current reemergence of the idea of panpsychism in philosophy and the science of consciousness?
You're probably referring to @Silouan. I miss them.
I'm familiar with Chalmers, not Tononi, though.
My question to you that believe in evolution so strongly is why has it stopped? The monkeys do not talk, they have evolved no further. Other animals have not changed in millions of years. Why do they not keep evolving? It is hard to believe everything comes from an ameba. I know the theory of evolution very well, there is just many leaps of faith in it itself. Find me a talking dog or a talking monkey and I will believe in evolution. Why would the fish vary so much when they live in the same environment? Plants can't grow without the first seed. No animal is born the first time, chicken before the egg theory? Just saying...
Perhaps the theory that Noah's ark was a space ship landing makes more sense than the theory of evolution
Evolution is about adapting to the environment more than it is about improving to some higher state. So animals like sharks or alligators have changed hardly at all for millions of years because they are already perfectly adapted to their environmental niche.
Also, evolution happens very gradually over very, very long periods of time. At no point does one species give birth to another species, a brown bear never produces a black bear. I was just listening to an interview with Michael Shermer, he gave the example of modern day lizards in the California area (I may not be perfectly representing what he said, but it's something like this) . As you move across large areas of land slowly the variations of a certain form of lizard change. Similar lizards from one area can interbreed with lizards of adjoining areas continuously, but as you get further and further away, at some point the lizards can no longer interbreed and are considered to be differing species, the same thing happens over time. And there are numerous examples of this type of speciation around the world.
You're asking good questions, it seems like there is a lot about the science of evolution you haven't been exposed to yet. I would recommend watching episode two of Cosmos on evolution. It is available for free on Fox ( https://www.fox.com/watch/a05f6e5d6f60804f93abfcd27f520fe4/ ) or on Netflix and probably Hulu and Amazon Prime too to help clear some of this up.
I think the whole "first cause" bit is a logistical nightmare in the bridging between the Abrahamic and Dharmic notions of a universal consciousness.
Also, evolution stopped?
You would probably need to understand what evolution actually implies before trying to say what is wrong with it.
For example, if you think that one ape having a slight mutation, eventually leading to the beginnings of humanity means that all apes magically disappear, you may want to readjust your logic.
Some belief systems really screw with critical thinking.
Who says it's stopped? it is estimated by an awful lot of scientists and people in the know, that over a period of time, humans will lose their little toes. Why? Because they're becoming redundant, because we don't walk barefoot as a continuous habit. We have already dispensed with most of our body hair, because of clothing.
So Evolution is a slow, apparently unseen process, but there isn't anything to say, anywhere, that it has stopped.
Why would monkeys talk? They don't need to, they already communicate with each other in extremely sophisticated and effective ways. And that's all they need to do. Communicate with one another.
Besides, what makes you think that even being able to talk is a bonus? have you heard Trump lately...?
I beg to differ! Apes are adapting to using tools to make eating their food easier. They use rocks to open tough nuts. Who taught them? We didn't. They don't have YouTube to teach them how... It's something they have gradually learnt on their own, and the big apes are passing the know-how to their offspring... That's a sign of evolution...
Not so. Whales began as animals the size of dogs. They were also originally land animals and had an ancestor common also to hippos. But they're not related...
Also, you might like to check this out. To say that animals have 'evolved no further' is a grave mistake.
When you consider that a human being starts off as one cell, which is then fertilised by a microscopic sperm, from another human being, and then divides, into two, then four, then eight, then sixteen, and so on.... when you think of how a human miracle grows and develops inside a
human being, over a period of nearly a year, only (!) Why would it be so hard to believe that our origins were cellular? Besides, we didn't come from amoebas. Again, you need to improve your research, because you're making some pretty sweeping statements without apparently having studied certain facts and Theories. (You do know, don't you, that a scientific 'Theory' is an established and researched definitive finding that stands rigorous testing and remains as evidence, unless other research uncovers findings and evidence that make it incorrect, ... right?)
No. I don't think you do.
No, that comes from someone who hasn't done enough research, because there is no such thing as a 'leap of faith' in scientific research, in order to establish Theory.
I'm sorry, but that's just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen anyone write on this forum. That really takes the biscuit. Which incidentally, evolved from cakes.
Because they don't. Saltwater fish live in seas, freshwater fish live in lakes and rivers. Saltwater fish can't survive in fresh water, and vice versa. Deep sea creatures die if brought up to surface conditions, if they are not in the habit of doing so.
Plants have evolved and changed to adapt to environments just as much as anything else. Of course, the majority of plants have been genetically changed to suit human environment and diet. Have you researched what the fruit and vegetables we eat today, used to look like originally?
Yeah, mostly rubbish. Sorry, but I think this God and creationist idea is the one found wanting, not Evolution...
Which is obviously where your preference lies. Fair enough.
Meet Koko, a gorilla they taught sign language at a young age...
It seems to me you have quite fixed opinions on this. I find the theory of creation as put forward by the church to be very difficult to believe, there is just no evidence for it while there is a ton of evidence for scientific approaches such as the age of the earth, dinosaur bones, genes, meteorite evidence on the creation of the solar system, plate tectonics and much more.
I found a book about stories told about genetics to be very interesting. I don't have a focus on biology or genetics in school and this book is intended to be entertaining for non-experts. It's called "The Violinists Thumb". It isn't really about proving evolution but evolution is kind of tangential to the stories it tells at times. Anyhow I found it eye opening and darned interesting. The same author wrote one about stories of the periodic table from chemistry called "The Disappearing Spoon" which was also excellent and chemistry IS my focus interest and background in science.
Anyhow the Violinists Thumb might satisfy some curiosity and be a great read however NOT being a book arguing the merits or demerits (polemics) of the theory of evolution.
"Darwinian Man, though well-behaved, At best is only a monkey shaved!"
As one of many different species of ape, one could say we human apes swung down from a different branch of the tree...(so to speak
)
I'm curious ....
Is this god omnipresent ?
Is this god omnipotent ?
Is this god omniscient ?
Is it all of the above ?
Is it none of the above ?
Is it a watchmaker god ? (winds the universe up and leaves it at that)
Does this god intervene in anyway, eg answer prayers ?
Can you describe the type of god that you believe in @Darren351 ?
for an example...
Is your belief in the Deist camp ?
Or
leaning more towards the Theist camp ?
To be honest, I'm a bit surprised by the number of people who still deny the validity of evolution. At this point, Darwin's theory of evolution is fairly well-proven; it's basically a fact. And despite what critics may say, all the evidence thus far (e.g., DNA, fossil, observations of evolution, etc.) supports it 100%. It'd only take one 'Precambrian rabbit' to turn the theory of evolution on its head; but so far, not a single piece of evidence has been found to contradict and/or disprove it.
Moreover, most of the arguments I've seen against evolution are based on completely specious grounds, such as Chuck Missler's argument (which conflates evolution with abiogenesis, by the way) that, apart from God's direct intervention, life from non-life is impossible. However, there are other logical, and more importantly, demonstrable, explanations for the beginning of life on Earth than God, and there are numerous models of abiogenesis currently being explored by scientists.
Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to believe that life on this planet began as an act of God, that's fine with me; but it certainly hasn't been proven that (1) organic molecules can't form via natural chemical reactions (which the Miller–Urey experiment has done), or that (2) those molecules can't form a protocell. It's true that a protocell has yet to be synthesized, but it's still a relatively new field and scientists all over the world are currently working on it, so I think it's a bit early to count them out just yet.
I know that this is a touchy subject in that it starts to encroach upon people's religious beliefs, and I'm not trying to convince anyone that God doesn't exist via evolution (and, by extension, trying to use evolution as a unified theory against theistic or creationist accounts); but at the same time, I don't want people's belief in God to blind them to the very real evidence of how life evolved, and possibly even began.
Science isn't perfect, and it certainly doesn't have all the answers, but that shouldn't stop us from considering the enormous amount of knowledge that science has already given us, even if it happens to challenge our deepest-held beliefs.
I'm not trying to promote scientism here, but saying things like the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old when geological and radiometric evidence strongly suggests otherwise, that evolution doesn't take place when DNA evidence, fossil records, and direct observations strongly suggest otherwise, or that organic molecules can't possibly form via natural chemical reactions when experiments strongly suggests otherwise, simply because that's what a certain set of religious beliefs with absolutely no supporting evidence say is hard for me to understand, let alone defend.
Now, it can certainly be argued that there's some kind of divine intelligence at work here, a type of cosmic architect that we call God determining the laws of nature so that we were destined to be here from the very beginning of the Big Bang; but at the same time, these things can also have purely natural causes and don't necessarily need a creator or architect. More importantly, regardless of whether or not an all-powerful being is behind these natural processes, we can, and should, observe these processes at work in the universe and learn what we can about them.
First of all, @Darren351, you may want to delve further in the subject of evolution because you do not seem to have a solid knowledge about it.
It seems to me that you are not asking, but rather would like to be reassured of the existence of a god.
The Buddha did not bother to answer the god question because he deemed our present existence to be more important than where we come from and where we're going to.
Buddhadhamma is concerned with cessation of dukkha, and cessation of dukkha takes place in the present moment, through zeal and practice, whether a creator exists or not.
If you think that evolution is imperfect, do you believe in intelligent design?
In that case, my short answer is this:
Why, for that matter, is it even possible to choke to death on one's food? A glaring design flaw, hardly worthy of an omnipotent and supposedly all wise creator.
It has always puzzled me a little, though, why anyone should think that evolution and the god concept are mutually exclusive. How easy it would be to say that god creates the world and - lookie here - this is how it does the job. Why is some magic wand idea so much more palatable?
Yes, many theists simply say that God set the initial conditions for evolution to take place and that these processes are how creation works rather than God having a direct hand in everything that happens.
god is a creation of the human mind. Homo sapiens invented god in the same way we invented coins, money, politics. I think the buddha was an atheist at heart but left the question unanswered so as not to alienate a significant number of people from benefitting from his teachings
@Darren351 in Buddhism we are quite critical of ignorance and ignorant thinking. As you may have noticed ...
However Buddhists and scientists are prone to non-critical thinking too. It leads to temporary silliness. However that is a discussion for another thread ...
Indoctrination can have a strong hold on us. Our core beliefs may not be as certain as we have been bled [sic] to believe ...
Most of us encourage insight, evidence and anti-silliness (one of my hobbies)
Of course you can believe in God.
But understand that Buddhism focuses on what we directly experience. In fact, in many languages, there are different words for "I know ... because I saw it for myself firsthand" and "I know ... because someone told me or I read it somewhere".
Buddhism is about what you know firsthand. And that means that questions about God, and even rebirth ... these are not really KNOWN. At least, not as far as I know.
I always consider mythology is a good way to think about this. Of all the mythologies created by all the tribes around the world, why should the one invented by the people of Israel have more truth than any other?
But that is about god the creator, the White-robed man in the sky. Other forms of god, like an inner god you encounter, may still be valid, and the many words of Jesus still hold value whatever the historical reality of Jesus was.
I think people who NEED or WANT to believe in a god do not start from the same line of reasoning as the Buddha did.
People who need or want to believe in a god, are too concerned with figuring out what the Buddha called unskillful or unprofitable questions.
I insist: the core of Buddhadhamma lies in the mindfulness of a present moment where we can practice towrds cessation of dukkha, while deist people are too concerned about a past and a future that do not shed any useful answers to improve the quality of one's present samsaric stint, aka this life.
