Sceptics and the Buddha, a thread for everyone else :)

[Jekyll]

There is suffering and there is suffering.
In my estimation there are two kinds of suffering:
a. that which is unavoidable(although some buddhists disagree)
b. that which is created by attachment

Earlier in the discussion you also acknowledged a c. Suffering caused by lack of attachment and failure to engage properly with the world.

And quite often some attached suffering (as in the exams example) is good for you in moderation.

 

[Moochie]

I met a guy on highway 61 claimed he was the Buddha. I kicked him in the balls and now he's a soprano lead singer in a gay band.

Go figure.

Oh yeah, the b*gger's making heaps of moolah.

M.

 

[Ryokan]

Earlier in the discussion you also acknowledged a c. Suffering caused by lack of attachment and failure to engage properly with the world.

Well, we're talking about attachments to desires and cravings here. No doubt some attachments are good for you, such as attachment to your principles and to life itself.

And quite often some attached suffering (as in the exams example) is good for you in moderation.

The Buddha's path is the middle path, so he would probably agree with you. Moderation is the key. Your wants are many, your needs are few. Learn the difference.

 

[epepke]

All I can say is that you have a distorted image of a buddhist. Maybe you know that little about them. In the other hand, we have those zillions (ok, a bit less) of buddhists, like myself, who live perfectly normal lifes (lots of scientists, btw) and that are not oscure, and who dont live reciting mantras nor trying to "convert" others.

That seems to me a very silly thing to say. It's like a game. What do you gain by saying "I have a distorted image of a Buddhist?" What's the payoff? What do you win?

As I explained to Dancing David, I am going through an exercise, which is called skepticism, and it consists of exploration, in as many ways as I can think of, of a topic.

You were the one who asserted that someone who had been "there" could not go back to a prior paradigm or model. This seems to me like the loss of a skill. If you can't do X any more, whatever X is, it's the loss of a skill by definition.

So I'm responding to what you said in the hopes that more information will be forthcoming. And if that ticks you off, well, maybe you should have said something different in the first place.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

wow

 

[epepke]

There is suffering and there is suffering.
In my estimation there are two kinds of suffering:
a. that which is unavoidable(although some buddhists disagree)
b. that which is created by attachment

in a. there are things like the toothache, death, loss and the painful consequences of life.

in b. there are the things that are caused by clinging to desire and avaoiding the undesired, such as pining for a better car, wanting an unattainable love object, freaking out over your neighbors skin color, or suffering over an exam.

It's interesting that you put toothache, because I recently underwent oral surgery for a broken wisdom tooth, which I did before it developed and abcess. So the suffering from an abcess was definitely avoidable, and I avoided it, although it cost a fair amount.

In any event, this distinction is begging the question. If I were to say "Homeophathy is good for those and only those ailments that homeopathy is good for," it would be tautologically true. It would tell me nothing about the set of such ailments.

 

[yrreg]

Buddhism not touted as science...?

But the original question, posted by yrreg at the beginning of this cycle of threads, is whether Buddhism is pseudoscientific, even in part. Pseudoscience I don't like, and it's one of the things that skepticism is appropriately applied to.

How can something that doesn't claim to be science be a pseudoscience?

I have heard buddhism refered to as religion, psychology and philosophy, but never science.

Dear Username:

You claim that Buddhism is not touted as a science or as scientific, even that you don't know about it's being touted as such, whereas it is the common observation of reading people that in fact it is; that is why I think you are feigning ignorance for the purpose of being argumentative for whatever end you are driving at.

"I have heard buddhism refered to as religion, psychology and philosophy, but never science." -- Username​

That is very disingenuous from your part, because you could have -- as you keep on insisting and unnecessarily in most or almost all instances in my case, that I should bring up citations from the web; for you should have checked from the web first whether in fact Buddhism is being touted as a science.

Here, I entered the sentence "Buddhism is a science" into Google and obtained the following finding, below; try it yourself.

​

Read all the 495 exact hits of "Buddhism is a science" mined by Google, and you will realize that indeed Buddhism is being touted as a science, not only religion, not only philosophy, and not only psychology (in the sense of a soft science, therefore not science like physics and chemistry).


I am sure that being of the type to always insist on having the last word, typical of true believers in religions, you will nitpick this message, read it selectively for your purpose of being argumentative, and exaggerate whatever you can find which you can blow up as to distort the big picture and the short statement that I am trying to say here.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Nitpicking, selective reading, and exaggerating

Warning: Don't read this message, it's for Dancing David; but if you want to, I will not stop you, it might also make you a better poster.

Dear Dancing David:

As we write messages here for the big audience aside from you and me, we are also judging each other. You have called me a troll countless times, and I really don't mind except as an annoyance from what I might consider a mosquito buzzing outside the screen window but can't get to me.

However, the more I read of your messages directed toward me, the more I seem to see a kind of poster's personality that might serve you to know yourself better, and arrive sooner at enlightenment or Nirvana if you believe in enlightenment and Nirvana, if not then it will be good just the same for the improvement of your poster's conduct here.


First, I think you are overly defensive of Buddhism withal claiming to be skeptical of many beliefs and observances in Buddhism, that are common knowledge to people who do take the time and attention to investigate Buddhism, but who don't have any concern for it except an academic curiosity about it.

Second, I think you do engage in unproductive argumentative practices which are not conducive toward the attainment of truths in regard to the theories and practices of Buddhism.

In respect of the two above statements I have the impression specifically that you are habituated to nitpicking, selective reading, and exaggeration, just to win points, but does not bring people who are sincerely trying to find out, what exactly Buddhism is all about and why Westerners of intellectual leanings should be excited about it.


I think your posting custom is very counteractive to right thought in Buddhism which is counteractive to right speech in Buddhism, as you have learned it from your Vietnamese master, Thich Naht Hahn.

By the way, if you have to choose between Thich and Randi for a teacher for the meaning of life, tell me which one of the two you will choose, and why.

Back to nitpicking, selective reading, and exaggeration, in order that you will have the last word -- and I seem to be engaging in last words here myself apparently -- apparently only because I am pursuing my idealism to help a brother in skeptical criticism -- you object to my statement,

"If the problems are due to neuro-chemistry and organism idiosyncrasy, then you should repair to pharmaceutics and surgery, or seek asylum in a mental safehouse." -- #92​

​

You certainly know about neuro-pharmaceuticals and neuro-surgery, and you should consider the whole message in my post #92 (see Annex), instead of nitpicking, selective reading, and exaggeration, to score an overly argumentative point.

Try this experiment, read the whole message of #92, and rewrite it to produce the big picture in a short statement in fifty words or less, to say the same message as intended by the author. See then if it justifies your nitpicking, selective reading, and exaggerating account of my thoughts.


Anyway, let all recite:

Om Mani Padme Hum (from Yrreg) -- Owata loo niam (from Dancing David)-- ohm millihenry picofarad ohm (from Epepke)


And hahaha softly.


Yrreg

Annex

Depression & anxiety can involve distorted thought patterns, which are cause/symptoms(?) of distress. Attachment of one's personal worth to achieving some goal is a real problem. I may think that I am nothing & completely worthless & a failure as a human being because I'm overweight, or because I do not have so much as a PhD, let alone a Nobel prize. (Yes, this seriously was one of my personal ones.) Either I've failed to reach some goal or I imagine I will always fail... Now in CBT you sit down and gather evidence to show yourself that your thinking is distorted. Some of that means letting go of some of your desires - realising that they do not define you, and that in fact having them can cause you suffering. Not that there is anything wrong with the specific desire (it's good to be fit, well-educated etc), just with your pathological attachment to it. Desire, attachment, suffering - you see the analogy. –- Cajela #83​

​

-----------

No need for CBT and Buddhism for the problems above.

If the problems are due to neuro-chemistry and organism idiosyncrasy, then you should repair to pharmaceutics and surgery, or seek asylum in a mental safehouse.

