Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
Ultimately I believe that what matters is application of wisdom and removal of extra suffering. I believe that Dhamma is the best.
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
Alex123 wrote:How do we solve the above? What pov can be empirically checked? What pov gives what pragmatic results?
Of course we cannot ever be 100% certain of anything. Of course current scientific knowledge is not absolute final word. It is just that some claims have more probability than others.
Like I already said:Alex123 wrote:It is not matter of feeling comfortable or uncomfortable but the facts and evidence that we have today.
Falsifiability may be an essential scientific criterium - but how exactly do scientific criteria relate to an actual person?
What reason do we have to believe that scientific criteria can adequately grasp the human experience and provide us with heuristics for achieving our goals, regardless of what those goals may be?
But does this approach give you peace of mind? Probably not.Alex123 wrote:So what do we do? I guess we need to go with the best current evidence that we have, and realize that we are dealing with probabilities rather than absolute certainties.
If "the world is an illusion," then so are pain and starvation.Also I believe in pragmatic use of one's beliefs.
Lets say that someone logically "proves" that world is an illusion. What pragmatically and experientially does this change?
Does this mean that:
- Person can jump under the truck (which is only illusion) and not get hurt?
- person can avoid eating when hungry and not die because body, hunger and food are all "illusions"?
What is your source for the idea that the world is illusory?
Metapyhsics of one kind or another is inescapable.Please explain.binocular wrote:Of course you do. Just not the kind that some other people do.Alex wrote:I don't hold much faith in metaphysics (be it materialism or idealism).
That won't do.These experiments were performed on humans, and performed well enough to suggest causal link. Even Arhats are still biologically human. Their psychology is different.
Again: What reason do we have to believe that scientific criteria can adequately grasp the human experience?
The population they have experimented with was not representative on mankind.
Unless you want to argue that there is _no actual_ difference between a run-of-the-mill person and an arahant.
Which dhamma?Alex123 wrote:Ultimately I believe that what matters is application of wisdom and removal of extra suffering. I believe that Dhamma is the best.
The one without teachings on kamma and rebirth - and giant fishes?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
The one dealing with origin and cessation of suffering and what happens here-and-now. Or as I like to put it "the bigger the difference between what one wants and what is experienced, the bigger the suffering".binocular wrote:Which dhamma?
The one without teachings on kamma and rebirth - and giant fishes?
As for the brain. There were lots of experiments where if the brain function was altered, so where the mental states. If a person drinks tea that contains some mind altering substances, that person's mental states can alter after the brain function is altered.
If there is even a single well researched case where a person can think, and yet his brain activity (as measured by fMRI, etc) is zero at that exact time, then I will believe that mind can be independent of the brain.
Why can't we talk about what is given to experience, can be observed by tools that we have today and can be falsified?binocular wrote:Metapyhsics of one kind or another is inescapable.
How can we falsify materialism or idealism? A stubborn person can always fall back on "it is all known by the mind" or "it is all product of matter".
Arhats don't have a brain? They don't have biological body that follows biological laws?binocular wrote:The population they have experimented with was not representative on mankind.
Unless you want to argue that there is _no actual_ difference between a run-of-the-mill person and an arahant.
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
Alex123 wrote:
The one dealing with origin and cessation of suffering and what happens here-and-now. Or as I like to put it "the bigger the difference between what one wants and what is experienced, the bigger the suffering".
Just to add one thing -- getting what we want is also an opportunity for dukkha. Sometimes even more so.
Last edited by Lazy_eye on Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
binocular wrote:If "the world is an illusion," then so are pain and starvation.
Einstein wrote:Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
Stepping aside from the broader discussion for a moment:binocular wrote:Like I already said:
Falsifiability may be an essential scientific criterium - but how exactly do scientific criteria relate to an actual person?
What reason do we have to believe that scientific criteria can adequately grasp the human experience and provide us with heuristics for achieving our goals, regardless of what those goals may be?
Science generally doesn't claim spiritual or philosophical insight but limits itself to what is observable and verifiable in the physical world. It is very good at what it does - science works and that is why it has become one of our main ways of understanding the world.
Problems arise when people try to apply science outside its realm of expertise - trying to derive morality from it, for instance - or when people try to say that science is wrong within its realm of expertise - saying that the world was literally created in seven days, for instance.
Kim
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
Alex Rosenberg, "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" has an interesting discussion where the author in fact derives morality from our evolutionary history. It's too long to summarize here, but I can recommend reading the book.Kim O'Hara wrote:Stepping aside from the broader discussion for a moment:binocular wrote:Like I already said:
Falsifiability may be an essential scientific criterium - but how exactly do scientific criteria relate to an actual person?
What reason do we have to believe that scientific criteria can adequately grasp the human experience and provide us with heuristics for achieving our goals, regardless of what those goals may be?
Science generally doesn't claim spiritual or philosophical insight but limits itself to what is observable and verifiable in the physical world. It is very good at what it does - science works and that is why it has become one of our main ways of understanding the world.
Problems arise when people try to apply science outside its realm of expertise - trying to derive morality from it, for instance - or when people try to say that science is wrong within its realm of expertise - saying that the world was literally created in seven days, for instance.
Kim
Mettāya,
Kåre
Kåre
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
And http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheis ... B007Q6XKEYKare wrote:
Alex Rosenberg, "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" has an interesting discussion where the author in fact derives morality from our evolutionary history. It's too long to summarize here, but I can recommend reading the book.
