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.
Impressions of Buddhism: Some amateur criticisms.
Hi!
I am currently a Christian, but am also exploring the teachings of other faiths. I've done some preliminary reading (covered the Wikipedia article), and think I have the basics of Buddhism down.
I must confess, my impressions are not good. Of course, I immediately suspect myself of bias, so I thought I'd turn it over to practitioners to put the ideas in a better light, that I may come out the wiser.
In my own analysis, Buddhism seems to me to be meta-ethically nihilistic, lacking a solid basis for ethics such as theism provides. Without God, what is moral law? How does one divide good from evil? The valuable from the valueless? These problems are common to all atheistic ethics, and I don't think Buddhism does much better than its fellows. It's not clear that Buddhism provides an answer to this, or even wants to. The concepts of Dhukka, Karma, and the ordinary application of the Eightfold Path come into question here.
Beginning with Dhukka, which I gather is the disquietude, or "suffering" caused by attachment and desire of "illusions," which the Buddhist labels all objects of desire. This seems to defy morality, for even if they are illusions, it even seems right that we should desire some of them, like the illusions of other people to love, even though other people don't really exist, or to desire a world of peace, even though such may never come to fruition. Surely it is better to desire such and go unfulfilled, than to turn one's back on what it is righteous to desire?
Secondly, it's all very well to describe existence as dhukka, but why should we care about dhukka at all? Where's the virtue in transcending it? Where's the evil in enduring it? If Dhukka is neither here nor there, why ought anyone be preoccupied with leaving it behind?
The law of karma might be suggested as a way to generate ethical statements- Whatever karma punishes is bad and what it rewards is good. It's all very well to suggest that some impersonal law of cause and effect, karma, operates that generates foul consequences out of foul deeds, but is such an effect, if indeed it exists (which I doubt, considering the wicked do seem to flourish sometimes), an adequate basis for morality? I don't think so, for it seems to be a mere statement of fact, as opposed to a normative "ought" statement. Is it a good reason to suppose we ought not to approve of a particular action, just because we don't like where it leads?
Lastly, the ordinary Buddhist practice of familiar virtues such as compassion and moderation are said to be carried out in order to appease this impersonal karmic force, if I understand Buddhism correctly, and so acquire inner peace because we will not be disturbed by the troubles brought from imperfect virtue. Surely, this goes against our basic intuitions of oughtness. We ought to do something, cultivate some behaviour, because that behaviour is good, because we ought to, not simply because we are forced to due to how the universe is rigged up. In theism, for example, where I think the best accounts of moral oughtnes are to be found, the "oughtness" is found in the innate authority of the theistic God. While some strains of theism do believe in Hell, it is the authority of the theistic God, rather than the threat of Hell, which generates moral obligation and value. Doesn't the Buddhist alternative, using virtue as a means to an amoral end, relegate conscience to an irritating obstacle to be overcome on the way to personal enlightenment, rather than a guide to right action? Do I misunderstand? If I don't, that seems to me to be a rather nihilistic, almost cynical approach to take to moral value.
Buddhism also seems to me to be metaphysically deficient, with its denial of such things as selves, persons, and eternality, things which, to me, pretty obviously exist. The method by which these things are demonstrated to be "illusions" seemed to me in the Buddism article to be spurious at best. For instance, if selfhood is an illusion, then what undergoes the illusion? It seems internally inconsistent that an illusion should happen to no-one. A thing may be made of many parts, to be sure, and none of those parts may be a thing, but surely it is the assembly of the parts which we call the thing, and in that regard things really exist? Even granting that they are all illusions, surely illusions exist, and therefore at least one kind of thing does display distinctness and independent being?
In any case, this metaphysical stance further removes the possibility of a coherent basis for ethics emerging, for if selves don't exist, why should I care about my self, or any self?
Thirdly, the end of the practice of Buddhism, Nirvana, is from what I understand of it an end that fails to properly recommend itself as any sort of thing to be striven for, especially when compared to my own theistic notions of ultimate reward. If I understand it right, it is a state of ultimate contentment caused by the removal of all attachment and desire. Surely, it is better to desire what we ought to desire, and have those desires continually fulfilled, rather than to simply call sour grapes on the rest of the universe and say that you didn't desire anything anyway?
Of course, there are other doctrines of Buddhism that I find trouble with, such as its monism (I don't see many good arguments for the notion that "all is one"), its doctrine of some condition of continual rebirth that we need liberation from, and so on, but I think that the questions (or, if you like, criticisms) that I've outlined above are the best starting points for discussion.
I am currently a Christian, but am also exploring the teachings of other faiths. I've done some preliminary reading (covered the Wikipedia article), and think I have the basics of Buddhism down.
I must confess, my impressions are not good. Of course, I immediately suspect myself of bias, so I thought I'd turn it over to practitioners to put the ideas in a better light, that I may come out the wiser.
In my own analysis, Buddhism seems to me to be meta-ethically nihilistic, lacking a solid basis for ethics such as theism provides. Without God, what is moral law? How does one divide good from evil? The valuable from the valueless? These problems are common to all atheistic ethics, and I don't think Buddhism does much better than its fellows. It's not clear that Buddhism provides an answer to this, or even wants to. The concepts of Dhukka, Karma, and the ordinary application of the Eightfold Path come into question here.
Beginning with Dhukka, which I gather is the disquietude, or "suffering" caused by attachment and desire of "illusions," which the Buddhist labels all objects of desire. This seems to defy morality, for even if they are illusions, it even seems right that we should desire some of them, like the illusions of other people to love, even though other people don't really exist, or to desire a world of peace, even though such may never come to fruition. Surely it is better to desire such and go unfulfilled, than to turn one's back on what it is righteous to desire?
Secondly, it's all very well to describe existence as dhukka, but why should we care about dhukka at all? Where's the virtue in transcending it? Where's the evil in enduring it? If Dhukka is neither here nor there, why ought anyone be preoccupied with leaving it behind?
The law of karma might be suggested as a way to generate ethical statements- Whatever karma punishes is bad and what it rewards is good. It's all very well to suggest that some impersonal law of cause and effect, karma, operates that generates foul consequences out of foul deeds, but is such an effect, if indeed it exists (which I doubt, considering the wicked do seem to flourish sometimes), an adequate basis for morality? I don't think so, for it seems to be a mere statement of fact, as opposed to a normative "ought" statement. Is it a good reason to suppose we ought not to approve of a particular action, just because we don't like where it leads?
Lastly, the ordinary Buddhist practice of familiar virtues such as compassion and moderation are said to be carried out in order to appease this impersonal karmic force, if I understand Buddhism correctly, and so acquire inner peace because we will not be disturbed by the troubles brought from imperfect virtue. Surely, this goes against our basic intuitions of oughtness. We ought to do something, cultivate some behaviour, because that behaviour is good, because we ought to, not simply because we are forced to due to how the universe is rigged up. In theism, for example, where I think the best accounts of moral oughtnes are to be found, the "oughtness" is found in the innate authority of the theistic God. While some strains of theism do believe in Hell, it is the authority of the theistic God, rather than the threat of Hell, which generates moral obligation and value. Doesn't the Buddhist alternative, using virtue as a means to an amoral end, relegate conscience to an irritating obstacle to be overcome on the way to personal enlightenment, rather than a guide to right action? Do I misunderstand? If I don't, that seems to me to be a rather nihilistic, almost cynical approach to take to moral value.
Buddhism also seems to me to be metaphysically deficient, with its denial of such things as selves, persons, and eternality, things which, to me, pretty obviously exist. The method by which these things are demonstrated to be "illusions" seemed to me in the Buddism article to be spurious at best. For instance, if selfhood is an illusion, then what undergoes the illusion? It seems internally inconsistent that an illusion should happen to no-one. A thing may be made of many parts, to be sure, and none of those parts may be a thing, but surely it is the assembly of the parts which we call the thing, and in that regard things really exist? Even granting that they are all illusions, surely illusions exist, and therefore at least one kind of thing does display distinctness and independent being?
In any case, this metaphysical stance further removes the possibility of a coherent basis for ethics emerging, for if selves don't exist, why should I care about my self, or any self?
Thirdly, the end of the practice of Buddhism, Nirvana, is from what I understand of it an end that fails to properly recommend itself as any sort of thing to be striven for, especially when compared to my own theistic notions of ultimate reward. If I understand it right, it is a state of ultimate contentment caused by the removal of all attachment and desire. Surely, it is better to desire what we ought to desire, and have those desires continually fulfilled, rather than to simply call sour grapes on the rest of the universe and say that you didn't desire anything anyway?
Of course, there are other doctrines of Buddhism that I find trouble with, such as its monism (I don't see many good arguments for the notion that "all is one"), its doctrine of some condition of continual rebirth that we need liberation from, and so on, but I think that the questions (or, if you like, criticisms) that I've outlined above are the best starting points for discussion.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hi, Didymus. Thanks for your impressions. What would you like to get out of the discussion you're starting?
I think this quote from the first section of the first sutra in the Middle-length discourses is a good starting point for discussion:
As I read through your post what I see are some very common misconceptions. I am not sure where to begin.
I am going to suggest that you try to rework your OP to present a more limited, single question to be addressed. Not to say you can't ask more than one question, but by starting with a single question it allows the conversation to proceed in an orderly manner rather than scattering all over the place.
Your question here, as I understand it, isn't purely related to Buddhism, but any religion or ethical system that doesn't derive it's morality/ethics from an external authority such as 'God'.
I would suggest some research on ethics (wikipedia can be a reasonable starting point) as there are many ways that have been used to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action or thought. Determining what is right/wrong on the basis of a set of external rules is one way humans have reached their conclusions. In Buddhism, right and wrong are not terms used as commonly as skillful or unskillful with the skillful leading away from suffering and unskillful leading to suffering. The exact terminology will vary from one school to another, but right and wrong are determined by whether the thought or action leads to or from suffering for ourselves and others. In this sense Buddhists would regard killing and stealing as wrong or unskillful just as pretty much everyone else does regardless of how their ethics are derived.
Here I don't know how to respond as your perceptions are not correct concerning desire. In your example of desire for world peace, this isn't a 'bad' or 'unskillful' thing to a Buddhist. Many Buddhists actively work to promote such a goal as peace lessens one type of suffering. For a better understanding of dukkha I will point you here
Let's say we encounter a theistic tradition whose deity established a commandment that said all races other than one were inferior and thus were fit to use as slaves by the superior race. Would you be willing to accept the 'rightness' of the moral law just because the deity said so? If not, how would you determine that this moral rule direct from the deity was 'wrong'?
