History, Faith and the Real William Shakespeare
There are some parallels with the quest for the historical Shakespeare and the quest for the true historical faith.
If Buddha never existed it would not make any difference to Buddhists since the ideas of Buddhism don't depend on anything that may or may not have happened in history. It's not a historical religion. One might really think of it as a philosophical religion, if that.
But a historical religion that demands belief is something entirely different. I've tried many times to express this fact but let me try again, this time with the example of William Shakespeare. Who was he? There is a great amount of doubt about who he actually was:
This expresses the problem of affirming a controversial historical question. We can never know the answer with complete certainty. There will always be doubt. And if someone could evaluate similar claims and compare them he might even be able to calculate the odds that all of these theories might be wrong. That is, we must also ask how many times new evidence surfaced that changed what historians think about a particular question. Plenty of times. It happens almost every week on some question scholars thought they had answered once and for all. So there is always the possibility this might happen with regard to the questions about Shakespeare. Again there is room for plenty of doubt.
Now let's compare this to questions of faith, okay? The similarities are obvious. Believers must take a stand on the historical evidence. But most all of them are not scholars on this evidence so it depends on which one they read. And the scholars know the problems with their own arguments better than most others [That's why it's usually the case that the greater the scholarship then the less dogmatic one becomes]. Also, believers cannot be certain they are right from the historical evidence. Another theory might come forth with better evidence for it to replace what they believe. Agreed?
But there are several important differences. With regard to Shakespeare there are only a handful of theories which are hotly debated. With regard to religious faiths there are a myriad of them hotly debated on every religious forum on the web. This makes it even more unlikely that any single one of them is the only correct one (I'm talking epistemologically here).
Another major difference has to do with miracles. With regard to Shakespeare there is no need to believe that anything miraculous happened in his life. With regard to any historical religion there is. But such a belief falls prey the Lessing's Broad Ugly Ditch. When combined with what David Hume pointed out a long time ago, there would be no reason to believe that a miracle took place in the past (especially the distant past) even if it happened!
Then too there is the question of what importance to place on having the correct answer. With regard to Shakespeare the only importance seems to be the reputation of the scholars who make their cases and/or the families involved who might want to claim that Shakespeare was their distant relative (along with any royalties). But with regard to religious faith believers must accept with their whole heart that they and they alone have the correct answer to the question. That's what's demand of them by their faith. 100% belief. They are to live their whole lives as if they are 100% correct on matters of history. It pleases their God, ya see. Because of their faith, God will reward them here on earth and later in heaven. People who get the answers to these historical questions wrong are sent to hell, we're told. But based upon what we know from historical studies of controversial claims it is quite simply ignorant of a God to ask of human beings situated in time and place to believe with such a degree of assurance. And it is barbaric of God to send people to hell if they get a historical question wrong!
Do you see my point yet?
If Buddha never existed it would not make any difference to Buddhists since the ideas of Buddhism don't depend on anything that may or may not have happened in history. It's not a historical religion. One might really think of it as a philosophical religion, if that.
But a historical religion that demands belief is something entirely different. I've tried many times to express this fact but let me try again, this time with the example of William Shakespeare. Who was he? There is a great amount of doubt about who he actually was:
The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate, first recorded in the early 18th century, about whether the works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer, or a group of writers. Among the numerous candidates that have been proposed, major claimants have included Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, William Stanley (6th Earl of Derby), and Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford), who, since first being proposed in the 1920s, has remained the most prevalent alternate authorship candidate. Link.The answer to the question of who wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare depends on which scholar you read and accept. Different scholars on this question will place different probabilities to their own suppositions. And if you happen to be a scholar on Shakespeare then you know the problems with your own theory better than most others.
This expresses the problem of affirming a controversial historical question. We can never know the answer with complete certainty. There will always be doubt. And if someone could evaluate similar claims and compare them he might even be able to calculate the odds that all of these theories might be wrong. That is, we must also ask how many times new evidence surfaced that changed what historians think about a particular question. Plenty of times. It happens almost every week on some question scholars thought they had answered once and for all. So there is always the possibility this might happen with regard to the questions about Shakespeare. Again there is room for plenty of doubt.
Now let's compare this to questions of faith, okay? The similarities are obvious. Believers must take a stand on the historical evidence. But most all of them are not scholars on this evidence so it depends on which one they read. And the scholars know the problems with their own arguments better than most others [That's why it's usually the case that the greater the scholarship then the less dogmatic one becomes]. Also, believers cannot be certain they are right from the historical evidence. Another theory might come forth with better evidence for it to replace what they believe. Agreed?
But there are several important differences. With regard to Shakespeare there are only a handful of theories which are hotly debated. With regard to religious faiths there are a myriad of them hotly debated on every religious forum on the web. This makes it even more unlikely that any single one of them is the only correct one (I'm talking epistemologically here).
Another major difference has to do with miracles. With regard to Shakespeare there is no need to believe that anything miraculous happened in his life. With regard to any historical religion there is. But such a belief falls prey the Lessing's Broad Ugly Ditch. When combined with what David Hume pointed out a long time ago, there would be no reason to believe that a miracle took place in the past (especially the distant past) even if it happened!
Then too there is the question of what importance to place on having the correct answer. With regard to Shakespeare the only importance seems to be the reputation of the scholars who make their cases and/or the families involved who might want to claim that Shakespeare was their distant relative (along with any royalties). But with regard to religious faith believers must accept with their whole heart that they and they alone have the correct answer to the question. That's what's demand of them by their faith. 100% belief. They are to live their whole lives as if they are 100% correct on matters of history. It pleases their God, ya see. Because of their faith, God will reward them here on earth and later in heaven. People who get the answers to these historical questions wrong are sent to hell, we're told. But based upon what we know from historical studies of controversial claims it is quite simply ignorant of a God to ask of human beings situated in time and place to believe with such a degree of assurance. And it is barbaric of God to send people to hell if they get a historical question wrong!
Do you see my point yet?