Pragmatheism - By Request

[Ouroboros]

What is the difference between a pragmatist and a pragmatheist?

I just started to look at pragmatism this morning to see what exactly it stands for and to find any differences, and I let you know.

 

My first conclusion is: Philosophers have big egos.

[Jun]

Not reincarnation - REBIRTH

 

I'll ask the mods if I can put up a sticky on this topic, many are getting it all wrong.

 

Soka gakkai is hardly considered a true "Buddhist" sect even in Japan - more of a lay cult loosely based on the teachings of Nichiren.

I looked into it a bit and I think I understand what you're saying. The problem is that the word "reincarnation" doesn't have the right definition compared to what the Buddhist believes. The word "punarbhava" doesn't translate correctly to reincarnation and in a sense not to rebirth either, but is slightly different concept. Am I on the right track?

 

YES!

 

Bhava = becoming; punar = again or "rebecoming."

 

The Buddha taught that there is no self, no entity that exists separately from the skandhas (the elements of which the body is made up of).

 

As the Buddha taught that there is in fact no eternal self distinct from the physical body - no essence or soul, no spirit or prana - then the teachings of the Buddha cannot be said to support a belief in reincarnation. Any Buddhist that claims to believe in reincarnation (transmigration of an eternal soul) is not in fact a Buddhist. The Buddha when asked about this (Brahman view on reincarnation) said, "We are made up of the bodily elements that give off energy. When we die it is as a result of this energy being depleted. What would travel between a corpse and a pregnant woman for this to be possible?"

 

At best, ideas of reincarnation are based on speculation and speculation has no place in the pragmatic practice of Buddhism.

[Ouroboros]

YES!

 

Bhava = becoming; punar = again or "rebecoming."

 

The Buddha taught that there is no self, no entity that exists separately from the skandhas (the elements of which the body is made up of).

Wonderful. I learned something new.

 

With that said, Pragmatheism doesn't state any opinion about what is "outside" of our existence or life. It doesn't require a view on dualism, deterministm, free will or any other hard issues. You can be a Buddhist and be a Pragmatheist, and you can even be a Christian (more likely a liberal kind or universalist) and be a Pragmatheist. I think the idea is that PA is a philosophy how to live life, not what to believe about the causes or reasons behind it.

 

For instance, back to morality, if morality can be explained, reasoned and established by human thought and rationality, then the atheist have no problem with it. For a theist, they have to see that if there's a God and God is the source of morality, then perhaps the way humanity knows morality and understand it, is by using his mind that God gave him. So in the end even a theist could understand that morality is managed and discussed by humans to be understood regardless if the original source is divine.

[Jun]

[R. S. Martin]

YES!

 

Bhava = becoming; punar = again or "rebecoming."

 

The Buddha taught that there is no self, no entity that exists separately from the skandhas (the elements of which the body is made up of).

 

As the Buddha taught that there is in fact no eternal self distinct from the physical body - no essence or soul, no spirit or prana - then the teachings of the Buddha cannot be said to support a belief in reincarnation. Any Buddhist that claims to believe in reincarnation (transmigration of an eternal soul) is not in fact a Buddhist. The Buddha when asked about this (Brahman view on reincarnation) said, "We are made up of the bodily elements that give off energy. When we die it is as a result of this energy being depleted. What would travel between a corpse and a pregnant woman for this to be possible?"

 

At best, ideas of reincarnation are based on speculation and speculation has no place in the pragmatic practice of Buddhism.

 

Thank you for these explanations, Jun. I think I am following and it makes sense. But one more question. If the body is the sum total of one's being or existence and there is no soul or energy that exists outside of or longer than the body, then how does one think of rebecoming?

 

I think what I'm getting at here is identity or that which constitutes the personal "I." I am the same person I was when I was a baby--it is the same consciousness with which I see the world now as that with which I saw the world when I was a baby. I have a few memories and I speak out of experience; I am the same person, the same consciousness; I don't feel like I am older or wiser or anything--this is what I would consider to be the soul if there is such a thing. But if everything that is me ends when my body dies and decays, then I guess there is nothing left of me to rebecome. Whatever comes to be in the future will be a totally new person. That is how it looks to me, given what you have said here, i.e. in your quote, if I correctly understand you, you say there is nothing that connects the body in the grave with the fetus in the womb.

 

But you say there is a rebecoming. How? Or what part of the former self rebecomes? Or, if there is nothing left of the former self, how can it be said that one rebecomes? I understand that in order to rebecome--in order to repeat one's existence, one must somehow keep from extinguishing altogether because otherwise it will be a new person. Or, if it is said that it is not a new person, how it is determined who is a new person and who is an old person rebecoming? This must be important; otherwise it would hardly be part of the teaching.

 

Sorry if my questions are too hard....If Buddhist teachers are like Christian teachers, this is the point at which you will say faith is not logical, or something like that. I will try to understand if that is the case.

[R. S. Martin]

PS I cannot read any Buddhist languages. I only took an introductory course for religious studies and it was all in English. I didn't do too well in it. When we started this conversation I wasn't sure exactly what your credentials were so I figured I'd throw out there that I took a course but I see that you know far more about this than I do.

[R. S. Martin]

What is the difference between a pragmatist and a pragmatheist?

I just started to look at pragmatism this morning to see what exactly it stands for and to find any differences, and I let you know.

 

My first conclusion is: Philosophers have big egos.

 

I think your first conclusion may be wrong if you're talking about philosophers per se. The word pragmatheist makes me think of something more philosophical than the word pragmatist. Pragmatist normally means someone who is pragmatic--I think. I'll use a really down-to-earth example a counselor pointed out to me that--for some reason--meant a lot to me. It was when I was beginning the transition from the horse and buggy church to the modern Mennonite church. I told my counselor that I decided on Sunday morning not to wear my black bonnet to church because there was no place to put it in the modern church. In the horse and buggy church there were bonnet shelves where all the women put their bonnets above the coat hooks. I didn't think the modern church would have any bonnet shelves so I didn't wear it to church. That was a pretty significant change for me.

 

I made a few other changes like this. My counselor pointed out that I was making practical changes. I think we might say I was taking a pragmatic approach to deciding what changes to make as opposed to spiritual or fashionable, or whatever other approaches one might have taken. I like to think I extend this approach to all areas of my life. I felt my mother was always imagining the worst possible scenarios and responding emotionally; I wanted to be realistic and practical. Pragmatic. Which might make me a pragmatist. Does this jibe with your research, Hans?

 

Pragmatheist has the word theist in it. That makes it a totally different word in my mind. Kinda like the difference between god and good. Two different words. But there is one problem. Liberal Christians, if we can take the Lutherans where I am studying as an example, do believe that humans are depraved and that we get our guidelines for goodness from God. My prof mentioned this in a conversation this fall and he assumed that I agreed with him. How that rankled! I've been studying under him for several years. I must be changing because I doubt that he has changed his theology this much and I don't remember ever being bothered like this before. He's been one of my most respected teachers ever.

 

Just figured I should mention that. If we want to include liberal Christians we might need to know that we won't net anyone if we advertize that morals are constructs of human thought and reasoning; it comes from God...Oops! did I say "we"? I guess I do identify pretty strongly with the values and philosophy you describe. But you and A-man said you're just playing with ideas at this point. I'm just not ready yet to paste another new label onto my forehead, or pin it onto my lapel. Names are serious business. I'm still new to deconversion. But I like the idea and I am seriously interested in strategies in fighting fundamentalist religion.

 

I think joining forces with liberal Christians is necessary for this battle but we need to play the politics right. God is important and real to them. If we want their cooperation we will respect this. Okay, I've talked with people who say not all liberal Christians are this serious. The people I know are ordained clergy who are committed to training the next generation of clergy. Possibly they are more serious than some. All the same, I see this as a potential mine field around which we must tread very carefully if we try to work with Christians of any type or stripe. Just felt to warn folks in case anyone was not aware of how serious this might be.

[Jun]

Thank you for these explanations, Jun.

 

Welcome.

 

But one more question. If the body is the sum total of one's being or existence and there is no soul or energy that exists outside of or longer than the body, then how does one think of rebecoming?

 

I'm preparing a whole new thread on this - stay tuned. I'll post it in the Ex-Xtian theism and spirituality section.

 

Sorry if my questions are too hard....If Buddhist teachers are like Christian teachers, this is the point at which you will say faith is not logical, or something like that. I will try to understand if that is the case.

 

Not too hard at all - rather easy actually. If at some point Buddhism can't explain itself, then there is something inherently wrong. As a Buddhist I am required to constantly question and put the teachings to the test.

[Deva]

The word pragmatheist makes me think of something more philosophical than the word pragmatist. Pragmatist normally means someone who is pragmatic--I think.

 

I was referring to the school of philosophy called Pragmatism. It is expressed in the writings of John Dewey and others. I had read John Dewey in college many years ago and was impressed at the time. I am afraid it has been so long that I am unable to really remember what he said in order to summarize it, but here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

 

There is a lot more to it than just the everyday meaning of the word pragmatic.

[Deva]

I'm preparing a whole new thread on this - stay tuned. I'll post it in the Ex-Xtian theism and spirituality section.

 

Not too hard at all - rather easy actually. If at some point Buddhism can't explain itself, then there is something inherently wrong. As a Buddhist I am required to constantly question and put the teachings to the test.

 

Thank you Jun, I look forward to reading the new thread

[R. S. Martin]

Sorry if my questions are too hard....If Buddhist teachers are like Christian teachers, this is the point at which you will say faith is not logical, or something like that. I will try to understand if that is the case.

 

Not too hard at all - rather easy actually. If at some point Buddhism can't explain itself, then there is something inherently wrong. As a Buddhist I am required to constantly question and put the teachings to the test.

 

I'll watch for your thread.

[R. S. Martin]

The word pragmatheist makes me think of something more philosophical than the word pragmatist. Pragmatist normally means someone who is pragmatic--I think.

 

I was referring to the school of philosophy called Pragmatism. It is expressed in the writings of John Dewey and others. I had read John Dewey in college many years ago and was impressed at the time. I am afraid it has been so long that I am unable to really remember what he said in order to summarize it, but here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

 

There is a lot more to it than just the everyday meaning of the word pragmatic.

 

I see. I never came across that. Sometimes I think the saddest thing in life is that it is so short and that the human brain is so limited that I can't learn everything there is to know because there is so much interesting stuff out there. And with the internet it's increasing by the minute. Gotta prioritize like crazy.

[Ouroboros]

My first conclusion is: Philosophers have big egos.

 

I think your first conclusion may be wrong if you're talking about philosophers per se.

 

What I was referring to was that when I started reading about Pragmatism, I noticed how hard-core, self-centered and "my-view-is-the-only-right-one" attitude many of these philosophers had. Pragmatism had came about, then someone were critical, and they made a new one Neo Pragmatism, then you had Claissical Pragmatism and NeoClassical Pragmatism and you name it. Bertrand Russell called it epistemological relativism and short-sighted practicalism. Realists thought pragmatist epistemology was a disguise idealism. And so on. The arguments and counter-arguments reminds me of the fights between different churches in the sect I belonged to. So my first observation was that all this bickering seems sometimes to be based on personal "beliefs" even with philosophers, and they hold their personal beliefs very high and become a bit accusative towards other philosophers only because they have a different view. That's they I can see philosophers (not necessarily everyone, but in a large stroke of the brush) got quite huge egos. Of course there are exceptions, but it seems the big names got quite strong opinions about their own philosophies.

[R. S. Martin]

My first conclusion is: Philosophers have big egos.

 

I think your first conclusion may be wrong if you're talking about philosophers per se.

 

What I was referring to was that when I started reading about Pragmatism, I noticed how hard-core, self-centered and "my-view-is-the-only-right-one" attitude many of these philosophers had. Pragmatism had came about, then someone were critical, and they made a new one Neo Pragmatism, then you had Claissical Pragmatism and NeoClassical Pragmatism and you name it. Bertrand Russell called it epistemological relativism and short-sighted practicalism. Realists thought pragmatist epistemology was a disguise idealism. And so on. The arguments and counter-arguments reminds me of the fights between different churches in the sect I belonged to. So my first observation was that all this bickering seems sometimes to be based on personal "beliefs" even with philosophers, and they hold their personal beliefs very high and become a bit accusative towards other philosophers only because they have a different view. That's they I can see philosophers (not necessarily everyone, but in a large stroke of the brush) got quite huge egos. Of course there are exceptions, but it seems the big names got quite strong opinions about their own philosophies.

 

I think you've got a point, Hans. I tried doing a minor in philosophy and had to give it up. The thing that forced me to give it up was that my brain could not handle the formulas of formal logic. But I also had problems with the seeming search for truth that was always shifting. It seemed like one big pointless, but very elaborate, word game.

 

You mention the bickering. That is why I am stalling at "another label." I think for me it smacks too much of religious denominations and who's in and who's out. How about the approach: Here's a project. Anybody's who's interested please sign up.

 

Okay so yeah that's me, big ego and all. See my sig. The strategy at this point is to find and educate people who are committed over the long haul. So yeah, I'll fess up, I had an agenda for this conversation. I think we have the same goals and ideals and values, more or less. Maybe not in how we live them out. I wouldn't know about that.

[Ouroboros]

You mention the bickering. That is why I am stalling at "another label." I think for me it smacks too much of religious denominations and who's in and who's out. How about the approach: Here's a project. Anybody's who's interested please sign up.

