Atheist vs believer research

@Berty McJock,

These two truths are the synonymous with the words I have used:

The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Tibetan: bden-pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of truth (Sanskrit: satya) in Buddhist discourse: relative or commonsensical truth, and absolute or ultimate truth.

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

1 Reply

@igm,

in another thread i was accused by some horrid little troll of thinking i'm above the truth. i said i couldnt be as you cant have truer than true, and even if i was i could never prove it as the best anyone else can hope for is the truth.

well, bugger me if i'm not proper confused now lol

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm may have something to say about the "differences" between "absolute truths" and "conceptual absolute truths."

igm wrote:

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

Etymology and definition

The two truths doctrine states that there is:
Relative or common-sense truth (Sanskrit samvṛtisatya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and
Ultimate truth (Sanskrit, paramārthasatya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.
The Sanskrit term for relative, "samvṛti", also implies false, hidden, concealed, or obstructed, as well as other nuanced concepts.
The conventional truth may be interpreted as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result. It is constituted by the appearances of mistaken awareness. Conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended, and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truths, are phenomena free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.[1]

Berty McJock wrote:

but if it's conceptual, can it be absolute?

That's why I said there is no 'conceptual absolute truth' because the absolute truth cannot be conceptual.

igm wrote:

These two truths are the synonymous with the words I have used:

The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Tibetan: bden-pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of truth (Sanskrit: satya) in Buddhist discourse: relative or commonsensical truth, and absolute or ultimate truth.

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

2 Replies

@igm,

but there may be no such thing as absolute truth, which we can never know, therefore no absolute truth can only be conceptual.

so conceptual absolute truth can exist in defining the uncertainty of a lack of absolute truth.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

but there may be no such thing as absolute truth, which we can never know, therefore no absolute truth can only be conceptual.

so conceptual absolute truth can exist in defining the uncertainty of a lack of absolute truth.

Your getting into the swing of this now.. aren't you.

1 Reply

@igm,

the problem is, when i start thinking about things like this (and QM, another subject i don't know anywhere near enough about), i go deep, and don't know when to stop lol.

i'm gonna end up over analysing this and confusing myself even more. anyways, its 23:20 over here and time i was off to bed, seein as i was up till 4am yesterday, and i actually have a days work tomorrow for the first time in 2 weeks..yaaaaaaay.

if i end up awake all night philosophising, and i'm tired and distracted by the absolute truth tomorrow, at least i know who to point the finger at.

thanks igm and frank, i'd never come across this before. food for thought Smile

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Thank you for your apology :^)
I think that perhaps a more fruitful topic of debate is whether or not their is such a thing as absolute truth,
as opposed to whether or not a certain person (ie Buddha) did or did not claim this, and if so what were his or her reasons.
I doubt such a historical matter could ever be settled, and would at the very least require such disciplines as: textual criticism, cultural anthropology, archeology etc.
As a jest I have created for you and igm a forum here:

Frank's and igm's pissing match.
http://able2know.org/topic/207854-1
A place for Frank and igm to debate as to how what the meaning of "is" is, impacts a discussion about Buddhist teachings.
To engage in this debate you must possess the ability to quote your own and other's posts ad-nauseum, preferably in nested groups that require a flow chart to comprehend.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5247035)
Frank Apisa wrote:

igm may have something to say about the "differences" between "absolute truths" and "conceptual absolute truths."

igm wrote:

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

Etymology and definition

The two truths doctrine states that there is:
Relative or common-sense truth (Sanskrit samvṛtisatya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and
Ultimate truth (Sanskrit, paramārthasatya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.
The Sanskrit term for relative, "samvṛti", also implies false, hidden, concealed, or obstructed, as well as other nuanced concepts.
The conventional truth may be interpreted as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result. It is constituted by the appearances of mistaken awareness. Conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended, and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truths, are phenomena free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.[1]

And..."CONCEPTUAL" truths are treated where????

