the great atheism debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Alex123 »

contemplans wrote: The explanation is on page 5, which explains causal series, and how an essentially ordered one needs something outside of it to explain it.
If causal series in the universe requires something outside of it (God), then how to explain God? What is outside of God?

If God just is, then why not say that Universe just is. At least we can examine universe and don't create additional unnecessary "entities".
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4018
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Goofaholix »

contemplans wrote:What else explains why existence is?
Pretty much every religion except Buddhism has such an explanation, just pick one, they are all the same in that they are pure speculation, and what is the use of such an speculative explanations anyway?

A much more honest response to the question is to admit one does not know and make the most of ones actuality.

It appears western ontology is a solution to a non-existent problem.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Alex123 »

contemplans wrote:What else explains why existence is?
Existence is due to causes.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Kenshou »

When the Buddha said, "When this is, that is; from the arising of this comes the arising of that." That is logic. He was reasoning.
Sure. And this relatively straightforward reasoning can be confirmed for one's own with observation. And can then be seen to directly apply to the real-world problems of suffering and it's causes, without any need to imagine a metaphysics behind it.

But no amount of observation will show us a potentiality, or a purpose. A god or a soul. You can reason out where you think they ought to fit in but that is really all you can do, since these ideas are not really inherent in anything that can be experienced, other than as thoughts bouncing around in your head.
But this reasoning of hylomorphism is not a diversion. It leads to all kinds of conclusions about this world including that everything has a purpose (teleology). It is no small matter.
Great. It leads to conclusions. Problem is, none of it can be shown to be true. So it has no utility other than being food for thought.

This is the difference, to me. The reasoning used in the Buddhist path of practice has a whole lot that can be know by actually seeing it occur, if you do the practice. You'll never find some actuality or a bit of soul, though. The 4 noble truths can deconstruct the problem of suffering in its immediacy. I can actually use this in real life. So why would I ever settle for a line of reasoning with no palpable content? I am unable to base my (for lack of a better term) spirituality on something so petty.
Whether you agree with it or not, major religions didn't get into this theory becauase they had nothing better to do, but, if we are to be charitable, they adopted it because it blew their minds and gave them better understanding of the world around them, so that with it they can act more skillfully.
Okay, but this is kind of an appeal to popularity and doesn't actually contribute to the argument.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote: When the Buddha said, "When this is, that is; from the arising of this comes the arising of that." That is logic. He was reasoning.
This is not reasoning. This is an expression of direct insight. Big difference.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by retrofuturist »

Once again, well said, Kenshou.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Cittasanto »

can we rename this thread samsara? cyclic argumentum? or didn't this just get said?
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
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Kenshou »

Ha, yeah, samsara it is.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
contemplans wrote: The acorn has within itself teh potential to be an oak tree. It is actually an acorn
Not really. An acorn is not a singular thing; rather, it is always composite thing. Each bit of the acorn would have to be actual actualities following your logic.
It is a singular entity in the sense that it is more than its parts.
And you can say that about each of the parts.
It has a unified form.
Due to causes and conditions, but there is no need to posit and unverifiable and illogical prime cause.
We and the acorn have similar composition, we are made of the same molecules etc., but we are not the same. I don't have the (direct) potentiality to become an oak tree.
You have an indirect potential to become an oak tree?
tiltbillings wrote:Kamma, on the other hand, refers to the ethical conditioning based upon choice, which is something that is, in fact, workable empirically.
Kamma is more than this. How's the empirical way for the numerous lifetimes you are reaping karma for right now?
Ungrammatical sentence. I am not sure what you are asking.
How about acting and intending without reaping karma?
One does not reap kamma.
How about Nibbana, which if you've attained it, no one else can measure nor see your attainment?
Which makes it like any number of human experiences. The point is that it is a possible human experience, but an omniscience, omnipotent god is not open to direct human experience.
If you say, well we see these things through effects in the empirical world, then I would say that is the same answer I would give in respect to what I am saying.
Damdifino what you mean here.

