the great atheism debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Sherab »

Sherab wrote:
contemplans wrote:To answer Goofaholix, tiltbillings, Sherab, and others participating:

The topic is ontology, the study of being. Western ontology asks the questions concerning existence. The doctrine given called hylomorphism teaches that there is actuality, what is that which is in existence, and potentiality, what is a reference to potentially in existence, either the potential to be altogether, or the potential to be different than what you are. From this reasoning, which is very sound, Aristotle and those who followed him, reasoned that in order for anything to be actually in existence, not just a particular version of us at a given moment, it had to have an ultimate source which is pure existence, with no admixture of potentiality, no possibility that it could be anything other than what it is. In the Christian context we call this principle God. If you don't like that word for some reason, then the principle is also called pure actuality. The basic reasoning is that none of us have within ourselves to give rise to our own selves, that is, we are not self-caused. Therefore we are caused by another. Nowhere, however, within that chain of causes is there any explanation for existence itself, since all the causes are merely in process of actualizing what is potential. It is only outside of that causal chain that we come to an explanation, which Aristotle called Pure Actuality. So either pure actuality is the answer, or it isn't. That is the crux of the debate. But if one posits that it isn't pure actuality, then they need to have an explanation for why anything exists at all. I am just supplying to robust argument. I didn't come up with it, but I am convinced that it is sound and true.

I wish you all well. :anjali:
So does this principle create? If it does, then the creation is purposeless. If it does not, then it has no relevance whatsoever to the existence of this world since it is apart from this world. If it has no relevance whatsoever to this world, why bother with it?
Since you did not reply to the above, does it mean that you concede that your concept of pure actuality IS incoherent, and does not accord with reality?
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

I am going to close my contribution to this thread. We've had a lot of room to explore the argument that I presented, and I think we all have some food for thought to go away with. If you felt like I didn't answer your question at all, or not adequately, it is probably because of one of the reasons below. Altogether there has been a confusion of method in the discussion, so I would like to address before I go two primary stumbling blocks to understanding that seem to stick out to me.


A misunderstanding of logical argumentation.

Natural science and philosophy of nature are two different type of pursuits of knowledge, with two different methods, and two different types of truths arrived at. Natural science has for its object and its goal the phenomena and processes of sensible being. Philosophy of nature has for its object the phenomena and processes of sensible being, while its goal is the essence and cause. Not phenomena as such, but being as such. The first method is called empiriological, while the second method is called ontological. The first reasons down, while the later reasons up. Both analyze to reach universal conclusions. Natural science deals with phenomena, so in its conclusions it never reaches beyond phenomena. It uses hypothesis, deductions, and the like to come to a probable explanation of phenomena. Philosophy of nature is simply the application of the intellect, in light of self-evident (obvious) truths, to an object offered it by experience until it finds a true principle by which it can understand the object. Infering what is necessarily implied by the facts, philosophy of nature comes to explanations which are necessary and "all or nothing". There can be a mistake in the premises somewhere, in which case the argument can be reformulated based on the new knowledge. Generally philosophy of nature handles matters which natural science take for granted. As long as one is not taken for the other, there is no real conflict between the two methods. Together they form a coherent view of existence.

So Thomas Aquinas argues that, given that we observe that things exist, undergo change, and exhibit final causes, there necessarily must be a God who maintains them in existence at every instant. Everyone has been looking at the conclusions (God, pure actuality), instead of addressing the premises, and the discussion hasn't really get off the ground.


An assumption/bias that scientific reasoning is superior to methaphysical reasoning. Or even that methaphysical reasoning has no value.

This view is called scientism or postivism. This view is problematic because the proponents of it never defend the claim, but just put it out there. In that case they are being just as dogmatic as any person they criticize for being dogmatic. Second the view they espouse is actually methaphysical, in that they would need to appeal to methaphysical reasoning to support it. As said earlier, natural science takes for granted propositions which philosophy of nature explain. Topics such as: there is a physical world existing independent of our minds, this world is characterized by various objective patterns and regularities, our senses are only partially reliable sources of information about this world, there are objective laws of logic and methematics that apply to the objective world outside our mind, etc. All these and other claims are methaphysical in nature and are presupposed by natural science. Scientism is there incoherent.


I wish you all well. I enjoyed the discussion. See you in another thread.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Alex123 »

contemplans wrote:Natural science deals with phenomena, so in its conclusions it never reaches beyond phenomena.
Right. What (if anything) lies beyond phenomena can never be phenomena that we can experientially verify, observer or disprove. We can only argue about. What lies outside of phenomena, doesn't matter at all.

contemplans wrote: Philosophy of nature is simply the application of the intellect, in light of self-evident (obvious) truths,
What can be "self-evident" metaphysical assumption to one, is not so to another person who holds other "self-evident" metaphysical assumptions.

contemplans wrote: So Thomas Aquinas argues that, given that we observe that things exist, undergo change, and exhibit final causes, there necessarily must be a God who maintains them in existence at every instant.
Why God and not Invisible Green Spaghetti Monster? What you are saying is neither self-evident, nor provable.-
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote: If you felt like I didn't answer your question at all, or not adequately, it is probably because of one of the reasons below. . . .
One of the reasons below? Not at all. Your second msg in this thread opened the door to looking at the coherence of what your were proffering: "1) The concept of the Greatest Possible Being (GPB) is coherent (and thus broadly logically possible)." The problem is that you were unable to deal with the serious issues of incoherence raised by your notions of a god/pure actuality/first cause/etc. as this final msg of yours tacitly admits

Also, you repeatedly refused to acknowledge when you were clearly and repeatedly shown to be off base, if not simply wrong, in what you were saying about the Buddha's teachings, teachings which you have twisted so as to conform to your untenable theistic point of view. This was not a dialogue on your part; it was naught more than Christian evangelism. You have the truth, we don't, so you are going to make sure we hear the truly true truth about what is what.

The issue here is not can Buddhists and Christian have a productive dialogue, because they certainly can; rather, the problem you so neatly illustrated is what happens when a Christian, who thinks he has the the truly true truth, insists upon telling the poor benighted Buddhists that they do not really understand their own teachings, teachings that can be, according to you, only truly understood in light of Christianity and Thomas Aquinas, which is nothing more than arrogance of the highest order. What you have demonstrated here -- and thank you for this -- is the fatal weaknesses of Christianity as it tries to confront and subsume the Buddha's teachings and evangelize Buddhists.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Sherab »

contemplans wrote: A misunderstanding of logical argumentation.

Natural science and philosophy of nature are two different type of pursuits of knowledge, with two different methods, and two different types of truths arrived at. Natural science has for its object and its goal the phenomena and processes of sensible being. Philosophy of nature has for its object the phenomena and processes of sensible being, while its goal is the essence and cause. Not phenomena as such, but being as such. The first method is called empiriological, while the second method is called ontological. The first reasons down, while the later reasons up. Both analyze to reach universal conclusions. Natural science deals with phenomena, so in its conclusions it never reaches beyond phenomena. It uses hypothesis, deductions, and the like to come to a probable explanation of phenomena. Philosophy of nature is simply the application of the intellect, in light of self-evident (obvious) truths, to an object offered it by experience until it finds a true principle by which it can understand the object. Infering what is necessarily implied by the facts, philosophy of nature comes to explanations which are necessary and "all or nothing". There can be a mistake in the premises somewhere, in which case the argument can be reformulated based on the new knowledge. Generally philosophy of nature handles matters which natural science take for granted. As long as one is not taken for the other, there is no real conflict between the two methods. Together they form a coherent view of existence.

So Thomas Aquinas argues that, given that we observe that things exist, undergo change, and exhibit final causes, there necessarily must be a God who maintains them in existence at every instant. Everyone has been looking at the conclusions (God, pure actuality), instead of addressing the premises, and the discussion hasn't really get off the ground.
The problem as I see it is not with any misunderstanding of logical argumentation on our part but your refusal to accept the consequences of your thesis.

