Buddhism - Four Noble Truths - Suffering

I had to dissappoint you, but Buddhism is a religion in some very basic respects, albeit without many of the distortions of Christianity. So if you believe 'religion is crap' then you really ought to not waste your time on it. there are presumably many other things to study which are not.

I've heard some Buddhists speak about nirvana, reincarnation, and those force-like deities, and it doesn't seem allegorical to me. They seem to literally believe in that crap. I mean, one can interpret it as allegorical or metaphorical, but I don't believe that that's the intent.

Maybe they did believe it literally. There are fundamentalist Buddhists in this world.

Why would you say that those concepts are not allegory or even metaphor?
THE FINGER AND THE MOON
The Finger and the Moon

Are "really believing X" and "understand X to be literally true" the same thing, though?

If we look at a variety of sources, Buddhism by and large seems to recognize that when language is used to express a pure religious experience that the language cannot be entirely literal.

By literally believing I mean that they believe that the supernatural claims and stories are actually true.

Some may, some certainly don't. But who cares? The upshot of religion is how we act towards one other as a consequence of our understanding -- beyond that it doesn't really matter whether it's regarded literally or not by this person or that.

I'm talking about objective truth. We're talking about metaphysics right now.

How can metaphysics possibly provide objective truth when by its very nature it comes out of a human brain? Collective agreement about a metaphysical proposition, however logical or plausible it seems, has no bearing on its objective truth or lack thereof. Objective truth cannot be ascertained when the human conception of logic is its only measure.

Buddhism does have a metaphysics of sorts, but it doesn't take nearly the same form nor serve the same role as metaphysics in Western philosophy, so I don't think that term can be appropriately applied to it. Mysticism is (a bit) more appropriate, because Buddhist "truths" are (in part) revealed through things like meditation, mandalas, chanting, etc.

Metaphysics?

Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Asking how can metaphysics bring about objective truth is like asking how can science bring about objective truth. Let me guess, you don't believe that science can bring about objective truth either because its practice is dependent on the human mind, correct? You also don't believe that there is a such thing as objective truth, correct?

Needless to say, science is closely related to metaphysics.

Mahayana Buddhism's claims of spiritual force-like deities and the rebirth of consciousness in a non-physical form are metaphysical claims.

I believe there is an objective truth. I don't believe that we have any way to access it. I believe science allows us to develop a functional truth, however, (i.e. something we collectively hold as true), because the mere existence of something external to observe provides for a common denominator. Even if you and I completely disagree about the nature of a rock (I think it's igneous, you think it's a meteorite), we both agree about the existence of the rock.

There is no such measure in metaphysics. And the only thing that makes us believe that our logic corresponds to truth is that there are physical things that can corroborate our logical musings. That in itself cannot prove that there is a logically necessary truth correspondence with ANY metaphysical proposition.

A metaphysical claim is not metaphysics, in which claims result from a logical derivation. These "claims" you speak of in Mahayana Buddhism are religious concepts. There would be no sense in calling Genesis a work of metaphysics either.

If you don't believe that we have access to objective truth, then what leads you to believe that there is such a thing as objective truth?

The scientific method is what we use to access objective truth.

The methodology is done in such a manner that it rules out personal perspective or observer bias. That's why they do double blind experiments to come to an objective conclusion.

Some metaphysical propositions can be verified by empirically testing. For example, the metaphysical proposition of causality can be verified by empirical observation and scientific testing.

Metaphysics and science are indeed related. Look into the history of both.

"A metaphysical claim is not metaphysics"???

One question doesn't lead to the other. If we're not engaging in Descartes' reductionist thought experiment, then we can easily accept that a basic fact of the universe is that our mind is not the entirety of existence. If you and everyone else exist enough for me to have a conversation with you, and this chair exists enough for me to sit on it, then I am willing to accept as a fundamental token of existence that there are things that exist. If things exist, then the subjectivity of my own perspective, the subjectivity of your own perspective, can in no way access the objective nature of it because our perspectives will ALWAYS be subjective.

In a functional sense. Science doesn't ever make a claim of absolute knowledge. It just systematizes observations such that we can express confidence in our findings.

That isn't a test of the proposition of causality. Causality is abstracted out of the observable example -- that has nothing to do with an assertion about a universal ideal of causality, however. Plato had it backwards.

If I claim that the world is made out of goodness, that is a metaphysical claim. And I can get a whole crowd of followers and start a goodness cult. But that is not the philosophical discipline of metaphysics in which claims are developed by use of logic.

if what you say is true, and there is no way to access objective truth, doesn't that mean that all knowledge and all beliefs are subjective (including you sitting on a chair) merely because a mental subject is needed to process the information?

it is an objectively true, scientific fact, that objects of smaller mass are attracted to objects of larger mass. It is an objectively true, scientific fact, that life forms can and do evolve from other life forms.

Knowledge is justified true belief -- it is a provisional and practical concept.

Science is not completely divorced from metaphysics or philosophy. They are still related whether a practitioner wants them to be or not.

Scientists have set up experiments to determine causality in the physical world.

However, there is a disagreement on whether experiments are needed to determine causality.

I'm saying that every religion, including Buddhism, has a philosophical (and metaphysical) underpinning. Claims of force-like spirit deities and the rebirth of consciousness are examples of Buddhist metaphysics.

Yes. But independent corroboration from other people strengthens our confidence in the truth of something. This is still a functional truth, though, not an objective truth. It may well be identical to objective truth, but seeing as we have no way to access objective truth (via omniscience), we'll never know for sure.

It is only true insofar as our science, experience, communications, and agreement leads us to make these proclamations with yet greater confidence. It seems impossible that these scientific facts you offer could be wrong, based on the extent of their documentation in science - but that is a statement of confidence, not objective truth.

That's just a restatement of my contention that it is functional and never "objective".

And one can spend one's entire life in science without ever making a metaphysical claim or using a metaphysical concept; and one can spend one's entire life exploring metaphysics without ever regarding a scientific principle.

Not general causality, though. Causality in specific instances. Causality in specific instances is mechanical in science, but it's abstract in metaphysics.

The debate is more whether mechanistic causality can be demonstrated at all by science. And if you read scientific papers that assert causality, it's never asserted so simply. Rather, it's expressed in terms of statistical power, magnitude of effect, limitations, generalizability, etc. Causality is associative in science, even when examined prospectively in a controlled way. If I give 10,000 febrile patients Tylenol and 10,000 a placebo, I can say with tremendous statistical confidence that administration of Tylenol causes a reduction in fever. But causality is inferred from the likelihood of a real effect from the intervention -- it's not directly demonstrated.

I'm on board with that. But religions have traditional and cultural and dogmatized underpinnings that allow for philosophically inconsistent bases. And since religions appeal to the masses (because of their appeal to many of the 'general' problems we face in life), the evolution of religion often props up the ritual over the theology.

So you still don't believe that truth is objective?

So you don't believe that it's an objective fact that I'm typing right now or that smaller objects are attracted to objects with larger mass?

Objective means a truth that remains true everywhere, independent of personal sentiment or opinion.

For example, an objective statement is that humans exist. A subjective statement is that humans are beautiful. Objectivity is the absence of mere opinion or sentiment.