I know you make other points and have more questions, but this was the best I was willing to do prior to getting some clarification from you on how you would like to proceed. Hopefully this has been of some help.
Just my thoughts. You just said it better. Thumbs up
So far, some good points of discussion have emerged in the area of meta-ethics. It's a good starting point.
Yes, there have. I'm pretty well read in (Western) ethics. Most of them do not provide an adequate reason for moving beyond nihilism. It seems to me that, on the surface, Buddhism fares no better.
I'm not interested in skill, but in the question of right and wrong, good and evil. After all, if it is not good to be skillful, why bother to be? Why ought the bad man not create suffering for others? Simply stating the consequences of his actions, ie, his actions do in fact create more misery for others, and, maybe, for himself, does not entail that what he's doing is wrong. If suffering simply is what it is, why ought one to bother getting rid of it, or stopping those who create it?
The question of right and wrong is, in my estimation, the question which ought to be of supreme importance to everyone, for if some things are right and others wrong, and something makes them so, then surely it is the source of morality which commands our allegiance, and it is the course of action prescribed by this source, whatever it may be, which we ought to follow, and not others? If it turned out, for example, that according one ought not to move beyond suffering, then surely, regardless of whether there is a surefire skillful way of transcending Dhukka, there's no good reason to follow it?
What makes it true that one ought not create suffering? Surely, if there is a law that makes it so, and law must have a prescriber, it is the prescriber's will which we ought to be concerned with? If it is true that there is such a moral prescriber to whom we all owe allegiance, then surely Buddhists are turning their backs on their own true purpose in chasing after Nirvana?
If the theistic tradition turned out to be true, then yes, I would accept it. If the deity existed, and it was a necessary being with innate authority, then it would be true by definition, I think, that its commands would be right. It's the same as saying, "if racism were morally right, then would racism be morally right?" It's a disgusting prospect from where I'm sitting, obviously, but if those were the facts then those would be the facts. As it so happens, I think that those are not the facts.
Of course, such a command would likely lead me to believe that this theistic tradition is false, as it conflicts with my innate sense of right and wrong, and I would look for God elsewhere. Yet, it seems to me that the answer to the question must be some kind of God, if not the racist God you describe, for I recognize that this innate sense of right and wrong that I have does not determine morality, that is, things aren't morally good or bad simply because I think they are. Rather, my conscience seems to me to be my way of accessing a law that governs such things. Such a law, it seems to me, has to be rooted in the commandments of some God, for I do not have the authority to make the moral law what it is.
In any case, my use of theism here, with which I am myself familiar, was just an illustration as to what I would expect a justification for moral law to look like, to raise the question in my audience's mind. If you think "no, that can't be right, it's not God's will which makes something morally right, it's something else and I know what it is," the illustration's done its job.
You are welcome. Thank you for discussing the issue in a dispassionate manner.
There is a part of me that wants to respond, but another part would appreciate it if you would explain what you consider nihilistic about Buddhist belief. It would be easier to address something specific than something so broad.
It appears to me that you are saying your ultimate source of ethics is a divine lawgiver who only gives laws you already agree with (your innate sense of right and wrong). Am I misunderstanding? Perhaps wait until further down to formulate a reply as you go into more detail.
I can only offer you my perception, flawed as it probably is. You appear to be very uncomfortable with uncertainty. Your source of ethics, in order for you to be comfortable in attempting to live morally, must come from a source that is absolutely guaranteed to be correct. The end result is you end up having to believe in something that is unknowable namely whether or not anything meeting your definition of 'God' exists. It's only *if* your idea of God exists that you can *know* the moral laws of this God are absolutely true. You still end up with uncertainty
I don't think you will find any absolute ethical system within Buddhism, only a relative one. Buddhism has a lot in common with ethical systems, but isn't really one. Ethics really isn't it's focus, just kind of a side effect if you will. So, if what makes the most sense to you is to understand moral and immoral relative to what a particular God says you should do so for as long as that remains what makes the most sense to you.
To me what makes the most sense is to determine what is moral and what is immoral by what effect the action or thought has. In other words what makes the most sense to me is to determine what is moral relative to it's effect upon myself and others.
If an action leads directly to a lot of suffering for people, it is immoral. If it leads directly to people being happy and no suffering then it is moral. In between lies an infinite number of shades of gray.
Well, that's what I'm talking about, when I call Buddhism nihilistic and amoral. I certainly think that there's a moral truth, whether we can agree with it or not. If there isn't, then how can one condemn evil or laud the good? Such nihilism is not befitting of one who takes our intellectual faculties seriously.
If compassion is merely a gateway to suffering, why cultivate it? If compassion doesn't invite action by moral authority, it's not really compassion, is it?
I believe the contents of the moral law are more or less what the Christian religion has discerned from reflection on the scriptures and our consciences, both tools which we have been given and are able to use to discern the moral law.
But that's neither here nor there, really, since we're not at the point where I'd seriously propose that you take Christianity seriously. I am only interested in what you think makes the moral law what it is.
Thanks, this was helpful!