The way out of the logical conundrum that I set up is for you to accept that creation, if there is such a process, is purposeless, and pure actuality, if it exists, cannot be equated to any purposeful being including Creator God. Pure actuality, if you wish to posit its existence has to be purely neutral and purely spontaneous. In either case, any theistic concepts that you may have, have to be abandon.
User avatar
Alexei
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:51 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Atheist Quotes

Post by Alexei »

Since God is nothing more than our creation and projection, any talk of God is our reflection looking back at us.
Tim Prowse
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Atheist Quotes

Post by DNS »

"I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like the programmes a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature. To which I reply and say, "Well, it's funny that the people, when they say that this is evidence of the Almighty, always quote beautiful things. They always quote orchids and hummingbirds and butterflies and roses." But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball, turning him blind before he's five years old. And I reply and say, "Well, presumably the God you speak about created the worm as well," and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful God with that action. And therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of this thing."

Sir David Frederick Attenborough
* From the BBC documentary Life on Air (2002)
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Atheist Quotes

Post by Polar Bear »

People often ask me how they can leave the planet, so I have prepared some brief notes.
How To Leave The Planet
1) Phone NASA. Their phone number is (713) 483-3111. Explain that it's very important that you get away as soon as possible.
2) If they do not cooperate, phone any friend you may have in the White House- (202) 456-1414- to have a word on your behalf with the guys at NASA.
3) If you don't have any friends in the White House, phone the Kremlin (ask the overseas operator for 0107-095-295-9051). They don't have any friends there either (at least, none to speak of), but they do seem to have a little influence, so you may as well try
4) If that also fails, phone the Pope for guidance. His telephone number is 011-39-6-6982, and I gather his switchboard is infallible
5) If all these attempts fail, flag down a flying saucer and explain that it's vitally important you get away before your phone bill arrives. - Douglas Adams

From The Quotable Atheist, compiled by Jack Huberman
Buddha (born Siddhartha Gautama c. 623--543 B.C.E.), Indian spiritual teacher. Following a midlife crisis, became Buddha at age 35, having already accumulated enough dharma and karma points (and having sat under a tree and vowed not to arise until he had found the Truth). May have been an avatar or incarnation of Lord Vishnu. But without DNA testing...
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it [or because it has] been handed down for many generations [or] because it is found written in your religious books [or] merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, accept it and live up to it."

"Doubt everything, find your own light."

more from THE QUOTABLE ATHEIST:

An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support- John Buchan (1875-1940)

David Aaronovitch (1954-)

For people with God on their side, monotheists are a touchy lot... In Exodus, Moses gets the tribe of Levi to go with "sword at side" and massacre 3,000 calf-worshippers. And we are supposed to celebrate such a violation of the freedom of worship? . . . Why are they so touchy? The problem is partly that all monotheisms are, by their nature, anti-pluralistic. They've got the one true God, and the very latest valid version of his thoughts. It is asking a lot of monotheisms to coexist with other faiths and views. Paganism, on the other hand, is much better suited to modern ideas of tolerance and human rights. Under polytheism you can choose your own god ivertly.

"twenty times in the course of my late reading, have i been upon the point of breaking out:This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it"- John Adams

Also John Adams:
"In the formation of the American Government . . . it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven"

Never say Never:
"I trust God speaks through me"----- George W. Bush

Scott Adams- "Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle of lotteries, dating, and religion"

"If you scratch any aggressive tribalism, or nationalism, you usually find beneath its surface a religious core, some older binding energy or superstition . . . that is capable of transforming itself into a death-force, with the peculiar annihilating energies of belief . . . Religious hatreds tend to be merciless and absolute." Lance Morrow, American Journalist. Time Magazine writer since 1965. Author of 150 Time cover stories.


"Scrutamini scripturas [Let us examine the scriptures]. These two words have undone the world."- John Selden (1584-1654) english lawyer and member of parliament

Captain Sensible (1954-), guitarist and founding member of the punk band The Damned: "How many times have religions of the world been damaged by some discovery or other only to move the goalposts and carry on as before as though nothing had happened?"


George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)- " The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one"--------"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."
"WE Have not lost faith, but we have transferred it from God to the medical profession"
"Why should we take advice on sex from the Pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!"

Martin Sheen (1940) I'm one of those cliff hanging catholics. I don't believe in God, but I do believe that Mary was his mother

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862): asked, as he neared death, if he had made his peace with God: "I did not know that we had ever quarreled."

Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910): I was taught the soldier's trade, that is, to resist evil by homicide; the army to which I belonged [as an officer in the Crimean War] was sent forth with a Christian benediction
"A peasant dies calmly because he is not a Christian. He performs the rituals as a matter of course, but his true religion is different. His religion is nature, with which he has lived."

Tom Tomorrow: "Our basic civil liberties are in jeopardy, but we're going to be spending our time as a society arguing about whether or not schoolchildren should be forced to pay tribute to imaginary invisible beings who live in magical kingdoms in outer space somewhere"

Lao Tse- chinese philosopher and founder of taoism (sixth century BCE) "If lightning is the anger of the gods, the gods are concerned mostly with trees."

Mark Twain (1835-1910)--- "faith is believing what you know ain't so"---" I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious"

Alan Watts (1915-1973)--- "The true believer . . . if he is somewhat sophisticated, justifies and even glorifies his invincible stupidity as a 'leap of faith' or 'sacrifice of the intellect'. He quotes the Tertullian Credo, quia absurdum est, 'I believe because it is absurd' as if Tertullian had said something profound. Such people are, quite literally, idiots--originally a greek word meaning an individual so isolated that you can't communicate with him

Bill Watterson's Calvin (1985-1995) from the funnies Calvin and Hobbes: "No efficiency. No accountability. I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a universe."
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning."


Dr. James Watson: " I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose,' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Hot Topics: Atheist Quotes

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

Faith means not wanting to know what is true. — Friedrich Nietzsche
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. — Benjamin Franklin
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Hot Topics: Atheist Quotes

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

Image
Woody Allen
Director/Actor/Writer
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank." Selections from the Allen Notebooks," in New Yorker (5 Nov. 1973)
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
David2
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:09 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Atheist Quotes

Post by David2 »

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Chinese proverb

I think this applies very good to Buddhism.
The Buddha taught us how to fish, which is such a great merit, but we still have to do the fishing ourselves.

(Ok, I admit the proverb does not fit in very well with the 1st precept. :P)
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Atheist Quotes

Post by Polar Bear »

More from The Quotable Atheist compiled by Jack Huberman

Jean Rostand- French biologist, philosopher, anti-nuclear and anti-death penalty activist (1894-1977) "Kill a man, one is a murderer, kill a million, a conqueror, kill them all, a God."

Gene Roddenberry- creator of Star Trek (1921-1991) "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

John D. Rockefeller- (1839-1937) devout Northern Baptist. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court held that his company, Standard Oil, originated in illegal monopoly practices (getting secret rebates from the railroads, threatening to bankrupt his rivals, then buying them out). "The good Lord gave me my money."

Tom Robbins- American novelist (1936-) "Human beings were invented by water as a means of transporting itself from one place to another."

Jules Renard- french writer (1864-1910) "I don't know if god exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't."

Richard Feynman- American physicist (1918-1988) " I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong . . . I don't feel frightened by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell."

Hope you enjoyed
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Polar Bear »

Perhaps this makes sense. 'Being' in the sense that things 'are' is a fact. So, things have being. Everything and every process is a manifestation of being. Because of 'being' there are things. So, things necessarily need being. However, 'being' cannot have any actuality independent of things that have the property of 'being'. 'Things' necessitate being and being necessitates that there 'are' things. Therefore, god does not exist as 'being' because he would be dependent on things that have 'being' and thus god is an improper term to use. So, 'being' upholds the universe (as in everything, including multiverses) and the universe upholds 'being'. Thus, they are completely dependent on one another and cannot be separated because 'being' is a property of things and properties cannot exist independent of that which they are properties of and things cannot exist independently of their properties. So, if that makes sense and we accept this, god does not exist in the modern sense it is used in. If this doesn't make sense, then it because our minds can't comprehend it, either way I declare myself the momentary victor. :sage:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
polarbuddha101 wrote:If this doesn't make sense, then it because our minds can't comprehend it, either way I declare myself the momentary victor. :sage:
:rofl:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Kare
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Atheist Quotes

Post by Kare »

Not exactly a quote, but rather a comment on the theme of the thread:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... B_20120502
Mettāya,
Kåre
Post Reply