Buddhism as a religion
-
Muse over this - A pickpocket was trailing a gem merchant and wanted very much to get hold of this gem – he tried all means and ways and to no avail and in spite of that was still trying; all this time the merchant knew what he was up to and allowed the thief to be and when an opportunity rose he dropped the precious gem into the pocket of the thief. After a lapse of some moments, the pickpocket out frustration blurted out to the merchant that he was a professional in pickpocketing and queried as to where is the gem as it could not even find it in the merchant's [person]! To that the merchant replied – I put it where u would least look for it – in your pocket! This allegory illustrates the predicament of searching in the ’’wrong’’ places and hoping to find …. Eg :When I practice a particular …. thinking that I am a particular …. looking for a particular … eg merits or to arrive someday somewhere I m merely spinning on my fictional ’’self’’ – I am playing mind games. As long as one has an image of what God, Buddha or englightenment, awakening or it is already a concept and when it is premised on a concept one is simply going to be like a squirrel in a cage! PS – Self in quotes cos most of us assume that what we think is what we are. reality is it is not. I can hold a book and think that I am reading it. It is only a reality when the actual reading is transpiring. Many live in the mind when all in that is close,obvious n in front is missed.My standing in a church, temple cannot be construed as being holy. It can only be when I am being kind, being …. PS - Buddha, Jesus, Mohd, Krishna n ... were all spiriutal beings and in being ..... (eg , being compassionate, being ....????) were sharing their being(s). Of course, it presupposed that the one who passes him'her by is open and attuned to his/her own being. As long as the sense of self predominates one's mind - one is going to miss. When one is present to one's being ..... one is absent to one's self As long as one is mired in concepts, even beleifs (eg theist, atheist) one is still caught up in the game fo being divisive and the human mind is bound to rationalize and defend one's position. Enlightement/awakening or whatever one labels it has always been and always will be this lah - no adding is needed, not minusing is needed. In the acceptance of what one is not - one is all-embracing of what is and that is freeing. The wise one partakes of the world but the moment the roles are fulfilled does not bring it home. Home is the source of one's being and a sythnesis of inner and outer ( in actuality, no such thing but cos of constraints of language). The long ing for all humanity is the longing to be free and even to use the ''self'' (even rejecting it) is merely a mental exercise. The irony of it is Jesus never uttered he was Christian. Buddha never did about Buddhism and nor did Mohd about Islam. Perhaps ''modern'' man has confused spirituality and religion. The essential is always spiritual and the accidental is always religion. Relgion is temporal and a reaction to ... (cos of beleifs, traditions ... which is acquired from or accepted from someone esle/book or ...) and spirituality is that which is eternal, existential and herenow. The form resonates with the masses cos it has the element of certainty! The latter cannot be be made certain and uncertainty is something the human mind cannot accept or reconcile to. As long as there is no synthesis of the essential and the accidental one is doomed and however or whichever way one may try it is probably going to split one on the inside
-
I found Buddhism with my friend at the lowest point of my life.Now,I am very happy.Looking forward to spending my life in the teachings.
-
Originally posted by Jui: Hey there reasonable.atheist, thanks for the hard questions. It's always good to have people around that'll make you look at your own beliefs. I've never studied the history of science, nor actually took the time to seriously know how science "works" and its goals (beyond what I *think* its goals and purposes are), and my understanding of buddhism is not quite there yet to begin lecturing people about my choice of religion, but I feel compelled to post here about my own beliefs of the two. So just bear with me here
.What I believe, is that the purpose of science is simply to understand our surroundings in a way that if we were to be able to reproduce the results in a controlled environment (e.g. a lab), the results will always be the same every single time. So when the results aren't consistent, we keep looking and looking until we find a way that works.
Sometimes though, what we arrive at to be true or false is simply due to the limits that we test them at. For example, Louis Pasteur's experiments with boiling water that proved that pasturization would work to kill off all microbes succeeded partly because he got lucky; now after more experiments we have found that some microbes do survive above 100c .
This is the beauty of science of course, that if something that was previously accepted to be true is now found out to be false, we willingly throw away our old beliefs and embrace the new result(s). It is interesting that some monks (Ajahn Brahm, Dalai Lama) have said that Buddhism works similarly, that what was found to be true should be embraced instead of scriptural authority.
