clw_uk wrote:Evolution never has and never will state such a thing since its not about how the world come to beYou haven't provided an argument for it at all. Only completely baseless claims to the supremacy of what could as easily be the contention that the world sprouted into being fully fashioned on the back of a tortoise.and also evolution doesnt state that things happen by chance out of nothing (the out of nothing bit is acctualy the creationist argument that we all come from gods magic)Much like this statement:clw_uk wrote:Evolution being a fundemental fact of how life came to befrom Evolutionism.science somehow disproves that without a doubt a certain buddhist teaching is in fact not true
Saying evolution is a fact is mainstream, saying it can be wrong is fringeSo far we have a materialist scientist doctrine that sounds more like scientrollogy that anything from even mainstream much less leading edge science. So long as your going to present this all in a completely patronizing and paternalistic manner as if the actual data is too far over our heads to consider you can expect that I for one will continue to be responding mainly to the utterly vain and vacant pretense of an entirely unsubstantiated superiority.
The DOGMA of EVOLUTIONISM is really thickening up now. Still, in a deathmatch against creationsim my money is on age against beauty.
Im not patronizing anybody here unless there a creationist (and even then im not trying to be patronizing with intent to upset) and i dont hold the data is over anyones head, when have i said that???
Since you began with no data and simply continue to insist that this magical data set exists I am forced conclude your EVOLUTIONISM is more mythical that any Creationism I have ever heard of.
All im stating in reguards to evolution is that it is a perfect theory I'll add that one to the list. That's rich. that accurately shows how humans came to be But won't show it to us unwashed buddhists apparently. through natural selection Like your selectively comprehensive lack of evidence for all of this? and how there is no other theory that can compete with it You are peaking now! , the only one thats attempts to do so is creationism I'll tell them you said that. , which isnt science its merely the presentation of false data, bad science and a clinging to religous dogma that no longer has any basis in reality Is that a frank assessment of what you've brought to the table or what? At least you found a suitable mirror.
Metta
Views and beliefs
Re: Views and beliefs
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Views and beliefs
Nathan read Darwins Book the origin of species, it is how life came to be (as it is now).
creationism starts with a story and tries to prove it, science starts with an idea sometimes a story and sees if the evidence is there to support it.
evolution has nothing to do with how it started but how it progressed, Abiogenesis looks for how it began.
creationism starts with a story and tries to prove it, science starts with an idea sometimes a story and sees if the evidence is there to support it.
evolution has nothing to do with how it started but how it progressed, Abiogenesis looks for how it began.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Views and beliefs
Nathan, im not an evolutionary biologist so i dont know the data off the top of my head i can only point you to other sources for the data, i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
if i say 1+1=2 is that being dogmatic??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All the data you need is in any decent evolutionary book or website and its far from magicalSince you began with no data and simply continue to insist that this magical data set exists I am forced conclude your EVOLUTIONISM is more mythical that any Creationism I have ever heard of.
Evolutionism isnt a dogma anymore than maths is, its a fact of the universeThe DOGMA of EVOLUTIONISM is really thickening up now. Still, in a deathmatch against creationsim my money is on age against beauty.
if i say 1+1=2 is that being dogmatic??
By all means tell them if you wish, any creationist argument will come from the scientific theory of "god did it"You are peaking now! , "the only one thats attempts to do so is creationism" I'll tell them you said that.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Views and beliefs
Hello clw-uk, all,
I think you would have to wait until scientists do state that they have disproved something the Buddha taught as essential to the Dhamma (Things as They Really Are).
To your knowledge, in over 2500 years ... has science done so with any essential part of the Teachings? If you put up something maybe we can look at it.
metta
Chris
I think you would have to wait until scientists do state that they have disproved something the Buddha taught as essential to the Dhamma (Things as They Really Are).
To your knowledge, in over 2500 years ... has science done so with any essential part of the Teachings? If you put up something maybe we can look at it.
metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Re: Views and beliefs
Hi Chris
No i dont think it has and i personally think that there is a great furture is in store for buddhism and science
I dont really see any threat in modern science to Buddhism at all, not even from materialism or physicalism (ive never understood why these are considered threats to buddhism by some) since if these are true i still think the Buddhadhamma wouldnt lose any of its effectiveness, i see the Buddhadhamma as perfectly compatible with many scientific understandings (since both are concerned with reality)
Metta
No i dont think it has and i personally think that there is a great furture is in store for buddhism and science
I dont really see any threat in modern science to Buddhism at all, not even from materialism or physicalism (ive never understood why these are considered threats to buddhism by some) since if these are true i still think the Buddhadhamma wouldnt lose any of its effectiveness, i see the Buddhadhamma as perfectly compatible with many scientific understandings (since both are concerned with reality)
Metta
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Views and beliefs
clw_uk wrote:Nathan, im not an evolutionary biologist so i dont know the data off the top of my head i can only point you to other sources for the data, i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You can't be serious! Do you know any actual scientists or do you just worship them from afar?
