Stephen Bachelor's appealing agnostic Buddhism

Often people say that it's hard to tell whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. This makes me give it a semi-enthusiastic churchless thumbs-up.

I enjoy the Buddhist way of looking at reality. It's the religious side of Buddhism that gives me pause. So whenever I come across a writer who is knowledgeable about subtracting religiosity from Buddhism, I'm eager to read what he or she has to say.

My favorite author in this genre is Stephen Bachelor. His "Buddhism Without Beliefs" is a terrific book. When I feel in the need of some godless inspiration, I pick it up.

As I mentioned in a recent post where I shared some Bachelor quotes, I was excited to come across a Master's thesis on his web site: "A Critical Examination of the Agnostic Buddhism of Stephen Bachelor."

This morning I carried my laptop into my meditation nook and read Marjorie Silverman's thoughtful, well-written analysis while sipping a strong cup of Zambian coffee.

Bliss.

She's an excellent thinker. And a fine writer. Silverman ends up concluding that while many Buddhists don't like how Bachelor strips religiosity out of their faith's teachings, this is very much in line with Buddhism.

This pared down and exposed Buddhism is perhaps less a Buddhism without beliefs, and more a Buddhism without baggage.

The introduction to her thesis is a nice short summary of Bachelor's bare bones Buddhism. 

Batchelor advocates a return to what he claims are the historically agnostic roots of Buddhism that were lost through institutionalization. He presents an agnosticism that he asserts is just as challenging as traditional belief systems.  To be an agnostic requires an enormous amount of commitment as it forces us to “confront the enormity of having been born”. It entails a “passionate recognition” that we don’t know the answers to why we were born or what we are doing on this planet.

Bachelor considers that traditional Buddhist notions of rebirth and karma need to be stripped of unfounded metaphysics that is a carryover from Buddhism's beginnings in Indian culture.

In Chapter 5 Silverman addresses the central critiques of Bachelor by several Buddhist scholars. One is that he is a "scientific materialist." (That doesn't sound like much of an epithet to my churchless ears, but I guess it's a putdown if you're into mainstream Buddhism.)

I'll share Silverman's treatment of this issue in its entirety because (1) Bachelor's attitude toward science and metaphysical phenomena is close to my own, and (2) I feel that he makes darn good sense -- not surprisingly.

Punnadhammo asserts that Batchelor’s agnosticism is equivalent to materialism because it does not accept as valid phenomena that are beyond rational explanation.  He also suggests that it upholds a self-view that is incompatible with the Buddhist doctrine of not-self.  Sangharakshita asserts that there are limits to human reason and that religious phenomena cannot be explained by science.  Is it true that Batchelor is denigrating the Dharma by upholding human reason and the scientific process?
           
While it is valid to say that Batchelor is an advocate of rational thought, he does not pedestalize human reason or science at the expense of metaphysical phenomena.  The main message of Batchelor’s agnosticism is the following: “I don’t know”.  This is extremely different from an outright “No”.  Batchelor is not denying that metaphysical phenomena exist; he is simply stating that it is not only difficult, but pointless, to try to prove their existence.  It is the questions, not the answers, that are meaningful.  According to Batchelor, when questioning is hindered, the whole goal of Buddhist practice dissolves.

Batchelor is not reifying human reason at the expense of the supernatural. On the contrary, Batchelor’s agnosticism expresses respect for the potential magnitude of the supernatural or other-worldly.  He is asserting that such phenomena, which cannot be explained by reason, also cannot be explained by uncritical belief.  They are too large and too multi-faceted to be placed into a narrow category of definition.  Defining as belief something that is completely beyond the human realm, such as rebirth, reduces the phenomena into something graspable, yet also safe and one-dimensional.  According to Batchelor, the only way to honour the magnitude and multi-dimensionality of a concept like rebirth is to conceptualize it as a question.

According to Batchelor, having the faith to surrender into this state of unknowing and perplexity is the very essence of not-self.  All the things that we cling to for identity, the things that normally make up what we regard as our “self”, come under scrutiny and questioning.  Thus, far from opposing the Buddhist doctrine of not-self, Batchelor claims that the only way to achieve such a realization of emptiness is to fully examine and to question all facets of one’s life.  It is when other-worldly phenomena are made into concrete beliefs for the sake of self-definition and security, that the self is upheld and pedestalized.  For example, a belief in rebirth provides a sense of self-definition and purpose.  It is this constant focus on the self, rather than its perplexed counterpart, that contradicts the Buddhist notion of not-self.

