Buddha vs. Jesus

[Kenny]

However what I can't abide is your double standard - I have met few people on the web more dogmatic and closed mined when it comes to their religious beliefs than you.

Yep, that about sums it up. Shunya is both a bigot and a hypocrite. Every irony meter in the universe exploded at once when he said the following:

Your previous post before the last one was distinctly arrogant and egocentric, like you know absolutely that you are right and those who believe differently are loony

This just about sums up every one of Shunya’s posts when it comes to cases in which others believe differently than him.

[MaxVel]

My impression is that Shunya wants to have his cake and eat it too -

'Your beliefs (whatever they might be) about God are clearly wrong, and it is arrogant and presumptuous of you to hold them to be true.'

Whereas

'My belief (that you are definitely wrong) is neither presumptuous or arrogant. Because I believe that no-one has the true beliefs about God, I get a free shot at everyone else, and don't have to defend whatever it is that I believe.'

Shunya may be a self-professed Ba'hai, but functionally he's an atheist, and definitely anti-Christian. Watch and see him pop up on the anti-christian side of just about every discussion about everything. He also has a wonderful gift for mis-characterising the actual positions of others. Of course he's always right, so he can't be corrected, even by clear and direct quotes that refute him.




Shunya, sorry to slam you like this, but this really is how you come across in the bulk of your posts. Perhaps you could starta thread about what you believe about God, and why. Explain your version of Ba'haism to us. That would be most interesting.

[seer]

Yep, that about sums it up. Shunya is both a bigot and a hypocrite. Every irony meter in the universe exploded at once when he said the following:



This just about sums up every one of Shunya’s posts when it comes to cases in which others believe differently than him.

amen...

[seer]

My impression is that Shunya wants to have his cake and eat it too -

'Your beliefs (whatever they might be) about God are clearly wrong, and it is arrogant and presumptuous of you to hold them to be true.'

Whereas

'My belief (that you are definitely wrong) is neither presumptuous or arrogant. Because I believe that no-one has the true beliefs about God, I get a free shot at everyone else, and don't have to defend whatever it is that I believe.'

Shunya may be a self-professed Ba'hai, but functionally he's an atheist, and definitely anti-Christian. Watch and see him pop up on the anti-christian side of just about every discussion about everything. He also has a wonderful gift for mis-characterising the actual positions of others. Of course he's always right, so he can't be corrected, even by clear and direct quotes that refute him.




Shunya, sorry to slam you like this, but this really is how you come across in the bulk of your posts. Perhaps you could starta thread about what you believe about God, and why. Explain your version of Ba'haism to us. That would be most interesting.

and amen...

[pancreasman]

I've seen this effect before. I've done it myself earlier in my life. Here is what I think happens: A person is a committed theist of some sort. Particular bits of their theistic model are argued against. They are intellectually convinced by these arguments that those characteristics of their theism can no longer be held. They let them go. But they really WANT to hold on to a theistic view of the world. They adopt a kind of vague, wishy-washy 'super spiritual' theism in which God has few characteristics and even less real interaction with the world and human affairs. They construct a model of God as a small target, with few characteristics to defend. I once was friends with someone who considered himself a Christian who only believed the 'red letters' said by Jesus were true. He further solved the problem of evil by saying he doubted God was omnipresent or omniscient. God started started to sound more like his kindly uncle Frank. He did this, I am sure, because he mixed in the company of articulate skeptics who would keenly point out flaws in any view of God. He liked them (us) and preferred their respect to that of his more conventional fellow believers. But his theology was almost empty.

I, myself, really wanted to hold on to a comforting theism. My own theology got more and more vague. In discussions I more often sided with skeptics than believers. I made my God a small target. I made dogma a dirty word. I disregarded history and culture and actual practice of a religion so that I could count all believers in anything as a part of my fake 'spiritual' community. It's an uncomfortable place to be. I can only say that for me personally it was a relief to let my heart catch up to my brain and say 'You know what, I'm pretty sure God does not exist and that's ok'.

[Kenny]

We all take different journeys. As for me, though I no longer embrace all of the fundamentalist beliefs with which I was raised, I have found, as I have dived into the issues, that a robust form of orthodox Christianity (one according to which an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God exists, the Bible really is God’s word, Jesus really did rise physically from the dead, etc.) is not only defensible, but affords me with a fairly intellectually satisfying view of the world. I find most of the common objections to my religious beliefs (with the exception of certain versions of the evidential argument from evil, which I confess, do pose a challenge) to be pretty vacuous.

[seer]

with the exception of certain versions of the evidential argument from evil, which I confess, do pose a challenge.

Really? How so? For instance doesn't Plantinga's argument from free will pretty much settle the matter?

[pancreasman]

We all take different journeys. As for me, though I no longer embrace all of the fundamentalist beliefs with which I was raised, I have found, as I have dived into the issues, that a robust form of orthodox Christianity (one according to which an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God exists, the Bible really is God’s word, Jesus really did rise physically from the dead, etc.) is not only defensible, but affords me with a fairly intellectually satisfying view of the world. I find most of the common objections to my religious beliefs (with the exception of certain versions of the evidential argument from evil, which I confess, do pose a challenge) to be pretty vacuous.

As an aside, this is a really interesting thing I notice about philosophy and religion. You're obviously a pretty smart guy with a much better grasp of philosophy than me. You find some arguments against theism as 'pretty vacuous'. I believe you. But I can find another really smart guy, well versed in philosophy to say 'No, you're wrong, and here's the arguments why'. Throughout my life, I've changed my mind, fundamentally, on theism twice. I have always found, at every stage, there were people smarter than me who agreed with my position and those smarter than me who disagreed. Both sides at their best are very articulate and produce very concincing arguments ... until you read the next guy.

As someone educated in the sciences I find this quite frustrating. There are real paradigm shifts in science that all (except for a few unnamed loonies) cannot turn back from. We are SURE that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa. Some things in science get to be quite settled because there's always good old reality to check against. Certainly, around the edges, science gets fuzzy and contentious, but it seems to me that in philosophy absolutely NOTHING ever gets settled and for any issue there are least 2 contrary but articulate and reasonable positions. Is this just the nature of philosophy or have I got it wrong?

[siliconwafer]

Buddha and Jesus don't belong in the same category. Jesus is both God and man. He came to save his people from their sins.

Buddha doesn't offer people salvation from sin. Buddha's teachings have to do with the how to escape suffering. He didn't receive any revelation from God.

[shunyadragon]

Yep, that about sums it up. Shunya is both a bigot and a hypocrite. Every irony meter in the universe exploded at once when he said the following:

Spoken from the perspective of the true hypocrite and bigot.

This just about sums up every one of Shunya’s posts when it comes to cases in which others believe differently than him.

From the glass house throwing boulders.

[Kenny]

Spoken from the perspective of the true hypocrite and bigot.

From the glass house throwing boulders.

Hey Shunya,

You are free to say these things. The question, though, is whether you can back them up. (As it stands, your response basically amounts to "I know you are but what am I!?")

In the meantime, since you are into what is universally found across religions, you may want to consider the concept of “repentance” (that’s the Judeo-Christian terminology for it, but the concept itself is found across a wide range of religious traditions). It’s where one acknowledges that one’s behavior is wrong/misguided, confesses it as such, and takes steps to alter it.

It is, according to many religious traditions, the only way to move forward.

[pancreasman]

Spoken from the perspective of the true hypocrite and bigot.


From the glass house throwing boulders.

It would be useful (and certainly more articulate) if, when you wished to criticize people, you actually thought of your own criticisms rather than simply reflecting back whatever characterization has been leveled at you. Of course, even better would be explaining why these characterizations of you are in error.

Even better still would be actually addressing the content. For example, aside from some superficial agreement on some forms of virtuous behavior, what commonalities do you see between the worldview of Jesus and the Buddha?

[shunyadragon]

Hey Shunya,

You are free to say these things. The question, though, is whether you can back them up. (As it stands, your response basically amounts to "I know you are but what am I!?")

You started this mindless abusive name calling, and yes unfortunately amounts to "I know you are but what am I!?"

In the meantime, since you are into what is universally found across religions, you may want to consider the concept of “repentance” (that’s the Judeo-Christian terminology for it, but the concept itself is found across a wide range of religious traditions). It’s where one acknowledges that one’s behavior is wrong/misguided, confesses it as such, and takes steps to alter it.

It is, according to many religious traditions, the only way to move forward.

Yes, it is.

[shunyadragon]

It would be useful (and certainly more articulate) if, when you wished to criticize people, you actually thought of your own criticisms rather than simply reflecting back whatever characterization has been leveled at you. Of course, even better would be explaining why these characterizations of you are in error.

I do think of useful constructive criticisms, but they are few and far between.

Kenny has been snapping at my heels for along time with abusive accusations. In error? They have not been demonstrated to have any foundation what so ever.

One of the problems came up concerning my criticism of the prevalent, actually unfortunately dominant in the US and growing, YEC fundamentalist view of science, which I have difficulty seeing that there is any way to defend this self inflicted ignorance of science, for which he calls me a bigot. How classic!!!

Even better still would be actually addressing the content. For example, aside from some superficial agreement on some forms of virtuous behavior, what commonalities do you see between the worldview of Jesus and the Buddha?

Yes, better yet still, I may respond to this, but I notice Seer has joined the manure slinging and rolling around in it. It is not exactly the best atmosphere to respond in. Your 'question?' preceded by acrimonious blunt statements of belief hardly made a question at all.

[Kenny]

As an aside, this is a really interesting thing I notice about philosophy and religion. You're obviously a pretty smart guy with a much better grasp of philosophy than me. You find some arguments against theism as 'pretty vacuous'. I believe you. But I can find another really smart guy, well versed in philosophy to say 'No, you're wrong, and here's the arguments why'.

Yes, that’s right. There’s no denying it. There are people who are way smarter than any of us who think that the arguments against theism are compelling. Of course, there are other people as equally as smart as they are who think the opposite.

As someone educated in the sciences I find this quite frustrating. There are real paradigm shifts in science that all (except for a few unnamed loonies) cannot turn back from. We are SURE that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa. Some things in science get to be quite settled because there's always good old reality to check against. Certainly, around the edges, science gets fuzzy and contentious, but it seems to me that in philosophy absolutely NOTHING ever gets settled and for any issue there are least 2 contrary but articulate and reasonable positions. Is this just the nature of philosophy or have I got it wrong?

It is true that science produces large domains of consensus. Although, it must be said, there are frequently competing research programs in science, and often the consensus is more superficial than it might appear (e.g. there is agreement that quantum mechanics gets the right empirical results, but ask two physicists what it says about the nature of reality and you’ll likely get three opinions.) There’s also disagreements that arise on account of the fact that there is science and pseudoscience with no clear boundary between the two. Still, the point is taken.

As for religious belief, there is, of course, widespread disagreement if you look at “religion” as a whole. But if you look at, say, Christianity, there’s actually quite a bit more agreement than it might seem. There is a core of fundamental beliefs that, by and large, Protestants and Roman Catholics and the Orthodox agree upon. We can think of different Christian groups who share these fundamental beliefs as akin to practitioners of competing theological research programs. Of course, there are groups that regard themselves as Christians who disagree about those fundamental beliefs – but this, the problem between drawing a clear line between authentic and inauthentic Christianity, seems pretty akin to me to the problem of demarcation when it comes to drawing a boundary between science and pseudoscience.

As for philosophy, well, there is more agreement than there might seem if one knows where to look. There are certain issues in philosophical logic, for example, that have been conclusively resolved (because there are proofs available). But even setting aside examples like that, though there may not be agreement about what the right solution to a particular philosophical problem is, there often does tend to be agreement about what the possible range of options are and what are the costs and benefits of holding those options. Still, disagreement in philosophy is much more rampant than it is in many other intellectual endeavors – there’s not denying that.

The problem of disagreement does generate a real epistemological problem. How can it be rational for me to hold on to beliefs that are such that people as equally (or more) intelligent and well informed as myself disagree with me about? If I think my beliefs are right and there’s are wrong, aren’t I arbitrarily privileging my perspective above there’s? And how could it be rational for me to do that?

It’s a real puzzle, I admit. But it’s a puzzle for all of us. We all hold controversial beliefs (be they political, philosophical, religious or moral). I’m more convinced that it is rational for me to hold at least some of those beliefs than I am that the phenomenon of disagreement renders those beliefs irrational for me, even if I am not quite sure how to resolve the puzzle. But good luck trying to push an argument from disagreement to the effect that controversial beliefs are irrational that is not also self-defeating – most likely, the argument will rely on premises that people as smart or smarter than yourself do not agree with!