PDA

View Full Version : Upādāna as the root cause of creationism


Jobar
September 20, 2006, 09:34 PM
As it was in the beginning
Is now, and ever shall be
World without end, amen.
Amen!
-The Doxology, from the Baptist Hymnal

I was thinking today about why it is that we never hear about creationists from religious traditions outside of the Abrahamic ones.

It may be that there are people who deny the fact and theory of evolution based solely on some little-known mythology which I've never heard of. There are, after all, lots and lots of religions that I know little or nothing about. But of the major world religions, it seems that the only ones who make a big production out of evolution are the more conservative and fundamentalist sects of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

I've never read anything at all, for instance, about Buddhist creationists.

On reflection, that's quite sensible. Buddhist philosophy says that the reason for suffering and dissatisfaction in the world is clinging to the forms of the world- upādāna. They believe that all forms are in constant flux, and that even the things which change so slowly that they seem permanent on the scale of a single human lifetime are still unstable- are still, in fact, mutating and evolving.

Contrast this willingness to accept that things change, and that no thing is permanent, with the attitude of the Abrahamic faiths. I quoted the Doxology above- consider also Ecclesiastes 1:9-
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.

The Preacher goes on and on about vanity and vexation of the spirit; I think that a Buddhist would nod in complete recognition of the frustrations which clinging to impermanence brings to any who do so. The tendency of all Abrahamic religions is to condemn and despise the things of the world, because they *are* temporal and not eternal; whereas a Buddhist accepts change and temporality as simply the way things are, without condemning the world for its impermanence, and that the only thing perpetual is change.

I know that there are other verses of the Bible which one could quote that exemplify an understanding of the world closer to the Buddhistic view. (Heh- I don't think there's a single philosophy in the Bible, that can't also be contradicted Biblically! :rolleyes: ) But AFAIK, creationists adhere strictly to the notion that change is, essentially, always for the worse.

We see that creationists are always politically conservative, even reactionary. Conservatives always want to maintain the status quo, or even roll back the clock to some imagined golden age; they view new ideas and philosophies with deep distrust, even hatred. They, in a word, cling to the things of the past, even when doing so is no longer comfortable or practical.

Given all this, it's no surprise at all how the reactionary religious right vilifies the branch of science whose very name means change!

I'd like to talk about ways this realization might be used to deal with creationists in general. Would it be beneficial to emphasize how completely inescapeable change is, in the real world? Can we show them how pointless it is for them to resist change in their lives, and thus make them more willing to see change over geological time scales? I know that all the arguments we use here in E/C attempt to educate the ignorant about how life changes, and to open up minds shut tight against change both within and without themselves; but I hope maybe my small epiphany will inspire other ideas, in some of the experts on the subject.

lpetrich
September 21, 2006, 12:43 PM
I'm not sure if I buy that; I think that it's more a matter of being very dependent on the Bible being "true" -- they may feel that their religion would fall apart if they acknowledged that the Bible has any errors. If the Bible is in error in one place, then it may also be in error in other places, including their favorite parts of it.

Consider that Galileo had tried to explain that the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. I don't know if any documentation has survived on the reasoning of his clerical detractors, but they may have believed that the Bible cannot be considered reliable on how to go to Heaven if it is not reliable on how the heavens go.

ninewands
September 21, 2006, 01:48 PM
As it was in the beginning
Is now, and ever shall be
World without end, amen.
Amen!
-The Doxology, from the Baptist Hymnal
<derail>
Moderate derail, here, but what the hell Baptist Hymnal is THAT from??

That's the ending of the English translation of the "Gloria" from the Catholic Mass.

Having been born, raised and educated among the Southern Baptists and singing in multiple church and "secular" choirs (even the secular ones perform a lot of sacred music), I am intimately familiar with Baptist songbooks from about 1955-1984 (when my deconversion started, and thank you, I'm recovering nicely ... the tendency to relapse even went away about 10 years ago).
</derail>
I was thinking today about why it is that we never hear about creationists from religious traditions outside of the Abrahamic ones.
Could it be that only the Abrahamic traditions are triumphalist in nature? I don't recall ever having heard of a Hindu or Buddhist believing that they were destined to rule over the entire world in the name of any deity they might believe in (although a Zen world would be a helluva lot more peaceful than what we have today!).
It may be that there are people who deny the fact and theory of evolution based solely on some little-known mythology which I've never heard of.
There are MANY religious creation myths. Most non-Abrahamic religions seem to accept them as just that.
There are, after all, lots and lots of religions that I know little or nothing about. But of the major world religions, it seems that the only ones who make a big production out of evolution are the more conservative and fundamentalist sects of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
They are about the only ones who believe their book of fairy tales is the literal word of their God.
I've never read anything at all, for instance, about Buddhist creationists.
Many Buddhist schools of theology are atheistic. Some are not. Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion, although some groups have a religious nature.
<SNIP>
I'd like to talk about ways this realization might be used to deal with creationists in general.
Do you think kidnapping and deprogramming would be too much to ask?
Would it be beneficial to emphasize how completely inescapeable change is, in the real world?
No. They won't accept that.
Can we show them how pointless it is for them to resist change in their lives, and thus make them more willing to see change over geological time scales?
6,000 years is nothing to them.
I know that all the arguments we use here in E/C attempt to educate the ignorant about how life changes, and to open up minds shut tight against change both within and without themselves; but I hope maybe my small epiphany will inspire other ideas, in some of the experts on the subject.
I would like to think so, but I am not optimistic. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste, but waste it is.

Flint
September 21, 2006, 02:00 PM
I don't see any compelling reason to think that fundamentalist Christianity or mind-disengaged creationism has somehow managed to attract everyone who is especially uncomfortable in a world lacking certainties and absolutes. Maybe creationism attracts the far end of the normal distribution within Christianity and attaches specific doctrines to their needs, but this doesn't explain why people from Hindu or Buddhist or Chinese backgrounds don't also have a normal curve with those who demand certainty and absolutes at the far end.

Maybe this forum has a reader who is an Indian or Chinese anthropologist, who can explain how this extreme demographic in their cultures finds contentment in a perverse world? I think there must be such people; human nature doesn't change geographically.

anthrosciguy
September 21, 2006, 02:18 PM
There are creationists in other religions. The book Forbidden Archeology, which is pseudoscience, is Hindu creationism.

Jobar
September 21, 2006, 09:30 PM
I'm not sure if I buy that; I think that it's more a matter of being very dependent on the Bible being "true" -- they may feel that their religion would fall apart if they acknowledged that the Bible has any errors. If the Bible is in error in one place, then it may also be in error in other places, including their favorite parts of it.


But why this dependency? I agree with your point, but I think that the literal and absolutist stance of all creationists is explained by their clinging to absolutes, and their resistance to change. Upādāna has four types, and one of them is clinging to dogma; that describes creationists (and literalists in general) to a 't'. (I hadn't read that article before I had the idea which led to this thread, but on reading it I realized the fit was even closer than I had thought!)

Moderate derail, here, but what the hell Baptist Hymnal is THAT from??

That's the ending of the English translation of the "Gloria" from the Catholic Mass.

The Broadman Hymnal. I sung that as a boy, and actually enjoyed listening to the pastor's deep bass rendition of it. He could rattle the windows! I suppose I had heard that it was a part of the Mass, but in the Warm Springs Baptist Church it was done as a short, stand-alone interlude, often right before the sermon.

Do you think kidnapping and deprogramming would be too much to ask?


The EAC will be in touch. :devil3:

I would like to think so, but I am not optimistic. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste, but waste it is.

Y'know, Magus has encouraged me quite a bit on this. I'm afraid that the ones who close their eyes and ears and just refuse to listen are beyond any help we can give, but the ones who come here... well, even the worst of them may surprise us. As hidebound as some are, still they may have a hidden key, or a weak point in their chains. After all, we need to remember that clinging to such ignorance is painful, even to the ones who think that sort of pain is pleasing to their god and/or their church.

I don't see any compelling reason to think that fundamentalist Christianity or mind-disengaged creationism has somehow managed to attract everyone who is especially uncomfortable in a world lacking certainties and absolutes. Maybe creationism attracts the far end of the normal distribution within Christianity and attaches specific doctrines to their needs, but this doesn't explain why people from Hindu or Buddhist or Chinese backgrounds don't also have a normal curve with those who demand certainty and absolutes at the far end.

Maybe this forum has a reader who is an Indian or Chinese anthropologist, who can explain how this extreme demographic in their cultures finds contentment in a perverse world? I think there must be such people; human nature doesn't change geographically.

There are creationists in other religions. The book Forbidden Archeology, which is pseudoscience, is Hindu creationism.

Interesting. I'm not surprised that there are other sorts of creationists; and I know that Hinduism has plenty of its own sorts of crazies (I receive the Rationalist International Bulletin (http://www.rationalistinternational.net/) via e-mail, so I hear about them on a regular basis.) But I didn't know about Hindu creationists.

I'm thinking, though, since Hindu and Buddhist mythology embraces a vast and ancient universe, it means that followers of those religions are much less likely to reject evolution just because it requires an ancient earth. We all know how often creationists are young-earthers. Still, I'm sure you're right, and there are some literalist Hindus who reject evolution just because it's not mentioned explicitly in their scriptures. Upādāna is obviously not something limited to any one race, color, creed, or national origin! I'll have to look for that book.

anthrosciguy
September 22, 2006, 01:26 PM
I'll have to look for that book.

Rather than that book -- unless you're looking for examples of pseudoscience -- you might want to look for Mikey Brass's book Antiquity of Man (http://www.antiquityofman.com/book_overview.html), which critiques it.