1
   

For Awareness.......Science or Buddhism?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 09:45 am
extra medium wrote:
Frank,

I see *some* of your points. On the other hand, I don't.

It appears that you think most everything here adds up to "meaningless guesswork." So in your opinion, why should we bother having this Philosophy & Debate Forum at all?


You are not even close to capturing my position, EM.

I want to discuss this VERY MUCH...and I am delighted this forum is here for that purpose.

I think a lot of the world's problems could be eased if humans could come to grips with the fact that we appear to be on our own here...and that the belief systems of the world, while admittedly of value to individuals, tend to accumulate in a whole that is incredibly destructive of humanity.


Quote:
Its fairly easy to agree: NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN. Everything in our existence can easily be dismissed as "guesswork."


I am not asking for proof...and I realize the incredibly difficult task undertaken when anyone is attempting to prove anything.

I am simply trying to communicate some information about the guesses some people are making SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY...which I see to be a destructive force here on planet Earth.


Quote:
Can you prove that you are alive? Can you prove that you are not dreaming at this very moment?


Nope.


Quote:
We either accept the value of Philosophy & Debate, or we don't. I choose to believe in the value of philosophy & debate. I guess one could debate that too.


Well I certainly wouldn't be the one debating it with you, because I think it has enormous value. That is why I do so much of it.


Quote:
I think without some of this "guesswork" we'd still be living in caves figuratively and literally. Which might not be so very bad...we'd still be looking at the shadows illumated by the fire on the cave wall, and calling that reality. Which most of us probably do anyway.


Nothing wrong with guesswork, EM, I do it all the time.

I do get disturbed when guesses are disguised by the use of the word "believe"...for reasons that I have carefully explained in many, many threads.


Quote:
Here's a quote from the Admin post for Philosophy & Debate Forum Guidelines
"Purpose
Our wish for this forum is that all who attend come away with a richer understanding of the issues being debated, and with an increased appreciation of differing viewpoints held by others. These guidelines are in place to encourage that end above any others."


And I do all in my power to enable that end. So what is your point?

Quote:
Sometimes, it isn't so much that some of us might look to i.e. Buddhism as being The Answer, I feel often its like we're looking to learn the Buddhist perspective on things, for example. To understand & comprehend Buddhism. Not that it is necessarily The One & Only Truth. Its just that we've been so inundated in the West with Christianity (especially twisted Christianity that doesn't resemble Jesus's teachings in my opinion), we've been so inundated with that view, its nice to be able to learn about other perspectives out there in this world.


I have no problem with that. I am merely calling attention to the fact that Buddhism, like all the other religions...tends to peddle some of its guesswork as fact.

I think there is value in mentioning that.


Quote:
**
If people here debate various topics, then someone comes along (as they appear to at irregular intervals) and claims that everyone here is basically beneath them, this is all guesswork, etc. then...Why even have this Debate Forum (in your opinion)?


I'm not sure where all that is coming from...but if you are applying it to me, you are way off base.


Quote:
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, etc.

I'm just trying to clarify your message in my mind.


I appreciate that...and I am trying to help you understand what I am saying.


Quote:

I'd also be interested in your logical proof that Buddhism, for example, is guesswork. Seriously.


You seem to have an obssession with proof.

I have no proofs for you.

I am not looking for proofs...I am looking for the evidence that is used to come to the conclusions various religions come to.

If you want to think the Buddhist position on reincarnation, for instance, is NOT guesswork...you certainly are entitled to that thought.

I think it is guesswork...just as I think non-dualism is guesswork.

No proof...just speculation on my part.

But if they are going to insist it is so...a certain burden accrues to them to provide whatever evidence they have.

I see none forthcoming.
0 Replies
 
extra medium
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 11:58 am
Frank,

Thanks for that, that clarifies where you are coming from in my mind. Some of your posts appeared to be leaning in the direction of "all Philosophy & Debate is meaningless guesswork." Which is okay too. But now I think I see more clearly the distinctions you're making.

The only part of your post that struck me as ironic:
Frank Apisa wrote:
You seem to have an obssession with proof..


ME??? Are you serious? Unreal. YOU'RE the one who is continually demanding proof from everyone and calling all their arguments guesswork.....??? I just thought it would be nice for you to supply proofs for your arguments too, since you (possibly quite rightly) demand indisputable proofs of everyone else. No biggie though. :wink:

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clarify and I look forward to "talking" with you in the future.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:35 pm
extra medium wrote:
Frank,

Thanks for that, that clarifies where you are coming from in my mind. Some of your posts appeared to be leaning in the direction of "all Philosophy & Debate is meaningless guesswork." Which is okay too. But now I think I see more clearly the distinctions you're making.

The only part of your post that struck me as ironic:
Frank Apisa wrote:
You seem to have an obssession with proof..


ME??? Are you serious? Unreal. YOU'RE the one who is continually demanding proof from everyone and calling all their arguments guesswork.....??? I just thought it would be nice for you to supply proofs for your arguments too, since you (possibly quite rightly) demand indisputable proofs of everyone else.


I meant that comment as ironic (in a jesting way)...coming right after you mentioned "proof" for the third time.

In any case, I have five thousand posts here in A2K. I defy you to find a single post where I asked for proof of anything.

I don't do that.

I ask for evidence...not proof.

Proof is way, way too hard to come by for me to ask for it.



Quote:
No biggie though. :wink: Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clarify and I look forward to "talking" with you in the future.


I'm enjoying discussing these things with you, too, EM.
0 Replies
 
extra medium
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:58 pm
alikimr wrote:
extra medium:
Thank you for your reply to my question.....but I must differ with you on your acceptance of the statement that "science cannot help you change your emotion--only religion can".

Science can, and does help in changing the emotionally disturbed people, for one thing, and more so than all the prayers that religion can muster it would appear. And it is not enough to dismiss that type of emotion as not being the "emotion" you would prefer to address in your argument.


alikimir,
When you speak of "Science" helping emotionally disturbed people, are you speaking of Psychology? It appears you probably are.

Thats an interesting question in itself. Because when you analyze many schools of Buddhism and Psychology, they have a LOT in common with one another. Some say things like "Buddhism is the most psychological of religions." A lot of psychologists will approach their patients with: "Hmmm....they are not happy. This person DESIRES something they are not getting. Or perhaps their DESIRES are unhealthy, inappropriate, etc. How can we address this?"

A lot of psychology is wrapped up in Desire, Suffering, and ways to alleviate this suffering that is caused by the attachment to Desire.
Same as Buddhism!

And a lot of emotionally disturbed people are living unbalanced lives in one way or another. One common treatment method is to help them work toward living a balanced life, a life of moderation. Very similar to Buddhism's Eightfold Path! (1. Right View, 2. Right Intention, 3. Right Speech, 4. Right Action, 5. Right Livelihood, 6. Right Effort, 7. Right Mindfulness, 8. Right Concentration).

To put it another way, if one followed the 4 Noble Truths (getting rid of unhealthy attachments to inappropriate desires) and the Eightfold Path of living in moderation above, its not hard to see how this could be a prescription for psychological health, (disregarding for the moment the debatable path to nirvana implications).

Psychology (science?) and Buddhism bleed into one another and overlap at some points. Its amazing the percentages of psychologists you see that are into eastern religions/philosophies...
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 02:05 pm
Interesting discussion. Frank, please enlightenment me on what you see as the difference between proof and UNAMBIGUOUS evidence.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 02:58 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Interesting discussion. Frank, please enlightenment me on what you see as the difference between proof and UNAMBIGUOUS evidence.


Since it was called to my attention that "unambiguous evidence" could be mistaken for a call for "proof"...I have stopped using that phrase.

When I did use it...I certainly meant to differentiate it from "proof"...and over at Abuzz, wrote several commentaries indicating that I was NEVER asking for proof.

And if you were to search through all of my posts over at Abuzz (can't really do that anymore) and all of my posts here...I studiously avoid asking for "proof."

To me...when I was using the phrase (which I used only in religious discussions)...I meant the difference to be...

Proof, of course, is uncontestable.

Unambiguous evidence would be evidence that opposing sides could not use as arguments for their side...without actually creating PROOF.

As you know, I had long debates both with theists and with atheists about belief systems.

Theists would often say: Look around...how else can you explain how this all got here?

They were using the (apparent) existence of the Universe as evidence of the existence of God.

Atheists would often say: Look around...do you see any gods?

They were using the (apparent) existence of the Universe as evidence of the non-existence of gods.

And both were right...it is evidence. But it is ambiguous evidence...not truly pointing to the existence of a God...or to the non-existence of gods.

So it was illogical for me to contend that there is NO evidence for the existence of God...nor that there is NO evidence that gods do not exist.

I determined that using "unambiguous evidence" would allow me to say what I meant to say...and started using that term. Nobody questioned it for several years...and aided me and my opponents in our debates.

But since it has been called into question..and since I think asking for proof in these cases is inappropriate...I've ceased using it.



In any case...evidence sometimes can be "unambiguous" and still not necessarily have to be proof.

I can, for instance, come up with unambiguous evidence that there is an NFL operating in our country...in the form of newspaper reports of weekend scores.

I don't think anyone would suppose that the weekend scores PROVES there is an NFL...but it is unambiguous evidence insofar as the weekend scores certainly are not evidence of any kind that there is not an NFL operating.

That is what I was thinking of when I developed the expression. But as I am noting for the third time...since it can be ambiguous, I am no longer using the expression.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 03:13 pm
Thanks for a satisfactory answer.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 03:24 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Thanks for a satisfactory answer.


Thanks for asking, JL. :wink:

Once again...directly to you this time:

Sorry about earlier in the week!

Gotta learn to rein in those reactions of mine!!!
0 Replies
 
extra medium
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 03:50 pm
Great. Now that everyone has hugged and made up:
CAN WE PLEASE START DEBATING (ARGUING) AGAIN? Laughing

This is after all, national debate day!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 04:43 pm
Screw you, EM!!!

Just kidding. Wanted to see what it feels like. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
extra medium
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 04:47 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Screw you, EM!!!
Just kidding. Wanted to see what it feels like. Very Happy


Well, whatever you believe it feels like, that is just another groundless illusion, so there.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 04:50 pm
Now THAT'S the way to handle aggressison.
0 Replies
 
nipok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 12:05 am
Re: For Awareness.......Science or Buddhism?
alikimr wrote:
Which is more important in being Aware of the "reality" around you...... a knowledge of Science, or an understanding of the "philosophy/religion/discipline "of Buddhism?



I would choose a knowledge of science and appreciation of Buddhism over a knowledge of Buddhism and appreciation of science but that would hold true for almost every religion.

Religion of all sorts is nothing more than a set of beliefs. One can believe in both science and religion and need not make such a strong distinction between the two. They need not be mutually exclusive but can be if you let them.

They both serve different purposes right now but in the end they may merge in such a way that the purposes served as separate entities could be better suited and sustained by their merger. 10,000 years from now how much faith will our lineages have in something that has faltered so much in the last 100 years?

Those religions that survive will need to take a Buddhist perspective and appreciate the evolving nature of knowledge and beliefs. For me I'll stick with science and the comfort that give to me in particular as I continue to fill in the gaps in the current paradigm and redevelop the model based on an unbiased perspective. The unbiased perspective is very hard to reach. Maybe a Buddhist might think of it as some type of enlightenment but I am enlightened. I can see our world, our history, our species, and this thread with a unique perspective and clarity because I choose to embrace science and appreciate all that science has yet to disprove.

See it works like this. Every habitable planet in the universe that permits the evolution of a sentient species able to create scripture will by its nature create scripture. Scripture will be created to explain the unknown in an attempt to control a fear of the unknown. This probably predates scripture by millions of years actually as spoken word would dictate what each tribe's religion was like. So the earliest religions predating scripture were most likely as varied as the imagination of its most vocal or respected members. As our intelligence grew and our basic understanding of the nature of the world around us grew we needed less and less mysticism to explain the unknown. As our need for mysticism decreases our belief in everything associated with that mysticism will likewise decrease.

So it only makes sense that all the ancillary sidelines of organized religion will need to some day take on a form all their own in order to survive along side science. That means that regardless of your religion, the time will come to take those morals and ethics and hold them as ideals that can exist without the punishment of eternal damnation for disobedience and do what is right because if nothing else it is logical.
0 Replies
 
nipok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 12:10 am
Re: For Awareness.......Science or Buddhism?
nipok wrote:
That means that regardless of your religion, the time will come to take those morals and ethics and hold them as ideals that can exist without the punishment of eternal damnation for disobedience and do what is right because if nothing else it is logical.


****, i sound like a drunk vulcan.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 10:22 pm
Nipok, we mean very different things by the term, mysticism. I refer to your comment:
"As our intelligence grew and our basic understanding of the nature of the world around us grew we needed less and less mysticism to explain the unknown. As our need for mysticism decreases our belief in everything associated with that mysticism will likewise decrease."

I agree, as the early anthropologist, Misha Titiev, said the more we achieve in terms of scientific engineering and medicine the less we rely on magical techniques for controlling our world. And I think it safe to say that sophisticated philosophical theorizing occured in non-magical terms before the advent of Science as we know it now. Witness the pre-Socratic greek philosophers.
Mysticism, as seen in zen Buddhism, Vedanta, Sufism, have nothing to do with magic. I see no need to choose between Science and Mysticism. Indeed, I see them as complementary. If we include Art and interpersonal love, we have the four pillars of my life.
0 Replies
 
nipok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 12:04 am
JLNobody wrote:
Nipok, we mean very different things by the term, mysticism. I refer to your comment:
"As our intelligence grew and our basic understanding of the nature of the world around us grew we needed less and less mysticism to explain the unknown. As our need for mysticism decreases our belief in everything associated with that mysticism will likewise decrease."

I agree, as the early anthropologist, Misha Titiev, said the more we achieve in terms of scientific engineering and medicine the less we rely on magical techniques for controlling our world. And I think it safe to say that sophisticated philosophical theorizing occured in non-magical terms before the advent of Science as we know it now. Witness the pre-Socratic greek philosophers.
Mysticism, as seen in zen Buddhism, Vedanta, Sufism, have nothing to do with magic. I see no need to choose between Science and Mysticism. Indeed, I see them as complementary. If we include Art and interpersonal love, we have the four pillars of my life.


I guess that mysticism can carry with it a negative connotation to many. I can appreciate the separation of mysticism as it relates to theories 5000 years old verses mysticism as it is used in modern times to relate to eastern religions. I suppose it was the labeling by westerners of the mystic nature of eastern religions and the subsequent adoption of the term by believers that made it worse. When the religions that preach peace and inner harmony and coexistence with nature were labeled as mystical, believers at the time should have stopped the use of the term before it became so wide spread. I personally appreciate a sect of Deism as my core belief but do find many of the "mystical" teachings to be right on target. I personally don't like the term mystical used to represent eastern religions so please understand I was not referring to eastern religions in my paraphrase above but was referring to archaic beliefs based on scriptures that are thousands of years old and older.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 04:00 am
Whatever gets ya past the graveyard!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 04:09 pm
Nipok, point taken.
Frank. There's no way to get past the graveyard, at least not to my knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 06:20 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Nipok, point taken.
Frank. There's no way to get past the graveyard, at least not to my knowledge.



:wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » For Awareness.......Science or Buddhism?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 05:28:39
▲ ▼