A Conversation With an Evangelical – Dialectic Two Step

Dialectic Two-Step  is an ongoing series of my thoughts on questions that come my way.

Wisdom lies neither in fixity nor in change, but in the dialectic between the two. - Octavio Paz  

A Conversation With an Evangelical

These are some questions posed to Buddhists by the evangelical theologian and apologist Dr. Norman Geisler’s in his 2009 book, Conversational Evangelism. I like the idea of a conversation between religions in a respectful manner. Here are my answers.

Is there any way to know whether we should choose one religion over another?

Yes, whether there is evidence that the religion makes good on its doctrine

How can you determine if Buddhism is true?

To consider a religion true, you would have to begin with its core tenets, test their veracity and continue until you’ve reached something false.  If enough of the core is verified true, then you could hold out that the religion is true to some degree.

The core tenet of Buddhism is the acknowledgement of, cause, and cessation of suffering. Try it. If you decrease your suffering and that of others, then you can say that it’s “true.”

If Buddhism teaches that desire is wrong, how does your practice of Buddhism fit with your desire to win the lottery?

Buddhism does not teach that desire is wrong.  It teaches that seeking pleasure in temporary things will only offer temporary satisfaction.  If we want to tackle chronic dissatisfaction, using short term fixes is not going to cut it.

My desire to win the lottery is not irrational though, it would help provide a means to support my family with a little less uncertainty.  But I would need to be careful to avoid believing it’s going to solve most of my problems and provide me with lasting contentment.

Doesn’t the law of karma only postpone the solution to the problem of evil and suffering, but never really solves the problem?

Karma’s relationship to the core teachings is tenuous.  It’s difficult to understand how Buddhism and karma intersect.  I feel it’s more of a bleed over of cultural mythology. It’s more of an explanation for the impossible question of “what happens after death.” The Buddha did not believe that answering that question offered any benefit to anyone. Further, the Four Noble Truths don’t directly call on the law of Karma to solve any problems.

If the death of Christ satisfied the punitive demands of the righteous laws of God, then what need would there be for more payment (see Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:17-18)?

This isn’t a question for Buddhists.  It’s either a Christian theology question, a logical argument, or a truth claim.  As a logical argument it’s invalid because it begs the question.  From a theological perspective I’m out of my element. From a rational person’s perspective, I have a hard time accepting the resurrection story.

If there is no continuity with yourself after death, then how can it be the same person who is being rewarded in the next life?

I have two thoughts on this.  The first is about reincarnation.  I believe this is another bleed over of Asian cultural mythology.  The four noble truths don’t rely on reincarnation. Of course many Buddhists go in for this kind of thing, but I don’t make the connection to the core tenets of Buddhism.

The second thought is regarding continuity.  There is no continuity of self in this life. We are temporary, always changing; like everything else we observe in the world. We are not the same at 40 as we were at 3 months.  The idea of continuity into the next life makes even less sense.  The question I’d pose to clarify my point is this. Which you is in the afterlife?  Is it the 2 year old you or the 37 year old you? Is a body involved in the afterlife? If not, how is pleasure or pain experienced in heaven or hell? Again as a Buddhist, I don’t see any value in answering these questions, we can’t verify their answers. In fact attempts at constructing rational explanations of things like an afterlife usually lead to nonsense.

If it is not the same person who is reborn into another body, then why should someone pay for the karmic debt left by someone else?

See my response to question 4.

Is it not true that if there is an ultimate moral law, then there is an ultimate Moral Lawgiver?

As a Buddhist, I would say no to your premise that there is an ultimate moral law.

And if there is no ultimate moral law, then why should we follow the Buddhist 10 Precepts and the Eight-fold “Right” paths and reincarnation based on actions?

Because it is a method to reduce suffering.

Is it true that Buddhism teaches that we are in reality an aspect of God and in some respects less than real as an individual? If so, how did this metaphysical amnesia arise and come to pervade and dominate our whole experience?

Buddhism is a non-theist religion.  Most Buddhists are non-dualists.  So the western concept of God as an “other” anthropomorphic entity doesn’t fit into Buddhist philosophy.

There is something like the metaphysical amnesia you talk about captured in the teachings of the five skandhas.  This helps us understand how we come to suffering by alienating ourselves from the world. We divide it up into me and other (a kind of dualism). As the delusion of separation matures we develop a longing for wholeness. We spend the rest of our lives trying to fulfill it, most commonly by way of consumption.

How can we know that the world of our senses is an illusion (not real) unless we know a backdrop of reality against which we can make this judgment?

We discover this delusion by a matter of degrees.  All we have is our sense perceptions (our “world”) and our concepts about the world.  What lies beyond that is extrapolation and subject to error (see Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem).  Delusion occurs when we rely heavily on our preconceptions about our “world”, rather than actually opening our minds to “the world”.  We project upon the world our inner conditions.  We see others problems in the context of our own.  When we think like a hammer, all the world looks like nails.

The more we live in our preconceived notions about the world, the more we suffer.  The more we open to our sense perceptions, the less we suffer.  This is how we know that there is delusion.

Does not the goal to eliminate all desire involve the desire to eliminate all desire?

Clever, See my answer to question 3. But also your question is a good one from a Buddhist perspective.  Thinking it through betrays how ego lies at the root of our delusion.

If we should eliminate all desire, how about the desire to have children, help others, enjoy life, and experience nirvana?

See my answer to question 3.  Desires aren’t bad.  It’s what we expect out of the transaction that trips us up.

Would it not be better to redirect desire to God who alone can fulfill than to eliminate all desire (Matthew 4:4; 5:6; 6:33)?

You’d have to provide evidence that doing so would benefit me.

Get Each Week's Dialectic Two Step in your email box

First Name:

Last Name:

Email address:

In addition to a monthly email you can also subscribe to the following weekly series:
One Minute Meditations
Tiny Drops (Photography series)
Compass Songs (My Favorite Poems)
Dialectic Two-Step
Modern Koans (interesting questions)
Sunday Morning Coming Down (Music Videos)
Relics (Timeless Republished Articles)
Say What?
Quotes
Verse Us (Poems I Write)

 

The post A Conversation With an Evangelical – Dialectic Two Step appeared on Andrew Furst.