Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[Barrister]

Except there very clearly does seem to be a real debate:

https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=confucianism+is+it+a+religion#q=is+confucianism+a+religion

It comes down to how you define "religion" in the end.  I can certainly see how you'd make the argument that it is not a religion, but I don't think you can wave your hands and make the entire debate go away.

I don't think you can show that there are google results and conclude that there is a very real debate.  I could as easily argue that there is a very real debate about whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real because https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=is+flying+spaghetti+monster+real

You have to follow the links.

From link 1:

Is Confucianism a religion?

Main article: Chinese Rites controversy
Ever since Europeans first encountered Confucianism, the issue of how Confucianism should be classified has been subject to debate. In the 16th and the 17th centuries, the earliest European arrivals in China, the Christian Jesuits, considered Confucianism to be an ethical system, not a religion, and one that was compatible with Christianity.[46] The Jesuits, including Matteo Ricci, saw Chinese rituals as "civil rituals" that could co-exist alongside the spiritual rituals of Catholicism.[46] By the early 18th century, this initial portrayal was rejected by the Dominicans and Franciscans, creating a dispute among Catholics in East Asia that was known as the "Rites Controversy".[47] The Dominicans and Franciscans argued that ancestral worship was a form of pagan idolatry that was contradictory to the tenets of Christianity. This view was reinforced by Pope Benedict XIV, who ordered a ban on Chinese rituals.[47]
This debate continues into the modern era. There is consensus among scholars that, whether or not it is religious, Confucianism is definitively non-theistic. Confucianism is humanistic, and does not involve a belief in the supernatural or in a personal god.[48] On spirituality, Confucius said to Chi Lu, one of his students, that "You are not yet able to serve men, how can you serve spirits?"[49] Attributes that are seen as religious—such as ancestor worship, ritual, and sacrifice—were advocated by Confucius as necessary for social harmony; however, these attributes can be traced to the traditional non-Confucian Chinese beliefs of Chinese folk religion, and are also practiced by Daoists and Chinese Buddhists. Scholars recognize that classification ultimately depends on how one defines religion. Using stricter definitions of religion, Confucianism has been described as a moral science or philosophy.[50] But using a broader definition, such as Frederick Streng's characterization of religion as "a means of ultimate transformation",[51] Confucianism could be described as a "sociopolitical doctrine having religious qualities."[48] With the latter definition, Confucianism is religious, even if non-theistic, in the sense that it "performs some of the basic psycho-social functions of full-fledged religions", in the same way that non-theistic ideologies like Communism do.[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Is_Confucianism_a_religion.3F


Link 2:

Is Confucianism a Religion?
     There was not a term religion in ancient China but people worshipped Heaven as a God. Therefore, we can call Confucianism a Science of God.

     Confucianism is not one of the so-called religions. Confucius himself deeply believed in Heaven (God) and preached Its Dao which is Way leading human beings to enlightenment, by this one can unite with Heaven, then without any display, one becomes manifested; without any movement, one produces changes, and without any effort, one accomplishes its ends. Confucius' teaching is the holiest teaching of holy teachings, and may be above all the religions and does not conflict with them. He believes that all the people of the world are brothers and sisters under the only one God. These days too many people abuse the term of religion, so it is better to use 'the science of God.' Then Confucianism is the science of God.

http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~tkang/welcome_files/religion.htm


Link 3

Some say Confucianism is not a religion, since there are no Confucian deities and no teachings about the afterlife. Confucius himself was a staunch supporter of ritual, however, and for many centuries there were state rituals associated with Confucianism. Most importantly, the Confucian tradition was instrumental in shaping Chinese social relationships and moral thought. Thus even without deities and a vision of salvation, Confucianism plays much the same role as religion does in other cultural contexts. The founder of Confucianism was Kong Qiu (K'ung Ch'iu), who was born around 552 B.C.E. in the small state of Lu and died in 479 B.C.E. The Latinized name Confucius, based on the honorific title Kong Fuzi (K'ung Fu-tzu), was created by 16th-century Jesuit missionaries in China. Confucius was a teacher to sons of the nobility at a time when formal education was just beginning in China. He traveled from region to region with a small group of disciples, a number of whom would become important government officials. Confucius was not particularly famous during his lifetime, and even considered himself to be a failure. He longed to be the advisor to a powerful ruler, and he believed that such a ruler, with the right advice, could bring about an ideal world. Confucius said heaven and the afterlife were beyond human capacity to understand, and one should therefore concentrate instead on doing the right thing in this life. The earliest records from his students indicate that he did not provide many moral precepts; rather he taught an attitude toward one's fellow humans of respect, particularly respect for one's parents, teachers, and elders. He also encouraged his students to learn from everyone they encountered and to honor others' cultural norms. Later, his teachings would be translated by authoritarian political philosophers into strict guidelines, and for much of Chinese history Confucianism would be associated with an immutable hierarchy of authority and unquestioning obedience.

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Confucianism.html


skipping to link 6, since it's 'scholarly'

Is Confucianism a religion? If so, why do most Chinese think it isn't? From ancient Confucian temples, to nineteenth-century archives, to the testimony of people interviewed by the author throughout China over a period of more than a decade, this book traces the birth and growth of the idea of Confucianism as a world religion.

The book begins at Oxford, in the late nineteenth century, when Friedrich Max Müller and James Legge classified Confucianism as a world religion in the new discourse of "world religions" and the emerging discipline of comparative religion. Anna Sun shows how that decisive moment continues to influence the understanding of Confucianism in the contemporary world, not only in the West but also in China, where the politics of Confucianism has become important to the present regime in a time of transition. Contested histories of Confucianism are vital signs of social and political change.

Sun also examines the revival of Confucianism in China today and the social significance of the ritual practice of Confucian temples. While the Chinese government turns to Confucianism to justify its political agenda, Confucian activists have started a movement to turn Confucianism into a religion. Confucianism as a world religion might have begun as a scholarly construction, but are we witnessing its transformation into a social and political reality?

With historical analysis, extensive research, and thoughtful reflection, Confucianism as a World Religion will engage all those interested in religion and global politics at the beginning of the Chinese century.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10017.html



Sure seems like a lot of debate going on here...

[crazy canuck]

There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India.  But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.

the concept is well forumulated in the concept of Maat in ancient Egypt.  And at the bolded part  .  You need to downplay that because it proves you are wrong in your assertion that a secular thinker was the first to forumulate the concept.

"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "  from oral traditions thought to be from the 9th or 8th centuries BCE.

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written.  This of course is the most important reference because the thinking of the ancient Egyptians influenced those around them.

I am not sure why you think Confucious is "considered" the originator of the idea or more importantly why you think that might be so.   Whatever you might think it is interesting that you completely discard the debate of whether his teachings are religious in nature given that you wish to make him a secular thinker for the purposes of winning the internet debate.  Sad really.

As for your snarkiness,  I am sure it will continue.  But it is fun nonetheless to watch you wriggle around.

The Mahabharata was written around 400BCE, and thus post-dates Confucius.

you forgot to read the rest of the post. It is based on an oral tradition that predates Confucious by hundreds of years.

The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a secular writing.

The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a writing which is based on the religious beliefs of Maat which dominates the culture of ancient Egypt.

You are making distinctions between secular and religious which make no sense in the context of those socieities.

[crazy canuck]

How can you not understand how one could take a set of ideas, remove those ideas that are not dependent on the religious foundation of the set, and evaluate them on their own merits. How can this be anything that is remotely difficult to understand?

Take the Ten Commandments. Some of them are clearly religious in nature and have no real meaning absent the existence of the god (Thou shalt have no other god before me). Some of them are clearly secular, in that they are useful (or not) regardless of whether or not the god in question actually exists (Thou shalt not kill).

What is so difficult about the idea that one can extract singular ideas or concepts from the set?

Because I dont understand how you make the determination as to what is dependant on a religious foundation and what is not when all the ideas were part of the religious belief.  Thats why I say you want to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to analyzing whether reigion is a net benefit to society.  You wish to strip out all that any objective observer would view as good to make the case that the rest is bad.

[grumbler]

You have to follow the links.

From link 1: (snip)

Link 1 is a wikipedia article.  That something exists in wikipedia (given that anything can exist in wikipedia) doesn't make for a "real debate."  And even your wiki article merely notes a debate over whether Confucianism was compatible with Catholicism.

Link 2:

I have no idea what this is supposed to say about a real debate.  This is gibberish.  In Chinese terms, "heaven" is not god at all (nor are the gods of heaven real).  Heaven is a philosophical concept like Plato's Cave.   Like Plato's cave, it doesn't have any actual existence.

Link 3

Link 3 doesn't argue that Confucianism is a religion, but merely that "Confucianism plays much the same role as religion does in other cultural contexts."  I don't think that this is a very controversial idea.

skipping to link 6, since it's 'scholarly'

Link six deals with the implications of a blunder in some scholars' understanding of Confucianism and implicitly argues that Confucianism isn't a religion: " Confucianism as a world religion might have begun as a scholarly construction..."

Sure seems like a lot of debate going on here... 

There is some writing, but there is no 'debate' here.  It is possible that links 1 and 2 (both from anonymous and non-authoritative sources) are arguing that Confucianism is an actual religion; they are poorly-enough-written that it is hard to tell.  Link 3 isn't debating anything, just noting that Confucianism plays a role similar to religion 9and thus, implicitly, isn't a religion itself), and link 6 states that Confucianism as religion is "a scholarly construction" (i.e. is not true).

[Barrister]

There is some writing, but there is no 'debate' here.  It is possible that links 1 and 2 (both from anonymous and non-authoritative sources) are arguing that Confucianism is an actual religion; they are poorly-enough-written that it is hard to tell.  Link 3 isn't debating anything, just noting that Confucianism plays a role similar to religion 9and thus, implicitly, isn't a religion itself), and link 6 states that Confucianism as religion is "a scholarly construction" (i.e. is not true).

