Taoism and Atheism

In college I have met many atheists that also claim to be taoist, a form of eastern monism. I have studied Taosim and in a technical sense it is possible to be both a taoist and and atheist. In taoism there is no God. There is only the Tao. Still it seems as if the Tao is takeing the place of a God, emotionaly at least. It also seems to be on the same level, epistemicly speaking, as God. So it seems strange for me that one person would deny the existence of God and affirm the existence of the Tao.

Toaism states that everything in the world is believed to be a manifestation of the Tao and are restricted, in a sense, by the Tao. In the Tao de Ching, the main text of Taoists, the tao is described as being indescribable (doesn't that sound familiar to something other theists say about their God?). It is said by certian taoists that the Tao, I am paraphrasing here, is both smaller than the smallest thing and largests than the largest thing (a contradiction). The Tao is unity (whatever that means, I mean why not just call it unity then?). The Tao seems even more vague than any concept developed by western religions and just as hard to prove the existence of than any western God. Maybe I am to entrenched in western thinking for any of this eastern philosopohy.

Tags: atheism, atheist, eastern, monism, tao

Views: 2338

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ronald Shillings on May 7, 2011 at 1:21am
I know it may seem ridiculous that I joined an Atheist site and my first post will be defending a religion (if you could really classify it as such) but I do find Taoism extremely intriguing. I suppose it's because it resonates so well with my own beliefs. But I wanted to clarify the philosophical terms. You have a dao, I have a dao, there is dao of woodworking, dao of debate, etc. I understand this to mean that everything has it's own nature. The unity you mention describes an interconnectedness of all things. The soil to the air to the geo-lunar system to the solar sytem to the galaxy to the universe to a theoretical ultimate reality. Dao can also be explained in the language of string theory. There is also a Great Dao, which is not "God" in any sense that it cares what you do with your genitals, but rather a first cause. Think of whatever process might have caused the big bang. That is Dao. I suspect that if we someday fully comprehend THAT first cause, we would have questions about what caused that and the position of Dao would be elevated. So, from a philosophical perspective, Dao is exactly what it it claims to be. The unknown. So it is altogether possible to deny the existence of a god and affirm the existence of Dao as long as you are willing to admit that there are things that are unknown. It's also worth mentioning that Dao doesn't give a crap about you or humanity. It can't because it is not an entity but rather a placeholder term (think dark matter) describing ultimate reality. But, just as I cannot proscribe how you live your life, neither can I dictate how you understand the Dao. And if you agree with that last statement, chances are you are a bit of a Taoist yourself. You just happened to figure out that morality and belief should not be standards decided by any central authority on your own. Which is exactly what those philosophers wanted you to do. Am I promoting the philosophy? Nah. It's your business what you believe. I can't tell you how to think. But in my humble opinion, it is a subject worth investigating.
Permalink Reply by Dennis Smith on May 12, 2011 at 12:41pm

There are many schools of Daoism and there is a distinction as well within the history of Daoism among Philosophical Daoism, Religious Daoism, and Alchemical Daoism. At bottom Daoism is a naturalistic philosophy. There is no sense in Philosophical Daoism of any kind of diety of any stripe. The Dao is sort of an abstract unifying name for whatever life and consciousness are and perhaps the "principles" one observes in the universe. There are some schools of Daoism which are "mystical" and I would agree they are just another religion.

 

The concern of Daoism is more with discerning the "patterns" of the way things work and living in concert with those patterns as part of the natural order rather than separate from it as in Christianity. Most Daoism really doesn't deal with Cosmology or origins except what might be learned from a study of nature, in other words, science. Daoism is not irrational nor is it contrary to science. There is a recognition that there may be things you can learn by observation of your own consciousness in meditation.

 

So, yes, there are probably some who turn to Daoism because they want to be religious but can't stand the other major religions. However, as I understand it, Daoism proper is not a religion in any sense. Actually neither is Buddhism in it's original form. Daoism is not dogmatic. It is based on observation and experience which is open to be tested by anyone.

Permalink Reply by John Cantor on October 18, 2011 at 7:09pm

I'm an atheist with tao. I never found a reason to study Taoism as the tao te ching works for me. I accept the existence of things beyond my understanding, which is nothing other than a proper foundation. tao is a utility of conceptual engineering. Start from the unity of self to build essential dualities in concept to bring self more into alignment with tao. tao is the essence of motion, it's the rhythm of the universe; it's the one to the many to the one to the many... the heartbeat of the self organizing system. It is evolution, it is emergence; it is the would-be-flap of wing of butterfly you catch in your hand before the turbulence builds to typhoon. tao is a word beyond saying, a sound beyond hearing, a place beyond being; the thing of no-thing that carries your mind from void...

to awareness.

tao is balance, harmony, beauty; a space between, previously unseen.

Or is that too eastern? How does pure mathematics sound, better? There ain't nothing about tao that ain't real, but some people don't like math, either. ;)

Permalink Reply by Ronald Shillings on October 18, 2011 at 10:30pm

I think there is a tendency within the atheist community to dismiss certain things off hand because they have religious baggage. Daoism is one of those things. The Four Noble Truths are another. There is no need to "throw the baby out with the bath water". I find Daoism to be an incredibly rewarding personal philosophy just as I find the Four Noble Truths to be an absolutely accurate understanding of the human condition. Even the various deities that have attached themselves to Daoism and Buddhism are helpful as metaphor. Think of Athena. I don't think anyone still thinks she really exists but few other characters can express the ideals she represents as poetically. Life will never, ever be four white walls and a neon light-bulb. Life and people are colorful. Some things will always be better understood poetically and *cough* spiritually rather than mutually agreed upon black and white definitions.

 

It would be easy to dismiss something as being "too Eastern", but I think that betrays a certain arrogance in Western thinking. For too long we've had this idea that we were 100% right about everything. From the "missionaries" who told indigenous peoples to "kiss the cross or kiss the sword" to putting native lands to "proper use", it has always been a matter of civilizing and modernizing the rest of the world to adopt OUR values without taking the time to at least examine the worth of those that are being replaced.

 

As a minority, we atheists are forced to defend what we are not, but we cannot fully define ourselves by it. In other words, "Atheist" only says what I am not. "Daoist" and to a large degree "Buddhist" says what I am. In some ways I am even a "Red Letter Christian". The practical application of these ideals is that I am able to do my tiny part in making the world just a little bit better. This is something that I feel atheism, all by itself, is insufficient in doing.

 

Sorry for the novel :)

Permalink Reply by Maruli Marulaki on October 19, 2011 at 4:26am
There is a very simple difference:  Does Taoism make any claims of either the existence of any entity or force or contingency, that cannot be scrutiniced by scientific research?    Without such a claim, it is a philosophy, with such a claim, it is some religion or woo-woo.
Permalink Reply by leveni on October 19, 2011 at 5:01am

If you are not prepared to believe in a Middle Eastern bronze age belief system, why make excuses for for an Asian bronze age belief system?

 

From an etymological point of view though:

When I see the word Tao (dou 道in Japanese),'the way' or 'the way of' comes to mind. As in Shintou(神道) the way of God、kendou(剣道) the way of the sword、bushidou(武士道)the way of the warrior. etc So when I see 道 by itself, I think 'the way'. But the way to what?

Permalink Reply by Ronald Shillings on October 19, 2011 at 7:33am

Lol, massive difference between the two.

 

Bronze Age Middle Eastern Religion - The primary controlling Force of the Universe likes me better than you.

 

Bronze Age Asian Philosophy - This is what I understand to be how the Universe works based on observations of the Universe actually working.

 

The "ways" described are not always "paths" but rather "workings". Alternately, one can have clear goals in mind when applying the philosophy. Peace, prosperity, skill, etc. The "way" can describe the appropriate "path" to achieve those things or the "workings" of those things in practice.

 

Take note, however, that there is a distinction between the dao "of something" and the greater Dao. The Greater Dao is how the Universe works, from the smallest to the largest and how they relate to each other. If you would like to sh17 on that, then you sh17 on most of modern science. Where science seeks to understand the workings of the Universe, the greater Dao has held that there is something to be understood.

Permalink Reply by leveni on October 19, 2011 at 9:40am
Hi Ronald, how are things?

If you would like to sh17 on that, then you sh17 on most of modern science.

Everything else apart from this sentence is comprehendable. Just because you have written this sentence, and just because you think this sentence to be true, doesn't make it true. 

 

I am not shi7ing on Taoism nor on science.

 

Taoism doesn't explain anything what so ever. Everything in it is ambiguous. Taoists just take what they want form Taoism the same way Christians take what they want from Christianity. Believers of both religious systems read their ancient texts and interpret them in a way that makes them feel good inside. 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Ronald Shillings on October 19, 2011 at 11:18pm

Why hello, Leveni, I am doing wonderful and I hope you are as well.

 

If you understood the rest of my post, it follows that you are able to comprehend the sentence you quoted. I must agree with you on your assertion that just because I think it is true doesn't make it true. I must also remind you that just because we have no reason to believe there is a God, doesn't mean there isn't one. This is the condition we find ourselves in because of how we have interpreted the world.

 

What are your political opinions? Do you prefer capitalism over socialism or vice versa? How did you come to that opinion? My guess is by your interpretation of the world and the systems in question. The Daode Jing is not a religious text as much as a philosophical, ethical and political treatise. As such, I am free to agree or disagree with the opinions contained therein. In general, I am in agreement. Sometimes I am not.

 

As for the ambiguity, I would prefer that you cite a specific example rather than make an unqualified statement. Or you could stick to your atheistic fundamentalism. If that's your dao, then I have no motivation to relieve you of it ;)

Permalink Reply by leveni on October 20, 2011 at 2:10am

Hey Ronald,

hehe, nice response. Thanks for making me smile, even laugh a bit.

If you understood the rest of my post, it follows that you are able to comprehend the sentence you quoted. I must agree with you on your assertion that just because I think it is true doesn't make it true. I must also remind you that just because we have no reason to believe there is a God, doesn't mean there isn't one. This is the condition we find ourselves in because of how we have interpreted the world.

Agreed.

 

What are your political opinions? Do you prefer capitalism over socialism or vice versa? How did you come to that opinion? My guess is by your interpretation of the world and the systems in question.

I do have political opinions but they are way out there. And most probably wouldn't be taken seriously. But basically, all necessities needed for life should be given by the state, everything else, a semi-controlled laissez-faire capitalist system. But again, you are right about how my opinions have come about.

 

The Daode Jing is not a religious text as much as a philosophical, ethical and political treatise. As such, I am free to agree or disagree with the opinions contained therein. In general, I am in agreement. Sometimes I am not.

This is the case with any opinion about life in general that has been written down and taken to be the 'proper way' to live. 

 

As for the ambiguity, I would prefer that you cite a specific example rather than make an unqualified statement.

'Wu wei'. or 'wei wu wei'. It's a pretty meaningless statement. If somebody acts and gets it wrong, Taoists can just say: 'he didn't wu-wei properly'. If he gets it right they will say: 'he did wu-wei properly'. Wu-wei is pure meaningless ambiguity.

 

Or you could stick to your atheistic fundamentalism. 

Atheistic Fundamentalism. TNT666 mentioned this in a thread he started in regards to the meaning of the word Atheism. I tend to agree with him. There is no such thing as Atheism or Atheistic Fundamentalism. They don't exist.

 

An Atheist is somebody who does not believe in God or gods.

But Atheism? There is no doctrine in regards to Atheism. TNT666 makes a great point. 

 

If that's your dao, then I have no motivation to relieve you of it ;)

Even Dao is ambiguous. 

When I read the Chinese version of Daoism, it states that it's main purpose is to worship Traditional Gods, achieve immortality(神仙) and save the world. What does that mean?

 

How each of us wishes to save the world is different, and therefore ambiguous. 

 

Immortality? Christians also believe in Immortality, but in a different way and by a different means to Taoists. Therefore it is ambiguous. 

 

Worshipping Chinese traditional Gods. I do not see how lighting incense and praying can do anything to help somebodies life, and every prayer would be different and therefore the whole process would be ambiguous. 

 

Taoism is a religion that appeals to human emotions, just like all religions. 

But

just as you said, I have my 'way' and you have your 'way'.

 

Permalink Reply by Ronald Shillings on October 20, 2011 at 8:07am

Glad you enjoyed. I don't have much of an opinion about religious Taoism except that often the practical application of polytheism is that everyone has a god they can look too. The Daode Jing, Zhuangzi, and the Confusian Classics did not begin as religious texts. Any religiosity attributed to them is, technically, a corruption. Therefore I really don't that much attention to them, lol.