tiltbillings wrote:Just is what? The problem with this anemic philosophy is that is really does not account for the fact that each bit of the process must be a complete actuality, otherwise how could it exist?
It exists in one respect, while being potential in another. My body does not have pure existence, because it has within it the potential to die. not only that, though, it is constantly undergoing this change. The actuality we have is true, but it isn't steady or constant. There is within it a possibility of change. JUST IS, refers to something that does not have these possibilities.
In other words “JUST IS” is naught more than a figment of your imagination, having no empirical basis.
tiltbillings wrote: No nibbana is not. Nibbana is not a thing, as has been carefully pointed out to you using the suttas. Nibbana has not a thing to do with what you are talking about.
I am not saying it is a thing. It is a state or dimension. It is related, though. It is constant, steady, no possibility of change or dying, outside of samsara. There is a relation there.
Not that you have shown. It certainly is not a “dimension,” but it is certainty the “state” of the mind being free of greed, hatred, and delusion.
tiltbillings wrote: This is something you do a lot, which is conflate, without justification the Buddha’s teaching with your Christian stuff, but there is no justification for it. Actually, nibbana is not a goal outside the sense sphere.
Final nibbana is outside of the sense sphere.
You cannot meaningfully say that.
When one attains Nibbana, that break through moment, the senses are not involved at all. The senses come back, but they are related to in a whole different way.
Wrong, as usual.
tiltbillings wrote: Only if one uses certain base assumptions.
Here are the asssumptions: 1) Things that exist undergoing change. 2) Their existence needs an explanation.
Do they? Do we assume that their explanation is some sort of unverifiable first cause?
contemplans wrote: Will is not a thing, but a process. As I said to retro, you have to prove the jump from all powerful to all doing.
So, you are saying, the supposed god did not create processes.

But a process with justification can be said to be a thing that happens.

Freser: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant."
There is nothing here that says a process can not be considered a thing. Will exists, action exist. Certainly our language allows us to speak of action and processes as things happening. You obviously see the incoherence in Freser's excellent statement and are trying your best to get way from it. Even physical things can be seen, with complete justification, as processes. Your attempt to dodge the incoherence of Freser's statement, by trying to make a dichotomy between things and processes, fails.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

Here are some points we need to get grounded in to understand the theory:

1) There doesn't have to be a beginning. A huge misunderstanding here is that "first" equals chronological first. Kant misunderstood this, all the contemporary atheists mistunderstand it, and even some theists. The infinite regress is not into the past. Aquinas himself rejected the arguments which tried to show that the world must have had a beginning. First means ultimate. The ultimate without which nothing else exists. This is at every moment necessary, not just at a "beginning".

NOT

God > first created thing > second created thing > etc. >
BUT

God
v v v v v v v v
> Creature > Creature > Creature > Etc. >

(Best I can do without a picture.)


2) Caused causes are themselves effects. An increased number of effects does not explain what needs to be explained, it only adds more that needs explaining. Contingent beings (those which rely on a cause to exist) must derive their existence from a self-existence being. An infinite number of contingent beings would still have this requirement.


3) The theory refers to essential causation, not just any old causation like me heating water up to cause it to boil. Only that causation without which something would not exist. It is a theory pretaining to an essentially ordered series of causes.


4) We tend to think of being in a static way. Being is action [actuality]. If you were just "left alone", you would cease to exist.


4) This inquiry has value. In fact it has the most value, because EVERY single human inquiry is based on the answer to the question of existence. The principles learned from it are universally and absolutely true, and apply to all other areas of inquiry. No other object of thought is possible without it. Notions such as unity, truth, and goodness essentially depend on the results of this inquiry. Everything is in the balance. All the principles which you have learned throughout your life, including those you apply to learning the Dhamma, are based here. Whether you take for granted or not does not affect this truth.


Here is the argument, to boil it down.


In order for something to exist, it must be caused by another. The cause which gives rise to a new existence is called an essential cause in respect to the effect. If such essential causes were infinite in number, an infinity of conditions would have to be fulfilled in order for the effect to exist. But an infinity of actual conditions cannot be fulfilled. Hence the effect will not exist.

If no ultimate condition can be reached which is sufficient for the existence of something, that thing will not exist; but if there is an infinite regress in the order of causes actually and presently necessary for the existence of something, the sufficient condition is never attained. Therefore an ultimate condition is needed to explain why things exist.