I don't think I'm begging any questions, because I don't think you have to agree with me that there actually is a moral law. You could say that no such thing exists, but I would argue that there are destructive consequences on your ethics. If there is no such thing as moral law, then there would be no value to clear, stable, inclusive awareness. Such awareness would simply be different from clouded, unstable, exclusionary awareness. Effective and compassionate action, similarly, would simply be different from, but not better than, ineffective or malevolent action. In order for one thing to be more morally valuable than another, it would have to be true that one ought to regard them as valuable, whether one actually does do so or not. If value is thus anchored in "oughtness," and oughtness is not divorcible from authoritative prescription, then the denial of such a body of authoritative prescription results in a denial of the value of one's own ethical system.
Again, you're just begging the question. The point is, adults don't need a grounding in "moral truth." That's an authoritarian fiction. Simply attending to the experience of the present moment provides at least as much guidance as a contract on a stone tablet, because it's very hard to commit an unwholesome act when you're really paying attention.
Why do you want to do that?
In a Buddhist context, compassion means experiencing the suffering in a situation. It's not cultivated, so much as uncovered. (We cover it over because it's painful.) It invites action to end the suffering just as pain invites action to end pain. There is nothing about "moral authority" in the definition of compassion.
Value is not anchored in "oughtness." It is a conditioned mental phenomenon, like everything else.
It's going to be hard to argue that, when you know nothing about my behavior.
You appear to be talking in a circle. You say not everyone agrees that there is a moral truth, but then ask if there is no moral truth how can one condemn evil. One can't. You start with the belief that evil has a self of it's own. That good has a self of it's own. Do they? The concepts of good and evil are just that, concepts. They have no self of their own. Believing that good and evil have a self of their own, in Buddhist terms, is wrong view
But aren't you proposing that we subjugate our intellect to divine decree? If you are not then are you proposing we subjugate divine decree to our intellect? It sounds to me like you are, at least conditionally, advocating that we subjugate our intellect to divine decree (lean not upon your own understanding...). It's fine for you to recommend such a thing for consideration, but not if you then imply it is those who do not subjugate their minds to divine decree that are not taking their intellectual faculties seriously.
Compassion is what love becomes when it encounters suffering. The truth of this statement is experienced directly. Compassion brings with it motivation to do what one can to end or at least reduce suffering. I am not sure where you get the idea that compassion is a gateway to suffering. Compassion is a gateway to ending suffering, in so far as it is possible to do so.
The scriptures say genocide is OK if those being killed don't believe in the same God and the pages of the scriptures give numerous examples of this being carried out by God's 'chosen' people.
Now, you may take offense at what I just wrote and say "But *I* don't believe that way!" Clearly though, many who appeal to the same scriptures do believe that way. Who is right? Who is wrong? How can one know?
Similarly many Christians point to a few passages in the Christian scriptures that appear to condemn homosexuality as an abomination. For some this leads to godhatesfags.com and their actions. Others don't see it the same way and they ordain openly homosexual clergy. Who is right and who is wrong?
The instant one appeals to an external authority such as an invisible, silent God there is a problem. 2 people reading the same scriptures and both using their consciences (as you suggested) reach 2 different conclusions as to what the deity meant. With no real agreement as to what the deity meant, of what value is there in claiming this deity is the ultimate authority on morality? Even if true, if the deity isn't going to become visible or audible and periodically correct wrong understandings then we as humans are left to figure it out ourselves
The end result is we are left to determine what is moral and what is immoral without certainty that we are correct.
I don't "consider Buddhism nihilistic" in the way that, say, I regard Nietzsche as nihilistic. It doesn't, in the manner of Nietzsche, actively assert the meaninglessness of existence and the vacuity of morality. However, I'm finding it very difficult to see why, if Buddhism is true, existence is not meaningless and morality is not a mere delusion.
In a sense, you're not far off.
Think of it this way. I conceive of conscience as the "eyes" by which I look upon the moral law of God, and revelation as the "ears" by which I hear testimony as to what the law is like. My "eyes" in this case aren't perfect, so I depend on trustworthy testimony to make up the difference. Naturally, if something sufficiently contradicts what I see with my "eyes" without good arguments as to why my "eyes" are mistaken, I would be reluctant to accept it as reality, and I think I would be epistemically justified in rejecting it. This doesn't mean that the law I perceive is given so as to agree with me.
It's not really a matter of knowing the laws to be true. I'm not at this point asserting that you should accept my theistic perspective. Whatever the truth happens to be, I don't think I'll ever have a complete grasp of it, but for the grace of God. It is one thing, however, to be uncertain of a truth that exists beyond one's grasp, and another to believe that no such truth exists at all.
What I am asserting is that any atheistic system of ethics lacks the very possibility of any sort of true ethics. It lacks the very possibility of moral truth. This is a problem for Buddhist ethics.
Besides, of course God exists.
Heheh, that's some pretty weak tea, there. I'm interested in truth, not simply what makes sense to me. If something's "true for for you," I don't see why it shouldn't be true for me, too.
So, if ethics isn't the focus, then what's the point? If there's no ethical ground on which Nirvana is a worthy ideal, why seek after it? All would be pointless and vain.
That's how most people make moral judgments, and it's a good method, as far as it goes. My question, though, is what makes it true that causing suffering for oneself and others is bad, and creating joy is good? In absence of God, all I see is that suffering is different from joy, and people like joy, and dislike suffering. None of these facts entails that suffering is evil, and joy is good.
It's not the matter of moral guidance, but the character of moral truth that I am concerned with, here. If there is no such thing as moral truth, then no form of guidance, whether it be a stone tablet or "experiencing the present" is a guide to anything, since there's no truth for them to be a guide to.