All the data you need is in any decent evolutionary book or website and its far from magicalSince you began with no data and simply continue to insist that this magical data set exists I am forced conclude your EVOLUTIONISM is more mythical that any Creationism I have ever heard of.
No your right, not even magical since you have even yet to pull a rabbit out of anything here. I've read plenty of science. Show me some HARD SCIENCE that supports ANY of your BASELESS CONTENTIONS presented as unquestionable gospel in THIS THREAD.
Evolutionism isnt a dogma anymore than maths is, its a fact of the universeThe DOGMA of EVOLUTIONISM is really thickening up now. Still, in a deathmatch against creationsim my money is on age against beauty.
Do you write for Stephen Collbert? So far a dogma is all Evolution is according to you that's why I call it Evolutionism because you have taken the worst of creationism and applied it to some hazy and indistinct pseudo-scientific idea fantastically spun out of what has possibly been more or less roughly determined so far about what may in some contexts be considered to be 'evolutionary' processes. I imagine the actual scientists around here are too appalled to post anything actually relevant to a grown up discussion of any of this. I am not going to bother bringing any hard science to the table if you won't do us the courtesy of supporting your initial contentions in some significant way with hard science in the first place. So, to put it simply, no, Evolution as you present it is complete b-llsh-t.
if i say 1+1=2 is that being dogmatic??
You probably need some rest and a nutritious meal.
By all means tell them if you wish, any creationist argument will come from the scientific theory of "god did it"You are peaking now! , "the only one thats attempts to do so is creationism" I'll tell them you said that.
They are going to take it as a complement, your sinking to their level.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
Re: Views and beliefs
Do you write for Stephen Collbert? So far a dogma is all Evolution is according to you that's why I call it Evolutionism because you have taken the worst of creationism and applied it to some hazy and indistinct pseudo-scientific idea fantastically spun out of what has possibly been more or less roughly determined so far about what may in some contexts be considered to be 'evolutionary' processes. I imagine the actual scientists around here are too appalled to post anything actually relevant to a grown up discussion of any of this. I am not going to bother bringing any hard science to the table if you won't do us the courtesy of supporting your initial contentions in some significant way with hard science in the first place. So, to put it simply, no, Evolution as you present it is complete b-llsh-t.
Im sorry what exactly about how i have put evolution accross is Bull-sh*t?
Is it wrong to say evolution is pretty much a fact? or that it can explain where humans come from? or that the only opposition to it in our age is creationism OR some kind of "intelligent design" which is just another word for creationism and a way to peddle religous magical dogma as scientific fact
Why are you opposed to evolution? or are you opposed to someone saying that its a fact?
So you can only understand science if you personaly know a scientist????You can't be serious! Do you know any actual scientists or do you just worship them from afar?
No your right, not even magical since you have even yet to pull a rabbit out of anything here. I've read plenty of science. Show me some HARD SCIENCE that supports ANY of your BASELESS CONTENTIONS presented as unquestionable gospel in THIS THREAD.
The hard science of evolution is there to find in any evolutionary book
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Views and beliefs
I hold evolution in the same light as gravity, pretty much a fundemental fact of the universe
Or am i being dogmatic by asserting that gravity cant be disputed?
Or am i being dogmatic by asserting that gravity cant be disputed?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Views and beliefs
Yes these are all articles of faith, supported by absentee and invisible authorities. Pretty pure dogma devoid of even a doctrine and indicating no practice whatsoever. As factual and objectively real as my saying something like 'a nearby stop sign gives me the next day's lottery ticket numbers every Tuesday at noon'. Don't you believe it? Everyone else does. Obviously you are not getting my elementary school point and it would be cruel to continue. Good luck with your... well good luck with whatever it is you are about.clw_uk wrote:I hold evolution in the same light as gravity, pretty much a fundemental fact of the universe
Or am i being dogmatic by asserting that gravity cant be disputed?
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
Re: Views and beliefs
Considering what happened to Galileo, Copernicus, et al, I believe the word I want is:clw_uk wrote:...isnt this a unique aspect of Buddhism, its willingless to accept scientific knowledge and not cling to religous dogma
Sadhu
Regards: AdvaitaJ
The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away.
We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains. Li Bai
We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains. Li Bai
Re: Views and beliefs
Would you reconsider scientific knowledge if what you observe and know through Buddhist practice is correct and you find that it is currently unknowable through science?
Let's put the shoe on the other foot.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot.
Re: Views and beliefs
For your scientific enjoyment:
How To Think About Science
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If science is neither cookery, nor angelic virtuosity, then what is it?
Modern societies have tended to take science for granted as a way of knowing, ordering and controlling the world. Everything was subject to science, but science itself largely escaped scrutiny. This situation has changed dramatically in recent years. Historians, sociologists, philosophers and sometimes scientists themselves have begun to ask fundamental questions about how the institution of science is structured and how it knows what it knows. David Cayley talks to some of the leading lights of this new field of study.
