In a fascinating article written written in 2003 and entitled, "Buddhist Retreat: Why I gave up on finding my religion," author John Horgan demonstrates again a mark common to anti-theist pundits: fuzziness about their subject. As is often the case, Horgan judges religious beliefs and practices by the measure of science, which is fair enough for those who put their faith in science as a measure of ultimate things. Many of us wouldn't, but then we all have to discover and put our trust in some way of making sense of the universe and our personal lives. If science works for you, go for it.The problem one finds with those who choose science over against religion as their measure of ultimate things is that they frequently don't really approach religion scientifically. Science is a tool for discovering truths built on facts derived from data obtained by diligent, systematic research built on hypotheses held only lightly until they are proven. In the real world of science, it frequently takes a long time to prove a hypothesis and the process can involve sometimes acrimonious debate and a difficult sorting out of contending theories.
Horgan's approach to Buddhism is hardly scientific even though he wants it to measure up to science. He was attracted to Buddhism because it seemed to eschew theism, and he even joined a meditation class and began to read books about Buddhism. But he found it wanting. One problem for Horgan was that Buddhism turned out to be "functionally theistic" because of its belief in reincarnation, which he takes to be a theistic-like doctrine implying a "cosmic judge" that functions like Santa Claus in tallying up "our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama." Horgan should have done more reading. Reincarnation is generally understood to be a fact of reality, a closed self-driven, and self-perpetuating natural system in which you reap what you sow. Like biological evolution, it works on basic principles that always apply and do not require any divine intervention (such as a Santa-like judge) to function. By injecting Santa God into the picture, Horgan has returned to a basic premise of anti-theism, namely that believing in God is dumb, a silly and insidious superstition. He also manages to misapply that premise in this case.
More troubling, however, is the way Horgan treats Buddhism as if it is a single thing. Rather than studying the way Buddhists in various times, places, and contexts have practiced and thought about their versions of Buddhism, he lumps all and sundry Buddhisms together and then measures them by the things he doesn't like about religion. Buddhists themselves disagree about reincarnation, and there are reformist Buddhists who insist that reincarnation is not representative of "true Buddhism." Horgan himself notes that Western Buddhists "usually downplay these supernatural elements," but he evidently doesn't find their views compelling. For him, apparently, reincarnation is an essential doctrine of Buddhism.
The point is a simple one: Horgan creates his own version of Buddhism, finds it wanting, and (with a sarcastic sneer) dismisses it as unworthy. His approach to Buddhism is not based on a careful scientific approach. It is ideological (which is where the sneer comes in). He thus discards the whole notion of non-self by asserting that some of those who see themselves and others as "unreal" may treat human suffering and death as "laughably trivial." Perhaps. But on what data does he base this conclusion? Are there studies that demonstrate actual Buddhists are inhumane because of their belief in non-self? Did Horgan even understand the concept, which is a seriously tricky one? His only actual data showing that the concept of non-self leads to unwanted consequences is the bad behavior of one monk and his undocumented assertion that Zen Buddhism's "lore" celebrates the masochistic behavior of certain celebrated ancient monks. It is a surprisingly tiny data set on which to build sweeping conclusions and still begs the question of why Horgan chose to construct the concept of non-self in these ways.
It's not that religion is all good and can't be challenged. Indeed, it is the deeply religious who frequently challenge religious beliefs and practices because religions so often fail to live up to their own highest ideals. It would just be much more helpful if those who want to measure religion by science would actually rely on scientific thinking, which really is a helpful way to construct reality, rather than grinding their own ideological axes. Stay tuned. There's a bit more to say.