On Buddhism, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to believe that there is such a moral truth at all, unlike theism.
So value is whatever you are conditioned to think it is, by your lights? Well, that's rather bleak, isn't it?
Oh, I'm quite certain you're a decent enough chap. I was referring to your ideas about ethics, not your actual conduct. What I meant was that your ethics doesn't have normative force, making it not a system of ethics at all.
Shut up about "God". Another blatherer in the outer courtyard.
No. Why?
Get your story straight.
I don't believe that evil is some kind of independent entity. I do, however, suggest that the concept of evil refers to something true about reality.
One would be truly foolish if, God being God, one did not subject oneself to his will, would one not? If God's existence is accepted, then the best course of action is obiviously to follow him.
I'm not implying, at this point, that not subjecting your mind to divine decree is foolish. I simply said that, by asserting that there is no moral truth, you don't take moral intuitions seriously enough.
I get the idea from the comment made here that compassion is the pain one feels on others' behalf. Why is getting rid of the pain by stopping someone else's suffering better than simply getting rid of the pain by suppressing compassion? It seems that Buddhism, at least from the impression I get, reduces the feeling of compassion to an inconvenience, rather than a virtue.
Well, if God is God, then he has the right to end whoever's life he wills. Doesn't mean that those specific instances justify every genocidal inclination one might have.
That's a matter for textual criticism. There is a truth to be argued for, whether there is agreement or not. I'm of the opinion that the scriptures do consider homosexual activity to be evil.
If there exists a deity, then at least both arguers can agree that there is some truth to be discovered. That, even if they're wrong, there is a point to worrying about moral issues. This, I feel, is very important.
Oh, I think it matters as much as anything can. If a deity exists, then nihilism is definitely untrue. That there is a purpose and meaning and value to everything and every one, whether we grasp that purpose or not. It is a tremendous thing. If such a deity didn't exist, not only would people not know whether they were right or wrong, they could not in principle be right or wrong, since no possibility for such things exists.
Not much of an argument. Practice is vain if there's no reason to practice.
Still, interesting that there's a former theist in here. What's "conceptual idolatry?"
I'm not a former Theist. You don't know what conceptual Idolitry is. It's beyond you ken.
Isn't the point of Buddhism to see the truth, if there is one?
If the truth is that you and I are valueless, that life has no meaning or end, that the good and evil we see are not really what they seem, then, really, you're nothing but a contented nihilist. I'm not sure that contentment is the correct response to nihilism.
Hey, now. I've got a nice peaceful image of Buddhists that I'd like you not to ruin. Let's not sling bad words around, eh?
Besides, I haven't advanced any distinctly Christian doctrines. My arguments for the superiority of theistic meta-ethics could equally be advanced from the point of view of Sikhism. I'm just being honest and saying that I am a Christian, which is part of the reason I hold those beliefs, rather than pretending to not have a dog in the fight.
Have a nice day.:)
Hey, now, "cartoonish?" that's neither here nor there, man. I'm disappointed. Also, I'm feeling a lot of condescension in here...
It's true enough that to make pictures of God of one's own and equate them with Him is idolatry. It's equally a crime to deny God's self-revelation, on the theistic view. More terrifying than idolatry to the theist, I think, would be the prospect of turning God into a nothingness, and so becoming an atheist. That said, again, the accusation's really neither here nor there. After all, if God doesn't exist, idolatry's not evil, eh?
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?p=121898#post121898
Eh, I found it insulting, of course. He is completely wrong about Christian theology.
I only pray and hope that I haven't equally misconstrued Buddhism in this thread, because that would be quite contrary to my own purpose here. While I believe, as all of us nefarious Christians do, that Buddhists are mistaken and need to be corrected, I hope that I at least aim at truly Buddhist doctrine and not at straw men.
I didn't say that. I said that all values are conditioned mental phenomena. To recognize this is not nihilism.
I'll speak as I like. I'm not saying you're not welcome, here, but your conceptual biases are definitely making an asshole of you, here. If someone dropped by to tell you they've come to refute your way of life after an hour of studying it on wikipedia, what would you think of them?
Oh, come on. You're here looking for converts.
You find Buddhist doctrine insulting so I don't see how that is possible.
Ah, thanks for the correction. Would it be fair, then, to ask what the point of peace is? Or, if it is asserted that peace is the point, why peace is the point, and according to whom?
So where does seeing the truth fit in? I'm pretty sure that Buddhism involves, at some point, seeing through illusions in order to remove attachments to illusions.
Conditioned mental phenomena, construed strictly as such, lack normative force. Unless you'd care to elaborate a bit, I fail to see how conditioned mental phenomena can possibly confer value on anything.
I'd rub my hands, get the holy water ready, and unearth the baptism certificates.
Hah. If all the atheists I've met on the internet have failed to disabuse me of my theistic delusions, I could hardly expect my own questions, however fatal I think they may be in my ignorance, to preturb someone of another faith. Should the opportunity arise, though, why not?
Your beliefs are sincere and I respect that. Your intentions for joining this forum are another matter. That is for a moderator to address.
1. You cannot understand Buddhism from a wikipedia article anymore than I can come to be an expert on the bible by reading a wikipedia article.
2. if you genuinely want to know more about Buddhism, I think you would be best to study the sutras, and or the words of teachers of Buddhism, rather than comeing to a site called "New Buddhist".