Basically going back to actuality and potentiality. If there is not ultimate uncaused cause, then all being would be pure potentiality, which means nothing exists, which is an absurdity.

If you cannot argue against this argument, just admit it. I am not here to win. I am here to give you the argument, and to receive the Buddhist response. This argument has already discounted the Buddhist response that essential causes can be infinite without referring to an outside source of existence. The Buddha saying he didn't see a beginning is irrelevant. Aquinas didn't see it either. This does not even need to admit that the Buddha didn't see this truth, but just chose not to speak about it as was his policy in general about these matters. Perhaps it will take more time and study of the theory to understand it and formulate a response. But existence is something which is currently not explained through logic by any other system. Aristotle is unique in this manner.
Justsit
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Justsit »

Not Theravadan, but...have you read Nagarjuna?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings contemplans,
contemplans wrote:4) This inquiry has value. In fact it has the most value, because EVERY single human inquiry is based on the answer to the question of existence. The principles learned from it are universally and absolutely true, and apply to all other areas of inquiry. No other object of thought is possible without it. Notions such as unity, truth, and goodness essentially depend on the results of this inquiry. Everything is in the balance. All the principles which you have learned throughout your life, including those you apply to learning the Dhamma, are based here. Whether you take for granted or not does not affect this truth.
A Buddhist response to this Western ontology...

SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

tiltbillings wrote: Freser: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant."
There is nothing here that says a process can not be considered a thing. Will exists, action exist. Certainly our language allows us to speak of action and processes as things happening. You obviously see the incoherence in Freser's excellent statement and are trying your best to get way from it. Even physical things can be seen, with complete justification, as processes. Your attempt to dodge the incoherence of Freser's statement, by trying to make a dichotomy between things and processes, fails.
I am not shying from this statement. It is rather odd you're trying to make a big deal about while every post I have is supporting what he is saying. There is being and process. If you want to say all is process, then you still have to explain what gives rise to "process". The argument is still the same.

Justsit wrote:Not Theravadan, but...have you read Nagarjuna?
Just bits and pieces. I did listen to the whole of Thanissaro's exposition on him, and read the parts about him in Buddhist Religions.



retrofuturist wrote: A Buddhist response to Western ontology...
However one wants to direct their perception, the question is still out there. The fact is that Buddhism take a lot for granted as working assumptions. One big one is that happiness is good and samsara/dukkha is bad. He never explains why. You may say they are self evident. Implicit in that statement is a support of the theory I have described. Or you live in a life of contradiction. There is no reason why dukkha is a bad thing without reference to something that is completely not dukkha.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote:Here are some points we need to get grounded in to understand the theory:. . . .
Yep.

Freser: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant." Yes, such as the AIDS virus, the cancer cell, the TB bacillus, not to mention the Inquisition, Hitler, the horror of Syria, etc., directly caused by god at every instant.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: Freser: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant."
There is nothing here that says a process can not be considered a thing. Will exists, action exist. Certainly our language allows us to speak of action and processes as things happening. You obviously see the incoherence in Freser's excellent statement and are trying your best to get way from it. Even physical things can be seen, with complete justification, as processes. Your attempt to dodge the incoherence of Freser's statement, by trying to make a dichotomy between things and processes, fails.
I am not shying from this statement. It is rather odd you're trying to make a big deal about while every post I have is supporting what he is saying. There is being and process. If you want to say all is process, then you still have to explain what gives rise to "process". The argument is still the same.
Yes, the argument isthe same. God gives rise to process. It can be no other than how it wants it to be.
  • "If God designs the life of the entire world -- the glory and the misery,
    the good and the evil acts, man is but an instrument of his will and God
    alone is responsible."
    J V.238.

    "He who eyes can see the sickening sight, why does not God set his
    creatures right? If his wide power no limits can restrain, why is his hand
    so rarely spread to bless? Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
    Why does he not to all give happiness? Why do fraud, lies, and
    ignorance prevail? Why triumphs falsehood, -truth and justice fail? I
    count your God unjust in making a world in which to shelter wrong."
    J VI.208

    "If the pleasure and pain that beings feel are caused the creative act of
    a Supreme God [Issara-nimmana-hetu], then the Niganthas [Jains] surely
    must have been created by an evil Supreme God."
    MN II 222.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply