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.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That you're convinced He doesn't exist isn't good proof, either. Again, just because one of us is wrong and ignorant and doesn't agree with the other doesn't mean that no one is right, or that our respective arguments are of equal merit, but that's neither here nor there. I am not here to prove that God exists to you.
You can believe that God is the only source of genuine moral value, even if you don't accept the existence of God. Nietzsche, for example, accepted this, and carried it to the logical, nihilistic conclusion. You would then have to accept moral values as simply social constructions combined with native instincts, indoctrination and habit. Such pseudo-values may be useful motivators for action, but they can't justify any action.
You show me scientific evidence that theism is false, and I'll deconvert on the spot, mate. Philosophically, and speaking as one pretty familiar with the literature, theistic, specifically Christian, philosophy has never been in a stronger place.
Really, I'm not trying to argue here that theism is true. I know how touchy you people can be about proselytization, and my inquiries are for my benefit, not yours.
What I'm trying to argue for is that, on Buddhism, there is no reason to believe in moral value because it lacks an adequate ground. Buddhism shares with its non-theistic (not necessarily atheistic) sibling philosophies the deficiency of being unable to provide an adequate ground of moral value.
Notice I said "ground," not "guide." Your eyes are your guide which tells you the chair exists, but it is the chair itself which is the ground of the chair. To ask questions about how reliable your eyes are when they communicate to you the reality of the chair is the epistemological question, while asking what it is for a chair to exist, whether a chair does exist, is the ontological question. My challenge to Buddhism has been on this ontological question. In order for us to begin to ask the epistemological question, we must first acknowledge the possibility of an affirmative answer to the ontological question. In order to begin discussing whether our eyes communicate to us accurately about the particulars of a chair, we must agree that chairs possibly exist, and that reasons for the impossibility of chairs are bad reasons.
Similarly, your conscience, which I don't deny you have, is your guide to moral value, but you have no corresponding ground, which I as a theist do have. You have no proper account of what it means for the referent of your moral senses to exist, or at least, those you have provided aren't very good.
As a theist, when I say you ought not to kill anyone, I am asserting the fact that a necessarily and innately authoritative God commands that you not kill anyone. This seems to perfectly intelligible assertion, and one that does not invite further justification. It is a natural terminus to the question.
On any variety of non-theism, there appears to be no such answer, and you haven't suggested one. There is no account of moral truth, only perceptive tools without a referent.
I'm not sure if you're talking about God or moral truth. I presume you're talking about God, but just in case you're talking about moral truth, I'd say it's a rather horrible act of doublethink to say you're ignorant of moral truth because it's unknowable, and yet can believe something is wrong. Morality for you would be a pretence, and isn't intentional pretence, on Buddhism, "unskillful"?
We both have consciences. I've never denied this. Empathy lets us feel for others, ratifying our consciences on an emotional level. That's fine. It's a source for moral beliefs, and perfectly reliable, as far as it goes. However, beliefs are beliefs in something. Empathy and conscience are our eyes on morality. But what is it we see with them? In what way can their input be said to be authoritative, rather than merely causative? I don't think the Buddhist has any adequate account of this.
To ground moral value.
As I think I've demonstrated, it's a lot easier to objectively reason about meta-ethics than ethics themselves, because it's simply a matter of giving an account of a phenomenon and seeing if it is coherent and plausible. As far as I know anything, I'm pretty sure that God is the only possible source of an authoritative morality. I've given ample opportunity so far for a Buddhist account to be presented, but I'm not terribly impressed.
Empathy is deficient because, as I said, it cannot ground moral oughts, it can only report them. It doesn't seem that empathizing with a sufferer is what makes that suffering wrong, just as lacking empathy for a certain instance of suffering doesn't make that suffering not-wrong.
Haha, no. What is it you think I'm up to, and do you have a good ethical argument against it?
I must ask though....if Christianity is so easily summed up....why so many different denominations and many who dissagree with each other?
So if you wanted to become a better golfer...would you take advice from a pro, or someone who just recently bought their first set of clubs?
Ask a qualified Buddhist teacher...trust me your "challenge" would be more than met. The problem is you don't really want to understand, and you wouldn't stand a chance of converting an established teacher...and that is the real goal here.
Good is good in large part because of empathy. I have the ability to put myself in another persons position, and for the most part I would like to make others happy, because were I in their shoes...I would want to be happy. I don't need a God for this.
once again, empathy
and one more time....empathy
A wave is indeed water...causes and conditions make that water manifest in a certain form, when those causes and conditions are no longer present, it is no longer manifest in that form. Also a wave is not a "thing" it is a process...ever changing. Just like you and me!
Now if you want to say the causes and conditions are part of the wave...I'm game. That would hint strongly at one-ness would it not?
Without the sun, I would never have existed in the first place.
The sun is one of the causes and conditions for my existence...like that wave.
The sun it is true does not depend on me, but I very much depend on it for my coming into being.
The sun meanwhile depends on all the causes and conditions that bring it into being.
You might have heard of the phrase "Ashes to ashes and dust to dust."
When I'm dead I will be exactly part of the world that remains.
You should see a Tibetan sky funeral!
Really if I were going to beleive in a creator God, I would praise him for his ingenuity in making EVERYTHING recycle-able!:cool:
Well I'm glad my reply pleases you, but I'm done with the thread. I have more important things to do.............and I'll be away from internet access for the next week
I would like to tell you this though.
Most of the Buddhists I know personaly, are elderly people who were born and raised Buddhist. They suffered terrible injustice having our government take away their posessions, savings, property, and put them into internment camps for the crime of being Japanese at the wrong time in history. They were forbidden in some cases to practice their religion publically, and many were forced to go to Christian churches. (presumably by people who were deeply moral :rolleyes: )
These people have every right to be bitter...but they are not. They just say "oh well, that's just the way it was then"
Every Christmas my Temple's members go out and buy toys and gifts to be distributed to needy families. One fellow who is 88 years old this year, spends hours at Christmas ringing a bell and collecting for the Salvation Army. Many Temples have food banks attached, and for those that don't, they either have members volunteer, or do food drives at the Temples, or both.
You seem to have a hang up about morals and God. I can tell you you will never in your life meet more moral people than these, and not a one believes in your God.
So you can have your misunderstood theories and arguments and wiki...I prefer real living breathing acting examples of true "morality"
I know, right? Still, just because you can get the gist from secondhand doesn't mean that the primary source (when properly put in context) isn't much more valuable.
Disagreements and schisms occur out of all kinds of disputes. However, there is a nice compact core of theological, metaphysical and historical commitments that all Christian churches share.
If I wanted to know what golf was, I imagine I'd grab any golfer.
Hah. Come, now. Be charitable. If you'd follow my posts, I've had ample opportunity to launch into the standard theistic proofs, and more than enough provocation to get my missionary on, so to speak. I have, quite to my credit, I think, avoided the temptation.
Again, I don't think this holds water. If everyone in the world lacked empathy, would that mean that suffering would not be evil? If someone dies alone and unloved, and no one knew about it, would that not be a bad thing? Surely, then, the solution to suffering is to tamper with human brains so that they cannot feel empathy! Genius! :winkc:
I agree that empathy doesn't need a God, but empathy's moral force is, I think, very much dependent on His existence. Just because you would want to get rid of pain if you were in a sufferer's shoes doesn't mean that you ought to act on it.
When the process stops, it's properly said that something ceases to be. Sure, the components persist, but a thing is the sum of its components, not the components themselves.
I'm not sure what this means. It hints that they are both made of the same stuff, but being made of the same stuff does not mean that they are the same thing. I could fashion two chairs made of wood that are not causally dependent on each other, but I could hardly say that the two chairs are the same thing. Thingness is a property conferred distinctly from the property of being made of the same stuff, and I think that's just commonsense.
Being a cause of something else does not make you one with that thing. Again, when I fashion a chair, I don't become part-chair, nor does a thing come into being that is identical to me. If I'm misunderstanding your argument for monism, I apologize, but it seems like it just doesn't work in English grammar. Does it make more sense in other languages?
Heh, the universe is pretty cool. That said, I disagree that we are identical with our ashes. By the time we are reduced to ash, I would argue that we cease to be, except if we have some sort of soul.
D'aww, that's nice. I do have an impression of Buddhists as nice people in general, don't get me wrong. Growing up in a Chinese community, in Southeast Asia, most of my friends growing up were Buddhist, even though they didn't know what it meant to be one.
It may be difficult to understand, but I'm not objecting to the notion that they are good people. Because of my belief in God, it makes sense that there are such things as moral values. Because there are such things as moral values, whether people are ignorant of the source of such values or not, when they do what is morally valuable, I can value them.
However, the fact remains that if your assumptions about reality turn out to be true (and I think, thankfully, that they aren't), the "moral" behaviour of all these nice old people, and nice old Christian people, and you, and me, and everybody else, would be entirely in vain. There would be no such thing as moral value to attribute to their actions, even if we liked what they were doing.
I like moral people better than theories, too. Thankfully, I'm privileged to know some. But, I'd rather be able to justify my belief that they actually are moral people, rather than simply people whose actions I happen to approve of.
First off, is that a veiled insult? It definitely does not have the ring of open dialogue.
Buddhists are just people, with all the same issues as other people with different religious beliefs. It sounds like the stereotypical description of who Buddhists are: mystical monks sitting on their meditation cushions, painting minimalist sumie, never speaking with anger or frustration, and certainly not arguing on an internet message board.
For the record, I don't think many people are especially thrilled when someone comes to a forum to tell them how inferior their faith is perceived to be.
You can debate people's opinions as much as you like, but that will bring you no closer to finding the answers you seek.
The fact is that any thoughts we share are our own. Everyone has their own beliefs and interpretations of religion. If you asked every person on this forum to refute your assertions you wouldn't get the same response from anyone.
If you are truly interested in studying Buddhism I would recommend you find reputable and verifiable source, not the internet. There are hundreds of excellent books on the difficult topics you wanted to know about, such as emptiness, karma, and morality; I'm sure you could get input on different titles if you wanted.
Many of your criticisms are based in misconceptions which must first be clarified before even attempting to reply, so if you had questions about a particular point (such as emptiness, or the lack of an inherently existing self) it would be easier if you started a thread for that particular topic.
Finally, I'd suggest that you put more effort into your examination of a philosophy instead of finding reasons why your beliefs are best.
No. It was a response to the notion that Jesus was a happy touchy-feely kinda' guy. He could be sharp-tongued, too, and disputed fiercely with those who disagreed with him and led the people down the road of bad theology. In this manner my disputing the point of Buddhism falls far short of his example, rather than exceeds it.
Yeah, that's my impression. It was a nice illusion while it lasted. I get thrilled! But then I've got a debater's nature. However, I think it benefits everyone. Even if you think my arguments don't hold water, you've at least seen where a criticism against buddhism in general might come from.
What I admire most about Buddhism is its contemplative, philosophical nature. In that way, it hardly resembles a "faith" at all. Too many Christians get by on too much blind devotion and not enough deep thought, I feel. As a philosophy, though, I had the impression that it would be as open to critique as any other, and most philosopgers I know defend their stances with vigour.
I don't see metaphysical naturalists complaining about being considered inferior by the substance dualists. So why should Buddhists feel threatened? I've already learned a lot.
I like to learn from live bodies, and in places where disputes can be carried out frankly and openly. This seemed like a good place to start. There's ample space here to clear up any misconceptions. If you think I've mistaken a concept, and it's relevant to the argument at hand, well, say so! The debate at hand is on the inability of Buddhism to provide an adequate basis for moral value. If you want to talk about the lack of an inherently existing self, though, I'd be glad to oblige! I object to that doctrine, and think that there really is an inherently existing self.
My point throughout has not been that mine is the best, but that Buddhism does nothing for central existential and moral concerns. Theism is strictly an example on how else it could be done. What I'm doing -is- philosophy, following an argument/counter-argument pattern to a better truth. Are all Buddhists as reluctant to debate? Maybe that's why it's survived all this time.
No this is a problem if you cannot/refuse to look at Buddhism from the Buddhist perspective.
Also I find that statement quite incorrect as I am both a Buddhist and a believer in God. You're problem is you've already judged Buddhism and appear to only want to denounce Buddhism, not learn from it.
This is also why I have a firm belief that Christianity and Buddhism are not compatible.
In metta,
Raven
No what you're trying to go do IMO is "enlighten" the Buddhists (pardon the pun) and refuse to accept the answers you've received because you don't like them.
No we aren't reluctant to debate but you can only flog a horse so many times before it's beyond dead.
In metta,
Raven
ok, nuff said,.
Thanks to all.