COMPASS MATTER AND MIND A non-theist exploration. CATHERINE BYRNE This essay explores two non-theist approaches to mind and matter—Buddhism and Hu- manism. It examines these differing views in relation to Paley’s ‘design argument’ for the existence of God from a philosophical and biological perspective. While tracking along a path similar to one which a theologian may travel, this essay does not refer to theist doctrine. THEISM IS A world view that rejects ing the ‘best of the one life we have, by creat- the idea of God. Non-theism rejects ing meaning and purpose’ and by taking ‘re- Athe importance of the choice ‘to God sponsibility for our actions’ and working ‘in or not to God’. The Oxford Dictionary (2009) mutual respect for the common good’. It noted noted that atheism combines the Greek ‘a’ that Humanists ‘make sense of the world using (meaning ‘without’) and ‘theos’ (meaning reason, experience and shared human values’. ‘God’). Humanism and Buddhism provide two For the Humanist, morality is not based on different examples of systems of belief that do any doctrine or sacred text. It is derived and not rely on a God as a basic premise, although measured by utility (Singer, 1981). In other adherents differ in the extent to which such an words, what is ‘good’ is that which contrib- idea is fundamental. Some Buddhists, for ex- utes to the greatest communal human welfare. ample, prefer the term non-theism, since the Humanists balance individual freedoms and an Buddha would not be drawn on the question Epicurean delight in the good life with social of deity one way or the other. While both claim responsibilities and justice born of a commit- independence of divine agency, they have vari- ment to human rights and equity. ant perspectives on the relative importance of Humanist reverence is reserved for the humans in the scheme of life, the function of natural world. For the Humanist, the primary the mind and its emotions, the limits of na- function for the mind is to weigh up empirical ture, and even the importance of the God ques- evidence in pursuit of scientific truth that can tion itself. be methodically examined. The humanist’s mind is thus a tool to perceive the world as it Humanism actually (materially) exists. Humanists there- Humanism is a rational belief system. The la- fore have a belief in a structured universe that bel is a 19th century construct, however ren- can be perceived. This belief system has no aissance ‘humanists’ were inspired by the 5th need of, nor rationale for, the existence of a century BCE Greek philosopher, Protagoras deity. It explicitly denies God’s existence and (Cline, 2009). He sought natural explanations, charges religions with abetting ignorance. valued free inquiry and placed humans at the Regarding nature, the Humanist’s world is centre of moral and social concerns. As a be- bound by the senses. With no belief in any- lief system, it has contemporary expressions thing beyond sensory limits—no soul, no in various Humanist Manifestos (Bragg, 1933; spirit, no afterlife—there is no realm of the Kurtz, 1973; IHEU, 2002). super-natural. Whatever exists must be, by its According to the British Humanist Organi- nature, natural. Mystical experience is akin to zation (www.humanism.org.uk, 2009), Human- madness. Humanists argue that everything has ists believe that people can live good lives ‘with- a scientific explanation. Regarding emotion, out religious or superstitious beliefs’, by mak- Rifkin (2008) noted that Humanists do not let 38 MATTER AND MIND emotions dominate cognitions. The heart re- Catherine Byrne is a sides below the head. Secular humanists speak PhD candidate at of sublime experiences such as ‘the grandeur Macquarie University’s of the universe, the wonder of being alive, the Centre for Research on mysteries of existence’, but ‘the resplendent Social Inclusion. She is also undertaking a does not entail the transcendent’ (Rifkin, 2008, graduate Diploma in p. 57). Eller (in Rifkin, p. 58) argued that, what Religious and Values some call spiritual experiences are rather ‘ul- Education. Her interest tra-human’…‘the best, the strongest, the most is in pedagogies of profound human experiences, (are) human religion, particularly in nonetheless… (and that) we impoverish our- public primary schools. selves when we credit these soaring feelings may be considered quasi-theist. For example, and capacities … to realms … unknown, and Surya Das noted that ‘the Ultimate in Bud- almost certainly unreal’. dhism and the Ultimate in theistic religions may just be two sides of the same thing’ (2009, Buddhism np). Buddhists neither deny nor confirm the Like Humanism, Buddhism also has a rational existence of God, but find the whole argument outlook. Established in the 6th century BCE, an irrelevant distraction, since (in their belief) in northern India and based on the teachings no being outside of oneself can reduce suffer- and practices of Gautama Sakyamuni, it has a ing. Harvey (1990, p. 36) claimed that Bud- variety of contemporary forms. Its basic aims: dhism sees no need for a creator. He com- to understand suffering; abandon its causes; mented that Buddhism ‘postulates no begin- experience its cessation and develop a path for ning to the world and regards the world as sus- self and others to a state of being beyond suf- tained by natural laws’. Bikshu (2008) noted fering, present (in many versions of Buddhism) that, Buddhist teachings are non-theistic as as psycho-philosophy rather than religion. opposed to atheistic. There is no reference Emotion (both positive and negative) is con- made to God’s existence or otherwise. How- sidered simply one of the many distractions ever, the notions of God and consciousness and obstacles to the enlightened state beyond sometimes merge. suffering. Buddhists differ from Humanists in the The Buddhist’s mind is both a tool for per- recognition of a higher order of consciousness ception and the source of creative being itself. and a broader function for the mind – one that Buddhists believe that the world is constantly lies beyond the sensory-limitations of rational in creation and that the mind and the senses empirics. There is reference (especially in participate in this process, and therefore the Mahayana Buddhism) to a super-mental prin- world cannot be studied purely objectively (as ciple, variously referred to as ‘divine presence, Humanists aim to do). Where Buddhism and infinite wholeness and all-inclusive complete- Humanism concur is on the importance of in- ness’ (Surya Das, 2009). The Dalai Lama re- dividual practical experience. Buddhist mo- ferred to this principle as ‘clear light’. He noted rality is highly self-referent. In a very Human- (2005) that this light can be perceived at the ist approach, the Buddha himself undertook moment of death and that practised monks can an empirical enquiry into the nature of con- remain voluntarily in the clear light state for sciousness to establish Buddhism’s fundamen- several days after death without their bodies tal tenets. According to Mishra (2004, p. 29) decomposing. the Buddha was ‘more of a trenchant thinker Sogyal Rinpoche (1992, p. 46) claimed that and psychologist than a religious figure’. the nature of mind is that which ‘Christians Buddhism sees no need for an Abrahamic- and Jews call God, Hindus call the Self, Shiva, style God. However, some forms of Buddhism Brahma and Visnu, Sufis call the Hidden Es- 39 COMPASS sence, and Buddhists call the Buddha nature’. perhaps to zero. He displaces ‘God’ with consciousness, since Dawkins positions natural selection as the ‘Mind is revealed as the universal basis of only plausible, ‘workable alternative to (the) experience—the creator of happiness … and statistical improbability (p. 120)’ of life on suffering, the creator of what we call life and earth. By emphasising the implausibility of what we call death’. In this sense, the Bud- both deity and chance, he opens the way for dhist ‘mind’ becomes untouched by concepts an alternative - the likelihood of a systematic of theism or atheism since it is the very arena process for life (evolution by natural selec- in which such conceptions and arguments take tion). As such, Dawkins highlights the lack of place. While Humanists are, first and foremost, a need for a divine creator. Lennox (2007, p. thinking beings, the act of conscious thinking 262) noted that Dawkins’ view of life’s origin makes the Buddhist a creator-being. requires no intelligence - that it arises ‘by the Regarding morality, the Buddhist’s ethic spontaneous accidents of chemistry’. appears to stretch wider than the Humanist’s, Australian scientist, Robin Williams to encompass all creatures and to not view (2006) extended this argument by pointing out humans as the most important. The Buddhist the apparently clunky solutions that life has notions of karma and reincarnation (where a produced via evolutionary experimentation. being can return as any kind of animal) urges For example, Williams took issue with the a holistic view of ecosystems and a sense of upside-down design of human nasal passages responsibility for all beings. In this, Buddhists – which he claimed resulted from the recent generally differ from the one-life Humanists. development of an upright posture. He noted However, in some streams of Buddhism the nature’s upside-down koala pouches, human doctrine of rebirth is recognised as a cultural hernias, bad breath, tail bones and appendixes accretion, rather than a central Buddhist tenet. and the less than ideal co-location of sexual and waste-removal functions. In Smith (2006) How does Atheism counter Paley’s ‘design he claimed these flaws provide a case against argument’ for the existence of God? intelligent design which argues that certain Vice President of the British Humanist biological features (such as the eye or wing) Association, Richard Dawkins, had little to say are too complex to have evolved by Darwin- of Buddhism in his book The God Delusion, ian increments.