the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

Lazy_eye wrote:I think it's a misleading comparison, because religion and science use fundamentally different paradigms for attaining knowledge.
Exactly.

As Ñāṇa pointed out somewhere in this thread, the Pali Canon sets out various bases for knowledge: 1) scriptural authority and the authority of noble persons, 2) inference from accepted premises, 3) direct perception (for instance, by a meditator who develops special powers or insight). Notably, these three bases do not appear to include what we would call the scientific method.
The scientific method is a conflation of these three bases of knowledge (or pramanas). And because it is a conflation, it seems to have nothing to do with the traditional understanding of the pramanas.

In the philosophy of science, there is much criticism of the scientitic method; yet scientists and people who are into science usually pay very little heed to the philosophy of science.

Maybe this is why we never get anywhere in these discussions. The "great rebirth debate" thread is essentially an arena for conflicting epistemologies.
It sure is.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

dxm_dxm wrote:even budha said not to belive anything not even if he said it
Please provide an actual scriptural reference for this assertion.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

Alex123 wrote:And this faith is much more probable than faith in any statement about objective world made in religion (yes, including Buddhism), and statement made by any person living in Tibet.
Not at all.
Probability can only be calculated for events in a known and limited set.
The Universe is hardly a known and limited set.

It is simply not right for, lets say Christians, to say to atheists that "it is your faith that God doesn't exist". Same is here, except replace "God" with "rebirth".
Again, no. You're confusing an issue that is about social interactions with philosophy.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
dxm_dxm
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:32 am
Location: Romania, Bucharest
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by dxm_dxm »

Please provide an actual scriptural reference for this assertion.
I thought it is a well known quote of budha. He said that all he said was right but also said "not to belive what you hear from other, not even if I said it, only belive in what you found out to be true by yourself using the method I teach, I teach the method". Am I wrong ?
Last edited by dxm_dxm on Tue May 14, 2013 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

dxm_dxm wrote:The most important thing is that budhism does not want you to belive in anything,
We certainly shouldn't believe everything we think. ;)
Buddha save me from new-agers!
dxm_dxm
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:32 am
Location: Romania, Bucharest
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by dxm_dxm »

We certainly shouldn't believe everything we think.
I don't know of a thing required to be belived out of faith. The central point of it is the practice out of witch is wisdom supposed to come out.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

dxm_dxm wrote:I thought it is a well known quote of budha.
Oh yes. There's plenty of such "quotes."

He said that all he said was right but also said "not to belive what you hear from other, not even if I said it, only belive in what you found out to be true by yourself using the method I teach, I teach the method". Am I wrong ?
You said that he said it. So provide the source.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
dxm_dxm
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:32 am
Location: Romania, Bucharest
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by dxm_dxm »

Oups, after a single google search found it to be fake but the original words from witch this derived are not extremelly different. Even if fake, it sounds like something budha would say so it did not ring any bells in my head. Sry
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

porpoise wrote:
Alex123 wrote:It is simply not right for, lets say Christians, to say to atheists that "it is your faith that God doesn't exist". Same is here, except replace "God" with "rebirth".
In a way this is correct, because an atheist asserts the non-existence of God but cannot prove it. And absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
We can observe the universe and learn more and more of its laws (and prove them), but we cannot observe God.
Adding conception of God just complicates, not simplifies. Who created God? how can God exist outside of time/space?, etc.
Adding a new entity which is not needed, and which adds more complications also violates Occam's razor.

So both beliefs do NOT have equal amount of concrete evidence (alex: edited for clarity).
Last edited by Alex123 on Tue May 14, 2013 8:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
dxm_dxm
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:32 am
Location: Romania, Bucharest
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by dxm_dxm »

So both beliefs are NOT of equal probability.
Probability has no importance in a context like this. It you care about probability then you should be a christian/muslim because of the "Pascal bet". Even if there would be 0,00001 probability, anything above 0 you should be a christian/muslim/any religion that says you are going to eternal hell if they are right.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

dxm_dxm wrote:Probability has no importance in a context like this. It you care about probability then you should be a christian/muslim because of the "Pascal bet". Even if there would be 0,00001 probability, anything above 0 you should be a christian/muslim/any religion that says you are going to eternal hell if they are right.
Pascal's wager doesn't work when there is more than one idea of God, and more than one idea about the true way to heaven/Nibbāna.
Just because we cannot disprove something, it is not a reason to believe in it. I can't absolutely disprove Zeus, Wotan, Allah, Jehovah, Hades, (or whomever), illusion, Descartes demon, 5-minute earth, etc. But taking current knowledge and absence of proof (other than testimony in holy books), these things are too unlikely. There are better and testable theories out there.

A person who got visions (and perhaps became a prophet for a new religion), can simply be hallucinating, dreaming, or imagining. While I don't doubt his sincerity and honesty, those claims that cannot be verified are not convincing proof.

Authority of scriptures is also not a proof. Different books claim different things, and wise apologetics can twist them so that one cannot refute them and thus claim "they are true because you can't disprove them".

Mere logical arguments, without being tested, verified, and without falsifiability are not as valid.
Two equally skilled clever, smart, witty and eloquent philosophers can equally well argue for contradictory view points.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

Alex123 wrote:We can observe the universe and learn more and more of its laws (and prove them), but we cannot observe God.
Adding conception of God just complicates, not simplifies. Who created God? how can God exist outside of time/space?, etc.
Adding a new entity which is not needed, and which adds more complications also violates Occam's razor.

So both beliefs are NOT of equal probability.
It looks like you have not studied much science nor theology after all ...
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

binocular wrote:It looks like you have not studied much science nor theology after all ...

That is your assertion. It is easy to say "you are wrong. You don't know anything". Prove it. Write something better. Why should we believe more in God (and which one?), than in what modern science has evidence for?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

They say it's not possible to defeat an ignorant man in argument ... nor show him much.

The burden of proof lies on the one who wants to understand or prevail.



Look, if you think you've reached the pinnacle of human wisdom and knowledge - then that's what you think. If you're still not happy, then you might want to investigate how come, and whether you're really at the top.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

Alex123 wrote:Adding a new entity which is not needed, and which adds more complications also violates Occam's razor.
So science says there was the big bang, where apparently everything came out of nothing with no prior cause. And religion says that God created everything, again presumably out of nothing but with God as the prior cause.
I'm not sure how conclusive Occams razor would be in this scenario.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply