Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Ceisiwr »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:33 pm

Does it? I would have thought that a weaker claim of "the probability of it rising tomorrow, based on previous experience, is the best available guide for our action" would count as rational.
Hume would argue that you can't use probability either, for the same reasons. You can't say something is probable, based on previous experiences.
How do we know this is true? How do we know that logic has any trustworthy relationship to the world of real things?
We can say if an argument is sound and valid. Does deduction provide a relationship with the world and real things? I don't think it can provide that :stirthepot:
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Sam Vara »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:40 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:33 pm

Does it? I would have thought that a weaker claim of "the probability of it rising tomorrow, based on previous experience, is the best available guide for our action" would count as rational.
Hume would argue that you can't use probability either, for the same reasons. You can't say something is probable, based on previous experiences.
And why should we take what Hume said seriously? Why is that a "rational" belief?
We can say if an argument is sound and valid. Does deduction provide a relationship with the world and real things? I don't think it can provide that
There are two further ways to go here:

1. How do we know if an argument is sound and valid?

2. If there is no relationship with the world of real things, in what sense is it "rational" to look at the relations between ideas?
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Dan74 »

I think the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is justified by our understanding of the processes inside the sun and the physical laws that underpin them, rather than simply basing it on past experience. We do, for instance, know that stars can go supernova and why.

Basically, there is a lot more going on than inductive reasoning. There are, as I've tried to state, underlying axioms about the stable laws underpinning the workings of the universe, and a great deal of deduction.

As to how the laws are arrived at and whether they are deduced, induced or discovered, there is a bit of A and a bit of B (and C), but regardless, countless of pieces of evidence serve to verify their validity. So as Sam pointed out, I think, when they are verified through weighty evidence, it is rational to take them as true.

You seem to insist that the only rational belief is one that is shown purely through the use of logic. In an empirical world, where evidence is always about particulars, no general belief would then be "rational" in your view. Even particulars can be doubted, since we only have evidence of our sense and they could be mistaken, tricked, etc. We are left with Descartes dilemma. The only thing we can reliably conclude is that we reason and therefore exist. That's fine if you want to set the bar that high. I am happy to take a pragmatic approach. I happen to believe that it's more rational, since it tallies better with our experience.

In terms of statistical evidence, as it is often used in life sciences, this is again solidly based on logic, I'd say. To use a simple example. We know that if we toss a fair coin 1000 times, we are 99.9% sure that we will get between 450-550 "Heads". So if we toss a coin 1000 times and get 600 heads, we can quite reliably conclude that the coin is biased toward "Heads". This is the essence of hypothesis testing, as you know and it is based on probability theory, which is solid logic. Its applicability to a given question is another matter. Sometimes assumptions are made that cannot easily be checked and then the conclusions are in doubt. But other times, we can be quite sure of our conclusions, even if there is a tiny chance that they were just freaky 1000 tosses. It would be rational, in my pragmatic view, to adopt the conclusion that is heavily supported by the evidence than remain agnostic, as if there is no evidence either way.
Last edited by Dan74 on Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_/|\_
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Radix »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:57 pm1. How do we know if an argument is sound and valid?
If it fits the criteria of soundness and validity in mainstream secular textbooks on logic and critical thinking.
2. If there is no relationship with the world of real things, in what sense is it "rational" to look at the relations between ideas?
Because our culture says so, and it would be irrational to go against our culture.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Joe.c
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Joe.c »

cappuccino wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:19 pm You can’t maintain
Please go practice. If you can’t maintain even your precepts for 24/7, there is a chance for you to go to lower realms. 😅

More beings in the lower realms you know.

Good luck.
May you be relax, happy, comfortable and free of dukkhas from hearing true dhamma.
May you gain unshakable confidence in Buddha, Dhamma and (Ariya) Sangha.
Learn about Buddha/Dhamma Characters.
justindesilva
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by justindesilva »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:57 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:40 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:33 pm

Does it? I would have thought that a weaker claim of "the probability of it rising tomorrow, based on previous experience, is the best available guide for our action" would count as rational.
Hume would argue that you can't use probability either, for the same reasons. You can't say something is probable, based on previous experiences.
And why should we take what Hume said seriously? Why is that a "rational" belief?
We can say if an argument is sound and valid. Does deduction provide a relationship with the world and real things? I don't think it can provide that
There are two further ways to go here:

1. How do we know if an argument is sound and valid?

2. If there is no relationship with the world of real things, in what sense is it "rational" to look at the relations between ideas?
There had been many case studies on rebirth where one being many rebirths investigated by dr. Ian Stevenson , a canadian professor and psychiatrist. Another such study was made around 1952 !,by the editors and a reputed thero Piyadassi..A specific case of a child called Gnanatilaka investigated at places of mention of past life.And proved correct. Kaysee was another non buddhist in west who mentioned past births and deeds for treatments , not being a medico. He mentioned that present sicknesses occurred as a result of past deeds. Dr Jung also has recorded such incidents to prove clinically that bad deeds resulted in karmic deceases.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Radix »

mikenz66 wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:04 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 11:00 pm You can't say something will happen in the future because it has happened before, and in attempting to justify it philosophers always end up in circular reasoning.
I'm not trying to justify it philosophically. It's simply a necessary assumption for getting stuff done.
Not for an arahant, and perhaps even before that.

One could conceive of the world entirely in the sense of
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
and still get stuff done.

The issue isn't "Will the sun will rise tomorrow because it has done so consistently for millions of years so far?", it's "If I wake up tomorrow, will I have the will to get up and get stuff done?"
You have no power over the first one, and it's the second one that is relevant for you (and it's tricky how much control you have over that one).
Yes sure. But I don't personally see any need to worry about trying to define what "exists" means in a watertight philosophical way.
If you don't want to be bothered by something, you need to define it, in an airtight, watertight way.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12840
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by cappuccino »

Joe.c wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:24 pm
cappuccino wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:19 pm You can’t maintain
If you can’t maintain even your precepts for 24/7
you cannot maintain a perfect state of mind


since consciousness is not self
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Ceisiwr »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:57 pm
And why should we take what Hume said seriously? Why is that a "rational" belief?
You don't have to. You can just ignore him and what he said, or you can show why his scepticism is flawed. Personally, like many others, I see that he has a point. We can't get universal laws from observing the conjunction of events. That is to say, there is no justification for such a belief. Hume of course arrives at his argument because of his empiricism, so someone could attempt a Rationalist counter argument or an argument via some other means. You yourself put one forward earlier.

1. How do we know if an argument is sound and valid?

2. If there is no relationship with the world of real things, in what sense is it "rational" to look at the relations between ideas?
If the premises support the conclusion, then its valid. If all the premises are true, then its sound.

P1) All men are mortal.
P2) Socrates is a man.
C) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The argument is modus ponens, therefore valid. The premises are also true; therefore, the argument is sound. I wouldn't say this is knowledge though. The argument relies upon "men", "Socrates" and "mortal". These are words, concepts. If these words and concepts relate to reality, we don't know. The argument is sound and valid in relation to the language used and the meaning those words convey, which we all agree upon. If it is sound and valid as it applies to reality, we can't say. Conventionally its justified and true. Ultimately, all we can know are the words and what they mean.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Ceisiwr »

Dan74 wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:15 pm I think the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is justified by our understanding of the processes inside the sun and the physical laws that underpin them, rather than simply basing it on past experience. We do, for instance, know that stars can go supernova and why.
This just moves the goalpost IMO. How do we arrive at the theories of what happens in the sun and the physical laws? I assume you will say its to do with induction again?
Basically, there is a lot more going on than inductive reasoning.
Such as? There are assumptions in science too, such as matter and causality. Assumptions though don't give us knowledge of universal laws.
There are, as I've tried to state, underlying axioms about the stable laws underpinning the workings of the universe, and a great deal of deduction.
As I said, yes. There are assumptions in science. Science has to assume certain things, in order to do science.
As to how the laws are arrived at and whether they are deduced, induced or discovered, there is a bit of A and a bit of B (and C), but regardless, countless of pieces of evidence serve to verify their validity. So as Sam pointed out, I think, when they are verified through weighty evidence, it is rational to take them as true.
Verificationism is pretty much dead, sorry to say. Not even those who proposed it argued for it, in the end.
You seem to insist that the only rational belief is one that is shown purely through the use of logic. In an empirical world, where evidence is always about particulars, no general belief would then be "rational" in your view. Even particulars can be doubted, since we only have evidence of our sense and they could be mistaken, tricked, etc. We are left with Descartes dilemma. The only thing we can reliably conclude is that we reason and therefore exist. That's fine if you want to set the bar that high. I am happy to take a pragmatic approach. I happen to believe that it's more rational, since it tallies better with our experience.
My position is that induction, as of yet, can't be justified. Deduction can be justified, based on the language and meaning of words that we use. Deduction however does not give us access to reality. It doesn't establish matter, causality, the strong and weak nuclear forces and so on. It gives us our best theory about how the world is, but this is still limited to concepts. How to bridge the gap between the words we use and their referents is, as far as I can see, an impossible bridge to build.
In terms of statistical evidence, as it is often used in life sciences, this is again solidly based on logic, I'd say. To use a simple example. We know that if we toss a fair coin 1000 times, we are 99.9% sure that we will get between 450-550 "Heads". So if we toss a coin 1000 times and get 600 heads, we can quite reliably conclude that the coin is biased toward "Heads". This is the essence of hypothesis testing, as you know and it is based on probability theory, which is solid logic. Its applicability to a given question is another matter. Sometimes assumptions are made that cannot easily be checked and then the conclusions are in doubt. But other times, we can be quite sure of our conclusions, even if there is a tiny chance that they were just freaky 1000 tosses. It would be rational, in my pragmatic view, to adopt the conclusion that is heavily supported by the evidence than remain agnostic, as if there is no evidence either way.
In order to establish if there is a statistical relationship within data or if the relationship is just random chance, we make use of a P value being set at 0.05. This however is an arbitrary cut off. It's useful though, as a value, in order to argue that there is a significant relationship being observed. It's pragmatic, sure. Induction too is pragmatic. As pattern seeking animals, we instinctively think in terms of induction, every minute of every day. Does that instinct grant knowledge? Does it establish a world of matter, blackholes and universes? Not as far as I can see. Deduction is better in that it can be justified, but as I have said that too doesn't grant us a world of such things. It gives us what is conventionally true, like how the use of "I am" is conventionally true and useful to use.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Sam Vara »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:53 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:57 pm
And why should we take what Hume said seriously? Why is that a "rational" belief?
You don't have to. You can just ignore him and what he said, or you can show why his scepticism is flawed. Personally, like many others, I see that he has a point. We can't get universal laws from observing the conjunction of events. That is to say, there is no justification for such a belief. Hume of course arrives at his argument because of his empiricism, so someone could attempt a Rationalist counter argument or an argument via some other means. You yourself put one forward earlier.

1. How do we know if an argument is sound and valid?

2. If there is no relationship with the world of real things, in what sense is it "rational" to look at the relations between ideas?
If the premises support the conclusion, then its valid. If all the premises are true, then its sound.

P1) All men are mortal.
P2) Socrates is a man.
C) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The argument is modus ponens, therefore valid. The premises are also true; therefore, the argument is sound. I wouldn't say this is knowledge though. The argument relies upon "men", "Socrates" and "mortal". These are words, concepts. If these words and concepts relate to reality, we don't know. The argument is sound and valid in relation to the language used and the meaning those words convey, which we all agree upon. If it is sound and valid as it applies to reality, we can't say. Conventionally its justified and true. Ultimately, all we can know are the words and what they mean.
So inductively we cannot generate universal laws, and deductively we cannot know whether our concepts relate to reality. Why is one more "irrational" than another, unless we define it as being so?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Ceisiwr »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:14 pm
So inductively we cannot generate universal laws, and deductively we cannot know whether our concepts relate to reality. Why is one more "irrational" than another, unless we define it as being so?
Something is considered to be rational or irrational based on the how we use language. The irrationality of a proposition is based on the meaning the words within provide, or I should say the meaning we give them. Rationality and irrationality relate to concepts and ideas, and how we use them. They don't ultimately exist in reality either. In our conventional discourse however, a justified argument is a rational one. An unjustified one is irrational. The argument that centres on all men being immortal is irrational, because the meaning we agree on is that all men are not immortal.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Sam Vara »

Radix wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:16 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:57 pm1. How do we know if an argument is sound and valid?
If it fits the criteria of soundness and validity in mainstream secular textbooks on logic and critical thinking.
2. If there is no relationship with the world of real things, in what sense is it "rational" to look at the relations between ideas?
Because our culture says so, and it would be irrational to go against our culture.
Yes, but our culture also says it is rational to rely on inductive generalisations.
samsarayoga
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:25 pm

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by samsarayoga »

My naive past self would have agreed with you. But not as I progressed in life. Life is so full of rubbish and people are slimes. And samsara is just.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish

Post by Sam Vara »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:20 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:14 pm
So inductively we cannot generate universal laws, and deductively we cannot know whether our concepts relate to reality. Why is one more "irrational" than another, unless we define it as being so?
Something is considered to be rational or irrational based on the how we use language. The irrationality of a proposition is based on the meaning the words within provide, or I should say the meaning we give them. Rationality and irrationality relate to concepts and ideas, and how we use them. They don't ultimately exist in reality either. In our conventional discourse however, a justified argument is a rational one. An unjustified one is irrational. The argument that centres on all men being immortal is irrational, because the meaning we agree on is that all men are not immortal.
So rationality only applies to deductive reasoning? If so, then inductive generalisations based on experience cannot by definition be rational. But that's no reason to not use them. It's as "rational" in an everyday sense to rely on them, as it is to rely on relations between ideas.
Post Reply