In this respect, Batchelor’s agnosticism is not, as the critics claim, the equivalent of materialism.  Materialism implies a complete denial of anything beyond rational comprehension.  Batchelor, however, only claims that we cannot make definitive statements about non-rational phenomena.  He does not deny their existence outright.  Batchelor writes: “In refusing to be drawn into the answers of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, ‘it is this’ and ‘it is not that’, it lets go of the extremes of affirmation and negation, something and nothing.”

Comments

[manjitd]

Excellent.

One of the best pieces of writing I've read about Buddism for a while.

But Brian - do you believe you are entirely in step with Batchelor's view? Quite so open minded?

[Blogger Brian]

Manjitd, I can't say "entirely," because Stephen Bachelor and I are different people (obviously). He's deep into Buddhist practice -- albeit an agnostic variety -- and I'm not.

But I'm not finding much to disagree with in my re-reading of "Buddhism Without Beliefs." And his attitude toward science is very close to mine.

Absolutely, I'm open-minded. Very much so. It's just that open-mindedness has to be accompanied by a "show me" mentality, or an open mind will get filled with all sorts of meaningless crap.

If there is demonstrable evidence for God, soul, spirit, angels, heaven, life after death, whatever, bring it on. I've been searching for that evidence for most of my life, as has Bachelor, I'm sure.

Like him, I believe the searching is what is important. For Bachelor, perplexity, doubt, uncertainty, not-knowing, awe -- this is the Way. It isn't that these things are what lead us to the Way.

They ARE the Way.

So open-mindedness doesn't come with an expectation that all of the mysteries of existence will be answered. They won't be. But hopefully we can rest more comfortably and honestly with the questions.

[BleedingObvious]

Brian
Thank you for such clarity, your definition of open mindedness is quite different from mine. I now understand that you are open to that which can be demonstrated to your standards of acceptance, ie, show me and I will believe.
I am a little unclear how you deal with life's many illusions and the brains ready ability to interpret what it wants to see, ie. the work of Derren Brown).

I differ in my definition of open mindedness, I do not accept that the lack of demonstrable evidence for a concept amounts to proof of its non-existence. Posit a concept, test it with accepted logic, if the result is a paradox, then it can be put in the junk box.
Even this approach would not have led to such areas as quantum mechanics or many of the new theories being currently proposed (APM, CPH etc.).

Dark matter has not been observed, but if science took your "show me" approach, I doubt if much progress towards this most fundamental understanding of our universe would be made.

On the positive side, at least I now understand why my comments have been such a struggle with you, for me, open mindedness means something very different.

[Blogger Brian]

BO, I never have said that the "the lack of demonstrable evidence for a concept amounts to proof of its non-existence." You did.

Science indeed takes a "show me" approach. A scientific theory remains a theory until there is demonstrable evidence that it is true.

[BleedingObvious]

Brian
What did you imply by this sentence quoted from you above:
"If there is demonstrable evidence for God, soul, spirit, angels, heaven, life after death, whatever, bring it on."
In earlier posts, you have noted that there is no evidence of God, soul, spirit, angels or Pink elephants on your driveway. You have also noted that you are willing to believe what can be demonstrated, implying that God, soul, spirit, angels, heaven, life after death are not demonstrated and so you are not willing to accept these concepts.
The sum of which represents "the lack of demonstrable evidence for a concept amounts to proof of its non-existence." (note, I do not say IS proof, I say AMOUNTS to proof, and by that I imply 'in the mind of a closed minded person'.

The interest surely lies in the exploration of the unknown, not the mindless repeating of what is already known and accepted.

And this is where the root of my problem keeps rising up and tripping me up: I cannot agree that this blog is open minded and interested in open debate, any attempt to introduce valid ideas for debate and opportunity to explore experiences reported by you or others are quashed in preference for reeling out the same old same old, RSSB, other religions are not what they claim, science rules (despite your evident lack of research experience) and any suggestion of creative out of the box thinking is immediately put down and the writer labelled a jerk.

This blog is as false as the claims of RSSB or any religion.

[Blogger Brian]

BO, I called you a jerk when you insensitively tried to use my grief over my sister's death as part of your anti-science arguments, and said that there was no reason for me to feel sad because one day science would prove emotions were just products of physical brain activity.

I explained why you were wrong. So I stand by my conclusion. You acted like a jerk.

Regarding my openness to the possibility of realms of reality beyond the physical. I've been searching for evidence of metaphysical phenomena for over forty years. I've conducted "experiments" via psychedelic drugs, yoga, meditation, lifestyle changes (vegetarianism, abstinence from alcohol/drugs, etc.), and most recently tai chi/qi gong.

Every day I continue to meditate. Almost always I start my meditation with a silent (and/or audible) "Hello, I'm here." I'm speaking to God, Allah, Buddha, the Devil, alien beings, angels, departed souls, enlightened masters, and any other entity capable of communicating non-physically with a human consciousness.

So far I haven't experienced any conclusive subjective (leaving aside objective) evidence of anything beyond the physical. When I do, I'll be sure to share it.

For over five years I've been asking people to share their own evidence of such on this blog. Very few have responded. No replies have been convincing. So my search for evidence of God, soul, spirits, and such continues.

You fail to appreciate the sometimes subtle difference between (1) not believing something exists because there is no demonstrable evidence for it, and (2) believing that something does not exist because there is no demonstrable evidence for it.

Agnosticism, basically, is (1). Atheism, basically, is (2). My continuing search for evidence of the metaphysical shows that I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist. But I understand and appreciate the atheist position, because in some ways and cases it isn't all that different from the agnostic position.

In the case of God, people have been searching for evidence of a supernatural being for many thousands of years. If such evidence were evident, seemingly it should have popped up by now. Similarly, I can reasonably say "I don't believe in fairies," meaning not only am I skeptical that evidence ever will be found of fairy-existence, but I'm almost positive that fairies don't even exist.

You won't find many (if any) atheists claiming with 100% certainty that God or other supernatural phenomena don't exist. Many atheists are scientists, and science knows that no proposition is 100% certain.

But there are levels of certainty, based on evidence. Clearly I'm much more open to the possibility of metaphysical phenomena existing than an avowed atheist, because I'm actively searching for evidence of such. I've got quite a few friends and acquaintances who believe in the supernatural, and we get along great. I accept their beliefs as being possibly true. (Note the "possibly.")

Hope this helps you better understand my views.

[BleedingObvious]

Brian
I despair of you, you simply cannot understand plain English. I have yet to attempt to communicate with someone quite so close minded as you.
As I say, I truly despair, I find it no surprise that your personal relationships have such gaping gaps.

[1%]

BleedingOblivious,

what is your problem? what are you doing here? what do you seek to gain by repeatedly insulting the owner/author of this blogsite and his quite rational views? its obvious you are none other than the same pseudo-scientific troll that had previously posted here under other names some months back. you were a jerk back then, and you continue to remain so now. you are not "open-minded" nor into "open-debate". your intentions are all about criticising and demeaning this blog. so its much to Brian's credit and open-mindedness that he tolerates trolls like you. if it had been my sister and my blog, your rudely insensitive and hypocritical comments would have all been summarily deleted. you are a rather disgusting and disingenuous person.

[Roger]

BO,

You stated,

"I differ in my definition of open mindedness, I do not accept that the lack of demonstrable evidence for a concept amounts to proof of its non-existence. Posit a concept, test it with accepted logic, if the result is a paradox, then it can be put in the junk box."

--This statement sounds kinda OK. However, BO, when you posit a concept, test it with accepted logic, with a paradoxical result, what would you do next? Again, not finding fault with you, however, what would you do next? Obviously something other than put it in a junk box, then what would this next action step(yours)be?

[dorksied2]

Here is what I believe, and please take this in the spirit that it is written, as a plea for civility and reason.

I think that believing that one's personal views are the 'end all', and that clinging to one's personal views, as some of the posters comments I've just read, as being obvious truth, this approach dismisses the idea that I found so refreshing in 'buddhism without belief', primarily the idea that 'I DO NOT KNOW'. You can argue your philosophy until you're blue in the face, but this does nothing to PROVE that your way is correct, and true.

I suggest that, before you come here and start arguments and commencing with name calling, you should examine why you feel that way in the first place.

The ego can do many things to obstruct the eyes of reason and obscure the truth. Only by letting go of your ego and fully embracing the idea that you, in fact, could be WRONG, about EVERYTHING, will you find your eyes open.

Be at peace.