Heck, there's no need to be a "member" of the pragmatheist orthodox church. It's all just for fun rather than any serious need to have a yet-another-label. Antlerman and I just like the word. Now we're trying to figure out what it means.

 

Okay so yeah that's me, big ego and all. See my sig. The strategy at this point is to find and educate people who are committed over the long haul. So yeah, I'll fess up, I had an agenda for this conversation. I think we have the same goals and ideals and values, more or less. Maybe not in how we live them out. I wouldn't know about that.

I have a very large ego too (very, very large). But I've learned over the years to manage it to a small degree. Put it this way, I do let other people talk and finish their sentences nowdays before I throw in my opinion and why I think they're wrong.

[Mythra]

I seriously considered joining you guys and becoming a fellow pragmatheist - but it looks too deep. I could never explain it if someone asked me what it was.

 

So I decided to join Sam Harris' new religion: Scientismo.

 

From Sam Harris' article "God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends"

 

The fact that certain religious beliefs might be useful in no way suggests their legitimacy. I can guarantee, for instance, that the following religion, invented by me in the last ten seconds, would be extraordinarily useful. It is called “Scientismo.†Here is its creed: Be kind to others; do not lie, steal, or murder; and oblige your children to master mathematics and science to the best of their abilities or 17 demons will torture you with hot tongs for eternity after death. If I could spread this faith to billions, I have little doubt that we would live in a better world than we do at present. Would this suggest that the 17 demons of Scientismo exist? Useful delusions are not the same thing as true beliefs.

 

See, now I can get my mind around that one. And I want nothing to do with those 17 demons.

[Ouroboros]

Only 17?

 

We got 18 demons in pragmatheism that will torture you and even scratch chalk on a blackboard to make that annoying screeching sound that makes your skin crawl.. HAH! Beat that ... Heretic!

 

 

 

[R. S. Martin]

You mention the bickering. That is why I am stalling at "another label." I think for me it smacks too much of religious denominations and who's in and who's out. How about the approach: Here's a project. Anybody's who's interested please sign up.

Heck, there's no need to be a "member" of the pragmatheist orthodox church. It's all just for fun rather than any serious need to have a yet-another-label. Antlerman and I just like the word. Now we're trying to figure out what it means.

 

 

You sound like an okay guy. I happened to see the following in your sig and it just seemed to fit:

 

So oft in theologic wars,

The disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance

Of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant

Not one of them has seen!

[Antlerman]

I think joining forces with liberal Christians is necessary for this battle but we need to play the politics right. God is important and real to them. If we want their cooperation we will respect this. Okay, I've talked with people who say not all liberal Christians are this serious. The people I know are ordained clergy who are committed to training the next generation of clergy. Possibly they are more serious than some. All the same, I see this as a potential mine field around which we must tread very carefully if we try to work with Christians of any type or stripe. Just felt to warn folks in case anyone was not aware of how serious this might be.

This is the goal. Establishing common ground, rather than defining lines of difference. That means a loosening of grips on the gods of each side: the gods of theists and the gods of atheists (irony intended). They can still believe in them if they wish, but to be put into a position of defending their symbols, leads people to build walls to defend their language, and in so doing begin to violate the underlying purpose of the respective languages are really for. It happens whether it's the religionist driving away all threats to their symbols, or the atheists driving away all religionists who threaten theirs. It all just language systems for god's sake! For the most part we have far more in common, than not. Why build on the differences? Do we like being divided? Are we so weak in what works for us, that we need to have others be "wrong"? It's when the symbols become the focus of the religion and not what the symbols point to, that they fail.

[Antlerman]

Heck, there's no need to be a "member" of the pragmatheist orthodox church. It's all just for fun rather than any serious need to have a yet-another-label. Antlerman and I just like the word. Now we're trying to figure out what it means.

You noticed my little blurb under my avitar of the parallel crucifiction chruch? Universal Church of Pragmatheistic Enlightenment. I fully intend to talk to Webmaster to set up a "love offering" page that will fill my pockets with lovely gold! What the hell. I want money, lots and lots of money... 'Come to the church and be saved! Show your dedication to the truth. Dig deep and give till it hurts. '

 

Ok, well maybe that's a hold over from my days in the camps of the fundamentalists. Jesus bought me a limo!

[R. S. Martin]

Heck, there's no need to be a "member" of the pragmatheist orthodox church. It's all just for fun rather than any serious need to have a yet-another-label. Antlerman and I just like the word. Now we're trying to figure out what it means.