Look, igm (Berty, listen in)...anyone who suggests or asserts that there is no absolute truth, no matter if modified by conceptual, conventional, perceived, or ultimate...is suggesting something that cannot be.

There most assuredly is an absolute truth (or REALITY)...there has to be an Ultimate Truth or Reality.

If the Buddha actually stated it as igm suggests, the Buddha was simply wrong.

There is no way to make sense of any assertion that there is no such thing; no way to make such an assertion logical. Making the assertion negates the assertion. The only way such an assertion can be true...IS BY BEING FALSE. Which means, it is FALSE on its face.

Play this game all you want, igm...you are going nowhere with it. I congratulate you, though, because you are making great time!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Are you kind of slow today?

Well I think slow is a relative concept, so my answer would depend on the context by which you are judging my speed. ;^)

The reason that I originally posted a small bit about the connection between Buddhism, Hinduism and non-dualism was because I was on the mistake assumption that you or Frank might be unaware that this may be the position that igm holds.
I meant to offer clarification. I did not offer the connection as a way of defending non-dualism, because I personally don't see how an appeal to authority is much of a defense.
The point I was trying to make in my last comment to you:
A description of how or why a specific religious tradition embraces non-dualism, is not a valid way of refuting the position.
For example: If I were to point out to a Jew/Christian/Muslim that his or her monotheism stems from a cross-pollination of Semantic tribes with Zoroastrianism, and Zoroastrians thought of God as being the sun which is obviously just a ball of plasma, is this an effective refutation of monotheism?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Thank you, Matt. We were cross posting.

Here is the thing about your question "is there such a thing as an absolute truth (I prefer to use "ultimate" in place of "absolute" and "REALITY" in place of "truth.")

There absolutely HAS TO BE an Ultimate Reality...because the only way for there not to be an Ultimate Reality is for the statement "There is no Ultimate Reality" to be false. If it is not false...if it is true...then the Ultimate Reality would be that there is NO Ultimate Reality...which of course is the self-defeating aspect of the issue.

I am more than willing to allow the issue to be resolved in this way: We do not know if there is an Ultimate Reality...in order to allow everyone a way out without losing face.

But anyone who is going to assert that there is no Ultimate Reality is defeated by his own argument.

Anyone, including the Buddha, who asserts that there is no Ultimate Truth is defeated by his own argument.

Anyone, including the Buddha, who thinks he can finesse around this by the use of modifiers is game playing...and kidding himself.

Please feel free to change all masculine pronouns and references to females ones if you choose.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

A great challenge to philosophers and logicians has been in how to deal with paradox which I think is crucial to your argument.

The classic case is the Liar's Paradox:

Quote:

This sentence is false.

If you presume the truth of the proposition, then it follows that it is actually false.
If you presume the proposition to be false, then it follows that it is actually true.
So what then IS the truth value of the proposition?

From about 600BC until the 19th century AD, this was able to be dismissed as perhaps just being an artifact or imperfection in human language. However a similar contradiction was discovered in Set Theory Mathematics by Bertrand Russell. In response attempts were made to modify mathematics to eliminate the possibility of self-reference. By 1931 however it was proven by Kurt Gödel that any system complex enough to be capable of at least arithmetic operations (simple number theory) either :
Must have true statements that are unprovably true,
or must be internally inconsistent (you can prove something to be both true and non-true).
The artifact or imperfection is not simply in human language, it is pervasive throughout formal logic.

The implication for this discussion is that it is not sufficient to point out that a statement is paradoxical to establish its falsity (or its truth).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Please feel free to change all masculine pronouns and references to females ones if you choose.

I don't have the ability to modify your post. ;^)

Do you mean that I should imagine that the pronouns are feminine instead of masculine?
I will attempt to do so, but that is asking a lot of a reader to substitute words imagined for words written. It is very difficult in practice to "unread" something.
That is why I do make attempts not to use gender specific language when gender specific concepts are not intended.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

seriously though, beliefs arent funny..as a matter of fact, thats because life isnt funny at times..

