Views and beliefs

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby nathan » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:22 pm

clw_uk wrote:
You 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.


Evolution never has and never will state such a thing since its not about how the world come to be
clw_uk wrote:Evolution being a fundemental fact of how life came to be
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:
science somehow disproves that without a doubt a certain buddhist teaching is in fact not true
from Evolutionism.


So 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.


Saying evolution is a fact is mainstream, saying it can be wrong is fringe

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
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}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby Cittasanto » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:33 pm

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.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby clw_uk » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:33 pm

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


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 the data you need is in any decent evolutionary book or website and its far from magical

The DOGMA of EVOLUTIONISM is really thickening up now. Still, in a deathmatch against creationsim my money is on age against beauty.


Evolutionism isnt a dogma anymore than maths is, its a fact of the universe

if i say 1+1=2 is that being dogmatic??



You are peaking now! , "the only one thats attempts to do so is creationism" I'll tell them you said that.


By all means tell them if you wish, any creationist argument will come from the scientific theory of "god did it"


:anjali:
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby cooran » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:52 pm

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
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby clw_uk » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:59 pm

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
Last edited by clw_uk on Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby nathan » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:07 am

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

You can't be serious! Do you know any actual scientists or do you just worship them from afar?

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 the data you need is in any decent evolutionary book or website and its far from magical

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 DOGMA of EVOLUTIONISM is really thickening up now. Still, in a deathmatch against creationsim my money is on age against beauty.


Evolutionism isnt a dogma anymore than maths is, its a fact of the universe

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.

You are peaking now! , "the only one thats attempts to do so is creationism" I'll tell them you said that.


By all means tell them if you wish, any creationist argument will come from the scientific theory of "god did it"

They are going to take it as a complement, your sinking to their level.

:anjali:
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}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby clw_uk » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:17 am

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?


You can't be serious! Do you know any actual scientists or do you just worship them from afar?


So you can only understand science if you personaly know a scientist????




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
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby clw_uk » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:22 am

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?
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby nathan » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:30 am

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?
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. :anjali:
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}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby AdvaitaJ » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:41 am

clw_uk wrote:...isnt this a unique aspect of Buddhism, its willingless to accept scientific knowledge and not cling to religous dogma

Considering what happened to Galileo, Copernicus, et al, I believe the word I want is:

Sadhu :thumbsup:

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
User avatar
AdvaitaJ
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby green » Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:06 am

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.
green
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:25 am

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby nathan » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:13 am

For your scientific enjoyment:
:coffee:

How To Think About Science
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html

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}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby Ravana » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:28 am

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

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.

clw_uk wrote:So if rebirth and kamma is shown to be false, it would be left behind

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:A if science disproves a buddhist teaching should it be abandoned?

Of course not.

Manapa wrote:Nathan read Darwins Book the origin of species, it is how life came to be (as it is now).

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.
“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.”
User avatar
Ravana
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:33 pm

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby nathan » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:49 am

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...
Episode 11 - Sajay Samuel
How To Think About Science
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html
:anjali:
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}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am

Hi Nathan,
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...

I seem to be being misquoted... I think Ravana said that... :cry:

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10112
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby Ravana » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:09 am

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...
Episode 11 - Sajay Samuel
How To Think About Science
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html
:anjali:

I haven't listened to the mp3, but may be you could briefly describe what you're trying to say here?
“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.”
User avatar
Ravana
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:33 pm

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby nathan » Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:01 am

Ravana wrote:
nathan 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...

Episode 11 - Sajay Samuel
How To Think About Science
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html
:anjali:

I haven't listened to the mp3, but may be you could briefly describe what you're trying to say here?
Listen to it. Better you hear this from a scientist. Listen to them all, I call them as expert witnesses vs. the quackery that has been tossed up as rational thought, fact and science by others in this thread and a hundred threads just like it.
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}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:33 am

Ravana wrote:
Manapa wrote:Nathan read Darwins Book the origin of species, it is how life came to be (as it is now).

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.


Darwins book is the baseline, it has not actually been improved on since it was written, and only ever confirmed.
the modern science has only confirmed his original evidence, both from Biology and Geology, we understand more how it works with DNA etc but these were all suggested as being present, plus it is written in a manner which can easily be read and understood.
modern scientists still read and study Darwin's Book and research.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby clw_uk » Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:59 am

Ravana

A if science disproves a buddhist teaching should it be abandoned?

Of course not.


Then isnt this clinging to a teaching? i mean if science shows that without a doubt it isnt so, then to hold that it is would be to deny what is real would it not?


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


Nathan its not really an article of faith to hold that gravity is a fact, i understand where your coming from that i cant test it for myself (unless i pay for experiments) and one cant prove something to be 100% true but for evolution, since there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of it just like gravity you can comfortably say that its a fact of reality since there is little (if anything) that casts doubt on it so saying

"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."

Doesnt apply at all, since you can test to see if its true and not just accept it on blind faith or just because everyone else says it is so, thats where the difference is
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Views and beliefs

Postby clw_uk » Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:30 pm

Green

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.


Good question, if its something ive had deep insight to and understand then yes
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: clw_uk, David N. Snyder, martinfrank and 12 guests