If they are due to or appear in the normal course of growing up and adjusting to the realities of life, then consult your parents who are emotionally stable and have come from well-adjusted folks themselves, if not your parents then parents of people who are well-adjusted in life and in society and who give the credit to their parents.

If you have no parents, then try the school guidance counselors who are successful parents themselves, as evidenced by their children well-adjusted to life and society.


Yrreg

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Dear Dancing David,

How come a chat on a very simple subject becomes a discussion? How come the very essence of buddhism result in two angry individuals? Your efforts are nice, still, they are empty.

Words have limitations. They are trapped in them. Are you?

 

[fruit_loup]

​

Read all the 495 exact hits of "Buddhism is a science" mined by Google, and you will realize that indeed Buddhism is being touted as a science, not only religion, not only philosophy, and not only psychology (in the sense of a soft science, therefore not science like physics and chemistry).


Yrreg

I am wondering if you read any of them beyond the bold displayed to indicate the exact words you were searching for. A quick glance at the text accompanying them shows me that you most likely have not.

For example, the first link said, "That is why it is said sometimes that Buddhism is a "science of the mind".

To me, that is not saying Buddhism is a science but that sometimes (for whatever reason had been explained before this) is has been called a science of the mind. If I say from time to time that I am a demon-spawn. Am I implying that I believe myself to be a nephillim or that I am at that moment displaying some qualities of the thing or concept? Would you take me at the words face value and decide that I literally and actually claimed to be the mortal offspring an angelic male and human female as opposed to someone who is simply rude, crude, and generally misanthropic?

 

[Ryokan]

Argument by Google search again?

Allright, I'll use Google to prove sceptics are idiots. They're not as idiot as Buddhism is a science, but here's the proof :

http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q="skeptics+are+idiots"&btnG=Søk&meta=

 

[yrreg]

About the peer reviewed study on meditation

Argument by Google search again?

Allright, I'll use Google to prove sceptics are idiots. They're not as idiot as Buddhism is a science, but here's the proof :

http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q="skeptics+are+idiots"&btnG=Søk&meta=

I am still waiting for any news of your word that you will search for the scientific paper that is peer reviewed on the scientific character of Buddhist meditation, as you gave that word to Epepke back in your thread on Evidence in Buddhism.

That is the most crucially important thread on Buddhism from a resident Buddhist that will make of Buddhism a science as you claim it by implication with your conviction that Buddhist meditation is scientific; but you are not attending to that thread of yours, on Evidence in Buddhism; so also are your fellow Buddhists in this JREF forum.

That was January 12, Thursday, around 9:00 a.m., and it's now in my place January 21, Saturday, around midnight, of Common Era 2007, more than a week ago.


Wait, I will check on that thread, Evidence in Buddhism, to see whether there is a new post from you, dear Ryokan, to refer us all, specially Epepke, to that peer reviewed paper on the scientific character of Buddhist meditation.

-------------

I am back. I checked on that thread, page 2, and clicked on the refresh button; no, there is still no new post from you of any reference to any peer reviewed paper on the scientific character of Buddhism, in particular Buddhist meditation.

Please go back to your thread, on Evidence in Buddhism. It is the single most important piece of writing from you that will mean the difference for Buddhism between science and pseudoscience.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Correction, please; and a question to Ryokan

I wrote in my preceding post:

That was January 12, Thursday, around 9:00 a.m., and it's now in my place January 21, Saturday, around midnight, of Common Era 2007, more than a week ago.​

​

The corrected text is as follows:

That was January 12, Thursday, around 9:00 a.m., and it's now in my place January 21, Saturday, around midnight, of Common Era 2006, more than a week ago.​

​

--------------

Dear Ryokan:

You gave me the impression earlier in my first thread here on Skeptical Criticism on Buddhist Beliefs and Observances, that you don't accept that Buddhism is scientific; but in your thread on Evidence in Buddhism, I seem to get the opposite impression, namely, that Buddhism is scientific, because you brought up supposedly scientific studies on Buddhism, to try to convince Epepke that Buddhism is scientific.