 

Wu wei and wu wei wu are not like Paul's prayers where success is seemingly guaranteed. It's just a technique. Action without action is like Rosa Parks. She didn't fight a war, she just sat in a seat. That is a prime example of wu wei in practice. I hardly find this to be meaningless.

 

There is no doctrine of atheism but there are dogmatic connotations that are clung to by some atheists such as grabbing every opportunity to ridicule religion. Like when atheists make a big stink about the bible speaking of unicorns or bats being grouped with birds. This at the expense of any value one might gather from the stories being told. It makes it hard to have a conversation with some people. I'm just not terribly impressed.

 

Dao is not ambiguous as it has been explained very well in this thread.

 

Funny note on immortality. In religious Taoism, one path to immortality is that the female achieves orgasm many times (up to 50) while the male refrains. Something to do with energies or some such. Makes me think of the QI joke where immortality is located on your elbow, all you have to do is reach out and lick it.

Permalink Reply by leveni on October 24, 2011 at 8:22am

Wu wei and wu wei wu are not like Paul's prayers where success is seemingly guaranteed. It's just a technique. Action without action is like Rosa Parks. She didn't fight a war, she just sat in a seat. That is a prime example of wu wei in practice. I hardly find this to be meaningless.

After reading a bit about Wu Wei, I can find no conection between Rosa Parks action and Wu Wei. 

Rosa Parks not moving seats was a form of protest. 

Quote:

"When that white driver stepped back toward us, when he waved his hand and ordered us up and out of our seats, I felt a determination cover my body like a quilt on a winter night."

She, in her mind, had a steadfast determination not to move.

But 

this is not Wu Wei. Wu Wei states that the non-action is to have no proactive interference from the mind. It has to be a natural action. For example: to paint in the wu wei way, one must paint without thinking, because the thoughts will interfere with the natural course of the painting. Or when playing music, one must not think of all the notes, just play effortlessly. Wu Wei is not doing what should be done, but just doing things in a natural manner. 

 

I put it to you that the Rosa Parks example is a misleading example of Wu Wei. Yes or No?

 

 

There is no doctrine of atheism but there are dogmatic connotations that are clung to by some atheists such as grabbing every opportunity to ridicule religion. Like when atheists make a big stink about the bible speaking of unicorns or bats being grouped with birds. This at the expense of any value one might gather from the stories being told. It makes it hard to have a conversation with some people. I'm just not terribly impressed.

This, I agree with you. I disagree with ridicule. I notice a lot of atheists prefer to quote Thomas Jefferson's ridicule quote, than put up a point of view. 

Putting up a point of view and explaining that point of view I find much better. Going through point by point, finding out what a person believes in, and making sure they explain their beliefs in a well understood manner, one that they themselves can clearly see and understand, as well as everybody else being able to understand, makes much more sense to me.  

EG: I think I know what Wu Wei is. I do not think Rosa Parks is a good example, and I explained why. I can not believe in Wu Way because it is ambiguous. There is no real point to it in the physical world. In the practitioners own mind there is a point to it, but outside the mind it is meaningless. 

But can Wu Wei give a practitioner peace of mind. I guess so, but it all depends on the indoctrination process of Taoism. In my mind Taoism can only work on the subjective level, thus making it similar to a religion.

 

Dao is not ambiguous as it has been explained very well in this thread.

Maybe I am wrong in thinking it is ambiguous. But that is what I think. And I gave examples of why. Dao: the indescribable way the universe works? This has no meaning to me.

 

Glad you enjoyed.

I like when there is a bit of a bite in an opinion/response in a debate. Keeps me on my toes.

 

I don't have much of an opinion about religious Taoism except that often the practical application of polytheism is that everyone has a god they can look too. The Daode Jing, Zhuangzi, and the Confusian Classics did not begin as religious texts. Any religiosity attributed to them is, technically, a corruption. Therefore I really don't pay that much attention to them, lol.

I see, it looks like religious Taoism started with the Tang Dynasty(618AD-907AD)

 

 

Never even knew QI existed. I'm already hooked. Thanks.

 

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service