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

When one asserts their religious teachings as a source of authority, it is completely valid to investigate the source of those teachings. So-called "non-dualism" arose from ipse dixit assertions in what one might call pre-Buddhist texts. It is entirely reasonable to point out that a reliance upon non-dualism is, ultimately, a reliance upon an undemonstrated premise. That is quite apart from there being no good reason to assume that what are alleged to have been the teachings of Siddhartha were in fact uttered by him.

You need to do a little more study. The Jews certainly brought back a good deal of material from the Babylonian Captivity--their creation myth and the flood story are good examples of direct borrowings from the Akkadian stories to which they had been exposed. However, they were liberated and allowed to return to Palestine by the Median/Persian conquest of the rump of the Assyrian empire. There is absolutely no good reason to assume that they imbibed any part of Zoroastrianism. When you look at their creation myth (i.e., Genesis) it's not even reasonable to assert that they were yet entirely convinced by monotheism. It is completely absurd to suggest that Islam partakes of Zoroastrianism in any way. It is reasonable to suggest that there were some borrowings by the Christians, but that does not authorize a claim to the effect that their respective religions were monotheistic because of a "cross-pollination of Semantic [sic]) tribes with Zoroastrianism." (Oh man, you crack me up--the word you wanted was Semitic, not Semantic.) Furthermore, Ahura Mazda cannot reasonably be described as a sun god. Really, you need to review your claims and do some extensive reading.

3 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5247170)
A great challenge to philosophers and logicians has been in how to deal with paradox which I think is crucial to your argument.

The classic case is the Liar's Paradox:
Quote:
This sentence is false.

If you presume the truth of the proposition, then it follows that it is actually false.
If you presume the proposition to be false, then it follows that it is actually true.
So what then IS the truth value of the proposition?

From about 600BC until the 19th century AD, this was able to be dismissed as perhaps just being an artifact or imperfection in human language. However a similar contradiction was discovered in Set Theory Mathematics by Bertrand Russell. In response attempts were made to modify mathematics to eliminate the possibility of self-reference. By 1931 however it was proven by Kurt Gödel that any system complex enough to be capable of at least arithmetic operations (simple number theory) either :
Must have true statements that are unprovably true,
or must be internally inconsistent (you can prove something to be both true and non-true).
The artifact or imperfection is not simply in human language, it is pervasive throughout formal logic.

The implication for this discussion is that it is not sufficient to point out that a statement is paradoxical to establish its falsity (or its truth).

I suspect that the implication for this discussion is that it MAY NOT BE sufficient to point out that a statement is paradoxical to establish its falsity...not that it IS NOT sufficient.

I am of the opinion it is...and of course, one of the reasons for a forum of this sort is to share opinions.

Further, it is not necessary to make the assertions about which we speak. There is no compulsion that one must do so.

IF, however, one decides to make the assertion...a certain responsibility for verifying the assertion accrues.

IF, someone decides to assert: There is no Ultimate Reality...that person is asserting that "no Ultimate Reality" IS THE ULTIMATE REALITY.

It is self-contradictory.

Best is not be made...but once made, the challenge is appropriate.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5247170)
Frank Apisa wrote:
Please feel free to change all masculine pronouns and references to females ones if you choose.

I don't have the ability to modify your post. ;^)

Do you mean that I should imagine that the pronouns are feminine instead of masculine?
I will attempt to do so, but that is asking a lot of a reader to substitute words imagined for words written. It is very difficult in practice to "unread" something.
That is why I do make attempts not to use gender specific language when gender specific concepts are not intended.

Allow me to reword what I said, Matt:

"If you are not comfortable with my use of masculine pronouns in what I just wrote, please understand that I used them simply as a convention...and to save the trouble of using he/she, him/her...which tends to detract from the comment being made. You are free to substitute (in your own mind) the feminine pronouns if it makes you comfortable"...he said with a smile and a mischievous glint in his eye.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Frank if Set doesn't want to respond then you can it's all about your 'new' questions:

Your post is 'woolly' why not be specific.

Pick a teaching that is said by Buddhists, to be a teaching by the Buddha, and refute it. For example the Buddha said that there is no self, ego, Atman, soul (all are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion). Please prove that there is a self. The burden of proof is with you because the Buddha is saying 'you say there is a self, show me where the self is located'.

Now if you can't do that then that removes the subject from subject/object dualism. So unless you can show there is a self then how are you going to show that dualism is correct? The self must either be in the body, mind, both or some other location. If not then you cannot assert a self or dualism because if you don't have self then you can't have other.

They (subject/object) are merely ‘dreamed up by the mind’ concepts we use to communicate; that’s fine but the self is just a useful fiction, as is dualism. If you can’t find a truly existing self then the other side of the coin 'other' is also not found because the concepts depend on one another.

Buddha isn’t saying there is something else, he's just saying dualism is a fiction based on the mistaken belief there is a truly existent self. When we look for it the self cannot be found. The absence of dualism, the mere negation of it or the letting go of it is the absolute is ultimate reality. So it’s not something it’s the absence of mistaken views based on the subject/object dualism that cannot be proved.

The burden of proof is with anyone who says there is a truly existing self. The Buddha just says OK find it and I'll believe in it; if not then I won’t believe in dualism.

Abosolute truth is the mere absence of the belief in dualism.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Setanta (Post 5247425)
Frank if Set doesn't want to respond then you can it's all about your 'new' questions:

Your post is 'woolly' why not be specific.

I am specific...and not woolly. Why don't you just refrain from these petty comments?

Quote:

Pick a teaching that is said by Buddhists, to be a teaching by the Buddha, and refute it. For example the Buddha said that there is no self, ego, Atman, soul (all are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion). Please prove that there is a self. The burden of proof is with you because the Buddha is saying 'you say there is a self, show me where the self is located'.

No. Why would you even ask me to do so. I am not suggesting that what the Buddha has asserted is WRONG. I have not done so anywhere...or at any time.

My questions have to do with your considerations about whether the Buddha actually KNEW the things he was "teaching"...or if they are just guesses or beliefs.

If a person says to me: "There is a GOD"...it is entirely appropriate for me to ask, "Is that something you KNOW or are you just guessing?"

I AM NOT saying there is no GOD. (How the hell would I know if there is a GOD or not?) I am just asking...and quite honestly, I am asking to see if the individual is ethical enough to and is of sufficient character to acknowledge that it is a guess...if it is a guess. If it is not a guess...and if the person actually KNOWS...I'd love to hear how he knows.

The Buddha is not here for me to question, so all I am doing is asking YOU for what you think.

Why not try actually answering my questions, igm?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Buddha isn’t saying there is something else, he's just saying dualism is a fiction based on the mistaken belief there is a truly existent self. When we look for it the self cannot be found. The absence of dualism, the mere negation of it or the letting go of it is the absolute is ultimate reality. So it’s not something it’s the absence of mistaken views based on the subject/object dualism that cannot be proved.

The burden of proof is with anyone who says there is a truly existing self. The Buddha just says OK find it and I'll believe in it; if not then I won’t believe in dualism.

The BURDEN OF PROOF, igm, is with the person who asserts one way or the other.

I am not doing so.

I am merely asking...

...well, I think we've been through this enough so that you KNOW what I am asking. Either that or you have simply shut your mind.

Why you think in any way that I am saying the Buddha is wrong IS BEYOND ME.

I have no idea if the Buddha is correct or incorrect on most of this stuff...and I dare to suspect that neither does the Buddha. But I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know...and apparently the Buddha was not able to do so...so he "taught" that the stuff he guessed to be so...actually is so.

1 Reply

Atheist vs believer research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know