What evidence have you personally witnessed though? Maybe you've seen the Earth's curve over the Ocean, which only suggests the Earth could be round, but that's not much more than anyone saying "this guys an asshole, and because of that people weren't worried about his safety when they saw him in potential danger."
The point here is that I don't have to be able to prove everything myself in order to believe it's true, it is ok to pass things on to the experts when you know how the scientific community works. Dennet talks about this: start watching at about 21 minutes.
Like... I don't know what you think karma is... It's not some hokey pokey witchcraft, it's just common sense. "What goes around, comes around." You can't argue that you don't increase the chances of people feeling animosity toward you if you're an asshole and never generous.
Ok now you'r talking about another thing
If you define karma like that, it's just like you say, common sense. But the karma thing buddhists are talking about is something different, namely that good actions should lead to good results in your life without any natural connection between them.
Like saving a cat from a tree would make sunshine the next day more likely.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it.
Ah, but how does figuring out what makes sense with your own mind make it a truth? Truth pertaining to reality, at least.
Truth, reality, knowledge. How do you tell them apart, or if there's actually any difference? That question is about as silly as you want it to be. OOh. Deep!
I see the theory of karma to be pretty sound. You do stuff, it tends to result in other stuff, which might or might not affect you. Now, seemingly unrelated stuff might still affect you - because you just neglected to consider something. Saving cats and getting a raise are seemingly unrelated, but if you're the type of person who'll go save cats, maybe that's an indication that you're the type of guy that's more likely to get a raise. Just switch around the causality and you're set.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it.
Ah, but how does figuring out what makes sense with your own mind make it a truth? Truth pertaining to reality, at least.
How does science coming to a "conclusion" make it truth, either? Both a meditative mind, and a scientific law, are changed and reshaped as what we know changes.
And actually, I have found my intuition to be more useful in practice than what I have been taught. But maybe that is because of bad teachers. Or good intuition.
To believe in karma, you'd have to assume there's some sort of supernatural scheme going on.
no you don't. you're being closeminded. what kind of world do you think we live in? how much do you really know?
we don't even know what causes consciousness. how can you say that.
There's many theories for what caused consciousness to evolve, but it's true that there's still many things science can not explain. But the number of things that can be explained by natural phenomena has been increasing through the centuries, which makes me think there's no supernatural things going on in the background. But all you need to convince me otherwise is some evidence. Right now you are just guessing.
To believe in karma, you'd have to assume there's some sort of supernatural scheme going on.
no you don't. you're being closeminded. what kind of world do you think we live in? how much do you really know?
we don't even know what causes consciousness. how can you say that.
There's many theories for what caused consciousness to evolve, but it's true that there's still many things science can not explain. But the number of things that can be explained by natural phenomena has been increasing through the centuries, which makes me think there's no supernatural things going on in the background. But all you need to convince me otherwise is some evidence. Right now you are just guessing.
The point here is that I don't have to be able to prove everything myself in order to believe it's true, it is ok to pass things on to the experts when you know how the scientific community works.
That's still an act of faith by any definition. If you can see my point here, what you believe is a matter of convenience because it helps you to cope with the world you understand better. It's irrelevant whether you read it in a book, your mother told you, or your friend told you.
If you define karma like that, it's just like you say, common sense. But the karma thing buddhists are talking about is something different, namely that good actions should lead to good results in your life without any natural connection between them.
Like saving a cat from a tree would make sunshine the next day more likely.
On July 28 2008 09:40 jtan wrote: If you define karma like that, it's just like you say, common sense. But the karma thing buddhists are talking about is something different, namely that good actions should lead to good results in your life without any natural connection between them.
This is inaccurate. Buddhists are no more superstitious than you are.
I am not saying the buddhists are correct about karma and reincarnation. I am just saying that I see no good reason to doubt them.
Really? All the "superstitious" stuff was a result of misinterpretations? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe it's just your flavor of Buddhism that's not superstitious.
I know that around here (in Korea), people actually pray to Buddha as if he was the Christian God, asking for boons. Maybe not people you'd recognize as true Buddhists, but they wear the label and say silly things about the nature of the universe.
On July 28 2008 09:59 BottleAbuser wrote: Really? All the "superstitious" stuff was a result of misinterpretations? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe it's just your flavor of Buddhism that's not superstitious.
I know that around here (in Korea), people actually pray to Buddha as if he was the Christian God, asking for boons. Maybe not people you'd recognize as true Buddhists, but they wear the label and say silly things about the nature of the universe.
yeah those people aren't buddhists, they are posers. but there a posers in every religion.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it.
Ah, but how does figuring out what makes sense with your own mind make it a truth? Truth pertaining to reality, at least.
How does science coming to a "conclusion" make it truth, either? Both a meditative mind, and a scientific law, are changed and reshaped as what we know changes.
And actually, I have found my intuition to be more useful in practice than what I have been taught. But maybe that is because of bad teachers. Or good intuition.
well if you're convinced that the Earth is round then I'm sure most of science's conclusions will seem on the money to you. These conclusions/theories are based off of empirical evidence/logical reasoning which is really the best we've got, everything else is faith.
Like a caveman will know that eating meat nourishes him because he's done it. He can believe that eating a rock will nourish him, but until he tries it he can't know because he has just a hypothesis (or more of a guess). Haha probably another weird/bad example, but hopefully the message gets across
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it.
Ah, but how does figuring out what makes sense with your own mind make it a truth? Truth pertaining to reality, at least.
How does science coming to a "conclusion" make it truth, either? Both a meditative mind, and a scientific law, are changed and reshaped as what we know changes.
And actually, I have found my intuition to be more useful in practice than what I have been taught. But maybe that is because of bad teachers. Or good intuition.
well if you're convinced that the Earth is round then I'm sure most of science's conclusions will seem on the money to you. These conclusions/theories are based off of empirical evidence/logical reasoning which is really the best we've got, everything else is faith.
Buddhist meditation works on the laws of cause and effect as well. Buddhism is absolutely not about faith!
Like a caveman will know that eating meat nourishes him because he's done it. He can believe that eating a rock will nourish him, but until he tries it he can't know because he has just a hypothesis (or more of a guess). Haha probably another weird/bad example, but hopefully the message gets across
Well I really don't know how buddhists reached some of the conclusions they did.
To me personally karma is a way of living. Do good things and you will get good things, do bad and you get bad things. Just like another version of "what goes around comes around" or "you harvest what seed(i think)".
Kind of derailing, hope you don't mind... but you'll probably want to clarify which school of Buddhism you associate with, so you don't get lumped in with everyone who calls himself a Buddhist. It's futile to say "they aren't actually Buddhists/Christians/Hindu" when that's what they call themselves - who's right? The actual basis of the religion is the same - the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama. The interpretation is what's different.
Also irritates me to no end when Protestants identify themselves as Christian, which is fine, but then refuse to recognize Catholics as Christian. "They're Catholics. Not Christian. I'm Christian." Idiots, for more reasons than just that, but it's another topic.
Also: I find many of Buddhist teachings to be quite logical. Just not very appealing. Like: "Suffering is the result of wanting something and not getting it. Solution is to not want anything." I'd much prefer to want something and get it.
The point here is that I don't have to be able to prove everything myself in order to believe it's true, it is ok to pass things on to the experts when you know how the scientific community works.
That's still an act of faith by any definition. If you can see my point here, what you believe is a matter of convenience because it helps you to cope with the world you understand better. It's irrelevant whether you read it in a book, your mother told you, or your friend told you.
In a sense you are right, but you can't equate the efforts of the scientific community with what a person tells you, or what you read in a holy book.
The results the scientific community agrees on tends to be true - not in the litteral sense (you can't prove results about the physical world is ultimatly true) - but in the sense that it "works", and you can make use of that piece of science.
On July 28 2008 09:34 Shauni wrote: What I meant in that last paragraph was that I was slightly confused as to why you started talking about buddhism then proceeded to write down general stuff which a lot of asian religions follow. I'm not questioning your knowledge of buddhism, I'm just saying that if there are any fellow teamliquidans who doesn't know anything about buddhism, they won't understand the religion very well from reading your opening post.
Karma and reincarnation are part of buddhism. I don't understand you.
Hello fellow christians, let's talk about believing in god! Do you believe in god?
To me, you made it look like reincarnation and karma is the definition of buddhism. What is it that you don't understand?
And yeah, I know buddhism reincarnation differs slightly from the other eastern religions.
What's your point Shauni? He makes it clear he's talking about reincarnation and Karma in the context of Buddhism. It's not his responsibility to educate all readers on what exactly the doctrine is; it's too complex to explain comprehensively in a blog post, and it's not difficult to get a general understanding from a minute on Wikipedia.
On July 28 2008 10:11 BottleAbuser wrote: Also: I find many of Buddhist teachings to be quite logical. Just not very appealing. Like: "Suffering is the result of wanting something and not getting it. Solution is to not want anything." I'd much prefer to want something and get it.
All things are impermanent. Wanting something and receiving it will only grant a temporary respite from suffering.
On July 28 2008 10:11 BottleAbuser wrote: Kind of derailing, hope you don't mind... but you'll probably want to clarify which school of Buddhism you associate with, so you don't get lumped in with everyone who calls himself a Buddhist. It's futile to say "they aren't actually Buddhists/Christians/Hindu" when that's what they call themselves - who's right? The actual basis of the religion is the same - the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama. The interpretation is what's different.
tibetan buddhism but I suspect that the part of the religion I care about is the same in all schools.
Also: I find many of Buddhist teachings to be quite logical. Just not very appealing. Like: "Suffering is the result of wanting something and not getting it. Solution is to not want anything." I'd much prefer to want something and get it.
Let's say I find the rewarding aspects of fulfilling my desires to outweigh the unpleasantness of when my desires are not fulfilled. I might be guaranteed a suffering-free life if I quashed all my wants, but... oh whatever, these are first-tier arguments that we'll probably disagree on and never resolve. Better not to start. Let's leave it at "we disagree on how to solve problems."
EPT
