AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Speaking of, I was just thinking about that PM conversation between TBS and I...
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?9826-Why-I-think-being-a-Muslim-is-rational&p=290932#post290932
Still entertaining.
Philosophers that interest you, and why (Jazzfanz Philosophy Thread)
- Thread starter Sandy Braille
- Start date
Speaking of, I was just thinking about that PM conversation between TBS and I...
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?9826-Why-I-think-being-a-Muslim-is-rational&p=290932#post290932
Still entertaining.
Can you give a quick summary for those of us who don't have the time?
Please elaborate.
Could you please elaborate on why you think science agrees more closely to Buddhism? Also I've always thought of Buddhism as more "Philosophy" than "Religion". What's attracted you to Buddhism?
Also re your comment here:
Science is now starting to discover the fact that the universe had a beginning - the Big Bang theory is now widely believed to have happened - evidenced by the cosmic background radiation, the number of quarsars drop off for redshifts, galaxies moving away from each other, etc, etc.
Last edited:
It is hard to elaborate because I'm not sure I understand it. There is a tendency for some Christians to associate humbleness with simplicity. Like Babe using the word "sophistry" to describe the work of Marx. That's a Platonic concept that stems from Plato's impulse to characterize certain philosophies as an attempt to muck up simple truths by complicating the meaning of their concepts (Plato is the father of modern religion). It is probably part of why so many Christians express hostility toward the "intellectual elites".
It is too complex to be given justice in a quick summary. Half of the book is an inductivist epistemological argument about the nature of knowledge, and the relationship between knowledge and explanation. Deutsche basically argues that:
1- Knowledge begins with theory, observations typically follow. This is the opposite of mainstream scientific thought which generally considers observations the basis of a theory. Deutsche argues that observation have little meaning without a theory that gives the observer the context to understand, not only what he's observing, but also the fact that he's observing anything at all.
2- These theories do not merely give a model for manipulating and predicting the observations, but a correct description of the nature of reality.
3- Given competing theories, susceptibility to falsification, fit with observations, among other tools of logic, separate good explanations from bad ones.
4- The understanding of information is not a matter of computational processing, but a grander phenomenon based on paradigm building through pattern recognition and cognitive hierarchies build upon unpredictable and diverse response to stimuli . Humans possess the processes that allow understanding. Humans can thus understand anything that can possibly exist.
The other half is an ontological argument about the best possible explanation for what we see. This is a bit too sciency to explain, but Deutsche argues for a infinite iteration of alternate histories as the nature of reality. And he explains our existence through a version of the Anthropic Principle.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Hmm. Well, that's a lot to answer, but I'll see what I can do.
I'll start with this. Defining terms early on is important in this sort of discussion, and "religion" has a lot of different definitions. A lot of people think you need "supernaturalism" in order to count as a religion. I dislike this sort of definition because 1) "supernaturalism" is usually code for "wrong," and because anything that is true and actually exists is "natural" by definition. That said, I do find most elements that are considered "supernaturalistic" to indeed be silly and wrong. For instance, I'm quite certain there's no God who can intervene in the world directly, perform miracles, that kind of thing. I don't agree with some Buddhist scriptures that claim enlightened ones get magic powers like levitation.
For me what really defines religion is that it identifies what Paul Tillich would call our "Ultimate Concern." Empirical science cannot tell us anything about life purpose. Religion -- or the religious element in the human psyche, if you like -- is that part that works out what we're supposed to be doing with our lives. On this view secular ideologies -- like Marxism -- also count as religions. This tends to piss them off because secular people don't like to be labeled as religious. That's fine, they can pick whatever terminology makes them happy. But we all have some reason for not just laying down on the floor and dying, even though there's no empirical, rational reason why not.
I should be clear from the beginning that I agree to something like Stephen Jay Gould's concept of "nonoverlapping magisteria" (NOMA). The idea is that religion and science are different pursuits, and their truth claims shouldn't be seen as incompatible. Of course, it is true that religion sometimes makes empirical claims -- but this is where it tends to get in trouble. Religion should leave the empirical science to the scientists and stop embarrassing itself. Science is not its business anyway. I tend to think of religious systems as interesting systems of metaphors, not literal truth, because this is where they are most useful and enlightening. For instance, I couldn't care less if Jesus was a real historical person (I think he probably was, although I'm quite certain he wasn't the "son of God"), because it's either true or it isn't, and no amount of talking about it will matter. But I find some of his teachings interesting, because they tell us some interesting things about how to live. Whether he existed or not doesn't change the validity of the teachings.
So, that said, I don't consider it particularly important whether any religion matches up well with contemporary science or not. The comment I made to TBS was partly to try to get him to refute me rather than hearing him go on and on about how the Qur'an is so scientifically accurate. However, I'll point you to this video which, while a little on the cheesy side, draws some interesting lines between Buddhist thought an science. Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent co-arising, or what might be called the Buddhist theory of interrelatedness or relativity) and anicca (impermanence, that all things are in a constant state of flux) in particular seem to fit well with a physics that recognizes a universal relativity and wave-particle duality. And of course, it doesn't hurt that Buddhism doesn't subscribe to the idea of an interventionalist God.
I will say lastly regarding science and religion that sometimes it is a good thing for the two to interact, even if they have different tasks. For instance, religion can sometimes have insights that empirical science overlooks. If you look later on in that thread to which I posted a link, you'll see Siro and I arguing about the notion of panexperientialism, which most scientists tend to dismiss, but which I regard as more likely than the possibility of fully "dead" and "inert" matter.
As for why I was personally drawn to Buddhism, it was really through the concepts of śūnyatā and anattā as philosophies of personal identity (or the lack thereof). I am very interested in philosophies of death and personal identity -- that is, what does it mean to die, what is it that actually dies? I by no means think that there is any kind of subjective afterlife, but I also tend to think that western notions of the self being the most real thing are a little misguided. But after exploring these concepts I've come to appreciate Buddhism as a total worldview, even if I don't always agree with everything it teaches. I've also been slowly expanding into other dharma traditions like Jainism, which has its own interesting twists (and its own silly insanity).
Ah, but what exactly does "beginning" mean here? As far as I can tell, the big bang requires that all the matter/energy in the universe was present at the time the big bang happened, i.e. when the universe "began." But if this is the case, then it seems hard to say that at any time there was strictly "nothing" -- rather, the big bang was the beginning of a particular kind of order to the universe.
What I'm saying is that the big bang may well be true. But it doesn't propose that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (unless I misunderstand the theory).
Yes thank you for responding so comprehensively above.
I guess the thing with Buddhism that I question is the fact that it's making observations which to me are 'observable truths'. It's like saying "Oh look - the sky is blue". Well of course it is, and nobody can dispute that.
So the idea of impermanence, while it may be ground breaking 2000 years ago, it's still something that can be "observed". Similarly with co-independence and lack of identity or 'self'. All fine and good, but again they are simply 'observable truths' to me.
Then when you start to ask a Buddhist, ok then how did this universe came to be? The answer you always get is "that is a question that cannot be answered, therefore we do not ask those questions".
You can argue Christians talk about revelations, which cannot be proved scientifically, therefore it is subjected to scrutiny, but at least there is something there that explains our existence. Albeit faith is required.
I guess the thing with Buddhism that I question is the fact that it's making observations which to me are 'observable truths'. It's like saying "Oh look - the sky is blue". Well of course it is, and nobody can dispute that.
So the idea of impermanence, while it may be ground breaking 2000 years ago, it's still something that can be "observed". Similarly with co-independence and lack of identity or 'self'. All fine and good, but again they are simply 'observable truths' to me.
Then when you start to ask a Buddhist, ok then how did this universe came to be? The answer you always get is "that is a question that cannot be answered, therefore we do not ask those questions".
You can argue Christians talk about revelations, which cannot be proved scientifically, therefore it is subjected to scrutiny, but at least there is something there that explains our existence. Albeit faith is required.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Eh, I only partially agree with all this.
To take your last point first, it is true that the Abrahamic religions are in general far more concerned with the historicity of their claims. To them it matters that Jesus really walked the earth and really was the son of God. As a general rule, Hindus (for instance) are far less concerned with the question of whether Shiva was a historical figure. To them it really doesn't matter much one way or the other. Personally, I think this is the correct sort of attitude to take.
But this is not to say that eastern religions don't have revelation. The vedas are thought to not be of human origin, but divinely revealed and eternal. And of course, the Buddha is thought to have a achieved enlightenment, and his teachings are considered authoritative. And many of these "truths" are highly subjective -- like "all life is suffering." Sure, if you define suffering a particular way, you could say that this is observably true, but it's not how us westerners generally think about the world. It's more important on a life-meaning and life-purpose level than it is on an empirical truth level. Personally, I've found it a helpful counterbalance to western Christianity -- which stresses human dominion and stewardship over the earth and the immortality of the soul, among other things -- to study a Buddhist philosophy that stresses that desire causes suffering, there is no persistent self, and that we should try to escape from the illusions of self and happiness. To me none of these statements are "observable truths," they're different and ultimately indemonstrable life metaphors.
Just because I choose to joke around does not mean I know as little as you presume about philosophy.
You seem to be confusing the word simplicity with a lack of intelligence.
Just because somebody discards faith in God, and starts to talk using big words, does not make them "intellectually elite". There are plenty of intellectual giants that choose not to speak in such a way to give off the impression they think they are better or smarter than everyone else. I associate that stuff with arrogance or egotism rather than intelligence. There are also plenty of people that can also make use of language and words that get to a point and with nuance, yet without the need to set themselves above others.
What exactly do you mean by simplicity. Your tone suggests that it is a negative thing.
Do you mean
For one, I don't know what you mean by intelligence, or how you're measuring it. And I'm certainly not associating complexity with the use of big words (but then again, that whole paragraph was to attack me). And those quotes are using the word to mean completely different things. But the mere fact you felt the need to post them suggests you DO understand what I'm talking about. You find a certain appeal in simplicity. Not the kind of simplicity that Einstein is talking about (the one about sticking to the fewest assumption), or the one they teach you in writing class (concision, in my arrogant vocab), but the type that relates to meekness or humbleness. Why does that appeal to you?
?? You don't think the statement "desire causes suffering" is observable? Or that "happiness is an illusion" is not observable? I think they all are observable because you can show examples supporting those statements that exists within the realm of this universe.
Interestingly 1 of the things the Buddha said which I would not label "observable truth" I find is the concept of reincarnation. The 2nd of his awakening "Insight into the workings of Karma and Reincarnation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_in_Buddhism
But the concept of reincarnation goes against the empirical fact that the human race started with a small group of people and we now have more than 7 billion people. So I am not sure how that works. When I die, does my soul split into 2 or 3 to accommodate for the significant increase in population?