While its main point is interesting to think about, this article still has a view of "religion" that is (despite token mentions of Buddhism and, via perennial philosophy, Hinduism) very influenced by Abrahamic (monotheistic) conceptions: especially in putting beliefs/faith as central:
> One of the primary attributes of any religion is its creed. Each world religion professes a unique set of metaphysical beliefs, which is central to its identity. Anyone who contradicts or denies these beliefs is condemned or cast out as a heretic.
Consider also other aspects of religion (daily practices, restrictions on diet and behaviour, rituals, ceremonies, striving, seeking, penance, purity, community) — they support the central thesis and in other traditions are more central than creed. (See e.g. https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ and comments thereon.)
For that matter, the "scientism" mentioned in the article itself can be either monotheism-inspired (only believe scientific things, believing anything without proof is "unclean", we're better than the ones who came before), or focus more on other aspects (the attitude of discovery and humility, improvement of self and the world, …).
Some great points on the other aspects of religion! I specifically focused on metaphysical belief here, because that's one of the few things that separates religious communities from other communities. E.g. (as another poster pointed out) the military has many of the religious aspects you mentioned above.
I also think the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't belief-oriented is itself a Western misconception. Both have intricate pantheons and a wealth of mythology. Zen Buddhism is probably the only exception here.
As someone who grew up with the intricate pantheons and mythology (and is continuing to learn and pass them on), I am familiar with them. :-) The distinction I'm making is not about whether belief is an aspect or not (it is), but about how central it is.
We may just have to disagree about what the Western misconception is :) and it's not central (ha) to your thesis anyway, but let me put it another way. With monotheism came the distinction between "true" and "false" doctrine/religion, and as a result, these religions (and especially Christianity, probably because of its early history against the backdrop of Roman religion) is uniquely concerned with what is "true": putting belief/faith as central. This strongly influences the Western idea of religion (and also the idea of separating religious from non-religious) as a whole. As contrast, consider the examples from Japan above, and this conversation: https://web.archive.org/web/20160810043644/https://musingsof... (from https://books.google.com/books?id=T0kqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 )
I recommend you dig deeper into Buddhism to grasp how flexible & responsive the religious leaders are to scientific advancements.
A book from Matthieu Ricard, an ex western scientist who later became a Buddhist monk and Dalai Lama's interpreter, wrote a book with a western quantum scientist [Quantum and the Lotus](https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Lotus-Journey-Frontiers-Buddh...). What is notable is how the exemplary practitioners are highly knowledgeable in scientific and philosophical subjects.
Moreover, you can see that both Dalai lama and the other top leaders of Tibetan Buddhism proactively collaborate with scientists on experiments and discussions to learn more.
> I also think the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't belief-oriented is itself a Western misconception.
I can't speak for Hinduism, but the "pantheons" you find in some kinds of Buddhism aren't really like a "band of angels, following me". They're more like the author's blue diagrams of the ego; they're a teaching mechanism. There really are very few metaphysical beliefs in most kinds of Buddhism. The only core metaphysical belief shared by Buddhists is that there is no permanent, abiding self. Which is a non-belief.
As far as mythology is concerned, yes, Buddhists tell stories. Mostly these are stories of the Buddha's life and the lives of "the saints". But these are generally treated as mythology, not creed. It's not a spiritual failing to disbelieve.
It's in the context of Buddhism that I came across the word "hypostasy". A follower of a belief-based religion who falls away from faith is called an "apostate". Followers of forms of Buddhism that are radically unbelief-oriented[0] that then fall into faith are called "hypostates". The charming phrase that sticks in my mind is "hypostasizing an absolute".
[0] Specifically, I'm referring to systems based on Prasanghika Madhyamaka.
> One of the primary attributes of any religion is its creed. Each world religion professes a unique set of metaphysical beliefs, which is central to its identity. Anyone who contradicts or denies these beliefs is condemned or cast out as a heretic.
Consider also other aspects of religion (daily practices, restrictions on diet and behaviour, rituals, ceremonies, striving, seeking, penance, purity, community) — they support the central thesis and in other traditions are more central than creed. (See e.g. https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ and comments thereon.)
For that matter, the "scientism" mentioned in the article itself can be either monotheism-inspired (only believe scientific things, believing anything without proof is "unclean", we're better than the ones who came before), or focus more on other aspects (the attitude of discovery and humility, improvement of self and the world, …).
reply