For the downloadable podcast versions of the series visit CBC Podcasting. To order the complete, 24-part series in print or audio visit the CBC Shop website.
Schedule
Episode 1 - Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer
Episode 2 - Lorraine Daston
Episode 3 - Margaret Lock
Episode 4 - Ian Hacking and Andrew Pickering
Episode 5 - Ulrich Beck and Bruno Latour
Episode 6 - James Lovelock
Episode 7 - Arthur Zajonc
Episode 8 - Wendell Berry
Episode 9 - Rupert Sheldrake
Episode 10 - Brian Wynne
Episode 11 - Sajay Samuel
Episode 12 - David Abram
Episode 13 - Dean Bavington
Episode 14 - Evelyn Fox Keller
Episode 15 - Barbara Duden and Silya Samerski
Episode 16 - Steven Shapin
Episode 17 - Peter Galison
Episode 18 - Richard Lewontin
Episode 19 - Ruth Hubbard
Episode 20 - Michael Gibbons, Peter Scott, & Janet Atkinson Grosjean
Episode 21 -Christopher Norris and Mary Midgely
Episode 22 - Allan Young
Episode 23 - Lee Smolin
Episode 24 - Nicholas Maxwell
How To Think About Science
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If science is neither cookery, nor angelic virtuosity, then what is it?
Modern societies have tended to take science for granted as a way of knowing, ordering and controlling the world. Everything was subject to science, but science itself largely escaped scrutiny. This situation has changed dramatically in recent years. Historians, sociologists, philosophers and sometimes scientists themselves have begun to ask fundamental questions about how the institution of science is structured and how it knows what it knows. David Cayley talks to some of the leading lights of this new field of study.
For the downloadable podcast versions of the series visit CBC Podcasting. To order the complete, 24-part series in print or audio visit the CBC Shop website.
Schedule
Episode 1 - Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer
Episode 2 - Lorraine Daston
Episode 3 - Margaret Lock
Episode 4 - Ian Hacking and Andrew Pickering
Episode 5 - Ulrich Beck and Bruno Latour
Episode 6 - James Lovelock
Episode 7 - Arthur Zajonc
Episode 8 - Wendell Berry
Episode 9 - Rupert Sheldrake
Episode 10 - Brian Wynne
Episode 11 - Sajay Samuel
Episode 12 - David Abram
Episode 13 - Dean Bavington
Episode 14 - Evelyn Fox Keller
Episode 15 - Barbara Duden and Silya Samerski
Episode 16 - Steven Shapin
Episode 17 - Peter Galison
Episode 18 - Richard Lewontin
Episode 19 - Ruth Hubbard
Episode 20 - Michael Gibbons, Peter Scott, & Janet Atkinson Grosjean
Episode 21 -Christopher Norris and Mary Midgely
Episode 22 - Allan Young
Episode 23 - Lee Smolin
Episode 24 - Nicholas Maxwell
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
Re: Views and beliefs
If you go back and read my posts, I was replying Fede's post regarding the Dalai Lama. A person claiming to have a scientific view of the world cannot believe things such as kamma and rebirth unless evidence can be provided to justify these beliefs - i.e. if the Dalai Lama is accepting a scientific view, he should abandon his beliefs in kamma, rebirth, etc until evidence can be found to justify them. He cannot say he will keep believing them until they are disproved - which would be like claiming to believe in the celestial teapot until someone disproves it.mikenz66 wrote:I don't see how Russell's teapot applies to questions such as whether mind is just an emergent phenomenon of the brain. That is an open question that has nothing to do with any particular religious of philosophical view.
Mike
Only those who accept science a-priori would have to do that. But then again, those who accept science a-priori should not believe in rebirth and kamma until they have been positively proven.clw_uk wrote:So if rebirth and kamma is shown to be false, it would be left behind
Of course not.clw_uk wrote:A if science disproves a buddhist teaching should it be abandoned?
I think modern biologists have come a long, long, long way in understanding evolution since Darwin. So I would recommend something written by a present-day scientist - e.g. I think "The Ancestor's Tale" by Prof. Dawkins should be good, though I haven't read it myself.Manapa wrote:Nathan read Darwins Book the origin of species, it is how life came to be (as it is now).
“The incomparable Wheel of Dhamma has been set in motion by the Blessed One in the deer sanctuary at Isipatana, and no seeker, brahmin, celestial being, demon, god, or any other being in the world can stop it.”
Re: Views and beliefs
Episode 11 - Sajay SamuelRavana wrote:mikenz66 wrote:A person claiming to have a scientific view of the world cannot believe things such as kamma and rebirth unless evidence can be provided to justify these beliefs...
How To Think About Science
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
Re: Views and beliefs
Hi Nathan,
Mike
I seem to be being misquoted... I think Ravana said that...nathan wrote:Ravana wrote:mikenz66 wrote:A person claiming to have a scientific view of the world cannot believe things such as kamma and rebirth unless evidence can be provided to justify these beliefs...
Mike