>> 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
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
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
As things stand, humans typically have a sense of past and future, and they tend to consider their actions in regard to past and future.Alex123 wrote:The one dealing with origin and cessation of suffering and what happens here-and-now.binocular wrote:Which dhamma?
The one without teachings on kamma and rebirth - and giant fishes?
It is with consideration for the past and the future that we act.
If humans would really be limited to merely the present moment, we'd probably have no sense that there is suffering to begin with.
And to be clear, I'm not arguing from a Buddhist perspective, nor in favor of kamma and rebirth; I am pointing out where I see a flaw in your reasoning.
You don't seem to see what enormous faith you have in science; you don't even seem to realize it is faith.As for the brain. There were lots of experiments where if the brain function was altered, so where the mental states. If a person drinks tea that contains some mind altering substances, that person's mental states can alter after the brain function is altered.
If there is even a single well researched case where a person can think, and yet his brain activity (as measured by fMRI, etc) is zero at that exact time, then I will believe that mind can be independent of the brain.
Arhats don't have a brain? They don't have biological body that follows biological laws?
But you're not talking about actual human experience.Why can't we talk about what is given to experience, can be observed by tools that we have today and can be falsified?
You are talking about particular scientific generalizations and abstractions of interpretations of human experiences.
Particular scientific generalizations and abstractions that can only be taken on faith, but for the most part, are impossible to be personally verified.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
And that is called scientism.Kim O'Hara wrote:Problems arise when people try to apply science outside its realm of expertise - trying to derive morality from it, for instance - or when people try to say that science is wrong within its realm of expertise
The scientific model is necessarily reductionist and does not apply in areas that people generally consider the most important aspect of their lives - ie. their inner experience of life.
How come you are recommending it?Kare wrote:Alex Rosenberg, "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" has an interesting discussion where the author in fact derives morality from our evolutionary history. It's too long to summarize here, but I can recommend reading the book.
Do you endorse it?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
What I see here in this thread, and elsewhere on the forum, is a lack of self-reflexive analysis or discussion about one's own distorted vision.
Too often do we see "I've got it right, this other approach (or your approach) is wrong"
A friend posted the following article by Ajahn Thanissaro this morning on facebook and speaks to the heart of the issue.
I urge you all to "lend an ear" as it were and give the good bhikkhu's article the wise attention that it deserves.
Lost in Quotation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
kind regards,
Ben
Too often do we see "I've got it right, this other approach (or your approach) is wrong"
A friend posted the following article by Ajahn Thanissaro this morning on facebook and speaks to the heart of the issue.
I urge you all to "lend an ear" as it were and give the good bhikkhu's article the wise attention that it deserves.
Lost in Quotation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
kind regards,
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
Indeed, one of the best Suttas, to keep returning to, and contemplating. And a very good talk by the Venerable.Ben wrote:What I see here in this thread, and elsewhere on the forum, is a lack of self-reflexive analysis or discussion about one's own distorted vision.
Too often do we see "I've got it right, this other approach (or your approach) is wrong"
A friend posted the following article by Ajahn Thanissaro this morning on facebook and speaks to the heart of the issue.
I urge you all to "lend an ear" as it were and give the good bhikkhu's article the wise attention that it deserves.
Lost in Quotation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
kind regards,
Ben
_/|\_
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
I agree. The scientific model explains the facts that make up the "outer" experience of life. But for the "inner" experience of life, as you say, the Dhamma is more helpful. That is why I regard science and Dhamma as complimentary and equally important. As long as we do not mix up the outer and the inner, the objective and the subjective experiences of life, I see no conflict between them at all.binocular wrote:
The scientific model is necessarily reductionist and does not apply in areas that people generally consider the most important aspect of their lives - ie. their inner experience of life.
Parts of it. Especially the first half of the book, where the author shows the connection between the second law of thermodynamics and the evolution of life. Also the chapters showing how morality arose from evolution. I have to admit, however, that I struggle with accepting the radical anatta of the second half of the book.How come you are recommending it?Kare wrote:Alex Rosenberg, "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" has an interesting discussion where the author in fact derives morality from our evolutionary history. It's too long to summarize here, but I can recommend reading the book.
Do you endorse it?
But don't take my word for this. Read the book and evaluate it for yourself.
Mettāya,
Kåre
Kåre
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
If you want to believe in geocentric world, Earth being flat disc on 4 elephants who stand on the turtle, etc - you are welcome.binocular wrote:And that is called scientism.
The scientific model is necessarily reductionist and does not apply in areas that people generally consider the most important aspect of their lives - ie. their inner experience of life.
In any case science is the best we have right now dealing with biology, astronomy, physics, etc. Of course current science is imperfect. We don't know everything.
If you want the final truth, there is the Bible. If you want imperfect current knowledge about external world there is science.
Dhamma teachings is the best psychology. These two can compliment each other.
Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
binocular wrote:As things stand, humans typically have a sense of past and future, and they tend to consider their actions in regard to past and future.Alex123 wrote:The one dealing with origin and cessation of suffering and what happens here-and-now.binocular wrote:Which dhamma?
The one without teachings on kamma and rebirth - and giant fishes?
It is with consideration for the past and the future that we act.
While at some points we need to consider future consequences of actions in order to change behavior in here-and-now, ultimately this present moment is what is actually experienced. Thoughts about past and future occur in the present moment.
Great. The less suffering the better. That is what I want.binocular wrote:If humans would really be limited to merely the present moment, we'd probably have no sense that there is suffering to begin with.