You noticed my little blurb under my avitar of the parallel crucifiction chruch? Universal Church of Pragmatheistic Enlightenment. I fully intend to talk to Webmaster to set up a "love offering" page that will fill my pockets with lovely gold! What the hell. I want money, lots and lots of money... 'Come to the church and be saved! Show your dedication to the truth. Dig deep and give till it hurts. '

 

Ok, well maybe that's a hold over from my days in the camps of the fundamentalists. Jesus bought me a limo!

 

A question about the "give till it hurts" thing. What if money is so meaningless to a person that it never hurts giving it all? Or what if a person is hurting so much about other stuff that giving money is just one more thing and barely discernible from the general mass of pain? That "give till it hurts" never had any meaning for me, and I know I'm not the only one.

[R. S. Martin]

I think joining forces with liberal Christians is necessary for this battle but we need to play the politics right. God is important and real to them. If we want their cooperation we will respect this. Okay, I've talked with people who say not all liberal Christians are this serious. The people I know are ordained clergy who are committed to training the next generation of clergy. Possibly they are more serious than some. All the same, I see this as a potential mine field around which we must tread very carefully if we try to work with Christians of any type or stripe. Just felt to warn folks in case anyone was not aware of how serious this might be.

This is the goal. Establishing common ground, rather than defining lines of difference. That means a loosening of grips on the gods of each side: the gods of theists and the gods of atheists (irony intended). They can still believe in them if they wish, but to be put into a position of defending their symbols, leads people to build walls to defend their language, and in so doing begin to violate the underlying purpose of the respective languages are really for. It happens whether it's the religionist driving away all threats to their symbols, or the atheists driving away all religionists who threaten theirs. It all just language systems for god's sake! For the most part we have far more in common, than not. Why build on the differences? Do we like being divided? Are we so weak in what works for us, that we need to have others be "wrong"? It's when the symbols become the focus of the religion and not what the symbols point to, that they fail.

 

You bring out an important point about language, A-man. I've been impressed by the example of a local agnostic/atheist. He lives in a town where "everybody" is Christian, at least nominally even if they don't go to church. His town is in the heart of horse and buggy country and on a Sunday morning, as well as during the week, the buggy traffic through that town is fairly heavy from all directions. I used to live there. There are two major parking lots for horses, plus several smaller ones. This man works with Habitat for Humanity and has no problem being around so many Christians. He says one of his answers is, "I don't share that belief." He says it as though it were the most common thing to say. A non-issue. And it just passes. He says people are amazed that as an unbeliever he will work for Habitat for Humanity.

 

I'm probably making too much of this but I'm thinking he's probably your shining star of a pragmatheist. He's about 60 and thinks atheist means a statement that god does not exist. He won't make that statement so he identifies as agnostic. He sees no evidence for God and does not think God exists. I think according to standards on these forums he would be considered atheist. But he identifies as agnostic and it's very important to him that he be called agnostic. Just felt to clarify this in case it's important.

[R. S. Martin]

Now, just as people seem to be settling down and adjusting to the idea of living with this new word, I'm going to throw out another thorny question. In your conversation about this word, Hans and A-man, did you discuss pronunciation? Exactly how should the word be pronounced? On which syllable does the accent fall? How are the "a's" pronounced--are they long or short and are they pronounced as in bat or as in ball or as in flag or as the second "a" in rational?

 

I'll list three suggestions that have occurred to me, along with pros and cons:

 

1. Here's my favourite pronunciation because I find it easiest:

 

PRAG ma theist

 

first a=as in flag

second a=as in second a in rational

 

My problem with this pronunciation is that it does not highlight the word "theist" and I think that is a serious problem, given how important it is in the meaning of the word.

 

2. Here's my second favourite because it's second easiest for me:

 

prag MATH eist

 

first a=as in flag

second a=as in math

 

My problem with this pronunciation is that it sounds like it's all about math and I absolutely hate math. Besides, it's not about math at all.

 

3. Here's the most sensible pronunciation I can think of:

 

prag ma THEist

 

My problem with this one is that it sounds like two words. But the English language has some words that are like this so it could work. I did not capitalize the "i-s-t" because when I pronounce the word "theist" I put more emphasis on the first part than the last part. I did not write "theist" as two syllables because I was afraid that would complicate things too much. Thus, this distinction is not a typo but maybe it's not necessary to hold onto it for future discussion--I really don't know.

 

This list is not exhaustive so I'm curious how others are saying our brand new word. BTW, I have always wondered how words were made. If this goes through, I might actually get to see how it's done before I die.