Evidence for God

Ah, for all you interested parties, I have decided to perform the magickal working, I mentioned previously, in a thread in this forum, where you can all watch and ask questions.

Diana Hignutt said:

Aren't we all just puppets?

Click to expand...

Because there's no 'soul', you mean? Isn't that an excluded-middle sort of question?

Try it this way:
As far as I can see, the answers don't change any decisions.

Now try asking this one:
My answer: try and make a moral decision about how to balance those things, and perhaps what to do about them when they become imbalanced or bad for us.

That's pretty much how I do things now. I don't expect I'd do things differently if the premise were A or B instead.

Gehanna said:

Ignorance too easily becomes an excuse for manipulators. Seek with diligence not to be ignorant. That is the direct way to keep ignorance in check and decrease suffering.

Hello Diana Hignutt,

To just do and to just be? Sounds like an excuse for people to avoid thinking before they act. It may work in a perfect world, but the concept has no beneficial application in this "real" or "experiential" world.

Click to expand...

That's Taoism, my dear, and living with one's true will by another school. I didn't amke them up.

Gehanna said:

Do you mean not educated as in not having a high school diploma or as in not having a doctoral degree in rocket science? If you mean the latter, then neither am I.

What I meant about ignorance is as follows:

Genuine ignorance as a lack of awareness of the motive(s) for one’s own actions. These individuals may lack cognitive ability to seek with diligence not to be ignorant.

Genuine ignorance as a lack of knowledge of information. These individuals may also lack cognitive ability to seek with diligence not to be ignorant. If not, then seeking with diligence not to be ignorant would be applicable. In other words, study to shew thyself approved... err wait. That is from the Bible. What I mean is to exert effort to gain the missing information. Exercise the capacity for learning.

Manipulative ignorance (feigned ignorance) as denial of known information. In this case, appropriately seeking with diligence not to be ignorant is rejected because it thwarts the manipulator's gain.

Manipulative ignorance (feigned ignorance) as denial of awareness of the motive(s) for one’s own actions. Again, there would be rejection to prevent the thwarting of the manipulator's gain.

Attempting to hide one's nature by feigning ignorance is a choice.

Gehanna

Click to expand...

Thery're still just statements and definitions with no solution.

My only point is, or was, that the Buddha found, most suffering was do to ignorance. Ignorance of our own impermanence, and the impermanence of all things. Our attachment to impermanent things is our biggest reason for suffering. He also came up with a strategy, to help get rid of some of that attachment and suffering.

Ruv Draba said:

Because there's no 'soul', you mean? Isn't that an excluded-middle sort of question?

Try it this way:

A: What if we are puppets, how would it change anything?
B: What if we're not puppets, what would we do differently?
​

As far as I can see, the answers don't change any decisions.

Now try asking this one:

C: What if we are partly puppets, partly not -- what would we do differently?
​

My answer: try and make a moral decision about how to balance those things, and perhaps what to do about them when they become imbalanced or bad for us.

That's pretty much how I do things now. I don't expect I'd do things differently if the premise were A or B instead.

Click to expand...

"We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just the puppet that can see the strings." - Dr. Manhattan, Watchmen by Alan Moore.

To Diana Hignutt,

Are we not all relatives, genetically, of some distance or another? So and so being related to so and so, or so and so having a certain title, position, amount of money, etc. are only significant to me when I need to consider the impact, if any, on particular aspects of human behavior and functionality.

To bigb,

Do you suppose Buddha gave cause for his wife and child to experience suffering when he left them? I find it worse than ignorant to abandon your progeny. Buddha's wife and child became his followers, but I wonder, what else might they have done? What were their circumstances and how may those circumstances have influenced their choices. Too much information remains lacking.

Some of you may think poorly of me for my scrutiny. Whether or not you do is irrelevant. This is because I firmly believe scrutiny shears the strings of self-imposed puppetry.

Gehanna

Gehanna said:

Some of you may think poorly of me for my scrutiny. Whether or not you do is irrelevant. This is because I firmly believe scrutiny shears the strings of self-imposed puppetry.

Click to expand...

Crap, I love it. Great stuff. And, btw, feel free to call me, Diana, or just Di.

Gehanna said:

To bigb,

Do you suppose Buddha gave cause for his wife and child to experience suffering when he left them? I find it worse than ignorant to abandon your progeny. Buddha's wife and child became his followers, but I wonder, what else might they have done? What were their circumstances and how may those circumstances have influenced their choices. Too much information remains lacking.

Some of you may think poorly of me for my scrutiny. Whether or not you do is irrelevant. This is because I firmly believe scrutiny shears the strings of self-imposed puppetry.

Gehanna

Click to expand...

I can say he left her a princess, as he was a prince. It was an arranged marriage. Her, and his son lived in royal luxury. There choice was to continue as they were prior to his return. Most historical text say she didn't immediately become a follower as his son did. She did eventually become one of the first nuns.
It's a conflicting account, probably why Christian's leave out Jesus' early years.

Why would somebody on this thread think poorly of scrutiny.

Gehanna said:

Do you suppose Buddha gave cause for his wife and child to experience suffering when he left them? I find it worse than ignorant to abandon your progeny. Buddha's wife and child became his followers, but I wonder, what else might they have done? What were their circumstances and how may those circumstances have influenced their choices. Too much information remains lacking.

Click to expand...

That was a completely different culture, where men were expected to make pilgrimages after a certain point in their lives. You can look down on him now for making a decision that makes no sense to your world view, but he lived in a culture where doing otherwise would have (1 - required him to eventually assume the throne of a nation he probably realized would be conquered, and (2 - seemed really strange to all the people around him at the time.

I do not look down on Buddha. I look horizontally. Thank you Diana Hignutt aka Diana, or just Di , bigb, and Bartholomew for your replies.

I am glad we utilized puppets on strings and not those with hands up their cavities.

Gehanna

I almost forgot how much I love this. It almost fits in with earlier discussions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA

RIP, another dead genius

Gehanna said:

I do not look down on Buddha. I look horizontally. Thank you Diana Hignutt aka Diana, or just Di , bigb, and Bartholomew for your replies.

I am glad we utilized puppets on strings and not those with hands up their cavities.

Gehanna

Click to expand...

Personally I don't look at him at all, that I'm aware of. We can all be so honest!

Einstein abandoned his first-born. I do not look down on him either. I am too cynical to put people on pedestals and too lazy to dig their graves.

Gehanna

Gehanna said:

Do you suppose Buddha gave cause for his wife and child to experience suffering when he left them? I find it worse than ignorant to abandon your progeny. Buddha's wife and child became his followers, but I wonder, what else might they have done? What were their circumstances and how may those circumstances have influenced their choices. Too much information remains lacking.

Some of you may think poorly of me for my scrutiny. Whether or not you do is irrelevant. This is because I firmly believe scrutiny shears the strings of self-imposed puppetry.

Gehanna

Click to expand...

Is it actually scrutiny though? And if it is, what is being scrutinized apart from mythology?

Even for a buddhist who believes that the mythology is true or contains truth, is it not still mythology?

If we accept that Shakyamuni left Rahula and Yasodhara in a palace filled with royalty and servants, so that he could practice dharma and realize enlightenment, why not also accept that he descended from Tushita heaven in order to incarnate and realize enlightenment etc?

Whether he did or didn't leave his wife and son in a perfectly decent situation or descend from Tushita heaven or this or that, a foundation myth is necessary. If you want to have sutras and tantras, you need a divine mouth to have uttered those sutras and tantras.

There is neither information to be had, nor a lack of information. There is mythology.

Buddhism should stand or fall on the content of its teachings, not moral imputations projected onto ornamental details alleged in its foundation myth.

Hang on, though, don't foundation myths embody moral viewpoints?

And, Einstein is a red-herring because we don't look to mathematicians and physicists to teach us morality.

zornhau said:

Hang on, though, don't foundation myths embody moral viewpoints?

Click to expand...

Yep, though they're not all that do. Many of our stories about day to day life have morals too.

And, Einstein is a red-herring because we don't look to mathematicians and physicists to teach us morality.

Click to expand...

Some do though... quoting Einstein in polemics against war, for example:

I do not know how the third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth – rocks!

Click to expand...

These days, just about any celebrity can be used for moral compass, no matter why they're famous. Einstein is an odd choice though, because he once declined the Presidency of Israel, saying:

I have neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings

Click to expand...

(At least he was honest. )

Leaving a wife and son had entirely different implications for that society. From my understanding, that story was crafted to impress people from that era -- leaving a wife and child back then might have been more akin to leaving behind one's car and computer for a monastic life. Women were seen as tempting and desirable first and human beings second; children were seen as fetters to a materialistic life (In fact, Rahula's name means Fetter, or Chain, if memory serves).

For the Buddha to be a reputable teacher of moral ways in this era, this is a step he had to take.

Also, bear in mind that the Buddha never claimed to be a special entity. He knew he was human, and he told his followers as much.

I think it only matters if we want to worship people, rather than treat them as sources of possibly useful ideas.

as always, a fine discussion.

Ruv Draba said:

I think it only matters if we want to worship people, rather than treat them as sources of possibly useful ideas.

Click to expand...

Well, people who dislike scientology will often discredit its founder before evaluating what scientologists believe. I don't think they worship Hubbard. (Do they?)

Bartholomew said:

Well, people who dislike scientology will often discredit its founder before evaluating what scientologists believe. I don't think they worship Hubbard. (Do they?)

Click to expand...

People who promote faith often revere their founders to add authority to their claims. If they do that, they also court denigration and offence, since any skepticism or objection is therefore directed at the faith, its founding and founders.

An empirical view says that it doesn't matter where ideas came from; it's how we arrived at them and whether they can be shown to work. If we can adopt that view (and not all belief-systems can) then there's much less incentive to revere and denigrate people. That helps us (I think) get a clearer view of history and ideas...

But many belief-systems require reverence -- it's part of the discipline they teach, and considered beneficial and/or sacred. When that happens, then it's really hard to bring empirical discussion into the mix, because skepticism is often viewed as a profane attack on the sacred and revered.

I concluded long ago that outsiders can listen to insiders, but can't really talk to them unless they step outside their reverence. That being so, we can work out quite quickly how much conversation we can have with someone else. We don't have to be polite and keep listening if we've heard it before, and know that the other can't really hear what we're saying. And if the devout consider that unfair and closed-minded, we may have to live with that -- they may not see the impacts of their reverence and taboos on conversation.

Bartholomew said:

Well, people who dislike scientology will often discredit its founder before evaluating what scientologists believe. I don't think they worship Hubbard. (Do they?)

Click to expand...

Worship might not be quite the correct word, but revere? Yes, absolutely. It happens in any "strong high-demand" organization, whether religious or secular (Scientology, despite calling itself a church, is IMHO secular).

Do you know a recovering alcoholic? Ask who Bill W. or Dr. Bob was, and notice the expression on their face as they talk.

benbradley said:

Do you know a recovering alcoholic? Ask who Bill W. or Dr. Bob was, and notice the expression on their face as they talk.

Click to expand...

I know people who do the same with dieticians, personal trainers, financial advisers and Doctor Phil. Reverence is a very common human emotion; it extends well outside of the stuff we'd normally call religion. But the more esoteric the subject on which we're advised, the harder it is to know what it is we're actually dealing with -- the advice itself, or our emotions about it. (At least, that's true for me.)