Grumbler, you have failed to convince me that there is the absence of debate on whether or not confucianism is a religion.  I suspect however that there is little I can say that will make you change your mind, so I will let these posts and links stand.

[grumbler]

you forgot to read the rest of the post. It is based on an oral tradition that predates Confucious by hundreds of years.

You have no idea what portions of the Mahabharata predate Confucius.  Argument fails for lack of evidence and because of special pleading.

The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a secular writing.

The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a writing which is based on the religious beliefs of Maat which dominates the culture of ancient Egypt.

The Tale is a secular writing.  There is nothing supernatural or religious about it at all.  You can't say that, because a society has a religion, that everything in that society is religious.  That's absurd.

You are making distinctions between secular and religious which make no sense in the context of those socieities.

Your argument that there is no distinction between secular and religious in these societies is mere argument by assertion, and amounts to more special pleading, to boot.

[crazy canuck]

you forgot to read the rest of the post. It is based on an oral tradition that predates Confucious by hundreds of years.

You have no idea what portions of the Mahabharata predate Confucius.  Argument fails for lack of evidence and because of special pleading.

Stick to your day job because you would really suck as a lawyer.

[grumbler]

Grumbler, you have failed to convince me that there is the absence of debate on whether or not confucianism is a religion.  I suspect however that there is little I can say that will make you change your mind, so I will let these posts and links stand.

It's a bit like the existence of gods, is it not?  You say that serious debates exist, even in the absence of any evidence of serious debates.  I say that, in the absence of evidence, we cannot assume that such debates exist.  That's pretty much where we started in this thread on the issue of the existence of gods.

One slight difference here is that I teach Chinese history, and so have looked at the evidence concerning Confucius for years (including discussing him with many Chinese themselves).  You have been looking at it for part of an afternoon.

[grumbler]

Stick to your day job because you would really suck as a lawyer.

Well, you really seem to suck as a lawyer as well, but that doesn't seem to have slowed you down! 

[Barrister]

Grumbler, you have failed to convince me that there is the absence of debate on whether or not confucianism is a religion.  I suspect however that there is little I can say that will make you change your mind, so I will let these posts and links stand.

It's a bit like the existence of gods, is it not?  You say that serious debates exist, even in the absence of any evidence of serious debates.  I say that, in the absence of evidence, we cannot assume that such debates exist.  That's pretty much where we started in this thread on the issue of the existence of gods.

One slight difference here is that I teach Chinese history, and so have looked at the evidence concerning Confucius for years (including discussing him with many Chinese themselves).  You have been looking at it for part of an afternoon.

You just had to get in the last word, didn't you.

[garbon]

Grumbler, you have failed to convince me that there is the absence of debate on whether or not confucianism is a religion.  I suspect however that there is little I can say that will make you change your mind, so I will let these posts and links stand.

It's a bit like the existence of gods, is it not?  You say that serious debates exist, even in the absence of any evidence of serious debates.  I say that, in the absence of evidence, we cannot assume that such debates exist.  That's pretty much where we started in this thread on the issue of the existence of gods.

One slight difference here is that I teach Chinese history, and so have looked at the evidence concerning Confucius for years (including discussing him with many Chinese themselves).  You have been looking at it for part of an afternoon.

You just had to get in the last word, didn't you.

I appreciated the dig he threw in that he has studied it for years unlike you. Fun like Viking's comment about how everyone started acting like hooligans when he'd briefly stepped away from the conversation.

[grumbler]

You just had to get in the last word, didn't you.

I certainly hope you wrote this with deliberate irony. 

[Barrister]

You just had to get in the last word, didn't you.

I certainly hope you wrote this with deliberate irony. 

Not really, no.

[Malthus]

"Confucianism" isn't any one thing. Much like Buddhism and Taoism, what "Confucianism" means depends on who you ask.

Good arguments can be made for and against all of the great east Asian traditions being "religions". All of them are, for some, simply mixed with traditional Chinese folk religion and ancestor worship - so you get, for example, Temples of Confucius, in which people burn incense and offer prayers to Confucius. People performed "pilgrimages" to visit his tomb.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/704

These aspects - prayers, offerings, pilgrimages, worship - are arguably religious indicia.

Set against this is the fact that Confucius was never, until the late imperial period, actually considered a "god" (he was in fact eventually deified by the state); moreover, Confucian writings tend to focus on rituals as simply part of the requirements of politeness and social harmony, not as having any supernatural effect.

My own opinion is that the "Confucianism" of the literatti was an ethical philosophy, whereas "Confucianism" was also part and parcel of Chinese popular religion, together with much else.   

[grumbler]

I appreciated the dig he threw in that he has studied it for years unlike you.

Yes, the mention of expertise counts as a "dig" here at languish, especially when BB is apparently completely misreading every authoritative link he found, and insisting that a debate must exist because a google search returns results.  I don't think that anyone who has seriously studied the issue believes that there is a serious debate.