So in that case, why haven't these monks defrocked since certain aspects of buddhism could not be proven to be true under science? I can't speak for them of course, but faith in the teachings, and the fact that the teachings of the Buddha worked for them probably has quite a lot to do with this. After all, science is always moving towards truth, and what is found to be true/untrue is only so for now, until new findings overturn or reinforce them.
For me personally, there are certain parts of Buddhism that I do not totally accept yet, and I will not elaborate here for fear of bad karma (heh heh!). However, I am not particularly smart, nor perceptive. Those aspects of buddhism that I'm skeptical about, I just treat as I'm unable to understand them for now. I'm confident that if I strive hard enough, I'll get to the point that I can see for myself whether they true... or not. Not sure if this has been posted, nor if it's relevant to you, but do have a read about the parable of the poison arrow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_arrow .
In fact for science, I have the absolute confidence that given enough time everything can be found out to be true or false for sure. Who knows, the scientific formula for karma could be discovered 10,000 years from now, and you'll need to plug in 84,000 variables for it to work perfectly. But I am naive like that.
At the end of the day, whoever approaches religion should do so with healthy amounts of faith and the willingness to continually test the teachings. I believe that after a while at it, if you ask yourself if you're a happier, better person and the answer is positive, then there's no problem at all. Unhappy (religionists of your choice)/atheist/deists/humanists exist, so if whatever you believe in doesn't work after rigorous testing, move on and find something else that does.
Thanks for your reply. Here's an excerpt from Carl Sagan's book, where he recounts:
----------------
"In theological discussion with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central tenet of their faith were disproved by science. When I put this question to the current Fourteenth Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no conservative of fundamentalist religious leaders do: In such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to change.
Even, I asked, if it's a really central tenet, like (I searched for an example) reincarnation?
Even then, he answered.
However-- he added with a twinkle--it's going to be hard to disprove reincarnation.
Plainly, the Dalai Lama is right. Religious doctrine that is insulated from disproof has little reason to worry about the advance of science. The grand idea, common to many faiths, of a Creator of the Universe is one such doctrine-- difficult alike to demonstrate or to dismiss."----------------
I think this ties in very nicely with your comments. Something that is untestable and unfalsifiable will require faith to believe in it. That is not in dispute.
The real question then is whether that faith is reasonable.
I cannot disprove some of the tenets of Buddhism, just as I cannot disprove your claim that there's an invisible, incorporeal dragon in your bedroom.
However, I can point out the historical reliability of supernatural claims has proven to be extremely poor.
I can call out the inconsistencies and gaps in Buddhism that I can see -- given my limited knowledge.
I will challenge you to think beyond authoritative doctrine, and decide for yourself which elements of Buddhism are reasonable -- and which are not.
I will suggest, that people will believe what they want to. That is how some people can believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Intellectual honesty is what is needed, not blind faith.
We should always think critically and to challenge ourselves and others. The truth is sometimes difficult and uncomfortable -- we want to think that there's something more to our lives. We want to think that there's a deeper reason for the things that happen to us.
But the evidence suggests that this is it. This is all we have. This is uncomfortable, but we must never settle for less than the truth.
-
Originally posted by realization: To miss the main aim of Buddhism is to miss the chance to be liberated from cyclic suffering.
That is, if you want that liberation. If one is still currently anaesthetised by temporal comforts, s/he will have no incentive to personally verify the teachings of the Buddha.
Intellectual fodder is just that. It gives the mind something to play with, chew on. There will come a point in time when we will come to realise that rearranging our thoughts still doesn't provide lasting peace and comfort. Too much deliberation at the conceptual level can also easily fuel the afflictions of anger, lust, delusion, pride, jealousy, etc.
Whether or not we are able to see Buddhism for what it offers depends on 'yuan'.
realization: "Too much deliberation at the conceptual level can also easily fuel the afflictions of anger, lust, delusion, pride, jealousy, etc."
Fundamentally, religious people and atheists are similar in that we are all seeking the for the "truth". Atheists think that reason and scientific inquiry is the way to understand the world, whereas believers see Truth in a certain doctrine.
There is therefore no basis for your assertion that "deliberation at the conceptual level can also fuel the afflictions of anger, lust, delusion, pride, jealousy, etc" -- any more than Buddhist contemplation does.
Back up your statement with some arguments. Don't leave it hanging on its own.
-
the boundaries of knowledge and consciousness is infinite but should not be bound by excessive applications of science leading to dangers of reductionism in fields of all human knowledge....
empirical-bound scientism is measurable and holds the world only as what can be measured....but that is only one portion of human experience...it is the other immeasurable part that completes the unfathomable human experience that is equally important...
the co-existence of science, religion and art presents the full spectrum of human knowledge and experience ..
of course we are not saying that scientists should leap out from their dreams finding the snake eating its own tail like the benzene ring which is symbolical in many ancient cultures....but the powers of intuition is really unexplainable at times....
-
Originally posted by bohiruci:
mr reasonable.atheist
if you are still thinking about everything that Buddha realised can be achieved through a few years of study in university ,i must sadly say its is IMPOSSIBLE .Science cannot explained alot of thing like why different people die differently,sometimes tragically .You say that person is a kind person , but why does he died when a tree just fallen on him.Does Newtons Law of gravity "sees" he is a kind person and waive off all calamity befallen on him
Simply to use Science in your arguments is flawed and so childlike .I challenge you to come and practise and realise for yourself what the Buddha have taught.Unless you intend not to be liberated ,so are you SURE next life you can be a great Scientist ?HOW SURE ARE YOU ? HOW SURE ?HOW SURE?
1. A good man is crushed by a fallen tree. I hope we agree that the physical/naturalistic causes are fully known to us. The tree was in poor health; it was struck by lightning; the man was driving to work; etc.
Your question is whether there's a deeper reason for him being killed. There is no reason to think there is. Even if (big if) there is, there is no way of knowing whether it's karma at work, or whether we have a mischievous God at play.
You may want to believe that there's a reason for things to happen, and that life is fair. But we may want something very badly, but it does not make it true.
2. As an atheist, I don't think there's anything after I die, so I really don't care about my next life. But even if I weren't an atheist, I wouldn't be concerned about whether I'll be a scientist in my next life. I'll let my next life take care of itself, since I will have no awareness nor any influence on the decisions he/she/it makes.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Muse over this – A pickpocket was trailing a gem merchant and wanted very much to get hold of this gem – he tried all means and ways and to no avail and in spite of that was still trying; all this time the merchant knew what he was up to and allowed the thief to be and when an opportunity rose he dropped the precious gem into the pocket of the thief. After a lapse of some moments, the pickpocket out frustration blurted out to the merchant that he was a professional in pickpocketing and queried as to where is the gem as it could not even find it in the merchant’s [person]!
To that the merchant replied – I put it where u would least look for it – in your pocket! This allegory illustrates the predicament of searching in the ’’wrong’’ places and hoping to find ….Eg :When I practice a particular …. thinking that I am a particular …. looking for a particular … eg merits or to arrive someday somewhere I m merely spinning on my fictional ’’self’’ – I am playing mind games. As long as one has an image of what God, Buddha or englightenment, awakening or it is already a concept and when it is premised on a concept one is simply going to be like a squirrel in a cage!
PS – Self in quotes cos most of us assume that what we think is what we are. reality is it is not. I can hold a book and think that I am reading it. It is only a reality when the actual reading is transpiring. Many live in the mind when all in that is close,obvious n in front is missed.My standing in a church, temple cannot be construed as being holy. It can only be when I am being kind, being ….
PS – Buddha, Jesus, Mohd, Krishna n … were all spiriutal beings and in being ….. (eg , being compassionate, being ….????) were sharing their being(s). Of course, it presupposed that the one who passes him’her by is open and attuned to his/her own being. As long as the sense of self predominates one’s mind – one is going to miss. When one is present to one’s being ….. one is absent to one’s self
As long as one is mired in concepts, even beleifs (eg theist, atheist) one is still caught up in the game fo being divisive and the human mind is bound to rationalize and defend one’s position.Enlightement/awakening or whatever one labels it has always been and always will be this lah – no adding is needed, not minusing is needed. In the acceptance of what one is not – one is all-embracing of what is and that is freeing. The wise one partakes of the world but the moment the roles are fulfilled does not bring it home. Home is the source of one’s being and a sythnesis of inner and outer ( in actuality, no such thing but cos of constraints of language).
The long ing for all humanity is the longing to be free and even to use the ’’self’’ (even rejecting it) is merely a mental exercise.The irony of it is Jesus never uttered he was Christian. Buddha never did about Buddhism and nor did Mohd about Islam.
Perhaps ’’modern’’ man has confused spirituality and religion. The essential is always spiritual and the accidental is always religion. Relgion is temporal and a reaction to … (cos of beleifs, traditions … which is acquired from or accepted from someone esle/book or …
and
spirituality is that which is eternal, existential and herenow. The
form resonates with the masses cos it has the element of certainty!
The latter cannot be be made certain and uncertainty is something
the human mind cannot accept or reconcile to.As long as there is no synthesis of the essential and the accidental one is doomed and however or whichever way one may try it is probably going to split one on the inside
Sorry -- I'm not entirely certain what you mean. Are you saying that people who seek to find enlightenment may not find it, whereas someone like me -- who doesn't think there's such a thing -- will suddenly find it in my pocket?
-
Originally posted by Fcukpap:
the boundaries of knowledge and consciousness is infinite but should not be bound by excessive applications of science leading to dangers of reductionism in fields of all human knowledge....
empirical-bound scientism is measurable and holds the world only as what can be measured....but that is only one portion of human experience...it is the other immeasurable part that completes the unfathomable human experience that is equally important...
the co-existence of science, religion and art presents the full spectrum of human knowledge and experience ..
of course we are not saying that scientists should leap out from their dreams finding the snake eating its own tail like the benzene ring which is symbolical in many ancient cultures....but the powers of intuition is really unexplainable at times....
Our powers of intuition have often been proven wrong, again and again over the course of history. If it wasn't for the benefit of science and modern technology, we would never realize that the earth was a sphere. We would never know that the earth is in constant motion, and revolves around the sun.
Even today, intuition fails us in profound ways. We can only understand many aspects of quantum physics mathematically and through experiments. Our intuition fails us. The late Richard Feynman, one of the leading quantum scientists of his time, said:
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
You may think that your intuitions about nature and life are special, and different from the intuitions held by countless others before you. But chances are that some of your intuitions are either flat-out wrong, or will be proven wrong in time.
-
I hope I don't offend anyone here as religion issues tend to be sticky and close to the heart.
However, from a family background who consist of several religious leaders(Pastors), I still can't contemplate religion.
To me, there are three main reasons why people seek religion.
1) To seek a greater meaning in life.2) For networking.
3) Out of desperation.
I myself, have been in several tight spots in life where hunger was my companion. Which leads to the main reason I posted: Why do people say they found religion/God when they hit rock bottom?
Did they ever think that it was God who put them there in the first place(if they choose to believe in it)? Or do they indulge in the ideology that there is a greater plan installed for them. Well, if they survive first... -
Well...if something happens,it must be fate.I feel when I know and understand more about Buddhism,I know why I am here on this earth and my ultimate aim and also I was born to suffer cos of the karma of last life.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Our powers of intuition have often been proven wrong, again and again over the course of history. If it wasn't for the benefit of science and modern technology, we would never realize that the earth was a sphere. We would never know that the earth is in constant motion, and revolves around the sun.
Even today, intuition fails us in profound ways. We can only understand many aspects of quantum physics mathematically and through experiments. Our intuition fails us. The late Richard Feynman, one of the leading quantum scientists of his time, said:
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
You may think that your intuitions about nature and life are special, and different from the intuitions held by countless others before you. But chances are that some of your intuitions are either flat-out wrong, or will be proven wrong in time.
so whats quantum mechanics
-
Originally posted by Sky_Blue223:
I hope I don't offend anyone here as religion issues tend to be sticky and close to the heart.
However, from a family background who consist of several religious leaders(Pastors), I still can't contemplate religion.
To me, there are three main reasons why people seek religion.
1) To seek a greater meaning in life.2) For networking.
3) Out of desperation.
I myself, have been in several tight spots in life where hunger was my companion. Which leads to the main reason I posted: Why do people say they found religion/God when they hit rock bottom?
Did they ever think that it was God who put them there in the first place(if they choose to believe in it)? Or do they indulge in the ideology that there is a greater plan installed for them. Well, if they survive first...god? its is the Buddha who pointed out the fallacy of god being omniscience and omnipotent that is responsible for everything in this universe. the god concept is flawed from the beginning.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
god? its is the Buddha who pointed out the fallacy of god being omniscience and omnipotent that is responsible for everything in this universe. the god concept is flawed from the beginning.
I use God as a figurative symbol. Not to be linked to Christainity. Change it to anything you see fit.
-
Originally posted by Sky_Blue223:
I use God as a figurative symbol. Not to be linked to Christainity. Change it to anything you see fit.
I see. I tell you that god is a fallacy as a concept and realism.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Sorry -- I'm not entirely certain what you mean. Are you saying that people who seek to find enlightenment may not find it, whereas someone like me -- who doesn't think there's such a thing -- will suddenly find it in my pocket?
the possibility for one who is BEING agnostic to be enlightened aka awakened is there. for an atheist or theist it is still possible but the unlearning has to be intense cos both are are premised on beliefs. There is no 'finding'' per se, but a recognition that has been overlooked , lost to many of us because of looking outwards as opposed to goin inwards. There is nothing to be found inside cos it has always been there before one's physical existence and will be there even after one's demise. It is beyond space-time and hence the label eternity. Nothing to be added or taken away. When one can see the ''creator'' (aka existence, god, Buddha, Krishna, Mohd or whatever one calls it does not matter) in the creatures, beings, both animate and inanimate one is awakened or enlightened. This is a subjective existential phenomenon and once conceptualized or objectified loses its essence. However, for the sake of explanation and considering the constraints of lang/words one has to expand, introspect and .... I can go on talking about water, only when one has tasted ( or is tasting it with one's one experiencing) would one know. However, this searching and seeking has somehow assumed that in can be found in texts, scriptures, books or ... it is fine to use the latter as alchemical devices but if they (devices) do not drop along the way inwards then it is merely living on borrowed concepts. It is still egoism! -
Here's a thought experiment that I just developed, which I want to pose to all of you.
Let's assume that you've become the supreme leader of the world, and you have to make recommendations for the lives of five billion people. Say you have only two choices:
(a) Recommend that they become scientists.
(b) Recommend that they pursue the truths of Buddhism.
Let's say that, whichever your choice, these five billion people excel at their given roles.
A hundred years pass.
------------------
Depending on your choice, I suggest these will be your outcomes:
(a) Five billion scientists
These five billion scientists make wonderful progress in science, bringing about new methods of countering natural disasters. Cancer has been cured, while genetic engineering means that birth defects and diseases have been completely eradicated. We have new, sustainable ways of using our resources, ensuring the future survival of our planet.
On average, life is substantially better for everyone. There is less poverty and hunger, fewer diseases, and so on.
(b) Five billion earnest, devout Buddhists
These five billion Buddhists build up a great deal of positive karma. A few of them actually achieve enlightenment, while the majority of others are able to build up good karma for future lives.
However, the progress of science has halted. We continue to suffer from incurable diseases as we do today. Earthquakes and tsunamis continue to afflict us. We still do not have the means to sustain a population of seven billion.
-----------------
So here's the dilemma:
- The first group of scientists have built up no positive karma for themselves.
- However, through their efforts, the world has become substantially better to live in.
- Assuming rebirth, how then is it possible that these billion people are living better lives a 100 years later, given that there was no net increase in positive karma?
Conversely:
- The second group of Buddhists have built up positive karma for future lives.
- However, the world has not become appreciably better to live in.
- Assuming rebirth, how then is it possible to suddenly have billions of people living better a 100 years later, given that technology has not improved?
To show that karma and rebirth is true, you have to demonstrate a reasonable way in which the second group will lead much better and more comfortable lives than the first group. Feel free to poke holes in my scenarios, if I've grossly misunderstood some of the concepts.
But let's try not to appeal to the mysterious, and say that these are just things we don't understand. Look at this scenario logically, and tell me how we can explain the contradictions.
This is also not a far-fetched scenario. Science has made our lives substantially better. The Internet, for example, has brought knowledge and empowerment to us in the developed countries, but also people in poor ones. The genetic engineering of crops has enabled us to feed billions of people, many of whom would otherwise starve.
Then coming back to the first question: If you were the supreme ruler, and assuming you only had two options, would you recommend science or Buddhism?
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Here's a thought experiment that I just developed, which I want to pose to all of you.
Let's assume that you've become the supreme leader of the world, and you have to make recommendations for the lives of five billion people. Say you have only two choices:
(a) Recommend that they become scientists.
(b) Recommend that they pursue the truths of Buddhism.
Let's say that, whichever your choice, these five billion people excel at their given roles.
A hundred years pass.
------------------
Depending on your choice, I suggest these will be your outcomes:
(a) Five billion scientists
These five billion scientists make wonderful progress in science, bringing about new methods of countering natural disasters. Cancer has been cured, while genetic engineering means that birth defects and diseases have been completely eradicated. We have new, sustainable ways of using our resources, ensuring the future survival of our planet.