The Parable of the Arrow from the Majjhima Nikaya is the perfect example of this and what follows is Nyanatiloka Thero's resume, as presented in different suttas:
So I think the most important questioning any person taking up the Buddhist path should ponder on is: do I want my arrow pulled by asking the right questions, that will lead to the right answers, or shall I squander my life ensnared in unprofitable questions that cannot be answered and keep me stuck in dukkha?
This is an extremely coherent discussion on Belief in God, vs scientific research. And Stephen Colbert concedes the point.
Note: I do not post this as part of a pissing contest. I'm posting it because it's a logical, well-thought-out and coherent response. It makes sense.
In a way I dont feel we have given very forgiving answers here. In the spirit of compassion I wanted to add it’s very possible to combine certain Christian beliefs with the teaching of the Buddha, and that’s the basic truth.
If you want to combine a belief in a creationist god with boeddhism, then you won’t be the first and I won’t give you a hard time about it.
It's not a question of 'forgiving'. If you look at the beginning of the thread, the question was answered, both honestly and in a compassionate and understanding way.
In fact, you were the first to proffer a response.
It was only when the OP began to contribute highly questionable opinions (as facts0 that a more controversial tone ensued.
But his original question was amply answered.
Nobody's going to give him 'a hard time about it'. But the complications that might exist have been covered.
hmm...some thoughts.
science and religion is not mutually exclusive.our buddhist practice allow both to be in the same space through the middle way ,or in zen--im guessing--non duel,but non dual.we recollect siddhartha admonition,clinging too strong of a belief may lead to mental dukkha.besides siddhartha suggest dont annoy people with strong beliefs.to add simularity to yeshua--same dharma advise--dont convert them to a son or daughter of hell--annoying other people.dont i know it,been there done that.live and learn.
on another note,i believe in god and buddhism.my god may not be your god...and thats ok.
Simple answer @Darren351 ...If you really want to, then "Yes" ...It's entirely up to you...and whether this belief is compatible with Dharma practice...you will have to see for yourself ....
I own I have an issue with the G-word.
Maybe because I love Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, as presented in his work "Also sprach Zarathustra."
For Nietzsche, the Superman is a Man who is so deeply grounded in his own inner strength, so strong in his self-assertiveness, that he does not need to rely on a god.
I find that from all human attachments, the need to rely on the father figure of a god is probably the hardest to sever.
For some reason, rather than working on their own salvation and assuming responsibility for their lives, some people simply need to give away the power over their own fates to an imaginary superbeing.
I had yet to come across someone who found that the fairy tale of a god is easier to swallow than the proven scientific fact of evolution, though.
Being free, absolutely free to be creators of our own lives, can be scary.
But forever relying on the crutch of a father figure and persisting in a delusion is too high a price to pay for such little reward.
The Buddha taught us that our own thinking ability can set us free.
And we ourselves hold the key.
Not some imaginary super deity.
Why would I willingly trade in that liberating option?
Moderator note:
May I remind members that @Darren351 is not asking US whether we believe in God or not, and whether God exists or not.
He merely enquired if it's ok to believe in God AND practise Buddhism.
He then also introduced a further parallel discussion on Evolution.
At no time was there any question to members as to where their beliefs lie, or whether a belief in God is a reasonable premise.
No response necessary. (though that's never put members off before...
)
Sorry, Fede.
In my case, I am sort of prodding the OP to examine his need to believe in a God.
I am exchanging his "Can I believe in God?" for a "Why do you need to?"
Maybe he could come up with some profitable answers...
Or maybe we should just stick to topic....
QED....
That's not your place or privilege to do, that's for him to conclude for himself. That's not the issue here.
No, you're prompting a discussion in a direction the OP didn't venture.
Well... It would be nice if he answered at all. But again, that's HIS choice.
I don't view examining our own beliefs through free interaction and exchange of ideas with other people in a forum as a special privilege I was conferring myself with, nor did I have the feeling that I was sidetracking the thread off-theme.
I already expressed my point, anyway, so I'll move on to other threads.
You weren't examining your own beliefs, you were challenging his.
You were.
Thank you.