3. I assure you that as wise as you might be, there must be something to a religion that has lasted for 2500 years and had millions of followers, no?
4. Karma is cause and effect. it is not punishment and reward. I do not do anything worrying about Karma. I do good because it is good. I try to avoid evil but being a selfish ego based person filled with blind passions...and not an enlightened person....sometimes I screw up.
5. If we do good because we "ought" then there is no need for God in the equation. God only comes in if we do good because God says we should or else we will go to hell.
If hypothetically it were proven beyond any doubt that there is no God...would you react by commiting all manner of evil? I suspect not. In fact I bet you would continue to be a pretty good person.
6. on the idea of self and no-self.
Think of a wave upon the ocean. for a time there is undeniably a wave, however the waves self nature is water. The wave cannot exist without the ocean, and once the conditions are no longer present the wave will no longer be....yet there will still be exactly the same amount of water. The only thing lost is the idea and form "wave"
7. on one-ness.
one ness is not some poetic idea. It is a physical reality.
I cannot exist without my heart brain and lungs functioning...but I also require rain, plants, sun gravity, the synthesizing of heavy elements, and a whole universe and reality to exist within.
Without any one of these...poof, this wave is not there anymore. The Sun and gravity are as much "me" as my brain, or my lungs, or my heart.
Like a wave to the ocean, I come from this stuff, and I will return to this stuff. I don't need a scripture Buddhist or other to tell me this...it is demonstrated all around me. It just turns out that Buddhist scriptures Do talk about this.
Anyway that is all I have to add. Again if your interest is genuine, you are looking in the wrong places...seek experts not those new to the practice, and approach it with an open mind, not one seeking to find fault so as to be assured your own path is right.
If on the other hand you are here hoping to convert some pagan Buddhists..then you should be more genuine, but I will choose to believe you are honestly curious, so again....look for more authoritative sources of information is my advise. Without question you have some deep misunderstandings of a great deal of things.
As a former Christian (20 or so years) (evangelical and somewhat fundy too), I do not consider the Christian God moral, but immoral. My understanding of the Bible's morality is that it is almost wholly immoral. Genocide, bigotry, misogyny and so forth. There are some nice bits about love in there, but they don't cancel out the bulk of it. Now, that is just my perception as one who became atheist as a result of reading the bible from cover to cover many times. It makes serious errors of fact, well disproven by credible science.
So, *if* this God exists would the best course of action be to follow Him? In my opinion, no. Certainly it is conceivable that what you call God is really an alien race playing a game on you. They want to see if you will excuse mass murder in the name of 'God said it was OK'. They want to see if you will deny women the right to vote or hold a job because 'God' says their place is in the home, submissive to their husbands. They want to see if you will practice bigotry toward homosexuals because 'God' says it is an abomination without offering any reason to believe it is other than 'because I said so'.
Please note that I am not slamming any individual here. I am saying, plainly, that in my opinion, the Bible is the most powerful argument for atheism I have ever come upon. If I were to read the Koran I might change my mind.
I am not asserting there is no moral truth. I am asserting that neither you nor I are able to determine if there is or not.
Then you misunderstand. You are on a Buddhist forum so if any Buddhist regards compassion as an inconvenience I am sure they will speak up.
If God is God and God exercises his right to order humans to commit genocide then I think those who ally themselves willingly with this God are scary people. Seems to me that all the unrest in the Middle East is between people who follow their version of such a God. Problem is they can't agree on what it is this God actually meant so they kill each other until only those who see things their way remain.
Sorry, but I want no part of this ethical system.
So what?
Your current belief is that unless an unknowable deity with a really unclear and often apparently contradictory message exists there is no meaning to life.
Okay.
So what?
The basics of Christianity can be summed up in a 17-line creed, actually. And the wiki is pretty dang thorough. That said, I came here specifically because Buddhism seems to have terrible deficiencies to it, and I'd like to think that these deficiencies are a result of my own misunderstanding.
Eh, I figured that there'd be people here who knew what they're talking about.
Eh, paganism lasted thousands of years and had millions of followers, too. Again, I'm not saying that my supreme cunning has tipped the Buddha from his pedestal, any more than a village atheist can claim to have killed God. I am, however, presenting what I think are robust challenges to Buddhism's philosophical assertions, and would have these challenges met, if possible.
This is good! I think Karma is pretty irrelevant to moral considerations, as well. The thing is, if good is good, what makes it so? Whose law makes it so?
Ah, this is again quite an excellent argument against theistic ethics, even if it isn't a good argument for Buddhist ethics. We seem to be on the same wavelength. I would answer that "oughtness" can only be construed as oobedience to certain authoritative prescriptions, and it only makes sense to speak of authoritative prescriptions as the product of an authoritative prescriber, God. The personhood of the basis for ethics seems to me inescapable, for if the prescriptions which we regard as the moral law are not made by a person, how can they be said to be prescriptions at all?
This, however, is a pretty confused argument. If it were proven beyond doubt that God didn't exist, I would continue acting the way I do, true, but I would also know that I'm not really being a good or evil or morally neutral person by doing so. The whole question of morality would be meaningless.
A wave is a combination of substance and form. Once the combination ceases to exist, the wave ceases to be. I don't think it can in any meaningful sense be said that the wave is entirely identical to its water, for if that were the case, the wave would persist for as long as its water does. Of course, you could fiddle with definitions of identity, but I'm not sure that in doing so you could preserve its commonsense meaning.
I disagree. You could cease to exist, and the sun would keep chugging along. The sun was around before you existed. Were the sun to extinguish tomorrow, and you had a spacesuit, you'd outlive it. Therefore, you are not the sun.
So you came to be, and one day you'll be not. Clearly, you are not identical to the world that remains.
Thanks for engaging with my problems! This is rather much more like what I thought the responses would be like, really.
What is this "truth" of which you speak? There are true facts, and there are false facts. "Truth" is a nominalization of an adjective, "true." I don't think there's any such thing.
How do you know whether something is true or not? By experiencing it. Anything else is an inference. This is one layer of the illusion which Buddhist practice cuts through: the notion that it makes sense to take anything beyond direct experience as absolute truth.
A value is a value, whether it's a conditioned mental phenomenon or not.
It's clear from your behavior in this thread that I actually have a better grasp of the basics of Christianity than you do, though I came to them through Buddhist practice. It took the better part of a decade. It wasn't a matter of apprehending ideas, it was a matter of letting obfuscatory ideas go. I hope one day you apprehend the basics of your religion, too.
Hah, you're clearly not up to date on the literature. I'm not here to woo you back to the flock, or whatever, so don't worry. That said, the Bible wasn't written yesterday for you personally, using literary categories you're familiar with. If you'd care to look, I'm sure that Christian scholarship can more than accomodate your questions.
Well, if this God exists, then there would be a beinng which possesses inherent, necessary authority. Your opinion really wouldn't matter, as, in this case, you would owe allegiance to him. For God to exist is for others to owe duties to him. That's part of what being God means.
If you see fit to judge some God, then either you're mistaken, or you judge by some higher law than that God's. In which case, it is the Lawgiver for that higher law that is your God, as far as I can see, and that suits my purposes in this thread perfectly fine. All I'm arguing is that some kind of God must be the basis for moral authority. I'm not arguing for any particular religious tradition. I could be talking about Zoroastrianism of Sikhism, for all the particular religious doctrine I've talked about.
Oh, I get you, no worries.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure that moral agnosticism is more preferrable than moral nihilism, however. At best you'd be in moral error, since you do not live your life with intention to be ethical (How could you, if you don't even know what moral truth is?). At worst, there is no moral truth, and all is vain.
Alrighty, I'll take your word for it.
If God exists, then what you want really doesn't come into it. But, again, that's neither here nor there. If you're so set against the religion you discarded, an anonymous stranger over the internet isn't going to convince you.
I don't think God is unknowable. There are many good arguments that I won't have time to go into here, and which are made by far more capable philosophers than I, which I think hold true. I think many of our basic intuitions provide an actionable account of God's will.
As to the so what, well, if it were true that without God there is no ground for moral worth, for me, there would be little issue, as I'm a theist. There actually does exist a God, therefore life has meaning, moral questions have significance, and I can live life for the good and in opposition to evil.
For you personally, perhaps nothing, too. You're a non-theist, but you've decided the question isn't worth your interest. You're perfectly happy with the self-acknowledged delusion of moral and individual worth, when really there is no such thing. For your judgments of others, though, there is a decent consequence. You would be forced into intellectual acceptance of the notion that there's really nothing wrong with evil in the world, and nothing noble about virtue and heroism. THere would be no value to life, and no purpose, either. That's nihilism, whether you make peace with it or not.
Oh, sure, according to Christianity (and Islam, and Sikhism, and Judaism, and theism in general), peace, love, joy and all the rest have a point. They actually are good things, because they are the things which we ought to esteem, and which we ought to desire, in addition to being things that we do esteem and desire. On theism, because God confers value on things, all valuable things have actual value. Because God exists, striving for peace can be and is one of the points to life. Can Buddhism similarly ground its values?
Truth- the set of all true facts. That's what I mean when I use it as a noun. I don't think there's any big floaty abstract objects with the name running around, either.
EVERYTHING is inference. Your inference that because you are having an experience, that which is being experienced exists, is an inference. Your inference that having an experience means you're having an experience is an inference, albeit a very strong logical one. Disdaining inference is a bit silly.
For myself, I think that there are properly basic beliefs which are a result of a proper functioning mind, whose basic conclusions are epistemologically justified for me to follow, among these beliefs are those generated by my perceptive, logical and moral faculties.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "conditioned mental phenomenon," to be honest. What I think you mean, and don't bite my head off if I'm wrong, is that value is just a name in our minds we assign to certain things out of habit. In that case, that's no different from esteem. But that's not what I mean by value at all. Value in the sense I'm talking about is the moral sense. To have value means to have moral significance, not to be liked. If it so happened that everyone in the world hated you and wanted you dead for no good reason, that wouldn't mean that you would thereby lack value. Without this kind of value, there is no moral significance to human life, and thus no basis for moral action except what you are forced to by your natural inclinations.
Such condescensssionnnn... it burnnssssss:crazy:
How does a person know anything? Through direct experience. Have you directly experienced God? Have you seen God? Have you heard God with your ears? Have you reached out and touched God with your skin? Of course not. The God you believe in is unknowable unless He chooses to be known. According to the Bible he appeared to certain people, said certain things, did certain things, but he didn't appear to you and he hasn't said anything to you therefore you can only choose to believe what others have said or disbelieve. This isn't knowing, it's called faith for a reason
Many here, including myself, are familiar with the arguments. We aren't all people who were born Buddhist in a country where it's the predominant belief system ya know. You might enjoy 'Atheist Universe' by David Mills as it attempts to debunk pretty much every single one of the arguments by showing how they use circular reasoning or start with a faulty premise etc. I understand you presently regard the arguments as good ones so perhaps you would enjoy seeing their rebuttals? This forum isn't the place for it, of course, hence the book reference if it interests you.