On average, life is substantially better for everyone. There is less poverty and hunger, fewer diseases, and so on.
(b) Five billion earnest, devout Buddhists
These five billion Buddhists build up a great deal of positive karma. A few of them actually achieve enlightenment, while the majority of others are able to build up good karma for future lives.
However, the progress of science has halted. We continue to suffer from incurable diseases as we do today. Earthquakes and tsunamis continue to afflict us. We still do not have the means to sustain a population of seven billion.
-----------------
So here's the dilemma:
- The first group of scientists have built up no positive karma for themselves.
- However, through their efforts, the world has become substantially better to live in.
- Assuming rebirth, how then is it possible that these billion people are living better lives a 100 years later, given that there was no net increase in positive karma?
Conversely:
- The second group of Buddhists have built up positive karma for future lives.
- However, the world has not become appreciably better to live in.
- Assuming rebirth, how then is it possible to suddenly have billions of people living better a 100 years later, given that technology has not improved?
To show that karma and rebirth is true, you have to demonstrate a reasonable way in which the second group will lead much better and more comfortable lives than the first group. Feel free to poke holes in my scenarios, if I've grossly misunderstood some of the concepts.
But let's try not to appeal to the mysterious, and say that these are just things we don't understand. Look at this scenario logically, and tell me how we can explain the contradictions.
This is also not a far-fetched scenario. Science has made our lives substantially better. The Internet, for example, has brought knowledge and empowerment to us in the developed countries, but also people in poor ones. The genetic engineering of crops has enabled us to feed billions of people, many of whom would otherwise starve.
Then coming back to the first question: If you were the supreme ruler, and assuming you only had two options, would you recommend science or Buddhism?
can u come back to reality thanks. there are so many possibilities out there. classic what ifs....
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
I see. I tell you that god is a fallacy as a concept and realism.
That's what I believe in too.
People just need something that seem more 'real' to them. -
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
can u come back to reality thanks. there are so many possibilities out there. classic what ifs....
On the contrary, thought experiments are a fundamental way of testing our ideas. If designed properly, the principles are consistent with the scientific method: Control all the externalities, isolate the most important variables, and test them one by one.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
On the contrary, thought experiments are a fundamental way of testing our ideas. If designed properly, the principles are consistent with the scientific method: Control all the externalities, isolate the most important variables, and test them one by one.
yes but you aint a scientist are you? if you want, why not come out with an equation that proves god exists. if you do, you may jolly well win a Nobel Prize for it
-
Originally posted by Sky_Blue223:
I hope I don't offend anyone here as religion issues tend to be sticky and close to the heart.
However, from a family background who consist of several religious leaders(Pastors), I still can't contemplate religion.
To me, there are three main reasons why people seek religion.
1) To seek a greater meaning in life.2) For networking.
3) Out of desperation.
I myself, have been in several tight spots in life where hunger was my companion. Which leads to the main reason I posted: Why do people say they found religion/God when they hit rock bottom?
Did they ever think that it was God who put them there in the first place(if they choose to believe in it)? Or do they indulge in the ideology that there is a greater plan installed for them. Well, if they survive first...When someone close dies, for example, you want to believe that the person is not gone forever. You want to believe that you can see that person again, or that you can still do something for him/her.
Even as an atheist, I do want to believe in these things. But I know what the evidence says, and I have chosen truth over comfort.
-
Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wX_W1BB_0M
Anyway his book is great on integral philosophy quite interesting, http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Everything-Ken-Wilber/dp/1570627401/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324928136&sr=1-3
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
1. You're saying that science has to work harder to catch up with Buddhism in understanding the natural facts of our world? Don't just assert. Prove it.
What new natural knowledge is Buddhism bringing to the table? How many dimensions does our world have? Eleven, as M-theory suggests? Or 10, as earlier theories did? Or four, or three? How was the first self-replicable cell formed? Is the RNA world hypothesis correct?
What about applications from knowledge in Buddhism? Has anyone made any discoveries, built any cutting-edge technology based on their insights from Buddhism?
What does Buddhism tell you about all of these questions? And don't talk in riddles. Explain in clear terms that we can predict and test, rather than reactroactively fit into science.
It is one thing to claim that Buddhism offers a spiritual truth that cannot be tested by science. It is quite another to claim that Buddhism offers insights into our natural world that science has yet to discover.
2. You are eager to put Buddhism in the same framework as science, but energy in science is impersonal -- it is used and converted constantly, both (a) from one form of energy to another and (b) from mass to energy and back.
It is therefore a massive leap to go from the energy of science into rebirth, where the "energy" of an individual is retained in its entirety from one life to another.
Furthermore, I can't see how the Buddhist formulations of non-self and "energy" are consistent with the concept of rebirth. If you keep talking about non-self, then why is there even retribution on the self? How is it that the "energy" of an individual remains intact even after death, only to be transported into another sentient being?
The idea of "energy" in Buddhism is hence very different from that of science in significant ways. There is no scientific evidence for what you are claiming. Furthermore, given the way you explain it, I'm not even sure it is consistent with itself.
there's becos u have yet to studying the profounity of Buddhsim in depth. i studied and also read about science hence am able to link them. it also help to answer alot of unknown questions in life, the zigsaw puzzle fitted well.
/\
-
i do not think intuition is itself wrong, but at times it can be proven right and on the dot...intuition is an integral part of human experience and to do away with it, do away with imagination and precursors of all knowledge and facts....as with our creative evolution of the mind and not just empirical knowledge...human inquiry would then be reduced to matters of material reality...
the discussion leads to quite a serious and even dangerous situation of excessive scientism...that excludes other fields of knowledge and human experiences...in turn this would lead to epistemological distortions and abuse of public policy in favour of only what is measurable i.e. eugenics...
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Here's a thought experiment that I just developed, which I want to pose to all of you.
Let's assume that you've become the supreme leader of the world, and you have to make recommendations for the lives of five billion people. Say you have only two choices:
(a) Recommend that they become scientists.
(b) Recommend that they pursue the truths of Buddhism.
Let's say that, whichever your choice, these five billion people excel at their given roles.
A hundred years pass.
------------------
Depending on your choice, I suggest these will be your outcomes:
(a) Five billion scientists
These five billion scientists make wonderful progress in science, bringing about new methods of countering natural disasters. Cancer has been cured, while genetic engineering means that birth defects and diseases have been completely eradicated. We have new, sustainable ways of using our resources, ensuring the future survival of our planet.
On average, life is substantially better for everyone. There is less poverty and hunger, fewer diseases, and so on.
(b) Five billion earnest, devout Buddhists
These five billion Buddhists build up a great deal of positive karma. A few of them actually achieve enlightenment, while the majority of others are able to build up good karma for future lives.
However, the progress of science has halted. We continue to suffer from incurable diseases as we do today. Earthquakes and tsunamis continue to afflict us. We still do not have the means to sustain a population of seven billion.
-----------------
So here's the dilemma:
- The first group of scientists have built up no positive karma for themselves.
- However, through their efforts, the world has become substantially better to live in.
- Assuming rebirth, how then is it possible that these billion people are living better lives a 100 years later, given that there was no net increase in positive karma?
Conversely:
- The second group of Buddhists have built up positive karma for future lives.
- However, the world has not become appreciably better to live in.
- Assuming rebirth, how then is it possible to suddenly have billions of people living better a 100 years later, given that technology has not improved?
To show that karma and rebirth is true, you have to demonstrate a reasonable way in which the second group will lead much better and more comfortable lives than the first group. Feel free to poke holes in my scenarios, if I've grossly misunderstood some of the concepts.
But let's try not to appeal to the mysterious, and say that these are just things we don't understand. Look at this scenario logically, and tell me how we can explain the contradictions.
This is also not a far-fetched scenario. Science has made our lives substantially better. The Internet, for example, has brought knowledge and empowerment to us in the developed countries, but also people in poor ones. The genetic engineering of crops has enabled us to feed billions of people, many of whom would otherwise starve.
Then coming back to the first question: If you were the supreme ruler, and assuming you only had two options, would you recommend science or Buddhism?
"However, the world has not become appreciably better to live in."
actually that's not true. u are just making subjective illusive assumtion. the percentage that u think tested is not enough to make it work. our old Master Chin Kung did a similar experiment on a village in china and the lifes of that particular village became better. it was shown to the World Conference on Religion and Peace. it WILL work if the whole world do it together not just potion by potion.
in Buddhsim, spiritual power cannot defeat karma. science would not defect karma too. new type of dying illness or cancer will still emerge. science cannot stop natural disasters, but if all the world people turn good, it'll stop natural disasters. but it's imposible to proof it now. lol.
/\