the great atheism debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Cittasanto »

contemplans wrote:
Alex123 wrote:
contemplans wrote: The GPB is one outside of time and space.
This is like saying that it doesn't exist. It cannot be found anywhere, nor does it last any period of time.

Then how can GPB ever do anything which would require time and or space if GPB is not found in them?
How does the Buddha act while dwelling in the state beyond time and space called Nibbana?
please read this
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... averb.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Goofaholix »

contemplans wrote:If people don't want to conceptualize about Nibbana, that is fine, but as described by the Buddha, it is implicit (and sometimes explicit) in it that other qualities can be deduced which accord with a state of divinity. For example, simplicity, goodness, happiness, being. Whenever the Buddha speaks about Nibbana, it has more to do with the concept of God than it does with materialism or with . Buddhism admits a transcendent principle, but says very little.
It's totally unnecessary to deduce such qualities, nor to label them as divine, nor to compare with one of the God concepts.

Can you pioint to a scripture where the Buddha does so?
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

Goofaholix wrote:
contemplans wrote:If people don't want to conceptualize about Nibbana, that is fine, but as described by the Buddha, it is implicit (and sometimes explicit) in it that other qualities can be deduced which accord with a state of divinity. For example, simplicity, goodness, happiness, being. Whenever the Buddha speaks about Nibbana, it has more to do with the concept of God than it does with materialism or with . Buddhism admits a transcendent principle, but says very little.
It's totally unnecessary to deduce such qualities, nor to label them as divine, nor to compare with one of the God concepts.

Can you pioint to a scripture where the Buddha does so?
It is not necessary, but possible. I would say that any Buddhist who has risen into the jhanas has some conception of what's ahead of them as simplicity, goodness, happiness, being. Using adjectives as peaceful, exquisite, stilling, beautiful, bright, etc. all point in one direction. He doesn't say that these distinctions don't matter.
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

Some may find this article interest and/or beneficial. It touches on some of the things mentioned by the OP.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04 ... e-god.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Goofaholix »

contemplans wrote:It is not necessary, but possible. I would say that any Buddhist who has risen into the jhanas has some conception of what's ahead of them as simplicity, goodness, happiness, being. Using adjectives as peaceful, exquisite, stilling, beautiful, bright, etc. all point in one direction. He doesn't say that these distinctions don't matter.
He doesn't say that they do either, so the point remains there is no necessity to define Nibanna in terms of the 5 senses.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote:In the universe as presently structured, free will and evil come hand in hand.
Not that you have shown
If you don't want to be determined, to be a robot of sorts, then you are going to have evil.
God structured evil into the universe, knowing full well how it would all play out, knowing that it would not play out any differently from how he structured the universe. The universe is the way it is -- it functions -- because it how god wills it to be, and one of the functions of the structure of the universe was Hitler, acting out god's will.
>> 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
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

tiltbillings wrote:
contemplans wrote:In the universe as presently structured, free will and evil come hand in hand.
Not that you have shown

I assume as a Buddhist you believe in karma, and acknowledge dukkha, so what is there to show? Buddhism holds this. Buddhism doesn't teach determinism, and the whole question of the Four Noble Truths is involved with evil. The starting point of Buddhism is free action to get out of dukkha.
If you don't want to be determined, to be a robot of sorts, then you are going to have evil.
God structured evil into the universe, knowing full well how it would all play out, knowing that it would not play out any differently from how he structured the universe. The universe is the way it is -- it functions -- because it how god wills it to be, and one of the functions of the structure of the universe was Hitler, acting out god's will.
You can't have it both ways. Either Hitler was free to do evil or he wasn't. If he wasn't, but God made him, then the the Buddhist path of liberation is impossible (AN 3.110). If he was free, then how could God be imputed with the evil? It seems like you want a perfect atheistic argument. God is evil no matter what. He is evil if he restricts action. He is evil if he doesn't. Along your lie of reasoning, we'd conclude that God was good because the Buddha lived an exemplary life, since God willed it. But if you look at your own reasoning, if we admit free will, then we must admit that humans are responsible for their actions.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by SDC »

:shock:

:popcorn:

This thread is a gem.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote: You can't have it both ways.
Exactly.
Either Hitler was free to do evil or he wasn't. If he wasn't, but God made him,
Given an omniscient, omnipotent god, free will is meaningless. Hitler, being god's creation, acted as an expression of god's creation.
then the the Buddhist path of liberation is impossible (AN 3.110).
That would be true if there were a god responsible for it all. Fortunately the Buddha rejected such an idea as a creator god, thus the Buddha's teachings are not saddled with such a remarkably incoherent notion.
If he was free, then how could God be imputed with the evil?
The Buddhist texts offer several responses to that:

Anguttara Nikaya 3.61: "Again, monks, I [the Buddha] approached those ascetic and brahmins and said to them: 'Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences...all that is caused by God's creation?' When they affirmed it, I said to them: 'If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill, steal ...[and otherwise act badly]. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor, will lack the impulse and the effort doing this or not doing that. Since for them, really and truly, no (motive) obtains that this or that ought to be done or not be done...."'

"If the pleasure and pain that beings feel are caused the creative act of a Supreme God [Issara-nimmana-hetu], then the Niganthas [Jains] surely must have been created by an evil Supreme God." MajjhimaNikaya II 222.

"The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God." MN II 68.

And then let us add these statement from the Pali Canon:

"He who eyes can see the sickening sight, why does not God set his creatures right? If his wide power no limits can restrain, why is his hand so rarely spread to bless? Why are his creatures all condemned to pain? Why does he not to all give happiness? Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail? Why triumphs falsehood, - truth and justice fail? I count your God unjust in making a world in which to shelter wrong." J VI.208

"If God designs the life of the entire world -- the glory and the misery, the good and the evil acts, man is but an instrument of his will and God alone is responsible." J V.238.

But another answer to your question is, what can exist that god does not will to exist? If god is omnipotent and omniscient, nothing. If something existed that god did not will to exist, then god certainly is not omnipotent, and likely not omniscient. So, "how could God be imputed with the evil?" By the fact that all the pain and suffering done by the likes of a Hitler or a pedophile is because god wills it to be. God's choice.
It seems like you want a perfect atheistic argument. God is evil no matter what. He is evil if he restricts action. He is evil if he doesn't. Along your lie of reasoning, we'd conclude that God was good because the Buddha lived an exemplary life, since God willed it. But if you look at your own reasoning, if we admit free will, then we must admit that humans are responsible for their actions.
This is, of course, not my argument, and as usual you do not engage the actual argument made; rather, you go after your strawman arguments.

Also, why would I say that "God was good because the Buddha lived an exemplary life, since God willed it?" I wouldn't. I'd be more inclined to Robert Frost's response:
  • Forgive, O Lord, my little jokes on Thee, and I'll forgive Thy great big joke on me.
Fortunately, I do not have to deal with such a massive incoherence as an omniscient, omnipotent creator god.
>> 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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote: But if you look at your own reasoning, if we admit free will, then we must admit that humans are responsible for their actions.
Sure, but free will is not compatible with an unnecessary omniscience, omnipotent god notion.
>> 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
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

Since the OP was interested in a Buddhist response to Western ontology, it would be good to start with a robust understanding of the best Western ontology has to offer. In these articles we get a good run down of the content, especially in relation to the types of arguments posted here. Any refutation of these ideas would be worthy of discussion.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09 ... heism.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05 ... eedom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... icity.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Kim OHara »

contemplans wrote:Since the OP was interested in a Buddhist response to Western ontology, it would be good to start with a robust understanding of the best Western ontology has to offer. In these articles we get a good run down of the content, especially in relation to the types of arguments posted here. Any refutation of these ideas would be worthy of discussion.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09 ... heism.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05 ... eedom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... icity.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Contemplans,
With respect, the OP was interested in Buddhist responses to "Western ontology" - as you knew, of course, since you pointed it out. I agree that "it would be good to [re]start with a robust understanding of the best Western ontology has to offer," but we won't achieve that by going to your explicitly theistic and Christian links.
wikipedia wrote:Ontology (from onto-, from the Greek ὤν, ὄντος "being; that which is", present participle of the verb εἰμί "be", and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
God/s don't even get a mention in the primary definition, and there are a couple of centuries of ontological theory before JC even gets born.
:focus:

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

Kim O'Hara wrote: . . . :focus:
Your msg was certainly on topic and appropriate.
>> 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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Cittasanto »

contemplans wrote:Since the OP was interested in a Buddhist response to Western ontology, it would be good to start with a robust understanding of the best Western ontology has to offer.
isn't this page four, not page one?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by daverupa »

Cittasanto wrote:
contemplans wrote:Since the OP was interested in a Buddhist response to Western ontology, it would be good to start with a robust understanding of the best Western ontology has to offer.
isn't this page four, not page one?
This sort of thing is called "moving the goalposts". Instead of engaging with the "Buddhist response", it becomes a fountainhead for repeatedly massaged forms of "Western ontology". Whenever the massaging process begins to result in reductio ad absurdum, a whole new "Western ontology" will be proferred, and the process begun anew with those fresh goalposts as the discourse target.

IMO; meta

:focus:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Post Reply