[Buddha-l] karma and "correct doctrine"

[Michael LaTorra]

In all religions there seems to be a tension between doctrinal interpretations 
that we may label “theologically/doctrinally correct” and the more common 
interpretations that most believers – even high-ranking ones – will tend to 
adopt over time. Recent research by cognitive scientists has shown that human 
beings are, in the words of Paul Bloom, "natural born dualists" as well as 
being natural creationists who presume a teleological rationale for everything. 
Whether that rationale is expressed in terms of "karma" or "God's will" is 
really irrelevant.

For a taste of Prof. Bloom’s thinking, please read the passages below.

“Is God an Accident?” By Paul Bloom
(Excerpted from The Atlantic Monthly online – subscription required:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/god-accident )

"It's not surprising, then, that nascent creationist views are found in young 
children. Four-year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions 
("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"). When asked to explain why a 
bunch of rocks are pointy, adults prefer a physical explanation, while children 
choose a functional one, such as "so that animals could scratch on them when 
they get itchy." And when asked about the origin of animals and people, 
children tend to prefer explanations that involve an intentional creator, even 
if the adults raising them do not. Creationism—and belief in God—is bred in the 
bone.

"Some might argue that the preceding analysis of religion, based as it is on 
supernatural beliefs, does not apply to certain non-Western faiths. In his 
recent book, The End of Faith, the neuroscientist Sam Harris mounts a fierce 
attack on religion, much of it directed at Christianity and Islam, which he 
criticizes for what he sees as ridiculous factual claims and grotesque moral 
views. But then he turns to Buddhism, and his tone shifts to admiration—it 
is "the most complete methodology we have for discovering the intrinsic freedom 
of consciousness, unencumbered by any dogma." Surely this religion, if one 
wants to call it a religion, is not rooted in the dualist and creationist views 
that emerge in our childhood. 

"Fair enough. But while it may be true that "theologically correct" Buddhism 
explicitly rejects the notions of body-soul duality and immaterial entities 
with special powers, actual Buddhists believe in such things. (Harris himself 
recognizes this; at one point he complains about the millions of Buddhists who 
treat the Buddha as a Christ figure.) For that matter, although many Christian 
theologians are willing to endorse evolutionary biology—and it was legitimately 
front-page news when Pope John Paul II conceded that Darwin's theory of 
evolution might be correct—this should not distract us from the fact that many 
Christians think evolution is nonsense."


Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mlatorra at nmsu.edu

Department of English
New Mexico State University
PO Box 30001 MSC 3E
Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001