[Buddha-l] the existence of God in Buddhism

[Richard Hayes]

On Friday 25 August 2006 07:42, Vicente Gonzalez wrote:

> He defines those terms in this way:
>
> 1- atheist is who know that there is not a God
> 2- agnostic is who suspend any judgement until further evidence

These categories seem not to include the Buddha's position, which, as far as I 
can tell, was that the question of God's existence is not important. 

The definitions given by Russell could also leave out the position of some 
kinds of philosopher who say that because the question is poorly formulated, 
it is unclear what would count as evidence for one side or the other. I 
suppose one could call such a person an agnostic, but it seems a stronger 
position than de facto agnosticism. 

For example, one might suspend judgment on the question of whether George W. 
Bush and Richard Cheney planned the attacks on the World Trade Center. One 
might, for example, claim that not all the evidence is in and that it would 
therefore be premature to reach a verdict. So one might be a de facto 
agnostic on that question, holding the view that one lacks the evidence to 
settle a matter that is in principle decidable. But the position of many 
philosophers (including, I think, some Buddhists) is that no amount of 
evidence or reasoning can possibly settle the question of whether or not God 
(as described in a particular way) exists; the question, in their view, is in 
principle undecidable.

-- 
Richard P. Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes