Infidelettante

In the threads on Buddhism some have raised the question of logic and have asked if it might be applied to Buddhism as it is applied to other beliefs no doubt in the hope that those Buddhists here would see the error of their ways and abandon this most ancient and revered understanding.

I would hope that each of us understands the need for things in our lives that are not bound by logic or reason. For me religion is one of those things. I encourage the religious among us to abandon the search for a reasoned spirituality. A religious understanding divorced from reason is a more powerful understanding, a more adaptive understanding.

Logic tells us how to use words so they agree with one another. It can tell us how to think. It can’t tell us what to feel. Spirituality and religion are symbolic pursuits and while we might use reason in our study of symbolism it has no place in the use of symbols as we would employ them in a religious context. Such a context would be ritual practice or the magical arts or a system of meditative self realization.

The power of symbols resides in their ability to speak directly to the unconscious in a way that language can’t. If logic and reason are language based, as I think they are, attempts to force them into the service of symbolism is useless at best and dangerous at worst. Symbolism, raised out of the unconscious and constrained by language gives rise to pathology. Symbols freed of the bias of language can be powerful tools in the search for personal meaning and purpose.

They are living entities capable of illuminating our darkest, most hidden, interior psychic landscapes. And, they are unmatched in their ability to communicate ways to approach those landscapes and gather from them insights and realizations on the nature of our being as individuals and as members of a society and culture which works to stifle personal, individualistic spiritual growth.

JT

salyed

Um, the purpose of the discussion is not to convert Buddhists to rational thought. I do not think that naturalists and supernaturalists accept the same basis of validity of knowledge anyways so you cannot convert them anyways. It's like teaching pigs to sing. The purpose was to dispel the rampant myth that the teachings of Buddhism is compatible with Western atheism, naturalism and skepticism.

In reference to your post, I personally (I can only speak for myself) see no value in things in my life that are not bound by reason and logic. I don't view symbols as "living entities" (I think anthropomorhizing such things is psychologically dangerous anyways) and I do not know what "spiritual growth" means or are you referring to psychologically coping. I also see no need for ritual practice or magical arts. I call them "wishful thinking" and fantasies that are used to cope with one's reality. Meditation is okay in a secular context to reduce stress and blood pressure, but there is no empirical (and empiricism is not limited to sensorial input, BTW) date to support the supposed mystical benefits of the practice.

Also, a person's feelings are strongly determined by how one thinks and reasons (refer to Rational Emtiove Therapy processes as developed by Albert Ellis, PhD), so logic would have an impact upon that. Basing action upon emotive responses is not wise - neither is basing "truth claims" upon emotivism.

So I do not understand this valuable function that symbols are supposed to provide for my life. Unless you are referring to the same things we can get from nature, poetry, etc. without the crutch of religion or "mystical", supernaturalist philosophy.

Yeshi

so what's all the fuss then if you already know the answers?

salyed

There is no fuss. Sometimes you just got to enjoy the interaction.

salyed

entered in error

Answerer

Your argument is flawed from the very begining due to the fact that it is based on several over-generalizing assumptions.

1) All atheists are naturalists

2) All Buddhists are required to have faith in rebirth

3) Rebirth could never be proven by science

And as I had shown in your thread, all of the above assumptions are over-generalizing and flawed.

salyed

No, you are misquoting my argument which is:

1) The position of naturalism and skepticism leads to a position of atheism.

2) Orthodox Buddhism postulates supernatural entities and events (devas, skandhas, rebirth, etc.) which conflict with the premises of naturalism and skepticism.

3) There is NO strong, empirical evidence to support rebirth - only weak, anecdotal evidence (like NDE's).

4) In fact, the acceptance of Buddhism is not based upon logic or rationalism, but rather upon faith.

5) In common Western usage, the term "atheism" usually also popularly presupposes the positions of naturalism and skepticism, whereas the term "nontheist" is more generally used to describe religions such as Buddhism.

5) Therefore, under the common, popular usage of the term "atheist", Buddhism is NOT CONSISTENT with naturalism and skepticism - and is therefore not compatible with the type of atheist (in common Western usage of the term) who holds those positions.

All done.

Answerer

Nope, I'm not. Its clear to all who read your statements carefully.

You, yourself, have mentioned that vast majority of atheists are naturalists in your thread, not all . In the otehr words, thats your own definition of atheism for all atheists.



Again, thats your own view of Orthodox Buddhism, I seriously doubt that you have talked to every single buddhists of every single ( and diverse) buddhism schools and branches about their view on rebirth or other supernatural events. At any rate, I'm alone is enough to prove you wrong.


Allow me to repeat again. NO strong empirical evidence now doesn't mean No strong empirical evidence in the future. Unless you can show me the empirical evidences that rebirth can never be proven by science.


Wrong, Buddhism can be accepted either by faith or rationality. Buddha never urged a individual to throw away his reasoning. If you still remain unconvince, then show me one verse that He claimed otherwise.


Frankly speaking, I'm not convinced by your so-called common Western usage. I searched through many general websites and dictionaries about the general definitions of atheism. Most don't define atheism as the presupposing of the positions of naturalism and skepticism. As for "nontheists" term, honestly speaking, you are the first guy to use such terms here.


So, in short, according to your beliefs and assumptions, the above conclusion might be true. But if you generalize it to everybody in the world, then I think, its too absolute to be accepted by anyone logically.


Same here :thumbs: :thumbs:

salyed

No, I am using the common accepted definition and usage for atheism in its common context. I also admit that it can be used in the broad, non-distinct sense that you use it in. The problem is when people, like some Buddhists, imply commonality with atheism in the strict sense and then turn around and then refer to the broad sense.

In terms of orthodox Buddhism: Actually, I have acquaintances who are Ch'an monks, Theravadin monks, Nichiren Shu and Jodo Shin-shu ministers, etc. They are all pretty clear that orthodox Buddhism teaches rebirth (not reincarnation). They also mention that there are a number of Buddhists who do not believe in rebirth, but that they are not considered orthodox. What are your qualifications?

And what? That just means that my disbelief in rebirth is defeasible (can be changed in the unlikely event that hard evidence ever shows up to prove that paradigm). I do not have the burden of proof - Buddhism does.

If you are accepting teachings without the support of hard, testable, verifiable evidence to support your belief, then you are accepting Buddhism on a basis of faith. And again - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Common Western usage of atheism: Then read more. Try "Atheism:A Very Shirt Introduction" by Julian Baggini, PhD (Oxford University Press).

Seems like we are going in circles. This is where these discussions go with all types of supernaturalists.

Answerer

Common? Any evidences for that?

When has teaching rebirth = require everyone to have 100% faith in it? Once again, its your own misunderstanding.

Oh, then thats strange. Most (not all) of the monks I meet never enforced their own idea of orthodox on every single buddhists of all the other schools or sects. How surprisingly some of them had actually told you that much about how wrong others are.

Nah, it prove that you are not as rational as you believe yourself to be. And yeah, its no big deal.

I'm surprised that you never confronted those monks you met before about this. Why don't you go back and ask them about your opinon that Buddhism is irrational? I'm sure they will be open to you again and give you lots of reasonable answers about their beliefs.




Indeed, I have already (Please see below):



http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm

http://www.religionisdumb.com/definitions.htm

And to quote some of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism