Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Again it would be misquoting my position to suggest that " suspending disbelief " requires leaving intelligence at the door and believing anything ... a closer correlation is not believing that all is completely known currently.
Again it would be misquoting my position to suggest that " suspending disbelief " requires leaving intelligence at the door and believing anything ... a closer correlation is not believing that all is completely known currently.
I know, and I didn't mean to say I'm more intelligent than you or anyone else. But "suspending disbelief" implies that belief or nonbelief is a conscious choice I can make in spite of what my intelligent mind has to say about the subject. When it comes to how the universe out there operates, my feelings and wants don't have anything to do with whether or not I believe something. You say, "suspend disbelief" but can you suspend your belief? Without any new evidence that your belief is wrong, because I assume you've considered all the arguments against already and decided they weren't compelling.
See, I don't need proof that something is not true, one hundred percent and valid against all time, before I disbelieve something that conflicts with reality as I know it. Nothing meets that standard. But if you present evidence for something that conflicts with reality as I know it, then I examine and adjust my view of reality and believe what seems to be true.
Perhaps it's even a failing on my part. If a million Christians have no trouble believing in a man coming back to life, maybe I'm the one born without some necessary element to my thinking.
Or perhaps you were born with some necessary element.
However, I simply cannot check my intelligence at the door and it is not in me to believe something with no evidence and that goes against the universe as we know it to be, simply because I want to believe it or it would be nice if it was true.
Is anyone asking you to do that? I'm certainly not. And as for the universe as we know it to be, well I guess what we know ( or think we know? ) is continually changing. People used to believe the earth was flat after all.
However, I simply cannot check my intelligence at the door and it is not in me to believe something with no evidence and that goes against the universe as we know it to be, simply because I want to believe it or it would be nice if it was true.
Is anyone asking you to do that? I'm certainly not. And as for the universe as we know it to be, well I guess what we know ( or think we know? ) is continually changing. People used to believe the earth was flat after all.
As I said before, it really doesn't matter to me what other Buddhists believe. What matters is how you use your beliefs to help or hinder your practice, and that's a personal matter. But, there are people who claim without the reincarnation/past life karma element, Buddhism loses its value as a practice leading to liberation. The opening question addresses this issue. There is a video on the web where Stephen Batchelor does a terrible job debating the issue with a Tibetan Buddhist friend, even.
The type of Buddhism I follow is called the Great Vehicle for a reason. There's room for believers, nonbelievers, Tibetan and Thailand and Zen and whatever. I believe that pretty much defines this board, even. It's not "anything goes" and Buddhism does have to mean something specific when we come down to it. What that actually is fills many happy hours of contemplation reading your responses.
Belief isn't actually the issue - the issue is how fast one needs proof.
Belief is the most fundamental building block of learning anything. We can't progress without believing in something, even if it's simply believing our own eyes. Believing our own eyes is "instant proof," or so we feel. But even that requires a confidence (belief) that it is possible to know something.
When your Dad tells you, "You can learn to ride a bike," that's belief in the future - "delayed proof." It doesn't mean you are a superstitious person if you believe your Dad; it means he has probably said things like this before, you believed him, and eventually received proof of his statement. You now have a reasoned belief in your Dad, and expect in the (hopefully) near future to receive proof that you can indeed learn to ride a bike.
My Mom said, "Someday you'll wish you'd learned to touch-type numerals." Twenty years later, that indeed came true. Very delayed proof.
Belief is nothing more than expectation of a certain outcome. We form our expectations based on experiences we have already had - patterns. If Dad hasn't led me wrong yet, I have a reasonable belief in new things he says. The longer it takes to receive proof, the less likely I am to learn the lesson in time - and the deeper the lesson is likely to have been. So whether the proof is instant or not is no indication of how true and important the prediction may be; in fact, some things which are harder to believe, turn out to have been more important.
The main difference I see between Christian and Buddhist approaches to belief is that Christianity does not really encourage one to form a reasoned belief, whereas Buddhism seems to me to incessantly encourage the student to do so. Reasoned belief in the teachings, reasoned belief in the teacher, reason reason reason. Passive versus active participation - "You'll be shown these things" versus "Show yourself these things."
Often times in Buddhism I feel there are ways to show ourselves things, but we don't work through the proofs offered, and then feel we are being asked to believe blindly. The Dalai Lama for example has given countless teachings showing how, step by step, Buddhist science explains the physics behind rebirth. So if we don't accept rebirth, that's fine, but it would be more genuine to say, "I don't accept the theory of a mental continuum because I believe consciousness only exists with brain activity, and then give the reason why.
Ironically, upon closer inspection, our statements of disbelief can often represent a blinder, less-reasoned position than the Buddhist theory we're choosing to disbelieve, lol. Mainly because Buddhism is so annoyingly diligent in requiring that any theory be able to show resonable building blocks.
Belief is the most fundamental building block of learning anything. We can't progress without believing in something, even if it's simply believing our own eyes. Believing our own eyes is "instant proof," or so we feel. But even that requires a confidence (belief) that it is possible to know something.
That sounds more like confidence. I was thinking of belief / disbelief in relation to things which currently appear unknowable.
That sounds more like confidence. I was thinking of belief / disbelief in relation to things which currently appear unknowable.
"Currently" is the operative word. I believe (!) Christianity has discouraged reason to the point that "belief" has come to imply not ever knowing. That's wrong, even by Christian standards, because we'll all "be shown" in the end. However, one can see that Christianity actively discourages seeking proof in this lifetime, which ends up feeling almost the same as being told you'll never know, for all practical purposes.
Christianity says you should shut your eyes and leap, whereas Buddhism says you should open your eyes and leap carefully - something like that.
Buddhism generally requires less blind faith than parents do, and Christianity require more, lol. Parenting - the Middle Way.
Again it would be misquoting my position to suggest that " suspending disbelief " requires leaving intelligence at the door and believing anything ... a closer correlation is not believing that all is completely known currently.
I know, and I didn't mean to say I'm more intelligent than you or anyone else. But "suspending disbelief" implies that belief or nonbelief is a conscious choice I can make in spite of what my intelligent mind has to say about the subject. When it comes to how the universe out there operates, my feelings and wants don't have anything to do with whether or not I believe something. You say, "suspend disbelief" but can you suspend your belief? Without any new evidence that your belief is wrong, because I assume you've considered all the arguments against already and decided they weren't compelling.
See, I don't need proof that something is not true, one hundred percent and valid against all time, before I disbelieve something that conflicts with reality as I know it. Nothing meets that standard. But if you present evidence for something that conflicts with reality as I know it, then I examine and adjust my view of reality and believe what seems to be true.
I didn't presume you were thinking you were more intelligent. An agnostic attitude towards rebirth is where it is at for me ( I will add, currently ... of course with experience this may well change ). Practice for me requires an attitude towards all things. My aim is not have certain beliefs, in fact any beliefs ... and my position in this discussion has not stated a belief in anything. I see rebirth in this life which is consistent with Buddhist teachings. It seems to me at this time that it is not possible to know what happens after death as it is not possible to know the workings of karma ... we can see and understand aspects but not the entire workings ... and we don't need to. Using our intelligence toward trying to understand such concepts is not what my practice is about.
Comments
See, I don't need proof that something is not true, one hundred percent and valid against all time, before I disbelieve something that conflicts with reality as I know it. Nothing meets that standard. But if you present evidence for something that conflicts with reality as I know it, then I examine and adjust my view of reality and believe what seems to be true.
As I said before, it really doesn't matter to me what other Buddhists believe. What matters is how you use your beliefs to help or hinder your practice, and that's a personal matter. But, there are people who claim without the reincarnation/past life karma element, Buddhism loses its value as a practice leading to liberation. The opening question addresses this issue. There is a video on the web where Stephen Batchelor does a terrible job debating the issue with a Tibetan Buddhist friend, even.
The type of Buddhism I follow is called the Great Vehicle for a reason. There's room for believers, nonbelievers, Tibetan and Thailand and Zen and whatever. I believe that pretty much defines this board, even. It's not "anything goes" and Buddhism does have to mean something specific when we come down to it. What that actually is fills many happy hours of contemplation reading your responses.
Belief is the most fundamental building block of learning anything. We can't progress without believing in something, even if it's simply believing our own eyes. Believing our own eyes is "instant proof," or so we feel. But even that requires a confidence (belief) that it is possible to know something.
When your Dad tells you, "You can learn to ride a bike," that's belief in the future - "delayed proof." It doesn't mean you are a superstitious person if you believe your Dad; it means he has probably said things like this before, you believed him, and eventually received proof of his statement. You now have a reasoned belief in your Dad, and expect in the (hopefully) near future to receive proof that you can indeed learn to ride a bike.
My Mom said, "Someday you'll wish you'd learned to touch-type numerals." Twenty years later, that indeed came true. Very delayed proof.
Belief is nothing more than expectation of a certain outcome. We form our expectations based on experiences we have already had - patterns. If Dad hasn't led me wrong yet, I have a reasonable belief in new things he says. The longer it takes to receive proof, the less likely I am to learn the lesson in time - and the deeper the lesson is likely to have been. So whether the proof is instant or not is no indication of how true and important the prediction may be; in fact, some things which are harder to believe, turn out to have been more important.
The main difference I see between Christian and Buddhist approaches to belief is that Christianity does not really encourage one to form a reasoned belief, whereas Buddhism seems to me to incessantly encourage the student to do so. Reasoned belief in the teachings, reasoned belief in the teacher, reason reason reason. Passive versus active participation - "You'll be shown these things" versus "Show yourself these things."
Often times in Buddhism I feel there are ways to show ourselves things, but we don't work through the proofs offered, and then feel we are being asked to believe blindly. The Dalai Lama for example has given countless teachings showing how, step by step, Buddhist science explains the physics behind rebirth. So if we don't accept rebirth, that's fine, but it would be more genuine to say, "I don't accept the theory of a mental continuum because I believe consciousness only exists with brain activity, and then give the reason why.
Ironically, upon closer inspection, our statements of disbelief can often represent a blinder, less-reasoned position than the Buddhist theory we're choosing to disbelieve, lol. Mainly because Buddhism is so annoyingly diligent in requiring that any theory be able to show resonable building blocks.
Christianity says you should shut your eyes and leap, whereas Buddhism says you should open your eyes and leap carefully - something like that.
Buddhism generally requires less blind faith than parents do, and Christianity require more, lol. Parenting - the Middle Way.
When one find that the medicine works, then there is no more doubt that it works.
Blind belief is not required.
Practice for me requires an attitude towards all things. My aim is not have certain beliefs, in fact any beliefs ... and my position in this discussion has not stated a belief in anything.
I see rebirth in this life which is consistent with Buddhist teachings. It seems to me at this time that it is not possible to know what happens after death as it is not possible to know the workings of karma ... we can see and understand aspects but not the entire workings ... and we don't need to.
Using our intelligence toward trying to understand such concepts is not what my practice is about.