Answerer

Ok, thats before you edited. Now, I will address those you edited.


For number hundred times, I'm agnostics towards rebirth, unlike you, who take the extreme stand.

One book don't determine the beliefs of all atheists especially when it have a narrow definiton of atheism.

Yeah, thats why I'm accepting all possbility regarding the existence or non-existence of rebirth. Simply because there is no answer now.

salyed

So, accept the possibility of Santa Claus, noncorporeal invisible leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns named Harold, the Christian God, Allah, Krishna, trolls, etc. since there is no "answer" now. You cannot prove that they do not exist either. Be consistent in your thinking then.

Besides being defeasible is being rational - all beliefs should be changed once hard evidence is provided to the contrary. But you do not hold a belief until you have hard evidence for it.

All schools of Buddhism define who is and who is not an adherent. Besides, Batchelor's book which has been summarily dismissed by other Buddhist teachers, name one reputable book by a reputable Buddhist scholar who states that a belief in rebirth is NOT part of Buddhism. And then you still have to deal with Buddha's teachings about devas, skandhas, different worlds on the cycle of rebirth which cannot be proven either. If you have to redefine everything in Buddhism to have it make sense to a rational mind because it is all "symbolic", then you can do the same to Aesop's Fables or Christianity or anything else. You just keep redefining something until it makes sense.

And around on the supernaturalist circular reasoning we go.

:banghead:

Answerer

They are "beings" not theories. Besides, unlike belief, science had already ruled out the possibility of trolls, pink unicorn, invisible leprechauns etc.


But you already holds a belief.

I don't know who is that guy that you are talking about. But he has nothing in relevant to what I had been saying.

In simple term, to be enlightened require a understanding of the true nature of reality, not by having a 100% faith or attachments in some notions like rebirth. skandhas, karma etc. Clinging too much to those terms is unnecessary distraction and completely unhelpful.

All the while, you kept on commenting that the Buddhism is all about believing in rebirths, devas, etc while failing to see the goal of where Buddhism is leading an individual towards. A liberation of attachments, not a full 100% absolute belief in rebirth, etc.



Well, its all in your mind. I'm just entertaining you all this while. :rolling:

salyed

And how has science ruled out the possibility of trolls, (invisible) pink unicorns, etc. ? Because of the lack of hard evidence to prove that they exist. Science did not have to prove that they do not exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The same principle is consistent for supernatural theories as well as "beings" (same, same). If you propose the existence of a supernatural theory (an extraordinary claim), then you must prove that it exists for it to be valid (extraordinary evidence).

As you state, "to be enlightened requires an understanding of the true nature of reality".... If you hold unverifiable, untestable views on reality such as supernatural beliefs, then you cannot be enlightened according to your statement. So, since the Buddha taught the existence of devas and other supernatural theories which can not be proven to exist or cannot be proven to be valid, the Buddha must not have been enlightened. Since the Buddha was not enlightened, then there is no reason to accept the Dharma and no reason for the Sangha to exist.

Infidelettante

And having recognized the incompatibility of their beliefs with Western atheism, naturalism, and skepticism just where are they to go if not to rational thought?

Have it your way. I have not said you are wrong to use logic and reason in your approach to living. I have recommended that those who practice religion not adopt the unfounded accusation that religion is invalid because it is illogical. Religion is powerful because it is illogical. We can’t reject religion and expect to understand humanity.

I suggest that we must approach religion as myth using logic and reason in our effort to understand it and our attachment to it. But that is not enough, we will never understand how religion has molded our culture unless we learn to practice religion. And the practice of religion is wholly symbolic and so wholly outside the constraints of logic and reason.

I view symbols as living entities when my practice calls for it. It is also dangerous to deny certain psychological processes the symbolic life which allows them to rise out of the unconscious in a safe and effective manner.

So then it is yes, I refer to coping psychologically with life and to the realization that this is all religion has ever been, and to the understanding that many of the coping strategies mankind has developed are still valid and that some of those are religious in nature. If we toss aside those strategies solely because they are labeled “religious�? we loose thousands of years of human wisdom because we are too short sighted to see beyond our own bias.

Then by all means cope with your reality as you want. I see a need for my occult studies and the ritual practice which applies them to my life. It is how I cope. It is effective, and rewarding. It is also illogical and unreasoned, conditions which make it all the more effective and rewarding for being unbounded and unrestrained.

If I meditate for physiological benefits you would see no harm done. If I meditate for spiritual benefit and accrue physiological benefit you say I am deluded. I say I am all the more rewarded for my effort and time.

You seem to think I am preaching against logic and reason. I am not, I only say they have no place in the practice of religion. They are invaluable in the study of religion and mythology and the historical contexts which give rise to them. They are necessary in any attempt to grasp the workings of myth in the cultures of their birth and on the cultures which now adhere to them. However, the practice of religion is most powerful and adaptive when the symbolism of which it is constructed is allowed to flourish unimpeded by reason.

Read a bit of Jung. We are enamored of consciousness but we are the children of the unconscious. We swim in a great sea of which the surface is consciousness. We mistake the surface for ourselves and so ignore the depths of the unconscious below. But, it is the unconscious that is most truly ourselves and the only way to reach it is through symbols. It is unreachable by language based logic and reason.

Humanity has been recording its interaction with the unconscious for thirty thousand years and that record is the mythologies and religions left to us. It is a vast body of knowledge too valuable to dismiss. It is the map of an interior landscape each of us must travel. I only recommend we not burn the map in our hurry to rid ourselves of the sins of those who drew it.

JT

NiceWookie

I think the OP is very well written and thought provoking.

Thanks!


I do question why intuitive/spiritual/religious thought is sometimes portrayed as opposing rational thought as if has been scientifically determined that the two are incapable of simply co-existing.

Answerer

Mythical troll could regenerate their injuries (including very serious ones) to full recovery in split seconds or minutes. I don't think there exists any living cells that could do that or any theories that could support this without contradicting several other more well-founded ones. As for pink unicorns having a magical horn (that could does wonderous acts) in front of its head, I think the current laws of physics are enough to dispel such a myth.

No, you misquoted me. I never said if you have faith in rebirth, you can't get enlightened. What I mean is that if anyone take certain notions to the extreme end, he is no better than a fanatic and in that case, its good for him to correct or moderate his views.

To tell you the truth, there are actually various (or as stated in the sutras 84000) ways of gaining enlightenment due to the various different types of preaching by the Buddha. Yet along, you have been insisting that believing in rebirth, devas, etc is the only orthodox way to enlightenment. And this view of yours is enough to convince me that you have not studied deep into Buddhism. All the while, you are just narrowing Buddhism down into nothing more than a mere gathering of beliefs, superstitutions and dogmas while caring nothing for alternative explanations by ancient philosophers and thinkers and others here.

To summarize your argument of the compatibility between Buddhism and atheism so far, I will use Islam as a example to illusrate your arguments (sorry muslims) :

1) All muslims are fundamentalists

2) Modernity is supported by moderate and rational thinkers only

3) Modernity could never accept by Islam.

===> Therefore, Islam and modernity are incompatible.

Obviously, the above example is based on various false and hyper generalizing assumptions and therefore, the conclusion is apparently false. The same goes for your arguments which is similiar in content and form.

salyed

Here we agree. I know that it is taught that there are 84,000 ways stated about the Dharma. That teaching is prominently featured in the teachings of the Jodo Shin-shu (True Pure Land school of Buddhism as founded by Shinran who was taught by Honen). However, it has also been consistently debated in Buddhist journals such as Tricycle and Buddhadharma about the role of rebirth in Buddhism. Consistently the Buddhist teachers of most traditions have maintained that one is not an orthodox Buddhist if one does not accept rebirth as a working hypothesis. You would be considered Buddhist, sure, but not Orthodox. This is the same way that other Buddhists view Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu (its parent sect) for example.

Boiling down Buddhism to its verifiable, testable essence comes out like this:

1) Egocentric behavior can lead to suffering in your life.

2) Therefore, become less egocentric.

Nothing special there.

But I would still rather have more active Buddhists around than active Christians or other Western monotheists.

David

salyed

So then we are in agreement that supernaturalists (religious believers) and those who are atheists due to naturalism and skepticism (just to be narrow and specific here in my definition) use two different standards for truth. Therefore, if they are in basic disagreement on the foundation of ascertaining reality, then the benefits of dialogue are small.

You can argue all day about the supposed benefits of religion and spirituality. I can tell you all day about how they have caused suffering, war, delusion, inhibited scientific research, promoted superstition, etc. I can state that religion is powerful because humans are inherently psychologically needy and gullible. You can state that religion provides whatever you think religion provides. But the discussion would ultimately go nowhere, because we disagree on the fundamentals of what establishes truth.

For the supernaturalist, faith trumps all reason.

Therefore, religion and "spirituality" (including Buddhism) is NOT compatible with atheism that is based upon naturalism and skepticism.

Thanks!

lenrek

From orthodox Theravada Buddhism possition, I agreed with you on this. Actually, I stand by this since the first day I joined the forum...

However, I cannot speak for all the Buddhists here. Since my belief is heavy influence by orthodox Theravada Buddhism. There are other Buddhists here that are not.

It has been an interesting discussion with you. It is because of our discussion, I went around the site to read:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ugustine1.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ne/HNDEs.shtml

Which, I think I can better understand the reasons behind your stand.

Hope you live long and have a happy live. Maybe we will talk about other stuff next time...


:wave:

ps: I really like the new additional similies! Thousands thanks to the site administrator.

pps: I know a lot of people here don't really like 'faith'. But, I do enjoy, living in faith...