Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Archbishop of Canterbury not sure about God.

13

Comments

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @vinlyn said:
    That cartoon says it all.

    Now, will one of you PROVE rebirth. Karma. Or even that Buddha actually said all the things in all the Buddhist scriptures?

    Wake me when you do.

    Why don't you prove it? Why lay it on us? You want the truth about these things? Go find it for yourself.

    Can't find any? Move on.

  • ToshTosh Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @SpinyNorman said:
    So let's say it's all nonsense - fine. The difference is that a Buddhist doesn't have to believe in rebirth to practice. Belief in God is pretty central for most Christians.

    Define what you mean by God?

    And this priest's definition of God sounds a lot like Emptiness:

    https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami?language=en

  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran

    In my view the closest thing to God would be the universe becoming aware of itself one aspect at a time.

    But then if we are redefining God, we should likely call it something else. Why don't we call it Brahman or Allah or the Tao? Could it be because we are conditioned to call ultimate being "God" culturally?

    God with a capital G seems to be a play for superiority now that I think about it. We have the little gods of other religions but Abraham has the god of all gods so it goes by the capital G.

    I think I'll name my next child Human.

    Toraldris
  • SattvaPaulSattvaPaul South Wales, UK Veteran

    What I found most surprising when I saw that headline is not the Archbishop's doubt but the fact that it was in the news.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @Tosh said:

    Most Christians still have a pretty conventional understanding of God. I think things are changing slowly though, and perhaps the Archbishops comments are a hint of that change. Like it's OK not to think about God in the conventional way.

    Tosh
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @ourself said:
    But then if we are redefining God, we should likely call it something else. Why don't we call it Brahman or Allah or the Tao? Could it be because we are conditioned to call ultimate being "God" culturally?

    Yes, culturally we're used to "God" being the Abrahamic creator god ( aka Allah ).

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @SattvaPaul said:
    What I found most surprising when I saw that headline is not the Archbishop's doubt but the fact that it was in the news.

    I think it points to the Church of England struggling to be more liberal but still having it's traditionalists, like with the women Bishops thing.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    @SpinyNorman said:
    So let's say it's all nonsense - fine. The difference is that a Buddhist doesn't have to believe in rebirth to practice. Belief in God is pretty central for most Christians.

    I don't think "it's all nonsense" on either side, but this thread has devolved into another Christians can't prove there's a God thread, while people are forgetting "we" can't prove some basics of Buddhism, either.

    And while Christianity does have God and Jesus at its center, even taking those two central figures away doesn't mean that one can't behave in the manner attributed to the teaching of Christ. As Jefferson pointed out in his tiny "Jefferson Bible", if people could even behave in a manner that only somewhat approaches what is in the texts, the world would be a far better place.

    Further, I would like someone to point out to me a teaching of Buddha's in which he encourages putting down and scoffing at other religions, which is pretty much what this thread has devolved into.

    According to the BBC: "He went on to explain that it was acceptable to occasionally have doubt, and still be a Christian. The extraordinary thing about being a Christian is that God is faithful even when we're not. When we get into the wrong place he comes alongside us and says, 'Right let's go from here.'" The archbishop made his comments about doubt in front of a crowd of about 1,000 people, not all of whom were churchgoers ... A spokesman for Lambeth Palace said: "The remarks were made in the context of an event at Bristol Cathedral during which the archbishop spoke extensively about why he believes in God and how his faith in Jesus Christ has transformed his life. 'The comments in question were made in response to a specific question about whether he had ever struggled with doubts.'"

    So this whole thread is, essentially misdirected glee over an incorrect, out-of-context thread title.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @vinlyn said:

    A spokesman for Lambeth Palace said: "The remarks were made in the context of an event at Bristol Cathedral during which the archbishop spoke extensively about why he believes in God and how his faith in Jesus Christ has transformed his life. 'The comments in question were made in response to a specific question about whether he had ever struggled with doubts.'"

    But you'd expect somebody in that position to play down the Archbishops comments and put a particular spin on them. The comments would have been quite embarrassing for the traditional church establishment.

    I don't agree that the thread is "misdirected glee", and I think your objection here is more to do with your personal attachment to the idea of God than an objective appraisal of the issues being discussed.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    As do you have other attachments.

    We all have attachments.

    Chaz
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @vinlyn said:
    As do you have other attachments.

    We all have attachments.

    +1!!!

    I am now going to flagrantly engage in an off-topic rant for a minute.

    I propose a new rule - noone should be allowed to point out attachments that others on this board may or may not be demonstrating.

    It's so, .......... dare I say, ....... stupid to point those out.

    My own guru doesn't speak to me like that. He doesn't say,

    Chaz, you GOTTA do something about those attachments you have to your Miata!

    It's like ...... DUHHHHHH ... do you think I was born yesterday? You think I'm not completely aware that I have very specific attachments and those cause suffering?

    Ok. Minute's up. Rant over. Carry on.

  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited September 2014

    I am unsure and probably am smug.
    There is this idea that because one can't prove or disprove, there is a fifty-fifty chance.
    Because one cannot prove or disprove the existence of unicorns, are the chances still 50/50?
    One would probably say no.
    Why?
    There is absolutely nothing that might lead one to believe they are real, while not being able to disprove their existence one could make the case that the probability of their existence is low.
    The same could be said for god. There is absolutely no certitude, or surety.
    In a way that's why the gods or god cannot be debated in any logical fashion, it's an endless circle of opinion, wants and desires that aren't predicated on really anything. The best we can argue about the gods and religion in general is if their practices or actions are harmful to others.
    Having the knowledge of death we stitched together a warm security blanket and called it god.

    Toraldris
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @vinlyn said:
    That cartoon says it all.

    Now, will one of you PROVE rebirth. Karma. Or even that Buddha actually said all the things in all the Buddhist scriptures?

    Wake me when you do.

    Rebrith is not falsifiable neither are raindances. It does not matter if the Buddha said any of this or if he even existed. Jesus is a different matter, no Jesus, no human/god sacrifice to atone for the sin of a guy that lived 6000 years ago; whose sin that damned us all to hell was eating a piece of fruit. What justice is that?
    When were dogs domesticated?

    Toraldris
  • SattvaPaulSattvaPaul South Wales, UK Veteran

    If you have faith, you'll have doubt, and you'll have moved far beyond the needs for proofs etc, which the new atheist crowd seems to be a bit obsessed about, painting a grotesque picture of faith which is but a reflection of their own simple-mindedness.

    Tosh
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited September 2014

    What is faith exactly?
    Do folks choose their beliefs based on reason and thoughtful deliberation? All the myriad numbers of gods that exist and have existed, and came to a reasonable conclusion as to why they believe what they believe? Why is one god more relevant or probable than gods? Why is Amon Ra, Thor, Zeus, or Mithras any less relevant than Allah, Yahweh, Jesus and for some who think Buddha might be a god, Buddha?
    Or are we born in a certain culture, country, family where the predominate religion becomes our religion? In this country, for the most part, people identify with Jesus and not the blue elephant guy-Ganesh.
    Religion attempts to answer our big questions, should it not be held to the same scrutiny we would give scientific or other claims that impact our life and the world?
    Pun intended, why is it a sacred cow?
    I have a religious belief that blacks are descended from Cain and have the mark of god on them and as such are not the greatest folks. I intend to teach my children this. It's my faith after all......................not really, but people did and still do hold this idea. Should it not be scrutinized and held up and mocked for the trash that it is?
    Religion, not being predicated upon anything, can be whatever anyone wants, oftentimes with not so good outcomes.
    Having ideas that don't square with reality may be difficult.

    For as stupid as it is, it's just my opinion.

    Toraldris
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited September 2014

    "the new atheist crowd"
    Who might that be???
    Now back to the Op; Maybe the Archbishop has gained some insight.

  • SattvaPaulSattvaPaul South Wales, UK Veteran

    I suppose faith operates more on emotional/intuitive level. It's not about facts.

    Tosh
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited September 2014

    @Chaz said: A bit about attachments......
    Ok. Minute's up. Rant over. Carry on.

    >

    I think you make a very good point.
    it also quietly pi$$es me off when some clever-dick starts on with the "Which self would that be?" or "What 'I' are you referring to?" Like we don't know about dependent arising an' all that stuff....

    We know about 'attachments'.
    We know about 'self/not-self'.

    Sometimes though, being human, an' all dat, it happens.... :rolleyes: .

    Chaz
  • BuddhadragonBuddhadragon Ehipassiko & Carpe Diem Samsara Veteran

    @SattvaPaul said:
    If you have faith, you'll have doubt, and you'll have moved far beyond the needs for proofs etc, which the new atheist crowd seems to be a bit obsessed about, painting a grotesque picture of faith which is but a reflection of their own simple-mindedness.

    Simple-minded is the way you call people whose ideas about faith differ from yours?

    vinlynTheswingisyellowChaz
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @Theswingisyellow said:
    Rebrith is not falsifiable

    Yes, it is.

    You apply scientific method to the question. If you have everything right you should have a true/false proposition that can be repeated in a laboratory setting.

    Sometimes I think people who write off rebirth as not falsifiable are either too lazy, or unable to do the research necessary.

    Theswingisyellow
  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran
    edited September 2014

    What's the method of falsifiability for rebirth again? Seem to have missed that. That the scientific method would be used is a no-brainer because that's what's always used, but you need to actually have something to test. What are you looking at when testing rebirth, and what do you expect to see? That's the question. We can't expect real scientists and researchers to know what we're talking about with literal rebirth, and what to look for... unless we tell them.

    If we had the tools necessary, how would we prove rebirth? If we can't even figure that out, then we're rather hopeless in this arena.

    Theswingisyellow
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran

    As to the question of rebirth, what is it exactly, your testing in a laboratory setting?
    Exactly how would one go about falsifying rebirth?

    Toraldris
  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @Theswingisyellow said:
    As to the question of rebirth, what is it exactly, your testing in a laboratory setting?
    Exactly how would one go about falsifying rebirth?

    Of course the laziest activity in the world is saying "this is so" and expecting others to prove you wrong! :D Hence religions, pseudosciences, superstitions, et al. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @Theswingisyellow said:
    As to the question of rebirth, what is it exactly, your testing in a laboratory setting?
    Exactly how would one go about falsifying rebirth?

    Not up to me as I'm not the one making the assertion.

    If you want to say that rebirth isn't falsifiable, PROVE IT!!!

    I have nothing to prove in that regard as I'm not making the assertion.

    I am sick and tired of people who's belief in what they think science says, based on the exact same kind of faith as they decry in others,.

    Put up or .....

    vinlynTosh
  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran
    edited September 2014

    A simple procedure can be used to determine whether or not a hypothesis or conjecture is scientific and falsifiable. What would be an example of something that, if observed, would contradict the hypothesis? If this question cannot be answered, then the conjecture is not scientific.

    If that can't be answered, nothing happens.

    So @Chaz, instead of logically saying:
      - Because that question can't be answered, or hasn't yet been answered, rebirth is unfalsifiable.
    Or saying:
      - I have an answer! This is how you test...
    You are choosing to say:
      - Because no one has answered that question, they are all lazy.

    Give me a break. :D You can't see it, can you?

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @AldrisTorvalds said:
    Give me a break. :D You can't see it, can you?

    Of course. Don't patronize. If someone can make unsupported assertions I can indulge in a logical fallacy.

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @Chaz I don't mean to patronize (I apologize), I meant to show you where I saw the problem. Frankly I'm overjoyed you actually see the problem; most people don't and just continue on, never taking new information into account to adjust their views. I could kiss you.

    And it would be fantastic because I just got myself a new tongue scraper! :D  

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran
    edited September 2014

    What's the falsifiability of a teapot floating around a planet 20 lightyears from here, so small that our telescopes can't see it? Someone could claim one exists under those conditions. When we find a way to see if it's there or not, to prove it true or false, it becomes a falsifiable assertion.

    "Falsifiable" is not a default position. Falsifiability itself needs to be demonstrated. It's all one big chain... and its strength rests on the weakest link.

    Theswingisyellow
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @Chaz said:
    Put up or .....

    I asserted that rebirth is not falsifiable, and then you say prove my assertion. The very idea that something is not falsifiable means it can't be proved! Scientific theories can't be proved per se, ideas can be tested against reality and can be shown to be potentially false by observation.
    With the cases of rebirth, reincarnation, heaven, hell, teapots circling the earth and the flying spaghetti monster, these are all ideas that are not falsifiable.
    There is simply nothing to test, nothing to observe!
    As the saying goes; "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"-Wolfgang Pauli
    Hypotheses that can't even be wrong, tell one nothing.

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    Yeah it's key to understand that unfalsifiable doesn't mean it's false. It just means no method has been determined that could demonstrate its truth value.

    Theswingisyellow
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    All this yacking.

    Is "it" (I have forgotten what "it" is) proven or not proven?

    Period.

  • BuddhadragonBuddhadragon Ehipassiko & Carpe Diem Samsara Veteran

    Any argument we don't believe in can be falsifiable by the detractor.
    There's no way we can be convinced of something we don't want to believe in.

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @DhammaDragon said:
    Any argument we don't believe in can be falsifiable by the detractor.
    There's no way we can be convinced of something we don't want to believe in.

    Maybe I'm tired, but I don't understand what you just said, especially the first sentence. Maybe you could expand on that thought?

    As for being unable to be convinced of what we don't want to believe... I don't want to believe in death, never have, but I've been convinced we do die. Many people have become convinced we have a soul that goes on. Devoted Christians lose their faith, their beliefs they really were convinced of and wanted to keep, every day. Whatever we want to believe, our beliefs our out of our hands. We don't choose them. Sometimes it all ends in tears when our cherished beliefs fall away, or we're convinced of something that we didn't want to believe!

  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited September 2014

    @vinlyn said:
    All this yacking.

    Is "it" (I have forgotten what "it" is) proven or not proven?

    Period.

    All this yacking indeed!
    Why have discussions on a site tailored for discussion! The gall!! It boils the blood! Harrumph!!! Harrumph!!!

    ToraldrisDakini
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    There is such a thing as "yacking" for the sake of "yacking", without ever getting to the point.

  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran

    @DhammaDragon said:
    Any argument we don't believe in can be falsifiable by the detractor.
    There's no way we can be convinced of something we don't want to believe in.

    Any argument we don't believe in has the potential/possibility to be proven (can be falsifiable) by a detractor?
    Maybe I am not sure of your meaning.

  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran

    @chaz-"Not up to me as I'm not the one making the assertion."

    @Theswingisyellow said:
    Rebrith is not falsifiable

    @chaz-"Yes, it is."

    You certainly did make an assertion that rebirth is falsifiable.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    @Theswingisyellow said:
    Maybe I am not sure of your meaning.

    I think she is saying that just because something is proven, does not mean that everyone will accept it.

    Buddhadragon
  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    If that's what "she" is saying (I don't remember genders), that's kinda a step ahead. Something needs to be proven first, and if by proven we mean on the same level that each religion's afterlives and deities have been proven to them... that's an insufficient level.

    Theswingisyellow
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    I agree that no religion's afterlife concept has been proven. I (at least) am using a more generic example of things being proven, but not accepted...not necessarily religious concepts.

    Buddhadragon
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @SattvaPaul said:
    I suppose faith operates more on emotional/intuitive level. It's not about facts.

    Yes, and that's what makes it tricky. Though is emotional really the same as intuitive?

  • BuddhadragonBuddhadragon Ehipassiko & Carpe Diem Samsara Veteran

    As to Buddhism, I don't care to get into the rebirth/metaphysical debate.

    But I don't think I'll turn Christian even if somebody proves to me that God exists.

    (And I'm a "she," Aldris... :grumble: ..)

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    @DhammaDragon‌ Yeah sorry, I don't know people's genders so I use "he" as the general pronoun. We need a gender-neutral singular pronoun! I could use them/they/their but that gets confusing too.

  • BuddhadragonBuddhadragon Ehipassiko & Carpe Diem Samsara Veteran

    Speculations over afterlife, to me, are a pointless dead end in any religion.
    I am a Buddhist because of the 4NT, N8P, DO, 3 marks of existence, development of bodhicitta....
    And I pledge allegiance to the Buddha's silence over metaphysical issues.

    It is simply not conducive to the Cessation of Dukkha.
    This point I have personally experienced in my life and nobody can falsify it for me.
    That's good enough for me.

    Aldris, I was joking about the "she."
    I was never offended.

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    @DhammaDragon‌ Well, uhh, I was joking about being sorry then! ;)  

    Buddhadragon
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited September 2014

    @AldrisTorvalds said:
    DhammaDragon‌ Yeah sorry, I don't know people's genders so I use "he" as the general pronoun. We need a gender-neutral singular pronoun! I could use them/they/their but that gets confusing too.

    >

    More stereotyping favouring the male gender.
    When I come back, I'm coming back as a snail. So there.

    :p .

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    @federica said:
    When I come back, I'm coming back as a snail. So there.

    I'm gonna slug you!

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    That's my current problem.... I prefer savoury stuff!!

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    Perhaps some Escargo la federica?

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    Sounds yummily revolting......!

    vinlyn
This discussion has been closed.