Why Christianity is better than Buddhism
photo by Hartfried SchmidI was wondering awhile back about why Christianity is better than Buddhism, and I ran across this helpful bit (brackets are mine):
But some at least of the disciples of the great Gautama [aka Siddhartha] interpret his ideal, so far as I can understand them, as one of absolute liberation from all desire or effort or anything that human beings commonly call hope. In that sense, the philosophy would only mean the abandonment of arms [weapons] because it would mean the abandonment of almost everything. It would not discourage war any more than it would discourage work. It would not discourage work any more than it would discourage pleasure. It would certainly tell the warrior that disappointment awaited him when he became the conqueror, and that his war was not worth winning. But it would also presumably tell the lover that his love was not worth winning; and that the rose would wither like the laurel. It would presumably tell the poet that his poem was not worth writing; which may (in certain cases needless to name) be indeed the case. But it can hardly be called an inspiring philosophy for the production of good poems any more than bad. It may be that these persons are wrong about what is threatened by Buddhism. It may also be that the other persons are wrong about what was promised by Christianity. But I hope we have heard the last of the muddled discontent of worldly people, who curse the Church for not saving the world that did not want to be saved, and are ready to call in any other theory against it - even the wild theory by which the world would be destroyed.
-Exerpt from Buddhism and ChristianityBy G.K. Chesterton
Illustrated London News March 2, 1929
15 comments:
Do you think it is helpful to our species for each individual to claim their own faith is better than (superior to) the faith of others?
I guess if you don't think your belief is better, you should consider changing your belief.
I am open to truth in any faith, since God is truth.
One religion believes the poor deserve their lot in life due to what they did in prior incarnations (and so, are less likely to help and respect them). Another believes the poor are worthy of respect because they are human.
A discussion about which belief is better is helpful to advancing the human condition. If no one claims theirs is better, then there is no discussion.
As Chesterson stated, the vagaries of human nature need to be assumed...
We create systems of behaviour in order to live harmoniously, but trying to impose and dominate one over over the other doesn't seem to promote much harmony.
So on with discussion. And tea parties and blogs and whatever else that help to accommodate our similarities. Better than violence against each other because of our differences.
Ok If you would like to discuss human belief then please tell me one reason why the following statement is a tautology, and one reason why it is not.
'Atheism is better than Christianity; because Atheists can value all faiths equally whereas Christians value only their own.'
nb strike out the word 'can' from that.
I don't know where this is going (mostly because I don't quite understand what a tautology is), but I'll muddle through because I love you, and because I'm obsessive. :-)
First, (after some internet research) let me break it down to it's atomic propositions:
A. Atheism is better than Christianity
B. Atheists value all faiths equally
C. Christians value only their own
For it to be a tautology, it must hold true for all the truth values of its atomic propositions, so I'll create a truth table:
A B C
=====
T T T
T T F
T F T
T F F
F T T
F T F
F F T
F F F
After having done this, I believe that it isn't logically possible for someone to give a single reason why something is a tautology. I'd have to examine each of the rows of the table above and give reasons for each to prove that the statement is a tautology.
Before I do that, I'd better check in and make sure that I'm understanding what you are asking (since it's going to be a lot of work!). Or maybe I'm just confused as to how to go about answering this...in which case please help me!
On the other hand, I think that it IS logically possible to give a single reason why a statement is NOT a tautology (you'd only have to show ONE row of the table to be false), so I'll do that...
I guess an easy one would be "T T F"...this might be written (with a little license) as: Atheism is better than Christianity; because Atheists value all faiths equally whereas Christians value all faiths equally. Well, that's obviously not a true statement, so the whole shebang isn't a tautology.
Now that I've messed around enough (for me), two comments:
1. As an atheist, I didn't value all faiths equally (I thought their faiths were silly, and my faith wasn't);
2. As a Christian, I value truth in any faith.
Good show!
Those who know don't speak. Those who speak don't know.
Lao Tsu
Buddhism promises nothing and delivers all. Christianity promises all and delivers nothing.
Nietzsche
Discuss…
Love your answer Kieron!
Had to do some internet research myself to understand it!
I now believe the statement should be defined more accurately as a 'contradiction in terms', rather than a tautology.
My own answer to the question that I thought I was posing you, was that, as you said in your comment no. 1, the Atheist is assuming superiority by virtue of eschewing it. That could be the contradiction in terms.
On the other hand, if, as you explore in your comment no. 2, truth lies with the atheist, then the proposition works.
But I sure know what a tautology (both logical and rhetorical) is now. Researching it was fun, like being back at Uni learning philosophy.
I now look forward to seeing responses to Anonymous's next question....(who is Anonymous anyway?)
And thanks again
Cathy xxx
Anonymous is often jomama, but not always (is that a tautology)?
What is the plural of jomama? jomamas?
Enema, re: promises and deliveries...
It seems to me that Atheism promises nothing and delivers it!
Lao Tsu spoke (and thank God!). I think the key is to give your opinion when *asked* (like the guru at the top of the mountain...he isn't out there preaching...people have to WORK to get to hear him...there's something to be said for that).
jomamii I reckon.
Enema??
Yes, because Atheism is not a belief, it's the absence of one particular type of belief(religious).
ok...so should we be telling people our own religion is better than theirs in order to further human understanding through debate, or should we be keeping our own counsel unless asked?
Enema is a silly joke...instead of saying "anyway", we say "enema" just cause they sound sorta similar.
Atheists believe that there is no God. It is an active belief in *the absence* of a deity. It is religious in that it pertains to the religious sphere. If one truly has an *absence* of a religious belief, then one is more like an ignoramus (unknowing, unthinking, ignorant of the issues, etc.).
I guess we should tell people our own religion is better than theirs...if they ask! If they don't ask, then well...they're not ready to hear it anyway.
Now, what does it mean to "ask"? If I see someone kill an innocent, are they asking me a question? In a way, they are. They are asking "do you care"? They are asking "who are you", "what do you stand for", "are you with me or against me"?
A number of well-known and articulate "ignoramuses" (ignorami?) are among the ones who have managed to walk away from religion and have put much thought into and understand issues of religion.
Although, most don't say much about it...maybe for the Zen attributes quoted earlier. Or simply to walk the path in the middle.
My contention is you either fall somewhere on the spectrum between Atheism and Theism or you haven't thought about it (ie, you are ignorant).
That is, the very act of "putting much thought into and understanding issues of religion", forces one to take a stand.
Who do you know who has "put much thought into and understands issues of religion" yet has NO OPINION in the matter?
bah.
Post a Comment