Suppose you tell us categorically whether Buddhism is scientific or not, at least in what areas Buddhism is scientific and in what areas it is not scientific; and when it is not scientific, what is it? pseudoscientific? supernaturalistic? a faith-based religion, namely based on faith in the authority of the Buddha? who himself believed in gods which however are in need of enlightenment to get to final and definitive Nirvana.

I know, you have experienced enough of Buddhist beliefs and observances to come to self-conviction that it is real, sure -- whatever adjective applicable -- certain, indubitable, as factual as water is H2O; and that's why it's so bizarre the way I see it in you, who to all indications should be above all such speculations, personal experience notwithstanding.

Who is that opinion maker who says that Buddhists telling us that they are happy should not be taken seriously, just as we don't take seriously the drunken slob telling people he is happy. Correct me if I don't recall that view as faithfully as I should; I read it somewhere maybe in this forum recently, two or three days ago.


So, what is Buddhism for you in regard to science as science is known and appreciated by guys operating the JREF Educational Foundation and those behind the CSICOP? Is it scientific or not? or are you for being a Buddhist just have to speak in riddles?


Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

I am still waiting for any news of your word that you will search for the scientific paper that is peer reviewed on the scientific character of Buddhist meditation, as you gave that word to Epepke back in your thread on Evidence in Buddhism.

I've updated epeple via PM, as I didn't want to bump the thread before I had something definite on-topic material to report. I've e-mailed some of the scientists involved in the projects, but have gotten no answer so far. When I have something to report, either an answer from the scientists or that I give up, I will say so in that thread.

 

[Ryokan]

You gave me the impression earlier in my first thread here on Skeptical Criticism on Buddhist Beliefs and Observances, that you don't accept that Buddhism is scientific; but in your thread on Evidence in Buddhism, I seem to get the opposite impression, namely, that Buddhism is scientific, because you brought up supposedly scientific studies on Buddhism, to try to convince Epepke that Buddhism is scientific.

Just because there might be scientific evidence that Buddhism works, does not make Buddhism a scientific religion.

who himself believed in gods which however are in need of enlightenment to get to final and definitive Nirvana.

Any evidence that Gautama Buddha believed in any gods?

 

[epepke]

I've updated epeple via PM, as I didn't want to bump the thread before I had something definite on-topic material to report. I've e-mailed some of the scientists involved in the projects, but have gotten no answer so far. When I have something to report, either an answer from the scientists or that I give up, I will say so in that thread.

I eagerly await it. This is fun! Just the fact that it's happening and you're taking the effort, which I appreciate, to find things out.

 

[yrreg]

We have gone that route before.

Just because there might be scientific evidence that Buddhism works, does not make Buddhism a scientific religion.

------------

Originally Posted by yrreg :
who himself believed in gods which however are in need of enlightenment to get to final and definitive Nirvana.​

​

------------

Any evidence that Gautama Buddha believed in any gods?

We have or I have gone that route before.

You will ask to see evidence and I will produce the evidence; then you will deny that the evidence, in this case a person praising Buddhism to the sky for being scientific, is not a real Buddhist.

Will you now also ask me to show evidence for the preceding paragraph? I will if you tell me that you can't remember our exchange and with Epepke also on what or who is a real Buddhist.

Epepke already even earlier before that issue of Buddhism being scientific or not came up, gave the premonition that any discussions of what Buddhists believe in will end up with Buddhists claiming the defense of NARP (not a real Buddhist), namely, people with such or such beliefs or observances are not real Buddhists.

Anyway, I am getting more and more alarmed that Buddhists might really indeed indulge in the habit of double-talk as a routine.

5) We hold, as central to the spirit and goals of Buddhism:

a. The Four Noble Truths: Suffering (dukkha), cause of suffering (samudaya), cessation of suffering (nirodha) and the Path to the cessation of suffering (dukkhanirodhagaminipatipada) Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor "escapist", nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these.
​

​

And I had a good laugh when I read that excerpt from some kind of statement of common articles of beliefs and practices agreed upon by various sects of US Buddhists. Now I am afraid it is no laughing matter; it's true, Buddhists do have the policy of double-talk.


For the record, you say that Buddhism is not a scientific religion; tell me then what is Buddhism? a pseudoscientific, a supernaturalistic, a paranormalistic, a naturalistic, a faith-based, an irrationalistic, an esoteric, or what other adjective you think should apply, religion?

Please, don't tell me that Buddhism is an ineffable and imponderable system. If so, how did it ever get into your understanding and how do you Buddhist people get to communicate intelligently among yourselves.

Hahaha softly, I don't seem to be having fun anymore.

--- Om Mani Padme Hum --- Om Mani Padme Hum --- Om Mani Padme Hum ---​

Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

We have or I have gone that route before.

You will ask to see evidence and I will produce the evidence; then you will deny that the evidence, in this case a person praising Buddhism to the sky for being scientific, is not a real Buddhist.

I remember the episode well, yrreg. The man who claimed Buddhism was a scientific religion in your source was not a Buddhist. That's not me claiming he's not a Buddhist, that was your source! I can't, and won't, defend any statement about Buddhism made by people who are not Buddhists. I'm in effect all-including when it comes to Buddhism, saying that anyone who calls himself a Buddhist is a Buddhist in my book. Any person not claiming to be a Buddhist, however, I will take their word for it and not call them a Buddhist.

If I made a blog where I said I loved Christianity because Jesus Christ was really a space alien, I don't expect any Christians to defend that statement.

Isn't this fair, yrreg?

Will you now also ask me to show evidence for the preceding paragraph? I will if you tell me that you can't remember our exchange and with Epepke also on what or who is a real Buddhist.

Epepke already even earlier before that issue of Buddhism being scientific or not came up, gave the premonition that any discussions of what Buddhists believe in will end up with Buddhists claiming the defense of NARP (not a real Buddhist), namely, people with such or such beliefs or observances are not real Buddhists.

Anyway, I am getting more and more alarmed that Buddhists might really indeed indulge in the habit of double-talk as a routine.

Yes, when I say that someone who doesn't claim to be a Buddhist is not a Buddhist, that's double talk.

If you can point me to anywhere on this board where I've resorted to what you call NARB, I will renounce my Buddhism right here and now.

5) We hold, as central to the spirit and goals of Buddhism:

a. The Four Noble Truths: Suffering (dukkha), cause of suffering (samudaya), cessation of suffering (nirodha) and the Path to the cessation of suffering (dukkhanirodhagaminipatipada) Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor "escapist", nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these.
​

​

And I had a good laugh when I read that excerpt from some kind of statement of common articles of beliefs and practices agreed upon by various sects of US Buddhists. Now I am afraid it is no laughing matter; it's true, Buddhists do have the policy of double-talk.

How is that double-talk?

For the record, you say that Buddhism is not a scientific religion; tell me then what is Buddhism? a pseudoscientific, a supernaturalistic, a paranormalistic, a naturalistic, a faith-based, an irrationalistic, an esoteric, or what other adjective you think should apply, religion?

Buddhism is as Buddhism does. If you really need a label, I would call the core of Buddhism a philosophical religion.

Some (I'll even say many) denominations could be labeled most, or all, of your labels.

Please, don't tell me that Buddhism is an ineffable and imponderable system. If so, how did it ever get into your understanding and how do you Buddhist people get to communicate intelligently among yourselves.

I won't tell you that, and I've never told you that.

 

[SirPhilip]

How come a chat on a very simple subject becomes a discussion? How come the very essence of buddhism result in two angry individuals? Your efforts are nice, still, they are empty. Words have limitations. They are trapped in them. Are you?

People will forever be trying to find mundane validation for their own inner voice. They fail to realize that while the sublime resides in the mundame, they are opposite qualities of nature, and only by not looking for mundame validation, they'll eventually find it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Guess its how we are wired, we need to confirm, constantly, that our world view is correct (some people also need to confirm that everyone's else is incorrect). ;-)