Good.
The question of whether or not such a thing as God exists is of interest, but until such a being decides to become knowable via ordinary human senses I have to put such questions into the unknowable category. I attempt to spend as little mental energy as possible thinking about answers to questions that can't be answered.
In terms of the Christian version of God, I have no present interest as the bible makes some very specific claims about this version of God and in those cases where the claims are testable, they are proven false. In an age of science there no longer exists a 'God of the gaps' as the gaps have all been filled. There is no need for a creator God as science has explained both how matter and energy in their present forms came to be (big bang) and it also explains their origins (the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, which holds that neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed.
I don't see any utility value in the Christian God beyond the possible reward of Heaven or punishment of Hell. Just sayin.
LOL. I am sorry that you can't see value in being alive or that it is wrong to murder without a God saying it's wrong. I have no such troubles. I don't think anyone does, really. It seems to just be some theists who believe non theists have such troubles.
Sorry it hurts, but this kind of argument has nothing to do with the practices Christ taught.
Strictly speaking, direct experience doesn't go much farther. I still reason from my experiences to my conclusions. It's the way our brains are built. If I could see God with my eyes and touch God with my skin, I'd be pretty doubtful that what I'd be experiencing is any kind of God at all. If God exists at all, he's not beyond our knowledge, but he certainly wouldn't be subject to naturalistic empirical scrutiny, either.
I think that arguments that there was a personal, transcendent creator of the world, that there exists a personal authoritative source of morality and that there exists a necessary omnipotent being are pretty dang convincing. It's called faith because I trust in God. Faith isn't supposed to be blind.
Obviously, if you don't accept them, you're not familiar enough. I've read most of the atheist critiques of theism, and they don't terribly impress me, to be honest. Like I fear I've done with Buddhism, atheists, with a very few exceptions, seem determined to misconstrue the arguments.
It's not the question of the existence of God that I've accused you of ignoring. it's the question of the value that accrues to all morally significant things. If you're agnostic about moral value, that commits you to ignorance of arguably the most profound of all sets of truths.
Heheh, you're wrong, of course, but since proselytization is not my purpose here, I won't respond with a full argument unless I am specifically invited to do so.
If the Christian (or in general, theistic) God exists, then moral values exist. If he doesn't, they don't, and all moral talk is nonsense. That's pretty important.
Well, you've so far failed to give an account of such values. "LOL" is a poor argument. The fact that you can tell right from wrong without believing in God is hardly impressive. Everyone has a conscience, and so to some extent can tell right from wrong. That doesn't mean that they know why it is so that some things are right and others wrong, and what the candidate truthmakers for moral assertions are. If there are no such truthmakers, the conscience is a delusion, and so are your values. My argument has been that only the will of an authoritative God can constitute such a truthmaker, but it really isn't needed. You've been unable to provide any alternatives or any full Buddhist account of value.
In any case, I think we've strayed far from my intent. To summarize my findings so far, as they relate to my original aim, my accusations about the moral vacuity of Buddhism seem more or less correct. It's a method for achieving peace, take it or leave it, and not an authoritative guide to action, and is therefore at the very best morally agnostic, if not nihilistic.
Christ was quite willing to dispute others' beliefs. Christ was quite willing to call his opponents a nest of vipers and a bunch of whitewashed tombs. I'm not quite willing to go that far, since I'm not quite as infallible. I've been nothing but courteous, but at least this forum has dispelled my notion of Buddhists as any less ornery than other people, haha.
And I find them laughably absurd. Where does that leave us? Endlessly debating something neither of us can prove to the other. That the existence of a creator deity is something you are fairly convinced of doesn't really say anything about whether such a deity exists much less whether that deity is a good source of moral instruction.
Belief in the existence of a creator God when there exists a naturalistic explanation well supported by observable evidence is not only blind faith (believing in the truth of a proposition without evidence), but it's willful ignorance of the evidence supporting the naturalistic explanation.
Or perhaps you don't perceive what they are saying correctly? There is a belief that a deity created the universe and there is a belief that the matter and energy in the universe always existed, are really different forms of the same thing, and cannot be destroyed. The former has no evidence that can be known by the senses supporting it, the latter has tons of it.
Well if it commits me to ignorance of the unknowable I can accept that. It doesn't change how I act though. In practical terms, it doesn't matter. We both avoid murder, rape and stealing believing them to be wrong.
It's not important at all to me. Again, murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. This is moral talk. I don't believe in Gods, you do. Yet we both come away with the same basic beliefs concerning morality. How about empathy as a source for morality? From a functional standpoint is there any problem with that?
So, what do we need a God for again?
Nobody does. Some think they *know*, but they kid themselves that they do in fact know. They convince themselves that believing is the same as knowing.
Empathy. From a purely functional standpoint I am entirely comfortable using empathy and compassion as the basis for all morality.
OK.
If your belief is that compassion is not a sufficiently authoritative guide to action so be it.